Weak Sola Scriptura argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WesleyF

Guest
“I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)

I know one way of refuting it, but I want to know how you would respond. As a matter of fact, the reformers themselves didn’t use this verse to support sola-scriptura :D, but somehow, today’s Protestants are more “enlightened”.
 
WesleyF said:
“I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)

I know one way of refuting it, but I want to know how you would respond. As a matter of fact, the reformers themselves didn’t use this verse to support sola-scriptura :D, but somehow, today’s Protestants are more “enlightened”.
Click to expand...
Many of the modern “evangelical” protestants don’t believe in sola scriptura, but instead solo scriptura. The reason the reformers would not quote this scripture this way is because they did not believe in excluding Tradition, the Creeds, the early councils, etc.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Many of the modern “evangelical” protestants don’t believe in sola scriptura, but instead solo scriptura. The reason the reformers would not quote this scripture this way is because they did not believe in excluding Tradition, the Creeds, the early councils, etc.
Jon
Click to expand...
What was the reformers’ definition of sola scriptura?
 
WesleyF said:
What was the reformers’ definition of sola scriptura?
Click to expand...
I think we discussed this over on the N-C religions in a thread, that scripture is the final norm, that Tradition, Creeds, councils, the ECF’s, our confessions cannot contradict scripture. It certainly does not restrict or reduce us to “if its not in the Bible…” type thinking.

Jon
 
WesleyF said:
“I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)

I know one way of refuting it, but I want to know how you would respond. As a matter of fact, the reformers themselves didn’t use this verse to support sola-scriptura :D, but somehow, today’s Protestants are more “enlightened”.
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 4:6
That you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written: the words “to go” are not in the Greek, but have here been added as the minimum necessary to elicit sense from this difficult passage. It probably means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul’s proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament (what is written). Inflated with pride: literally, “puffed up,” i.e., arrogant, filled with a sense of self-importance. The term is particularly Pauline, found in the New Testament only in 1 Cor 4:6, 18-19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4; Col 2:18 (cf the related noun at 2 Cor 12:20). It sometimes occurs in conjunction with the theme of “boasting,” as in 1 Cor 4:6-7 here.
Click to expand...
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians4.htm

Paul would contradict himself to say only use what was written by “us”. And even if he did not then who is “us”?

But Paul did say to keep what was written and said.

2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Unless we reject 2 Thess as having been written by Paul…

Or how about 2 Timothy 1:13
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

“The sounds words that you heard from me”… again not written.

And one more:

Romans 10:17
Thus* faith comes from what is heard*, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

Again, it is written about what is heard and not what is written.

Besides the fact that scripture states numerous times to keep what was taught both oral and written we have the fact that the church did not have these Epistles for a couple of decades after Jesus was resurrected and so everything was oral.
 
WesleyF said:
“I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)

I know one way of refuting it, but I want to know how you would respond. As a matter of fact, the reformers themselves didn’t use this verse to support sola-scriptura :D, but somehow, today’s Protestants are more “enlightened”.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s not “go beyond what’s written” and consult 1 Cor 11:2.
 
JonNC said:
… that Tradition, Creeds, councils, the ECF’s, our confessions cannot contradict scripture.
Click to expand...
cannot contradict which interpretation of scripture? the clear, common sense interpretation that everyone agrees on? or some other interpretation?

Just curious. I know it sounded confrontational, but I’m sincerely on a quest for answers about authentic Lutheran solA scriptura. I get the solo/sola difference, but I just don’t see how the Bible can be held up as the ultimate litmus tester, because it has to first be correctly (and consistently, and indisputably) interpreted itself before it could ever play that role.

God Bless
 
WesleyF said:
“I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)

I know one way of refuting it, but I want to know how you would respond. As a matter of fact, the reformers themselves didn’t use this verse to support sola-scriptura :D, but somehow, today’s Protestants are more “enlightened”.
Click to expand...
OK Wesley we give up-what is your refutation?
 
SteveGC said:
cannot contradict which interpretation of scripture? the clear, common sense interpretation that everyone agrees on? or some other interpretation?

Just curious. I know it sounded confrontational, but I’m sincerely on a quest for answers about authentic Lutheran solA scriptura. I get the solo/sola difference, but I just don’t see how the Bible can be held up as the ultimate litmus tester, because it has to first be correctly (and consistently, and indisputably) interpreted itself before it could ever play that role.

God Bless
Click to expand...
It is the only thing we have as the ultimate litmus tester, as we know that humans can err.
That is not to say that we should not rely on the Church for interpretation, but even Rome has “inffalibly” interpreted only a small part of scripture.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
It is the only thing we have as the ultimate litmus tester, as we know that humans can err.
That is not to say that we should not rely on the Church for interpretation, but even Rome has “inffalibly” interpreted only a small part of scripture.

Jon
Click to expand...
Scripture is a good way to measure the truth but it is not the sole source for such measuring. Also the bible is not an authority and needs an authority to decide on how to use it as a tool for measuring.

A great example is the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution is a great measuring tool for what we can and cannot do. But we need Judges and attorneys to translate these writings so we can know what they mean in regards to our lives.

Catholicism provides the judges and attorneys with the security of being an Apostolic Church. Protestantism has as many judges as it does members and that makes it more of an anarchy than any kind of unified community.
 
JonNC said:
On what do you base this statement?

Jon
Click to expand...
He’s probably talking about how Protestantism is so diversified in it’s beliefs-sooo many churches each believing something different because each member is their own judge (on translations of the Bible, what laws to follow, etc.) whereas Catholics have to simply follow the unchanging church. Their judge is God through the Catholic Church.
 
WesleyF said:
“I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Cor 4:6)

I know one way of refuting it, but I want to know how you would respond. As a matter of fact, the reformers themselves didn’t use this verse to support sola-scriptura :D, but somehow, today’s Protestants are more “enlightened”.
Click to expand...
We need a table of contents of “what is written”? Need a list. You cant put limits without knowing the scope. Maybe Paul is talking only about his letters to the Corinthians or to the OT (if so, which books). Paul could not have been talking about the inclusion of Johns Revelations becuase it haddn’t been written yet. The same Paul demands his followers to adhere to the traditions given to us.

In Christ!
 
Personally, I’ve always wondered if the oral tradition they talk about following couldn’t have been in the New Testament itself. After all, it would have been transmitted orally, at least in the beginning. When they talk about oral tradition, could they be talking about the NT, not the Catholic Church’s tradition? Just a thought, feel free to correct me.
 
aball1035 said:
He’s probably talking about how Protestantism is so diversified in it’s beliefs-sooo many churches each believing something different because each member is their own judge (on translations of the Bible, what laws to follow, etc.) whereas Catholics have to simply follow the unchanging church. Their judge is God through the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Thanks Alex,
It is the “each member is there own judge” that I am questioning, this (false) notion that all protestants push personal interpretation.
Jon
 
sinner06 said:
Personally, I’ve always wondered if the oral tradition they talk about following couldn’t have been in the New Testament itself. After all, it would have been transmitted orally, at least in the beginning. When they talk about oral tradition, could they be talking about the NT, not the Catholic Church’s tradition? Just a thought, feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this? It’s just a theory that came to me, I’ve done no research on it, just wondered if there was anything that would refute it. Thanks!
 
sinner06 said:
I’m wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this?
Personally, I’ve always wondered if the oral tradition they talk about following couldn’t have been in the New Testament itself. After all, it would have been transmitted orally, at least in the beginning. When they talk about oral tradition, could they be talking about the NT, not the Catholic Church’s tradition? Just a thought, feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
First, there’s no difference between the NT (or the OT) and Catholic Tradition. All of Scripture is an inseperable part of Tradition (it’s the written part of Tradition), and as such, they will never contradict each other.

Secondly, the oral tradition the apostles exhort believers to hold to, is made distinct from the written ones. 2 Thes 2:15 …either by word of mouth, or by letter

So, while the entire canon of Scripture (not just the NT) is part of Tradition, so were other teachings and practices that were orally handed down through the generations. This is why you don’t find everything The Church teaches explicitly in Scripture; however, all of the true proclamations of faith and morals ARE found within Scripture. They are extracted from an authentic interpretation of Scripture, and made manifest in the entire body of Tradition within The Church.

God Bless
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top