Sola Scriptura Precludes Preaching

[TPJCatholic]

Mickey,

I agree, it is circular. If a person truly believes in Sola Sciptura, then the only real requirements are the Bible, belief, and the Holy Spirit–absolutely nothing else is needed and in fact should be shunned because under SS we should not trust anyone or anything other then the Bible and the Holy Spirit, period.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

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.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the immaculate conception and assumption as being necessary for salvation?

michaelgazin:

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.

Sacred writings is most likely the OT. However, all Scripture, I still believe, encompasses ALL SCRIPTURE. Just because Paul did not know what the exact perameters of that would be does not mean that he would not include the NT under this (in fact, as I have shown, he cites Luke as Scripture). At the very least, Paul and Timothy knew that Luke was Scripture, and therefore did know that more Scripture was coming.

]

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.

The predominant sense of “church” in the NT is the local church. Context, and comparison with passages like 2 Cor 5 and Gal 6 would seem to indicate that such is the case here.

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:

As far as tradition verses go. If you believe that Scripture is materially sufficient, then you must agree that these traditions are recorded elsewhere in Scripture, or else are not necessary for salvation/obedience.
As far as the “on this Rock passage,” that’s a different issue, that we can discuss later.
As far as 2 Pet 3:16, I’ve already pointed out that the unstable and ignorant twist the Scriptures on these essential matters, the Scriptures are given as a guide for believers. This doesn’t conflict with sufficiency.

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.

No, people are fallible. They may be inerrant at times, but are not infallible (incapable of error). The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible. The Scriptures cannot teach falsehood. The only way to get falsehood from the Scriptures is distortion.

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.

Whether or not I am consistent with my own views is not the current issue. We need to worry about that AFTER, we establish whether my view is biblical or not.
Sorry this has been such a hasty response, You guys have put a lot on my plate…I’ll try to come back and address some more posts lately. But since the only other Protestant I’ve seen in this thread just accused you of making strawmen and left without dialoguing with you, I’m having to field every objection that any of you come up with and it’s taking a lot of time. Please be patient as I look for the opportunity to do some more posting.

 

[Mickey]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Sacred writings is most likely the OT. However, all Scripture, I still believe, encompasses ALL SCRIPTURE. Just because Paul did not know what the exact perameters of that would be does not mean that he would not include the NT under this (in fact, as I have shown, he cites Luke as Scripture). At the very least, Paul and Timothy knew that Luke was Scripture, and therefore did know that more Scripture was coming.

That is an unusual exegesis.

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

The only way to get falsehood from the Scriptures is distortion.

Which includes skewed interpretations.

 

[michaelgazin]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Sacred writings is most likely the OT. However, all Scripture, I still believe, encompasses ALL SCRIPTURE. Just because Paul did not know what the exact perameters of that would be does not mean that he would not include the NT under this (in fact, as I have shown, he cites Luke as Scripture). At the very least, Paul and Timothy knew that Luke was Scripture, and therefore did know that more Scripture was coming.

Again this appears to be wishful thinking, because, after all, you must hold this view to keep from theological issues regarding sola Scriptura etc.

No one would deny that indeed all Scripture is exactly how Paul described it, however that is not the issue. The issue is what did Paul mean when he wrote it.

You said “Just because Paul did not know what the exact perameters of that would be does not mean that he would not include the NT under this” Again, he most certainly would include the NT under this comment…*in hindsight. *This is not the issue. If you use Paul’s writing to argue for the formal sufficiency of Scripture, then you must do it with respect to the Scripture Paul had in mind at the time of writing, which would automatically exclude at least part of the NT.

If Paul here was literally binding Timothy strictly to the Bible’s authority, with the intention that all subsequent inspired writings from this point are to be included in the body of Scripture, then it would become Paul’s responsibility to establish a means by which Timothy would be able to identify these new sacred writings…but then what logically follows, is whatever means Paul establishes for this, it becomes authoritative by its sheer nature, thus negating the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

The Didache for example existed around this time, and with no formal way of determing Scripture, there is no apparent reason to disregaurd this writing as uninspired.

At the very least, there is no way to reconcile (the protestant interpretation of) 2 Tim. 3:16 with 2 Thess. 2:15. Because Paul specifically identifies written Tradition as only one of *two *authoritative bodies of revelation, and binds all believers to these, sola Scriptura again becomes untenable. There is no logical way to disregaurd the oral Tradition Paul speaks of, when he clearly contrasts it with Scripture, and applies *equal *authority to both. The Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition is in perfect harmony with 2 Thess, 2 Tim. 2:2, and the others listed in above posts.

Peace,
Michael

 

[DeFide]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the immaculate conception and assumption as being necessary for salvation?

