Sola Scriptura

[scylla]

This sounds very circular to me, why isn’t it? How are you reduced to absurdity? The Catholic Church uses a different Canon of Scripture than you do and it seems to make a lot more sense.

Let me try and clarify your statements and correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying that since scripture is the Word of God it is the only thing we can trust, as it is the only thing that is uncorrupt?

Is this correct?

But didn’t Peter dictate some of scripture? Was it uncorrupt when he said this or when it was on paper? Or did they have to wait until some Canon was made later to even know he had the authority to preach?

See I really have a problem understanding why Martin Luther had the authority to decide that Sola Scriptura was the rule of faith and to break away. Historically from secular sources I have seen no record of Sola Scriptura before Martin Luther. Wouldn’t there have been at least 100 different churches if there was by the time Martin Luther came along?

 

[Church_Militant]

Speaking of Luther…isn’t that the same guy who added the word “alone” to the often quoted verse in Romans about faith saving us? Oh my…I see that that is indeed so…

Oh and this is also the guy who edited out 4 books of the NT because they didn’t suit his new improved theology of sola fide and sola scriptura. He called the book of James “The Epistle of Straw” and removed Revelations, James, Jude and one of Peter’s epistles. (The NT canon had NEVER been challenged until then!) Then of course he also chose to remove all 7 deuterocaonical books as well and wanted to delete Esther as well. And this is the founder of this new wind of doctrine that his modern namesake here is trying to make sound so reasonable with his psuedo-scholarship. I don’t know about anyone else…but he’s not foolin’ me…
Pax vobiscum,
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello scylla!

This sounds very circular to me, why isn’t it? How are you reduced to absurdity? The Catholic Church uses a different Canon of Scripture than you do and it seems to make a lot more sense.

Let me try and clarify your statements and correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying that since scripture is the Word of God it is the only thing we can trust, as it is the only thing that is uncorrupt?

Is this correct?

No, it is not correct. First of all, I thought you meant New Testament canon, as people were throwing around the 27 book number. I would be happy to discuss the apocrypha after we finish this thread, and demonstrate the same thing with regards to the Old Testament canon.

Here is what I am saying. When you reject the canon, you are reduced to absurdity because you cannot make sense of all of the facts of history and textual evidence that you read on that page, and in other works on the evidence for the canon. You see, it is not that these facts are the precondition for the canon, and hence, as you suggested, we accept other authority. Instead, the Canon is the precondition of the facts that you read. Because those passages I posted say that if you reject the authority of God, you will become foolish in your reasoning, we can then say that if you have no way to account for the facts of history and textual criticism, then you have no way of understanding history or the Bible, and hence, if you treated every other fact this way you would be absurd in your reasoning.

Let me give you a good example. If you rejected my writings as scripture, you would not have your reasoning affected. Historically, I was born in the early 1980’s, and no one has ever considered my work scripture. My writings are written in English, which did not exist at the time of the apostles. I have never seen Jesus on this earth, and talked to him physically. Not only that, but if you were to look at my writings as a linguist, you would probably be able to discover that they come from the twentieth century. Hence, you are not reduced to silliness if you reject my writings as scripture.

However, remember all of that evidence that you said was hard for you to understand? You would have to deal with pages and pages and pages and pages of that kind of evidence both textually and historically if you decided to add or delete books from the NT canon. Hence, there would be no meaningful way you could deal with these facts, both historical and textual. Hence, by adding or taking away books of the canon you are not able to make sense of those facts, and hence, your reasoning is made foolish as those passages from the scriptures themselves say will happen when you reject God’s authority as the ultimate authority.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[surfinpure]

Church Militant:

Speaking of Luther…isn’t that the same guy who added the word “alone” to the often quoted verse in Romans about faith saving us? Oh my…I see that that is indeed so…

Oh and this is also the guy who edited out 4 books of the NT because they didn’t suit his new improved theology of sola fide and sola scriptura. He called the book of James “The Epistle of Straw” and removed Revelations, James, Jude and one of Peter’s epistles. (The NT canon had NEVER been challenged until then!) Then of course he also chose to remove all 7 deuterocaonical books as well and wanted to delete Esther as well. And this is the founder of this new wind of doctrine that his modern namesake here is trying to make sound so reasonable with his psuedo-scholarship. I don’t know about anyone else…but he’s not foolin’ me…
Pax vobiscum,

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[dennisknapp]

Martin Luther:

Hello scylla!

No, it is not correct. First of all, I thought you meant New Testament canon, as people were throwing around the 27 book number. I would be happy to discuss the apocrypha after we finish this thread, and demonstrate the same thing with regards to the Old Testament canon.

Here is what I am saying. When you reject the canon, you are reduced to absurdity because you cannot make sense of all of the facts of history and textual evidence that you read on that page, and in other works on the evidence for the canon. You see, it is not that these facts are the precondition for the canon, and hence, as you suggested, we accept other authority. Instead, the Canon is the precondition of the facts that you read. Because those passages I posted say that if you reject the authority of God, you will become foolish in your reasoning, we can then say that if you have no way to account for the facts of history and textual criticism, then you have no way of understanding history or the Bible, and hence, if you treated every other fact this way you would be absurd in your reasoning.

Let me give you a good example. If you rejected my writings as scripture, you would not have your reasoning affected. Historically, I was born in the early 1980’s, and no one has ever considered my work scripture. My writings are written in English, which did not exist at the time of the apostles. I have never seen Jesus on this earth, and talked to him physically. Not only that, but if you were to look at my writings as a linguist, you would probably be able to discover that they come from the twentieth century. Hence, you are not reduced to silliness if you reject my writings as scripture.

However, remember all of that evidence that you said was hard for you to understand? You would have to deal with pages and pages and pages and pages of that kind of evidence both textually and historically if you decided to add or delete books from the NT canon. Hence, there would be no meaningful way you could deal with these facts, both historical and textual. Hence, by adding or taking away books of the canon you are not able to make sense of those facts, and hence, your reasoning is made foolish as those passages from the scriptures themselves say will happen when you reject God’s authority as the ultimate authority.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

How exactly do you get from textual criticism to Sola Scriptura? I totally accept that the bible is God’s word, but so is Oral Tradition. God’s word comes to us in two forms (not one) and the historical record shows this to be true.

When did we ever question the historicity and textual integrity of the bible? And how do you go from the historicity and textual integrity to quoting Scriptural passages out of context against us, for I am sure Paul in Romans 1:21-23 and **Colossians 2:2-3 **was not dealing with the issue of Sola Scriptura, so the point is mute.

The authority of the Church is an historical fact, as where Sola Scriptura is not. It is late development of the 16th century and therefore is suspect.

You may quote me Fathers that hold the Scripture in the highest regard, but this has never changed. The Church still holds the Scripture in the hightest regard and reads from it multiple times, 365 days a year. The bible is our book, we wrote, we compiled it, we interpret it.

Peace

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello dennisknapp!

I actually think you have missed the point entirely.

Firstly, it was a whole list of not just textual criticism, but historical evidence as well as intertextual evidence. Secondly, Romans 1:21-23 and Colossians 2:2-3 are about Sola Scriptura because it talks about the nature of divine knowledge and authority and what happens when you reject it. Obviously, adding or deleting from the Scriptures would be a human thing with human authority, and hence, you would become a foolish just as these texts say, because this evidence Dr. Wallace gave can no longer be understood if you reject the 27 book canon. The view will then not comport with reality. That is how the canon is verified from scripture.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

P.S.-Those quotes are not saying the fathers held a high view of scripture, but that the scriptures are sufficient and perspicuious, and some that even say that we should go to nothing else concerning the faith.

 

[dennisknapp]

Martin Luther:

Hello dennisknapp!

I actually think you have missed the point entirely.

Firstly, it was a whole list of not just textual criticism, but historical evidence as well as intertextual evidence. Secondly, Romans 1:21-23 and Colossians 2:2-3 are about Sola Scriptura because it talks about the nature of divine knowledge and authority and what happens when you reject it. Obviously, adding or deleting from the Scriptures would be a human thing with human authority, and hence, you would become a foolish just as these texts say, because this evidence Dr. Wallace gave can no longer be understood if you reject the 27 book canon. The view will then not comport with reality. That is how the canon is verified from scripture.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

P.S.-Those quotes are not saying the fathers held a high view of scripture, but that the scriptures are sufficient and perspicuious, and some that even say that we should go to nothing else concerning the faith.

So, you are saying that Paul is dealing with the same problem we are dealing with today? That he was addressing Catholics who held to a dual preservation of God’s word, namely Scripture and Tradition? I don’t think that is what the context of these passages show. You are using eisegesis when you interpret those passages in that way.

BTW regarding the Fathers… If any of your sources also mention an appeal to the authority of the Church, your quotes are in vain.

Like I said, the Churches teaching regarding the Scriptures has never changed.

For you to convince me that the early Church taught your concept of Sola Scriptura, you need to show me evidence that they also believed your concept of Sola Scriptura. They would have to have the same view of the Church that you have, as well as the same view of the Scriptures. These two beliefs go hand and hand, and cannot be seperated.

Peace

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Martin,

I pulled these points off the post you referenced.

1. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
2. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of all tradition.

This is a point missed quite often by Catholics who assume that all Protestants hold to the most extreme and indefensible kind of SS which does try to root out all tradition.

1. Sola Scriptura does claim that all tradition is subject to the authority of scripture, and any tradition not found in the text of scripture is not binding.

This is the restrictive rule of SS. But in classical SS it is more nuanced than this. I think the Westminster Confession will admit both the explicit and the implied.

1. We do not deny that the church has authority to teach.
   However, the church is still subject to the ultimate authority of scripture.
2. Sola Scriptura does not deny that the church needs to be led by the Holy Spirit.

It is assumed that in history the HS has been guiding the church, but not necessarily in the institutional church, but just generally.

1. Finally, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that God’s word was never spoken.

SS assumes that God’s intent was to capture all of Reveleation that was need into the written form. Inscripturation.

In order to be at all credible and consistent, these additional elements must be added.

1. The Bible is not completely self-authenticating. We rely on extrabiblical sources to even know what Scripture is.
2. The Bible was infallible only in the original manuscripts. What we have today is a fallible collection of fallible books based on infallible originals.
3. But it is Good Enuff for our salvation.
4. In order to get the necessary truth from our Good Enuff Bibles, we necessarily rely on the authoritative but fallible institution of the Church, reason, illumination of HS, consensus, the words of scripture itself, tradition, history, biblical scholarship, etc.
5. But to account for the extreme variability in belief and practice among Christians over the world, we must posit that the essential saving truth we are to get from the Bible is really very simple and basic and accessible to all.
6. Consequently, SS will produce precious few dogmas. or beliefs binding on the Christian.

 

[Krebsbach]

SS also requires sola fide (and vice versa). If the Church isn’t an identifiable, visible body necessary to our salvation, then the way to get to heaven must be pretty simple and individualistic. Saved, justified, sanctified, etc. by faith alone.

Anyway, those are my thots. I appreciate that you are undermanned, Martin. No immiediate response necessary. Slow motion conversation will be OK

But speaking to all you Catliks out there, seems to me that Luther’s most powerful argument in favor of SS is that the Church Hath Erred and proved itself fallible even in the most important issue of how we git saved. If that is true, then some kind of SS must be true, or else this Christianity thing is a bunch of bunk The forgoing model of SS seems to be the one with the least problems.

But spea;king to all your Protesters out there, is the Good Enuff Bible really good enuff?

cordially

Karl

 

[Mickey]

Reading through these posts, I see only one individual here who is a “skeptic”. I see only one with an “absurd view of history”. I see only one who is “foolish in his reasoning”.

I can state this very succinctly and easy to read without having to resort to long winded dissertations of circular arguments and double-talk:

**The Catholic Church sifted through multitudes of writings to decipher which ones were inspired and which ones were false or gnostic. This makes “The Church” the ultimate authority. **

As hard as some people try to twist this plain and simple truth, it will never change history.

 

[scylla]

If you can see this and read this Martin, I suggest you look at this site, it has nothing to do with this subject, but parallels the type discussion we were having. I really tried hard to clarify and make some sense out of what you were saying and it seemed to me you just kept harping on about infinite regression and what not.

timecube.com/

You can try and rationalize anything in life, but there is one truth and if you seek it with an open heart you will find it.

God Bless,
Scylla

 

[Mickey]

scylla:

If you can see this and read this Martin, I suggest you look at this site, it has nothing to do with this subject, but parallels the type discussion we were having. I really tried hard to clarify and make some sense out of what you were saying and it seemed to me you just kept harping on about infinite regression and what not.
You can try and rationalize anything in life, but there is one truth and if you seek it with an open heart you will find it.

Yes scylla, conversations with Marty can be, how shall we say, circular! :whacky:

However, Marty is still very young and full of zeal and love for Christ. Perhaps some of the truths that he reads on this forum will plant seeds that will be nurtured and grow to maturity by the grace of God.

I pray that his circular reasoning and infinitely regressive logic do not block the grace of God. I pray that the Lord will bestow his grace upon Marty, so that he may be able to contemplate and celebrate the mysteries of Christ with an open mind and an open heart.

Now and ever and forever, amen.

 

[gez722]

Martin Luther:

How do we know God’s revelation? Well, the books that are in the Bible are in the Bible because they are God-Breathed [2 Timothy 3:16]. Such might seem circular, that is, the scriptures are what they are because they say so. However, as we have just seen, we cannot avoid this circularity. The Roman Catholic has already assumed that the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to define and interpret revelation. Hence, in order to avoid having the above mentioned other ultimate authorities, it must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a self-authenticating authority. Therefore, the protestant believes that the scriptures are self-authenticating. What we have, then, are two presupposed authorities:

Martin Luthor,
Please don’t take this as a personal attack, but I have to say that I’m very confused by some of your comments. If you believe that all revelation is contained in the Bible, how can you say that it’s self authenticating? If everything we need for salvation is contained in the Bible, then it should somewhere list the books that are considered inspired. Otherwise some authority (not using the Bible) had to determine which books are inspired and should be included in the Bible.

Does that mean that “sola scriptura” means that the Bible contains all the information that we need, EXCEPT a list of books that should be contained in the Bible? If that’s the case, then I don’t see how the Bible-alone theory could be valid. I agree with 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God, but it doesn’t address the question about what constitutes Scripture.

I may be a little dense, but I don’t get it.

 

[Mickey]

gez722:

I agree with 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God, but it doesn’t address the question about what constitutes Scripture.

It says “all Scripture is inspired by God” not “only Scripture is inspired by God”.

 

[Deus_Solus]

Awww…looks like this thread is dead. Martin got suspended…for what, I do not know.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Deus Solus:

Awww…looks like this thread is dead. Martin got suspended…for what, I do not know.

Good, question.

I missed yesterday because I was so busy and then today I found ML was suspended. Im not sure why. I was waiting for a reply to my comments.

I have to admit the SS version that ML put out I have never heard of before.

Oh Well.

 

[Deus_Solus]

I have kind of. Its an apologetical tactic known as “transcendental argument” where you question the epistemelogical presuppositions of the opponent. For instance, when approaching a non-believer, you question the basis for their reasoning against the Christian worldview (i.e. is the final basis for truth autonomous human reason, or the Word of God). It is a radically logical position, taught by Cornelius Van Til in Presbyterian seminary. It neatly disposes of all factual, historical, experiential, etc. argument in favor of pure logic.

The line of reasoning goes something like this:

1. If Christianity is not true, then nothing is true (Prov. 1:7).

1. Without the Christian worldview, no position is possible; nothing makes sense.

1. The Bible is the precondition of all rational thought.

1. Unbelievers need God to account for the laws of logic, inductive reasoning, uniformity in nature, predication, human dignity, rationality in the world, ethics, an invariant moral code, science, mathematics, and everything that underlies all their thinking. They contradict themselves.

1. Unbelievers use what God gave them to ridicule Him (Ps. 10:4; Isa. 45:21; Hos. 2:8; Acts 17:28). This is their unacknowledged dependence upon suppressed truth (Rom. 1:18-20).

1. The unbeliever has rejected God with foolish pride (Ps. 14:1).

Martin Luther was admirably attempting to draw that into his debate of SS. The only problem is that this position is that Catholic position agrees with all points except #3, where it may insert a more basic premise, like “God’s revealed truth is the basis for all rational thought”. The problem is that any theistic system of thought can be rationalized by this form of logic if premise #3 is changed.

Since the position is purely logical, whenever someone would bring a historical question (like the orgin of the canon) into play, he held that he was not required to answer it since his was a purely logic based position. There are a lot of philosophical problems with the position, which is why you don’t hear much of it. Most annoyingly, as you all found out, is that its position on SS is extremely circular, since basically it holds that if you disagree with it you are reduced to logical absurdity. Baisically, when it comes to the question of SS it is a bunch of logical fallacies (petitio principii, complex question, argumentum ad consequentiam, etc.) that sound like a convincing argument.

 

[Deus_Solus]

Here is a link that kind of explains the presuppositionalist position.
reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_warword.html

In its defense, I think presuppositionalist apologetics is quite fascinating and worthwhile in exposing the underlying epistemelogical differences between Christian and non-Christian. This is a quote of Van Til’s from the article:

In seeking to follow the example of Paul, Reformed Apologetics needs, above all else, to make clear from the beginning that it is challenging the wisdom of the natural man on the authority of the self-attesting Christ speaking in Scripture. Doing this the Reformed apologist must place himself on the position of his “opponent,” the natural man, in order to show him that on the presupposition of human autonomy human predication cannot even get underway. The fact that it has gotten underway is because the universe is what the Christian, on the authority of Christ, knows it to be. Even to negate Christ, those who hate him must be borne up by Him.

I think Catholics would agree wholeheartedly that we must base our faith and and capacity for knowledge on the authority of Christ. However, how Christ’s authority is passed on (through Scripture alone or through the Church) is the question that cannot be answered sufficiently by Van Til’s position.

 

[Mickey]

Deus Solus:

I have kind of. Its an apologetical tactic known as “transcendental argument” where you question the epistemelogical presuppositions of the opponent. For instance, when approaching a non-believer, you question the basis for their reasoning against the Christian worldview (i.e. is the final basis for truth autonomous human reason, or the Word of God). It is a radically logical position, taught by Cornelius Van Til in Presbyterian seminary. It neatly disposes of all factual, historical, experiential, etc. argument in favor of pure logic.

The line of reasoning goes something like this:

Martin Luther was admirably attempting to draw that into his debate of SS. The only problem is that this position is that Catholic position agrees with all points except #3, where it may insert a more basic premise, like “God’s revealed truth is the basis for all rational thought”. The problem is that any theistic system of thought can be rationalized by this form of logic if premise #3 is changed.

Since the position is purely logical, whenever someone would bring a historical question (like the orgin of the canon) into play, he held that he was not required to answer it since his was a purely logic based position. There are a lot of philosophical problems with the position, which is why you don’t hear much of it. Most annoyingly, as you all found out, is that its position on SS is extremely circular, since basically it holds that if you disagree with it you are reduced to logical absurdity. Baisically, when it comes to the question of SS it is a bunch of logical fallacies (petitio principii, complex question, argumentum ad consequentiam, etc.) that sound like a convincing argument.

You pegged it Solus!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif

 

[Scott_Waddell]

For a Catholic who has done a dialogue with someone employing the Van Til argument see: Critique of Presuppositionalist Christian Apologetics

Catholics with even a small interest need to learn this because often we get anti-Catholics who prey on the confusion that many Catholics have (or at least unconsciously put forth) between infallibilty and authority. This is become so prevalent that some Catholic apologists refer to it as “The Tactic”. Check out this irc chat log: a2z.org/acts/cathapol/nomos1.htm and see how one apologists nips it in the bud.

Scott