Sola Scriptura - Proof Text

[Erich]

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.

Of the original Twelve, only Matthew and John wrote Gospels; while Peter himself didn’t write one, Mark (his companion and recorder) did. That still leaves nine who did not write anything we can find in our Bibles today. What about them? Were their teachings somehow less authoritative because they didn’t write anything down that has been preserved for us in Scripture?

Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize and to teach; He didn’t say anything about writing books. Scripture is a subset of Tradition, not the other way around. In fact, not a word of Scripture had yet been penned on that first Pentecost Sunday… so what was the yardstick (or should I say cubit-stick?) by which accountability was measured?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

But it leaves one wondering? There was no fixed canon or Bible for nearly 400 years, so how could Scripture be the final norm? Indeed scripture was used (not exclusively) at Nicaea,but also Tradition to fight off Arian. At what point in time did the church make an official decision Scripture is the final norm by which all (teachers,teachings,doctrines) are held accountable?

Quote:
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.

I am a bit confused here. Are you saying Scripture was the only reason and means as to why anything got declared and ratified at the ecumenical councils?

Peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Nicea325;8145892]But it leaves one wondering? There was no fixed canon or Bible for nearly 400 years, so how could Scripture be the final norm? Indeed scripture was used (not exclusively) at Nicaea,but also Tradition to fight off Arian.

Thats an excellent point, these earlier church councils defined the Trinity not from scripture but from what Jesus revealed and handed down from the apostles in sacred Tradition not to mention “Theotokos” Mary defined as God bearer or Mother of God came from sacred Tradition whereby scripture reveals the blessed Virgin as being the Mother of Jesus. Sacred Tradition from the apostles teach Jesus as being God incarnate which is not explicit from scripture but revealed from scripture attached with the living apostolic Tradition, that years later defeats heresy’s by naming Mary “Mother of God”.

The councils revealed Jesus two natures fully human and fully divine long before the bible was ever canonized by the Church. Sacred Tradition handed down held the authority along with sacred scripture, which took the popes and magisterium to authoritatively authenticate the bible books along with sacared Tradition and the magisterium are what make up the pillar and foundation of Truth in the Church, the Holy Spirit makes her infallible, and Jesus is the head of His body on earth the Catholic Church.

If you apply these biblical principles the Holy Spirit will reveal all things to the church after the ascension of Jesus into heaven, Jesus building his church upon Peter and the apostles, the Church being the body of Christ, Jesus consecrates his apostles to forgive sins, baptise nations, Jesus gives the keys = authority to the kingdom of heaven on earth first to Peter alone then to His disciples.

All these revelations Jesus revealed are put in place and practiced from the living Church Traditions, who later recorded them in the gosples, which are the memoirs of Jesus and His apostles. These New Testament Letters come after the practice from the sacred Traditions are in place, that is why many revelations are implied from the apostolic letters as common knowledge, and when others are explicitly stated from Sacred Tradition such as “eat my body and drink my blood”.

Peace be with you

At what point in time did the church make an official decision Scripture is the final norm by which all (teachers,teachings,doctrines) are held accountable?

I am a bit confused here. Are you saying Scripture was the only reason and means as to why anything got declared and ratified at the ecumenical councils?

Peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Nicea325;8145892]But it leaves one wondering? There was no fixed canon or Bible for nearly 400 years, so how could Scripture be the final norm? Indeed scripture was used (not exclusively) at Nicaea,but also Tradition to fight off Arian.

Thats an excellent point, these earlier church councils defined the Trinity not from scripture but from what Jesus revealed and handed down from the apostles in sacred Tradition not to mention “Theotokos” Mary defined as God bearer or Mother of God came from sacred Tradition whereby scripture reveals the blessed Virgin as being the Mother of Jesus. Sacred Tradition from the apostles teach Jesus as being God incarnate which is not explicit from scripture but revealed from scripture attached with the living apostolic Tradition, that years later defeats heresy’s by naming Mary “Mother of God”.