Sacred writings is most likely the OT. However, all Scripture, I still believe, encompasses ALL SCRIPTURE. Just because Paul did not know what the exact perameters of that would be does not mean that he would not include the NT under this (in fact, as I have shown, he cites Luke as Scripture). At the very least, Paul and Timothy knew that Luke was Scripture, and therefore did know that more Scripture was coming.

The predominant sense of “church” in the NT is the local church. Context, and comparison with passages like 2 Cor 5 and Gal 6 would seem to indicate that such is the case here.

As far as tradition verses go. If you believe that Scripture is materially sufficient, then you must agree that these traditions are recorded elsewhere in Scripture, or else are not necessary for salvation/obedience.
As far as the “on this Rock passage,” that’s a different issue, that we can discuss later.
As far as 2 Pet 3:16, I’ve already pointed out that the unstable and ignorant twist the Scriptures on these essential matters, the Scriptures are given as a guide for believers. This doesn’t conflict with sufficiency.

No, people are fallible. They may be inerrant at times, but are not infallible (incapable of error). The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible. The Scriptures cannot teach falsehood. The only way to get falsehood from the Scriptures is distortion.

Whether or not I am consistent with my own views is not the current issue. We need to worry about that AFTER, we establish whether my view is biblical or not.
Sorry this has been such a hasty response, You guys have put a lot on my plate…I’ll try to come back and address some more posts lately. But since the only other Protestant I’ve seen in this thread just accused you of making strawmen and left without dialoguing with you, I’m having to field every objection that any of you come up with and it’s taking a lot of time. Please be patient as I look for the opportunity to do some more posting.

1. You cannot reject Church dogma if you know of it and you know that the Church is what she claims to be and still be saved.
2. With “local” church, you’re inserting your presuppositions which, once again, are absent from the text. It doesn’t make sense, since people accusing each other of heresy could be under different local parishes. It also creates a problem for non-Catholics as Protestant churches differ on what constitutes heresy and would reduce Matt 18:15ff to unworkable nonsense.
3. I should have been clearer. Only persons can be infallible as only persons can make decisions. Scripture doesn’t have an intellect or a will. It can only be inerrant. Infallibility does not apply to it.
4. You’ve already said Christians can be unlearned, and I agree. But 2 Peter 3:16 conflicts with your earlier statements about how Scripture is clear on the “essentials”.
5. You need to be consistent with your views if you want me to address your views. It’s OK if you change your mind, just let us know so we don’t think you’re trying to ride both sides of a fence.

Don’t worry, Semper, no one is rushing you.

 

[thessalonian]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

So has this thread become a debate about Sola Scriptura? I thought that it started out with an incorrect definition. Then a request for me to provide one. Then people seemed to dispute the right of Protestants to decide what they actually mean by Sola Scriptura…now it seems to be an argument against Sola Scriptura…

The problem is there is no one definition. If you guys can’t get together on one of the three tenenants upon which Protestantism stands or falls, it seems to me it falls.

I do agree with Dr. Mohler. I do not agree with Billy Graham. Problem solved.

Ah Mr. Mohler is an infallible definer and Billy Graham is not. Or perhaps it is you.

Altar calls are unbiblical and started under the revivalistic heretic Charles Finney. So is the sinner’s prayer. You wrongly assume that all Southern Baptists have the exact same beliefs and practices. Our denomination is more of a missionary organization than anything else. Every local church is autonomous. Even if Dr. Mohler were president of the SBC, he couldn’t tell Billy Graham what to do.

Nor does he seem to want to. I searched the net for any evidence that Mohler condemned Mr. Graham’s practiced (after all if they are unbiblical they are condemnatory it seems to me) and there was none. In fact I saw evidence that Mr. Mohler participated at events where altar calls were performed. This would indicate approval to me.

It seems to me that your argument is: Southern Baptists believe Sola Scriptura. Some Southern Baptists have practices not found in the Bible. Therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be true.

My arguement is that if you agree with Mr. Mohler, yet are okay with Altar Calls, then there is a problem. I will grant that you are at least consistent with your personal definition of Sola Scriptura and so my arguement is not very effective. But I do see a problem with the SBC allowing this. Don’t they have a governing body that meeter yearly and gives some norms of practice and morality that are common to Southern Baptists?

This is really flawed.

The old set up a straw man and bowl it over.

Would you accept this argument?
My father has been involved in adultery and is in the process of divorcing my mother. His priest is aware of this. My father continues to receive the Eucharist. Therefore, transubstantiation is false.

Well I’ve been having Protestants tell me for years now that priests are all child molesters so transubstantiation is false. Your being silly.

These premises are true by the way. But just because someone violates the teachings he claims to believe does not mean that those teachings are false. If I wanted to dispute transubstatiation, I would need to go elsewhere for arguments.

:yawn:

This is not an exegetical argument. Pragmatism is not good theology.

Once again you put words in to my mouth and bowl them over.

Protestants believe that the NT is the apostolic tradition.

Ah more generalities about what Protestants believe. I love these. If you find five that believe the same thing on a message board it would amaze me. Most can’t even say the word tradition without a scowl. The NIV admitted that they did not use the word in 2 Thess 2:15 because of it’s negative conotation in Protestantism.

It is the writting of the apostles and their close associates. It ended when the apostolic age ended. I’m not sure what you are trying to get at with this post.

Your name isn’t Bill is it?

I don’t know what Protestants make the argument that if a word isn’t in the Bible, then it is false and unbiblical, but that’s a very shoddy argument indeed. I would argue that these concepts are unbiblical because they are contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

And, by the way, we are commanded to use the Scriptures (Psalm 1:2; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim 3:15-17)

No, Catholics are right sometimes on some issues.

Well, this shows that you misunderstand Sola Scriptura.
A Protestant who sets himself up as infallible in his interpretation is wrong. However, through proper grammatico-historical exegesis, we can know what the Bible means.

 

[SEMPEREFORMANDA]

DeFide, I’m going to put some of your issues on hold while I try to get caught up. If I don’t get back around to them and you really want me to address them, you can bring it up again. But now I need to use my time to address some other people’s concerns.

JohnPaul0:

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”?

That is the ultimate question, and I cannot offer you an infallible pronouncement on why the LBC is correct. I can exegetically show you why I agree with it on issue X, but I cannot infallibly prove my exegesis. Protestants don’t seek to do so either.

Lillith,
I’m sorry I’ve not been clear. What happened is that I was arguing that the Scriptures are sufficient. DeFide (I believe) pointed out that they can be misinterpreted. This would seem to indicate that they are not sufficient in the sense I intended. I then pointed out that 2 Tim 3:15-17 deals with men of God (i.e., believers), whereas the verses about twisting Scripture deal with heretics and unbelievers. Thus, the objection to my position is blunted.
A lot of people have been confused by my “man of God” ramblings, and I should have been more clear, because now I’m having to go back and explain it. It all stemmed from that particular objection though. Please let me know if I’ve still not cleared it up for you.

Petra,
Very thoughtful post. I agree, there is too much disunity among Protestants, but I believe the problem is not with Scripture, but with the people reading Scripture. I take it that you hold a partim-partim view?

You write, “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.”

I may not know a lot about Canon, but I do know that Rome never “infallibly” ruled on canon until Trent. You cannot really argue that Protestants are dependent on Catholic tradition in this case, since Protestants had already broken away from Rome before this tradition was officially defined.

That’s all the time I have for now. I’ll be back later to address more posts…thanks for your patience.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi “Semp,”

Sorry for calling you Superreformanda.

Regarding Apostolic Tradition, when you say that “Luke is cited as Scripture by Paul,” I know what you are referring to and I agree. But others don’t. The citation could be from oral tradition and not from Luke’s Gospel.

The canon bears directly on the claim that Sola Scriptura is God-given truth. You can’t separate the two but seeing as how this is not my thread, you can hold it for a later discussion.

My point is that SOMEBODY decided that the documents of the NT canon did not have to be strictly of Apostolic origin. This SOMEBODY is an outside authority and Protestants have accepted this outside authority’s definition of what goes in the canon, but won’t admit it.

Regarding the Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura, your problem is that there is no established teaching authority in Protestantism that all Protestants can look to for guidance. By telling me that I should refer to your definition of Sola Scriptura because this is the one I should accept, just tells me that you see yourself, or whoever’s definition of SS you’ve chosen, as the authority. As you know, there are many variations of Sola Scriptura out there. Why should I accept your definition?

In the Church, we HAVE an authority to refer to. If you tell us that Protestants worship Mary above Christ, we can point to our authority to show you that we are not supposed to put Mary above Christ, even though some do. You cannot point to an authority to give us THE definition of SS. You can only point to the authority that you’ve chosen to believe.

Regarding Article 23 of the Chicago Statement, by claiming that YOUR interpretation of free will and perseverance is the correct one, you are claiming an infallible interpretation of something that is in dispute among Evangelicals. Just because they don’t agree with your interpretation, does not mean that they are not submissive to all parts of the Bible. They would say that YOU are not in submission to all parts of the Bible since you believe in the perseverance of the saints and ignore all the “warning” verses. And the Lutherans would say they agree with both of you and that the issue is a paradox, that the child of God is both chosen by divine election AND subject to falling away.

