Sola Scriptura Silence

[Sharp11]

Hi there everyone.
…
So I’m unsure… The matter of authority was not a problem back then, and Scripture was quoted frequently and spoken of as “God-breathed”, the way one would speak of it if they held it as the sole authority. Is the silence of Sola Scriptura meaningful? Are the protestants right??

So confused…

Hi JJ59,

I read part of this thread but not all of it, so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has already been said. I have a few remarks that I hope will help.

The hypothetical justification you give for Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is referred to as “God-breathed” (2Tim 3:16). You said that this is precisely the sort of language one would use for Scripture were it meant to be sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian.

I am not going to contest this point. But the real question is whether or not it is possible to refer to Scripture as “God-breathed” without implying that it is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. If so, then the fact that Scripture is called “God-breathed” in the Bible is not a sufficient condition for Sola Scriptura to be true–in other words, it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

And I think everyone would agree that it is possible for something to be “God-breathed” (divinely inspired) without being sufficient as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. Protestants and Catholics alike would call not only the entire Bible as a whole, but also each individual verse of Scripture, “God-breathed”–as the author of 2Tim wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed…” (2Tim 3:16).

But no one–not even Protestants–would claim that any given verse from Scripture, taken alone, is sufficient as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. Therefore it is possible for something to be “God-breathed” and yet not be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. Therefore the fact that the Bible calls itself God-breathed does not mean that the Bible is teaching Sola Scriptura.

Hope that helps.

Sharp 11

 

[rbrnmw]

a pre catholic and a pre orthodox reviewed the doctrine of their prospective churches, the Orthodox interpretted the orthodox church to be right and the Catholic interpretted the Catholic to be right…
BOTH relied on their OWN interpretation!

Well actually we don’t believe pre catholic unless you mean before The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, We are the true Church of Jesus So exactly what do you mean pre Catholic if You mean The Jewish faith then we are talking 2 seperate religions, as they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah so that would not classify them Christian. So please explain pre catholic and pre orthodox

 

[Sharp11]

JJ59,

As far as the silence of the Bible regarding Sola Scriptura is concerned, I do think it is real, and I also think it is fatal to the Protestant position.

Protestants themselves define Sola Scriptura as the doctrine that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. Defined in this way, Sola Scriptura has a corollary that all divine public revelation is contained in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

Otherwise, because divine public revelation is necessarily infallible, the Bible would no longer be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian.

The problem for Protestants comes when we notice that the 66 books in their Bible do not include an inspired table of contents–the Bible does not define its canon.

How do we know what books belong in the Bible then? Well, a person can know a fact in one of three ways:

(1) Natural reason
(2) Public revelation
(3) Private revelation

God doesn’t appear to each of us in a dream and trumpet down the canon list, so we can rule out (3) as the basis for our knowledge of the biblical canon. As for (1), the quality of divine inspiration is neither a quality that is intuitively apparent (compare Philemon and the non-canonical 3 Corinthians, or Shepherd of Hermas) nor one that is reachable by discursive reasoning nor one for which it is possible to test empirically. Therefore we can rule out (1)–if the canon list is a fact, then we cannot know it through unaided natural reason.

This leaves (2), public revelation, as the only possible source of our knowledge of the canon list. But this means that at least one element of public revelation is extra-biblical, which violates the corollary of Sola Scriptura, namely, that all public revelation is contained in the 66 books in the Protestant Bible.

Therefore, because Sola Scriptura both presumes our knowledge of the canon and forbids the existence of extra-biblical public revelation, it is self-contradictory, internally inconsistent, and necessarily false.

Sharp 11

 

[SHW]

But now for my real question:
One of the obvious flaws Catholics point out in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (myself included) is that the Bible never says that the Bible alone is our authority.
Then I got thinking: Should the Bible say that? Why?

The Bible does not say it because Sola Scriptura is not true.

It states: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

You can discern if your church is the true Church of Christ by reading the Bible with spiritual eyes:

Seven Marks of the True Church of Christ

1. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Matthew 16:18-19 “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”.

