Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Per_Crucem]

Paul was referencing the Old Testament. As far as I can tell, Paul never writes about a New Testament and it’s table of contents.

If that is the case, the New Testament is invalid.

That Paul only references the Old Testament is true from the human author’s perspective. However, since the Holy Spirit is the divine author, we can safely say that it applies to all of Scripture, since the Spirit knew that the New Testament would be written and inspired (though even Paul quotes from other NT Scriptures, too, and references it as Scripture, esp. the Gospel of Luke).

 

[dronald]

Unless you can show where any of the Apostles gives a table of contents to what is Scriptures. We can’t go into any other rabbit trail.

It has nothing to do with being puffed up, but with the reality that there is no table of contents given by the Holy Writers. Period. There is not.

Being puffed up in this case is the fact that there is no humility in fighting the historical role the Church played in receiving the Scriptures. That there would be no table of contents without Her. That is to be puffed up - to pretend that the Church had no role and to make up any other reason to take away from Her.

Think about it for a second…

Well, let’s start from the beginning. The reason Paul says not to go beyond what is written is so that we do not become puffed up; so in this context, the one’s going beyond what is written are those becoming “puffed up.”

So are Paul’s letters Scripture? Do we have any evidence that Paul’s letters should be considered Scripture? Well, ask Peter:

2 Peter 3:16"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction"

So now we do have a table of contents in that Paul’s letters are Scripture. There is no argument because Peter has specifically called Paul’s letters Scripture. According to the Catholic criteria for a Protestant table of contents, Paul’s letters belong within.

Now, did Paul ever quote Scripture himself? According to the Acts, Paul and Luke traveled together as also made evident by one of the books in our (so far) table of contents:

2 Timothy 4:11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.

So we have ample evidence that Paul and Luke really did travel together… he also mentions Mark’s importance, but we’ll come back to that. Here’s Paul (in our table of contents as proclaimed by Peter) quoting Luke’s Gospel and calling it Scripture:

1 Timothy 5:18For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

“The worker deserves his wages” is not a quote found anywhere except Luke’s Gospel:

Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

So we can add Luke to our list!

I’m going to get anything written by James, Peter or John out of the way quickly. We know how important they are and there’s no doubt we should accept their writings. Jude a brother of James and a servant of Jesus Christ I can add while being a faithful brother of James.

Of course as stated, Paul calls Mark “important” to his ministry, but Peter himself claims Mark as “his son” in 1 Peter 5:13. So I think Mark is worthy to be an addition to our table of contents. Likewise, Jesus called Matthew, so I’m gonna chuck him in there as well; I’ve already laid out John’s importance.

Revelation it’s self is firm that one should not even add or remove a word, so it confirms in its self that it is Scripture. Hebrews, must have been written by someone who knew Timothy well and was certainly written early. It’s a Theological work of genius, and we have no reason not to include it.

I typed all this on my phone (every word) and got lazy towards the end, so forgive me. Hope you enjoyed though!

 

[dronald]

So, dronald says, explicitely, that no proof can be provided.

So, even if dronald said “no proof can be provided” it would be interpreted a certain way that says, “never mind that, it’s not what he meant.”

Oh, you expect your words to be interpreted in context?
Don’t you want to afford that same respect to St. Paul?

Is it just because, interpreting St. Paul in context, would support Catholic beliefs, and you can’t have that?

Don’t go beyond what is written so that you do not become puffed up… that’s the context.

 

[Nicea325]

What other words of God are there besides the words of Scripture?

This has nothing to do with what God has said or has been recorded in written form.

Stop side-stepping my friend,please answer the question:

Where does Scripture explicitly teach it is the highest authority?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, let’s start from the beginning. The reason Paul says not to go beyond what is written is so that we do not become puffed up; so in this context, the one’s going beyond what is written are those becoming “puffed up.”

So are Paul’s letters Scripture? Do we have any evidence that Paul’s letters should be considered Scripture? Well, ask Peter:

2 Peter 3:16"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction"

So now we do have a table of contents in that Paul’s letters are Scripture. There is no argument because Peter has specifically called Paul’s letters Scripture. According to the Catholic criteria for a Protestant table of contents, Paul’s letters belong within.

Now, did Paul ever quote Scripture himself? According to the Acts, Paul and Luke traveled together as also made evident by one of the books in our (so far) table of contents:

2 Timothy 4:11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.

So we have ample evidence that Paul and Luke really did travel together… he also mentions Mark’s importance, but we’ll come back to that. Here’s Paul (in our table of contents as proclaimed by Peter) quoting Luke’s Gospel and calling it Scripture:

1 Timothy 5:18For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

“The worker deserves his wages” is not a quote found anywhere except Luke’s Gospel:

Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

So we can add Luke to our list!

I’m going to get anything written by James, Peter or John out of the way quickly. We know how important they are and there’s no doubt we should accept their writings. Jude a brother of James and a servant of Jesus Christ I can add while being a faithful brother of James.

Of course as stated, Paul calls Mark “important” to his ministry, but Peter himself claims Mark as “his son” in 1 Peter 5:13. So I think Mark is worthy to be an addition to our table of contents. Likewise, Jesus called Matthew, so I’m gonna chuck him in there as well; I’ve already laid out John’s importance.

Revelation it’s self is firm that one should not even add or remove a word, so it confirms in its self that it is Scripture. Hebrews, must have been written by someone who knew Timothy well and was certainly written early. It’s a Theological work of genius, and we have no reason not to include it.

I typed all this on my phone (every word) and got lazy towards the end, so forgive me. Hope you enjoyed though!

Love your enthusiasm. But, oh noes… The “b” word , there are some very big gaps in your proposal.

1. How do you know Mark wrote a Gospel?
2. Where is the list of the letters written by Paul?
3. Hebrews - Who wrote it and why it is included?
4. Where is the list of the letters Peter and John wrote?

Also, if we are not to go beyond what is written, wouldn’t then make sense to give us a list of what are the boundaries of the written medium?

If they are not listing them, we have to then deduct that there is such a place to find out. Do you dare say?

Also, How come the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, Clement I, the Sheppherd of Hermas and others are not Scriptures? The Didache?

It does not matter how much you want to slice it and dice it. There is no table of contents within Scriptures. None.

 

[Nicea325]

Not at all! The context shows that Paul and Apollos are applying these things so that they don’t have disputes over the truth.

“that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”

How common is this with Catholics when Protestants adhere to Scripture as the highest authority?

And why can’t any Protestant give those simple chapter(s) and verse(s) where Scripture explicitly teaches it is the highest authority?

 

[andrewstx]

Going back to the OPs opening question. I do NOT believe in sola scriptura and never have.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That Paul only references the Old Testament is true from the human author’s perspective. However, since the Holy Spirit is the divine author, we can safely say that it applies to all of Scripture, since the Spirit knew that the New Testament would be written and inspired (though even Paul quotes from other NT Scriptures, too, and references it as Scripture, esp. the Gospel of Luke).

My question then, still stands.

When was this revelation given and to whom?

 

[Nicea325]

Don’t go beyond what is written so that you do not become puffed up… that’s the context.

Nope! Out of context! What you are proposing is that St.Paul believed,supported and wrote such words in defense of Sola Scriptura. That is what you are trying to propose as the context.

How can Paul even suggest Sola Scriptura when the NT was not even complete and let alone canonized? The OT was not even canonized and more important, if St.Paul even did propose such a novelty invented by Protestants, Abraham was guilty of not following Sola Scriptura because he had no such Bible to read from.

Sola Scriptura is bogus and has been debunked a billion times. No matter how many times its advocates present it.

 

[dronald]

Love your enthusiasm. But, oh noes… The “b” word , there are some very big gaps in your proposal.

Thanks. It keeps me sane and stress free when it’s so hard to get a point across a forum.

1. How do you know Mark wrote a Gospel?

Why, history of course.

1. Where is the list of the letters written by Paul?

We can both admit that although we know that some letters could be missing, the ones that we do have are certainly Scripture. Peter told us so. If other letters from Paul survived, they would be Scripture too.

