Sola Scriptura

[CWBetts]

I know that I be flogging an expired equine, but I am thouroughly confused by those who stubbornly adhere to Sola Scriptura. It seems that the Scriptures are full of evidence that authority belongs to the Church, and though a useful tool, there seems to be no definitive teaching in the Scriptures that the Sola Scriptura has any merit. Could someone please using Scripture show me where Sola Scriptura is defined?

 

[ckempston]

I know that I be flogging an expired equine, but I am thouroughly confused by those who stubbornly adhere to Sola Scriptura. It seems that the Scriptures are full of evidence that authority belongs to the Church, and though a useful tool, there seems to be no definitive teaching in the Scriptures that the Sola Scriptura has any merit. Could someone please using Scripture show me where Sola Scriptura is defined?

Well, evidence for the authority of the church from the Scripture is as hard, if not harder, to come by, but I think when most people say they believe in Sola Scriptura, what they’re actually saying is that they believe in Prima Scriptura. I personally think Sola Scriptura is untenable and self-contradictory, but I digress.

 

[CWBetts]

Well, evidence for the authority of the church from the Scripture is as hard, if not harder, to come by, but I think when most people say they believe in Sola Scriptura, what they’re actually saying is that they believe in Prima Scriptura. I personally think Sola Scriptura is untenable and self-contradictory, but I digress.

Eveidence for the authority of the Church is quite easy to come by. I Timothy 3:15 names the Church as the “bulwark and pillar of Truth” In other words, the Church supports and protects the Truth. Jeeus, in John chapter 14, calls himself the Truth. Therefore the Church, and not Scripture, protects and lifts up Jesus. Also, aren’t we told that if we have disagreements we are to go where to resolve the dispute–the Scriptures? No. To the Church Those are just two examples from the top of my head at a public computer away from my sources to look things up. Otherwise this post would have been much longer with citiations from Holy Scriptures defending Church authority. Where are the Scriptures given the same place of authority as the Church?

 

[ckempston]

Eveidence for the authority of the Church is quite easy to come by. I Timothy 3:15 names the Church as the “bulwark and pillar of Truth” In other words, the Church supports and protects the Truth. Jeeus, in John chapter 14, calls himself the Truth. Therefore the Church, and not Scripture, protects and lifts up Jesus. Also, aren’t we told that if we have disagreements we are to go where to resolve the dispute–the Scriptures? No. To the Church Those are just two examples from the top of my head at a public computer away from my sources to look things up. Otherwise this post would have been much longer with citiations from Holy Scriptures defending Church authority. Where are the Scriptures given the same place of authority as the Church?

I’d say yes, the church does support the truth, but that does not equate to authority, but operation. We are not told to go to the church with disagreements (this seems to be a common Catholic mangling of the passage), but with sin.

If your brother** sins against you**,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

This passage is about dealing with sin, not doctrine or authority in establishing doctrine.**

 

[CWBetts]

I’d say yes, the church does support the truth, but that does not equate to authority, but operation. We are not told to go to the church with disagreements (this seems to be a common Catholic mangling of the passage), but with sin.

If your brother** sins against you**,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;** and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

This passage is about dealing with sin, not doctrine or authority in establishing doctrine.

I thought, according to Protestant theology, each believer led by the Holy Spirit can interpret the Scriptures on his own. This is my interpretation. Or are you saying that this freedom of interpretation is only valid if it agrees with yours?

 

[annem]

I thought, according to Protestant theology, each believer led by the Holy Spirit can interpret the Scriptures on his own.

Just recently, the megachurch pastor Rick Warren changed his belief on gay marriage. So often, the various Protestant denominations change their ‘beliefs’ according to the culture at large, such as the massive change in the 1930’s when all Protestant denominations found it good to practice contraception even though before the 1930’s they condemned it.

It strikes me that sola scriptura has been very malleable on moral issues. Anybody disagree?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[CWBetts]

I’d say yes, the church does support the truth, but that does not equate to authority, but operation. We are not told to go to the church with disagreements (this seems to be a common Catholic mangling of the passage), but with sin.

If your brother** sins against you**,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;** and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

This passage is about dealing with sin, not doctrine or authority in establishing doctrine.

You never answered my question. Where do the Scriptures say that the Bible is the final authority.

 

[ckempston]

I thought, according to Protestant theology, each believer led by the Holy Spirit can interpret the Scriptures on his own. This is my interpretation. Or are you saying that this freedom of interpretation is only valid if it agrees with yours?

Not true. Truth is not relative. And this is a typical Catholic cop-out anyway. You have to interpret Catholic teaching as much as I have to interpret the Bible, so you are using Special Pleading. An interpretation can be determined to be wrong if it:

a) creates contradictions with one or more other passages
b) violates one or more rules of inference
c) violates one or more grammatical rules

I’m sure I could think of more, but no reasonable person would disagree with these.

 

[CWBetts]

Not true. Truth is not relative. And this is a typical Catholic cop-out anyway. You have to interpret Catholic teaching as much as I have to interpret the Bible, so you are using Special Pleading. An interpretation can be determined to be wrong if it:

a) creates contradictions with one or more other passages
b) violates one or more rules of inference
c) violates one or more grammatical rules

I’m sure I could think of more, but no reasonable person would disagree with these.

All three are tricks used by Protestants.

 

[mark_a]

You have to interpret Catholic teaching as much as I have to interpret the Bible

Almost, but not quite. Catholics have certain non-negotiables. Protestants mostly agree with our faith theology, but fall short in moral theology.

 

[ckempston]

You never answered my question. Where do the Scriptures say that the Bible is the final authority.

Where does anybody say the church is the final authority? That’s the point. You haven’t a leg to stand on with this “Protestant” criticism, because Catholics have the same problem. You accept the authority of the Magesterium on Faith.

In any case, the Scriptures may not say that they are the “final” authority, but they do say quite a bit about themselves, and the Early Church Fathers had a lot to say about them as well (and these comments usually sound very “Protestant”).

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”

Knowing the Scriptures keeps us from error.

John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

The Word Jesus spoke is the Judge, the standard.

Acts 17:2-3a As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ[a] had to suffer and rise from the dead.

Paul seemed to rely on the Scriptures a lot.

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

If Scriptures make us wise for salvation, what else to we need? (Please spare me the tired Catholic argument that this only applies to the Old Testament).

James 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.

Keeping the Scriptures makes us do right. What else is there to do?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Once again, the Word is Judge.

1 John 2:5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him.

Obeying the Word makes God’s love complete in us. Again, what else would we need?

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1 “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Ouch. Irenaeus called the Scriptures the ground and pillar of our faith, and said the Apostles confirmed everything they taught in writing. So much for Sacred Tradition.

Cyril of Jerusalem “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

Wow. Don’t even deliver a casual remark without the Scriptures, nor be drawn aside to mere probabilities (e.g. the majority of extra-Biblical Catholic doctrine). Ouch!

What else did Irenaeus say about the Scriptures in Against Heresies? This one smarts!

If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. **The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions **[in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.

Wow. If it’s not in scripture, Irenaeus saw fit to reject a doctrine out of hand. What a concept! I guess I’m in good company.

 

[ckempston]

All three are tricks used by Protestants.

Riiiight.

 

[ckempston]

Almost, but not quite. Catholics have certain non-negotiables. Protestants mostly agree with our faith theology, but fall short in moral theology.

OK, this is somewhat of a strawman. Your second sentence has little to do with the first. I actually agree with your second sentence, but the reason for this deficiency is not reliance on the Scriptures, but non-reliance on the Scriptures.

 

[CWBetts]

OK, this is somewhat of a strawman. Your second sentence has little to do with the first. I actually agree with your second sentence, but the reason for this deficiency is not reliance on the Scriptures, but non-reliance on the Scriptures.

Clarify. Are you saying thet CAtholics do not rely in the Scriptures?

 

[ckempston]

Clarify. Are you saying thet CAtholics do not rely in the Scriptures?

