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

[DJim]

Ralph wrote:

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

Can you compare and contrast the two–or define them so I know which one you think is correct?

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

Ralph replied:

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.

Time out, Ralph–step back for a moment with me and observe what you just wrote. You are claiming that both “tradition” and “magisterium” are fallible according to some external standard of “right” or “wrong”…Which begs the question:

WHO gets to decide when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong??? Whoever decides that therefore must be the infallible authority, correct?

I asked:
“How do we know the oral tradtion of the early church properly identified Scripture?”

Ralph said:

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.

Which also begs the question: WHO officially decided 2000 years ago what it means to be “consistent”??? Thomas is an obvious “no” for the Canon, at least to you and me, but who was it, officially and on behalf of all Christians, who decided “No Thomas in the NT”?? And what about books/letters that really are consistent with Scripture but aren’t in the Canon–the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas??? Who axed those?

Historically, how did the Canon emerge in the Early Church? You’ve stated already that it emerged from fallible “oral tradition”. If fallible oral tradition is the mechanism by which “consistency” was measured to determine the Canon, then that measurement was fallible, not infallible, right??

And, what do you think of Mk 15:28–Scriptural or not? I’m taking an informal poll…

DJim

 

[Teflon93]

Ralph wrote:

Can you compare and contrast the two–or define them so I know which one you think is correct?

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

Ralph replied:

Time out, Ralph–step back for a moment with me and observe what you just wrote. You are claiming that both “tradition” and “magisterium” are fallible according to some external standard of “right” or “wrong”…Which begs the question:

WHO gets to decide when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong??? Whoever decides that therefore must be the infallible authority, correct?

I asked:
“How do we know the oral tradtion of the early church properly identified Scripture?”

Ralph said:

Which also begs the question: WHO officially decided 2000 years ago what it means to be “consistent”??? Thomas is an obvious “no” for the Canon, at least to you and me, but who was it, officially and on behalf of all Christians, who decided “No Thomas in the NT”?? And what about books/letters that really are consistent with Scripture but aren’t in the Canon–the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas??? Who axed those?

Historically, how did the Canon emerge in the Early Church? You’ve stated already that it emerged from fallible “oral tradition”. If fallible oral tradition is the mechanism by which “consistency” was measured to determine the Canon, then that measurement was fallible, not infallible, right??

And, what do you think of Mk 15:28–Scriptural or not? I’m taking an informal poll…

DJim

What’s worse is Protestants seem to believe we got it wrong 2000 years ago. The Bible therefore had to be changed to be more pleasing to Martin Luther, who of course had managed to discover the “hidden truth” which had eluded the finest minds in Christendom for 1,500 years.

If Luther lived today, do you think he might be one of those “Jesus Seminar” guys?

 

[DJim]

In reflecting on my replies relative to “Tradition”, I have to say that I don’t think I’ve done well in addressing the objections raised to the Catholic view, largely because I’ve tended to implicitly concede that Tradition is merely the “oral” counterpoint to written Scripture.

Which of course just ain’t the case…

Thus, I’ve fallen for the straw man arguments about us Catholics not being able to demonstrate the content of Tradition because we can’t quote word for word the precise oral preaching of the Apostles themselves.

Would any Sola Scriptura adherents wish to re-state any of their previous cricitisms about Catholic Tradition mentioned in this thread? I promise to do a much better job of replying this time…

DJim

 

[Teflon93]

In reflecting on my replies relative to “Tradition”, I have to say that I don’t think I’ve done well in addressing the objections raised to the Catholic view, largely because I’ve tended to implicitly concede that Tradition is merely the “oral” counterpoint to written Scripture.

Which of course just ain’t the case…

Thus, I’ve fallen for the straw man arguments about us Catholics not being able to demonstrate the content of Tradition because we can’t quote word for word the precise oral preaching of the Apostles themselves.

Would any Sola Scriptura adherents wish to re-state any of their previous cricitisms about Catholic Tradition mentioned in this thread? I promise to do a much better job of replying this time…

DJim

Isn’t the liturgy an example of Tradition?

Scriptural in nature, but Scripture doesn’t really define it. Yet as Justin Martyr’s writing shows, Mass hasn’t changed much in 20 centuries.

 

[DJim]

Isn’t the liturgy an example of Tradition?

Scriptural in nature, but Scripture doesn’t really define it. Yet as Justin Martyr’s writing shows, Mass hasn’t changed much in 20 centuries.

Well, in the liturgy you would have the convergence of both Capital-T Tradition (originating with the Deposit of Faith) and “small-t” tradition (originating with the Church).

