Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[Craig_Kennedy]

You confuse me Craig. You say you believe in Jesus but you do not seem to believe in what he teaches and his actions!!

You can stand on your head until the cows come home and you will still be wrong.

I will pray for you

I believe in Jesus and his actions as the scriptures reveal them.

I practise the Christian faith in utter dependence upon the Holy Spirit and Christ. It has been very costly for me to do this. However, God has sustained and kept me.

I do not understand why you persist in casting a dark shadow over my authenticity. I do not doubt your authenticity.

All I have done, is to postulate my belief in sola scriptura and sola fide. In holding this position, I do not - ipso facto - disenfranchise true Catholics who practise their faith.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

There are hundreds of thousands of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC Churches throughout the world - all under the Vatican, all part of the Roman Catholic Church - hundreds and thousands of them!

You are holding the controverted position that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church God willed, planned and designed in his infinite eternal counsels. This I reject.

I do affirm that the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the universal (catholic) church which was built upon the foundation of the New Teatament prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ (NOT PETER!) being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Have you ever read Augustine’s On Free Choice of the Will? I promise you, that man was no Calvinist.

Hi Lief,

Is this available on line? I would like to explore this aspect in more depth.

I am not a Calvinist either and any further information you can give me on this would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Well, I agree, we obviously disagree on the interpretation of that verse. Dr. Scott Hahn had this to say on that verse in his conversion story:

I stand by my interpretation and exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:15.

I am aware of Dr Scott Hahn’s conversion to the Roman Catholic Church. I have also read his interpretation of this disputed passage. I say humbly that I do not agree.

Ultimately, this issue can only be settled in faith in God’s will and purposes. There are credible theologians and scholars on both sides of this issue. I am adamant that merely appealing to some “name” in academia or the church academy will not resolve the issue.

In my view the issue is settled in correct understandings of biblical ecclessiology and biblical exegesis.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I don’t think anyone makes the claim, or at least they shouldn’t, that sola scriptura was operative during the time the scriptures were being developed.

Exactly - absolutely correct!

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Sola Scriptura is a contradiction to what you claim.

The New and Old Testament are both products of sacred Tradition, sometimes being commited to the Bible many years after the events.

Sola scriptura is the end result of the canonisation of scripture.

It is the public witness that the scriptures are the PERFECT word of God written that declared God’s majesty and his will for humanity.

 

[ron77nyc]

No.

To deny “tradition” is to deny scriptures. The Apostles tell us to hold fast to traditions:

*2 Thessalonians 2 Found 3

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.*

*1 Corinthians 15 Found 2

2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.*

Do you think that every word spoken by Christ and the Apostles was recorded? Even the Bible clearly says not.

As many have done outside the Catholic Church since the 16th Century…but they have taken away from the gospels and changed the wording…

 

[ron77nyc]

Thanks for your response.

I do not believe that there is a seperate body of “traditions” that exist outside of scripture but are equal to scripture.

I agree that Paul asks the Thessalonian church to follow whatever traditions he handed down to them but I do not believe that these traditions include some of what your church places in the category of “sacred tradition”.

Why is it so difficult to know what traditions of the Church are and the infallible proclamations of the Church? There is no point in arguing over abstract facts.

When Paul says follow these traditions does he doesn’t say what they are but if we did know, does that mean follow “these” and add a whole lot more as you go along or does it mean stay with these traditions that we have now?

 

[twb1621]

Sola Scriptura is explained very well at the link below but it is far too much information to present in this format. For those who are interested in Truth.

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

Continued at stas.org/apologetics/teaching/General/sola.shtml

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief,

Is this available on line? I would like to explore this aspect in more depth.

I am not a Calvinist either and any further information you can give me on this would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Craig

I bought mine at my college bookstore for a class. It’s probably available online, though. I’d check Amazon.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, I have two questions for you. If you’ve already answered these in other posts, feel free to just give me the post numbers and I’ll read them.

1. What inconsistencies have you seen in infallible Catholic teaching?
2. What scriptures do you base your belief of Sola Scriptura on?

In addition to this, I’d like to just caution you, from my own personal experience, about the risks of relying too much on your own inward peace and spiritual experiences, with regard to your conviction in Sola Scriptura. I feel a similar peace – not only peace, great joy – in my conversion to Catholicism, and I feel from the Spirit great animosity toward the subjectivism inherent in the Sola Scriptura approach.

Those have been my personal experiences with the Spirit.

That is a serious problem with the Scripture + Spirit + Me approach- you get people with all kinds of contradictory experiences, interpretations and views.