Regarding the baptismal formula, I brought that up to show you that we DON’T have everything explained to us in the NT Scriptures. You gave me a nice answer but you couldn’t point me to a Scripture passage.

What you have to explain about hermeneutics is who gets to decide these things? Hermeneutics is not a theologically neutral science. Where in Scripture does it tell us that we should let the narrative passages interpret the didactic? (I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but trying to get you to see something.) SOMEONE decided what the rules of interpretation are to be, and that person(s) had theological biases.

For instance, by saying that the Epistles should interpret the Gospels, we can conveniently ignore the many parables of Jesus that tell us that salvation is conditional in this life and that the believer who falls away will not be saved in the next life. (Dispensationalists get rid of this problem by saying that most of Jesus’ teaching dealt only with Israel and is not for the Church.)

Do you see the common thread in my questions to you? SOMEBODY had to decide that writings of non-Apostolic origin were to be included in the canon. SOMEBODY decided what the rules of hermeneutics should include. SOMEBODY decided that the baptismal formula is in the Name of the Trinity and not just in the Name of our Savior. And these things were not decided based on consulting Scripture alone because Scripture does not tell us the answer.

Grace and peace to you,
Gene

 

[Gene_C]

Hey “Semp,”

OOOPPPSSS!

I meant to say “Catholics” and not “Protestants” in the paragraph dealing with putting Mary over Christ.

Gene

 

[michaelgazin]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

Protestants had already broken away from Rome before this tradition was officially defined.

Quick clarification. I assume you are referring to the ecumenical Council of Trent in 1547. This was the second ecumenical council to address the canon of Scripture. The first, was the Council of Florence in about 1442, and prior to the reformation.

Also, why ignore the local councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 4th century? As Augustine said, the decisions that were reached at these councils were presented and approved by the Bishop in Rome, thus making them binding. All Christians recognized this at that time. The issue of the canon of Scripture was truly and officially addressed and defined in the 4th century, 1100 years prior to the reformation. Precisely because of this, the majority of Christians gave their full assent to these teachings, and accepted Revelation, 2 Peter, James and others…even if they had rejected them prior to that. Others rejected the inspiration of Clement’s writings, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and others…when they previously held them up as Scripture. The Catholic Church once for all settled the canon dispute.

Peace,
Michael

 

[J.W.B]

Semper, well first of all The Catholic Church believes that there is a hierarchy of Truths. Not all Christian Truths are equally central to the basic Gospel message and the Truths about Mary (and they are IN Scripture but not so easily found as others, yet God reveals them to us) have never been considered “essential” or just as important as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit etc. The Imaculate Conception and The Assumption are NOT the Gospel, nor do they teach us how to live our lives moraly for God as He wants us to. And although they are beautiful, awesome and historical teachings, Mary must NEVER be exalted to the status of a “goddess” deserving the worship and adoration ONLY due to God. But at the same time they shouldn’t be simply ignored when the Holy Spirit is teaching them to us.

On the other hand the Church infalliable teaches these doctrines as Truth from God revealed to us by the Holy Spirit and therefore when one denies them they are (although not intentionly) denying Truth that God has said. So therefore they are required for Catholics to believe them. Understanding the Papacy makes this much clearer. BUT, they are not the Gospel and DO NOT SAVE US FROM OUR SINS.

May the peace of God be with you

 

[JohnPaul0]

SEMPEREFORMANDA:

That [how do we know if our personal interpretation of Scripture is correct] is the ultimate question, and I cannot offer you an infallible pronouncement on why the LBC is correct. I can exegetically show you why I agree with it on issue X, but I cannot infallibly prove my exegesis. Protestants don’t seek to do so either.

As a Catholic, I’m so thankful that I can both point to an infallible source of teaching and that I can care that there is one! It’s always been mystifying to me that Protestants don’t seem to care that they have no infallible guide.

Let me briefly sketch from you from the Bible why Catholics can make this claim.

1. Christ founded His Church upon the apostles (Eph 2:20).
2. He explained His Word to them (Mt 13:11). Clearly, the apostles were authorities.
3. What happened in all these generations after the apostles died? Are we left to fend for ourselves to gain right understanding? No, because Christ Himself promised that “the gates of Hades would not overcome [the church]” (Mt 16:18).
4. Accordingly, the apostles taught their message “to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” ( 2 Tim 2:2, as you already discussed this verse).
5. This same message has been faithfully transmitted through the centuries “in the presence of many witnesses” (2 tim 2:2) so that these witnesses could verify its validity.
6. As a result, the Apostle Paul, who wrote so much of New Testament Scripture, was able to refer to the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

That same Church is here today, faithfully guarding and teaching the truth, freely giving as she has freely received (Mt 10:8).

May the Lord bless you and keep you, Semper. You’re a class act.