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

[Philthy]

Certainly not Eisegesis. :tsktsk:

I disagree with you. :yup:
kc:

It’s an obvious comment on the nature of Scripture.

Your characterization of it being obvious is a subjective assessment which I disagree with.
kc:
Do you really think Paul meant to close the Canon by limiting inspiration to the OT and thats all we need?

Not at all. I know that he didnt mean to close the canon because the Church has revealed that the canon wasnt closed til much later. That is irrelevent, however. It is clear that Paul is referring to the OT and that is what he is speaking of in the context of his writings to Timothy.
kc:

Did the Church err in placing Paul’s epistles among those writings it considered inspired?

Not at all. I dont understand your point in asking the question, however.
kc:

Did Peter err when he did the same?

Not at all. I dont understand your point in asking the question, however.

 

[PhilVaz]

Bob << 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? >>

Well they (evangelicals) use these authors for various definitions of sola scriptura, and they will be the first to tell you they (evangelicals or their “authorites”) are not infallible. Which brings up your objections: that various (contradictory) definitions of sola scriptura are often used, and these definitions themselves are not found in Scripture.

I like to get White, Mathison, MacArthur et al to admit that from their own writings. Mathison (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 2001) is actually quite clear and sounds rather Catholic.

According to Mathison: The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim 3:15], established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals. The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the VISIBLE Church according to Mathison (page 268). The Church is “our mother,” “the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her” (Luke 10:16).

And “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (page 268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (page 272).

If you haven’t read this book, it is a good one to see how close a Reformed writer gets to the Catholic/Orthodox view. Of course he has some things to say about the Papacy which he doesn’t like.

Phil P

 

[DJim]

Reducing all my previous observations to one really intriguing question, I would simply have to ask the proponents of Sola Scriptura (pick your “flavor”–sole rule of faith or not) to answer this:

Is the following verse Scriptural or not:

“And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And he was counted among the wicked.’” (Mark 15:28)

It is omitted in the “earliest and best” manuscripts.

So–Scripture or No Scripture, and why?

DJim

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mikijam:

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.

Except that starting at the Reformation is not starting at the beginning. It is starting in the middle.

mikijam:

I know you’re not Descartes.

But I don’t know he’s not Descartes. What if he is? :crying:

 

[DJim]

Absolutely, I would certainly hold fast to whatever I heard them say, as well as whatever they wrote.

 

[YADA]

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…

.

In reality, the Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures pre-date the New Testaement Church of course. The “Bible” is the compilation of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament Scriptures. Therefore; the Church pre-dates the New Testament Scriptures and the “Bible”.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

Really, I would certainly be interested in hearing a few things the Apostle said not written in scripture we need to know about.

So what if John did tell you a Tradition? And then you forgot it? It would be lost to you, right?

So what if you were to entrust what John told you to a very reliable friend and then you forgot it? Your reliable friend would remind you, right?

Well, the Church is the reliable friend. The Holy Spirit has made the Church the Reliable Friend, not just for rich literate and influential, but for the whole world.

Let’s look at another scenario:

What if folks wrote down the Gospels, thinking kaycee would surely be able to read this. kaycee would be happy, right? Because kaycee can read.

But what if kaycee never learned how to read and lived in a neighbourhood where no one knew how to read. What then?

Lucky for kaycee that he/she still has his reliable friend – the Church.

See, Jesus had all the basis covered. Even for the poor, the illiterate, the folks who have no leisure time to read or hear the reading of others, the geographically isolated.

Jesus wasn’t just thinking of those who had enough money to go to school and learn how to read, and those who had enough money to afford the leisure time to pore over the Bible or to hire someone else to pore over the Bible for them.

He was thinking of the poor. He was thinking of the little people.

Did you know, kaycee, that for all those centuries before Luther, over 90% of the Church was illiterate?

Even those who could read, only small numbers were fluent in Latin, which was the lingua franca of those ages.

Did you know that Bibles were chained to pulpits to prevent theft because they were so costly? Who could afford handwritten Bibles except the monumentally wealthy?

But, oh no, the wealthy literate leisure class came up with Sola Scriptura which effectively excluded the poor from the Gospels except what was forced down their throats by Luther and his friends.

