Sola Scriptura...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As I already said in another thread, I thought a little bit more about the question of errors creeping into the Church. So I decided to search even further into this question. I was actually rather surprised to come along some other passages and read them within their entire context.

For example, when I read 2 Corinthians 13:1-10, I read, in context, something rather remarkable about what Paul is claiming regarding his authority as an apostle…

This will be my third visit to you.**Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.**I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent:On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you.

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.

Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test.

Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed.

For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection.

This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

I dunno…

This sounds very much like a God-given, God-authorized, and God-guided eccleistical authority to me. It sounds remarkably similar to the Catholic understanding of the Church in our modern day to be perfectly honest-- and I’m not reading these words out context either.

Furthermore, there are clear Scriptural references to people needing people of authority to explain the meaning of the Scriptures to others.

Christ himself spoke the word to people in many parables, as much as they could understand. In fact, he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

However, when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything. Later, after his resurrection but before the breaking of the bread, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Indeed, after the breaking of the bread, they said…**Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?**We see a similar things in Acts 8:30-32, Acts 17:2-4, and even in Acts 18: 24-28 where Apollos, even though he only had John’s baptism, was still nonetheless clearly instructed in the way of the Lord. And even Acts 28:22-24 clearly demonstrates this necessity of having the Scriptures explained properly.

It is true that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

But how, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?

And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

And how can they preach unless they are sent?

As it is written…How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hi, first post here… just want to pitch in on this topic…

I seem to recall that there was a person from antioch named Lucian, witch collected the Greek new testament, and this is the manuscript that we today know as Textus Receptus. Witch is the most reliable group of manuscripts.

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal

Thanks.

Do you have link for this information?

 

[Damascus]

I just wanted to tell Mr. Ex Nihilo that this is by far and away the best thread I have ever seen on this subject so far on a forum. I think you went above and beyond in many ways to explain the Catholic postition. But what always bothers me when I read threads like this one is the non-Catholic party always comes up with some reason to stop discussing the subject. I mean it was really getting interesting and then, poof!
I wish Steadfast would reconsider and jump back into the discussion.

 

[Steadfast]

It is interesting that Pope Benedict XVI’s speech addressed this very claim you have made above.

Here is his quoted words…

Very interesting remarks indeed and thanks for sharing them.

But I think the Pope is caricaturing a bit. The image one gets in reading his remarks is of the Reformers as a uniform bunch of Campbellite repristinationists, and that is entirely inaccurate.

It’s true that the Reformers (esp. Luther) believed that the Church had far too long associated itself with pagan philosophical systems but this had far more to do with her attachment to the peregrinations of the schoolmen then to considerations of subapostolic departure from a biblical ideal.

I think the common position (to the Reformers, esp. Luther) would be that philosophy has it’s place and can even lend us language in which to articulate revealed truth, but it cannot reveal truth. For this reason I think a separation of disciplines is the ideal with the clear understanding that theology, relying as it does on Divine Revelation, is by far the superior of the two, with philosophy a servant, expendable and fallible, rather than the second head of the monster scholasticism became in the late middle ages.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I just wanted to tell Mr. Ex Nihilo that this is by far and away the best thread I have ever seen on this subject so far on a forum. I think you went above and beyond in many ways to explain the Catholic postition. But what always bothers me when I read threads like this one is the non-Catholic party always comes up with some reason to stop discussing the subject. I mean it was really getting interesting and then, poof!

Thank you.

I still have much work ahead of me yet to explore all the angles necessary. When the time is right, I’ll be exploring church history to demonstrate something which I find remarkable regarding the history of Judaism from Abraham to Christ when contrasted to the history of Catholicism-- and specifically attempt to link it with the divisions in the church.

Damascus:

I wish Steadfast would reconsider and jump back into the discussion.

It would appear that Steadfast is back.

Let’s carry on, shall we?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Very interesting remarks indeed and thanks for sharing them.

But I think the Pope is caricaturing a bit. The image one gets in reading his remarks is of the Reformers as a uniform bunch of Campbellite repristinationists, and that is entirely inaccurate.

It’s true that the Reformers (esp. Luther) believed that the Church had far too long associated itself with pagan philosophical systems but this had far more to do with her attachment to the peregrinations of the schoolmen then to considerations of subapostolic departure from a biblical ideal.

I think the common position (to the Reformers, esp. Luther) would be that philosophy has it’s place and can even lend us language in which to articulate revealed truth, but it cannot reveal truth. For this reason I think a separation of disciplines is the ideal with the clear understanding that theology, relying as it does on Divine Revelation, is by far the superior of the two, with philosophy a servant, expendable and fallible, rather than the second head of the monster scholasticism became in the late middle ages.

Interesting.

It’s getting late, so I’ll reply in detail tomorrow night.

In the meantime, in preparation for our exchange on this topic, are you familiar with the passages of Scripture where Samuel says that after Saul’s death his armor was put in the temple of the Canaanite fertility godess Ashorah at Bethshan, and the passages in Chronicles which speak of Saul’s head being placed in the temple the Philistine corn god Dagon?