But, yes, indeed, liturgy is a prime example of how the Church’s living Tradition is expressed…

DJim

 

[RalphP]

DJim

Solo Scriptura is nothing but Scripture and Sola Scriptura is Scripture, tradition and teachers but of the three only Scripture is infallible. That is the short answer.

Djim said, “Time out, Ralph–step back for a moment with me and observe what you just wrote. You are claiming that both “tradition” and “magisterium” are fallible according to some external standard of “right” or “wrong””

No I am not, I believe Scripture is saying that traditions and magisteriums are fallible. 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. Doesn’t that mean that some traditions are fallible?

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 Doesn’t that mean that some teachers are fallible?

Djim said, “WHO gets to decide when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong??? Whoever decides that therefore must be the infallible authority, correct?”

This is a good question. The simple answer is Scripture! Scripture decides, “when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong”

The hard part of the question is how? False tradition and false teachers will not allow themselves to be corrected. In reality the Scriptures, tradition and teachers only have the authority that people let them have. Catholics and Protestants go back and forth about authority when in reality none of us have any more authority over people than what they let us have. How many times have you as a Catholic heard people say, I am a Catholic but I don’t believe everything the Catholic Church teaches”? When I hear people say that to me as a Protestant I tell them then you are not a Catholic. If they care they will come under the Churches authority if they don’t they won’t. Interesting isn’t it?

Djim said, “Which also begs the question: WHO officially decided 2000 years ago what it means to be “consistent”??? Thomas is an obvious “no” for the Canon, at least to you and me, but who was it, officially and on behalf of all Christians, who decided “No Thomas in the NT”?? And what about books/letters that really are consistent with Scripture but aren’t in the Canon–the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas??? Who axed those? Historically, how did the Canon emerge in the Early Church? You’ve stated already that it emerged from fallible “oral tradition”. If fallible oral tradition is the mechanism by which “consistency” was measured to determine the Canon, then that measurement was fallible, not infallible, right??”

Again, the simple answer, God! Beginning with Judas, there were enemies in and around the Church, Paul said in the book of Acts of the Apostles, to the Elders of Ephesus, that after he left false teachers would come from with in and from outside to try and destroy the Church. Clearly God the Holy Spirit protected the Scriptures assuring we would have the correct ones.

Djim said, “And, what do you think of Mk 15:28–Scriptural or not?”
There appears to be evidence that makes many today believe Mk 15:28 was not originally part of Mark. But the same exact quote can be found in Luke 22:37 which is believed to be originaly part of Luke. So if Mark 15:28 is not original but Luke 22:37 is than I answer your question yes, I believe Mk 15:28 is Scriptural.

Ralph

 

[DJim]

RalphP wrote:

Solo Scriptura is nothing but Scripture and Sola Scriptura is Scripture, tradition and teachers but of the three only Scripture is infallible. That is the short answer.

Which of the Protestant Reformers believed which? Just curious…

No I am not, I believe Scripture is saying that traditions and magisteriums are fallible. 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. Doesn’t that mean that some traditions are fallible?

Absolutely yes it does–and the Catholic Church agrees. But what you said was that when they’re right they’re right, when wrong they’re wrong. Since they are fallible, who gets to decide when the teachers and “tradition” are right or wrong? Which I think you offer a response to below…

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 Doesn’t that mean that some teachers are fallible?

Got that right! But Scripture is not condemning all tradition and all teachers as fallible…In fact, Mt 23 (the whole seat of Moses thing) makes this clear–Jesus instructs his listeners to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” (I’m assuming we understand “infallible” to mean the same thing–incapable of teaching error universally in the Church in faith and morals, correct? That is at least the Catholic view of the term)

This is a good question. The simple answer is Scripture! Scripture decides, “when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong” The hard part of the question is how?

Why does there have to be a hard part–why would Jesus make this “hard” when even Jewish authority worked much more easily than being forced to consult a book without a definitive teacher of the book??? My problem is that I can’t carry on a conversation with the Bible to determine if tradition or Magisterium are right/wrong…why would Jesus not equip His Church more fully, more humanly??? (of course I think he did, but I ask you anyway)…

Again, the simple answer, God! Beginning with Judas, there were enemies in and around the Church, Paul said in the book of Acts of the Apostles, to the Elders of Ephesus, that after he left false teachers would come from with in and from outside to try and destroy the Church. Clearly God the Holy Spirit protected the Scriptures assuring we would have the correct ones.

