Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[Bithynian]

“plural of majesty”

This is the consensus amongst most Catholic commentaries as well. Interestingly, Augustine cites Gen 1:26 in De Trinitate (I.VII.XIV), and while he does exegete it as a literal (rather than a figurative) plural, he doesn’t really use it to substantiate the Trinity as a whole. He understands it more along the lines of affirming the Chalcedonian nature.

For example (unless I’m wrong) no where else in the bible does some King, human person or God address him self as “WE” or “US”, so that we can safely conclude it’s valid to address single person as “WE” or “US”

The plural of majesty is a grammatical feature not isolated to addresses. It can occur within oblique nouns (e.g. אֵלֹהִים elohiym), number agreement (e.g. Mal 1:6 אַדֺנִים אָנִי adoniym aniy, using a singular pronoun with a plural predicate). It can also be applied to humans, such in Gen 24:9 where Abraham is described using the plural אַדֺנִים adoniym.

 

[DeSales111]

Did Jesus teach sola scriptura? No. Did the Apostles practice it. No. Did the earliest of Christians live it? No.

Why then should anyone be trying to hang on to such a modern invention? The problem with sola scriptura is that it does not solve problems, it creates problems and is divisive. Even in modern times not everyone is literate. So someone tell me how does sola scriptura work for them?

Scriptures alone is a “ME” concept and excludes a very large portion of God’s children. It’s very simple, “something” can not be an authority without “someone.” Dont believe me, use your Bible to weigh the evidence. There is not one example of sola scriptura, You see, ecclesial authority was given to “someone,” a living breathing authority set up by God himself. Otherwise Jesus would have snapped His fingers to create an endless supply of Bibles, but no, He created an authority, a Church on earth. And not some invisible ambiguous Church.

Now if you can not believe in all that the Church teaches that’s another story, but you just can’t say Jesus did not establish a living authoritive Church on earth, because He did, those were His words and His holy command. How many times is Church mentioned in Scriptures? Many.
How many Churches were spread throughout the Holy Land during the Apostolic time? A lot. Why? Because the Church was given authority by Christ to teach all that He commanded AND to offer worship as He established with His own Holy and venerable hands.

We sure as heck would not send our children to school without a teacher. We wouldn’t send criminals to court without a judge. Why then would God act in a manner less intelligent than us humans? He wouldn’t, and He didn’t. Sola scriptura is false.

 

[upant]

since you didn’t understand the one that is so essential to the doctrine of trinity.

I’m answering you but you refuse to answer me,

you aren’t answering, you are just stating your opinion without evidence.

Genesis 1:26 does not reveal who the “Us” is. It could be He was referring to a group in His presence.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image…

why not “our image”, why switch back to the singular?

there are other possible explanations.

Jesus is not God…

I never said that

OK, I see you have trouble with fundamentals and logic

you don’t even grasp my point, yet you attack me

any interpretation of the bible that would also indirectly negate Jesus as God is satanic, end of story.

again, I never said that. I said, prove the Trinity from the bible.

whether you agree or not the Trinity is a subject that is not explicitly defined in the bible. your verse could have other meanings.

this is why sola scriptura is incomplete.

the complete orthodox understanding of the Trinity (One Godhead, three hypostases, and the way intratrinitarian relationships operate) is absent from the Bible.

thank you

@upand asserted that trinity has no place in the bible:

no, I said it wasn’t explicitly defined.

is there a Bible text which clearly defines God as a Triune God in three hypostases, one single essence but three distinct persons ? To my knowledge, there isn’t. Trinitarian formulas aren’t definitions.

again thank you

The Trinity as we profess Him was defined in the 4th century – so, long after the New Testament texts were put into writing.

IMHO this defeats the sola scriptura argument

 

[Ilija]

Don’t think that if I said “(unless I’m wrong)” that means I really have no clue…

. . . .

Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

John 3:11

“If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.”

