Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

If it’s true, then it must (by the very definition of Sola Scriptura!) include a listing of the canon.

No it doesn’t!
Sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
Scripture was given over time, it wasn’t written like a novel by one author, so again, it’s impossible to list all the books of the canon in the Bible.
All the books in the OT are not listed in one place, so does that make the OT invalid?

 

[Gorgias]

Sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Exactly!

But… if it’s the sole rule of faith, then it must define itself. If someone else defines what Scripture is, then Scripture isn’t the sole rule of faith – in that case, the rule of faith would be "Scripture plus whoever defined the canon of Scripture. "

See the problem? By its very definition, Sola Scriptura must either define the canon of Scripture or admit that it is inaccurate doctrine.

Scripture was given over time, it wasn’t written like a novel by one author, so again, it’s impossible to list all the books of the canon in the Bible.

So… if you can’t list all the books of the canon in the Bible, then what you’re really saying is “Scripture is the sole rule of faith… but I can’t tell you what that rule of faith consists of.”

All the books in the OT are listed in one place, so does that make the OT invalid?

I would ask you who listed the books of the OT. That would point you toward the authority who has the right to define the canon…

 

[medwigel]

But… if it’s the sole rule of faith, then it must define itself. If someone else defines what Scripture is, then Scripture isn’t the sole rule of faith – in that case, the rule of faith would be "Scripture plus whoever defined the canon of Scripture. "

Scripture is truth and it would remain the truth whether someone acknowledges it as truth or not. The church is just there to say, “yes, this is consistent with the truth” but the church is not writing it. The church did not give us Scripture, Scripture was given to the church.
Now, during the early days of the church there were a lot of documents out there that were being circulated, so yes, we needed guidance as to what was authentic and what was not, but just because you are confirming the work doesn’t mean you have authority above and beyond the work.

An example of this would be gravity. Sir Isaac Newton may have helped develop the concept and formula for gravity and helped define it, but gravity existed and would continue to exist whether he came up with the formula or not. Gravity does not need anyone to define it to be true, just like God’s Word does not need anyone to define it to be true.
And if Newton didn’t come up with the formula someone else could have done it; by the same token, if the church didn’t do it God would have raised someone else to preach His Word to all. They are just verifying something that already existed they are not creating anything.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . . .

Scripture was given over time, it wasn’t written like a novel by one author, so again, it’s impossible to list all the books of the canon in the Bible.

It’s not “impossible” to “list all the books” at all.

But it IS “impossible” to list the books of the Canon in Scripture.

Why? Because they are not listed IN Scripture.

.

The Canon of Scripture IS an infallible part of “the rule of faith and practice”.

medwigel . . .

Sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

(Can’t you see the self-contradiction with this invention of sola Scriptura medwigel?)

.

.

medwigel . . . .

Scripture was given over time, it wasn’t written like a novel by one author, so again, it’s impossible to list all the books of the canon in the Bible.

It’s not “impossible” at all.

But you will have to go to the ORAL Apostolic Tradition (which is in perfect harmony with the WRITTEN Apostolic Tradition because they “both flow from the same Divine wellspring”).

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions
which you were taught by us,
EITHER by word of mouth OR by letter.

.

If St. Paul ever had a chance to teach sola Scriptura, this is it!

St. Paul COULD have said here . . . “brethren, stand firm and hold to the Bible and the Bible ALONE which you were given by us.”

But he doesn’t teach this?

Why?

Because sola Scriptura is a tradition of men. It is an invention.

.

2nd THESSALONIANS 3:6 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

.

And notice it is not just the Tradition they have received from “ME” (St. Paul).

It is the “Tradition” you have “RECEIVED” from . . . . “US”.

You don’t know of anyone else who WROTE to the Thessalonians right? (And neither do I).

1st CORINTHIANS 11:2 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

.

Notice this is FIRST Corinthians and St. Paul had ALREADY delivered “Traditions” to these Corinthians even BEFORE he wrote anything to them!

(And the Corinthians are ALREADY maintaining these “Traditions” BEFORE St. Paul’s FIRST letter to them.)

And St. Paul COMMENDS them for keeping these “Traditions”!

Ask yourself honestly if you ever have had that message preached to you or at least taught to you (as Catholics can get directly from the CCC even if the priest theoretically ignores teaching these Catholic truths from the pulpit).

 

[Cathoholic]

1st TIMOTHY 3:15 tells us “the Church” is the pillar and foundation of truth or sometimes translated as “the pillar and bulwark of truth”.

.

1st TIMOTHY 3:15 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

.

NOT 1st TIMOTHY 3:15 (but a phantom verse) 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave concerning the household of God, which is from the Bible, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

.

I guarantee that if the passage read like the phantom verse, I would be hearing no end as to “how this passage REALLY teaches sola Scriptura”! (Even though even THAT wouldn’t).

.

1st Timothy 3:15 could only be true if there was an infallible charism to protect truth at least under certain circumstances.

The Catholic Church is essentially the only one to even make this infallibility-charism-under-certain-circumstances claim (a few Eastern Orthodoxies are an exception).

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God (at least some of them).

 

[Cathoholic]

Here are a couple of links that MAY be helpful to you medwigel (or to others).

https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/5365

https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/7436

 

[bobperk]

So it seems you don’t believe in the concept of prophesy then it you think that people can’t write or know about events before hand.

And if that’s the case what’s your take on the book of Revelation, because most of those events have yet to occur. So since they have not happened, are the accounts in the book of Revelation true?

Of course I believe in prophecy. But apparently because I do not accept the verses you cite as evidence for Sola Scriptura you would disagree. The 400 years of silence thing is just ludicrous. So God established a relationship with mankind since day one, but for some reason “falls silent” for 400 years? You are just back-fitting unrelated verses to support SS.

Revelation is multidimensional. Some has happened, some is happening (most evidently thousands of times per day at Mass), and some will happen. Do you not profess the same Creed as we do,and state that Jesus will come again in glory? We have not seen it happen but believe it to be true.

But preoccupying oneself with prophecy is indeed problematic and leads many into Gnostic ways of interpretation…thus, how many failed “rapture” dates have come and gone, spin-off apocalyptic groups have been formed, etc. because someone took it upon himself to interpret Revelation.

 

[medwigel]

Of course I believe in prophecy. But apparently because I do not accept the verses you cite as evidence for Sola Scriptura you would disagree. The 400 years of silence thing is just ludicrous. So God established a relationship with mankind since day one, but for some reason “falls silent” for 400 years? You are just back-fitting unrelated verses to support SS.

I did not site those verses regarding sola scriptura, we were discussing the canon and what books were included and the apocrypha.
You have track back on the feed to see where that side discussion began.

 

[bobperk]

You are right, I did not make that distinction clear in my post. My comment was more so about prophecy. In other words, yes, I believe in prophecy. We all should as Christians. But I do not believe that St. Paul was “prophesying” about future Scripture in 2 Timothy, nor that Amos was commenting on the “apocrypha” / canon of Scripture or any kind of “years of silence.” If the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, to be used alone for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training,” one would think He could have provided more clear cut instructions for proclaiming a 400 year silence and excluding future written works from Sacred Scripture. To make it extremely unambiguous to protect the Bible from any corruption, omissions, or additional works. You would think that faithful Jews of the time, had the “prophecies” of Micah, Amos, and Daniel precluding the “apocrypha” from canonization been true and clear, would have completely avoided writing anything for fear of disobeying God. So instead of the vague verses of Amos 8:11-12, perhaps it should have read something along the lines of, “behold, works not of the Lord will come to thee, namely: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, … etc…many will try to include them in the canon of Scripture, but I warn thee, they shall not be allowed…” Much Protestant apologetics is made of claiming that the Jews of the time did not accept those works, but why trust a man-made non-Christian tradition? There was not much agreement of OT books at the time of Jesus, so it’s not as simple as saying definitively that only 66 books were accepted by 1st century Jews.

Isaiah’s prophecies of Jesus as the suffering servant were all made clear with the life of Jesus. This we as Christians all believe as they were proven. That is why the Catholic liturgy uses so many readings from Isaiah leading up to Christmas. And we believe that Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple, and that His prophecy of the Temple’s destruction is also a prophecy for the end of the world. So some passages refer to past actions that have already occurred on one scale but will be repeated on another. The Catholic liturgical calendar places these readings during Advent as well as a reminder of the Second Coming.

 

[Chris4]

That element of “concession” has a human element to it. Jesus lays this squarely at the feet of one Moses and does not attribute it to God, " It was because your hearts were hard that MOSES WROTE YOU THIS LAW(Emphasis is extra). But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." The conjunction “but” may carry a slightly different connotation in the original language of writing but cannot be too far from the fact that the ideas contained there are in opposition, one human and one divine. Sola Scriptura cannot handle this, even if one tried. There are a few other examples also which call for extra-biblical approach. For example why would Mathew assume that it was the mother of the sons of Zebedee who approached Jesus with the request " Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons…" (Mat. 20:20) while Mark reporting the same episode (Mark 10:35) blacks out the old lady? Both writers were present and attended Christ’s teachings. Or would Sola Scriptura explain the episode recorded in 2 Samwel 24: 1 and 1Chronicle 21:1. The Bible, even if it could, does not explain and explanation from outside scripture has to be sought.

