Sola Scriptura ?

[Pophead]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

 

[JimG]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

Well, just to start with, the bible itself does not claim Sola Scriptura.

Secondly, Sola Scripture is self defeating, because there is nothing in scripture which tells us just what belongs in scripture.

Thirdly, the doctrine itself is relatively new, being pretty much unheard of during the first 1,500 years of the Church’s existence.

There are other reasons, but those just come to mind.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

There is a small booklet by Joel Peters entitled, “Twenty-One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura”.

It is available to read online here:

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[LuvHim]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

We first need to realize that one must fully comply with scripture…is this not the case? One can never contradict scripture - that would certainly be a mistake. In the case of the CC, they do not fall in line with scripture…and, what I believe we have going on here is that the Bible may not say everything that they would like for it to say and so there needs to be some addition to the Bible so that they can further the agenda that they have.

It is almost like saying…if we had more time we would have won the game!! But, the only time that you had was 60 minutes and the game was over. This is just a thought and not an all-out accusation. When it comes to the doctrines surrounding justification/Mary/and other miscellaneous items, the CC does not fall in line with scripture although…nobody here would ever agree with that even with all the scriptural evidence that you can cite.

*2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be **perfect, thoroughly furnished *unto all good works.

I have heard verse 16 argued as being a proof for rejection of sola scriptura (saying it is merely profitable)…BUT…they did not read all the way to the end of the chapter…verse 17 shows us the glorious sufficiency!

 

[JimG]

LuvHim’s post just reminded me of another reason. During the time that the apostles were preaching, and during the time that St. Paul was writing his letters, the only scripture that was known as scripture was the Old Testament.

So when Paul says that all scripture is profitable, he was presumably referring to the OT scriptures with which he was familiar.

The New Testament writings were not all completed until close to the end of the first century. The new testament writings had yet to be gathered, examined, and approved by the Church for use as Scripture.

(The Church had already been preaching and teaching for decades by then. If sola scripture were a requirement, the preaching would have had to have been put on hold until the scriptures were completed, reviewed, and canonized.)

Also, many different denominantions claim that their doctrines are derived from scripture alone. Yet they all differ in which doctrines are necessary, and some are completely contradictory. All use the same bible, so apparently scripture has not been sufficient to establish doctrine.

Finally I would recommend the pamphlet linked by Randy Carson, for a more complete discussion of this issue.

 

[LuvHim]

LuvHim’s post just reminded me of another reason. During the time that the apostles were preaching, and during the time that St. Paul was writing his letters, the only scripture that was known as scripture was the Old Testament.

So when Paul says that all scripture is profitable, he was presumably referring to the OT scriptures with which he was familiar.

The New Testament writings were not all completed until close to the end of the first century. The new testament writings had yet to be gathered, examined, and approved by the Church for use as Scripture.

(The Church had already been preaching and teaching for decades by then. If sola scripture were a requirement, the preaching would have had to have been put on hold until the scriptures were completed, reviewed, and canonized.)

Also, many different denominantions claim that their doctrines are derived from scripture alone. Yet they all differ in which doctrines are necessary, and some are completely contradictory. All use the same bible, so apparently scripture has not been sufficient to establish doctrine.

Finally I would recommend the pamphlet linked by Randy Carson, for a more complete discussion of this issue.

The OT, as is mentioned in 2Tim 3:17 was sufficient - and the NT makes it even more sufficient…

After Jesus mentioning the necessity of being born again…

John 3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

John 5:39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

John 5:46-47 NAS95 46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Believing on Christ is sufficient…for this is when the miracle transformation and regernation of salvation takes place…

John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

---

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[chet]

We first need to realize that one must fully comply with scripture…is this not the case? One can never contradict scripture - that would certainly be a mistake. In the case of the CC, they do not fall in line with scripture…and, what I believe we have going on here is that the Bible may not say everything that they would like for it to say and so there needs to be some addition to the Bible so that they can further the agenda that they have.

It is almost like saying…if we had more time we would have won the game!! But, the only time that you had was 60 minutes and the game was over. This is just a thought and not an all-out accusation. When it comes to the doctrines surrounding justification/Mary/and other miscellaneous items, the CC does not fall in line with scripture although…nobody here would ever agree with that even with all the scriptural evidence that you can cite.

*2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be **perfect, thoroughly furnished ***unto all good works.

I have heard verse 16 argued as being a proof for rejection of sola scriptura (saying it is merely profitable)…BUT…they did not read all the way to the end of the chapter…verse 17 shows us the glorious sufficiency!

      The Bible and the necessity of Apostolic Tradition 													          (St. John the Apostle on the minimal amount of information he put in his Gospel in relation to all he witnessed from Jesus)																 The Gospel of John Ch 21 Vs 24-25

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

(St. Paul the Apostle on following Apostolic Tradition) 1 Thessalonians Ch 2 Vs 13

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

2 Thessalonians Ch2 Vs 15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Corinthians 11 Vs 1-2

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

										    (Jesus on the necessity of preaching, teaching and baptizing. Note no instructions to write anything down.)(Only 5 of the 12 Apostles wrote down any of their teachings. Peter established Apostolic Succession before he even got around to writing any Scripture. John waited at least 25 years before he wrote down any of his Gospel.) 		
											        The Gospel of Mark Ch 16 Vs 15-16  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.

									              The Gospel of Matthew 28 19-20

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

I hope this Scripture helps.I'm glad to see your seeking the fullness of truth!1 Timothy 3:15

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

 

[JimG]

The OT, as is mentioned in 2Tim 3:17 was sufficient - and the NT makes it even more sufficient…

Do you really think that Paul thought that the OT was “sufficient?” Sufficient, after all, means “everything that is needed.”

If the OT was sufficient, there was no need for the NT to be written. There was no need for Paul to write! Because they already had the Old Testament.

Of course, he did say profitable, and I can certainly agree that the old testament scriptures are profitable. As you mentioned, even the old testament testifies to Christ, but that was not apparent to all of Paul’s audience, especially not to his Gentile audience.

Most people today, when they argue for the sufficiency of Scripture, include the New Testament in that category.

And the Church was in existence even before the NT was completed, playing an essential role in writing and authorizing the NT scriptures.

 

[LuvHim]

Goodnight

 

[chet]

HOW GOD SPEAKS TO US

As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp Please read the rest of this section in Pillar of fire Pillar of Truth.And then read the whole thing from beging to end.Then lets go from there.

 

[chet]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

Please read posts #7 and #10.I hope they help.

 

[Pophead]

Well, firstly let me say I was completely SUPRISED when I opened up here. I was thinking to myself, “I bet no one has answered this.” It certainly is a very controversial one to pick as an opener, but it is what is foremost on my mind, at the moment.

JimG,
Yes, I can see how these three points you have mentioned can from a framework for a very nice discussion and I am going to attempt to refer to them as this chat moves along. Right off bat there are certain events recorded in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is referring to the Scriptures. (We will need to take ALL these into consideration.)

Randy Carson,

I have just finished printing this out and because I am a VERY SLOW reader, slower than nearly everyone I have known…etc.

LuvHim,

This certainly is a very important passage and will need to be discussed in it’s context (something I have done). There are two others I can think of right now, and the same process will have to apply. ( 1 Peter 1:10-13 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 ) As I mentioned above there are many, many references by Jesus Christ that will need to be carefully considered and weighed. It is undeniable that our Lord acknowledged the authority of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms. He also used Deuteronomy to deal with the adversity in the wilderness etc.

Hi Chet,

I see that yourself and LuvHim are discussing matters nicely and I will keep a careful, howbeit prayerful watch on what is discussed.

I have also printed out ‘Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth’ (I have to preserve ink, but hate reading off the internet…gives me a crick in the olde neck bones… ) It will take me sometime to get through ‘21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura’, as well as this article.

HOW GOD SPEAKS TO US

As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

In Genesis, we learn that ‘God speaks’. Certainly, God is not silent, and even if we had no Bible, Church or Magisterium…God would still speak. The table metaphor does not really work for me.

I see now you have encouraged me to respond to post # 7. I will read back and reply again.

Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Hi Chet,

I am responding to comment # 7.

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

And what was written by him was for a specific purpose and he reveals that purpose in his gospel. (That we might believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…) No doubt, the accounts we have; namely Luke (whose historical work is acknowledged by historians) contains only the neccessary information to make a soul wise unto salvation. (of course the ongoing maturation of said believer, is undeniable, for there is much in the Scriptures that teaches how we should live.) Might I add, life is VERY SHORT and the BIBLE is very long and most of us rarely get to even uncover the meaning. ( The interpretation of this volume of the book is colossal. ) Few ever cover the writings of Shakespeare, and certainly few the entire scope of Scripture. Some attempt a thorough exegesis, but talk to them and find humble souls who agree they know less and less and find themselves utterly in awe of what is written. The fact that the Scriptures have so many, many sides is firstly something to reckon with. It is as if the interpetation of these words are in a sense almost impossible for one to harness. It is a little like trying to bottle infinity in a meaning. No doubt we do not have the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS…we only have copies and copies of copies…at best we can hope that we understand what is written for our lives and those of our families or in the case of the Church, for those who attend the meetings, as to the Magisterium and certainly the traditions, a very small sector of mankind actually as the time to scour these pages. It is a thin book in some ways only having one central message. I heard once a man say, “The Bible is the historical, progressive revelation of the divine plan of God through the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ.” And certainly Jesus makes no bones about saying that the Scriptures (he is referring to Moses and the prophets and the Psalms) TESTIFY OF ME… I have read them and concur, but lest I swallow my tongue, there is so MUCH that cannot be received because of the multi dimensionality of the Holy Writ.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Yes, this is obvious to me. The prophets had the Spirit of Christ and so did the Apostles and so do those who have Him. Without the Spirit of Christ we have not way of establishing what is true and what is not.



more to follow…

 

[Pophead]

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Apostolic authority was and is spoken first and then it is recorded by swift scribes. Some as is written here were letters and as Peter said, some very hard to understand. In other words, the meaning was very difficult to accurately isolate. Try reading Romans a few times and see how many times you come up with your head buzzing. I think Isaiah is another one that has that effect on me. We can have a degree of courage if we have the Spirit of Christ, for if we do not have this witness with one another, there would be no way of knowing if we were being spoken to by a ‘preacher of righteousness’ (one of satan’s messengers) The Scriptures, Traditions and Magisterium are not flawless…though we might like to imagine that, but the agency whereby they have come is flawed and as a result we need stronger way of discovering the correct meaning, to isolate the word of God or voice of God is crazy and I don’t think we were ever meant to do that. It immediately then makes assertions about authority that is only reserved for the one who speaks and the sea roars, the mountains tremble, who left a glow on the face of Moses, which he drapped in a shroud (papyrus - just my funny thought) and kept it on long after the glory had faded. Moses description of the burning bush can never replace the actual burning bush, and Scripture is only a sketch book of the Creator who lives forever in light unapproachable.

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

No doubt this is where we should all be at. We have these fragments and pieces, we patch a pretty quilt. Some say it all means this, others that, we weigh it all by the Spirit of Christ, and if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is NONE of His.

"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.

Yes, a noble task to preach the ORACLE of GOD. This we do most humbly knowing that it cannot be accomplished without the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

The meaning has been passed on and hopefully we have not lost the meaning in our fractured texts, or wobbly traditions and our human Magisterium. It has been 2000 years plus since Christ gave these instructions and yet we do not see a unified front. The meaning of what it means to be a disciple varies from denomination to denomination, from one person to the next…ONLY if we are united in the truth of living from the Spirit of Christ within, do we have a hope of unification. It is my firm conviction. He is with us, but as He said, and He will be IN YOU.

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

To be a pillar and a support reminds me a little of looking at a packed soccer stadium. We are in that number if we have the Spirit of Christ, if not we are none of His. We as a unified body are the pillar and support, but we are not the truth. The truth is Christ and He does not need pillar or support, the idea here is more of a network of pillars (those who stand out through History as being those who spoke by the Spirit of Christ.) and the support are the many, many souls who have stood faithful for Christ, many whose blood was shed, whose blood cries up for justice and the coming Government of God.

In the end we are so alone on this blue dot, and without an inner knowing and a way to understand what the voice of God is saying we are set to mumble sweet nothings to one another, and perhaps that is all this is. Sweet dialogue between Creator and creature which finds so many meanings, and with tolerance we are able to settle and rest in the completed work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[runandsew]

Sola scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy
by Patrick Madrid

Patrick writes how SOLA SCPIPTURA IS UNHISTORICAL, IS UNBIBLICAL, AND IS UNWORKABLE.

Sorry I am just posting a link, I don’t have time to comment right now, I will later.

 

[Pophead]

Hey Patrick,

Access denied. If you don’t mind sending it to me at my emial address please. aeryck@telkomsa.net

 

[VociMike]

One reason to reject sola Scriptura is that it clearly doesn’t work. Take ten people who have studied the bible all their lives, and ask them what the bible teaches. You will get ten different answers. And the sticker is, each of them will go to the bible and show you, as clear as day in their mind, why they are right. Some accept the Trinity, some reject it. Some accept the Real Presence, some reject it. Some accept baptismal regeneration, some reject it. And on and on. And on top of that, just about all of them will have believed something different in the past. Remember, all the Christian heresies of the past pointed to scripture for “proof”.

That doesn’t happen if you take ten people who have studied the Catholic faith (of which the bible is a large part, obviously). There is no question as to what the Church teaches regarding e.g. the Trinity (true), the Real Presence (Christ truly and substantially present), baptismal regeneration (true), etc.

There is no such thing as “bible faith”. There are many, many conflicting “bible faiths”. But there are no conflicting “Catholic faiths”. There may be Catholics who don’t understand the faith, or who even reject parts of it, but there is no question as to the tenants of the faith as taught by the Church. “Bible faith” is built on shifting sands (people change their ideas about what the bible says all the time), but “Catholic faith” is built on the rock of Peter.

 

[Contarini]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

Pophead,

What do you mean by “Sola Scriptura”? It can mean so many things.

The only version I am willing to defend is the version maintained by the Anglican 39 Articles (see especially Articles 6, 20, 21, and 34–I do not defend the statements about civil authorities, church-state relations, etc., found in those articles, but otherwise I think them sound).

Is that the version of sola scriptura you have come to doubt?

Edwin

 

[kaycee]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

Links for the reformed definition and defense of Sola Scriptura.

mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/RC.03.html

gracesermons.com/robbeeee/tim2.html

justforcatholics.org/a176.htm

bereanbeacon.org/articles/certainty_written_word.htm

Watch the flames I get now.

 

[chet]

One reason to reject sola Scriptura is that it clearly doesn’t work. Take ten people who have studied the bible all their lives, and ask them what the bible teaches. You will get ten different answers. And the sticker is, each of them will go to the bible and show you, as clear as day in their mind, why they are right. Some accept the Trinity, some reject it. Some accept the Real Presence, some reject it. Some accept baptismal regeneration, some reject it. And on and on. And on top of that, just about all of them will have believed something different in the past. Remember, all the Christian heresies of the past pointed to scripture for “proof”.

That doesn’t happen if you take ten people who have studied the Catholic faith (of which the bible is a large part, obviously). There is no question as to what the Church teaches regarding e.g. the Trinity (true), the Real Presence (Christ truly and substantially present), baptismal regeneration (true), etc.

There is no such thing as “bible faith”. There are many, many conflicting “bible faiths”. But there are no conflicting “Catholic faiths”. There may be Catholics who don’t understand the faith, or who even reject parts of it, but there is no question as to the tenants of the faith as taught by the Church. “Bible faith” is built on shifting sands (people change their ideas about what the bible says all the time), but “Catholic faith” is built on the rock of Peter.

Matthew 16:18

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Pophead you have said that you have come to doubt sola scriptora but yet you seem happy to discredit the structures that God set up to protect us from error: John 16:13

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.