Sola Scriptura - Proof Text

[Yelmajj]

Luke 1:1-4
“**Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account **of the things accomplished among us, 2 **just as they were handed down to us **by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 **so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. **”

uninspired written gospels by Christians - Unreliable
“many have undertaken to compile an account of the things”

Inspired oral tradition of apostles - Uncertain without scripture
“handed down to us”

Gospel of Luke: scripture - *Reliable, certainty *
“write it out for you in consecutive order”
"that you may know the exact truth"

Only through scripture could Theophilus have complete certainty, not through oral tradition.

This is just an argument. I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong

God bless

 

[billcu1]

I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of psdeuogoric gospels or not. I doubt very seriously that the disciples or apostles sat around writing books and attaching their names to them. There have been many of these books written and the church calls them “heretical” but I personally think they have been missing some information given to others. “…let not your left hand know what your right hand does.”

B

 

[patricius79]

Luke 1:1-4
“**Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account **of the things accomplished among us, 2 **just as they were handed down to us **by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 **so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. **”

uninspired written gospels by Christians - Unreliable
“many have undertaken to compile an account of the things”

Inspired oral tradition of apostles - Uncertain without scripture
“handed down to us”

Gospel of Luke: scripture - *Reliable, certainty *
“write it out for you in consecutive order”
"that you may know the exact truth"

Only through scripture could Theophilus have complete certainty, not through oral tradition.

This is just an argument. I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong

God bless

I would read Luke as supporting the Catholic idea that the Scriptures are indispensable and that oral Tradition (2 Thes 2:15) cannot stand without them.

however, the opposite is also true

 

[Trebor135]

Luke 1:1-4
“**Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account **of the things accomplished among us, 2 **just as they were handed down to us **by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 **so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. **”

uninspired written gospels by Christians - Unreliable
“many have undertaken to compile an account of the things”

Inspired oral tradition of apostles - Uncertain without scripture
“handed down to us”

Gospel of Luke: scripture - *Reliable, certainty *
“write it out for you in consecutive order”
"that you may know the exact truth"

Only through scripture could Theophilus have complete certainty, not through oral tradition.

This is just an argument. I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong

God bless

Any biblical “proof text” for sola scriptura is inherently self-contradictory; all who purportedly subscribe to this doctrine believe something–without question–that can be found nowhere in Scripture: a list of the twenty-seven books which belong in the New Testament.

And by the reasoning you apply to this passage, the Gospel of Luke, in the writer’s eyes, would be itself sufficient as Scripture, because Luke nowhere talks about other gospels or epistles to be accepted.

 

[Celticnovice]

Luke 1:1-4
“**Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account **of the things accomplished among us, 2 **just as they were handed down to us **by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 **so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. **”

uninspired written gospels by Christians - Unreliable
“many have undertaken to compile an account of the things”

Inspired oral tradition of apostles - Uncertain without scripture
“handed down to us”

Gospel of Luke: scripture - *Reliable, certainty *
“write it out for you in consecutive order”
"that you may know the exact truth"

Only through scripture could Theophilus have complete certainty, not through oral tradition.

This is just an argument. I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong

God bless

It still seems like it is testifying to oral tradition, plus consider: John 21:25

 

[Yelmajj]

Any biblical “proof text” for sola scriptura is inherently self-contradictory; all who purportedly subscribe to this doctrine believe something–without question–that can be found nowhere in Scripture: a list of the twenty-seven books which belong in the New Testament.

And by the reasoning you apply to this passage, the Gospel of Luke, in the writer’s eyes, would be itself sufficient as Scripture, because Luke nowhere talks about other gospels or epistles to be accepted.

The canon in Sola Scripturist thought is a different subject for a different thread.

The reasoning I apply to this passage is that Luke is composing a volume of Scripture, and he says that it is the only way Theophilus will know the exact truth about what he’s been taught, instead of oral tradition or pseudo-Gospels.

I’m not interpreting Luke as saying his Gospel contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, I’m interpreting Luke as saying oral tradition is untrustworthy, only scripture will give you complete certainty.

It still seems like it is testifying to oral tradition, plus consider: John 21:25

John 21:25 reads:
**And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. **

I roughly summarize Sola Scriptura as:
The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation, and is the only infallible authority.

This does absolutely nothing to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything Jesus did is in scripture, or every fact about everything is in scripture. It simply means that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation, which Catholics actually agree with more or less (Material Sufficiency). The dispute arises about whether or not Scripture is the only infallible authority, as Scripture itself claims in Luke 1:1-4.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It looks more like Luke is saying that he’s writing his Gospel in order to provide context for some of the other books and traditions which have been passed down from the beginning. Nowhere does Luke discredit the “many” as being inaccurate or uninspired.

 

[christosdavid]

It looks more like Luke is saying that he’s writing his Gospel in order to provide context for some of the other books and traditions which have been passed down from the beginning. Nowhere does Luke discredit the “many” as being inaccurate or uninspired.

the oral tradition is the kerugma (preaching) of the gospel and is largely contained in the gospels.

Acts, however, has a quote of Jesus not in the Gospels, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”

perhaps the faith once delivered is more complex than what SS is willing to allow.

 

[Yelmajj]

It looks more like Luke is saying that he’s writing his Gospel in order to provide context for some of the other books and traditions which have been passed down from the beginning. Nowhere does Luke discredit the “many” as being inaccurate or uninspired.

If oral tradition is inspired, wouldn’t that be enough for Theophilus to know “the exact truth”?

 

[Cavaradossi]

If oral tradition is inspired, wouldn’t that be enough for Theophilus to know “the exact truth”?

No, because Tradition is made up of both scripture and oral tradition. My contention, however, with your interpretation of this passage is that Luke is not saying that Scripture alone is sufficient; in fact he says the opposite because he’s providing his Gospel as an explanation of the life of Christ, through which Theophilus can better understand the tradition which has been passed down. He does not tell Theophilus to disregard the tradition and only read his Gospel (in fact, if you take verse 4 as meaning that all other traditions, written and oral, are uninspired, then that means that Luke must mean that only his Gospel is inspired, hence the rest of the Bible is not inspired Scripture; that cannot be the meaning of verses 1-4), rather he is telling Theophilus that through reading his Gospel, he might be able to better understand the tradition. You cannot interpret Scripture absent of tradition and you cannot understand the traditions without a good understanding of Scripture because the two go hand-in-hand. They are not opposed; rather, they are complimentary parts of the same whole, the Tradition (capital “T”) of the Church.

 

[Celticnovice]

The canon in Sola Scripturist thought is a different subject for a different thread.

The reasoning I apply to this passage is that Luke is composing a volume of Scripture, and he says that it is the only way Theophilus will know the exact truth about what he’s been taught, instead of oral tradition or pseudo-Gospels.

I’m not interpreting Luke as saying his Gospel contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, I’m interpreting Luke as saying oral tradition is untrustworthy, only scripture will give you complete certainty.

John 21:25 reads:
**And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. **

I roughly summarize Sola Scriptura as:
The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation, and is the only infallible authority.

This does absolutely nothing to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything Jesus did is in scripture, or every fact about everything is in scripture. It simply means that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation, which Catholics actually agree with more or less (Material Sufficiency). The dispute arises about whether or not Scripture is the only infallible authority, as Scripture itself claims in Luke 1:1-4.

The bolded portion is what I’m calling into question. I don’t think St. Luke is calling into question oral tradition at all here. Rather, the written word will confirm the oral traditions that he has been taught. Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If oral tradition is inspired, wouldn’t that be enough for Theophilus to know “the exact truth”?

Luke does not say that, had he never written down his gospel Theophilus would not know the truth. Theophilus could have come to Luke with questions that Luke could have answered for him orally. Or Luke could have taught him, orally, from what his investigations and interviews revealed. There is nothing in the passage that disparages the oral tradition. Rather, Luke is adding to the entirety of Sacred Tradition with his own inspired writing.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Trebor135]

The canon in Sola Scripturist thought is a different subject for a different thread.

I will gladly observe/participate in another thread on this topic, then.

 

[TimothyH]

Theopholus means “Lover of God”. There probably wan’t even a person named Theopholus. Like “The diciple whom Jesus loved”, the name Theopholus was probably a reference to you and I. And so now after two thousand years, “Theopholus” can read the Bible in thirteen different translations on his Kindle, but he still doesn’t know the exact truth. For crying out loud, how did anyone know the truth until the printing press was invented in 1433? Oral teaching, that’s how.

These people wern’t cave men living in the stone age. Ancient Israel had nearly 100% literacy. Jewish children were educated in the synagogue from an early age and the first book they were taught was the book of the priestly law - Leviticus - the one we won’t even go near and which hardly anyone reads nowadays. The apostles and eye witnesses, and most Jews on the street for that matter, were intelligent and highly knowledgeable about Old Testament scripture. They were told about the things Jesus did and said and they made the connection to the writings of the prophets like Daniel and Ezekiel. They understood what whas being told to them and they either accepted it or rejected it.

We think we are so smart because we can read the Bible. Thirteen billion Theopholuses running around all telling each other what the exact truth is and not one of them can agree on anything.

-Tim-

 

[JonNC]

The bolded portion is what I’m calling into question. I don’t think St. Luke is calling into question oral tradition at all here. Rather, the written word will confirm the oral traditions that he has been taught. Scripture and Tradition.

Actually, that’s what the practice of sola scriptura does. It confirms and holds Tradition accountable.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yelmajj;8138574]…The reasoning I apply to this passage is that Luke is composing a volume of Scripture, and he says that it is the only way Theophilus will know the exact truth about what he’s been taught, instead of oral tradition or pseudo-Gospels.

I’m not interpreting Luke as saying his Gospel contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, I’m interpreting Luke as saying oral tradition is untrustworthy, only scripture will give you complete certainty.

Greetings Yelmajj; Luke concludes from his same gospel that; the interpretations of scripture from the law and the prophets were handed dowm by Jesus from His Oral teachings which got handed down to Luke later who records his gospel, here is the proof;

Luke 24:25
And he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!
27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.
37
But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.
38
Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts?
39
10 Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”
40
And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
44
**He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” **45
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.

Question? If Jesus revealed the “ALL” written in scripture of Him, and not all of this revelation was written which Jesus said and done, then how did we come to know of these revelations? Sacred Tradition reveals the Trinity handed down both written and sacred Tradition, the True presence of Jesus Eucharist is handed down both written and Oral sacred Traditions.

Here is Paul handing down his Catholic faith in the True presence from his practiced sacred Traditions recorded in scripture;

1Corinthians 11:23
11** For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,** that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.** Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” **26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
**Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yelmajj; This does absolutely nothing to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything Jesus did is in scripture, or every fact about everything is in scripture. It simply means that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation, which Catholics actually agree with more or less (Material Sufficiency). The dispute arises about whether or not Scripture is the only infallible authority, as Scripture itself claims in Luke 1:1-4./

Simply put St. Luke could of never written his gospel without sacred Tradition, because Luke was a gentile (physician) and a disciple of Paul who later converted from Saul after the resurrection. Nothing got recorded until the sacred eyewitness accounts from the apostles were orally exchanged from their apostolic sacred Oral Traditions and witnessing, that letters begin to be recorded of the gosple accounts of Jesus. The church came first living out their oral apostolic Traditions handed down before the New Testament was recorded.

What makes up the infallible sacred scriptures and the apostolic sacred Traditions being lived out is the Catholic Church, Here members have an unbroken apostolic succession to the Apostles themselves, who lived with the echoes of the apostles voices still ringing in their ears.

2Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits 7 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15** Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.** 16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.

2Thess.3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

The pillar and foundation of Truth is infallibly mentioned by the bible as being the Church not the written eyewitness accounts recorded from scripture. So “authority” or the keys of heaven are given to a living authority in the Church not the bible, see Matthew 16:14-17

1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. 16 Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who 7 was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

1Corinthians11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 ** I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.** 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.

1Peter 1:23 You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God, 11 24 for: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of the field; the grass withers, and the flower wilts; 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” **This is the word that has been proclaimed to you. **

John 16:12**"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.** He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 16 “A little while and you will no longer see me, and again a little while later and you will see me.”

Peace be with you

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, that’s what the practice of sola scriptura does. It confirms and holds Tradition accountable.

Jon

Blessings Jon!

But Jon, I actually see conflict and a contradiction with that position. If SS holds and confirms Tradition as accountable;does it not imply Scripture is the sole standard determing what is legit or not? Is not Scripture part of the larger picture of Tradition? It seems as though SS makes Scripture above Tradition. Third, at what point in time did the early church decide Scripture would be the determing factor for all Traditions and doctrines? Forgive me,if I am misunderstanding your position.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon!

But Jon, I actually see conflict and a contradiction with that position. If SS holds and confirms Tradition as accountable;does it not imply Scripture is the sole standard determing what is legit or not? Is not Scripture part of the larger picture of Tradition? It seems as though SS makes Scripture above Tradition.
God Bless

Nicea, my good friend, you have nailed it. This is exactly it. Scripture is the final norm, by which the Church to hold all teachers and teachings, all doctrines accountable. So, for example, the 7 great early councils are correct because they rightly reflect scripture. The ancient creeds are accuracte statements of the faith, because they rightly reflect scripture.

Third, at what point in time did the early church decide Scripture would be the determing factor for all Traditions and doctrines?

The early Church agreed, through ecumenical councils, on the doctrines of the faith. There had been for 500 years no such agreement, and even disagreement on the roles of the various patriarchs as described in the early councils. What remained is scripture, and the reformers turned to it.

Jon

Forgive me,if I am misunderstanding your position.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;8145664]
The early Church agreed, through ecumenical councils, on the doctrines of the faith. There had been for 500 years no such agreement, and even disagreement on the roles of the various patriarchs as described in the early councils. What remained is scripture, and the reformers turned to it.

Hi Jon, I don’t follow you here? The Church’ first council was in Jerusalem 49 a.d, our next church council does not meet until 325 a.d in Nicea I, then the next Church council meets in 381 a.d in Constantinople I. None of these church councils had a canonized bible yet?

Until the council in Rome 382 a.d canonized the list of bible books as we have them today in the Catholic Church unchanged.

So if sacred scripture is the “sola” authority, where was the bible for the first 400 years after Jesus resurrected? while the church was under persecution? Sacred Tradition held the apostolic teachings intact until the bible was canonized 400 years later after the resurrection of Jesus, by the authority of the Catholic Church. The bible did not authenticate or place authority on itself, the Church validated the bible books as inspired of God.

During the 400 year persecution of the Catholic Church, there was never a canonized bible to hold authority too, just the Catholic Church’s apostolic successors in the popes and bishops with their Traditions being handed down along with the fragments of the apostolic letters including false gospels in circulation while the church was underground.

When the Church councils referenced scripture, they did so with the authority of sacred Tradition handed down to them. If you have sacred Tradition with sacred Scripture, then there can be no “Sola Scriptura”.

Peace be with you