John 5:31

Jesus is the LORD, and OT refers to LORD (YHWH) in all cases, now let’s focus on what you said:

Mal 1:6 אַדֺנִים אָנִי adoniym aniy

First of all it’s אָדוֹן NOT אַדֺנִים אָנִי, I don’t know where did you get your bible from.

The name of our LORD was written as יהוה (YHWH), but because that was never pronounced among Jews because of respect it was instead written as אָדוֹן which translates to “Adonai-Lord”

It is important to understand Jews did not refer to God as YHWH (I AM) but Adonai-Lord because of respect.

God clearly told something to Jews regarding that “new” name (your quote from Mal 1:6)

And if I am a master (Adonai-Lord),
where is the fear due to me?
So says the LORD (YHWH) of hosts to you, O priests,
who disdain my name.
But you ask, “How have we disdained your name?”

Obviously God’s name is LORD (YHWH) or (I AM) not “Adonai-Lord” which is how Jews called him.

From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I AM.

John 13:19

We clearly see here Jesus is the LORD, and that clearly means not some new LORD but very same LORD that existed since creation of earth, it is referring to very same LORD.

אֱלֹהִים elohiym literary means God

The evidence that “Let US make man in OUR image”. (Gen 1:26) refers to the Trinity is irrefutable.

Because know that “plural of majesty” wasn’t used until after the Old Testament was written, at about 200 AD.

 

[Bithynian]

All that you wrote is what Anti-Trinitarians are saying (not Catholics) and it doesn’t came as surprise at all!

It is extremely poor form to impute anti-Trinitarianism to your fellow Catholics on this forum. What I posted is the overwhelming consensus of scholarship whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, and even the most rudimentary grammar on Classical Hebrew would attest that the majestic plural is a legitimate feature of the language. This does not preclude a Trinitarian exegesis of such passages.

First of all it’s אָדוֹן NOT אַדֺנִים אָנִי , I don’t know where did you get your bible from.

I referenced the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), the critical text used as a reference standard in scholarship.

I’m afraid that, like @OddBird, I will be leaving this conversation. What I wrote in Hebrew was extraordinarily simple: a singular pronoun is predicated with a plural noun. I’m not sure that you have the requisite command of the Hebrew language or of grammar (in its most general sense) for this to be a fruitful conversation.

 

[OddBird]

Ok, @Ilija, I flagged your post.

You’re attacking and insulting a completely orthodox poster for no other reason than not understanding/not wanting to understand what he means.

 

[Ilija]

No problem, it’s normal to flag posts such as mine, I would do the same.

The rumors I heard on the internet turned out be true, and while I’m not happy to acting not inappropriately, I’m happy to at least verified myself that these rumors were not some false claims.

May God bless you all.

 

[Gorgias]

The rumors I heard on the internet turned out be true

while I’m not happy to acting not inappropriately, I’m happy to at least verified myself that these rumors were not some false claims.

So… bad behavior is justified and justifiable? Hmm…

This sounds like an attempt to say “you’re responsible for my sins”… Hmm…

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Sola Scriptura is a tradition invented by men. No one in Christianity ever hears of a Sola Scriptura man made tradition until over 1500 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Sola Scriptura has taken on many different forms and interpretations by men. There does not exist ONE Sola Scriptura interpretation, therefore because Sola Scriptura has taken on many faces of interpretations by men, Sola Scriptura can never be a divine revelation by God.

Sola Scriptura is baseless faith without works. Sola Scriptura cannot stand on it’s own revelation because it does not have a revelation from God. Only a Sola Scripturalist has to distort the scriptures to arrive at any Sola Scriptura.

All Sacred Tradition is a divine revelation from God, thus the Mass the seven Sacraments revealed in the divine economy of God to give us eternal life. Sola Scriptura is never a divine revelation and cannot survive the ages past, present and future without being subject to changes. When God does not Change nor does the Word of God ever Change.

Peace be with you

 

[VeryBlessed]

Sola scriptura would be very much more supportable if the printing press existed at the time of Jesus. But to make sola scriptura the foundational way of understanding our faith, without a printing press, is elitist to the point of being preposterous. How few could own books before the invention of the printing press? Is that compatible with the heart of God?

