Sola Scriptura Precludes Preaching

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

1. On your last item, to lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21.

Yes. And the local church has authority (in Scripture) to judge and excommunicate heretics. I don’t think that you can use this passage to support ecclesial authority as being in addition to the Scriptures in matters of doctrine and practice. I claim that the church’s authority is the Scriptures themselves.

1. You have something to add to your definition of Sola Scriptura. You say that you must be a man of God.

What I am doing is explaining that Scripture is the final and sufficient authority for matters of doctrine and practice. This solely concerns believers. Only believers have a need for the Scriptures to settle their religious disputes.

How do you know you are the man of God?

Primarily from reading 1 John

(BTW, it now seems Scripture isn’t Sola anymore. Man of God + Scripture seems to be your view.)

I’ve not changed my view, I am simply providing clarification. It did not occur to me that I would need to make the believer/nonbeliever distinction. The man of God, though, does not function as an authority. The Scripture is still the authority for the man of God. Hope this clarifies a little.

1. I agree that the two “able” verses are on different subjects. That was my point. Why does “able” mean “solely able” where you want it to, and merely “able” just a few paragraphs earlier?

Again, context. 2 Tim 3:15-17 deal with the nature of Scripture. they are by nature τα δυναμενα to give saving wisdom and God gives them ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος. You have a nature of ability and a divine purpose of equipping here. These factors support sufficiency. It’s not that τα δυναμενα means “solely able” but that it does, indeed, mean able. And that God’s purpose does not indicate a potentiality, but an actuality, and, thus, sufficiency.

2 Tim 2:4, by the way, does not use the word δυναμενα, but instead ικανοι. ικανοι does mean “able,” but this does make your argument a little less persuasive. This is a description of the sort of men who are to be taught. They need to be competent. But they are not, in themselves “able.” Or given with the same infallible, divine purpose. What’s more, they are able to teach, not able to grant saving wisdom. It’s just not parallel enough either grammatically or contextually to really affect my exegesis of 2 Tim 3:15-17.

I suspect you’re reading presuppositions into the verses selectively.

If you could show me specifically where I have done so, I’m willing to look into it (I didn’t choose my screen name just because it sounds cool).

1. I think that we can agree that Scripture is inerrant.

Glad to hear it.

Where we part ways is when personal interpretation comes in. I believe that the Church has the authority to make infallible pronouncements of faith and morals for the faithful, whereas you believe some (yet to be defined) man of God can make infallible pronouncements. Feel free to clarify.

No, the man of God (who is any Christian), cannot make any infallible pronouncements. Only the Scriptures are infallible. Only a man of God can understand the Scriptures (not that he always and in all cases does). A Christian must seek to understand the Scriptures on his own (without ignoring the fruits of the studies of others).

1. The word “able” does not imply that the objective goal will infallibly happen, but is merely possible. I’m “able” to make a 3-pt basketball shot blindfolded, but it doesn’t mean it’s likely. (Oh, despite being able, I can’t do it without the ball. It’s not sola mea)

Right, just anyone reading the Scriptures will not necessarily be made wise for salvation (e.g., my grandfather, now dead read the Bible in his lifetime. He died as he lived, a professing atheist). This does not result from a deficiency in Scripture, though. It is given to prepare the man of God for every good work and make him wise for salvation. The man of God is one of God’s elect (I know we’re getting into more “Protestant” territory here). It is to the elect that the Scriptures give saving wisdom. Thus, when a person reads Scripture and fails to believe, it is not because Scripture is insufficient, but because it was not intended to make that individual wise for salvation.

In the same way, the Roman Church’s “infallible” rulings (if we accept your views on it for the sake of argument) on Scripture are no more sufficient than Scripture in this matter. A person can hear from the Scriptures and from the magisterium and still not be made wise for salvation or equipped for every good work. Your viewpoint does not necessarily solve the problems that you see in mine.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

RyanL:

I think what Lillith is saying is that you have claimed that for any Christian, the Bible is formally sufficient. Is that your position?

God bless,
RyanL

I wouldn’t use the term formally sufficient. But, more or less, yes.
The Scriptures contain all that is needed for a person to have saving faith and live obediently. This does not mean that all people will agree on all matters. It means that all that is needed for salvation is in the Bible and is sufficiently clear.
john ennis:

This whole issue about what writings Paul was talking about makes Sola Scriptura untenable; no, you haven’t really answered this OT argument. Can any sane person believe that Timothy understood Paul to mean the entire canon we have today?