 

[Gorgias]

Scripture is truth and it would remain the truth whether someone acknowledges it as truth or not.

Yes, I agree. However, when there’s a dispute, who has the authority to resolve the dispute and declare – authoritatively! – what the canon of Scripture is?

If the answer is someone – distinct from the canon of Scripture – then ‘sola scriptura’ is disproven from the fact that someone other than the Scriptures themselves are the ‘sole rule of faith’. On the other hand, if Scripture itself does not define what it, itself, is… then sola scriptura fails on the grounds that it does not have the ability to define what, precisely, consists of the ‘sole rule of faith.’

The church is just there to say, “yes, this is consistent with the truth” but the church is not writing it. The church did not give us Scripture, Scripture was given to the church.

And yet, various groups who define themselves as organs of “the church” dispute what, exactly is Scripture. So, if Scripture is the ‘sole rule of faith’, then it must be able to resolve that dispute. And, if it cannot – and if it must rely on someone else to resolve that dispute! – then we must give up the claim that it is the ‘sole rule of faith’. Clearly, then, there’s another rule of faith aside from Scripture itself that answers that question.

So… does Scripture itself define what it is, or does it rely on another authority to define what it is?

Now, during the early days of the church there were a lot of documents out there that were being circulated, so yes, we needed guidance as to what was authentic and what was not

Yes. Precisely. And who, pray tell, provided that authoritative guidance?

, but just because you are confirming the work doesn’t mean you have authority above and beyond the work.

No. It means precisely that thing. If an external entity has the authority to confirm, then it has the authority to deny the work. And therefore, if it can deny that a particular work is not Scriptural, then it has the authority that sola scriptura denies it should have. So… if there are ‘confirming authorities’, then sola scriptura, by its very grounds, is vacuous.

 

[medwigel]

There are a few other examples also which call for extra-biblical approach. For example why would Mathew assume that it was the mother of the sons of Zebedee who approached Jesus with the request " Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons…" (Mat. 20:20) while Mark reporting the same episode (Mark 10:35) blacks out the old lady? Both writers were present and attended Christ’s teachings.

First off, Mark was not one of the 12 disciples; he was much younger than the 12. So Mark would not have been an original witness to the events referred to in the scriptures you mention.

Second, even when dealing with eye witness accounts of any event there will be variations on how people recount the story. You may have someone who’s very good with detail, and they can tell you all the fine details and then you can have the person who was also present who could only tell you the basics. Eye witness accounts will always hold variation in details but the core story remains the same and it doesn’t negate the whole event if people tell if differently.

 

[medwigel]

, but just because you are confirming the work doesn’t mean you have authority above and beyond the work.

No. It means precisely that thing. If an external entity has the authority to confirm, then it has the authority to deny the work.

Again I say, Sir Isaac Newton helped “define” gravity, he even came up with the formula:
F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) and it’s been proofed and verified by other scholars.
So does that now mean that Newton and other scientist now control gravity and the laws that surround it?
Did gravity need to be defined and authenticated by men in order to exist?
Did gravity need a formula to define its self?

 

[medwigel]

Yes, I agree. However, when there’s a dispute, who has the authority to resolve the dispute and declare – authoritatively! – what the canon of Scripture is?

If the answer is someone – distinct from the canon of Scripture – then ‘sola scriptura’ is disproven from the fact that someone other than the Scriptures themselves are the ‘sole rule of faith’.

This a a very “colonialist” attitude towards scripture. Just because you came along and said, yes this is truth, doesn’t mean you now have rights over it and negate it as the sole source of truth.
Just like the Europeans traveled and “discovered” various lands and gave them “names” then felt that gave them the right to control these lands because they w name the “lands” and created and defined the “countries”. When in actuality these cultures existed before Europeans “defined” who they were and created their arbitrary countries.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

But… if it’s the sole rule of faith, then it must define itself. If someone else defines what Scripture is, then Scripture isn’t the sole rule of faith – in that case, the rule of faith would be "Scripture plus whoever defined the canon of Scripture. "

Scripture is truth and it would remain the truth whether someone acknowledges it as truth or not. The church is just there to say, “yes, this is consistent with the truth” but the church is not writing it. The church did not give us Scripture, Scripture was given to the church.

So, here’s the question: if “Scripture was given to the church”, did Paul and Peter and John know that they were writing Scripture? Or were they writing letters to various communities?

And, if they knew they were writing Scripture, then why does Paul refer to it as “traditions” that are handed down (orally or in writing), and not as ‘Scripture’?

Yes, God inspires men to write the books of Scripture – but it’s the Church, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who defines what is and what is not Scripture!

We even have writings from early church fathers, discussing what should (and what should not) be in the Canon. There was an actual decision. Yes, we believe it was guided by the Holy Spirit. But, the authoritative decision came from the Church.

Is the Bible “the sole rule of faith”? Hardly. In fact, St Paul says that it’s the Church which is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If God gives Scripture, and Paul is a writer of Scripture (and therefore, knows he’s writing Scripture, since no one else has to define it for him!), then why does Paul call what he’s doing ‘Tradition’ and not ‘Scripture’?!?

Now, during the early days of the church there were a lot of documents out there that were being circulated, so yes, we needed guidance as to what was authentic and what was not, but just because you are confirming the work doesn’t mean you have authority above and beyond the work.

The Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have authority above the Scriptures. However, it is authoritative in the interpretation of them!

An example of this would be gravity. … Gravity does not need anyone to define it to be true, just like God’s Word does not need anyone to define it to be true.

Yes… and no.

Gravity existed when God created the universe. The Bible didn’t. The Bible needed humans to write it (under the inspiration of God, of course!). And then, once written – since people didn’t sit down and write and then say "hey! I’ve just written a piece of ‘Scripture’ here! – someone had to discern what was and what wasn’t Scripture.

So, just like scientists have to agree what was and what wasn’t gravity, the Church decides (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit) what is and what isn’t Scripture. And by that very process, Scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith…

 

[medwigel]

So, just like scientists have to agree what was and what wasn’t gravity, the Church decides (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit) what is and what isn’t Scripture. And by that very process, Scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith…

So if “scientists have to agree what was and what wasn’t gravity” then does that mean that gravity is not a sole truth on it’s own?

 

[Gorgias]

First off, Mark was not one of the 12 disciples; he was much younger than the 12. So Mark would not have been an original witness to the events referred to in the scriptures you mention.

Actually, Mark was a disciple of Peter. He wrote down Peter’s testimony. So, yeah… the Gospel of Mark is an eyewitness account; it’s Peter’s account, put into writing by Mark!

Again I say, Sir Isaac Newton helped “define” gravity, he even came up with the formula:

F = G*((m1*m2)/r2) and it’s been proofed and verified by other scholars.

It’s funny that you’re latching on to this as an example: Newton only provided a theory. It wasn’t accepted until others confirmed it. And, in fact, Newton’s law isn’t as accurate as Einstein’s theory of general relativity, so when you need a really precise measurement in really extreme conditions… you don’t use Newton’s formula, you use Einstein’s.

So, what your example really shows us is that, if there isn’t someone who can authoritatively define something (like, for instance, gravity or the canon of Scripture), it’s impossible to know precisely what that thing is.

(That’s one of the problems with sola scriptura – if it’s the ‘sole rule’, then it can admit of no definition, and it becomes the sole rule over… nothing.)

So if “scientists have to agree what was and what wasn’t gravity” then does that mean that gravity is not a sole truth on it’s own?

If Scripture is a ‘sole truth’, then how do you know what it is? Just like gravity, then, it would be something that you can never be sure you’ve gotten right (just like Newton didn’t get it totally right, and had to be corrected centuries later)!

 

[medwigel]

First off, Mark was not one of the 12 disciples; he was much younger than the 12. So Mark would not have been an original witness to the events referred to in the scriptures you mention.

Actually, Mark was a disciple of Peter. He wrote down Peter’s testimony. So, yeah… the Gospel of Mark is an eyewitness account; it’s Peter’s account, put into writing by Mark!

Mark was not the eye witness, so he’s a biographer.

 

[Gorgias]

Mark was not the eye witness, so he’s a biographer.

He wrote down an eyewitness account. He’s not a ‘biographer’ so much as he is a ‘scribe’ for Peter’s eyewitness account.

 

[medwigel]

So, what your example really shows us is that, if there isn’t someone who can authoritatively define something (like, for instance, gravity or the canon of Scripture), it’s impossible to know precisely what that thing is.

(That’s one of the problems with sola scriptura – if it’s the ‘sole rule’, then it can admit of no definition, and it becomes the sole rule over… nothing.)

Hey, sorry, physics was not my thing (I avoided it like the plague in school), but regardless of who correctly defined it the fact still remains, whether you define it correctly or not, the truth is the truth.
Just because you get it right doesn’t mean that the truth now exists.
Gravity didn’t need man to define it.
The Scripture does not need man to define it!