 

[steveng]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m convinced. In the last couple of weeks I’ve listened to a ton of Sola Scriptura debates, and went back to Trent Horn’s Case for Catholicism. I believe that Sola Scriptura is false and I believe that the Catholic Church is the true and only historically legitimate expression of Christianity that is around today. It’s going to be a process of getting out of the Protestant movement as I’m connected to a lot of family that are in it and in ministry, but I am committed to joining the Catholic Church in the next 2 years. Pray for me! My heart craves the Eucharist. Ever since I attended my first Mass I’ve been drawn to it and, only being allowed to observe, I’m looking forward to partaking!

 

[steveng]

I’ve read some John Henry Newman and I definitely did take his argument seriously. Having delved more into the Church Fathers I have to agree that the early Church is Catholic.

 

[Odilon]

Jesus didn’t write a book, he started a Church with leaders who would decide things that would take the new faith into the future. “Sola Scriptura” is a falsehood that has led many people astray.

 

[steveng]

I want to make another comment, and I’m hoping to send this through to the team at Catholic Answers Live. When debating Protestants, especially James White (who seems to be the main debater out there), I would take the fight to him on the Church Fathers by not only addressing Sola Scriptura, but focusing on the following:

• He loves to quote Athanasius as an advocate of Sola Scriptura. Granted, he did use language that did resemble Sola Scriptura far more than other Church Fathers, BUT, he also believed the following:

• Baptismal Regeneration - something James White condemns as heretical (even though Luther and Calvin believed it)
• Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - another doctrine that James White condemns.
• The Real Presence - again, condemned by James White.
• Church Authority - Athanasius’ view on authority resembles Catholicism far more than James White’s Reformed Baptist tradition.

So he loves to use Athanasius because of his high view of Scripture, but then conveniently ignores everything else that Athanasius believed that is consistent with the early church and Catholicism. In listening to him I had to conclude that he is guilty of proof-texting to suit his argument.

In looking at the Church Fathers I have to conclude that they all accepted the Catholic teachings that are rejected by most Protestant denominations today. This brings me to my biggest issue with Sola Scriptura: it sounds good and noble but it actually doesn’t even become Solo Scriptura, it becomes Sola My Interpretation. As a Protestant, I can, based on my interpretation of Scripture:

• Reject my Pastor
• Reject my tradition
• Reject the Church Councils
• Reject every Biblical Scholar that has come before me

So it is not actually Scripture that is ultimate, it is my interpretation. And given that I am not infallible, that scares me much more than a Church that claims to be infallible!

I listened to Al Mohler talking on Sola Scriptura and he admitted that the only reason Martin Luther advocated Sola Scriptura was because he had nowhere else to turn. He wasn’t convinced of it by Scripture alone, he just chose to believe it because he couldn’t agree with Rome.

 

[steveng]

I do agree that the difficult technical definition of the Trinity is not explicitly defined in Scripture, but I do believe that you can get there with sufficient (excuse the pun) study. So if I were arguing with a Protestant I wouldn’t use the Trinity to make my case. I’d much rather choose something like Baptism. Unlike the Trinity, Baptism is something that conservative evangelicals cannot agree on. Some hold to Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism, some only Infant Baptism, some only Baptismal Regeneration, and then some hold that Baptism is purely symbolic and only required for Believers who have repented and made a profession of faith.

Each denomination would affirm that their position on Baptism is right, but then I would take them to the Early Church. It is undeniable that they held to Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism also became the accepted Practice. I personally believe that if you go on Scripture alone, it is very difficult to define what Baptism is. There are passages that support Baptismal Regeneration, and then others that support it being preceded by Repentance, and again others that draw parallels to it being the new circumcision. I believe that taking these passages together with the Early Church, you can see that the commonly accepted view was that of Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism. As a soon to be ex-Baptist, this subject has been the main one that proves that the main things are not the plain things, and the plain things are not the main things. The claims of the Westminster Confession that even the uneducated lay-person can understand the main things is just not true. University Professors can’t even agree on them, let alone lay members.

 

[kainosktisis]

I grew up Baptist while attending Catholic schools as a kid.

The usual Scriptural support cited for sola scriptura was always 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (BibleHub):

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

17 so that the servant of God a may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I think many Protestants read “Only Scripture” where “All Scripture” is indicated.

Greek - English Interlinear:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/3-16.htm

Strong’s Concordance:

https://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm

The other thing for me supporting that sola scriptura doesn’t work was that I’d taken a class at my then-church years ago where people were taught to prepare for ministry, & it appeared that all interpretations were ok. And I was confused. I thought for sure someone would come out with definitive Scriptural interpretation, but that wasn’t the case.

Couple that with the many churches all claiming their own interpretations, splitting, creating more churches with their own interpretations, all the while claimimg they are THE church, claiming unity under “essentials”, all the while unable to even agree on said “essentials” & at times even shamefully berating/condemning other denominations led me to question sola scriptura.

Many Protestants gloss over Scripture or avoid Scripture that disagrees with their theology.

Like this one:

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, [

15 ](http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/3-15.htm)if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[TULIPed]

@OddBird describes what the doctrine of Sola Sciptura is best here:

I agree with most of what you write here, but the classical definition of Sola Scriptura (from the perspective of historical Protestantism at least) is that Scripture is the ultimate norm of faith - which is not quite the same as saying that everything we believe has to come from Scripture.

My Catholic brothers and sisters would say that there is no Sacred Tradition which conflicts with scripture. In a sense then, Sacred Tradition conforms with Sola Scriptura - or at least isn’t necessarily in conflict.

The question then is one of authority - who has the authority to determine that which conforms with scripture? Authority is a tricky thing. How does one measure it? Without a measure of authority, and guardrails around it…well - power corrupts and absolute power?

We trust God to act as the guardrail, true. However - is there ever a time where God calls us to step up and intercede? Where he asks us (dare I say it) to “cooperate” with him in preserving orthodoxy? If so, how do we measure the deviation - to what do we hold our leaders accountable?

Interestingly, there is an example in scripture of a leader holding himself accountable to orthodoxy. I think it’s instructive to see how he does this - From 2 Kings 22:

“8 And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king… 10 Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes.”

Passover hadn’t been celebrated for hundreds of years before King Josiah found the Torah (as he was cleaning the Temple - and taking care of the workers ). The King held himself and his people accountable to the measuring stick. Authority submitted to law and God - as set forth in the Torah.

If you want to understand Sola Scriptura - and debate it with Protestants - my advice is to go with that authority angle. It’s the only one that makes Reformed Christians scratch their heads (at least it does this one).

 

[steveng]

Good comment. Agreed, and that’s I was saying in another post that even if you assert that Scripture is the norm that norms all norms to quote Luther, it’s not actually Scripture you’re holding to, it’s your interpretation of it. We’re not debating the authority of Scripture, we’re debating our interpretation of it.

And to comment on the 2 Kings passage, there is no denying that allowing Scripture to speak does not result in reformation and renewal when we are out of sync with it. But we only need to look to the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ day to see how easy it is to twist and misinterpret Scripture. Yes, they created their own traditions which contradicted Scripture (something Catholics never claim to do), but they also, in possession of the Scriptures, failed to see how they pointed to Jesus. And if you look at Jesus’ pattern for Authority, it centered on the Church and the Apostles, not Scripture. And this is the pattern that the Early Church followed.

 

[stoplooklisten]

And if you look at Jesus’ pattern for Authority, it centered on the Church and the Apostles, not Scripture. And this is the pattern that the Early Church followed.

In my POV, you are thinking and speaking well. May Almighty God bless and hasten your entrance into the Church.

Certainly, there are doctrines not contained within Scripture. For centuries, many Church members were illiterate and some never read a verse of Scripture on their own but they followed the traditions and practices of the Holy Catholic Church. At its start, the Church was built upon Twelve Apostles and not upon the New Testament.

 

[steveng]

A quick question, which Protestant tradition are you in?