This isn’t the issue. All Scripture is God-breathed. If something is Scripture then it is part of what Paul meant. Even the RCC would agree with this.

He didn’t. And since Paul was inarguably writing about a portion of the Scripture we now have, he meant what he said to Timothy: profitable…inspired. No less, no more.

Profitable…inspired…able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. And given by God for the purpose of equipping believers for every good work. I still believe that this grammatically indicates sufficiency. If you disagree, show me in the text. Are you saying that only a part of the Scripture we now have is inspired? Paul is talking about the nature of Scripture, whether something was penned and/or recognized before or after 2 TIm 3:16 is irrelevant. If it is Scripture, these verses apply to it.

Your knowledge is impressive, Sempereformanda, even remarkable.

Only by God’s grace, and, I assure you, there are plenty of people who are far more intelligent than I am.

But to make “profitable” and “inspired” mean “all that is necessary to be believed” requires a lengthy thesis from you.

I don’t try to do so. I believe that sufficiency comes from verses 15 and 17. It may flow from the God breathed nature of Scripture, but it is grammatically indicated (or so I have been contending) in the other verses.

Even leaving aside the incompleteness of first century Scriptures,

And we should, because they are still Scriptures, and thus fall under the umbrella of 2 Tim 3:15-17.

Paul’s letter doesn’t plainly indicate at all what you are extrapolating.

I’m willing to interact here, but I need to be shown 1) where my exegesis goes astray and 2) an equally (or more) viable counterexegesis.

And then, considering that incompleteness, we know Paul could not have meant that, under any interpretation.

I’ve dealt with this. THe remainder of the Scriptures are either Scripture or not. If they are, then this verse applies. For your argument here to work, you need to deny the inspiration of all NT books that Paul did not know of when he wrote this verse.

Lillith:

These letters were written to a church full of believers, and so by your terms they were filled with the Holy spirit. They already had accepted the Lord …who is “Just anyone” if it isn’t the clergy?

Not to nitpick, but they were written to one individual: Timothy. But yes, believers, having accepted Christ (I don’t usually use that phrase) have the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9). The man of God is a believer in Christ. “Just anyone” (in this context) is a nonbeliever, who does not have the Spirit, and cannot understand the Bible.

Hope this clarifies for you. Feel free to ask anything else.

 

[Mickey]

I really don’t follow your reasoning Semper. It seems circular to me. You say that the Scripture is the authority for the man of God. And only a man of God can interpret the Scriptures. And the Holy Spirit sees that the man of God has the proper interpretation. Is that correct?

Then you say that only a man of God can understand Scriptures–but not in all cases. And then you say that a man of God must seek to understand the Scriptures, (which are all sufficient), but do not ignore the fruits of the studies of others.

Should not a man of God receive the proper interpretations by the Holy Spirit on his own?

Then you say that only the elect derive wisdom from the Scriptures.

do you see the circular tendencies of your dialogue?
I am curious. Where do you go to school?

Have you ever heard of Van Til?

 

[RyanL]

Semper,

Again, thank you for the reasonable tone. You are a credit to those of your faith. May we all be as charitable!

You have said that “all that is needed for salvation is in the Bible and is sufficiently clear”. I wonder…who determines what is needed for salvation? I’m sure you will respond “the Bible”, but I’m looking for a list of things that are required for salvation. If it is sufficiently clear, this should be a fairly simple exercise.

May God bless you and your family richly,
RyanL

 

[Lillith]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Not to nitpick, but they were written to one individual: Timothy. But yes, believers, having accepted Christ (I don’t usually use that phrase) have the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9). The man of God is a believer in Christ. “Just anyone” (in this context) is a nonbeliever, who does not have the Spirit, and cannot understand the Bible.

Hope this clarifies for you. Feel free to ask anything else.

Thank you Mr. Sempereformanda…I say Mr. because I feel the need to show you respect…that you rightly deserve. You, sir are a gentleman.

Do not worry about nit picking…I believe I started that first.

Paul wrote a letter to his disciple Timothy instructing him on how he should behave, Why in the world would he have to tell Timothy not to let unbelievers interpret scripture? Surely Timothy wasn’t a complete dolt…

I am sorry, but to me that just doesn’t make sense.