Did you know that folks were forcibly converted to Protestantism during the Reformation – on pain of death?
Do you think the Holy Spirit was whispering inspiration into their ears as they were force-fed the new interpretations?

Don’t the little people count, kaycee? What did Jesus say about the little people? Your the biblical scholar, you tell us.

Do the math, kaycee. The tree is known by its fruit.

The Catholic Church is the Church of little people.

 

[DJim]

What I’ve learned since launching this thread:

Not a single verse of Scripture claims that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith.

No one can tell me when it supposedly became the sole and infallible rule of faith, or how.

Comparatively, the Catholic Church actually has a verse of Scripture to work with–Mt 16 and all that “rock” stuff…

Note to self: the next time someone challenges my Catholic faith by saying “Mt 16–that’s just one verse–what else you got?” my reply will be:

“I have one verse MORE than everyone who believes in Sola Scriptura…”

I do believe one verse more is enough in this case…

DJim

PS–this is mostly tongue in cheek–I’m not a big believer in verse-swapping anyway!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

From Catholic Bridge:

The following passage is often used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone)"…the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16) The passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree.

Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need?

Hint: :nope:

Note also that the relationship drawn between sacred writings and salvation is not that salvation inheres or is equivalent to sacred writing.

In fact, scripture is able to do what? Save you? Does it say that? No, it doesn’t say that. It says scripture is able to instruct you.

This instruction takes the form of teaching, reproof, correction, and training.

Who convicts? Scripture? Or the Holy Spirit?

Let’s be precise now. The Holy Spirit breathes into scripture. But does scripture convict?

Hint: :nope:

Scripture instructs. That instruction places you before your own choice for or against Salvation. The Holy Spirit convicts.

Now I think I hear keyboards clacking: but but but the instruction of scripture is all that is necessary.

Guess what? There’s more. The Holy Spirit convicts even without scripture. This is what we call Invincible Ignorance. God loves us. God will come after the 99th sheep tirelessly until that sheep is found. Can’t read? No problem. Can’t hear? No problem. In solitary confinement? No problem. Nothing is impossible with God.

Now back to scripture: Did anyone twig onto what sacred writings were around at the time this was spoken?

:doh2: The Old Testament. And? And not the New Testament. Hello? The New Testament was not written at that time.

So if the passage were really saying that scripture is all that is necessary for Salvation, then I guess the Apostles and disciples were just plum out of luck then, weren’t they?

I guess they would just have had to rely on the Old Testament for Salvation. I guess the Stations of the Cross (including Simeon and Veronica) and the Crucifixion and the Resurrection would never have made it to the light of day.

Now is that logical?

Finally, consider this:

Scripture says “And the Word became Flesh” (Jn1:1) It doesn’t say “and the Word became paper.” +

 

[Teflon93]

Almost universally the verse that is cited to support the notion of sola scriptura is 2Tim 3:16

“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness so that the one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

The problem is that this verse doesnt claim that Scripture is the ONLY thing required. In fact, Paul, who is writing to Timothy in the first letter specifically says that he is writing to Timothy to instruct him in how to behave in the Church even though Paul acknowledges that Timothy knows all of Scripture(cf 2Tim3:14). It would seem a contradictory thing to do if Paul was trying to promote sola scriptura.

The other problem is that pernicious reference to good work, which is Kryptonite to the Calvinists and Lutherans.

 

[DJim]

Kaycee–

Upon reflection, I forgot to ask important questions. You stated that some of the books were “late” in being accepted.

1. Which books?
2. When were they accepted?
3. Who accepted them?

A little help, please. Thanks,

DJim

 

[kaycee]

Actually, Kaycee, that’s not what the passage from Paul says–Paul says to hold fast to the traditions which come from him either orally in writing. He does NOT say we have to hear him directly tell us what these traditions are. Rather, we are to hold fast to what is contained in the two forms of Apostolic faith–oral and written.

The substance of which only 1 is apparently known.

