Sola Scriptura Revisited

[shawn38]

Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870

Canon 3 First paragraph

We decree that the sacred image of our lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all people, should be venerated with honour equal to that given to the book of the holy gospels. For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book (book of the holy gospels), we all shall obtain salvation, so through the influence that colours in painting exercise on the imagination, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them; for as speech teaches and portrays through syllables, so too does painting by means of colours. It is only right then, in accordance with true reason and very ancient tradition, that icons should be honoured and venerated in a derivative way because of the honour which is given to their archetypes, and it should be equal to that given to the sacred book of the holy gospels and the representation of the precious cross.

Again. Wow!
For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book (book of the holy gospels), we all shall obtain salvation,

Does this imply that the book of the holy gospels is sufficient for salvation?

And that we obtain benefit from other things?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You’re making some leap of logic there. It says through the Bible, we will obtain slavation. It does not preclude other sources at all.

 

[Loboto-Me]

What Mark Anthony said, and notice also that it says that icons even back then in the 800’s, these were an very ancient tradition of the Church… oh and remember… it says venerate with honor, nothing else.

Edited as I read again:

It says that the icons should be venerated like the bible is venerated. As Catholics, we all know that a picture of Jesus, a crucifix or any other icons will not save us directly. It’s the thoughts and the faith that is brought about by looking upon or into, in the case of the bible, that will save us… through the laws of Jesus.

So if you don’t have your bible handy, get that statue of Mary out!

 

[shawn38]

You’re making some leap of logic there. It says through the Bible, we will obtain slavation. It does not preclude other sources at all.

Through the Bible! Correct. The written Word. In that we will obtain salvation. It certainly does not include other sources as a means to salvation, that’s the leap. I believe that. Traditions, relics, and other things help with perspective (ie. they benefit us), but are not necessary.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Yes, we do obtain salvation through the PROPERLY interpreted words of the bible. Afterall, those pages contain Jesus’ commandments. The authority was given to the Church to interpret these pages which are part of our salvation… remember, it says in these pages that they are good for teaching, reproving and all that good stuff… and it also says in these pages that we should follow tradition and teaching by word of mouth.

 

[shawn38]

Yes, we do obtain salvation through the PROPERLY interpreted words of the bible. Afterall, those pages contain Jesus’ commandments.

Agree absolutely with this part. They contain the gospel message which leads to salvation. Any additions preclude someone from being able to pick up the Word, read it, and make a profession of faith. God knows your heart.

I don’t think anyone would ever argue that a church (body of believers) does not help one grow in their faith.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Based upon the original logic in this thread, all Protestants who support “gay marriage” - (sex outside of marriage between one man and one women) would be going directly against Solo Scriptura.

All the Protestants who are divorced and remarried are living in adultary.

Actually if all the Protestants lived up to the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the US would have very high moral standards.

Also if they believed that God created us, there would be no abortion either.

Personally I support that all Protestants live up to Sola Scriptura. So Protestants - get to work.

And we Catholics have work to do with our people as well.

 

[simspt]

Through the Bible! Correct. The written Word. In that we will obtain salvation. It certainly does not include other sources as a means to salvation, that’s the leap. I believe that. Traditions, relics, and other things help with perspective (ie. they benefit us), but are not necessary.

What about the first three of four hundred years of Christianity when the scriptures existed but no NT canon? The rule of faith, the Church and scriptures all were a means to salvation. The context of the scriptures being used outside the Church led to their misinterpretation because they who did so did not possess the rule of faith historically handed down within the Church. The Church used many scriptures and not just the scriptures that are in the NT today. There was no Bible back then. What about all the non-canonical scriptures that were used? The Catholic Church provided the proper context for catechesis to occur and proper interpretation. This isnt an exclusively Catholic perspective. It was through the Church that the scriptures were lived out and protected from abuse. To divorce the Bible from the Catholic Church denies IMO the priority God placed with the Church considering the Church and Christians existed many years before the NT writings existed and hundreds of years before they were canonized. The Bible should be kept in its proper relationship to the Church not inferior to it but never divorced from it either.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Watching Media, you forgot a few other writtings that many protestants don’t follow in their solo scriptura

The writtings I’ve already mentioned, to follow what was taught to the apostles by word of mouth and tradition.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Based upon the original logic in this thread, all Protestants who support “gay marriage” - (sex outside of marriage between one man and one women) would be going directly against Solo Scriptura.

All the Protestants who are divorced and remarried are living in adultary.

Actually if all the Protestants lived up to the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the US would have very high moral standards.

Also if they believed that God created us, there would be no abortion either.

Personally I support that all Protestants live up to Sola Scriptura. So Protestants - get to work.

And we Catholics have work to do with our people as well.

The problem with this, I think, is that the Protestants you describe here do not hold to Sola Scriptura in any way, shape, or form. Most of them do not believe the Bible is even Scriptura.

 

[simspt]

The problem with this, I think, is that the Protestants you describe here do not hold to Sola Scriptura in any way, shape, or form. Most of them do not believe the Bible is even Scriptura.

And the same goes for many Catholics

 

[WatchingMedia]

You all are talking Philosophy to prove a point to each other - which you will never do.
Did you happen to know that Rome (USA) is burning while you yak?

I challenge all Protestants to live up to Sola Sciptura -
no gay marriage;
no divorce;
no abortion or euthanasia;
no adultery or fornication;
no socialism (since Jesus never said any “government” should take away from one person and give to another, and Commandments say we shall not covet our neighbors goods);
everyone should be as charitable as they can afford.

Catholics get going too.

There is much work to be done.

 

[VetA]

Yes, we do obtain salvation through the PROPERLY interpreted words of the bible. Afterall, those pages contain Jesus’ commandments. The authority was given to the Church to interpret these pages which are part of our salvation… remember, it says in these pages that they are good for teaching, reproving and all that good stuff… and it also says in these pages that we should follow tradition and teaching by word of mouth.

also remember that the bible was passed down for A LONG TIME by what? tradition and word of mouth. the sacred words of scripture were written down for our benefit. also the Bible cannon was compiled by the Catholic Church, and when martin luther broke with the church, he used the same cannon minus 7 books

 

[VetA]

You all are talking Philosophy to prove a point to each other - which you will never do.
Did you happen to know that Rome (USA) is burning while you yak?

I challenge all Protestants to live up to Sola Sciptura -
no gay marriage;
no divorce;
no abortion or euthanasia;
no adultery or fornication;
no socialism (since Jesus never said any “government” should take away from one person and give to another, and Commandments say we shall not covet our neighbors goods);
everyone should be as charitable as they can afford.

Catholics get going too.

There is much work to be done.

amen brother, amen

 

[Nicea325]

Through the Bible! Correct. The written Word. In that we will obtain salvation. It certainly does not include other sources as a means to salvation, that’s the leap. I believe that. Traditions, relics, and other things help with perspective (ie. they benefit us), but are not necessary.

Through the Bible? What Bible were the Greeks using in 40 A.D.? Cannot read your way to heaven. Salvation is through God,not a book.No amount of reading will grant anyone salvation. The bible is not sufficient enough and does not teach it either. Cannot have the Bible-Alone and no church.

 

[Third_Day]

=shawn38;6638094]Agree absolutely with this part. They contain the gospel message which leads to salvation

. And the Gospel message is:Believe and be baptised, keep the commandments, remain in God’s grace or you will be cut off, The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. justified by works not by faith alone.

Any additions preclude someone from being able to pick up the Word, read it, and make a profession of faith. God knows your heart.

Not just anyone can read the bible and understand what is necessary for salvation.

I don’t think anyone would ever argue that a church (body of believers) does not help one grow in their faith.

The Church is more that just a “body of believers”.

 

[MoreCoffee]

shawn38, sola scriptura is not taught in the bible so isn’t it flogging a dead horse for you to try to justify the doctrine by quoting from early church documents? Nobody in the early church was a protestant and nobody was teaching the five solas of Protestantism.

For about the first three or four hundred years of Church history there was no “bible” as such, there were lectionaries perhaps, and the old testament in Greek (the LXX) but the New Testament books were not yet gathered in one definitive volume. Yet Christians (Catholic Christians specifically) lived and died in the faith many achieving sainthood some being martyrs for the faith and they didn’t have a bible. They had the gospel handed down to them through the teaching of the church.

I do not understand why protestants make such a meal of this non-biblical teaching - sola scriptura - when history, logic, and personal experience as well as scripture, the teaching of the church, and apostolic Tradition all contradict it.

Give it up shawn38, if you want to believe the solas of Protestantism admit that you are doing so because of the traditions of your denomination.

Cheers

 

[smmkw90]

Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870

Canon 3 First paragraph

We decree that the sacred image of our lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all people, should be venerated with honour equal to that given to the book of the holy gospels. For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book (book of the holy gospels), we all shall obtain salvation, so through the influence that colours in painting exercise on the imagination, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them; for as speech teaches and portrays through syllables, so too does painting by means of colours. It is only right then, in accordance with true reason and very ancient tradition, that icons should be honoured and venerated in a derivative way because of the honour which is given to their archetypes, and it should be equal to that given to the sacred book of the holy gospels and the representation of the precious cross.

Again. Wow!
For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book (book of the holy gospels), we all shall obtain salvation,

Does this imply that the book of the holy gospels is sufficient for salvation?

And that we obtain benefit from other things?

The vast majority of arguments against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura have been listed. Namely, they are:

• Tradition and Church teaching guided early Christians until a canon was established
• Sola Scriptura is non-biblical
• Salvation is gained through faith in Christ and through obeying his commands (which also contests Sola Fide)
• Without reliance on Tradition and Church teaching, all Christians would not have a Bible to read from
• It took the work of Church leaders to establish a canon that reflected the true message of salvation as handed to them from Christ and the Apostles

Apart from these primary arguments, the quotation cited by shawn38 is misunderstood. Bear with me for a moment through this logical exercise. If through the written words of the book, salvation is obtained… and that very same book teaches that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15)… the Church is the not only the collective Body of Christ, but also an apostolic institution founded by Christ (John 15:16, John 20:21, Luke 22:24-30)… that through this apostolic institution, authority was granted to Jesus’ selected disciples (Matthew 16:18-20, Matthew 18:18)… and this authority was integral to great debate about the acceptance and salvation of new members (Acts 15:1-35)… then taken in the context of the Faith, the quote is entirely correct.

Though shawn38 raises an important discussion point through the inclusion of this quote and excerpt, the meaning of that specfic quotation is lost in the glimmer of the words. Correct me if I am wrong, but the point of including this quote was an attempt to use the words from a Church council against the present day Church itself. If that intention is accepted, than we as researchers must defer to the teaching of the Church at the time of this council.

For those of us who are Catholic, we understand that doctrinal teaching has not changed over the centuries, but the ways in which our finite minds understand the infinite love of God is increasingly opened. Nevertheless, we shall still defer to the teaching of the Church at the time. By deferring to the council itself, we must have accepted that the council had the authority to discuss relationship between scripture and salvation in general and as an analogy to venerating paintings of Christ. If we accept this teaching, then we must reject the notion that Scripture alone is enough because we have referred to a non-Scriptural, authoritative text to support a belief in Sola Scriptura. In other words, the mere presence of this argument is its own refutation.

I hope that this has been a helpful addition to the thread about Sola Scriptura. Rather than taking cheap shots at disputing shawn38’s question, we should all continue to explain, defend, and research our Faith with charity in hope that our entire community of faith may grow stronger (that includes all Christians). Thank you for your question, shawn38. Please correct or clarify any errors I may have made.

 

[Chris0711]

The vast majority of arguments against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura have been listed. Namely, they are:

• Tradition and Church teaching guided early Christians until a canon was established
• Sola Scriptura is non-biblical
• Salvation is gained through faith in Christ and through obeying his commands (which also contests Sola Fide)
• Without reliance on Tradition and Church teaching, all Christians would not have a Bible to read from
• It took the work of Church leaders to establish a canon that reflected the true message of salvation as handed to them from Christ and the Apostles

Apart from these primary arguments, the quotation cited by shawn38 is misunderstood. Bear with me for a moment through this logical exercise. If through the written words of the book, salvation is obtained… and that very same book teaches that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15)… the Church is the not only the collective Body of Christ, but also an apostolic institution founded by Christ (John 15:16, John 20:21, Luke 22:24-30)… that through this apostolic institution, authority was granted to Jesus’ selected disciples (Matthew 16:18-20, Matthew 18:18)… and this authority was integral to great debate about the acceptance and salvation of new members (Acts 15:1-35)… then taken in the context of the Faith, the quote is entirely correct.

Though shawn38 raises an important discussion point through the inclusion of this quote and excerpt, the meaning of that specfic quotation is lost in the glimmer of the words. Correct me if I am wrong, but the point of including this quote was an attempt to use the words from a Church council against the present day Church itself. If that intention is accepted, than we as researchers must defer to the teaching of the Church at the time of this council.

For those of us who are Catholic, we understand that doctrinal teaching has not changed over the centuries, but the ways in which our finite minds understand the infinite love of God is increasingly opened. Nevertheless, we shall still defer to the teaching of the Church at the time. By deferring to the council itself, we must have accepted that the council had the authority to discuss relationship between scripture and salvation in general and as an analogy to venerating paintings of Christ. If we accept this teaching, then we must reject the notion that Scripture alone is enough because we have referred to a non-Scriptural, authoritative text to support a belief in Sola Scriptura. In other words, the mere presence of this argument is its own refutation.

I hope that this has been a helpful addition to the thread about Sola Scriptura. Rather than taking cheap shots at disputing shawn38’s question, we should all continue to explain, defend, and research our Faith with charity in hope that our entire community of faith may grow stronger (that includes all Christians). Thank you for your question, shawn38. Please correct or clarify any errors I may have made.

Well and generously spoken.

 

[shawn38]

Though shawn38 raises an important discussion point through the inclusion of this quote and excerpt, the meaning of that specfic quotation is lost in the glimmer of the words. Correct me if I am wrong, but the point of including this quote was an attempt to use the words from a Church council against the present day Church itself. If that intention is accepted, than we as researchers must defer to the teaching of the Church at the time of this council.

I would argue that your misunderstanding.

We decree that the sacred image of our lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and saviour of all people, should be venerated with honour equal to that given to the book of the holy gospels. For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book (book of the holy gospels), we all shall obtain salvation, so through the influence that colours in painting exercise on the imagination, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them; for as speech teaches and portrays through syllables, so too does painting by means of colours.

we all shall obtain salvation is a relative clause defining the book (book of the holy gospels). This clause does not relate to the sacred images and icons, but to the book (book of the holy gospels).

It easily could be reworded as such:
For, just as through the written words which are contained in the book (book of the holy gospels), we all shall obtain salvation, all, both wise and simple, obtain benefit from what is before them, sacred images and icons.

The gospel supplies salvation and benefit. The sacred images and icons supply benefit. All three should receive proper veneration and honor equally.
(However, I do not believe in venerating any sacred images and icons)