 

[J.W.B]

The Holy Scriptures are all we need to know on salvation and how to live our life moraly for God. I don’t see any problems here. We don’t need to “know” about the Imaculate Conception or the Assumption in order to be saved. But never the less, ALL of Catholic Doctrines are in the Holy Scriptures. Some may not be so much in your face as others (but most are as clear as can be, at least as far as I can see), but they are still grounded in the Scriptures.

It just continues to come down to again and again who has the correct interpretation. Catholics and many denominational Protestants have scholars of the anctient Biblical languages yet still disagree. It just comes down to “My Bible verse can beat up your Bible verse.”

But even with all the disagreements and even what the JW’s, Mormons, Protestants, etc., try and claim for the early Christians and Church, it WAS far more Catholic than anything else we find now- a -days or in the past.

May the Peace of God be with you

 

[michaelgazin]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Profitable…inspired…able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. And given by God for the purpose of equipping believers for every good work. I still believe that this grammatically indicates sufficiency.

I agree that the Bible is sufficient, however it was sufficient in the sense that it pointed me to tradition as well.

Paul is talking about the nature of Scripture, whether something was penned and/or recognized before or after 2 TIm 3:16 is irrelevant. If it is Scripture, these verses apply to it.

That appears to be more wishful thinking, than what Paul actually meant. It may be more feasible, if 2 Tim. 3:15 didn’t exist, “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

These “sacred writings” can *only *be the OT, which is really indisputable. It is the very next sentence that Paul says “all Scripture is profitable…” Now, surely you could manage to turn this verse into an argument for your position, but logically speaking, it is more than clear that Paul is speaking of the very same “sacred writings” as the verse before, and not the “nature of Scripture.” There is no evidence to believe that Paul was allowing, in this verse, for possible additions to Sacred Scripture in the future, including his own writings and this very letter he was writing at the time. It is an unjustified stretching of the verses to make it mean, “follow the sacred writings you knew from childhood…these writings, *and all other *Scripture is profitable…” The only Scripture that both these men knew of were the sacred writings of the OT. Timothy could not have possibly picked up on the implication that there will be more Scripture coming that these verses will be applied to. Only can modern day hindsight tell us this.

I understand you don’t wish to discuss the canon, however if you choose to align with James White’s belief, it would be that we have “fallible knowledge of infallible Scripture.” I can’t imagine this provides much comfort to those believing in sola Scriptura.

In James’ book Scripture Alone, he states, “one can confess the instrumental nature of the church in being used of God as the primary means of establishing [our knowledge of the canon] without violating Scripture’s teaching by investing in the church some notion of infallibility.”

I highly recommend studying the establishment and development of the canon of Scripture, but from a reformed view, the best you will probably come up with is that God miraculously gave man knowledge of the canon of His Scripture throughout the ages because He willed His people to know these writings. That is similar to how I have hear White phrase it. This is about all protestantism will allow for, seeing as how no credit can be given to the Catholic Church, though a red flag has to go up when you see the entire lack of evidence and simple convenience for such a view.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

Mickey:

I really don’t follow your reasoning Semper. It seems circular to me. You say that the Scripture is the authority for the man of God. And only a man of God can interpret the Scriptures. And the Holy Spirit sees that the man of God has the proper interpretation. Is that correct?

Only the man of God has the guarantee that he will interpret the Scriptures in such a way as to be made wise for salvation. The Holy Spirit does not so much “safeguard” (in a more RC sense) a believer’s interpretation as illuminate the Scriptures that he inspired.

Then you say that only a man of God can understand Scriptures–but not in all cases.

Not everyone (or possibly) anyone has a fulness of knowledge. Semper Reformanda! But what is required for salvation is clearly revealed in Scripture.

And then you say that a man of God must seek to understand the Scriptures, (which are all sufficient),

Do you disagree?

but do not ignore the fruits of the studies of others.

This is, simply put, responsible. It would be foolish to do so.

Should not a man of God receive the proper interpretations by the Holy Spirit on his own?

You are assuming that the man of God is fully submissive to the Spirit. The problem is not in Scripture but in the still sin twisted minds of believers.

Then you say that only the elect derive wisdom from the Scriptures.

The elect are God’s chosen. Essentially a man of God.

do you see the circular tendencies of your dialogue?