2. Where there are bishops under the pope, there is the Church.

Acts 20:28 “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
**
3. Where there are local priests under a bishop, there is the Church.**

Titus 1:5 “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:”

1 Timothy 4:14 “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.”
**
4. Where you can confess your sins to a priest of God, there is the Church.**

John 20:23 “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
**
5. Where the bread and wine is changed into body and blood of Christ on the altar, there is the Church.**

John 6:51-56 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed "

6. Where Christians shall call the Virgin Mother of Christ blessed, there is the Church.

Luke 1:48 " Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

7. Where the saints offer the incense of our prayers to God, there is the Church.

Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:3 “And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God.”

Scriptures are taken from Douay-Rheims Bible (DRBrg) and other content is taken from catholicrevelations.org/

How does your Church measure up? Do you abide in the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church?

Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[SHW]

Regarding the number of Christian denominations other than Catholic:

Each person who does not belong to a recognized formally named denomination with its stated dogmas, but who instead reads a Bible and then decides his or her own interpretation, has in fact started a “new” denomination; don’t you think, since their interpretation will certainly not match any other person’s interpretation even though they each interpret the Bible for themselves?

Since their dogmas contradict, then the Holy Spirit is certainly not guiding both of them and perhaps He is not even guiding one of them because He is truth. If neither of their interpretations match His truth, then both of them are false teachers.

Since all of these persons are untaught by the Church, then they are unstable according to St. Peter and they are distorting the Scriptures to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15-18 "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2 Peter 1:20 “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,”

Every “Bible Christian” who reads their Bible and interprets it on their own has started their own new separate denomination.

Pax,
SHW

 

[rocketrob]

…I would suggest that your “infallible” authority is leaving room for personal interpretation…

…A caller recently asked Catholic apologist Tim Staples if the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 was in hell or purgatory. Tim explains the general sense of church tradition places the rich man in hell. Tim notes the Catholic Catechism also cites this text a few times as referring to a man who has died in mortal sin, therefore in hell. So, according to Tim, here we see an interpretive church tradition in action…

Most of the above prior post is cut and paste directly from an anti-Catholic web-site, which the post references. Probably as a result, it is based on ‘straw man’ arguments.

To begin with, I believe Scripture is pretty clear about where the rich man winds up:

Luke 16:22 - And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.

However, all this proves is that the Catechism is right in its two references that imply the final state of the rich man (see articles 1859 and 2831). While I have not investigated the referenced incident, it is true that individuals can be, and sometimes are, incorrect in their own interpretations of Scripture. Thanks be to God for the Magisterium of the Church.

Regarding personal interpretation of Scripture, this is not forbidden by the Catholic Church. Rather, it is encouraged. However, several important guidelines are clearly stipulated in the Catechism:

CCC Articles 111-114:

111
But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113
2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).

114
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

It is true, however, that the Church reserves the right to authentically interpret Scripture when necessary to do so:

CCC Articles 85-86:

The Magisterium of the Church

85
“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86
“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

Finally, regarding Sacred Tradition vs. Church tradition, there is a difference that is often missing from ‘straw man’ arguments. This difference is clearly discussed in the Catechism:

CCC Article 83

83
The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[rob159]

JJ,
" go and spread My Gospel" , not : “go and read My Gospel”.
I will pray for you.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…I think what I’m looking more for are details on the Silence of Sola Scriptura, not on what the Bible says about Tradition.

In addition to what’s already been said, there are a few more points to consider. The Lord didn’t send His Apostles out to write, He sent them to preach.

John says a couple of things in his Gospel which are instructive. “I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. When he comes, however, being the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” Jn. 16:13. “There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” Jn. 21:25. Both those passages tell us clearly not everything has been revealed in Scripture.

Protestants would have us accept the doctrine of sola scriptura because they know they do not have Apostoloc Succession and, therefore, no authority to teach the revealed truth. Consequently, it’s in their interests to limit revelation to what was written down almost 2000 years ago. The proposition is not too convincing.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I did my homework its why I know those who forward it are being deceitful and plus here is one of your own respectable apologists doing the refuting himself.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4742437&postcount=177

Well, you have not done your homework. You have invented it. This ‘respected apologist’ you mention is a layman who twisted the information he had to say something he wanted to say. He’d make a good protestant. He posted the numbers and you ignored them. Here they are again.

     "Various ecumenical movements have attempted cooperation or reorganization of Protestant churches, according to various models of union, but **divisions continue to outpace unions, as there is no overarching authority to which any of the sects owe allegiance, **which can authoritatively define the faith. Most denominations share common beliefs in the major aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines, although what is major and what is secondary is a matter of idiosyncratic belief. **There are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries" and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations. ** --  World Christian Enclycopedia (2nd Edition) David Barrett, et al. Oxford Unniversity Press (2001)"

Your ‘respected apologist’ blithely dismissed all sects that were not aligned with the major denominations and thus reduced the number by 210,000. A handy way to get the number down, but not the way to the truth.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Well, you have not done your homework. You have invented it. This ‘respected apologist’ you mention is a layman who twisted the information he had to say something he wanted to say. He’d make a good protestant. He posted the numbers and you ignored them. Here they are again…

Your saying Phil Porvasik twisted the information? and he’d make a good protestant?

“Various ecumenical movements have attempted cooperation or reorganization of Protestant churches, according to various models of union, but **divisions continue to outpace unions, as there is no overarching authority to which any of the sects owe allegiance, **which can authoritatively define the faith. Most denominations share common beliefs in the major aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines, although what is major and what is secondary is a matter of idiosyncratic belief. **There are “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations. **-- World Christian Enclycopedia (2nd Edition) David Barrett, et al. Oxford Unniversity Press (2001)”

What in the heck are you talking about?
You have obviously never read the pages of the oxford encyclopedia NOR Phil Porvasiks indepth analysis on this…Go read t and then come back when you know what your talking about. Instead of misrepresenting it and me and Phil.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The Lord didn’t send His Apostles out to write, He sent them to preach.

.

---

Wrong they were sent to do both…

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 **Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. **
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

[christmary4ever]

Thanks for your response, baddog.

But I think what I’m looking more for are details on the Silence of Sola Scriptura, not on what the Bible says about Tradition (a different topic).

God Bless.

Sola Scriptura was never practice by the early christians. First of all the Books in the
N.T. WAS DECIDED UPON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH a few centuries after the
death of Christ. This by itself cannot be determine just by SOLA SCRIPTURA.

SOLA SCRIPTURA DENIES THE authority of Tradition which exactly my point
on my statement above. w/o tradition How would we Know that all the books
in the Bible are the only ones that are inspired? Surely you cannot find this
by Sola Scriptura alone.

SOLA SCRIPTURA was not a problem among early christians because it is not
their sole rule of faith. It is complimented by Church teachings and tradition.

I recommend that you invest time reading FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS BY
JUERGENS.

 

[thechristian]

Your asking questions that’s good you should. Always rely on the guidence of the holy spirit in all matters of the christian faith…this can only be accomplished thru faith in christ jesus and the trusting of Gods wood thru scripture.

God loves you…God bless

 

[no2masters4life]

The Holy Spirit is not some kind of djinni who grants wishes (and wisdom) indecisively, so do not stumble in the belief that you can, by your own authority, justify any personal reading of the written scripture with a mere prayer beforehand. A man is a fool who leans on his own authority. Only doing what is right before God will please Him.

Remember that the Word becomes flesh so that you may eat it. The Flesh of Jesus does not become Word that you may read it.

 

[SHW]

---

Wrong they were sent to do both…

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Hi “Martin,”

Revelation is the only book of NT Scripture which was commanded to be written down. Notice it says “this prophecy.”

Revelation 1:9 "John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

This is in reference to this one book of prophecy (Revelation) only.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What in the heck are you talking about?
You have obviously never read the pages of the oxford encyclopedia NOR Phil Porvasiks indepth analysis on this…

You’re right. I cited the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001 edition, and that’s good enough for me.

BTW, the update had the number at close to 44,000. And counting.

Go read t and then come back when you know what your talking about. Instead of misrepresenting it and me and Phil.

No thanks. I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about. I did not nor do I have to misrepresent you. The number of protestant sects is universally accepted by just about everyone except you and Phil. In that light, you are irrelevant.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

---

Wrong they were sent to do both…

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

What part of that do you ascribe to Jesus in the Gospels?

