The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[Aris]

My my …

This is interesting.

Sola means only.

Now we are adding the word infallible.

Really, now. Doesn’t that mean that same thing. By saying that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority you are just subscribing to definition of Sola Scriptura.

The Bible being the sole infallible authority is a doctrine that can not stand scrutiny.

If the Bible was the sole infallible authority then what does that make the Church that declared that these writing are infallible and should be the ones included in the New Testament?

If the Bible was the sole infallible authority what did the early Christians use for 400 years before the present Bible was agreed upon?

This is a topic that the Protestants would do well not to dwell upon. It is a foundation made of sand.

But they can not move forward. The alternative is to accept Church Authority. Something they have not come to grips for the last 500 years.

 

[RMP]

Dont try and change the subject here. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to define, express, and defend this foreign doctrine of the christian faith. aka. SOLA SCRIPTURA
And I will defend the church as best I can.

FAITH ALONE, RC APROUL, p 41,. SOLA Scriptura - THE SOLE authority of scripture as authoritively interpreted in the church.

LATIN DEF. SOLA SCRIPTURA- scripture alone.

Robert Godfrey. Reformed Theo- " (Sola Scriptura) is all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the BIBLE clearly enough for the ordinary believer, to find there and understand it."

List of
Articles of faith of the Reformed …

In good faith I have defined sola scriptura according to protestants themselves. since you have disagreed with my every attempt to define sola scriptura, I have conceeded my ingnorance of the true protestant definition…So, I will ask again,

WHAT IS Sola Scriptura?

Every definition you can possibly dream of, is not written in scripture itself.

Your faulty premise is this:
You seem to think the church did:
hear divine writ (from the spirit)
preach divine writ
preserve divine writ
determine divine writ
write down divine writ

BUT all of a sudden NOT interpret divine writ, you can do that yourself.

and then, scripture can server its relationship with the authorative church ( oops, not authorative any more), after all there is no need for her and “her misinterpretations.” NOW, the layman can see the truth for himself. The church has no authority over it anymore. IT has sole authority itself.

I think you need a good history lesson, before I need a refresher in protestant theology.

If you truly believe the definition of SOLA scriptura is just a miscommunication between your faith and ROME, dont you think you have the obligation to approach ROME herself and settle this matter. And in all fairness, do you believe the Roman decrees on this matter were truly mistaken because of a lack of understanding of doctrines of Luther, Calvin, and all the rest…after 400 years.
Who has no credibility here?

With respectful dissent, RMP

 

[p90]

Aris:

My my …

This is interesting.

Sola means only.

Now we are adding the word infallible.

I already responded to this point. If you aren’t aware of where I did so, I will point it out for you.

~Matt

 

[p90]

RMP:

FAITH ALONE, RC APROUL, p 41,. SOLA Scriptura - THE SOLE authority of scripture as authoritively interpreted in the church.

Robert Godfrey. Reformed Theo- " (Sola Scriptura) is all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the BIBLE clearly enough for the ordinary believer, to find there and understand it."

Do R.C. Sproul and Robert Godfrey go forth to analyze the doctrine in any more detail? These aren’t the only aspects of Sola Scriptura you mention in your definition.

In good faith I have defined sola scriptura according to protestants themselves.

Your quote from R.C. Sproul disagrees with the original definition you provided, you only quoted two persons, and the material you quoted didn’t cover most of what your definition included.

WHAT IS Sola Scriptura?

Although I’ve already explained the doctrine in some ways by correcting some of your other errors, here is a definition I believe encapsulates the classical definition and addresses some of the erroneous parts of your definition:

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority over the church and are a sufficient source of material from which to derive all doctrine necessary for the believer to affirm as true; nothing outside of the Scriptures is to be held as binding on the conscience of the believer. Being the sole infallible authority, the Scriptures are not the only authority; there are other authorities in the church which are subordinate to this authority (for example, elders, pastors, deacons, etc.). Although Sola Scriptura affirms the sufficiency of the Scriptures in bringing salvation to the believer, it does not deny the need for good teachers, books, and other people or material to properly expound upon the great message of the Gospel. Sola Scriptura does not state that we cannot trust history nor that the Holy Spirit will keep us from all error in this life regarding matters of doctrine. Neither does it deny the existence of an oral tradition during the time of the Apostles (if you want more on this point, please ask).

Although this definition is off the top of my head, it should suffice for purposes of this discussion.

If you truly believe the definition of SOLA scriptura is just a miscommunication between your faith and ROME, dont you think you have the obligation to approach ROME herself and settle this matter. And in all fairness, do you believe the Roman decrees on this matter were truly mistaken because of a lack of understanding of doctrines of Luther, Calvin, and all the rest…after 400 years.

I am not aware of Rome misrepresenting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, nor did I claim as much. Catholic apologetic efforts, those which I claim have misrepresented the doctrine, are not to be equated with Rome’s official teachings.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

I dont want a definition off the top of your head, MATT, I want THE definition, so there will be no future change of its definition during the course of this debate…

You cant even find a definition yourself? I conceeded the point I could not do so after I described its essence the best I could, are you now conceeding the same?

Do you not have the authority or witness to define the doctrines of your faith and present them? If not, who does? Where is the authority I need to talk to? Scripture does not define sola scripture anywhere.

So is that the infallable definition or not?

 

[MariaG]

NOt sure if it makes a difference here, but Catholic Answers tracts have just received the imprintur(sp?). At least these Catholic apologists have received the official stamp of approval that they are representing Church teachings accurrately. God Bless,
Maria

p.s.
Matt, that thread about Church authority is started here: forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=18201 I hope you find time to join it. So far, no protestant has responded. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be welcomed.

 

[p90]

RMP:

I dont want a definition off the top of your head, MATT, I want THE definition, so there will be no future change of its definition during the course of this debate…

It hasn’t been changing and I’ve provided you with a sufficient definition.

So is that the infallable definition or not?

Protestantism doesn’t have an infallible definition of Sola Scriptura.

Try thinking of Sola Scriptura like the Trinity. There are many ways of describing it. Just because my definition is “off the top of my head” doesn’t mean it’s not valid. There are definitions I could provide from Protestant apologetic works, but what would be the purpose of doing so if I feel my definition not only covers the essential components of the doctrine but also points out the errors in your misrepresentation of it?

~Matt

 

[p90]

MariaG:

NOt sure if it makes a difference here, but Catholic Answers tracts have just received the imprintur(sp?). At least these Catholic apologists have received the official stamp of approval that they are representing Church teachings accurrately.

Yes, recently there has been some correction among Catholic apologetics in the representation of classical Sola Scriptura. I’m not sure about how Catholic Answers represents the doctrine, but it’s not important to this discussion with RMP. It’s clear that RMP is getting his ideas about Sola Scriptura from those who have misrepresented it, not from Protestant works like he has claimed.

Matt, that thread about Church authority is started here: forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=18201 I hope you find time to join it. So far, no protestant has responded. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be welcomed.

Sorry, I didn’t notice. I will join today.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

Protestantism doesn’t have an infallible definition of Sola Scriptura.

Scripture doesnt help you here either. thank you for the honesty.

Try thinking of Sola Scriptura like the Trinity

Fair enough, im only concerned with the neccessities. the doctrine of the trinity is dogma, neccessary, essential. i dont know how you can compare the trinity with sola scriptura. I dont see how something false can be neccessary or essential.

Ok we now have a formal definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA for the basis of the conversation, i thank you for your efforts…

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority over the church

ROME rejects SOLA CRIPTURA on the presumption it is the SOLE authority. Scripture never declares this itself.

and are a sufficient source of material from which to derive all doctrine necessary for the believer to affirm as true;

ROME rejects it is sufficient to derive all neccessary doctrine. However it may explicitly or implicity imply church doctrine.

nothing outside of the Scriptures is to be held as binding on the conscience of the believer.

Oh really, tell that to the POPE. I dare you. The scripture reading about binding and loosing of the apostles was an unfortunate typo, it did not refer to men as much as a book! A book that wasnt even written yet.

Being the sole infallible authority

Scripture never validates this assumption. The church of ROME rejects it entirely.

, the Scriptures are not the only authority; there are other authorities in the church which are subordinate to this authority (for example, elders, pastors, deacons, etc.)

The scriptures are not the only infallable authority, the church and its church writers have to be infallable too. A fallable WRITER cannot create an infallable WRITING. Therefore the church has authority, not subordinate to scripture, but complimentary too scripture.

. Although Sola Scriptura affirms the sufficiency of the Scriptures in bringing salvation to the believer

A false conclusion. you cannot prove this with scripture itself. It never affirms this at all, it only declares it may be useful for reproof, teaching correction,ect.

, it does not deny the need for good teachers, books, and other people or material to properly expound upon the great message of the Gospel.

It if did, that would be foolish indeeed. SO there is a need. Scripture itself is not sufficient. So how do correct the teacher who expounds in error? Tell him about your own traditions?

Sola Scriptura does not state that we cannot trust history nor that the Holy Spirit will keep us from all error in this life regarding matters of doctrine.

Good thing too, about the history part…So basically the spirit may not even be guiding you at all on this doctrine. which I do believe is true.

Neither does it deny the existence of an oral tradition during the time of the Apostles

So we finally agree this is true, but it isnt quite defined yet. But wasnt it you that was demanding proof earlier, do you have any proof now of a doctrine from oral tradition not contained in scripture?

So, as a Catholic. All I can agree with you on is this. Scripture is an infallable authority.
The church can derive doctrine from scripture.
Teachers can teach infallably.
Church history does matter.
Apostolic Tradition exists.

Further exploration of these agreements will lead you to the CATHOLIC church. I suggest you keep exploring. Can anyone else correct me or add to this discussion?

 

[RMP]

Catholic Answers represents the doctrine, but it’s not important to this discussion with RMP. It’s clear that RMP is getting his ideas about Sola Scriptura from those who have misrepresented

In fairness MATT, Im am only challenging your beliefs as an opportunity for you and I both to gain knowledge from this matter. I know Sola scriptura is very enticing to trust. But, there are major qualifiers (alone, sufficiency, material) that not only I, but the church of ROME herself disagree. I have never said I deny all of it or its sincere continuing pursuit of truth. Only certain points of it.

 

[Aris]

p90:

I already responded to this point. If you aren’t aware of where I did so, I will point it out for you.

~Matt

I think you did but it was so incomplete it would not have convinced a serious seeker of the truth.

The question are if you accept the Bible as the only infallible authority

1. what did the early Christians use as their infallible authority when there was no Bible?
2. The Bible is infallible but the Catholic Church that declared the books to be infallible is fallible?
3. Why does St Paul call the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

 

[p90]

RMP:

Ok we now have a formal definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA for the basis of the conversation, i thank you for your efforts…

What did you want to discuss? Your post was largely empty rhetoric and fallacious reasoning. There isn’t much to discuss when the force of your response is “ROME rejects” such and such an aspect of Sola Scriptura. Protestantism rejects your beliefs regarding the Bishop of Rome. Would you say that my repeating “PROTESTANTISM rejects this belief” in response to an explanation of the Catholic rule of faith is grounds for a “conversation”?

~Matt

 

[p90]

1. what did the early Christians use as their infallible authority when there was no Bible?
2. The Bible is infallible but the Catholic Church that declared the books to be infallible is fallible?
3. Why does St Paul call the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

1. Early Christians always had the Scriptures available to them. The Old Testament was around before Pentecost.
2. I reject the premise to such a question. The church recognized the canon, not declared it.
3. Because it supports truth, like a pillar or foundation. It isn’t the source of all truth.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

How convenient that you passively reject my assertions and disagreements with YOUR definition… Without even a reason… ROME holds the truth in this world you do not. I challenged your belief point by point, and you response is something like the heresy of relativism, “what is true for you doesnt have to be true to me”. There IS truth in this world. If I am not representing the ideas taught from the Catholic church, them call me on it.

My response was not about rejection of your ideas because ROME says so, Its purpose was to actually AGREE on some points. Did you even bother to read it? If we can agree on some points, which i actually can with you about sola scriptura, MAYBE we can have an honest conversation and MAKE some progress. But, you are as stubborn as ever…to agree on anything from ROME. 2000 yrs of faith, but you somehow know better.
Matt, I am convinced you do not seek truth now, you purpose is only to reject the truth around you, for whatever reason. I believe you need a good history lesson. You need to get out of the box. Quit thinking in tunnel vision. What matters is truth, not what church I belong too.

I have tried to have an honest conversation with you, but you have refused to return the favor.

 

[p90]

RMP:

My response was not about rejection of your ideas because ROME says so, Its purpose was to actually AGREE on some points. Did you even bother to read it?

When what you write contains flippant remarks such as “i dont know how you can compare the trinity with sola scriptura. I dont see how something false can be neccessary or essential,” or “Oh really, tell that to the POPE. I dare you. The scripture reading about binding and loosing of the apostles was an unfortunate typo, it did not refer to men as much as a book! A book that wasnt even written yet,” and many of your points are pointing out errors in Sola Scriptura, the stated purpose of your post comes into tension with what is conveyed by what you’ve actually written in the post.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

Yes, I claim to have conviction. i challenge you on your thoughts, I expect the same in return. But I will be more careful not to offend. That is not my intention. I apolagize to you again. But, I still want a response. This discussion is serious, but we can express ourselves freely, I hope. What you suggest are off hand comments actually are strong beliefs of mine, just so you understand.

 

[p90]

RMP:

Yes, I claim to have conviction. i challenge you on your thoughts, I expect the same in return. But I will be more careful not to offend. That is not my intention. I apolagize to you again. But, I still want a response. This discussion is serious, but we can express ourselves freely, I hope. What you suggest are off hand comments actually are strong beliefs of mine, just so you understand.

I’m not offended, so it’s not necessary to apologize. What you expressed may be strong beliefs, but I did not see how they forwarded the intent of your post to state agreements.

Concerning a response to what you wrote, I’ll respond to the following remark:

So, as a Catholic. All I can agree with you on is this. Scripture is an infallable authority.
The church can derive doctrine from scripture.
Teachers can teach infallably.
Church history does matter.
Apostolic Tradition exists.

I would like to know where I agreed that teachers can teach infallibly. I would also like to clarify what is meant by “Apostolic Tradition” being in existence. Sola Scriptura understands that the oral word of God existed at one time, but is no longer available to us today.

We have agreement on the other points. Where do you want to turn the discussion now?

~Matt

 

[RMP]

Well, if teachers cant teach to truth. that is infallable truth, why bother trying to teach…This does not imply they do always teach the truth, only they CAN. The opposite of our AGREEMENT is teachers cant teach infallably. Do you see my point? Do you hold that teachers teach fallable truth, that makes no sense to me.

OK, I will not debate Apostolic Tradition yet, so I will SHORTEN the list.

 

[rschermer2]

ahimsaman72:

I wanted to comment on this first paragraph from your post #1if I may. Many people miss some basic facts here.

First, the early church already had the old testament canon. They had a basis for faith in a coming Messiah.

Second, after Jesus left the disciples, he gave them the charge in Mt. 28 to “go ye into all the world”. They were to be missionaries and teachers of the gospel to the whole world. The gospel writers wrote their accounts for the early believers and for the purpose of evangelism. Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus. Paul wrote his letters to various “churches”. Those letters remained with the individual churches. To be frank, there was no need for canonization. Individual churches and the church leaders (elders, bishops, deacons) were not to validate those letters. There is no indication of that. The letters were used for edification and teaching, not to be lorded over and manipulated. They didn’t have to figure out if Peter, Paul, Luke or other apostle’s writings were valid and inspired. That would be a given.

My conclusion here is that the Scriptures didn’t need people to validate them. They were valid by themselves. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Israelites didn’t wonder if it came from God. They knew God spoke to Moses and that was enough for them.

I’m glad that early believers assembled the New Testament Scriptures. But I reject the idea that they needed canonization from a group of people to say they were authentic.

As for the rest of the post, it’s been promulgated all over in other threads and I will not comment.

Ahimsaman,

You forget the fact that at the time that the bible was canonized there were many other writings floating around that purported to be from apostles themselves (the Gospel of Thomas comes to mind), the needed to waded throught and either accepted as Inspired by God or not.

So the Church’s infallibilty in defining what was and what was not scripture was definitely needed. For if they did not have the protection of the Holy Spirit to prevent them from error we may have had a few more books in the Bible that should not be there because they were not inspired.

I know that many protestants like to refer to the Deuterocanonical books that are in the Catholic accepted version of the old testament as ‘apocryphal’ but that word was originally assigned to the books that the Church in 398 threw out as not part of God Inspired scripture.

God Bless,
RS

 

[p90]

RMP:

Well, if teachers cant teach to truth. that is infallable truth, why bother trying to teach…This does not imply they do always teach the truth, only they CAN. The opposite of our AGREEMENT is teachers cant teach infallably. Do you see my point? Do you hold that teachers teach fallable truth, that makes no sense to me.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to explain. Do you mean to say that if a teacher is always fallible, why bother listening to that teacher? Do you also mean that truth can only be taught when someone is in a state of infallibility?

~Matt