I don’t, really…Taken in context, I think that all of these statements are in good harmony. I’ll say something a bit different to emphasize something different when a certain argument is raised. But my postion is still the same. Scripture is given to the people of God for the purpose of giving saving knowledge and equipping for every good work. It is sufficient for this task. Scholars are useful but not necessary. If you really think I’m going in circles, please focus on one example, show its circularity, and I’ll consider it.

I am curious. Where do you go to school?

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Have you ever heard of Van Til?

Yes.

RyanL:

Semper,

Again, thank you for the reasonable tone. You are a credit to those of your faith. May we all be as charitable!

We can only hope.

You have said that “all that is needed for salvation is in the Bible and is sufficiently clear”. I wonder…who determines what is needed for salvation? I’m sure you will respond “the Bible”, but I’m looking for a list of things that are required for salvation. If it is sufficiently clear, this should be a fairly simple exercise.

I don’t have time for biblical support for each inclusion on the list, but I’d say.
The true nature of God (triune), the Deity of Christ, the Humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinfulness of man, Christ’s death on behalf of man, the resurrection and assension of Christ, repentance, and trust solely in Christ for salvation. Just “off the cuff” I think this is what I would say.

May God bless you and your family richly,

Yours also.

Lillith:

Thank you Mr. Sempereformanda…I say Mr. because I feel the need to show you respect…that you rightly deserve. You, sir are a gentleman.

Thank you, but please, let’s not get up in formalities. I’m a fallible human being.

Paul wrote a letter to his disciple Timothy instructing him on how he should behave, Why in the world would he have to tell Timothy not to let unbelievers interpret scripture? Surely Timothy wasn’t a complete dolt…

He didn’t (and Timothy wasn’t). I made the believer/unbeliever distinction in response to a criticism that there are people who twist Scripture. I claim that such people are not those for whom Scripture is intended.
Hope this clarifies.

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Yes. And the local church has authority (in Scripture) to judge and excommunicate heretics. I don’t think that you can use this passage to support ecclesial authority as being in addition to the Scriptures in matters of doctrine and practice. I claim that the church’s authority is the Scriptures themselves.

…
I’ve not changed my view, I am simply providing clarification. It did not occur to me that I would need to make the believer/nonbeliever distinction. The man of God, though, does not function as an authority. The Scripture is still the authority for the man of God. Hope this clarifies a little.
…

No, the man of God (who is any Christian), cannot make any infallible pronouncements. Only the Scriptures are infallible. Only a man of God can understand the Scriptures (not that he always and in all cases does). A Christian must seek to understand the Scriptures on his own (without ignoring the fruits of the studies of others).

…

In the same way, the Roman Church’s “infallible” rulings (if we accept your views on it for the sake of argument) on Scripture are no more sufficient than Scripture in this matter. A person can hear from the Scriptures and from the magisterium and still not be made wise for salvation or equipped for every good work. Your viewpoint does not necessarily solve the problems that you see in mine.

1. Matt 18:15-18 doesn’t say the “local” Church, it says the Church. There are not a multiplicity of “final” authorities. Nor does Jesus qualify the Church’s authority as limited by individual interpretation of Scripture. It says if he refuses to listen, that’s it, final… he’s to be treated as a gentile and a tax collector. He doesn’t get to start his own Church.
2. More and more of your premises are based on your presupposed conclusion… telling me how you interpret all these ideas that aren’t clear at all and contrary to the plain sense of the words. We’ll have to agree to disagree on stretching “useful/profitable” and “able/possible” to mean “sufficient/adequate” or “all that is needed”.
3. Lacking that agreement, there are plenty of passages to state that Scripture alone is not the sole rule of faith and/or that there are other rules of faith. Besides Matt 18:15ff:

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you (Yes, the Canon is Sacred Tradition)

2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter

2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me; rejects you, rejects me.

Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything

Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth.

1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth

Matthew 16:17-19 : "And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

2 Peter 3:16 - in St. Paul’s epistles there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (Destruction! The essential matters can be unclear!)

2 Peter 1:20 “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of private interpretation.”

1. Only people are infallible, as only people can make decisions. Scripture is inerrant, not infallible. In your scheme, you admit that one never really knows if he is botching his interpretation or not. So really, inerrant Scripture is pointless, as you have no way of “getting at it”. You say scripture is “clear”, but as we’ve seen so far, all experience and evidence is contrary to that.
2. That Catholics may not “get” Catholic teaching is irrelevant to the fact that it is true. The Catholic knows there is an answer, and can ask directly for an authoritative answer to settle a dispute. You have multiple interpretations and cannot get a final answer to your troubles. If you profess to have a final answer, then YOU are the infallible authority, and you’ve violated Sola Scriptura and your own admissions.

 

[TPJCatholic]

*Only the man of God has the guarantee that he will interpret the Scriptures in such a way as to be made wise for salvation. *

==> Where in Scripture is this absolute gaurantee?

Not everyone (or possibly) anyone has a fulness of knowledge.

==> But, they have fullness of knowledge if they have a Bible and the Holy Spirit, correct? They require nothing else from your pov.

*This is, simply put, responsible. It would be foolish to do so.
*
==> Why? If a person believes, accepts Christ, and has a Bible with the Holy Spirit, then they need nothing else at all…right?

You are assuming that the man of God is fully submissive to the Spirit. The problem is not in Scripture but in the still sin twisted minds of believers.

==> This is not the premise of Sola Scriptura as you have presented it. Sola Scriptura says nothing about an absolute submission to the Spirit, in fact as fallen people we cannot reach such a level of complete submission, we will always be short in this life. Sola Scriptura says we need only belief, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. We do not need perfect submission, we do not need other people, or a Church, or the sacraments or anything…just a Bible, belief and the Holy Spirit (of course it would interesting to see whihc version of the Bible is the perfect version to use under the doctrine of Sola Scriptura–they are all a bit different).

==> I could continue, but I see no point…your arguments are completely circular to a point that you cannot see the circle. God bless.

 

[Mickey]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Only the man of God has the guarantee that he will interpret the Scriptures in such a way as to be made wise for salvation. The Holy Spirit does not so much “safeguard” a believer’s interpretation as illuminate the Scriptures that he inspired.

Okay. I’ll start here. This is somewhat circular to me. The Holy Spirit will not safeguard (protect) a man of God’s interpretation, but the Holy Spirit will illuminate (clarify) the Scriptures for the man of God.

How can a man of God’s interpretation of the Scriptures, which are illuminated and clarified by the Holy Spirit, not be a properly safeguared and protected interpretation by the same Holy Spirit?

 

[Mickey]

TPJCatholic:

==> This is not the premise of Sola Scriptura as you have presented it. Sola Scriptura says nothing about an absolute submission to the Spirit, in fact as fallen people we cannot reach such a level of complete submission, we will always be short in this life. Sola Scriptura says we need only belief, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. We do not need perfect submission, we do not need other people, or a Church, or the sacraments or anything…just a Bible, belief and the Holy Spirit

I could continue, but I see no point…your arguments are completely circular to a point that you cannot see the circle. God bless.

I’m glad someone else sees the circularity of the dialogue and the subtle shifting of positions in order to justify the stance.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Before you did so, you should learn what Sola Scriptura actually is.

That would certainly help - maybe, one day, people who set up these straw men will actually take that piece of advice. But don’t hold your breath ​

 

[JohnPaul0]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

. If you really think I’m going in circles, please focus on one example, show its circularity, and I’ll consider it.

.

Hello! In post 21 you said, “What I mean by Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Moreover, it is sufficient for that task. Only the Scriptures are binding on the believer’s conscience. Councils, Synods, sermons, scholarship, etc. May be useful and should not be ignored lightly. However, only the Scriptures themselves demand our submission. For example, I believe that the London Baptist Confession is a faithful exposition of Scripture, I believe what is contained in it. However, my loyalty is to Scripture alone. I cannot base my beliefs on the LBC, but must derive them from Scripture. I cannot simply cite the LBC and expect others to submit to it. However, I can point to it and explain that I believe that it is correct insofar as I believe that it is consistent with the Scriptures.”

From the Catholic perspective, here is the flaw in your basic assumptions:

You hold that the London Baptist Confession represents a correct exposition of Scripture “insofar as [you] believe that it is consistent with the Scriptures.”

The Catholic asks, “Just because this confession is consistent with the meaning that you have derived from Scripture, how does that in fact make it consistent with with God intended the Scripture to mean”?

Do you see? Effectively, you are saying that, “the correct interpretation of Scripture is what I believe.” The only true authority, then, is you. Granted, you have studied, researched, and prayed about it, but so have other Protestants, and they have come to different conclusions than you while at the same time believing that they are the most correct.

So, how do you know if you or the others are correct? Without an authoritative exposition of God’s truth, you don’t.

 

[Lillith]

I am talking about the letters of Paul to Timothy…I thought you were too. We were discussing(I thought) Who should interpret scripture and who might “twist” it.
Semperefermando:

However, I don’t say that “just anyone” can understand the Scriptures and be equipped for every good work. The context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is dealing with the man of God, not just anyone.

Apparently you were talking about those letters according to this response (I thought)

Lillith:

These letters were written to a church full of believers, and so by your terms they were filled with the Holy spirit. They already had accepted the Lord …who is “Just anyone” if it isn’t the clergy?

You Said:

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Not to nitpick, but they were written to one individual: Timothy. But yes, believers, having accepted Christ (I don’t usually use that phrase) have the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9). The man of God is a believer in Christ. “Just anyone” (in this context) is a nonbeliever, who does not have the Spirit, and cannot understand the Bible..

Lillith:

Paul wrote a letter to his disciple Timothy instructing him on how he should behave, **Why in the world would he have to tell Timothy not to let unbelievers interpret scripture? ** Surely Timothy wasn’t a complete dolt…

Then suddenly I find out that the whole thing was Hypothetical in your eyes when you make this comment:
SEMPERREFORMANDA:

He didn’t (and Timothy wasn’t). I made the believer/unbeliever distinction in response to a criticism that there are people who twist Scripture. I claim that such people are not those for whom Scripture is intended.

Can you understand my confusion? Who are “such people” are they the same as “just anyone”…

 

[petra]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

You are exaggerating the disagreements among Protestants. There are differences to be sure. But on areas that we consider essential, we essentially agree. There is disagreement in Rome, but that doesn’t disprove sola ecclesia.

Semper, I want to also thank you for your thoughtful and respectful dialog. This has been an interesting discussion.

As you have pointed out, disagreements between individual members of a faith do not necessarily undermine the official orthodoxy of a faith. But this is only true if one can determine what the official orthodoxy is. It is simple to determine what the Catholic Church teaches. Some Catholics adhere to it faithfully, others do not. And as you correctly say, that doesn’t disprove sola ecclesia.

But while we can equally acknowledge that individual Protestants adhere to “the essentials” with varying degrees, there is no place we can turn to in order to learn what those essentials are or what the official Protestant position is. Individual denominations have official professions of faith, but these are not consistent enough to provide any kind of universal Protestant position on various doctrines.

When I was a Protestant, I recall hearing the saying, “In the essentials, unity. In all things, charity.” Four years ago, if someone would have asked me what the essentials were, I would have replied, “Salvation issues.” I would have said that issues relating to worship styles, local church goverance, and emphasis on spiritual gifts were non-essentials, and I probably would have said that diversity in the non-essentials may even be a good thing. But eventually, I started to honestly look at my position. (For a variety of reasons, I became open to investigating Catholicism. I soon realized that it is untenable to accept scripture without also accepting aposotic tradition.)

But, in fact, there is not agreement within Protestantism on salvation issues. What about the efficacy of water baptism? Some Protestant denominations (such as Lutheranism) teach that it is salvific. Evangelical denominations would say it is only symbolic. What about the issue of whether salvation can be lost? Lutherans, Methodists, and Nazarenes would say it is possible. Baptists and Presbyterians would say it is not. These are serious salvation issues and relate to the eternal destiny of souls. I submit that there is not agreement in the essentials of Protestantism.

You say that scripture is either able to or not able to make us wise to salvation. It of course can–but not universally and consistently when used alone, without apostolic tradition. If it were, all Protestant denominations would “be wise” (have an agreed upon understanding) about whether water baptism saves. If apostolic tradition is not needed to interpret scripture, then all Protestants would be in agreement about whether and under what circumstances a Christian may lose his salvation. If it is, indeed, true that salvation can be lost, then there are many people who have a false sense of security and will perish eternally, if they don’t repent and are not restored to God’s grace. This is a life or death issue. In no way do Protestant agree on the essentials.

Remember that the Word of God is not just a book. It is Jesus–the Word-made-flesh. Everything emerges from that fact. To say that the Word of God is just a book limits and minimizes what God has actually provided to His Church. The Word of God first of all is Jesus. He conveyed everything that was needed for His Church until His return to His apostles. Some of that was written down and canonized as scripture. But the totality of doctrine and Church life is understood in both sacred tradition and sacred scripture.

I respect the fact that you wish to study the issue of canonicity further. I found Mark Shea’s book, By What Authority, to be a very logical treatment of the issues of scripture and tradition. Ironically, sola scriptura presupposes the need for and dependance upon sacred tradition. As someone else pointed out, the Bible’s Table of Contents is not self-evident, in spite of any “tests” one might subject a writing to. The New Testament that Protestants correctly revere as God’s Word is a result of the infallibility of sacred tradition.

 

[Lillith]

Really nice post Petra…

 

[J.W.B]

Semper, how do you know that you are the man of God that the Holy Spirit reveals His Truth to? Because of your interpretation and your belief that you are one of the elect? Again other Christians will say the same type of things pointing toward the Bible for their “proof.” It’s just continuous.

 

[john_ennis]

Regarding the Scriptures to which Paul was referring, when he characterized them (to Timothy) as “God-breathed,” etc., you responded:

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

This isn’t the issue. All Scripture is God-breathed. If something is Scripture then it is part of what Paul meant. Even the RCC would agree with this.

Are you saying that only a part of the Scripture we now have is inspired? Paul is talking about the nature of Scripture, whether something was penned and/or recognized before or after 2 TIm :16 is irrelevant. If it is Scripture, these verses apply to it.

For your argument here to work, you need to deny the inspiration of all NT books that Paul did not know of when he wrote this verse.

I seem not to have made my point clear. Yes, what Paul said applies to all that we recognize as Scripture now, as well as all that he and Timothy recognized as Scripture then.

Don’t you see that in his characterization of Scripture to Timothy (re the portion of Scripture he recogized), there should be no difference in meaning, to him or to us (re the entirety of Scripture that we have)?

If he meant that the incomplete Scripture Timothy had was all that is necessary to be believed (not merely useful, profitable, God-breathed, and the like), we have a new argument on our hands, don’t we?

If he didn’t mean that, and your assertions are true about how we are to take Paul’s passage, then he meant something different to Timothy than he does to us, for we are to believe Paul meant “all that is necessary,” but Timothy was not to believe that.

Peace.
John

 

[RyanL]

Things required for salvation from the Bible:
The true nature of God (triune), the Deity of Christ, the Humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinfulness of man, Christ’s death on behalf of man, the resurrection and assension of Christ, repentance, and trust solely in Christ for salvation. Just “off the cuff” I think this is what I would say.

Semper,

Feel free to either respond to this or not - I understand that Lillith, John Ennis, and Petra might have you too busy to really go into it with me (and that’s fine - there will be future opportunities). I’m surprised that there’s so much on your list! Many modern scholars (who mistake education for knowledge) deny things like the bodily resurection, the sinfulness of man, the virgin birth, etc., and still call themselves “Christians”. I can find plenty of examples, if you would like, but the Jesus Seminar comes readily to mind. If they disbelieve any of these things (remember, I asked for things required for salvation), are they damned? Even though they accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior (which sounds funny, but there are those who believe this)?

I suppose what bothers me most about modern Protestant thought (including your list) is this: you don’t have to love God to go to heaven. Quite frankly, you don’t even have to like Him. Any feeling we have towards God is a “work”, and is not required for salvation. Think about that - you can hate God, be at complete enmity with God, have never loved God, and still be allowed into heaven. As a wicked man, you would be welcomed by God into His kingdom. Meanwhile, Muslims who love God with their whole hearts and repent of their sins are denied entry, as are 10 year old Mormon kids who, quite frankly, just don’t know better yet. Doesn’t seem like divine justice to me - does this seem right to you? Remember, we were created in the image and likeness of God, empowered with reason, logic, and the moral guidance of the Holy Spirit (Law written on our hearts), so even if our notion is a shadow of God’s justice, it is still similar - I say that to keep you from telling me that God’s ways are so far above our ways, as the heavens are above the earth and that it’s not my business to decide if this “seems like divine justice”. We can know if something’s right or wrong, and this seems wrong. Do you agree? I’m not advocating any kind of Unitarian theology here, but rather a case for what “faith” actually, biblically, means.

God bless you and keep you,
RyanL