Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[Craig_Kennedy]

Dear Craig, you believe in such a blending of glorious truth and horrible falsehood! Reading post 1122 gave me so many ups and downs- where you affirm the glory of God’s writings, great ups, but where you diminish the authority of sacred means through which He reveals truth, I found myself wincing. You have a precious faith, but you tragically have been for many, many years in a tradition that steals from the fullness of the glory of God that is revealed in the Scripture and has been believed in throughout the history of Christianity up to the Reformation’s traditions of men.

The traditions of men have biased whole generations of Protestant children and converts against obvious meanings of the Scripture itself regarding Tradition, the Papacy and the Magesterium. There is nothing in the Bible that says “Scripture alone.” On the other hand, there are many places in the Bible that affirm Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2), the Magesterium (Acts 15:28-29, 1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:25-26, 16:13, Ephesians 2:20, 3:5) and the Papacy- I’ve already shown you many scriptures referring to the Papacy. Please believe.

Here’s an interesting point about Sola Scriptura’s emphasis on the interpretive authority of each individual: Through Sola Scriptura, every Christian is encouraged to come up with personal “traditions of men,” human interpretations of God’s Word that are clearly human from the fact that great numbers of them contradict one another. And there is no authority within Protestantism to distinguish the right Scripture interpretation from the wrong. Christians are left in ignorance and error, and in the knowledge that this is their condition. My Protestant grandmother once tried to explain to me how errors occur in Protestantism. She said (roughly), “You know the old story of the blind men touching an elephant? One man touches the leg, another the belly, another the ear, another the trunk, and another the tusk, and while they’re all right about the piece they have, they come to different conclusions about what the elephant looks like.” That was her defense and explanation for the inconsistencies in Protestantism. My answer was simple, “In Catholicism, praise be to God, the eyes of the blind men are opened so that we can see the whole elephant.”

While trying to escape “traditions of men,” Protestantism lands itself in a gigantic mess of them. But God is light. And the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth,” not confusion and error. And the Church is one, not over 30,000. Please open your eyes to the clear differences between the awful troubles in the spirit of Sola Scriptura and the glory of the unity of Church and clarity of the Truth in the Catholic Kingdom of God.

When you say, “Scripture is the supreme standard of truth,” do you mean, “my interpretation of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme standard of truth”? If that isn’t what you mean, then whose interpretation of Scripture is the “supreme standard of truth?”

When I was Protestant, I didn’t believe anyone’s interpretation of Scripture was the supreme standard of truth, because people can make mistakes. While the Scripture is infallible, it’s always interpreted through your own fallibility, so the standard doesn’t reach you in its original form. And because you make yourself into your own personal final authority in judging the Scripture’s meaning, the Scripture itself is not your final authority. For it doesn’t reveal its own meaning to you- you interpret its meaning for yourself. Therefore in your life, Scripture is not the final authority, much though you’d like it to be. Instead, YOU are your final authority and “supreme standard of truth.”

Imagine a king (representing scripture) who is incapable of error and is the supreme standard of truth. He stands behind a screen and speaks to a messenger (he represents your mind, for all you read is transmitted through your mind), and the messenger relays the message to the rest of the people to believe and obey (your will, beliefs and actions). The messenger is a commoner from the streets who isn’t accustomed to court language, so he often passes the messages on with varying degrees of error. Some of the errors are small, some are huge. But the people outside the palace find themselves relying on this messenger for all their knowledge of the will of the king.

This is the situation for each Protestant.

Scripture is always interpreted by its reader. Therefore Scripture ITSELF never is the “supreme standard of truth” in Protestantism. Rather, each individual’s private interpretation of the Scripture represents the “supreme standard of truth.” So there IS NO supreme standard of truth in Protestantism! There might be in a theoretical sense, but not in a practical sense.

For instance, while in theory the king behind the screen is completely right all the time, you are not hearing him directly (by which I mean the infallible meaning God had for any particular passage) but the messenger, your own brain, “human traditions.” So you rely EXCLUSIVELY on human tradition about the Scripture, when you think you are relying on “Scripture Alone.” There is no Scripture Alone. Sola Scriptura is Human Traditions Alone. It is My Own Fallible Private Interpretation of Scripture, Alone. It therefore has no supreme standard.

. . . If Protestants have a supreme standard, that standard is the messenger, not the king.

Hi Lief,

I’m not going to respond to this quickly. This is not because I cannot or am unwilling. No - I want to prayerfully consider this and then come back to you.

You do raise some good points - therefore, I will “chew” on the fodder you have provided. I will come back to you.

In Christ, Craig

 

[benedictus2]

The meaning of scripture is one. It is not many meanings. Scripture, itself, objectively speaking is the authoritative voice of God giving doctrinal teaching in propositional form.

The fact there are many interpretations does not overthrow the sola scriptura principle.

Sola scriptura insists that God’s supreme written word must be interpreted according to proper rules of exegesis.

I’ll let you work the rest of it out for yourself.

I knew it! You don’t have an answer either just as the others I have asked on different threads could not come out with one.

The fact that there are many interpretation DOES throw out Sola Scriptura.

 

[Cinette]

Ok, thanks for your honesty.

I must, respectfully, disagree here with your answer. I cannot concede that Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally authoritative, inspired and inerrant sources of divine truth. My conscience simply will not allow me to concede this.

The word of God, inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original autographs, is the only norm of doctrine. Please consider this - if the Magisterium interprets inerrant scripture, then it is not above or even EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE is it?

Please turn to Acts 17:11 and read the verses there very carefully. The Bereans are commended for examining all doctrine according to the rule of scripture alone and for judging doctrine from no other point of view than from scripture alone. As much as I respect Catholics who practise their faith - and I most surely do - it is on this foundational principle of ‘scripture alone’ that prevents me from becoming a full Catholic or converting to Roman Catholicism myself.

Think what it would do to me, hypothetically speaking, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Roman Catholicism would ask of me to accept the Magisterium’s list of dogma and theological pronouncements without question. This I could not do.

You see, in Acts 17:11 all is subordinate to scripture; the judgment of scripture is the judgment of God. This is my position.

I accept and believe in the Eucharist - do I understand it? No, but I believe because I love and trust Jesus.

Do I understand the Trinity?
Do I understand the Incarnation?

Why would we need Faith if we understood everything? It brings to mine that quote from Augustine about believing so that you can understand and not understand in order to believe.

Sometimes one has to step out in Faith. My husband attended Mass with me for 11 years before he took the leap.

The old little Catechism we learned from as children taught us that “Faith is believing without doubting whatever God has revealed”.

One day when you get to the pearly gates are you going to say to St Peter, “Just a minute, before I step inside, please will you clarify some doubts I have?”:

God bless you Craig.
Cheers
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

onenow1;4332045:

So this is truth of the Holy Spirit, below.

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, ‘once saved always saved’, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?

I see what you are getting at but the confusion brought about by all these conflicting opinions is not the fault of sola scriptura - it is the fault of incorrect exegesis, human pride and sin and secularism

It seems that you have been afflicted with the evasion virus.

With all the varying interpretations quote above, which one was guided by the Holy Spirit since not all of them can be the truth.

Which one had the right exegesis?

WHICH ONE?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sola scriptura does not hold that God gave an EXHAUSTIVE REVELATION.

It only insists that what God did choose to reveal was inerrant and the SUPREME STANDARD OF TRUTH.

I am confused here? Sola Scriptura does not hold that God gave an exhaustive revelation? Do you mean to tell me the Word of God made flesh did not reveal himself the father and the Holy spirit. Do you mean “Sola Scriptura” is not enough, and you are expecting someone greater than Jesus to come? Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, their cannot be no more new revelations after the last apostle. Only growth in the mysteries of God revealed to us by Jesus.

Iam sorry, you have a 20th century changed interpretation of “Sola Scriptura” from Martin Luther the inventer of this theology. Maybe that is what is confusing me.

Do you have a definition of “Sola Scriptura” that you hold to?, because there are many new ones today that I have come across. My bad, I was in the mind set of Martin Luther’s originial invention of “Sola Scriptura”.

So can one be saved outside of Sola Scriptura?

 

[benedictus2]

I have no proof from your side.

The other issues you have raised have been abundantly covered in previous posts.

Although, I am happy to respond to questions I cannot simply go over and over again what I have already presented. You must read posts in the context of this whole thread.

I have a limited amount of time. I have work committments. I refuse to be sucked into arguments that have been generously dealt with earlier.

I am keen, though, to continue this discussion while ADVANCING this discussion. I am sure others will agree with me.

Which of your posts specifically answered the above? Post numbers would be greatly appreciated.

 

[onenow1]

To All

Peace, onenow1,

 

[guanophore]

It is not necessary for sola scriptura, per se, to be spelled out with absolute clarity in the Church Fathers.

Only if it were Apostolic Teaching, which it is not. That is why we don’t find it there.

You see, you take the position that the Church Fathers are pivotal in defining all doctrines. I do not.

This is not a Catholic position. Catholics do not consider the Fathers “pivotal”. What is pivotal is the SAcred Tradition. To the extent that the Fathers contain it, the writings testify to that Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

You take the position that the Church Fathers are inspired, infallible and inerrant in their writings. I do not.

No Catholic does either. Where do you get these ideas? How did you become so misled about what Catholics beleive?

I think there are things of value in the Church Fathers but I do not, for a single moment, take their writings to be all sufficient or all defining.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

What they help us define, since it is contained within them, is the unbroken thread of the Sacred Tradition. Certainly there are other things in them as well.

This, obviously and surely, is a significant difference between us.

Or at least in your imaginary strawman of what Catholics believe.

The early Church lived in the Berean spirit and then later on sola scriptura was more precisely defined, theologically speaking.

The Berean spirit was to receive the Apostolic teaching with eagerness. This is what you are lacking.

 

[guanophore]

What I mean to say is this, as a person who is convinced of the sola scriptura principle:

I believe that the scriptures are the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant word of God as penned in the original manuscripts. I do not believe this because the Church tells me that this is so. This is a spirit-wrought conviction about the nature and authority of the scripture writings themselves.

This is the teaching of the Catholic church. It was the Catholic church that wrote, collected, protected, canonized and promulgated them. I think you just don’t realize that you have accepted Sacred Tradition on this matter. You take it for granted that you would be able to tell which 27 books out of the 400+ floating around and claiming to be inspired belonged in the NT. Can you figure out why the Epistle of Barnabas, also read in the early Churches, or the Shepherd of Hermas, included in the early liturgies did not make it into the canon?

The very nature and character of scripture points to an intrinsic and objective clarity of its words and sense.

Yes. However, there is plenty of objectivity an intrinsic clarity in the other writings as well.

The very voice of God speaking in and through the scriptures points to a dynamic property that illumines our understanding and leads us to Christ. Scripture itself does this!

No. Scripture does this for believers because the Spirit is within them bearing testimony. Scripture does not do this for others. Many people who read scripture have no dynamic experience of it. I was listening to the radio today when a caller stated that it was just a bunch of myths.

There is no mention of a certain Magisterium interpreting the meaning of scripture for us. God Himself teaches us through the scriptures; God Himself speaks to us through the scriptures; God Himself illumines us through the scriptures.

Actually it is clear that Jesus gives His teaching authority to the Apostles. Why is it so important to try to believe otherwise? How would it change things for you if you were to recognize an authentic teaching authority appointed by Christ?

Scripture is the supreme standard of truth, standing OVER - never BESIDE - Sacred Tradition and all human opinions, philosophies and church councils.

I think if this were the case, then the Scriptures would have to say this about themselves, and they do not.

 

[guanophore]

The burden of proof and evidence also lies with you - namely to prove that:

Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equally inspired, authoritative and inerrant sources of divine truth.

The reason why I reject these claims, is not out of any motive or need to do so. I have no agenda, I have no axe to grind with Catholics who I surely believe are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

The most important thing in this discussion is not to try to “outdo an opponent”. You see, true and genuine Catholics who practise the faith are not my opponents; they are fellow believers who take up their cross with me and follow Christ.

The point of this discussion is the truth. I remain convinced, on this issue, that sola scriptura is the truth. This truth did not originate with Martin Luther; it is as old as the apostolic church.

Sola scriptura brings forth wisdom and understanding. Please read and study here Psalm 19:7 and 2 Timothy 3:15.

Sola scriptura reveals hidden mysteries - please see Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:9; Colossians 1:26-27.

Scripture functions as a light that is clear.

Sola scriptura!

It is an error to believe that the Word of God is confined to the text.

 

[Cinette]

I have no proof from your side.

The other issues you have raised have been abundantly covered in previous posts.This is what I appreciate with you, you read and pay attention.

Although, I am happy to respond to questions I cannot simply go over and over again what I have already presented. You must read posts in the context of this whole thread.Yebo Gogo!

I have a limited amount of time. I have work committments. I refuse to be sucked into arguments that have been generously dealt with earlier.:tiphat: Absolutely!

I am keen, though, to continue this discussion while ADVANCING this discussion. I am sure others will agree with me.

*More posters should be like you, engaging intelligently and advancing…:clapping: *

 

[Cinette]

This is the teaching of the Catholic church. It was the Catholic church that wrote, collected, protected, canonized and promulgated them. I think you just don’t realize that you have accepted Sacred Tradition on this matter. You take it for granted that you would be able to tell which 27 books out of the 400+ floating around and claiming to be inspired belonged in the NT. Can you figure out why the Epistle of Barnabas, also read in the early Churches, or the Shepherd of Hermas, included in the early liturgies did not make it into the canon?

Yes. However, there is plenty of objectivity an intrinsic clarity in the other writings as well.

No. Scripture does this for believers because the Spirit is within them bearing testimony. Scripture does not do this for others. Many people who read scripture have no dynamic experience of it. I was listening to the radio today when a caller stated that it was just a bunch of myths.

Actually it is clear that Jesus gives His teaching authority to the Apostles. Why is it so important to try to believe otherwise? How would it change things for you if you were to recognize an authentic teaching authority appointed by Christ?

I think if this were the case, then the Scriptures would have to say this about themselves, and they do not.

These two postings with exchanges between Craig and Guano are so interesting, I read them twice and filed a copy. Craig you express yourself so well and I can feel that Guano agrees with me.

I need to say this Craig - can’t you see that God teaches us through his Apostles? The Sacred Scriptures emanated from Sacred Tradition. The Apostles, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are God’s instruments.

All you need to do is to look at the 40 000 + denominations to see the need for a Central Inspired Authority.

:hug3:

 

[guanophore]

It is simply God’s ultimate and supreme revelation of His mind, character and will.

God willed and planned it this way.

You know, it is interesting to me that Scripture testifies that Christ is the ultimate and surpreme revelation of His mind, character, and will.

Col 1:15-20

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers — all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross."

Col 2:8-10
“…Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.”

Furthermore, Scripture does not testify this about itself.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I am confused here? Sola Scriptura does not hold that God gave an exhaustive revelation? Do you mean to tell me the Word of God made flesh did not reveal himself the father and the Holy spirit. Do you mean “Sola Scriptura” is not enough, and you are expecting someone greater than Jesus to come? Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, their cannot be no more new revelations after the last apostle. Only growth in the mysteries of God revealed to us by Jesus.

Iam sorry, you have a 20th century changed interpretation of “Sola Scriptura” from Martin Luther the inventer of this theology. Maybe that is what is confusing me.

Do you have a definition of “Sola Scriptura” that you hold to?, because there are many new ones today that I have come across. My bad, I was in the mind set of Martin Luther’s originial invention of “Sola Scriptura”.

So can one be saved outside of Sola Scriptura?

Scripture is not necessarily an EXHAUSTIVE REVELATION. All that is meant by this is that God has decided not to reveal everything to us. However, what God has revealed to us in His word is inerrant truth.

Scripture is also the supreme benchmark by which all other sources of truth are judged by.

A person can be saved outside of sola scriptura - this has been my consistent plea throughout.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

*More posters should be like you, engaging intelligently and advancing…:clapping: *

Hi Cinette,

I appreciate your kind remarks.

To all posters,

I refuse to be sucked in to repeating information that has already been well presented before. My advice is for posters to read the whole thread, to keep up with it and to understand context.

If anyone cannot do this, I will not respond to the temptation to “spoon feed”. Please do not be LAZY - read the posts; and have the courtesy to intelligently interact with them.

I do not have the spirit of evasion as one poster suggested. Read the posts and you’ll know what I believe. Don’t just “jump in” without having deeply engaged the issues.

This is my position and I’m acting on it.

Please advance the discussion.

Lief Erikson and Tom are two such people who have advanced the discussion. I’ve appreciated Cinette at times, too.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

These two postings with exchanges between Craig and Guano are so interesting, I read them twice and filed a copy. Craig you express yourself so well and I can feel that Guano agrees with me.

I need to say this Craig - can’t you see that God teaches us through his Apostles? The Sacred Scriptures emanated from Sacred Tradition. The Apostles, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are God’s instruments.

All you need to do is to look at the 40 000 + denominations to see the need for a Central Inspired Authority.

:hug3:

Yes, God teaches us through the apostolic doctrine divinely revealed in the scriptures.

I cannot concede that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equal authoritative standards with scripture.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

You know, it is interesting to me that Scripture testifies that Christ is the ultimate and surpreme revelation of His mind, character, and will.

Col 1:15-20

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers — all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross."

Col 2:8-10
“…Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.”

Furthermore, Scripture does not testify this about itself.

That is your opinion.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

Hi Lief,

I just want to say I’ve appreciated your posts and I think they are of a very high quality.

I am still coming back to you with my responses on posts 932, 933, 937.

I am not evading the issues, you will understand. It’s just that you’ve raised some good points and I want to do full justice to them.

One principle, I hold dear in posting - I don’t just post for the sake of saying something. If I do say something it is because that is what I believe and I’ll argue for the position.

I am still not convinced of your position - but please give me a little time to interact with some excellent points you have made.

Please bear with me.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[benedictus2]

This is the teaching of the Catholic church. It was the Catholic church that wrote, collected, protected, canonized and promulgated them. I think you just don’t realize that you have accepted Sacred Tradition on this matter. You take it for granted that you would be able to tell which 27 books out of the 400+ floating around and claiming to be inspired belonged in the NT. Can you figure out why the Epistle of Barnabas, also read in the early Churches, or the Shepherd of Hermas, included in the early liturgies did not make it into the canon?

Yes. However, there is plenty of objectivity an intrinsic clarity in the other writings as well.

No. Scripture does this for believers because the Spirit is within them bearing testimony. Scripture does not do this for others. Many people who read scripture have no dynamic experience of it. I was listening to the radio today when a caller stated that it was just a bunch of myths.

Actually it is clear that Jesus gives His teaching authority to the Apostles. Why is it so important to try to believe otherwise? How would it change things for you if you were to recognize an authentic teaching authority appointed by Christ?

I think if this were the case, then the Scriptures would have to say this about themselves, and they do not.

Great post:clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

When the pope proclaimed that Mary was immaculate conceived and never sinned he denied Romans 5:12 as being true. He also violated I John 1:8;10.

First of all, have you read the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Do you know how they arrived at this Doctrine?

When the Immaculate Conception was made into a Doctrine, the Pope did not come up with this idea out of nothing. This was already a long held belief of the Church from year 100 at least. All the Pope did was to make this belief official.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ’s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

Just thinking about it, since God has chosen to be born of a woman, it only stands to reason that He would ensure that she is free from all stain of sin. We have to remember, that all the DNA in Christ’s human body came from Mary.

God CHOSE HER to be His mother.