HOW? How did God do this? By what means? God “does” everything in some sense, so this is not such a great answer to my question. Further, if the problem in the Church was false teachers, why would we not think the solution in the Church would be TRUE teachers? You might remedy a false “book” with a true “book” (Bible) and leave it at that, but if your problem is a false teacher, God can’t provide you with a true teacher???

There appears to be evidence that makes many today believe Mk 15:28 was not originally part of Mark. But the same exact quote can be found in Luke 22:37 which is believed to be originaly part of Luke. So if Mark 15:28 is not original but Luke 22:37 is than I answer your question yes, I believe Mk 15:28 is Scriptural.

Ralph, that’s the best answer I’ve got so far–well done. Now I’m going to have to come up with a new textual variant without a synoptic parallel to use as an example!

DJim

 

[Teflon93]

DJim

Solo Scriptura is nothing but Scripture and Sola Scriptura is Scripture, tradition and teachers but of the three only Scripture is infallible. That is the short answer.

Djim said, “Time out, Ralph–step back for a moment with me and observe what you just wrote. You are claiming that both “tradition” and “magisterium” are fallible according to some external standard of “right” or “wrong””

No I am not, I believe Scripture is saying that traditions and magisteriums are fallible. 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. Doesn’t that mean that some traditions are fallible?

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 Doesn’t that mean that some teachers are fallible?

Djim said, “WHO gets to decide when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong??? Whoever decides that therefore must be the infallible authority, correct?”

This is a good question. The simple answer is Scripture! Scripture decides, “when tradition and magisterium are either right or wrong”

The hard part of the question is how? False tradition and false teachers will not allow themselves to be corrected. In reality the Scriptures, tradition and teachers only have the authority that people let them have. Catholics and Protestants go back and forth about authority when in reality none of us have any more authority over people than what they let us have. How many times have you as a Catholic heard people say, I am a Catholic but I don’t believe everything the Catholic Church teaches”? When I hear people say that to me as a Protestant I tell them then you are not a Catholic. If they care they will come under the Churches authority if they don’t they won’t. Interesting isn’t it?

Djim said, “Which also begs the question: WHO officially decided 2000 years ago what it means to be “consistent”??? Thomas is an obvious “no” for the Canon, at least to you and me, but who was it, officially and on behalf of all Christians, who decided “No Thomas in the NT”?? And what about books/letters that really are consistent with Scripture but aren’t in the Canon–the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas??? Who axed those? Historically, how did the Canon emerge in the Early Church? You’ve stated already that it emerged from fallible “oral tradition”. If fallible oral tradition is the mechanism by which “consistency” was measured to determine the Canon, then that measurement was fallible, not infallible, right??”

Again, the simple answer, God! Beginning with Judas, there were enemies in and around the Church, Paul said in the book of Acts of the Apostles, to the Elders of Ephesus, that after he left false teachers would come from with in and from outside to try and destroy the Church. Clearly God the Holy Spirit protected the Scriptures assuring we would have the correct ones.

Djim said, “And, what do you think of Mk 15:28–Scriptural or not?”
There appears to be evidence that makes many today believe Mk 15:28 was not originally part of Mark. But the same exact quote can be found in Luke 22:37 which is believed to be originaly part of Luke. So if Mark 15:28 is not original but Luke 22:37 is than I answer your question yes, I believe Mk 15:28 is Scriptural.

Ralph

Doesn’t “Sola” mean "only’ or “alone”?

Isn’t Luther’s view closer to what you’ve defined as “solo”?

 

[Philthy]

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. … 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.

Let me help you see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.
If the Bible doesnt have to state SS for SS to be true, then how do we know it to be true? We must know it apart from the Bible! It is extrabiblical! :newidea: And what do we call the basis for this extrabiblical knowledge?
Is it scientific knowledge? No.
Is it philosophical knowledge? No.
Does it come from extrabiblical divine revelation ? Nope.
That doesnt leave much else, my friend. It is “known” - and I use that term in the loosest of senses - simply through a tradition. If you believe what you claim in your post, then Sola Scriptura is a tradition, plain and simple.

 

[Teflon93]

Let me help you see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.
If the Bible doesnt have to state SS for SS to be true, then how do we know it to be true? We must know it apart from the Bible! It is extrabiblical! :newidea: And what do we call the basis for this extrabiblical knowledge?
Is it scientific knowledge? No.
Is it philosophical knowledge? No.
Does it come from extrabiblical divine revelation ? Nope.
That doesnt leave much else, my friend. It is “known” - and I use that term in the loosest of senses - simply through a tradition. If you believe what you claim in your post, then Sola Scriptura is a tradition, plain and simple.

Moreover, we obviously know where this tradition came from—Martin Luther, around 1520.

It has obviously morphed since then.

 

[cmancone]

Let me help you see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.
If the Bible doesnt have to state SS for SS to be true, then how do we know it to be true? We must know it apart from the Bible! It is extrabiblical! :newidea: And what do we call the basis for this extrabiblical knowledge?
Is it scientific knowledge? No.
Is it philosophical knowledge? No.
Does it come from extrabiblical divine revelation ? Nope.
That doesnt leave much else, my friend. It is “known” - and I use that term in the loosest of senses - simply through a tradition. If you believe what you claim in your post, then Sola Scriptura is a tradition, plain and simple.

Please, can you stop trying to dismiss my arguement out of hand and actually respond to it for once??? Let me give an example that illustrates what I’m saying:

I say: God came to me last night with a message for you. He wants you to give me all your money.

You say: I don’t know if I trust you. How do I know you are speaking for God?

I say: That’s easy! The Bible doesn’t say I’m NOT speaking for God, therefore I must be speaking for God!

This is my point in a nutshell. There is no tradition required. It is a matter of common sense. If someone claims to speak for God, they must PROVE they speak for God. It is not the BIble’s job to say who doesn’t speak for God. It is only the Bible’s job to demonstrate that it does speak for God. It speaks only for itself, and only about itself. To expect the Bible to rule out every other option is ridiculous and silly.

 

[Philthy]

DJim

Solo Scriptura is nothing but Scripture and Sola Scriptura is Scripture, tradition and teachers but of the three only Scripture is infallible. That is the short answer.
Ralph

Hi Ralph! :tiphat:

It is a short, nuanced answer which implicitly recognizes the painfully obvious and exposed failures of the Reformers’ view of SS. It remains however, IMHO, an unworkable and mostly useless definition. From my viewpoint, what good is it to know that Scripture is infallible and simultaneously acknowledge that it is not possible to know when you understand it correctly? And lets be honest - to acknowledge the need for teachers (and tradition) is to acknowledge that Scripture isnt clear enough to understand whatever infallible message it intends to communicate. What good is it, then, to know that it is infallible?
That is like my telling you that I have invented a new language using the standard english alphabet
and then typing you this message: lsifjnfdkdidhdnfkik! and letting you know that it is an infallible statement. So what? What good is it?
I will add, in anticipation of your rebuttal which appeals to the clarity of Scripture that, while much of Scripture is clear, much is not. I am grateful to the Reformers for amply demonstrating this point. Certainly if Scripture were clear enough we would have complete unity of belief of Scripture after 500 years, dont ya think?
I expect your response to be that the fact that some misinterpret Scripture doesnt mean it isnt clear. But that simply begs the question, how do we know which interpretation of Scripture is correct? And, in addition, claiming to know which is correct leads you to condemn those who dont hold such beliefs as somehow cursed by God. That wouldnt be so bad, except all those groups keep splintering over time and NONE of them hold the same beliefs that were held a generation or two preceding them, which again leaves us just scratching our heads as to what the infallible Truth of Scripture is other than the fact that whatever it is, its True. I submit such knowledge is not particularly useful.

 

[RalphP]

DJim said, “Which of the Protestant Reformers believed which? Just curious…” I must confess my information is second hand. It may be based on the entirety of some of the Reformers writings. I am glad you asked because I have wanted to nail it down. I will get back to you on it.

Philthy said, “It remains however, IMHO, an unworkable and mostly useless definition.”

I disagree; I believe it is a Biblical definition. If you look back at my first post you will see I referenced Matt 15:3 and 2 Peter 2:1, where we are warned about false tradition and false teachers. I think that makes traditions and teachers fallible. How one gets to a place where they acknowledge the Scriptures are infallible, at least in the originals, how we get there is for another thread, then we can only come to one conclusion. With the addition of 2 Tim 3:16-17, we can say Scripture alone is infallible, tradition and teachers are useful but fallible.

I agree with your questions, comments and frustration at trying to understand “how” it works, but that is a separate conversation. Just like proving the Scriptures teach the Trinity is a separate conversation than how the Trinity works. Bottom line, the Scriptures teach the Trinity, just like the Scriptures teach that Scripture alone can be complexly trusted and all traditions and teachers can’t.

Philthy said, “What good is it, then, to know that it is infallible?
cmancone gave a good example in his/her last post.

Philthy said, “Certainly if Scripture were clear enough we would have complete unity of belief of Scripture after 500 years, dont ya think?”

I agree. But can we add the possibility that we can be tainted in the same way as the Pharisees and Sadducees were? They could not hear or listen to the Word who became flesh and the written word that they had. This problem is not a new one.

Philthy said, “But that simply begs the question, how do we know which interpretation of Scripture is correct?” Great question! I see things one way and you see things another. I do not doubt your desire to be faithful to our Lord and if you can give me the same consideration, why are we seeing two different things? You will have to examine yourself and I will have to examine myself. Lets go even further to other faiths, why can’t they see Jesus is the way? I think we all have to struggle with your question on many different levels not just Catholic and Protestant.

Ralph

 

[Teflon93]

DJim said, “Which of the Protestant Reformers believed which? Just curious…” I must confess my information is second hand. It may be based on the entirety of some of the Reformers writings. I am glad you asked because I have wanted to nail it down. I will get back to you on it.

Philthy said, “It remains however, IMHO, an unworkable and mostly useless definition.”

I disagree; I believe it is a Biblical definition. If you look back at my first post you will see I referenced Matt 15:3 and 2 Peter 2:1, where we are warned about false tradition and false teachers. I think that makes traditions and teachers fallible. How one gets to a place where they acknowledge the Scriptures are infallible, at least in the originals, how we get there is for another thread, then we can only come to one conclusion. With the addition of 2 Tim 3:16-17, we can say Scripture alone is infallible, tradition and teachers are useful but fallible.

I agree with your questions, comments and frustration at trying to understand “how” it works, but that is a separate conversation. Just like proving the Scriptures teach the Trinity is a separate conversation than how the Trinity works. Bottom line, the Scriptures teach the Trinity, just like the Scriptures teach that Scripture alone can be complexly trusted and all traditions and teachers can’t.

Philthy said, “What good is it, then, to know that it is infallible?
cmancone gave a good example in his/her last post.

Philthy said, “Certainly if Scripture were clear enough we would have complete unity of belief of Scripture after 500 years, dont ya think?”

I agree. But can we add the possibility that we can be tainted in the same way as the Pharisees and Sadducees were? They could not hear or listen to the Word who became flesh and the written word that they had. This problem is not a new one.

Philthy said, “But that simply begs the question, how do we know which interpretation of Scripture is correct?” Great question! I see things one way and you see things another. I do not doubt your desire to be faithful to our Lord and if you can give me the same consideration, why are we seeing two different things? You will have to examine yourself and I will have to examine myself. Lets go even further to other faiths, why can’t they see Jesus is the way? I think we all have to struggle with your question on many different levels not just Catholic and Protestant.

Ralph

Ralph-

Does the presence of SOME false teachers and SOME false traditions necessarily mean that ALL teachers and ALL traditions are fallible?

There is only one true God, right? The fact that there have been many false gods does not negate the truth.

 

[RalphP]

Teflon93 said, “Does the presence of SOME false teachers and SOME false traditions necessarily mean that ALL teachers and ALL traditions are fallible?”

Of couse not.

Teflon93 said, “There is only one true God, right?” Right

Teflon93 said, “The fact that there have been many false gods does not negate the truth.” I agree.

Where we disagree is on is what are the false traditions and who are the false teachers. That is our wall

Ralph

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93 said, “Does the presence of SOME false teachers and SOME false traditions necessarily mean that ALL teachers and ALL traditions are fallible?”

Of couse not.

Teflon93 said, “There is only one true God, right?” Right

Teflon93 said, “The fact that there have been many false gods does not negate the truth.” I agree.

Where we disagree is on is what are the false traditions and who are the false teachers. That is our wall

Ralph

Agreed—just wanted to make sure we weren’t taking that passage TOO far.

It stands to reason then that the question becomes which tradition(s) and teacher(s) are true, how true they are, and how we know this.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

DJim:

I asked: “How do we know the oral tradtion of the early church properly identified Scripture?”

Because the Apostles were in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. And their testimony was passed along to folks who trusted them.

The fundamental questions are:

• Whom do you trust?
• And why do you trust them over all others?
• How much of your trust is about you and your experience and how much is about Jesus and who Jesus left for you to trust?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

If Luther lived today, do you think he might be one of those “Jesus Seminar” guys?

No. The first doctrine of Luther’s was the Doctrine of the Invisible Church – or Solo Lutherus.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Thus, I’ve fallen for the straw man arguments about us Catholics not being able to demonstrate the content of Tradition because we can’t quote word for word the precise oral preaching of the Apostles themselves…

:bigyikes: :doh2: It’s OK, Jim. I’m teaching the strawmen to swim. :console:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, in the liturgy you would have the convergence of both Capital-T Tradition (originating with the Deposit of Faith) and “small-t” tradition (originating with the Church).

Um… the Deposit of the Faith was to the Church.