When I was Protestant, I once had a threefold spiritual experience I thought was from God, in which I was told that all Eucharists are the same. As I became Catholic, I found that that relativistic view is utterly false. I have found that not only according to infallible Catholic teaching, but also in all my spiritual experiences. A couple nights ago, I had a dream from my Lord in which I fled from a church that had the Protestant Eucharist and ran to a church that had in it the Catholic Eucharist. There were lights shining at that church, in the dream, breaking through the dark of the night. Then I had additional spiritual experiences that morning from Jesus and Mary confirming the dream was from my Lord, and that its meanings were true.

I’ve just got to warn you about relying too much on spiritual experiences. They can lead in opposite directions sincere, devout Christians who both follow what they honestly believe the Bible’s meaning to be. That’s why there has to be an infallible standard against which spiritual experiences can be compared.

You would say that that is the Scripture. However, humans interpret the Scripture. They often interpret it incorrectly. Therefore we have the Spirit to guide us, you might say . . . but that’s where the Protestant argument becomes circular. Spirit interprets Scripture, because we can’t trust our human reasoning . . . but we can’t put our faith in spiritual experiences because they can lead incorrectly, so we compare them against the Scripture . . . but we can trust our interpretation of Scripture, so we rely on the spiritual experiences . . . Basically it comes out to: If our spiritual experiences and our interpretation of Scripture agree, we’ll believe it. BUT we know that spiritual experiences can have errors and our interpretations of Scripture have errors, so that whole structure of authority becomes fallible for us, in practical terms. Which doesn’t mean it has errors- it’s just that we can’t trust our conclusions about it, so its lack of errors doesn’t help us.

UNLESS God inspired His councils to be always completely correct . In which case, through them, we CAN know what the Scripture means without grotesque error shattering us into thousands of different denominations.

Hi Lief,

I’m happy to respond to your questions. I have read a lot of your posts and I respect you, even though we don’t agree on all points.

1. The inconsistencies I have seen in infallible Catholic teaching would include:

• The unclear status of Vatican 2 as a lawfully assembled, authoritative Council. Many Catholics eg the Sedevacantists among others would hold that Vatican 2 is a betrayal of traditional Catholicism. How do you answer this?
• The fact that there are liberal theologians in official positions who are Roman Catholics.
• The fact that the RCC has allowed practising homosexuals in its ranks and failed to take appropriate action in all cases.
• The fact that the RCC appears to have changed its position over “limbo” and the status of unbaptized babies.
• The fact that the nature of hell is variously portrayed and explained. This seems strange in the light of your assertion that Catholic Church teaching is infallible.

1. For the scriptures that I base sola scriptura on see Post number 629. You must understand that sola scriptura is also held on theological grounds as a result of the process of inspiration, inscripturation and canonisation.

Please give me your thoughts.

God bless, Cheers in Christ Craig

 

[JMJ_coder]

I stand by my interpretation and exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:15.

I am aware of Dr Scott Hahn’s conversion to the Roman Catholic Church. I have also read his interpretation of this disputed passage. I say humbly that I do not agree.

Ultimately, this issue can only be settled in faith in God’s will and purposes. There are credible theologians and scholars on both sides of this issue. I am adamant that merely appealing to some “name” in academia or the church academy will not resolve the issue.

In my view the issue is settled in correct understandings of biblical ecclessiology and biblical exegesis.

And I stand by my (read the Church’s) interpretation - and the issue is settled as far as I am concerned. Whether you accept what Christ’s Church teaches or not is not up to me - all I can do is make sure that you understand that this is what the Catholic Church teaches, which you appear to.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

Hi Lief,

I have, of course, read your post number 738 (quoted already above) where you - rightly, I must add - warn of the dangers of subjectivism in interpreting the scriptures.

You wrote:

“That is a serious problem with the Scripture + Spirit + Me approach- you get people with all kinds of contradictory experiences, interpretations and views.”

I have listened carefully to what you have said. You make some fair and valid points in this connection.

All I would say is this. A belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone), as I so hold it, is adamant that the scripture is clear in itelf - OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING - and is its own interpreter. This is the chief difference between us.

Please hear me carefully here. I am attracted to many aspects of Roman Catholicism but, in the end, I could not in deepest conscience convert to the RC faith. Why? Because, at the end of the day I believe that the scripture in an objective sense is clear enough in itself and is its own interpreter. This flies in the face of the RC belief that special revelation is necessary, in the form of the teaching Magisterium, for the Christian to understand the scriptures.

In my view, there is nothing esoteric about the interpretation of scripture; there are no secret meanings in scripture.

The interpretation of scripture is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:10).

I have been honest with you. I am always honest. This is where I stand. I do not, however, belittle your authentic christian understanding and experience. I respect Catholics. However, this is a discussion forum and it is good for us as Christians to genuinely hear and listen to one another.

I am enjoying this discussion.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

And I stand by my (read the Church’s) interpretation - and the issue is settled as far as I am concerned. Whether you accept what Christ’s Church teaches or not is not up to me - all I can do is make sure that you understand that this is what the Catholic Church teaches, which you appear to.

Although, obviously, I disagree with your interpretation of this passage I would insist on your right of choice in this matter.

We are discussing these issues on this forum. There are large areas of Catholic teaching that I rejoice in and affirm gladly. There are also significant areas where I cannot agree in conscience; this issue is one of those areas.

The fact that I am not a Catholic, in its fullest sense, does not mean that I cannot love and respect my RC brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

The Church in this verse does mean the Roman Catholic Church. Does it say Roman Catholic Church in that verse?

At the time this was written there was no Roman Rite in the Catholic Church, but there was only one Church. Jesus only founded One Church.

If there is only one church, why does Revelation speak of the seven churches?

All of these communities were part of the Catholic Church. It was then, as it is now, only One.

Even in the book of Revelation, the Roman Catholic Church is not even mentioned. :shrug: What's up with that?

The Church began in Jerusalem, then spread East to Antioch, Syria, and Asia. There were pilgrims from Rome in Jerusalem on the birthday of the Church (Pentecost) who were converted, baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then returned to Rome where the first Christian community started. Toward the end of their ministries, both Peter and Paul went to Rome, where the two labored together to build the community there. It was then that the Church in Rome gained the primacy, due to the strength of the Apostolic Teaching.

At the time that John wrote to the Churches in Asia, they had been established for 30 + years, and were having struggles. They had no local apostolic instruction, and were departing from the Catholic faith.

According to my research, the current edition of the Catholic Catechism has only been around since 1997. That’s not a very old source of Sacred Tradition, especially for claiming that the Roman Catholic Church goes back 2,000 years. What did Roman Catholics use to determine the deposit of faith before the 1997 Catholic Catechism?

Sacred Tradition is the Teaching of the Apostles, in the book of Acts called “The Way”. It has been around since Jesus delivered it to the Apostles, and they began preaching it on Pentecost. The NT was distilled from this teaching. If you want to read on older norm, try the Didache.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

Hi Lief,

In your post number 738 you made this statement:

“I’ve just got to warn you about relying too much on spiritual experiences. They can lead in opposite directions sincere, devout Christians who both follow what they honestly believe the Bible’s meaning to be. That’s why there has to be an infallible standard against which spiritual experiences can be compared.”

I want to say that, from my perspective, the highest authority in interpreting scripture is the Spirit of God Himself. It is the Spirit of God who enlightens the interpreter (not the Magisterium) to find the mind and sense of scripture, and this He accomplishes through scripture itself (sola scriptura).

However, without the enlightenment of the Spirit no exegete can grasp the true meaning of the content of scripture.

Indeed, all that we know of God is wrought by God Himself.

We have two options:

Option number 1 Only the Roman Catholic Church is competent to interpret the scriptures and she, alone, has the right to do so.

OR…

Option number 2 Only the regenerate person, with the continual aid and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, can read and use scripture with fruitful results. On this understanding what the objective meaning of scripture is, we submit to it, believe it and hold to it.

I, obviously, have adopted Option number 2 as being the truth on this issue.

In Christ our Saviour, Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig, thanks for the post number! I’m going to start by digging into the verses you offered us as support for Sola Scriptura.

However, I do believe in sola scriptura - meaning that scripture is the ultimate and final arbiter in determining matters of doctrine, ethics and faith. I am, therefore, happy to respond to your questions.

I believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs; that they declare divine truth without any error; and that they are the supreme standard and benchmark by which all confessions, creeds, philosophies and human opinions should be measured.

There are many scriptures that support this position. I will not give you a “blow by blow” exhaustive listing of all these scriptures. You will be able to find them in any good concordance.

Some representative scriptures, then, that support sola scriptura:

2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; John 10:35; Luke 16:29-31; Psalm 119:11; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19; 1 Peter 4:11; Psalm 119:59-60 among many others.

I don’t have time to go through every one of the scriptures you referred to, but I’ll just take the first six on your list. I’d appreciate it if you’d select a few from here that you feel do clearly refer to Scripture being the sole and final authority and arbiter of faith and doctrine, and explain why you think so.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 doesn’t even mention the Scripture. Paul says there that he was opposed while trying to spread the “message.” There’s nothing in that about each individual privately interpreting doctrine from Scripture alone for themselves. There’s not even any clear reference to Scripture at all in that passage.

1 Peter 1:20-21 asserts that prophecy in Scripture comes from the mouth of God, not from fallible human interpretations and understanding. This asserts the inerrancy of the Old Testament Prophets. Many Catholics believe in that too. The Catechism asserts that they come to us without error. This position in no way supports the idea that Scripture is the sole standard of faith.

John 10:35 says the Scripture cannot be broken. This is a good argument for scriptural inerrancy, but not for Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura involves each individual privately interpreting Scripture. John 10:35 says nothing about that.