Yes. Although it may not seem like it now, this question will come back to your assertion noted above.

 

[AugustineH354]

Hello Steadfast,

You wrote:

What Sola Scriptura means is that everything that it is necessary to know and believe in order to be in right relationship with God is to be found in the Bible either clearly stated or necessarily inferred.

Me: This is ONE form of sola scriptura, and in truth, many Catholics concur with this view, which has been termed the “materially sufficient” view. However, most Protestants have adopted one of the varying forms of what is called the “formally sufficient” view.

Note the following which I posted in another recent thread on sola scriptura:

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of *sola scriptura *if one understands it from a materially sufficient viewpoint (the position of the ECF’s and many post V2 Catholic scholars). Note what Rahner had to say:

Quote:
I would like, however, to try in the last part of our reflections to bring forward certain reasons for our not needing to accept – not even from a Catholic point of view – a constitutive material function of tradition which goes beyond the testimony of the nature of scripture; that we can say conversely, therefore, that it is entirely possible to formulate a Catholic sola scriptura principle with regard to the Church’s deposit of faith, *provided *that we understand this in a Catholic sense and therefore understand it to involve also an authoritative attestation and interpretation of holy scripture by the living word of the Church and her magisterium, and an attestation of scripture itself and its authoritative interpretation which cannot be replaced by scripture itself. (Karl Rahner, *Theological Investigations *vol. 6, p. 107.)

Newman approximated the same a century earlier:

Quote:
You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; But, after all, neither you, nor I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those Notes also make frequent reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula Fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. Pp. 283-431; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition; and this is all that Catholics say. How, then do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I believe the difference is merely one of words…(John Henry Newman, Certain Difficulties Felt By Anglicans In Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12.)

In interpreting Scripture, Athan, always assumes that the Catholic teaching is true and the Scripture must be explained by it…

The great and essential difference between Catholics and non-Catholics was, that Catholics interpreted Scripture by Tradition, and non-Catholics by their own private judgment.

That not only Arians, but heretics generally, professed to be guided by Scripture, we know from many witnesses.” (John Henry Newman, Treatises of Athanasius, vol. 2.264.)

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[Reedolo]

Hey everybody.

I’m a new convert to Catholicism, and this issue of Sola Scriptura is one that comes up a lot. I firmly believe that Sola Sciptura is an unbiblical doctrine, but the other day a Baptist friend of mine pointed out something to me and I wasn’t able to think of an answer. I’m sure everyone is familiar with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that’s the one they usually cite to defend their doctrine.
2 Tim. 3:16-17
16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The reason this gave me trouble is because I don’t know to respond to the fact that verse 17 says “complete”. My Protestant friend is interpreting this to mean that Scripture alone makes us complete and equipped for every good work.

How do I respond? What is this passage actually saying?

Thanks,
Reed

 

[happygal]

Hey everybody.

I’m a new convert to Catholicism, and this issue of Sola Scriptura is one that comes up a lot. I firmly believe that Sola Sciptura is an unbiblical doctrine, but the other day a Baptist friend of mine pointed out something to me and I wasn’t able to think of an answer. I’m sure everyone is familiar with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that’s the one they usually cite to defend their doctrine.
2 Tim. 3:16-17
16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The reason this gave me trouble is because I don’t know to respond to the fact that verse 17 says “complete”. My Protestant friend is interpreting this to mean that Scripture alone makes us complete and equipped for every good work.

How do I respond? What is this passage actually saying?

Thanks,
Reed

For those that God have choosen to reveal to man kind were indeed wirtten on the bible, however i remembered there was a verse in the bible that mentioned for thing that God does not wanted public to know it shall not be reveal…However there are things that God can give private reveal to you about yr life which is not inside the bible.

Bible is the foundation for all Christian, but we also need to pray for private revelation for our life to excel further.

 

[Lampo]

Hey everybody.

I’m a new convert to Catholicism, and this issue of Sola Scriptura is one that comes up a lot. I firmly believe that Sola Sciptura is an unbiblical doctrine, but the other day a Baptist friend of mine pointed out something to me and I wasn’t able to think of an answer. I’m sure everyone is familiar with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that’s the one they usually cite to defend their doctrine.
2 Tim. 3:16-17
16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The reason this gave me trouble is because I don’t know to respond to the fact that verse 17 says “complete”. My Protestant friend is interpreting this to mean that Scripture alone makes us complete and equipped for every good work.

How do I respond? What is this passage actually saying?

Thanks,
Reed

It says that Scripture is profitable, not sufficient. Also, Paul is talking about the OT in these passages. In 2 Tim. 3:15, Paul it talking about Timothy as an infant knowing the Sacred Scriptures. This couldn’t mean the NT.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Interesting.

It’s getting late, so I’ll reply in detail tomorrow night.

In the meantime, in preparation for our exchange on this topic, are you familiar with the passages of Scripture where Samuel says that after Saul’s death his armor was put in the temple of the Canaanite fertility godess Ashorah at Bethshan, and the passages in Chronicles which speak of Saul’s head being placed in the temple the Philistine corn god Dagon?

Yes. Although it may not seem like it now, this question will come back to your assertion noted above.

Steadfast?

 

[TheGarg]

What about when Catholics misunderstand the Bible?

What could you even possibly mean by this…at best you could say, “what about when people misunderstand the bible” because alot do, EVERYDAY, of all religions…since first time it written…those who “know” it had to be TAUGHT how to read it.

 

[TheGarg]

And like you don’t have misconceptions about the Catholic Church?

Give me a break Steadfast. Either defend your thesis or back out gracefully without making accusations against me in the process.

.

Back out??? heck…I challenge you steadfast to CONVERT, and take partin the Fullness of Truth!!..Don’t let pride keep you from what want the most…

Mr. Ex Nihilo, man…you rock…i hope you dont mind but i have saved alot of your writing, it is awesome…

Peace of Christ be to both of you!!

 

[TheGarg]

It says that Scripture is profitable, not sufficient. Also, Paul is talking about the OT in these passages. In 2 Tim. 3:15, Paul it talking about Timothy as an infant knowing the Sacred Scriptures. This couldn’t mean the NT.

I love this point, most people don’t even realize



ps…not laughing at anyone…just really love this point of truth

 

[believers]

Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Back out??? heck…I challenge you steadfast to CONVERT, and take partin the Fullness of Truth!!..Don’t let pride keep you from what want the most…

Mr. Ex Nihilo, man…you rock…i hope you dont mind but i have saved alot of your writing, it is awesome…

Peace of Christ be to both of you!!

Thank you.

May the Lord bless you richly within his holy family.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hbr 4:12
For the Word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

Have you read through this thread yet believers?

 

[Damo73]

1. The Scripture implicitly and explicitly speaks of its sufficiency.
   2 Tim. 3:14–17
   “You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are
   confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you
   have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for
   salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God
   and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
   righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and
   equipped for every good work.”

Three things this passage teaches us:

1. Scriptures are sufficient for salvation.
2. Scriptures are sufficient for sanctification.
3. Scriptures are uniquely God-breathed (theopnoustos). Tradition is never given

The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped
doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Irenaeus (ca. 150)
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.”
Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”
Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”
Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”
Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”
St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”
Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8
“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”

 

[Damo73]

Ps. 119
This Psalm is an acclamation of the Scriptures, made up of 176 verses
(longest chapter in the Bible) mentioning the Word of God 178 times
using 10 different synonyms. The Scriptures are presented as being
totally sufficient for the follower of God in all matters pertaining to
instruction, training, and correction. It is significant that though
Scripture is mentioned 178 times, the concept of unwritten Tradition
is never mentioned once. In fact, there is no acclamation of or
meditation on unwritten Tradition in such a way anywhere in Scripture.
This would be problematic if one were to believe that the concept of
unwritten Tradition is on equal footing as Scripture, yet the Bible
never mentions it. It would be the greatest case of neglect that one
could find.
Acts 17:10–11
“The brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea at once, during the night.
When they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue. These Jews
were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly
received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to
see if these things were so.”
Scripture explicitly states that no one is to add to or take away from the Word
of God. These warnings would be meaningless if there was not some objective
way for one to judge if he or she was adding to God’s Word, since unwritten
Tradition is by nature beyond this type of examination. These commands are
warnings against traditions that add to the complete and sufficient Word of
God. They would only make sense if the Scriptures were sufficient and
complete.

Deut. 4:2
“Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so
that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I
am delivering to you.”
Rev. 22:18–19
“I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in
this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues
described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of
this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life
and in the holy city that are described in this book.”
Concerning the sufficiency of Scripture, the Westminster Catechism says:
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his
own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down
in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from scripture; unto which, nothing at any time is to be added,
whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” (1:6).
If the Roman pontiff, the “Vicar of Christ”, or the magisterium is going to
speak on behalf of Christ, being successors to the apostles’ office, authority,
and infallibility, they must show the signs of one who speaks for God as
prescribed in Scripture.
Deut. 18:20–22
“But if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have
not authorized him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that
prophet must die. Now if you say to yourselves, ‘How can we tell that
a message is not from the LORD?’ —whenever a prophet speaks in my
name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the
prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.”

2 Cor. 12:12
“Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great
perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.”
The Scriptures speak explicitly against the “traditions of men” as misleading
and often in opposition to God’s written Word. Therefore, all traditions must
submit to Scripture.
Matt. 15:2–6
“‘Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they
don’t wash their hands when they eat.’ He answered them, ‘And why
do you disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition?
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Whoever insults
his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If someone
tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received
from me is given to God,’’ he does not need to honor his father. You
have nullified the word of God on account of your tradition.”

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Damo73, nothing you posted actually verified the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from within the Scriptures.

Did you actually read through what was posted so far in this thread?