The dichotomy you assume is without warrant. It is simply the deposit of the Faith once and for all given to the Saints. Same message, write it, speak it, sing it, read it, say it. The content is important, not the method of delivery at least for the Apostolic generation. To say there was a written set of doctrine and another different set of Oral only doctrine is silly. The tradition of the Apostles is the Gospel message, fully revealed in the NT.

Considering Rome cannot elaborate without guessing what was orally preserved does not lend itself to Roman infallibility and surety.

Then step right up and answer my above question about Mark 15:28–is it “God-breathed”???

Dont know

This seems to bely a lack of focus on the actual point of “Sacred Tradition”–which is that it represents a living apostolic authority present in the Church to guide it and teach it in the present.

You mean the Holy Spirit?

Sacred Tradition is not a doctrinal laundry list any more than Scripture is. For us today, “what we need to know about” may not be exactly what those who heard Paul directly “needed to know about.”

And this is Not ongoing revalation? Soooo, the tradition Paul talked about is only for that time and place?

The living apostolic authority of all times in the Church (guided always by the Holy Spirit) responds to the needs of the living Church, providing it a sure and stable guide. The accumulated “wisdom” of this living Magisterium does eventually get “written down”–

Does this “entity” get its charter from the Bible or is it commissioned also by Oral tradition?

A living consciences that gradually learns more. Thats good stuff. Sounds like Veeger from the Star Trek the movie.

Does the Holy Spirit need to learn anything?

Sacred Tradition is the dominant origin of many things uniquely (Catholic)–purgatory, Marian Dogmas, etc.–

No argument here.

These truths are not negated simply because we don’t have a direct quote from Thomas or Andrew or Jude about them–Sacred Tradition was safeguarded by them and is still safeguarded today by their successors.

Yeah, well, interesting as that seems to you, that does not sound like it fills the shoes of what you claim Paul spoke about. The RC reason for siteing the verse was prooftexting for “holding fast to Oral tradition”, correct? Clearly Paul, during his ministry, told them, “something” they were to hold fast to. If it’s just for them (a novel idea) why is that verse for us and not just for them?

It appears that the living Authority, magisterium, conscienceness, that learns over time, entity, is foriegn to Scripture.

Further, Sacred Tradition isn’t entirely “oral”–many noncanonical Christian writings represent elements of Sacred Tradition, inasmuch as they contain the truths of the Deposit of Faith.

By RC definition these are also inspired writings then, correct? If Scripture is the Word of God and Tradition is equally the word of God, how can they not be scripture?

 

[Teflon93]

The substance of which only 1 is apparently known.

The dichotomy you assume is without warrant. It is simply the deposit of the Faith once and for all given to the Saints. Same message, write it, speak it, sing it, read it, say it. The content is important, not the method of delivery at least for the Apostolic generation. To say there was a written set of doctrine and another different set of Oral only doctrine is silly. The tradition of the Apostles is the Gospel message, fully revealed in the NT.

Considering Rome cannot elaborate without guessing what was orally preserved does not lend itself to Roman infallibility and surety.

Dont know

You mean the Holy Spirit?

And this is Not ongoing revalation? Soooo, the tradition Paul talked about is only for that time and place?

Does this “entity” get its charter from the Bible or is it commissioned also by Oral tradition?

A living consciences that gradually learns more. Thats good stuff. Sounds like Veeger from the Star Trek the movie.

Does the Holy Spirit need to learn anything?

No argument here.

Yeah, well, interesting as that seems to you, that does not sound like it fills the shoes of what you claim Paul spoke about. The RC reason for siteing the verse was prooftexting for “holding fast to Oral tradition”, correct? Clearly Paul, during his ministry, told them, “something” they were to hold fast to. If it’s just for them (a novel idea) why is that verse for us and not just for them?

It appears that the living Authority, magisterium, conscienceness, that learns over time, entity, is foriegn to Scripture.

By RC definition these are also inspired writings then, correct? If Scripture is the Word of God and Tradition is equally the word of God, how can they not be scripture?

Kaycee, did you ever confirm for us where we can find the Book of Westminster? Our bibles don’t seem to have it, and since the Westminster Confession clearly cannot be required of the faith by your definition unless it is whole and entire in the Bible, surely you can point us to a Bible pre-17th century with this book in it.

Why was the Westminster Confession necessary, anyway?

 

[BobCatholic]

What I’ve learned since launching this thread:

Not a single verse of Scripture claims that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith.

No one can tell me when it supposedly became the sole and infallible rule of faith, or how.

Comparatively, the Catholic Church actually has a verse of Scripture to work with–Mt 16 and all that “rock” stuff…

Note to self: the next time someone challenges my Catholic faith by saying “Mt 16–that’s just one verse–what else you got?” my reply will be:

“I have one verse MORE than everyone who believes in Sola Scriptura…”

I do believe one verse more is enough in this case…

DJim

PS–this is mostly tongue in cheek–I’m not a big believer in verse-swapping anyway!

Not just that, you can actually practice the Catholic model of scripture, tradition and magisterium.

Nobody can practice sola scriptura.

 

[Teflon93]

Even those who claim to follow sola scriptura do not do so.

Every ecclesiastical community requires tradition, and every ecclesiastical community follows an authority within that tradition.

To deny the obvious in favor of sloganeering is to display a profound disrespect for truth.

 

[BobCatholic]

Even those who claim to follow sola scriptura do not do so.

Right. That’s because sola scriptura CANNOT be practiced. It is not hypocrisy of those communities, it is simply that the doctrine cannot be practiced.

 

[Teflon93]

Right. That’s because sola scriptura CANNOT be practiced. It is not hypocrisy of those communities, it is simply that the doctrine cannot be practiced.

I agree. I should hasten to emphasize that I don’t think those who adhere to sola scriptura are hypocrites—they don’t preach one thing and practice another knowingly.

I think they are simply wed to the concept of it, and adhere to it simply because Luther did and they admire him for whatever reason.

It is also useful to explain why they are not Catholic. It is striking how many attack Catholicism on the grounds that we have Tradition and Magisterium in addition to Sacred Scripture, as though having a more complete religion were a bad thing.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

Considering Rome cannot elaborate without guessing what was orally preserved does not lend itself to Roman infallibility and surety.

You are not discussing, kaycee. You have squirmed out of responding to the lion’s share of questions and replies we have directed your way.

Every time we ask you a question or raise a point which puts your teaching into doubt, you evade and set out these unsubstantiated inaccuracies.

If you have anything to say, then please set out your claim plainly, set out the line of reasoning which led you to that claim, and where necessary give links.

You cannot prove that the Catholic Church is guessing. Therefore what is the purpose of making such a claim? Did you think we wouldn’t catch you?

There is a forum rule which discourages posters from singlemindedly promoting an agenda.

 

[Teflon93]

You are not discussing, kaycee. You have squirmed out of responding to the lion’s share of questions and replies we have directed your way.

Every time we ask you a question or raise a point which puts your teaching into doubt, you evade and set out these unsubstantiated inaccuracies.

If you have anything to say, then please set out your claim plainly, set out the line of reasoning which led you to that claim, and where necessary give links.

You cannot prove that the Catholic Church is guessing. Therefore what is the purpose of making such a claim? Did you think we wouldn’t catch you?

There is a forum rule which discourages posters from singlemindedly promoting an agenda.

I’m still waiting with bated breath for where I might procure a Bible containing the Book of Westminster, which our Catholic forefathers somehow managed to errantly forget to transcribe, thus requiring it to be infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit in 1646.

As Kaycee clearly doesn’t rely on any aspect of tradition for faith, the Confession must be a lost book of the Bible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

…I think they are simply wed to the concept of it, and adhere to it simply because Luther did and they admire him for whatever reason…

Luther admitted that he added the word Alone. How is that admirable?

Teflon93:

It is also useful to explain why they are not Catholic. It is striking how many attack Catholicism on the grounds that we have Tradition and Magisterium in addition to Sacred Scripture, as though having a more complete religion were a bad thing.

Particularly when the Reformers have their own 30 000 traditions and magisteria. Woddupwidat? Double standard? It’s OK for a Reformer to have his own private tradition and magisteria adjustable to time and place, but it’s not OK for a Catholic to have a 2000 year-old Tradition and Magisterium which has never changed and ain’t about to?

:whacky: