Sola Scriptura . . .

[Nazianzen]

Anyone care to joust over sola scriptura?

 

[maurin]

what’s there to joust about? nowhere in Scripture does it teach Scripture alone.

 

[kleary]

The names of the books of the New Testament, the list of those names of books, is a truth revealed by God. This is the list that tells us which books are “Scripture” and which books are not “Scripture”. We call this list the “Canon of Scripture”.

The “Canon of Scripture” is a truth revealed by God.

Nowhere in Scripture is the list of books of the New Testament found. The “Canon of Scripture”, a truth revealed by God, is NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine and “tradition of men” that must be rejected. One reason why the Council Fathers at Trent rejected the “Reformed” teaching of “Sola Scriptura”.

Ken

 

[NotWorthy]

Let’s see, how early in Church History is “Scripture Alone” even mentioned or at least strongly hinted at?

And if it was the sole rule of faith, shouldn’t the Apostles started writing and compiling a tad bit earlier?

 

[Nazianzen]

I’m new here. I’ve been active in the water baptism thread. I keep pushing this issue with protestants like believers and allforhim, but no one will respond to such arguments.

I would really like for some of the protestants here to defend SS. I’m interested in what they will come up with.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Let me try:

1. All Christians believe in the inspiration of the Bible.
2. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.
3. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

-Tim

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Let me try:

1. All Christians believe in the inspiration of the Bible.
2. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.
3. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

-Tim

Let’s see, I’m speaking as someone who was raised Protestant and had no intention of being anything else until a couple years ago. I once held the sola scriptura doctrine myself, so I’m not going to mock those who believe in it. That being said, I believe it is a fundamentally flawed belief.

I would like to address your numbered points.

1. I agree. However, the question each Christian ought to ask himself or herself is “Why do I believe this?”
2. This is difficult to prove, particularly since those who make this claim cannot agree among themselves what the Sacred Scriptures actually say. If it could be infallibly shown exactly what Sacred Scripture was truly saying, and then comparison revealed that these teachings did not match the teachings of the Catholic Church, you could accurately make your second statement.
3. I don’t know that this is the inevitable conclusion, as the Christian believer could determine that some traditions were, in fact, acceptable. This is the case among most Protestants, as there is widespread acceptance of the New Testament canon and the Nicene Creed, for example. And, tradition aside, before the Christian believer can adopt a sola scriptura position, the believer must first answer my “why?” question from number 1, and must, independently from tradition, determine what is Sacred Scripture and what is not.

There’s more to say, of course, and I am sure others will get more in depth. I, however, really need to go to bed. Have a good night, everyone!

 

[NotWorthy]

Let me try:

1. All Christians believe in the inspiration of the Bible.

Amen!!!

1. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.

So Christ promised that He would be with His Church til the end of Time. That the Holy Spirit would guide her. Are you saying Christ might have been wrong?

Also, this may be a good time to bring up faith and practices that are “directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures”.

1. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

But Scripture says:

a) If you can’t resolve an issue, “Take it to Scriptures”? No, it says, “Take it to the Church”.

b) “The Bible is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”? No, it says, “The **Church **is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”.

 

[Timmy_Z]

I don’t know that this is the inevitable conclusion, as the Christian believer could determine that some traditions were, in fact, acceptable.

Certainly. I will have to dig up the quote, but Luther said something to the effect of: not Scripture apart from tradition, but Scripture above it.

So Christ promised that He would be with His Church til the end of Time. That the Holy Spirit would guide her. Are you saying Christ might have been wrong?

You and I read the word church differently. I see it as the sum of all who have ever follow the essentials of the faith (mere Christianity)

Also, this may be a good time to bring up faith and practices that are "directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures

Lets establish the the premises first. What is the consequence if #2 is demonstrated?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[NotWorthy]

You and I read the word church differently. I see it as the sum of all who have ever follow the essentials of the faith (mere Christianity)

Yet another tradition of man. Can you show me where this was taught that there is no visible Church with teaching authority and Holy Guidance?

The Apostles had authority, simply because Jesus knew that they would need authority. Did this need for authority end?

Lets establish the the premises first. What is the consequence if #2 is demonstrated?

Thanks,
Tim

I thought you established the premises when you said:

                          2. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[Timmy_Z]

The Apostles had authority, simply because Jesus knew that they would need authority. Did this need for authority end?

I don’t know why the Lord chose to end the teaching authority of the apostles at their death (I can speculate if you would like), however I can see that it has ended.

I thought you established the premises when you said

Can we agree that if premise #2 is demonstrated that #3 follows?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know why the Lord chose to end the teaching authority of the apostles at their death (I can speculate if you would like), however I can see that it has ended.

You’ll have to show me in the Bible that the Lord chose to end the teaching authority of the Apostles at their death.

Besides, who was left with the authority to determine the Canon of Holy Scriptures?

Can we agree that if premise #2 is demonstrated that #3 follows?

Thanks,
Tim

What is this, “Who’s on First”?

For those of you who didn’t by a program, our good friend Timmy said:

1. All Christians believe in the inspiration of the Bible.
2. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.
3. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

To answer your question, if #2 fails, then so does #3, because Scriptures tells you to “Take it to the Church”. If the Church is no longer authoritative, then neither can Scripture be, for if this verse no longer holds, the average Christian can question any other verse.

 

[adrift]

Let me try:

1. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.

-Tim

This is vague. What are you talking about? I know nothing that Catholics teach that contradicts Scriptures.

 

[Timmy_Z]

You’ll have to show me in the Bible that the Lord chose to end the teaching authority of the Apostles at their death.

Why? The Bible does not speak to everything in life and conclusions can be reached apart from it as long as they do not contradict it.

Besides, who was left with the authority to determine the Canon of Holy Scriptures?

God has authority to determine His Scriptures. The faithful merely recognized them.

If the Church is no longer authoritative, then neither can Scripture be, for if this verse no longer holds, the average Christian can question any other verse.

Or you misunderstand the meaning of “church” in the NT.

Thanks,
Tim

 

[NotWorthy]

Why? The Bible does not speak to everything in life and conclusions can be reached apart from it as long as they do not contradict it.

Ah, but in your own words:

1. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

So you must back up those words by telling me where in Scripture does it say that all teaching authority dies with the Apostles?

Scriptures tells a different story. Read Timothy one more time. Paul instructs Timothy (not an apostle) so that he can teach others…

God has authority to determine His Scriptures. The faithful merely recognized them.

The faithful recognized what? There were huge debates on Hebrews, Revelation, and many others into the mid 300’s. God guided His Church to infallibly determine the Scriptures.

That sounds a lot more like Catholic Doctrine than Protestant.

Or you misunderstand the meaning of “church” in the NT.

Then so did the followers of the Apostles for the immediate disciples of the Apostles were already teaching the doctrine of the authoritative Church that they had learned at the foot of the Apostles.

I find it absolutely amazing that someone living 2000 years later can determine what the Apostles meant more clearly than someone who spent decades with these same Apostles and spoke the same language.

 

[Timmy_Z]

So you must back up those words by telling me where in Scripture does it say that all teaching authority dies with the Apostles?

That is not what Sola Scriptura means.

Then so did the followers of the Apostles for the immediate disciples of the Apostles were already teaching the doctrine of the authoritative Church that they had learned at the foot of the Apostles.

If this is true (I don’t know either way), then the followers of the Apostles were mistaken if #2 holds.

Thanks,
Tim

 

[adrift]

f this is true (I don’t know either way), then the followers of the Apostles were mistaken if #2 holds.

You are unable to give any support to number two. I have noticed that you give statements nothing else.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is not what Sola Scriptura means.

I know what Sola Scriptura means. I also know that Sola Scripturists deny the authority of the Church. They have simply proved time and time again that you can’t have one and the other.

If this is true (I don’t know either way), then the followers of the Apostles were mistaken if #2 holds.

Again, if this is true, then you, a person living 1900 years after their time, reading a book that has been translated probably at least 2 times (each time, losing some of the original intent of the original authors), are claiming to know more about what Jesus meant then they did.

I’m amazed!!!

 

[Nicene]

Let me try:

1. All Christians believe in the inspiration of the Bible.
2. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.
3. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

-Tim

Let me try:

1 Christians believe in the entire writ of sacred scripture (all 72 books) and tradition.
2. The teachings of fundamentalists is directly contradictory to the word of God and the living Holy Spirit.
3. The true christian has nowhere to turn but to the body of Christ with Christ as the head, The Holy Spirit and the living God in the trinity.
4. The fundamentalist rejects number 3 in favor of man made doctrine through the excuse of sola scriptura (bottom line relying on self righteousness :

Lk 16:15: But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Because fundamentalists believe it is scripture which leads to eternal life:

Jn 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

And choose not to come to Christ and his body to have eternal life.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[LaSalle]

Hi Timmy

1. The teaching authority of the RCC has taught faith and practice directly contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures.
2. The Christian has nowhere left to turn but Sola Scriptura.

But if SS is proven to be untenable, where would that leave you? Perhaps to re-look why you believe that the RCC is wrong?

You mentioned this -
Timmy Z:

You and I read the word church differently. I see it as the sum of all who have ever follow the essentials of the faith (mere Christianity)

This is the one concept that ought to demonstrate quite obviously that SS is untenable … If the sum of all who follow the essentials are the church - wouldn’t that mean that ‘the church’ was contradicting herself? Baptist will say that infant baptism is wrong, and Methodist will say that it is a must; Some will say that baptism is merely a symbol, while others will say that it regenerates the soul; some believe in ‘once saved always saved’ others will teach that you can lose your salvation.

There’ll be doctrinal issues from the cradle to the grave, and this church of yours doesn’t seem to be able to definitively teach objectively.“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24

Can you not see this?

I think the only reason why this is clung to is because Protestants just cannot fathom that the RCC may just be right. They’d accept this flawed concept because *even this *is better than going back to Rome.

Can you show us any RCC teaching that is as illogical and untenable as this? Probably not, what you will invariably produce are examples of RCC doctrines which you feel contradicts your understanding of the scriptures.