SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[Darryl_B]

I compare Sola Scriptura to this. In the 1960s the youth cast off the traditions and values of their parents, formulated their own understanding, and this influenced the Jesus only movement that sprung up at the time, which ultimately brought in the phrase “I have Jesus”. It produced a shift from “sola scriptura” to “solus Christus”. The tables were turned.

To me this is a witness to how “sola scriptura” is inadequate to the searching soul, and the ensuing direction while it does on the surface appear promising, still leaves a frustrating void that Christianity has more to it than me myself and the Bible, or me myself and Jesus.

 

[alwayswill]

alwayswill;13799795]Magisterium and Tradition.*]There is not a page, a sentence, or a single word written from any ECFs, Magisteriums , councils, or Popes that is God Breathed. None!

Yes please clarify:
Is the Catholic view that there exists writings breathed of by God *(pasa graphe theopneustos) that are not considered Scripture and not included in the Canon?

• that we have access to

 

[alwayswill]

cont;

Your view of SS, would be the first I have heard, **if it denies **the developed doctrine of the Trinity to be an infallible teaching of the Church ,revealed by God.

Please clarify:
Is the Catholic view that Catholic apologeticists CANNOT show from Scripture alone that:
God is one (there is one God)
The Father is fully God
The Son is fully God
The Holy Spirit is fully God
The Father is distinct from the Son and the HS
The Son is distinct from the Father and the HS
The HS is distinct from the Father and the Son?

I can

 

[benhur]

And that, my friend, is not sola scriptura. II Timothy 3. Timothy a next generation church authority instructed by Paul to protect by continuing in what you have learned from the Apostles (spoken direction) (Tradition) and Scripture (the OT), to teach the current and next generation and so on and so on and so on.

Legacy is something we all desire to leave behind to our children. Nobody does this by writing letters to their children “only”. Why would God’s family be any different?

Hi D,

In fact folks do have their legacy put down in writing , some even in video, or sound recording. The "letters’’ are not “only” , in that they are to be understood in and by the very Spirit Himself that “wrote” them. Can’t get any more personal than that.

I understand why Paul would equate His oral with his writing. He is after all, Paul the apostle, personally picked and taught of the Lord. Timothy was not. Timothy reiterates Paul, but not as an original "apostle’’. His authority is not equal to Paul’s by its very nature. Not sure Timothy could “add” theopneustosly as Paul.

So if you have a recording of what Paul meant specifically with any “tradition” I will be glad to see or listen. Otherwise, I am compelled to judge any distant successor to knowing any better of what just Paul meant by it, especially relative to the inerrancy of his Writ on matters.

While I agree only slightly that Paul was advocating a sort of living authority in and thru presbyters, apart from what is written, I can not equate them to "prima’ or equality to Writ. Such authority is quite conditional, not infallible. Even Paul himself praised the Bereans for even judging His words to see if they be “sciprtural”. Certainly today’s magisterium and church authorities should not mind the supremacy of Writ for normativeness.

Certainly this ability for a living Word to come forth for every generation must also see that indeed it ti to be judged by man and church alike. "Thus sayeth the Lord’ was and is always to be discerned . It is not infallibly, unconditionally uttered by man/church by their say so. If SS is contrived, forced, new, so is the idea magisterium infallibility. A magisterium, even making use of tradition and Writ , is not an infallible rule unto itself.

Blessings

 

[jmcrae]

Because God guided the early Christian leaders.

Correct. Another name for the Early Christian leaders is The Church.

This idea that man teaches infallibly and has the ability to maintain oral teachings infallibly for centuries with no written source of such teaching is something that I have only recently heard of.

You understand that the stories of Genesis, and Moses, and David were transmitted orally for thousands of years until they were finally written down at the time of the Babylonian Exile in about 500 BC. If God could keep those stories intact for that long (at least 4,000 years), then don’t you suppose He could keep the Christian Tradition intact for only 2,000 years? Or for as long as He wants to?

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

In fact folks do have their legacy put down in writing , some even in video, or sound recording. The "letters’’ are not “only” , in that they are to be understood in and by the very Spirit Himself that “wrote” them. Can’t get any more personal than that.

I understand why Paul would equate His oral with his writing. He is after all, Paul the apostle, personally picked and taught of the Lord. Timothy was not. Timothy reiterates Paul, but not as an original "apostle’’. His authority is not equal to Paul’s by its very nature. Not sure Timothy could “add” theopneustosly as Paul.

So if you have a recording of what Paul meant specifically with any “tradition” I will be glad to see or listen. Otherwise, I am compelled to judge any distant successor to knowing any better of what just Paul meant by it, especially relative to the inerrancy of his Writ on matters.

While I agree only slightly that Paul was advocating a sort of living authority in and thru presbyters, apart from what is written, I can not equate them to "prima’ or equality to Writ. Such authority is quite conditional, not infallible. Even Paul himself praised the Bereans for even judging His words to see if they be “sciprtural”. Certainly today’s magisterium and church authorities should not mind the supremacy of Writ for normativeness.