 

[centurion210]

I think Sharp 11 has really hit the nail on the head, so to speak. When he says:
**“Therefore, because Sola Scriptura both presumes our knowledge of the canon and forbids the existence of extra-biblical public revelation, it is self-contradictory, internally inconsistent, and necessarily false.”**All the great arguments, the great scriptural passages, etc. etc. can not get past the simple fact that any discussion outside of the Bible, and what is strictly contained in it, would totally invalidate Sola Scriptura. Unless the Bible literally fell out of the sky and a voice from the heavens shouted down that we are to believe only what is written in this book, could Sola Scriptura attempt to stand on its own.
I just don’t know how many different ways you can say it. Many have tried here and yet Protestants will not accept simple logic. TRADITION is all anyone has been talking about throughout this whole thread. If you acknowledge that the Bible came to us in any other way, then the way I just described, you are referring to tradition.
Protestants seem to want to use the Bible as an “instruction manual”. Anyone who wants to really understand the Church and the Bible’s relationship to it, must become familiar with the early church fathers. I’m not talking about quotations. You must read a broad cross-section of their writings. Not as Scripture, but as historical facts. Most of these early Christian writings have been translated and verified by a broad group of Christians both Catholic and Protestant. Read them without interpretation. They speak for themselves. They tell us what the mind of the early Christian really was. They tell us how and more importantly WHY Scripture developed. Scripture was actually developed as part of the liturgy (The Mass). Scriptures were read to the people, just as they are today at daily Mass. Remember, books for the common man weren’t available for the next 1200 years or so.
Every church father talks about the Eucharist and they go into great detail in describing how is the real presence of our Lord and Savior. When St. Paul talks about eating the bread and drinking the cup unworthily, and how one should examine oneself before receiving it; you’d think he’s talking about mere bread and wine? When he suggests that some have become sick and died because they participated unworthily, and what was he referring? Which Church has the same reverence and belief as the early Church. The Eucharist is the center of Christian faith.
You can’t separate Sacred Tradition from Scripture and the Catholic Church never has.

 

[vynette]

There seems to be some misapprehension here that the Catholic Church (i.e. the one presided over by the Bishop of Rome) compiled the Bible.

This is simply not historical.

The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.

The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.

No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.

And even if it had been a “church” that selected the canon, it would certainly not have been the Catholic Church in Rome as all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople.

The order of church development was conditioned by the availability of scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible passed from Hebrew to Greek and thence into Latin, and the churches developed in similar order.

 

[orignal]

You are on the right track – you need to take this a step further however and reciprocate this reasoning towards Tradition, in all fairness.

When you mirror this reasoning you can begin to see why protestants fail to grasp Sacred Tradition. The primary reason (I think you will agree), that Sacred Tradition was not explicitly called out, defined, made unambiguous, is because people didn’t have an issue with it back then. Tradition was taking place long before pen was laid on paper and the first book of the Bible was written – put yourself in that time/scenario and wonder if you would have questioned Paul about Tradition when he was sharing the word of God to the faithful via verbal speech, writing (now Sacred Scripture), and corporeal works?

The very premise you laid out affirms why Tradition – with a capital ‘T’ was not explicitly described in the Bible, yet the way in which the faithful responded to the Epistles gives strong reasoning as to why Paul didn’t have to make a point of this. His very lifestyle/witness gave credence to the fact that: the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

You can go on to understand the protestant misconception about ‘sola fide’ in the same light – why would the apostles speak of ‘faith’ as defined only as: [purely an act of faith is all that is required in response to the Grace of God] when they were carrying out their Faith working through love (corporeal actions) everywhere they went – back then the concept of Faith working through love – in their actions/inactions, was a no brainer. It would have been out of place/absurd to constantly drum down this point of faith working through love to followers that never had any misconception of it to begin with.

Hope this helps – continue to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, He will not lead you down the wrong road. I believe you are sincere in your questioning, continue to ask the same questions you may have about the Catholic Church to other beliefs as well. If you interrogate all avenues with the same measure, the one true Church Christ had established will become clear to you. I recommend the following site, I think Steve was a former protestant as well – he offers free audio mps’s on these very topics & he is easy to understand.

www.biblechristiansociety.com

God Bless,
Liam