The councils revealed Jesus two natures fully human and fully divine long before the bible was ever canonized by the Church. Sacred Tradition handed down held the authority along with sacred scripture, which took the popes and magisterium to authoritatively authenticate the bible books along with sacared Tradition and the magisterium are what make up the pillar and foundation of Truth in the Church, the Holy Spirit makes her infallible, and Jesus is the head of His body on earth the Catholic Church.

If you apply these biblical principles the Holy Spirit will reveal all things to the church after the ascension of Jesus into heaven, Jesus building his church upon Peter and the apostles, the Church being the body of Christ, Jesus consecrates his apostles to forgive sins, baptise nations, Jesus gives the keys = authority to the kingdom of heaven on earth first to Peter alone then to His disciples.

All these revelations Jesus revealed are put in place and practiced from the living Church Traditions, who later recorded them in the gosples, which are the memoirs of Jesus and His apostles. These New Testament Letters come after the practice from the sacred Traditions are in place, that is why many revelations are implied from the apostolic letters as common knowledge, and when others are explicitly stated from Sacred Tradition such as “eat my body and drink my blood”.

At what point in time did the church make an official decision Scripture is the final norm by which all (teachers,teachings,doctrines) are held accountable?

I think it was Vatican II “Dei Verbum” see Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation chapt. 2 and 3 that reveals no “sola scriptura”, but **faith has come to us by “hearing and hearing the Word of God” (not reading the Word of God) transmitted orally first and then by written letter **practiced and taught from the Sacred Traditions from the apostles. Vatican II reveals scripture holds one accountable, but never scripture alone.

Peace be with you

 

[ddarko]

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.

What exactly does your passage prove apart from the fact that Luke wrote some things down for Theophilus to know the truth?

Something very important that you have missed here is the following:-

How does Theophilus know that he should even believe what Luke has written? As far as Theophilus knows, Luke hasn’t even met Christ before his death and possibly even after his resurrection.

This implies that from Tradition, he knew that Luke had some authority. That authority is obviously not written down. So he must have trusted in Tradition.

In other words, the passage you quote and the entire Scripture screams out the importance of Tradition. Without Tradition and thus the Authority of the Church (Luke, Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc and the descendants (priests, Bishops, Pope today), there is no Scripture.

Let me know if my point was not clear.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=Erich;8145832]Of the original Twelve, only Matthew and John wrote Gospels; while Peter himself didn’t write one, Mark (his companion and recorder) did. That still leaves nine who did not write anything we can find in our Bibles today. What about them? Were their teachings somehow less authoritative because they didn’t write anything down that has been preserved for us in Scripture?

How do we know what they said or didn’t say? How does one trace this back? Their teachings were, of course, authoritative. What did they say, and how do we know what they said?

Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize and to teach; He didn’t say anything about writing books. Scripture is a subset of Tradition, not the other way around. In fact, not a word of Scripture had yet been penned on that first Pentecost Sunday… so what was the yardstick (or should I say cubit-stick?) by which accountability was measured?

Well, the OT had already been penned, but that’s besides the point.
That scripture is a subset of Tradition is fine by me. Sola scriptura is clearly a practice that is post-apostolic (why would one need iit if asking an Apostle were possible?).

So, let me ask this, of the doctrines established by the Catholic Church since the 7 councils, or later, since the Schism, and are not found in scripture, which ones are attributable, specifically, to the others who did not write things down? And how do we know?
When the Magisterium and the pope establish dogma - you pick one, preferrably one that the east does not agree with - what is the specific source (within Tradition) of this declaration?

Jon

 

[ddarko]

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

Jon

Jon,

Read my previous post. Scripture can’t hold Tradition accountable. Without Tradition, there is no Scripture.