Not at all. I was agreeing that, in general, Catholic moral theology is more highly developed than Protestant. What I was saying was that the *Protestant deficiency *is due to not relying on the Scriptures.

But, in any case, I’d say the playing field is pretty level, because whatever the “teachings” are, the “actions” are indiscernable from one another. Catholics, for instance, can largely be given credit for the advancement of liberal social values (abortion, gay marriage, family values, etc.), because, regardless of what Catholics are “supposed to believe” they vote for people who support these obviously immoral issues (edit to add) in large numbers.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Not true. Truth is not relative. And this is a typical Catholic cop-out anyway. You have to interpret Catholic teaching as much as I have to interpret the Bible, so you are using Special Pleading. An interpretation can be determined to be wrong if it:

a) creates contradictions with one or more other passages
b) violates one or more rules of inference
c) violates one or more grammatical rules

I’m sure I could think of more, but no reasonable person would disagree with these.

The Bible itself violates all three “rules.” Are you holding readers to a higher standard than the God breathed Scriptures?

P.S. if you can’t find the violations yourself, you don’t know your Bible very well.

P.P.S. Where are those “rules” in the Bible??

P.P.P.S. Truth is not defined by phony-baloney conjured up “rules” that supposedly apply to the Bible. That argument only has an appearance of truth to undiscerning bac’s. (born again christians)

 

[ckempston]

The Bible itself violates all three “rules.” Are you holding readers to a higher standard than the God breathed Scriptures?

The Bible contradicts itself? Please clarify.

P.S. if you can’t find the violations yourself, you don’t know your Bible very well.

I’m well aware of atheist attacks against the veracity of the Scriptures, and it never ceases to amaze me that Catholics use these same arguments.

P.P.S. Where are those “rules” in the Bible??

They’re not.

P.P.P.S. Truth is not defined by phony-baloney conjured up “rules” that supposedly apply to the Bible. That argument only has an appearance of truth to undiscerning bac’s. (born again christians)

So, lacking any substance, you shift the burden of proof and resort to personal attacks. Nice tactic.

 

[tmac1956]

Not true. Truth is not relative. And this is a typical Catholic cop-out anyway. You have to interpret Catholic teaching as much as I have to interpret the Bible, so you are using Special Pleading. An interpretation can be determined to be wrong if it:

a) creates contradictions with one or more other passages
b) violates one or more rules of inference
c) violates one or more grammatical rules

snip…

So you say. You don’t mind giving us yor opinion, but that’s all it is - YOUR opinion.

snip…
I’m sure I could think of more, but no reasonable person would disagree with these.

I see. So, if a person disagrees with you about these points then, according to ckempston the infallible, that person is unreasonable? Nice.

 

[ckempston]

So you say. You don’t mind giving us yor opinion, but that’s all it is - YOUR opinion.

Please tell me whether the following are my “opinions”:

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Opinions? Yes or no.

I see. So, if a person disagrees with you about these points then, according to ckempston the infallible, that person is unreasonable? Nice.

I’m not infallable, but I do possess the God-given faculty of reason, as do most humans.

Reasonable:
1 a: being in accordance with reason b: not extreme or excessive c: moderate, fair d: inexpensive
2 a: having the faculty of reason b: possessing sound judgment

I am not the standard for reasonableness. If someone disagrees that 1 + 1 = 2, that person is unreasonable (or ignorant). If someone calls a cat a dog or says the world is flat, that person is unreasonable (or ignorant). If someone says you don’t have to repent and be baptized to be saved, that person is unreasonable (or ignorant). These have nothing to do with my opinion.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

ckempston:

If you were able to read the Holy Scriptures as a rational mature man (while setting aside your prejudices and beliefs) you would see the Truth.

The Holy Scriptures can not uphold Doctrines on their own: See Newman’s Tract 85 here.

You dare not look, however, as your little collection of “rules” would then shatter into a thousand pieces.

You would like to believe your little collection of “rules” can take the place of Christ’s Chuch.