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

[Ani_Ibi]

RalphP:

Its our defenition to describe what we believe the Scriptures teach.

One of you gave a definition. I addressed my reply to that specific definition. What’s the problem here?

RalphP:

I have respect for those Reformers but I don’t believe what I believe just because they do. I see Sola Scriptura in the Scriptures.

That is your interpretation. It is the legitimacy of your interpretation which is in question – the authority or lack thereof by which you make such an interpretation.

RalphP:

My church uses the principles of Sola Scriptura as many other do. You can say we don’t and it doesn’t work all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that many of us use it.

If you really do use it then, as I have argued, you are not a church but a group of individuals who take no heed of what other individuals say on Scripture. I have difficulty believing that. Here’s why:

For example, in your church, does the Pastor read from the Bible? Does he give a talk on that passage? Well, if he does, then his talk is a tradition of man; it is not Sola Scriptura.

If he does not give a talk on the passage – or if you can honestly say that you-all never listen to what anyone else has to say about the Bible – then you are Sola Scripturists.

But then you are not a church. You are a group of individuals. I don’t know how you can reconcile being a group of individuals (instead of a church) with Jesus’s prayer for unity.

 

[BobCatholic]

BobCatholic

Silly Bob, don’t you know tricks are for kids.

Your questions don’t prove anything. I could come up the same question about , Mary, saints, indulgences… Come on you have to do better than that.

If you’re talking about the infamous 4 questions, they do prove that sola scriptura is wrong. In fact, they prove that prima scriptura is wrong as well.

You see, the answers to the infamous 4 questions are INFALLIBLE TRUTH FROM GOD. Do you deny this? If you do, this means you’ll be joining the Mormon church any minute…now

But the answers to the questions not written down in the Bible.

yet they’re infallible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

RalphP:

Silly Bob, don’t you know tricks are for kids.

You know, Ralph, normally folks resort to ad hominem attacks when they have run out of anything substantive which they can contribute to a discussion. At that point, they concede.

There is no need to namecall; no need to call folks silly; no need to imply that folks are kids. It’s against the forum rules and does your own point of view little credit.

RalphP:

Your questions don’t prove anything. I could come up the same question about , Mary, saints, indulgences… Come on you have to do better than that.

Oh I believe you. But those topics would do better on their own threads, don’t you agree?

The topic of this thread is Where Does Scripture State That It Is the Sole Rule of Faith?

It might be useful to keep in mind that the forum rules mention staying on topic as well as refraining from ad hominem attacks.

Just a thought.

 

[kaycee]

For example, in your church, does the Pastor read from the Bible? Does he give a talk on that passage? Well, if he does, then his talk is a tradition of man; it is not Sola Scriptura.

Yah, that’s accurate

I thought RC’s called that private interpretation? Your traditions are changing to fast for me now.

But then you are not a church. You are a group of individuals. I don’t know how you can reconcile being a group of individuals (instead of a church) with Jesus’s prayer for unity.

Its a shame your not in unity with the Pope here who has called us “seperated brethren” with Churches.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

A false assumption on your part.

No, kaycee. Only this morning I was dealing with a definition from a well known Reformist teacher. His definition was that Sola Scriptura is the final authority among infallible authorities not the only infallible authority.

But all this is moot. I addressed my reply to the specific definition given in this thread. I quoted the definition to which I was addressing my reply. So what’s the problem here?

I note that you are trying a general rout of my point of view rather than refuting any of my specific points.

kaycee:

Since some Catholics do indeed pray to Saints and think them to be semi deity, can I then condemn prayer to saints as unworkable because some Catholics are Idolators?

Hey! :newidea: Why not start another thread and find out?

kaycee:

I think your private interpretation of it is off.

My interpretation is logical. Where is the logic in yours?

kaycee:

Uhuh, Nice try though. Next?

Indeed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

kaycee:

Yah, that’s accurate

Well, if it’s accurate, kaycee, then you don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura – at least not while in church listening to your Pastor explain the Bible passage.

kaycee:

I thought RC’s called that private interpretation? Your traditions are changing to fast for me now.

This makes no sense. You are grasping at straws.

kaycee:

Its a shame your not in unity with the Pope here who has called us “seperated brethren” with Churches.

Please do not try to read my heart. That’s for God to do, not you. OK?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi its post #138. How do you put your quotes in the box?

In your reply window, you will notice a menu of ikons just at the top of the window. One ikon is a little pale yellow square with a v at the bottom and ‘words’ inside.

Select the text you want to quote by clicking and dragging over it in your reply window. Then click the quote ikon.

Voila! There is a techie forum on the main page if you have more questions.

 

[kaycee]

No, kaycee. Only this morning I was dealing with a definition from a well known Reformist teacher. His definition was that Sola Scriptura is the final authority among infallible authorities not the only infallible authority.

Please, provide the link.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

1. Did Jesus not say he was building a Church?

RalphP:

Yes He did, What does the word “church” mean, a gathering. Jesus said He would build a gathering of men and woman who would believe and follow Him.

