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

[Teflon93]

Whoops, better not mention “good works” or we’ll be onto the error in sola fide too.

Of course, “may be adequate” applies to man of God. What does “man of God” mean? Where else has “man of God” been referenced? Does it mean Christian, or something different?

Given this discussion, perhaps “sola scriptura” is a mislabel. The Protestant position is better described as “fere scriptura”.

 

[Teflon93]

Word for Word in Scripture, nope. So, creeds, statements of Faith are illogical to you?

Can you find the assumption for me in scripture?

Don’t have to—I don’t adhere to sola scriptura.

It is interesting that someone who does cannot find their creed in it, however.

Could it be that creeds are useful to one’s faith after all?

Do they somehow help the faithful to keep on the path of righteousness?

 

[kaycee]

There is a logical fallacy you’re committing here.

Just because we don’t accept the authority of the man-made tradition of sola scriptura does not mean we don’t accept the authority of Scripture.

We accept the authority of Scripture - it is inerrant.

Offcourse you do, unfortunately you subordinate the Scripture to the Magisterium.

 

[Teflon93]

Offcourse you do, unfortunately you subordinate the Scripture to the Magisterium.

Really?

Where does it say that?

Catholics haven’t added nor subtracted anything regarding Scripture, not even adding “alone” to a certain passage in Romans as Luther did.

It certainly seems that if we viewed Magisterium as superior to Scripture some Pope would have found it quite beneficial to take the Lutheran path.

Unless Magisterium and Scripture do not conflict…

 

[kaycee]

Don’t have to—I don’t adhere to sola scriptura.

Yes, thus the problem.

It is interesting that someone who does cannot find their creed in it, however.

Oh, please, the bar you set, (Westminster, word for word in scripture) is silly.

Is Trent Orignal Apostolic tradition, word for word? Then it can’t be true.

Could it be that creeds are useful to one’s faith after all?

Do they somehow help the faithful to keep on the path of righteousness?

They were certainly usefull, but you would also agree not comprehensive.

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, thus the problem.

Oh, please, the bar you set, (Westminster, word for word in scripture) is silly.

Is Trent Orignal Apostolic tradition, word for word? Then it can’t be true.

They were certainly usefull, but you would also agree not comprehensive.

Kaycee, I’ll leave it for others to note your inconsistency, and that of the sola scriptura argument. It’s amply displayed above.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but anyone can see the cognitive dissonance represented by the mutually exclusive claims that “Scripture is all that is necessary for faith”, but “we must produce the Westminster Confession because Scripture doesn’t define our faith adequately.”

I do sympathize with you, however—it is impossible to defend sola scriptura, and thus those who attempt to do so have an impossible mission.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[Man]

Joshua 1:7 "Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. ** 8"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it;** for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.

Psalm 119: “I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on Thy statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey Thy precepts. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light for my path. The unfolding of Thy words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.”

1 Cor 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, **“Do not go beyond what is written.” **Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

The first verse. Have you complained that someone took something from context before? Well, the first verse is part of the Jewish Traditions. You see, the Rabbis kept oral traditions to help them understand the various traditions of the people… some of it was later written down in the Talmud. These traditions, “precepts (from the second verse)” are not all written down, some are observed and some have precedents not in the scripture itself.

The Fathers of the Church were also not deaf to this, that is why major changes in the liturgy occur very infrequently. That, and the continued existence of ancient religious formation schools really… reflects what these verses are actually saying. Like it or not.

The third verse starts: "I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, " This part appears to be ignored. It is, in fact the condition placed on the phrase you place in bold. By observing and being with Paul and Apollos one can understand both the Traditions and ways of the “magisterium.” Like it or not.

 

[Man]

2 Timothy 3:12
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

You see, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16). Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17). So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, who will instruct them in myths rather than the truth of the Word (4:1-4)

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html

Again, it starts:
"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. "

Ah, but the protestant churches did “continue in…” thus, this cannot be properly applied.

 

[Teflon93]

The first verse. Have you complained that someone took something from context before? Well, the first verse is part of the Jewish Traditions. You see, the Rabbis kept oral traditions to help them understand the various traditions of the people… some of it was later written down in the Talmud. These traditions, “precepts (from the second verse)” are not all written down, some are observed and some have precedents not in the scripture itself.

The Fathers of the Church were also not deaf to this, that is why major changes in the liturgy occur very infrequently. That, and the continued existence of ancient religious formation schools really… reflects what these verses are actually saying. Like it or not.

The third verse starts: "I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, " This part appears to be ignored. It is, in fact the condition placed on the phrase you place in bold. By observing and being with Paul and Apollos one can understand both the Traditions and ways of the “magisterium.” Like it or not.

To your point, I was struck in reading Justin Martyr how closely Mass today matches that of the Early Church. It is surely a testament to the devotion of preserving tradition that it is so.

For all the changes people like to harp on in Vatican II, the essentials remain as they ever were, 2000 years gone by.

 

[BobCatholic]

Word for Word in Scripture, nope. So, creeds, statements of Faith are illogical to you?

creeds and statements of faith are based on an interpretation of scripture (tradition) and cannot have authority if you believe in sola scriptura.

 

[BobCatholic]

Offcourse you do, unfortunately you subordinate the Scripture to the Magisterium.

Actually it is you who do it.

You subordinate the scriptures to your magisteriums which you cite.

After all, you accept their interpretation of scripture (tradition) and accepting them as authoritative.

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee, I’ll leave it for others to note your inconsistency, and that of the sola scriptura argument. It’s amply displayed above.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but anyone can see the cognitive dissonance represented by the mutually exclusive claims that “Scripture is all that is necessary for faith”, but “we must produce the Westminster Confession because Scripture doesn’t define our faith adequately.”

I guess I fail to see how summarizing biblical doctrine (westminster) violates Sola Scriptura. I suggest you are in reality fighting a caricature.

Are you really asserting that statements of Faith, commentaries, written exegesis of scripture, Hymnals, Greek and Hebrew studies, or any other aids and tools is a violation of Sola Scriptura?

What are you asserting? You really can’t be serious in asking me to produce scripture that contains Westminster, word for word.

 

[BobCatholic]

I guess I fail to see how summarizing biblical doctrine (westminster)

Who declared that the westminster confession is biblical? Why should we accept that magisterial ruling?

Are you really asserting that statements of Faith, commentaries, written exegesis of scripture, Hymnals, Greek and Hebrew studies, or any other aids is a violation of Sola Scriptura?

What are you asserting?

Such things are interpretations of scripture, which is extra-scriptural traditions.

You can’t say scripture is all that is necessary for faith while at the same time accepting these traditions (and magisteriums too) in addition.

 

[kaycee]

creeds and statements of faith are based on an interpretation of scripture (tradition) and cannot have authority if you believe in sola scriptura.

Well, your version of SS probably can’t. Mine can, but it is subordinate to Scripture

 

[BobCatholic]

Well, your version of SS probably can’t. Mine can, but it is subordinate to Scripture

I don’t have a “version of SS”

There is no firm definition of SS. The relativism of SS prevents that from occuring.

And if your version of SS is subordinate to scripture, then you will find scripture verses that define SS. Otherwise, you are accepting a tradition over scripture.

But after all this, you have yet to provide the verses.

 

[DJim]

Kaycee–

You have apparently given it the ole College try, for which I applaud you. Even so, it is clear at face value that none of the passages you cited support your claim that the Bible claims to be the sole rule of faith for the Church.

For the record–in a thread that closed earlier last week, you made that claim–which prompted me to start this thread. Now, in this thread, you have repeated your original definition of “sola scriptura” which maintains the error.

Cmancone–

Please tell me whether you agree with this statement now made twice by Kaycee:

“The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.”

Kaycee–

I must also applaud you on your candor in your reply that you “don’t know” whether Mark Chapter 15 Verse 28 is actually part of Scripture or not.

The significance of this fact should not be overlooked:

You have admitted that you really don’t know whether or not you possess all of the “sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.”

You don’t really know whether you have the entirety of the written Word of God preserved intact to this day. Interesting.

Apparently, the criticism of “oral tradition” as “one big game of ‘telephone’” is also a criticism applicable to “written tradition” as well…

Little bits of Scripture are, in a way, “up for grabs”–isn’t it a bit odd that the infallible Holy Spirit has not preserved Scripture completely intact for us?

Oh, wait–but if you agreed with me on that point, then you’d have to stop arguing against Sacred Tradition using similar language…

DJim

 

[BobCatholic]

Yes, thus the problem.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[RalphP]

I am sorry if this has already been said in this thread.

This question, “Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith?” seems to imply that those of us who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, reject all other “Rule of Faith”. That would be a wrong conclusion or assumption, for some of us anyways. As I understand it, Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture is infallible. It does not mean tradition or teaching authorities are rejected, they are just not considered infallible.

We come to that understanding the same way we do many doctrines of the Church, by rightly dividing the Scriptures.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. Douay-Rheims
Notice the word “perfect”. A person of God can be made “perfect” or complete as it also means by and with the scriptures. If more was needed, the person of God can not be said to be “perfect” and “furnished to every good work”

No where does Scriptures say that “Oral Tradition” makes one perfect. As a matter of fact, Jesus cautioned us about tradition: Matt 15:3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Douay-Rheims.

No where does Scripture say that teaching authority makes one perfect. Again we are cautioned about teachers: 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. Douay-Rheims

Conclusion, Scripture is the sole infallible source for the faith. Tradition and teachers are not.

Ralph

 

[Teflon93]

I am sorry if this has already been said in this thread.

This question, “Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith?” seems to imply that those of us who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, reject all other “Rule of Faith”. That would be a wrong conclusion or assumption, for some of us anyways. As I understand it, Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture is infallible. It does not mean tradition or teaching authorities are rejected, they are just not considered infallible.

We come to that understanding the same way we do many doctrines of the Church, by rightly dividing the Scriptures.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. Douay-Rheims
Notice the word “perfect”. A person of God can be made “perfect” or complete as it also means by and with the scriptures. If more was needed, the person of God can not be said to be “perfect” and “furnished to every good work”

No where does Scriptures say that “Oral Tradition” makes one perfect. As a matter of fact, Jesus cautioned us about tradition: Matt 15:3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Douay-Rheims.

No where does Scripture say that teaching authority makes one perfect. Again we are cautioned about teachers: 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. Douay-Rheims

Conclusion, Scripture is the sole infallible source for the faith. Tradition and teachers are not.

Ralph

Really?

How were the Pharisees wrong then?

How was the Devil wrong when he (accurately) quoted Scripture to tempt Christ in the desert?

 

[BobCatholic]

This question, “Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith?” seems to imply that those of us who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, reject all other “Rule of Faith”. That would be a wrong conclusion or assumption, for some of us anyways. As I understand it, Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture is infallible. It does not mean tradition or teaching authorities are rejected, they are just not considered infallible.

Where does it say this definition in the bible?

We come to that understanding the same way we do many doctrines of the Church, by rightly dividing the Scriptures.

“rightly dividing the word of God” = An interpretation of the word of God.

It is your interpretation that “Word of God” only refers to scripture, as if there was no oral word. This is nowhere in the Bible, it is your extra-scriptural tradition.

No where does Scriptures say that “Oral Tradition” makes one perfect. As a matter of fact, Jesus cautioned us about tradition: Matt 15:3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Douay-Rheims.

Then you should drop the tradition of sola scriptura, as it is nowhere in the Bible, using your standard above.

Conclusion, Scripture is the sole infallible source for the faith. Tradition and teachers are not.

So says your tradition and teachers who came up with this definition of sola scriptura. SS is not in the Bible. If it is, show me the verse that shows me the true definition of SS.