Where Does Scripture State That It Is the *Sole* Rule of Faith?

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

Absolutely, I would certainly hold fast to whatever I heard them say, as well as whatever they wrote. Although they have not spoke to anyone orally in quite a while.

So you admit that you would hold fast to what you heard them say. What about the Catholic Church? Should She not hold fast to what She heard them say? Why one rule for you and another one for the Church? Does that make sense to you?

 

[kaycee]

You’re right, kaycee. Can you tell us what books are in the pre-Church OT? And in what order? Is that Scripture sufficient for Salvation?

I would have to go with

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in **all **the Scriptures.

Lu 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

But this is another topic altogether. :juggle:

 

[kaycee]

So you admit that you would hold fast to what you heard them say. What about the Catholic Church? Should She not hold fast to what She heard them say? Why one rule for you and another one for the Church? Does that make sense to you?

“She” surely should have held fast, unfortunately, “She” can’t tell me what they said. At least other than what is already written.

I can certainly tell you what they said, by reading Scripture!

 

[Man]

“Sola Scriptura” is a false statement. Usually Protestants use 2 Timothy to justify their belief, and then refer to the doctrine passed onto them by their founders to interpret it.

 

[cpayne]

Something kind of funny happened to me this weekend. I was in a Calvinist Reformed conference in Kansas City, feeling sort of like the Amazing Rome-Sympathizer sideshow in the local carnival, when the conversation turned to criteria for valid interpretation of the Bible. After a while, without thinking much about it, I said, “Well, all this just proves we should thank God for the Magisterium.” About half of those present stopped talking entirely; the other half had to have the comment explained. After that, they watched me like I was going to bite the head off a chicken or something.

 

[cpayne]

The majority of books were already accepted by the churches in practice, shortly after the ink dried. The contents of scripture did not change when the councils rubber stamped them.

The books that were late in being accepted hardly added any new theology that was missing.

Augustine on the Canon.
Augustine, after the council held in Hippo had discussed the canon, wrote the following.

“In the matter of canonical Scriptures he should follow the authority of the greater number of catholic Churches, among which are those which have deserved to have apostolic seats and receive epistles. He will observe this rule concerning canonical Scriptures, that he will prefer those accepted by all catholic Churches to those which some do not accept; among those which are not accepted by all, he should prefer those which are accepted by the largest number of important Churches to those held by a few minor Churches of less authority. If he discovers that some are maintained by the larger number of Churches, others by the Churches of weightiest authority, although this condition is not likely, he should hold them to be of equal value.”

Notice no mention of the council or the pope.

This somewhat misses DJim’s point: that given your position, there would be no rational reason to move from “commonly accepted” to “authoritative.” In other words, who or what authorized that move? No one is arguing that the books of the N.T. were not already commonly accepted.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I was in a Calvinist Reformed conference in Kansas City, feeling sort of like the Amazing Rome-Sympathizer sideshow in the local carnival… they watched me like I was going to bite the head off a chicken or something.

Oh man, you have an exciting life! I laughed til I cried.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

“She” surely should have held fast, unfortunately, “She” can’t tell me what they said.

No, kaycee. She can and is tellilng you what they said. You are not listening.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I would have to go with

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in **all **the Scriptures.

Lu 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

But this is another topic altogether. :juggle:

No, kaycee. This is another of your evasions. The question was:
Ani Ibi:

You’re right, kaycee. Can you tell us what books are in the pre-Church OT? And in what order? Is that Scripture sufficient for Salvation?

Please answer the question. You are getting backed up again and then you will be unhappy because you have too many questions to answer. Just answer them one at a time. btw, there are still a lot left over from yesterday. Would you start on those? Thank you.

 

[mikijam]

However, the Bible is the only PRACTICAL rule of faith. It is the only practical rule of faith because it is the only thing we know comes from God. How do you know that Church Tradition is in fact accurate? The Bible has thousands of early copies to verify that what we read is what was originally written. How do you know that Church Tradition has indeed been preserved? How do you know that the Traditions you are taught today are the same thing that were taught by the apostles. The very simple fact of the matter is that you can’t. The entire basis of oral tradition is that it is oral - there is no written record, and therefore no way to verify how accurate it is. I will listen to God’s Word no matter where it comes from, just so long as I know it comes from God. Church Tradition is completely lacking in any way to verify this. You wouldn’t believe me if I claimed to speak for God, not unless I proved it. So why do you believe Tradition, when it has no way to prove it?

Your argument certainly makes sense if you were starting from a blank slate, with no beliefs whatsoever. If you were an alien (or perhaps Rene Descartes), and you knew nothing about what was authoritative, except that you saw that EVERYONE agreed the scriptures were inspired, then it would be logical to conclude that the Scriptures were the only thing you would trust.

It’s this “Whoa, whoa, let’s start from the beginning” attitude that causes many Protestant founded denominations from going only so far, and never allowing themselves the fullness of Truth. They stop at the bible because they can’t bring themselves to believe that Christ could ACTUALLY keep his Bride pure and holy all these years (Eph 5:25-27).

Well I am fairly sure you’re not an alien and I know you’re not Descartes. I guess it comes back to how you define the Church. Ironic for a discussion about Scripture, no?

 

[YADA]

Of course it does not hold up…

What they claim is that, sometime after the apostles died, when the church was in its “normative” state (whatever that means), Scripture became the sole rule of faith, the sole “Word of God”, the self-sufficient and only infallible authority for Christianity. I recommend The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001) by Keith Mathison, or Scripture Alone (2004) by James White to see whether that logic holds up. I say No.

For the Protestants the sometime after the apostles when the church became normative was in the 1500’s…that is when Scripture became the “Sole” authoritative voice of the “Word of God”

 

[clmowry]

Sola Scriptura does not claim that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. It says that the everything necessary for salvation is clearly set out in the Bible. The Bible is the final and sole infallible rule of faith.

I’d suggest that the definition varies quite a bit from person to person.

Chuck

 

[PhilVaz]

YADA << For the Protestants the sometime after the apostles when the church became normative was in the 1500’s… >>

True, although White, Mathison, MacArthur, and the evangelicals I quoted will argue the normative state of the church was sometime before Constantine (c. 300 AD) when the church, although following “sola scriptura” which “became true” at this time (c. 100 to 150 AD ? ), slowly drifted away into untrue doctrines not found in Scripture. It seems “sola scriptura” couldn’t be relied upon for even 150 years or so since the entire church started “getting it wrong.”

Of course Mormons and JWs are more blunt and call that drifting “apostasy.”

Phil P

 

[BobCatholic]

The Bible has thousands of early copies to verify that what we read is what was originally written

However, there are zero extant ORIGINAL manuscripts of the Bible.

Zero.

All we have now are COPIES of COPIES of COPIES of … of COPIES of the originals.

Which were copied and distributed by the Catholic Church, thoughout the centuries.

So you better be PRAYING that the Catholic Church got every jot and tittle of the scriptures you are using RIGHT in those “early manuscripts”

Because if the Church got that wrong…well, that’s a scary thought. This means that your religion is false - in fact, there is no true Christian faith left on the planet. The gates of hell have prevailed and it is time to go to synagogue.

===============

Praise God, that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church thoughout the centuries so that those scriptures you depend on ARE 100% INERRANT.

I believe the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Catholic Church. That’s one of many reasons I’m Catholic. I trust the Holy Spirit.

I don’t trust man-made denominations that split from the Catholic Church, however. They deny this very fact, and thus are not telling the truth.

 

[DJim]

Kaycee says “bingo” to the following from SyCarl:

Sola Scriptura does not claim that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. It says that the everything necessary for salvation is clearly set out in the Bible. The Bible is the final and sole infallible rule of faith.

But, Kaycee–you were the one who originally asserted that the Bible itself claims it’s the sole rule of faith…

And I can’t quite figure out the above from SyCarl–which clearly says that Sola Scripture “does not claim” the Bible is the sole rule of faith but two sentences later definitively says the Bible *is the “final and sole infallible” rule of faith. Scripture doesn’t claim it for itself, but it is anyway?

This does not deny a role for the Church and tradition but they are subject to scripture.

Does Scripture assert this, that Church and tradition are subject to it??? If not, what infallible rule of faith orginates this claim???

Verse 31 goes on to say that despite not containing everything, the book was written by John so that we might believe and have life. His book contains what we need to know. If this is true of his book alone, then it must also be true of the whole Bible.

Actually that’s a major non sequitur–well beyond the author’s purpose and attestation. The author is saying his words were written for that purpose, and those words imply nothing about the rest of Scripture. The author of Leviticus, for example, was not writing so that we might believe in Jesus and have life in His name, was he?

DJim

 

[BobCatholic]

This somewhat misses DJim’s point: that given your position, there would be no rational reason to move from “commonly accepted” to “authoritative.” In other words, who or what authorized that move? No one is arguing that the books of the N.T. were not already commonly accepted.

Not only that, but this admission is accepting the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church - as it was the only Christian Church around to make sure the scriptures he depends on were copied and distributed

Remember: The earliest copies of the scriptures which are extant, were copied by the Catholic Church! So if they’re inerrant, that says a lot about the Catholic Church and how she was guided by the Holy Spirit!

 

[BobCatholic]

Bingo!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2475633&postcount=25



Sola Scriptura still cannot be practiced

 

[BobCatholic]

I’d suggest that the definition varies quite a bit from person to person.

Agreed.

There is no firm definition of sola scriptura. It is nowhere in the Bible and the relativism of sola scriptura prevents there from being one.

 

[BobCatholic]

YADA << For the Protestants the sometime after the apostles when the church became normative was in the 1500’s… >>

True, although White, Mathison, MacArthur, and the evangelicals I quoted will argue the normative state of the church was sometime before Constantine (c. 300 AD) when the church, although following “sola scriptura” which “became true” at this time (c. 100 to 150 AD ? ), slowly drifted away into untrue doctrines not found in Scripture. It seems “sola scriptura” couldn’t be relied upon for even 150 years or so since the entire church started “getting it wrong.”

Of course Mormons and JWs are more blunt and call that drifting “apostasy.”

Phil P

I’m always wondering why they accept the magisterial authority of White, Mathison, MacArthur, and other evangelicals while at the same time claiming to follow sola scriptura?

 

[Philthy]

Funny, I thought Scripture existed Way before the Church!

Somethin about Moses, etc…

I never used the word Scripture in the quote you provided - I used the word Bible. There is a difference between Scripture and The Bible in the context of my comments, kaycee. Scripture existed prior to the Church, but the Bible did not. The Church existed before the Bible, but not before Scripture.
It would not hurt to stop and think twice before you publicly disagree with someone - add a dose of humility and you just might be on your way to actually learning something. Here’s a smiley for ya to make it all better…