A gathering of folks who all believe different things and follow Him in different directions? Because that is the logical result of folks all practising Sola Scriptura. The only way that would not be the case is:

1. by accident; or
2. by folks actually listening and following the Biblical teachings of their Pastors.

However, if folks actually listen and follow the Biblical teachings of their Pastors, they are no longer practising Sola Scriptura; they are nodding to the traditions of men – their own traditions of men.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

A gathering of folks who all believe different things and follow Him in different directions? Because that is the logical result of folks all practising Sola Scriptura. The only way that would not be the case is:

1. by accident; or
2. by folks actually listening and following the Biblical teachings of their Pastors.

RalphP:

He did not say He would build an institution as you may be thinking the word “church” means.

Please do not attempt to mindread. Is your church not an institution?
Ani Ibi:

Where would that church be among strict Sola Scripturists?

RalphP:

Among those who have believed in the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Doesn’t every letter of the New Testament begin with, to the church of…? The letters are writtent to the gathering of Christians in the town the letters are written to.

This is an equivocation on your part on the term ‘where.’ You are no longer discussing in good faith, but trying to take what I say out of context and twist it so that you can defeat it on what it doesn’t say. This is a strawman.

Please go back and quote what I said on this particular point and address what I said in the context in which I said it.
Ani Ibi:

Did Jesus not say he would like unity?

RalphP:

He did. And in reality there is unity among true believers. If you think that unity means always agreeing, than we never had unity.

No I do not think that unity means always agreeing. I will go along with the Reformist idea that unity means agreeing on the ‘essentials.’

Now the topic of ‘essentials’ is tres au courant among Reformers these days, so I am not shy about bringing this up. You say the ‘essentials’ are faith, trust, and belief in Jesus. Other Reformers say there are more ‘essentials’ than that one.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

RalphP:

Didn’t Paul and Peter disagree about how to act in Galatians, didn’t Paul have problems with the Corinthian church, wasn;t Paul and Barnabas divided over John Mark in Acts,

How were disputes resolved in the Early Church?

RalphP:

has not the Orthodox church come from dividing themselves from the Catholic church

How was that dispute resolved?

RalphP:

and hasn’t every denomination up to around the 1800 come from the Catholic Church?

No. They have come from the Protestant spectrum.
Ani Ibi:

Where is the unity among strict Sola Scripturists?

RalphP:

It is among those who have put their faith, trust, and belief in Jesus. Even if we disagree about end times, Spiritual gifts, woman pastors and so on, we are united by our faith in Christ.

How do you know? How is faith in Christ demonstrated?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

RalphP:

Gal 3:26 It is through faith that all of you are God’s sons in union with Christ Jesus. TEV

Is that the only reference to unity?
Ani Ibi:

Point is that Sola Scriptura is a catch-22. It is a logical contradiction. It cannot be practised.

RalphP:

Sorry I strongly disagree. I see it practised all the time.

What you see practised is the traditions of Reformist pastors. You can strongly disagree all you want; it is a contradiction to claim that listening to one’s pastor is practising Sola Scriptura.

Or, if you want, let’s explore this. Let’s say you go to church and pretend to listen to your pastor. But really you are practising Sola Scriptura. If that’s what you are going to do, then what is the sense in going to church? Moreover, do you think it is charitable to pretend to listen to the poor old pastor when in fact you are going your own way?

Also if each and every one of you is truly practising Sola Scriptura, then how can other Christians correct you when they believe you to be wandering from the path? All you would have to say is that you practise Sola Scriptura and you strongly disagree with their interpretation.

Whether this is done in good faith or not, this would soon result in chaos and folks splitting off all the time and starting new denominations.

If people are truly agreeing on the ‘essentials’ then why is this splitting off into new denominations happening at all, let alone to the alarming extant that it is?

However, if folks actually listen and follow the Biblical teachings of their Pastors, they are no longer practising Sola Scriptura; they are nodding to the traditions of men – their own traditions of men.

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Please, provide the link.

Why don’t you show us how it’s done? Provide a few links of your own and we might catch on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

You wrote that the doctrine of sola scriptura does not claim that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Then, you state that “the Bible is the final and sole infallible rule of faith.” If the first statement is true, then the second must be from SyCarl. If so, this is merely a “tradition of SyCarl”.

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

Why?

Did the first Christians sit down and read the Bible to figure out what the Church ought to believe and how it was to be organized and so forth? Or did the Church which was already in existence write the Bible out of their own experiences?

Which came first…the baptism of new believers or the verses that speak of the baptism of new believers?

If the Church came first, why would it be subject to its own “instruction manual”?

If this is true of his book alone, then it must also be true of the whole Bible.

This is reasonable in the sense that the Bible is materially sufficient; Catholics do not hold that the Bible is formally sufficient. This means that the Material is there, but that the Bible cannot/does not explain itself adequately so that all men may understand it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show me where the bible talks about the triple authorites of Scripture, Tradition, Magesterium?

Okay.

Scripture in black, cheats in red.

2 Timothy 3:14-15
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had become convinced of the truth of Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching - TRADITION), because you know those from whom you learned it (the authoritative leaders of the Church - MAGISTERIUM) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (um, SCRIPTURE)

Now, a question for you: did the Apostles practice the doctrine of sola scriptura at any time during their lifetimes, and did they direct the believers to embrace this doctrine after their deaths anywhere within the pages of scripture itself?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi
Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the one rule of faith."

As I have already posted, Scriptures says Scripture is the only perfect rule of faith

Ralph

Here is what you actually wrote:

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”

Here is the flaw in your reasoning. The Bible is materially sufficient: it can give you everything you need, but that does not mean that you will know how to use the Bible correctly or that you will interpret what you read properly. You may be furnished, you may be thoroughly equipped, but you have not yet been TRAINED.

No where does Scriptures say that “Oral Tradition” makes one perfect.

Catholics agree.

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.

Catholics agree. We would encourage you to study the complete NT to see those verses where Paul specifically commands that we HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONS that he passed on. You see, some traditions set aside the word of God and should be condemned. Other traditions ARE the Word of God and should be adhered to.

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

Which makes me a little nervous about your teaching here.

Seriously though, there are false teachers and true teachers. After all, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to “teach all nations to be my disciples.” Surely you would not have us ignore the Apostles just because they were “teachers”?

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

A false conclusion as I have shown above.

The Church teaches that we depend upon SCRIPTURE + TRADITION + THE MAGISTERIUM

And not scripture alone.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Agreed, but the million dollar question is, what are the oral Apostolic tradition? That is where our disagreements are.

Is Tradition different content?

Or is it a different mode of transmission of the faith delivered once for all to the saints?

 

[DJim]

OK–I’m not quite on task with a more comprehensive tackling of the apostolic succession issue, which I will probably do in a separate thread, from the ground up, Scripturally.

But, I want to throw this potential “shortcut” on the issue into the mix to see how/whether it’s been dealt with before:

Acts 8–tells the story of Philip preaching in Samaria, and says, "Now, when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
"When Simon (Magus) saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostle’s hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money…” Acts 8:14-20

Okay–apparently this is Philip the Deacon in Samaria, preaching, and he’s not an apostle. So Samaria is converted, the apostles learn about it, send the customary two down to “complete” the process by providing them with the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.

Context makes it crystal clear that in the Church the Spirit is conferred through the laying on of the apostles’ hands. The apostles have this “power” and this “power” is the way in which the Holy Spirit was imparted.

Obviously this requires the power of an apostle to accomplish, and is the way in which the Holy Spirit is “received” by the faithful–this is, as Peter says, the “gift of God” that can’t be bought with money.

Thoughts:

Isn’t this Scriptural evidence that indicates that, for the early Church to maintain fidelity to the example and model of the Apostles, they need to continue to receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands of someone with apostolic authority to exercise this “gift of God”???

Without apostolic succession, there can be no “hands” which provide this “gift of God” to the Church.

So…those of you who don’t believe in apostolic succession–can you please cite evidence as to when and why the early Church would have departed from the example of the Apostles and how this apostolic laying on of hands for the faithful to receive the Holy Spirit was accomplished in the Church without “apostolic hands” to make it happen?

Those of us who do believe in apostolic succession can simply look at this passage and say–“duh–the Sacrament of Confirmation conferred by the apostolic authority of the Bishop”–we still do the same thing today!

I think Acts 8 provides clear Scriptural proof that the authority of the apostles is necessary to maintain this “gift of God” in the life of the Church, and thus is Scriptural evidence of the necessity of apostolic succession.

And if so, then this also provides the evidence needed to assert that apostolic authority continues in the Church such that the concept of “Living Tradition” makes perfect sense…

Thoughts and comments? Perhaps this is nothing new to some of you, but it seems extremely compelling to me–Scripture asserting plainly that “the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands” and that, unless and until those with apostolic authority went to Samaria (a deacon like Philip didn’t have the “fullness” of apostolic authority), the converted Samaritans would not “get” the Holy Spirit.

DJim

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not sure why the insistance of one roof, one name, one uniform.

Because the subject of unity is mentioned so frequently in the Bible?

Unity Commended

John 10:16

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

John 15:4-5
Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

John 17:11

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be** one** as we are one.

John 17:20-23

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me**, that they may be one** as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Romans 12:4-5

Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function,so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

Romans 15:5-6

May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:10

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

1 Corinthians 12:12-13

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Ephesians 2:19-22
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Ephesians 4:2-3

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Philippians 1:27-28
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God.

Philippians 2:2
If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

Colossians 3:15

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Denominationalism and Divisions Condemned

1 Corinthians 3:1-4

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

1 Corinthians 1:11-13

My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided?”

1 Corinthians 11:17-19

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

1 Corinthians 12:25

…so that there should be **no division **in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.