Sola Scriptura--now I get

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

Actually I’ve found this thread to be pretty interesting. I’m Catholic but I grew up Southern Baptist and I’ve not completely thrown off all my old ways.

I believe it’s important to seriously study Scripture and to know our faith as well as exercise a certain sense of personal discrimination. After all we each are going to stand alone on Judgment Day and will account for our lives. I don’t believe anyone except that Lord will be with us on that day. We’re not going to be able to debate Scripture with Him nor is the representative of the Catholic Church going to argue our case. Although that does make me feel a bit uneasy I believe we are asked to work out our faith in fear and trembling.

Peace and God Bless each of you.

 

[onesimplemind]

mumof5:

But note that it says where the word of mouth is to come from. From the writings of Paul and those epistles of his time from the apostles. And don’t forget his warning that future traditions wou ld be corrupt from MANY (not all, but many, which is significant). That is clear.

Did Paul know that his letters would become Scripture or did he decide that on his own?

 

[montanaman]

mumof5:

But note that it says where the word of mouth is to come from. From the writings of Paul and those epistles of his time from the apostles. And don’t forget his warning that future traditions wou ld be corrupt from MANY (not all, but many, which is significant). That is clear.

Yes, Paul warns of corrupt traditions.

I have no idea where you’re getting that the “word of mouth” is coming from the “writings of Paul.” Sola scriptura was a foreign concept to the apostles and everyone up until religious rebels in the 16th century.

2 Thess 3:6–6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us.

The only way to get sola scriptura out of the Bible is to WANT to see it there. And when a person’s heart is set on something, they’re never going to see otherwise…

 

[Mickey]

mumof5:

And that’s all I have time for right now …

You left this one out:
2 Thes 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the **traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

I think that it is not as easy as you say to disregard the Scripturally supported writings of the early Church Fathers–especially when some of them were disciples of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit protects the truth handed down to the Church through Apostolic succession. I trust the Church. I trust those saints and martyrs who died for the faith. I trust their interpretation of Scripture over and above those who infused “the tradition of men” into the faith (such as the reformers). The deepest wells have the clearest water.

 

[onesimplemind]

chrisb:

. We’re not going to be able to debate Scripture with Him

If it were not for the seriousness of the situation you described, seeing someone Bible thump with God would be something.

 

[mumof5]

Eden:

The future corruptions are what are known to us all as “denominations” or “Protestantism”.

Interesting thought but I think he was speaking in more immediate terms. More of individualsbut I can’t see why there wouldn’t be a wider interpretation. Of course, one could argue that Protestantism happened due to corruption in an effort to throw off the very traditions Paul warned about and get back to the basis of what Jesus taught. I won’t say you are wong but I most definitely do not believe it would have taken 1500 years for this corruption to happen.

 

[Eden]

mumof5:

Interesting thought but I think he was speaking in more immediate terms. More of individualsbut I can’t see why there wouldn’t be a wider interpretation. Of course, one could argue that Protestantism happened due to corruption in an effort to throw off the very traditions Paul warned about and get back to the basis of what Jesus taught. I won’t say you are wong but I most definitely do not believe it would have taken 1500 years for this corruption to happen.

Then you do not believe that the Holy Spirit was doing his job of protecting the Church.

 

[Giver]

St.Eric:

Of course you are right Church M, but Kujo will discount your source as not valid since it is not “biblically based” in his mind. Anything that comes from the early fathers or doctors of the church is “not valid” in his theology.

Don’t you think it a little strange, that if this letter were something approved by the Church, the Holy Spirit would have this letter in the Bible? I know from God, that the Bible is his Word.

 

[montanaman]

mumof5:

Interesting thought but I think he was speaking in more immediate terms. More of individualsbut I can’t see why there wouldn’t be a wider interpretation. Of course, one could argue that Protestantism happened due to corruption in an effort to throw off the very traditions Paul warned about and get back to the basis of what Jesus taught. I won’t say you are wong but I most definitely do not believe it would have taken 1500 years for this corruption to happen.

It didn’t. People were perverting the scriptures from the very beginning. Protestantism is just the latest and most persistant scriptural perversion. The idea that Protestantism somehow gets back to “Christianity 101” is a fine assertion, except that it’s based nowhere in fact. What Protestantism asserts is found nowhere in history, and depending on the sect, in fact asserts a new Gospel–something else that Paul warned against.

 

[montanaman]

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible

Perhaps the most striking reason for rejecting this doctrine is that there is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught, and it therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine.

Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

1. The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.
2. The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.
3. The “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from “infancy” (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term “scripture.” If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

Protestants may respond to this issue by arguing that St. Paul is not here discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of which books are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. While there is some validity to this assertion, the issue of canon is also relevant here, for the following reason: Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being theopneustos or “inspired” (literally, “God-breathed”), it is imperative that we identify with certainty those books we mean when we say “Scripture”; otherwise, the wrong writings may be labeled as “inspired.” St. Paul’s words here obviously took on a new dimension when the New Testament was completed, as Christians eventually considered it, too, to be “Scripture.” It can be argued, then, that the Biblical canon is also the issue here, as St. Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – emphasizes the fact that all (and not just some) Scripture is inspired. The question that begs to be asked, however, is this: “How can we be sure we have all the correct writings?” obviously, we can only know the answer if we know what the canon of the Bible is. Such a question poses a problem for the Protestant, but not for the Catholic, as the latter has an infallible authority to answer it.

 

[Mickey]

Giver:

Don’t you think it a little strange, that if this letter were something approved by the Church, the Holy Spirit would have this letter in the Bible?

All truth is protected by the Holy Spirit. This includes Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching.

 

[montanaman]

1. The Greek word artios, here translated “perfect,” may at first glance make it seem that the Scriptures are indeed all that is needed. “After all,” one may ask, “if the Scriptures make the man of God perfect, what else could be needed? Doesn’t the very word ‘perfect’ imply that nothing is lacking?”

Well, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that the text here does not say that it is solely by means of the Scriptures that the man of God is made “perfect.” The text – if anything – indicates precisely the opposite to be true, namely, that the Scriptures operate in conjunction with other things. Notice that it is not just anyone who is made perfect, but rather the “man of God” – which means a minister of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11), a clergyman. The fact that this individual is a minister of Christ presupposes that he has already had training and teaching which prepared him to assume his office. This being the case, the Scriptures would be merely one item in a series of items which make this man of God “perfect.” The Scriptures may complete his list of necessary items or they may be one prominent item on the list, but surely they are not the only item on his list nor intended to be all that he needs.

By way of analogy, consider a medical doctor. In this context we might say something like, “The Physician’s Desk Reference [a standard medical reference book] makes our General Practitioner perfect, so that he may be ready to treat any medical situation.” Obviously such a statement does not mean that all a doctor needs is his PDR. It is neither the last item on his list or just one prominent item. The doctor also needs his stethoscope, his blood pressure gauge, his training, etc. These other items are presupposed by the fact that we are talking about a doctor rather than a non-medical person. So it would be incorrect to assume that if the PDR makes the doctor “perfect,” it is the only thing which makes him so.

Also, taking this word “perfect” as meaning “the only necessary item” results in a biblical contradiction, for in James 1:4 we read that patience – rather than the Scriptures – makes on perfect: “And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.” Now it is true that a different Greek word (teleios) is used here for “perfect,” but the fact remains that the basic meaning is the same. Now, if one rightly acknowledges that patience is clearly not the only thing a Christian needs in order to be perfect, then a consistent interpretive method would compel one to acknowledge likewise that the Scriptures are not the only think a “man of God” needs in order to be perfect.

1. The Greek word exartizo in verse 17, here translated “furnished” (other Bible versions read something like “fully equipped” or “thoroughly furnished”) is referred to by Protestants as “proof” of Sola Scriptura, since this word – again – may be taken as implying that nothing else is needed for the “man of God.” However, even though the man of God may be “furnished” or “thoroughly equipped,” this fact in and of itself does not guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. The clergyman must also be taught how to correctly use the Scriptures, even though he may already be “furnished” with them.

 

[montanaman]

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition

St. Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” (4) St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so (“I praise you…”). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be “held” as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?

Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated “hold,” means “to be strong, mighty, to prevail.” (5) This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.

it should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting “unbiblical” or “novel” doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady.

Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible “You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning.”

 

[St.Eric]

Giver:

Don’t you think it a little strange, that if this letter were something approved by the Church, the Holy Spirit would have this letter in the Bible? I know from God, that the Bible is his Word.

Just because a letter was not deemed as being inspired by the HS does not make it invalid for giving us anthropological evidence of what the early church taught, did, and believed.

But, then again, you are much like Kujo- this will mean nothing to your deaf ears.

 

[jim1130]

2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition

St. Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” (4) St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so (“I praise you…”). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be “held” as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?

Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated “hold,” means “to be strong, mighty, to prevail.” (5) This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.

it should be noted that Protestants accuse Catholics of promoting “unbiblical” or “novel” doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady.

Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. (6) In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible “You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning.”

Peace.

So, when Paul spoke to the Bereans, did he take with him a manuscript, or at the very least a first-draft copy of what he had written, to read from and exchange among the Bereans or did he orally communicate to the Bereans? Hmmmm.

Peace.

 

[St.Eric]

Giver:

Don’t you think it a little strange, that if this letter were something approved by the Church, the Holy Spirit would have this letter in the Bible? I know from God, that the Bible is his Word.

And no I don’t find it strange since the bible tells us that the whole world could not contain all of the books it would take to record what Christ and the apostles did and taught. There are other Christian writings that are profitable.

 

[auhsoj88]

kujo313:

Good thread you guys got here! Hey! Since we can’t get the DNA of the Old Testament people, clone them, and ask them what was written or said that we don’t know, why don’t we just go by what IS written?
Of the New Testament, same thing goes.
Hey! What do you know! It’s all inside a book called the Bible!
By studying what is in writting, we can have an idea of what the people of old had in mind.

OK, before the Council of Niciea (sp??) please tell us what the bible books consisted of??? And show us from the bible alone your authority to read which and what books. If the bible is the sole rule of faith, THEN IT MUST TELL US WHAT BOOKS TO READ AND NOT READ. RIGHT!

Second, every time the phrase “it is written” is spoken in the NT, it is because that passage is referencing another passage in the OT. So in essence, it is the OT that is being validated by the NT. What OT books exactly, don’t know since the bible won’t tell you.

Now, since the NT validates the OT, then what is left to validate the NT??? The only book that claims to be inspired in the NT is the book of Revelations. So please validate the other 26???

For Christians to validate the bible as the written word of God, one must accept Sacred Tradition. Whether you admit it or not, there is just no other way.

Or, lets wait till an archeoligists digging through the catacombs of Israel finds that lost book containing the table of contents.

In love,

God bless

 

[Mickey]

auhsoj88:

For Christians to validate the bible as the written word of God, one must accept Sacred Tradition. Whether you admit it or not, there is just no other way.

 

[MrS]

auhsoj88:

Or, lets wait till an archeoligists digging through the catacombs of Israel finds that lost book containing the table of contents.

that was so long agohttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_9_4.gifbut, I, Indiana Joshua have found the Holy Table… no longer will we have Catholic Tradition to support the Truth…

and thankfully there is permission for this table… the Imprimature is from the Bishop of Rome

:bigyikes: I think I got up too early today.

 

[Church_Militant]

Giver:

Don’t you think it a little strange, that if this letter were something approved by the Church, the Holy Spirit would have this letter in the Bible? I know from God, that the Bible is his Word.

The difference is between public revelation and affirmation of something that the church already held as a belief.

The letter simply affirms things that the New Testament says and that the early church already held as true. This is not new public revelation, this is Christian history.

It IS approved by the church…as exactly what it is… history.

Face it Robert, no one taught the “rapture” doctrinal interpretations over 200 years ago, but once it was included in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible it has been accepted as doctrine by a great many Christians. The problem is that they don’t bother to look back and see if the early church held those same beliefs. (They did not.) Yet Scofield’s notes are accepted as “gospel” by many people. Is that right? (I don’t think so.) Now… apply your own test to the beliefs of all non-Catholic Christian groups over the last 500 years.

Sola Scriptura was NOT taught prior to the “reformation”, and the subsequent myriad of Biblical interpretations that have resulted (IMO) reflect the same lack of historical affirmation that Scofield’s “rapture” notes do.

If I have to choose doctrines to put my faith in, I will obey the Word of God and go with the Catholic Church which provides “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.” (Matthew 18:16B). Witnesses who can be traced right back to the apostles themselves and martyrs who gave their lives for the things that they have passed on to us.