Luke 16:29-31 says that people should listen to the Law and the Prophets. It doesn’t say we should listen to the Law and the Prophets alone, therefore it provides no support to Sola Scriptura. The belief that there is value in reading the Old Testament is taught in the Catholic Church too; it in no way rejects the authority of the Magesterium or Sacred Tradition.

Psalm 119:11 says we should treasure the Word of God in our hearts. Catholics believe we should do that too. How in the world does that support the idea that Scripture should be the sole standard of doctrine?

1 Peter 1:10-11 says the Old Testament prophets made careful investigation, guided by the Spirit within them, into the sufferings and glory of Christ when they offered their testimony. It doesn’t say that they were making the Scripture the standard of their investigation. It doesn’t even say that the Scripture was a part of their investigation. In fact, the only explicit authority referred to in this passage is the “Spirit of Christ within them.” It certainly says nothing about the Scripture being the “sole” or “final” standard for the selection of doctrine. In addition, I should add here that even if you were correct in your guess that they were making the Scripture the standard of their investigation, this was before the Magesterium even existed. So if the prophets of the Old Testament used a different means of arriving at truth than the Catholic Church does today, that’s no big surprise. We don’t live by in an Old Testament era, though, but in a New Testament era.

Besides, most Protestants will argue that Sola Scriptura didn’t even exist until all the books of the Bible were written. When the prophets were writing theirs, this certainly wasn’t the case. So it can’t be a support for Sola Scriptura.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig Kennedy:

The important thing is that the scriptures were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4);

Certainly the Scripture offers learning so that through patience and comfort we might have hope. So do evangelists. So does the Magesterium. The verse doesn’t say the Scripture is the only source of patience and comfort- it certainly says nothing about it being the final standard and arbiter of doctrine.
Craig Kennedy:

that they are able to make us wise unto salvation and thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:15-17);

So does the Holy Spirit . Without the Holy Spirit’s support, we aren’t going to be “furnished unto all good works,” no matter how much we read the Bible. So clearly the passage doesn’t mean Scripture is the only and final means by which we can be “thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Besides, the passage says nothing about the Scripture being the sole standard and arbiter of faith. Even though it says Scripture makes us thoroughly furnished unto all good works, if interpreted correctly (correct interpretation is assumed), it doesn’t say private individuals should all interpret it for themselves and come up with their own ideas of doctrine off of it.
Craig Kennedy:

that scripture did not come in old time by the will of humans but they holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Yes, the Scripture is the “Book of God,” as the Early Church Fathers put it. That doesn’t make it the final standard and arbiter of doctrine, for each individual to privately interpret.
Craig Kennedy:

John 10:35 declares, furthermore, that the scripture cannot be broken.

Yes, which supports Biblical inerrancy, not Sola Scriptura.

None of the passages you’ve provided appear to support Sola Scriptura at all.

It is not a Biblical position.

Please show me how I’m wrong in any or all of these analyses. Which of all these verses says that the Scripture is the final arbiter and standard for doctrine?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Option number 1 Only the Roman Catholic Church is competent to interpret the scriptures and she, alone, has the right to do so.

OR…

Option number 2 Only the regenerate person, with the continual aid and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, can read and use scripture with fruitful results. On this understanding what the objective meaning of scripture is, we submit to it, believe it and hold to it.

I, obviously, have adopted Option number 2 as being the truth on this issue.

In Christ our Saviour, Craig

Why is there such a wide disparity among protestants on central doctrines of faith?

 

[guanophore]

Many things your church now believes weren’t taught by Jesus or the disciples…yet your church makes them dogma.

There were things that were not yet understood, and although they were contained in the original deposit of faith, they were not fully understood until later.

Not one catholic has really nailed down exactly what the nebulous “tradition” is or consists of. I doubt you know either.

Catholics do not find it necessary to “nail down” the Apostolic teachings. It is a way of life, and a world view that governs one’s perceptions.

Of course I could opt for the Christianity “plus” that you have.

So says your church.

How did you happen to get so hostile toward Catholicism?

So you think there are some traditions your church has defined as dogma that aren’t found in scripture?

Absolutely.

I assume you subscribe to a partim-partim view of tradition…some things in scripture and some in tradition.

Scripture and Tradition are two strands of the One Divine Deposit of Faith. They were never meant to be separated. The separation of one from the other has created gross fracturing in the Body.

This is your perogative, of course. Anyone can add to the gospel of Christ.

As you have testified, sola scriptura was not “active” during the period of enscripturation. This is because it was not taught or embraced by Christ and the Apostles. He committed HIs teaching to men, trained them, empowered them, authorized them, breathed upon them and guided them. These gifts did not suddenly cease when the NT was written. If they had, we would not have many of the early doctrines developed, such as the hypostatic union an the Trinity, and the canon of the NT.