Certainly this ability for a living Word to come forth for every generation must also see that indeed it ti to be judged by man and church alike. "Thus sayeth the Lord’ was and is always to be discerned . It is not infallibly, unconditionally uttered by man/church by their say so. If SS is contrived, forced, new, so is the idea magisterium infallibility. A magisterium, even making use of tradition and Writ , is not an infallible rule unto itself.

Blessings

So, as I have been trying to show, the protestant idea of “sola scriptura” doesn’t really exist external to the framework of protestant’s own tradition, and is therefore not able to boast the “purity” of the claim when it has been intermingled with its own “sentiments”. It therefore does not exist.

It seems to me that the real issue is whether Jesus Christ has left His Church (not ours) to its own devices, whether we are just aimlessly passing through history trying desperately to retain some element of truth, judged by us individually, or whether we can believe His active participation as the Head in a Church He inaugurated and promised incessantly. Those are the only two options and I believe one has failed from the unusual results of the experiment.

 

[Darryl_B]

Just incidentally, the reason I reject “sola scriptura” is because if that were true, in the eyes of God, the New Testament would consist “solely” of one book, and that would be “the Gospel according to Jesus Christ” penned by His very own hand.

But He didn’t, instead He chose Peter, and built a Church.

 

[alwayswill]

Correct. Another name for the Early Christian leaders is The Church.

You understand that the stories of Genesis, and Moses, and David were transmitted orally for thousands of years until they were finally written down at the time of the Babylonian Exile in about 500 BC. If God could keep those stories intact for that long (at least 4,000 years), then don’t you suppose He could keep the Christian Tradition intact for only 2,000 years? Or for as long as He wants to?

Stop the press!!

1st: the books from Moses were written about 1400 BC
Secondly : the oral traditions of the Hebrews were a complete mess: do you know who Lilith is?
According the oral tradition: she was Adams first wife: made from Adam’ tail:

It was the written word that “overwrote” the errors of oral traditions.

 

[alwayswill]

Just incidentally, the reason I reject “sola scriptura” is because if that were true, in the eyes of God, the New Testament would consist “solely” of one book, and that would be “the Gospel according to Jesus Christ” penned by His very own hand.

But He didn’t, instead He chose Peter, and built a Church.

The reason I accept Sola Scriptura because if what Scripture is:
The writings breathed out by God Himself.
If the only writings we had from God were the Ten Commandments: Sola Scriptua would still be true.
God chose Moses, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephania, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, John, and others to be carried by His Spirit to put His thoughts into writings.

The very writings that carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

 

[benhur]

So, as I have been trying to show, the protestant idea of “sola scriptura” doesn’t really exist external to the framework of protestant’s own tradition,and is therefore not able to boast the “purity” of the claim when it has been intermingled with its own “sentiments”. It therefore does not exist.

Hi D,

Well surely SS, as any paradigm of church authority, exists within some framework, even sentiments. Authority is not in a vacuum. Because you disagree with certain sentiments or framework can certainly lead to an antithesis, that something else exists infallibly.

It seems to me that the real issue is whether Jesus Christ has left His Church (not ours) to its own devices,

That exactly was my point. To me saying tradition is living, morphing, infallible is quite a device unto itself.

We both agree Jesus left us Guidance and “devices” (apostles, prophets, offices and giftings, councils and Writ). To say Writ is “prima’’ does not leave us to our own devices. The fact is one can not escape the need for His guidance whether in Writ or offices. I would say your three infallible legs is quite a “device” where it is kind of guaranteed, no matter what on faith and morals, unconditional, like a kind of cruise control, because” we simply can not error, even if we tried". Slight hyperbole intended.

we are just aimlessly passing through history trying desperately to retain some element of truth,

That is your hyperbole.

or whether we can believe His active participation as the Head in a Church He inaugurated and promised incessantly.

We both agree here. I would only say His guidance is more needed/sought after in a SS environment than an infallible, top down, cruise control paradigm.

Those are the only two options and I believe one has failed from the unusual results of the experiment.

And I would say “let every man be a liar , only God is true”. All our churches and paradigms exist in glass houses. The good, bad and ugly of each of us is apparent. But His new covenant shall deliver a perfect Bride, just as the last covenant delivered a perfect Messiah.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Just incidentally, the reason I reject “sola scriptura” is because if that were true, in the eyes of God, the New Testament would consist “solely” of one book, and that would be “the Gospel according to Jesus Christ” penned by His very own hand.

But He didn’t, instead He chose Peter, and built a Church.

Hi D,

Then I agree with you to reject SS, if you think it means rejecting the Church, and Peter, and tradition of the oral gospel, and His infallible guidance, etc.

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

The reason I accept Sola Scriptura because if what Scripture is:
The writings breathed out by God Himself.
If the only writings we had from God were the Ten Commandments: Sola Scriptua would still be true.
God chose Moses, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephania, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, John, and others to be carried by His Spirit to put His thoughts into writings.

The very writings that carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

A high view of scripture never makes sola scriptura true.

The scriptural basis isn’t there - you really have to twist it in the same manner as the notion of a high view of scripture.

Scripture is profitable, God breathed, whatever your bible says. It still never says sole authority or primary authority. That fact, nor the fact that it’s a 16th century invention, will ever change.

 

[alwayswill]

A high view of scripture never makes sola scriptura true.

The scriptural basis isn’t there - you really have to twist it in the same manner as the notion of a high view of scripture.

Scripture is profitable, God breathed, whatever your bible says. It still never says sole authority or primary authority. That fact, nor the fact that it’s a 16th century invention, will ever change.

Start in Genesis 1:1 and move through the verses let me know when you find God, The Great I AM saying that He is the sole authority or primary authority.
It is not a requirement of God to say He is the sole authority or primary authority for it to be true.

It is not a requirement for writings breathed out by God to say " God breathed writings are the highest authority for it to be true.

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

Then I agree with you to reject SS, if you think it means rejecting the Church, and Peter, and tradition of the oral gospel, and His infallible guidance, etc.

Blessings

You keep presenting from an “either” “or” approach and therefore I find the initial premise inaccurate. It becomes either Scripture or the Church, and of course “sola” makes and demands it so on all five of them. The Catholic position is “and” ie Scripture and the Church and Tradition, for reasons previously stated. Rejecting sola scriptura is not rejecting Scripture, its rejecting “sola” because it opens the door to personal opinion, to whims, to heresy, to division, to confusion, to false teachers.

Do you understand what you are reading? How can I unless someone guides me?

 

[Abu]

alwayswill #128
The very writings that carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

The “very writings” – which we have only because the N.T. was written by Catholics in Christ’s Catholic Church, and which we know are the Word of God only because She has defined what books are the Word of God, no more and no less.

Christ gave us His Catholic Church and She gave us the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and His Magisterium to know what is right from wrong in faith and in morals.

 

[mattp0625]

Start in Genesis 1:1 and move through the verses let me know when you find God, The Great I AM saying that He is the sole authority or primary authority.
It is not a requirement of God to say He is the sole authority or primary authority for it to be true.

It is not a requirement for writings breathed out by God to say " God breathed writings are the highest authority for it to be true.

Except the bible didn’t fall out of heaven.

If what you’re saying were true, Protestants- since their origination- wouldn’t have tried to use the high view of scripture from figures such as Augustine to support themselves.

And this primary authority stuff is an even later evolution.

Lastly, if it’s not in the bible, the concept contradicts itself. You’re now appealing to a 16th century (or later) tradition.

 

[alwayswill]

The “very writings” – which we have only because the N.T. was written by Catholics in Christ’s Catholic Church, and which we know are the Word of God only because She has defined what books are the Word of God, no more and no less.

Christ gave us His Catholic Church and She gave us the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and His Magisterium to know what is right from wrong in faith and in morals.

did you forget about the Hebrew Scriptures?

 

[alwayswill]

Except the bible didn’t fall out of heaven.

If what you’re saying were true, Protestants- since their origination- wouldn’t have tried to use the high view of scripture from figures such as Augustine to support themselves.

And this primary authority stuff is an even later evolution.

Lastly, if it’s not in the bible, the concept contradicts itself. You’re now appealing to a 16th century (or later) tradition.

God is the highest authority because of who God is: not because of what God says.
(do you at least agree with that?)

Sola Scriptura is true because of what Scripture is : not because of what Scripture says,

I use Augustine as an example of the correct view of Scripture:
It impossible for a lesser authority to grant authority to the greater

 

[Darryl_B]

God is the highest authority because of who God is: not because of what God says.
(do you at least agree with that?)

Sola Scriptura is true because of what Scripture is : not because of what Scripture says,

I use Augustine as an example of the correct view of Scripture:
It impossible for a lesser authority to grant authority to the greater

All you are saying is that Scripture IS an authority, not that it is an “ONLY” authority, big difference.

When I read that Scripture (because it is not simply enough to have the words) I find that God grants authority to specific people so that those who doubt but then read those words will have evidence of that said authority granted to them from God.

 

[alwayswill]

All you are saying is that Scripture IS an authority, not that it is an “ONLY” authority, big difference.

When I read that Scripture (because it is not simply enough to have the words) I find that God grants authority to specific people so that those who doubt but then read those words will have evidence of that said authority granted to them from God.

Until Christ returns, the only infallible inerrant authority we have on earth; is Scripture alone.
Not the only authority, but the only infallible inerrant authority.

The first two are from Catholic sources
They work for me: I’m sure you can use them

**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
Archived here: web.archive.org/web/201003300…4/0402fea3.asp

---

**From NEWADVENT.org **Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
**
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.** I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly,** it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.** Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura** is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.**
-James White—

---

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura