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

[Teflon93]

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.

Yes. Why are those things necessary?

Keep in mind that Catholics didn’t claim sola scriptura—Luther did, some millenium and a half after the Catholic Church was founded, specifically to claim that Catholic tradition and authority did not need to be complied with.

If you accept tradition and magisterium to be necessary components of faith, the next question becomes “by what authority do you hold YOUR tradition and YOUR magisterium to be true?”

 

[clmowry]

sigh As I have already made great lengths to demonstrate (and, as far as I’m concerned, no one has refuted) the Bible doesn’t have to state Sola Scriptura for Sola Scriptura to be true. Instead, it is YOUR job to prove that Tradition is valid. Am I supposed to accept Mormon Tradition because Sola Scriptura isn’t stated explicitely in the Bible? Am I supposed to accept the teachings of the Watchtower for the same reason? This seems like quite a logical fallacy to me. The Bible doesn’t state sola scriptura explicitely, therefore you assume it to be false, and therefore you assume Tradition to be true! That’s a lot of unjustified assumptions.

The Bible doesn’t state sola scriptura explicitly, yet you hold to your tradition that it is a truth, yet based on the assumed truth of your tradition, you assume the Applostolic tradition of the Catholic Church to be false.

That’s a lot of unjustified assumption.

Chuck

 

[DJim]

Ralph, Kaycee, and all–

Here is a question:

Many folks are apparently loathe to agree that a Catholic Church Council determined the Canon of Scripture. Since, after all, the “magisterium” is absolutely NOT infallible…

Rather, many will assign the Church’s “approval” of the Canon of Scripture to the murky period after the “ink dried” on the last book and the time it took for all the Churches to develop the “common practice” of relying on our existing “Bible” texts as “God-breathed.” Thus, the NOT infallible “magisterium” could only “rubber-stamp” what the “Church” had already collectively acknowledged as true Scripture.

Interesting.

In fact, it raises a provocative question–how did all these early Churches gradually come to develop the “common practice” of relying on these particular books as Scripture?

The Apostles never wrote down this information as something the Church needed to know, did they?

Wow–then I suppose what our Sola Scriptura believers are trying to tell us is that they really are relying on the authority of ORAL TRADITION in the early Church to account for the “canonizing” of Scripture???

How else but “word of mouth” would account for these churches developing a common practice?

Yet, I thought oral tradition was as unreliable and fallible as was the Magisterium???

How do we know the oral tradtion of the early church properly identified Scripture?

DJim

 

[RalphP]

Teflon93

“How were the Pharisees wrong then? How was the Devil wrong when he (accurately) quoted Scripture to tempt Christ in the desert?”

The Pharisees and the Devil were wrong because they are fallible and as for at least some of the Pharisees and definitely the Devil, they don’t care about Gods truth, and will abuse the Scriptures for there own advantages and purposes. Accurately quoting Scripture is one thing, accurate interpretation and accurate application, is another. Which is what the Pharisees and the Devil did and many still do today.

BobCatholic

“Where does it say this definition in the bible?” It comes from many Scriptures. That is what I was trying to show with the few I used, 2 Tim, Matt 15:3 and 2 Peter. It is the same practice we use to support our doctrine of the Trinity.

“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.”

Thanks for answering your question for me, but you have not answered for me accurately. I believe the Scriptures, also called the “Word of God” are the only infallible and reliable words from God. I believe that all teachings and traditions when not in contradiction with the Scriptures are also words of God.

My point was that we are warned about false traditions and false teachings. Am I wrong to assume that means that traditions and teachings of men can be fallible?

Ralph

 

[Man]

My point was that we are warned about false traditions and false teachings. Am I wrong to assume that means that traditions and teachings of men can be fallible?

Ralph

That is why, to a Catholic, the Protestant have less validity. They accepted radical changes in Tradition by their founders, who even created some of their own…

 

[StephenB]

Jim - this has been a FASCINATING thread to read - on the RCIA level, we teach simply that Sola Scriptura has no basis of fact, and let it go at that; Catholics are giverned by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

CatholicBob - You repeatedly say “Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.” As a Catholic perhaps, but why not?

Now the answer to the original question “Where in the bible does it say…?”

It comes from one of the most commonly quoted books of the bible. I refer you to Isayso 3:1

(Actually a protestant chaplain I worked for MANY years ago, told me that is where I would find the story of Veronica’s Veil and many other things the Church teaches, since I was not at a point in life where I discerned the difference between Tradition and Scripture. He was a sola scripturist, and even as my direct supervisor, pounded me on adhering ((however weakly) to my Catholic up bringing.)

 

[RalphP]

DJim

”Wow–then I suppose what our Sola Scriptura believers are trying to tell us is that they really are relying on the authority of ORAL TRADITION in the early Church to account for the “canonizing” of Scripture??? How else but “word of mouth” would account for these churches developing a common practice?”

Yes! That should only shock those who confuse Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura.

”Yet, I thought oral tradition was as unreliable and fallible as was the Magisterium???”
And they are as we have been warned they would be. When they are right they are right when they are wrong they are wrong.

“How do we know the oral tradtion of the early church properly identified Scripture?”
This is the next logical question. The answer is, we know the same way they new. To make a long explanation short, they are consistent; we can see that all of the books and letters of the New Testament are consistent with each other. They, as we, reject for example the so called Gospel of Thomas because it is not consistent with the other books and letters of the New Testament.

Ralph

 

[BobCatholic]

BobCatholic

“Where does it say this definition in the bible?” It comes from many Scriptures. That is what I was trying to show with the few I used, 2 Tim, Matt 15:3 and 2 Peter. It is the same practice we use to support our doctrine of the Trinity.

“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.”

Thanks for answering your question for me, but you have not answered for me accurately. I believe the Scriptures, also called the “Word of God” are the only infallible and reliable words from God. I believe that all teachings and traditions when not in contradiction with the Scriptures are also words of God.

My comment still stands: There is nowhere in the Bible that says “only what is contained in the Bible is the Word of God” You’re free to refute that by posting the verses that say this.

My point was that we are warned about false traditions and false teachings. Am I wrong to assume that means that traditions and teachings of men can be fallible?

Yes, traditions of men can be fallible. That’s why one must stick to Apostolic tradition as commanded by scripture (2 Thess 2:15,1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 3:6)

That’s why I stick to the Apostolic interpretation of scripture instead of man-made ones

 

[BobCatholic]

Yes! That should only shock those who confuse Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura.

Neither can be practiced.

There is no firm definition of sola scriptura anyway.

 

[BobCatholic]

CatholicBob - You repeatedly say “Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.” As a Catholic perhaps, but why not?

I’m glad you asked. There are many reasons.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

What is sola scriptura?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used” (this is more along the lines of Prima Scriptura)
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura. Prima Scriptura CAN be practiced.)

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.

1. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words. Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
2. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

The Baptists awhile back sought to claim that their faith was actually the original Church.

Ah yes. A while back on CAF there was a kefuffle over The Trail of Blood.

…The book is a supposed history of Christianity that establishes the present day Baptist denomination as the authentic Church of Christ…

Church Militant has posted rebuttals of this hypothesis.

Teflon93:

I believe someone joked that “John the Baptist” wasn’t a Baptist in response.

Teflon93:

There is certainly an advantage to Magisterium and Tradition that our latter day ecclesiastical communities wish they had.

Oh I believe some claim they have tradition and magisteria. But that theirs are better than ours. New and improved versions, I gather. Hard to check it out though in an invisible church.

 

[StephenB]

I’m glad you asked. There are many reasons.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

You misinterpret the question, or I was not clear: Why could a person not choose to live by scripture alone (whether you choose the KJV, New Jerusalem, NAB, etc.?) This is the model you choose to follow… Would it be impossible for this person to be saved or live a fulfilled Christian life, even as a Catholic?

 

[BobCatholic]

You misinterpret the question, or I was not clear: Why could a person not choose to live by scripture alone (whehter you choose the KJV, New Jerusalen, NAB, etc.?) This is the model you choose to follow…

One can try to choose to live by Scripture alone, but then my other objections are still in effect.

2) You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words. Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words

1. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Would it be impossible for this person to be saved?

I don’t make this judgment. God does. My opinion: “Scripture Alone” is an alien gospel (Galatians 1:9) and is not valid. I’d rather follow the Gospel and not an alien gospel.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

Firmilian wrote the following against the Roman bishop Stephen, who seems to have claimed something like papal authority

Is the Book of Firmilian in your bible? I can’t find it in mine.

 

[StephenB]

Is the Book of Firmilian in your bible? I can’t find it in mine.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Irenaeus once reported…

I am having trouble with this, kaycee. The OP says: Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith? I am looking in Scripture and I can’t find a Book of Irenaeus.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cyprian

Book of Cyprian? Is it in your bible?

 

[Man]

Cyprian

Cyprian is not in the Bible. It was and continues to be the right of priests and bishops to bring their objections to the Pope. It should be no surprise whatsoever that there was not always complete agreement, but that we also keep these things as records or agreements and disagreements.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 90 and 160… a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.

You have referred to quite a bit of material which you have not written yourself, yet you have not indicated that you are quoting it. Please either put quotation marks around the material (hard to see) or put quote tags around the material (easy to see). The quote tags are in the pale yellow square with the v at the bottom in the ikon menu directly above your reply window. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cyprian is not in the Bible. It was and continues to be the right of priests and bishops to bring their objections to the Pope. It should be no surprise whatsoever that there was not always complete agreement, but that we also keep these things as records or agreements and disagreements.

If Cyprian is not in the Bible, and kaycee subscribes to Sola Scriptura, then why is kaycee quoting Cyprian? Also the OP is: Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith?