Sola Scriptura - Proof Text

[ddarko]

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

Unfortunately that is the error of the Lutherans. The Lutherans are not called to trust the Early Church. The Church didn’t just exist and disappear. The Lutherans are called to trust in the Church that is still here, i.e. the descendants of Apostles in Bishops, Pope etc.

Instead, Lutherans decided to trust in Scripture alone.

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

Jon

I answer that, one turns to the Church to resolve the problem. The Church has the FINAL word in interpretations as is seen numerous times in the Acts of the Apostles.

This is another error that the reformers fell in to in thinking private interpretation, as long as it is consistent with rest of Scripture, is key. The common logical fallacy here is that reformers believe that there is only ONE logically consistent interpretation for Scripture. But that is false. Since without Tradition and Authority, Scripture is an incomplete set of truths. Thus, logically, given that Scripture does not contain self-contradictory propositions, one has infinite number of logically consistent positions if only Scripture is used. Perhaps this is why there are so many denominations who rightly believe that what they have is logically consistent with Scripture. Some that even you would disagree with. (On a side note, almost all the early heresy dealt with arguing things from Scripture alone. Some heretics even challenged the early Church leaders to debate using Scripture alone to prove them wrong)

But as we all know, there is only one truth.A proposition can’t be both true or false. Thus, out of those infinite logically consistent interpretations, only one is fully valid. That can be picked only by considering the complete set of truths i.e. Tradition and Scripture under the guidance of the Church.

Depending on your background, the above might not be as clear. Let me know, and I will elaborate.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

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.

Exactly, good example there

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

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

God Bless

I’m talking about the early Church. Let me rephrase; when the patriarchates of the east and west disagree, whose understanding of Tradition do we accept as authoritative?

Jon

 

[ddarko]

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.

Just to add something more to my previous reply about your argument from signs and wonders

The passage saying miracles should be used as a way of knowing authority IS AGAIN from Scripture written to validate the authority of the very people writing it. So you are again in a circle

Authority of author is validated by Scripture <----> Scripture is authoritative because the authors had authority

Thus you have not proven the authority of Scripture or of the Authors. The Litmus test proposed is also from Scripture it-self by the very man trying to prove his authority.

Now if he wrote down some miracles he did, its still problematic because he is the one seeking authority. Therefore, the only way Paul must have been known to be authoritative is because the people knew from Tradition that Paul was given authority by the Apostles and that he had done miracles.

Don’t forget to refer to my previous post to you for the full reply.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

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

No, it doesn’t.

From the Formula of Concord:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

No where is Tradition disregarded. It is embraced, when it rightly reflects scripture. Dogmas, teachers, teachings are not rejected, but held accountalbe to scripture.

Jon

 

[ddarko]

I’m talking about the early Church. Let me rephrase; when the patriarchates of the east and west disagree, whose understanding of Tradition do we accept as authoritative?

Jon

The Acts of the Apostles deals with the Early Church. Do you agree or disagree that in Acts of the Apostles, when Scripture and Tradition (seemingly) disagree, they went to the Apostles?

Also, this is the case all the time. St.Irenaeus for an example who dealt with heresy (people who had interpretations from Scripture opposed to Tradition) was BISHOP of Lyons. I can give you more examples but I think you get the point. The people turned to those with Authority i.e. the Church consisting of Bishops and Pope.

How the Church works didn’t change, the reformers did.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

No, it doesn’t.

From the Formula of Concord:

No where is Tradition disregarded. It is embraced, when it rightly reflects scripture. Dogmas, teachers, teachings are not rejected, but held accountalbe to scripture.

Jon

I think you are merely engaged in word play here.

What you are saying here is Scripture only accepts Tradition when it seemingly agrees with Scripture.

So in essence, Scripture is the only thing you believe in.

Just to give you an analogy, you are saying, since Person X is a liar sometimes, Person Y is trustworthy I will only believe what he says when Person Y is saying the same. But in essence what you are saying here is that you believe in Person Y only.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8149794]Unfortunately that is the error of the Lutherans. The Lutherans are not called to trust the Early Church. The Church didn’t just exist and disappear. The Lutherans are called to trust in the Church that is still here, i.e. the descendants of Apostles in Bishops, Pope etc.

Instead, Lutherans decided to trust in Scripture alone.

Please see my post to Celticnovice.

I answer that, one turns to the Church to resolve the problem. The Church has the FINAL word in interpretations as is seen numerous times in the Acts of the Apostles.

This is another error that the reformers fell in to in thinking private interpretation, as long as it is consistent with rest of Scripture, is key. The common logical fallacy here is that reformers believe that there is only ONE logically consistent interpretation for Scripture. But that is false. Since without Tradition and Authority, Scripture is an incomplete set of truths. Thus, logically, given that Scripture does not contain self-contradictory propositions, one has infinite number of logically consistent positions if only Scripture is used. Perhaps this is why there are so many denominations who rightly believe that what they have is logically consistent with Scripture. Some that even you would disagree with. (On a side note, almost all the early heresy dealt with arguing things from Scripture alone. Some heretics even challenged the early Church leaders to debate using Scripture alone to prove them wrong)

But as we all know, there is only one truth.A proposition can’t be both true or false. Thus, out of those infinite logically consistent interpretations, only one is fully valid. That can be picked only by considering the complete set of truths i.e. Tradition and Scripture under the guidance of the Church.

Depending on your background, the above might not be as clear. Let me know, and I will elaborate.

Let me try it this way, whose interpretation of the Council of Nicea, canon 6, which sets the jurisdictions of the patriarchates, is correct? Orthodoxy, or Rome? Both claim to be the one true Church, both Claim Tradition and scripture, both claim the succession of the Apostles, both reject sola scriptura, and yet disagree on how to interpret Tradition regarding the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Are both the Church?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8149914]I think you are merely engaged in word play here.

What you are saying here is Scripture only accepts Tradition when it seemingly agrees with Scripture. So in essence, Scripture is the only thing you believe in.

Well, of course only when Tradition agrees with scripture. Is there Tradition that disagrees with scripture???

Jon

 

[ddarko]

Please see my post to Celticnovice.

I did, it shows a logical error in your thinking which I pointed out.

Let me try it this way, whose interpretation of the Council of Nicea, canon 6, which sets the jurisdictions of the patriarchates, is correct? Orthodoxy, or Rome? Both claim to be the one true Church, both Claim Tradition and scripture, both claim the succession of the Apostles, both reject sola scriptura, and yet disagree on how to interpret Tradition regarding the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Are both the Church?

Actually, they ARE more part of the Church than the Reformers. They have apostolic continuation and they have Tradition. This is why in almost all issues, the two churches have similar positions.

As for the details of which one has the more complete truth, it is out of the scope of this discussion but for a short answer, the Roman Church is correct. We can discuss the details of this matter once we get your problem with Tradition and Solar Scriptura clarified.

God Bless

 

[Erich]

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?

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people?

The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. From 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity…beliefs such as Sola Scriptura?

Well, the OT had already been penned, but that’s besides the point.

You’re right, I should have been more specific… "In fact, not a word of New Testament Scripture had yet been penned on that first Pentecost Sunday.

I wonder why sola scripturists don’t limit themselves to only the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles (i.e. the Septuagint).

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?

Why limit yourself just to doctrines established by the Catholic Church since the 7 councils that are not found in scripture? Lutherans would agree that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle … but how/where do Lutherans come by this (non-scriptural) belief? What is the specific source?

 

[ddarko]

Well, of course only when Tradition agrees with scripture. Is there Tradition that disagrees with scripture???

As I said before, this is the error of the reformers. How reformed theology approaches Christianity is in the following manner:-

1. Read Scripture passage X and interpret it consistently with the rest of Scripture
2. Does Tradition Y fit with the interpretation, if YES, Accept, if NO, Discard

But there in lies the error. You performed step (1) without Tradition. The correct Christian methodology is the following

1. Read Scripture passage X and interpret it consistently with rest of Scripture and Tradition taught by the Church

Thus one never runs in to the problem of validating Tradition then. To validate Tradition using Scripture thus becomes a meaningless thing.

Do you see the difference?

God Bless

 

[Erich]

Here’s another one… the doctrine that all human life, from conception to natural death, is sacred? As former evangelical Mark Shea put it,

The champions of the unborn, the sick and the aging do have allies in the Christian church, not only in the present but in the past. For not only the “Dark Ages” but absolutely all of Christianity for twenty centuries stands staunchly behind these defenseless ones against the extremely recent theologically liberal apologists for the culture of death. Indeed, so recent is the minting of this timeless “right” that not even theological liberals were willing to call abortion anything other than a grave sin until the past few decades. That is why we can scarcely find a shred of Christian theology written in favor of abortion and euthanasia before the 1960s and 70s. From the first century to the present, a shoreless ocean of testimony from every sector of the Church decries this terrible crime against God and humanity. And we Evangelicals, with very few exceptions, are of one voice with twenty centuries of Christian preaching concerning this most elementary of Christian moral truths.

I am proud to number myself among the ranks of prolife Christians and will never waver from this commitment. But as I began to argue my position with liberal Christians who supported the so-called “right to choose,” I did begin to waver in something: my conviction that the irrefutable basis for our prolife conviction as Evangelicals is Scripture alone.

I know the verses that are quoted. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps 139:13), “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jer 1:5) and so forth. I certainly agree that these verses bear oblique witness to a prolife position. Indeed, I emphatically agree that the prolife position is an obvious fact of Christian teaching throughout out all ages. But in arguing the matter with other Christians who read the same Bible I do, I began to realize that I could not make opposition to abortion and devotion to the sanctity of preborn life an intrinsic, absolutely essential, utterly non-negotiable part of the Christian faith on the basis of Scripture alone. For the fact is, a modern apologist for the culture of death can and does argue that Scripture alone, apart from tradition, is as ambiguous about abortion as it is about the question of just war vs. pacifism – and therefore abortion is a matter of “Christian liberty.”

 

[JonNC]

I did, it shows a logical error in your thinking which I pointed out.

Actually, they ARE more part of the Church than the Reformers. They have apostolic continuation and they have Tradition. This is why in almost all issues, the two churches have similar positions.

As for the details of which one has the more complete truth, it is out of the scope of this discussion but for a short answer, the Roman Church is correct. We can discuss the details of this matter once we get your problem with Tradition and Solar Scriptura clarified.

God Bless

I don’t think it is outside the scope. I think it relates directly to the reformers’ use of SS.
The Roman Church is correct. Why? Actually, I’m a western Christian, and to be quite honest, I’d like to see unity east and west, for it solves a multitude of issues for me.

Jon

 

[Erich]

Here’s another one… the doctrine of monogamy. Again, as former evangelical Mark Shea put it,

In college I had run across the peculiar fact that John Milton, the great Puritan poet and author of Paradise Lost, thought that monogamy was unbiblical and had written against it (though he did not actually act on his principles). Milton seems have had pious reasons for his views: he wished to preserve the biblical patriarchs against what he saw as a threat against their holiness. Milton thought that if polygamy were forbidden, then he “should be forced to exclude from the sanctuary of God as spurious, the holy offspring which sprang from them, yea, the whole of the sons of Israel, for whom the sanctuary itself was made.” So he wrote, “Either therefore polygamy is a true marriage, or all children born in that state are spurious; which would include the whole race of Jacob, the twelve holy tribes chosen by God.”

Of course, Milton is remembered primarily as a poet, not a theologian, though he knew his Bible extremely well. Since his views on polygamy were thoroughly at odds with the mainstream Christian thinking, I chalked up my discovery as a historical curiosity of the English Reformation. But to my surprise, years later I discovered that another Bible-believing figure in Protestant history held similar views, and he is not so easily dismissed. His name was Martin Luther.

Luther, it seems, was confronted with the question of whether or not the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, an important official of his day, might enter into a bigamous marriage. When pressed to render a judgment in the matter, Luther (together with Philip Melancthon) concluded that monogamy was no necessary part of the Christian revelation and that polygamy was a legitimate practice for a Christian. In his words: I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.
Like Milton, Luther found that the universal Christian condemnation of polygamy was not really provable from Scripture alone. For him, it was therefore a matter of Christian liberty.

Now it may be objected that polygamy is hardly the live issue abortion is today. After all, who but a few Mormons and some guests on tabloid TV have advocated a return to it in our society? Indeed, Luther and Milton are extraordinary exceptions to the otherwise universal Christian condemnation of polygamy – a condemnation heartily shared by Dr. James Dobson, Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur and all other committed, Bible-only Evangelicals.

And yet… where does this condemnation come from? For as Milton and Luther pointed out, it is scarcely supported by Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=Erich;8149954]Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people?

The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. From 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity…beliefs such as Sola Scriptura?

First, it isn’t okay for our communions to teach different doctrines, Erich. I’m not arguing that at all.

You’re right, I should have been more specific… "In fact, not a word of New Testament Scripture had yet been penned on that first Pentecost Sunday.

Like I said, besides the point. I shouldn’t have even mentioned it. My bad.

I wonder why sola scripturists don’t limit themselves to only the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles (i.e. the Septuagint).

Some do. They ignore the teachings of the early Church, the councils and creeds, the ECF’s, unfortunately.

Why limit yourself just to doctrines established by the Catholic Church since the 7 councils that are not found in scripture? Lutherans would agree that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle … but how/where do Lutherans come by this (non-scriptural) belief? What is the specific source?

Not hard. They rightly reflect the teachings of the historic Church and scripture.

Jon

 

[Radical]

And you think that justifies him?

no…you aren’t following

Think about it, I write a book, claiming what I write has authority.

and that wasn’t Paul’s argument, was it? It was something like: You can be assured that I am God’s apostle b/c God is working miracles through me. W/o validation by miracles, I am merely claiming authority for myself and that would be circular.

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.

you got that right…it works exactly the same wrt a Church hierarchy. One cannot logically justify the authority of a Church by reference to the Church’s teachings itself. For if the hierarchy did not have God’s endorsement, then its claims are invalid to begin with…including any claim that it was established by God or endorsed by God

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

my answer regarding validation by miracles was not intended to apply to Luke…I don’t know that he ever claimed to have the authority of an apostle

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.

not the people that I had in mind…their knowledge of Paul’s miracles was by personal experience…not scripture and not tradition. Paul’s letters were addressed to people who actually knew him. The rest of us, who never met him, aren’t in a position to test his authority in that fashion. Things have changed since the first century.

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.

actually, I have never been exposed to any tradition that Paul worked miracles (except perhaps for traditions that grew out of scripture)…I have only seen that claim put forward in the scriptures.

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

please pay a little closer attention to what I am actually saying…Paul’s claim to have worked miracles went straight from him to (what was recognized as) scripture

 

[ddarko]

I don’t think it is outside the scope. I think it relates directly to the reformers’ use of SS.

Well how? We have two groups who USE Scripture and Tradition and are doing perfectly fine apart from minor differences.

How are the two questions related?

The Roman Church is correct. Why? Actually, I’m a western Christian, and to be quite honest, I’d like to see unity east and west, for it solves a multitude of issues for me.

Well we can again look at this problem starting from Christ.

We have from Tradition and Scripture, examples of where the Bishop of Rome has Primacy. Acts of the Apostles for an example has many examples.

Then we also know that the Orthodox decide to split because the Bishop of Rome decided on a doctrine (Papal Primacy) and they disagreed with it. Thus, following the early church model, that is an incorrect course of action.

But again, this is hardly applicable since NONE of them follow Sola Scriptura and the truths held in both of the Church’s are almost identical.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8149959]As I said before, this is the error of the reformers. How reformed theology approaches Christianity is in the following manner:-

1. Read Scripture passage X and interpret it consistently with the rest of Scripture
2. Does Tradition Y fit with the interpretation, if YES, Accept, if NO, Discard

But there in lies the error. You performed step (1) without Tradition. The correct Christian methodology is the following

1**) Read Scripture passage X and interpret it consistently with rest of Scripture and Tradition taught by the Church**

Thus one never runs in to the problem of validating Tradition then. To validate Tradition using Scripture thus becomes a meaningless thing.

Do you see the difference?

The part I bolded is fine. So, tell me, what part of Tradition does papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra come from? Actually, this is rhetorical. My point is simply this: when the “two lungs” of the Church, as Pope John Paul II the Great phrased it, can speak with one voice on what Tradition teaches, I will be in RCIA the next day. I will see no need for SS, no the need for division, as that unity will be such an undeniable evidence of the movement of the Holy Spirit within His Church.

Jon

 

[ddarko]

no…you aren’t following

and that wasn’t Paul’s argument, was it? It was something like: You can be assured that I am God’s apostle b/c God is working miracles through me. W/o validation by miracles, I am merely claiming authority for myself and that would be circular.

Sure sure, but as I said, you have knowledge of these miracles OUTSIDE the Bible. You don’t believe Paul did miracles because the Bible is authoritative. You believe Paul did miracles because thats what you know from Tradition. Then you believe that Paul has authority etc.

you got that right…it works exactly the same wrt a Church hierarchy. One cannot logically justify the authority of a Church by reference to the Church’s teachings itself. For if the hierarchy did not have God’s endorsement, then its claims are invalid to begin with…including any claim that it was established by God or endorsed by God

Well, so you are admitting Sola Scriptura is problematic but trying to say the church authority also has the problem?

If so, NO. The Church authority is established from Tradition. So you take the book of Acts as a historical document. And you extract the early church model out. Have you tried it? What do you think you get?

my answer regarding validation by miracles was not intended to apply to Luke…I don’t know that he ever claimed to have the authority of an apostle

He wrote the book of Acts and Gospel of Luke. So you consider those two books to have no authority ?

not the people that I had in mind…their knowledge of Paul’s miracles was by personal experience…not scripture and not tradition. Paul’s letters were addressed to people who actually knew him. The rest of us, who never met him, aren’t in a position to test his authority in that fashion. Things have changed since the first century.

This does not make sense. Not every early Christian could have had a personal experience with Paul. Especially, after Paul died, they surely can’t experience miracles from him, right (Considering Protestants believe saintly intercession is not even possible)?

So while a father may have known Paul, how does the Son who was born after Paul’s death accept the authority of Paul?

It comes down to Tradition.

actually, I have never been exposed to any tradition that Paul worked miracles (except perhaps for traditions that grew out of scripture)…I have only seen that claim put forward in the scriptures.

??? Paul worked miracles, BEFORE he wrote Scripture, right? So you are saying there is no indication of Paul’s miracles in Tradition other than in Scripture? That’s like saying there is a good chance Paul was lying.

please pay a little closer attention to what I am actually saying…Paul’s claim to have worked miracles went straight from him to (what was recognized as) scripture

I actually pay close attention. Which should be clearer from my replies above.

God Bless