The correct stance is therefore Scripture and Tradition are BOTH EQUAL in authority. To say otherwise is self-refuting. Without Tradition, there is no Scripture.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

How do we know what they said or didn’t say? How does one trace this back? Their teachings were, of course, authoritative. What did they say, and how do we know what they said?

How do you know that what they taught was authoritative? Did you ever bother to ask that question? If they themselves wrote down a book saying “We have authority”, does that say much about their authority?

So is it not true that the reason why anyone during that time considered them to have authority was because they knew from Tradition that they were indeed the Apostles of Jesus?

Secondly, where has it been written down that st.Paul for an example has authority? Or Luke for an example has authority to write Scripture?

So is it not true that the reason why anyone during that time considered them to have any authority was because they knew that from Tradition, the apostles had given/approved them with the teaching authority?

IF both your answers the above is YES, then ask yourself how did the Pope’s and Bishops loose this authority after they had been passed down the authority by the Apostles?

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Read my previous post. Scripture can’t hold Tradition accountable. Without Tradition, there is no Scripture.

The correct stance is therefore Scripture and Tradition are BOTH EQUAL in authority. To say otherwise is self-refuting. Without Tradition, there is no Scripture.

God Bless

So, when those communions who claim both Tradition and scripture disagree, where does one turn?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

How do you know that what they taught was authoritative? Did you ever bother to ask that question? If they themselves wrote down a book saying “We have authority”, does that say much about their authority?

So is it not true that the reason why anyone during that time considered them to have authority was because they knew from Tradition that they were indeed the Apostles of Jesus?

Secondly, where has it been written down that st.Paul for an example has authority? Or Luke for an example has authority to write Scripture?

So is it not true that the reason why anyone during that time considered them to have any authority was because they knew that from Tradition, the apostles had given/approved them with the teaching authority?

IF both your answers the above is YES, then ask yourself how did the Pope’s and Bishops loose this authority after they had been passed down the authority by the Apostles?

God Bless

That’s an interesting response, and as Lutherans trust the early Church with these answers, my response is obvious.

Honestly, however, how do you answer the question I raised?

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

Oral Tradition had to be inspired since it was tought before the books were written. it was spoken before it was written. right? of course, there were many thing that Jews were already doing which passed on to the Church because it was already in place and did not need to be written about it which only the Church knows. This is called Oral Tradition.

 

[Radical]

How do you know that what they taught was authoritative? Did you ever bother to ask that question? If they themselves wrote down a book saying “We have authority”, does that say much about their authority?..Secondly, where has it been written down that st.Paul for an example has authority?

Paul, in his epistles provides a justification for the authority that he claimed for himself. He pointed to an external source to support his claim and that external source was not tradition. He gave his ability to work miracles as evidence of his authority. 2 Cor 12:12 reads: The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.(NIV)

So is it not true that the reason why anyone during that time considered them to have authority was because they knew from Tradition that they were indeed the Apostles of Jesus?

God Bless

no, not entirely…the apostles were “marked”

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarko
How do you know that what they taught was authoritative? Did you ever bother to ask that question? If they themselves wrote down a book saying “We have authority”, does that say much about their authority?..Secondly, where has it been written down that st.Paul for an example has authority?

Paul, in his epistles provides a justification for the authority that he claimed for himself. He pointed to an external source to support his claim and that external source was not tradition. He gave his ability to work miracles as evidence of his authority. 2 Cor 12:12 reads: The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.(NIV)

Okay,but does not prove scripture is the sole authority. Scripture is authoritative because an external source gave it authority…the Church. Did the U.S. Constitution all on its own determine is it an authority or did the government assign it? Scripture alone cannot determine it is authoritative.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Paul, in his epistles provides a justification for the authority that he claimed for himself. He pointed to an external source to support his claim and that external source was not tradition. He gave his ability to work miracles as evidence of his authority. 2 Cor 12:12 reads: The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.(NIV)

no, not entirely…the apostles were “marked”

First Jesus showed Himself to Paul and sent him. which you cannot claim as such thereforeyou have no authority to teach about God.

protestants are inspired by the printing machines in the 1600s.

Tell me, what do you think, how protestants would have done before the 1500s?

Apparently you don’t know much about the miracles in the Church. I am talking about real Miracles here.

 

[Radical]

Okay,but does not prove scripture is the sole authority.

agreed…in fact, it proves that scripture wasn’t the sole authority back then. The apostles were another authority…

Scripture is authoritative because an external source gave it authority…the Church.

Agreed again. A written work was either inspired or it wasn’t. If it was inspired then it possessed a certain quality. If that quality was recognized, then that work became scripture for those who recognized that quality and it never became scripture for those who didn’t recognize that quality. The work’s degree of inspiration wasn’t determined by whether it was recognized as scripture or not. It is the work’s subsequent treatment (authority) that was determined by whether it was recognized as scripture or not. Likewise a Church’s authority is determined by whether it is recognized as having been endorsed by God. As such, any Church’s decision as to whether a work was scripture or not only binds the adherents to that body.

Did the U.S. Constitution all on its own determine is it an authority or did the government assign it?

did the governement have the power to implement a constitution only b/c the government was given the authority to do so by the people?

Scripture alone cannot determine it is authoritative.

agreed, whatever ultimate authority exists (for a written work or for a Church body) is b/c God imparted that authority…we try to correctly recognize where God imparted authority and hopefully don’t get it wrong…Paul was able to provide his audience with a litmus test by which his audience could determine if he had God’s endorsement…that test was signs and wonders…the Bereans also used conformity to God’s recognized revelation.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Did the U.S. Constitution all on its own determine is it an authority or did the government assign it?

did the governement have the power to implement a constitution only b/c the government was given the authority to do so by the people?

People vote,politicians decide and endorse & pass laws. Do the people determine what each amendment,law,etc means or do elected officials (Supreme Court)? You and I are free to interpret any law,but in the end,the government defines the final interpretation. Precisely why SS is bogus because each individual is left to himself or herself to decide what scripture means.

 

[ddarko]

So, when those communions who claim both Tradition and scripture disagree, where does one turn?

Jon

When it appears as if they disagree, they turn to the Church. As did the early church turn to the Apostles.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Paul, in his epistles provides a justification for the authority that he claimed for himself.

And you think that justifies him?

Think about it, I write a book, claiming what I write has authority. Do you not see the circular logic?

In short, one cannot logically justify the authority of those who wrote Scripture by Scripture it-self. For if they did not have authority, Scripture is invalid to begin with.

He pointed to an external source to support his claim and that external source was not tradition. He gave his ability to work miracles as evidence of his authority. 2 Cor 12:12 reads: The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance.(NIV)

Aaah, but even if we accept your argument for a moment, there is NO RECORD in Scripture that Luke performed any miracles.

And that knowledge of their miracles for an example is TRADITION. One knows that Luke, Paul are authoritative because they knew by Tradition that they performed miracles.

I was not written down. So what you have once again forgotten is that you’ve used Tradition to even justify that the authors had performed miracles.

no, not entirely…the apostles were “marked”

And you know WHO were apostles and were marked BY Tradition.

As you think this through, pay attention so that you may not get in to circular logic.

Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

God Bless

 

[wisdomseeker]

When it appears as if they disagree, they turn to the Church. As did the early church turn to the Apostles.

God Bless

Exactly. On the case of gentiles having to turn jewish before becoming Christians, the Apostles confered together and St Peter spoke on the mater and it was settled. the whole Christian community had to abide by it. there was no such thing as up to the individual to decide. St Paul took notice of many false teaching going in the Church and immediately he settled the issue and all Christians had to abide by it. Notice I said all christians and not just some christians.

 

[Celticnovice]

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

Jon

Okay…but that is still qualifying tradition…I thought sola scriptura disregarded tradition…