1. Hebrews - Who wrote it and why it is included?

Again, I think we can both admit it was written by someone close to Timothy and was deep in Theology. If I was going to reject a book, this certainly wouldn’t be it.

1. Where is the list of the letters Peter and John wrote?

Believing that these letters were penned by those we claim is similar to believing that Jesus ascended into Heaven. Yours and my Church accept that on history and Faith.

Also, if we are not to go beyond what is written, wouldn’t then make sense to give us a list of what are the boundaries of the written medium?

The lack of such a list does not make it any harder for me to conclude what books belong in the NT.

If they are not listing them, we have to then deduct that there is such a place to find out. Do you dare say?

I rather like the books the Catholic Church has chosen.

Good job Catholics.

Also, How come the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, Clement I, the Sheppherd of Hermas and others are not Scriptures? The Didache?

So you listed a few here. Thomas = Gnostic, no denying that. Peter came too late, Hermas very well could have been but again history is against us in dating and where it came from. The Didache is my favourite, but it got lost until the 19th century. I think it’s important that it was found to further prove the truth of early Christian practice.

It does not matter how much you want to slice it and dice it. There is no table of contents within Scriptures. None.

For some there are, for others it’s just obvious.

 

[dronald]

Nope! Out of context! What you are proposing is that St.Paul believed,supported and wrote such words in defense of Sola Scriptura. That is what you are trying to propose as the context.

How can Paul even suggest Sola Scriptura when the NT was not even complete and let alone canonized? The OT was not even canonized and more important, if St.Paul even did propose such a novelty invented by Protestants, Abraham was guilty of not following Sola Scriptura because he had no such Bible to read from.

Sola Scriptura is bogus and has been debunked a billion times. No matter how many times its advocates present it.

Like I said; even if Scripture did have “those words” that couldn’t possibly be what it meant.

 

[Nicea325]

Like I said; even if Scripture did have “those words” that couldn’t possibly be what it meant.

I understand. But the error SS advocates fall into is the belief because an author says “what it is written” does not prove or support he was advocating Sola Scriptura. How could ANY OT or NT author even suggest it when no canonized Bible existed? SS refutes itself! Can any SS advocate tell anyone exactly what books from the OT St.Paul only considered as inspired or canonical?

 

[dronald]

I understand. But the error SS advocates fall into is the belief because an author says “what it is written” does not prove or support he was advocating Sola Scriptura. How could ANY OT or NT author even suggest it when no canonized Bible existed? SS refutes itself!

Not exactly. Paul gave the reason such should be practiced within the Church, “to stop you from becoming puffed up.” Paul wanted his letters to be Scripture:

1 Thess 5:27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

2 Thess 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

And of course, Peter calling them Scripture. I assure you, Paul was speaking of his letters as well and anything else that would become Scripture.

 

[pablope]

Scripture is the very words of God himself, what authority is higher than God himself?

Well…can you show or provide the verse and chapter where Scripture claims it is the written word of God?

And is God limited to the written word?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks. It keeps me sane and stress free when it’s so hard to get a point across a forum.

Why, history of course.

We can both admit that although we know that some letters could be missing, the ones that we do have are certainly Scripture. Peter told us so. If other letters from Paul survived, they would be Scripture too.

Again, I think we can both admit it was written by someone close to Timothy and was deep in Theology. If I was going to reject a book, this certainly wouldn’t be it.

Believing that these letters were penned by those we claim is similar to believing that Jesus ascended into Heaven. Yours and my Church accept that on history and Faith.

The lack of such a list does not make it any harder for me to conclude what books belong in the NT.

I rather like the books the Catholic Church has chosen.

Good job Catholics.

So you listed a few here. Thomas = Gnostic, no denying that. Peter came too late, Hermas very well could have been but again history is against us in dating and where it came from. The Didache is my favourite, but it got lost until the 19th century. I think it’s important that it was found to further prove the truth of early Christian practice.

For some there are, for others it’s just obvious.

Well, we have to admit that in the 21st century we are reaping the works many have done before us in regards to Scriptures.

But if we are in the 2nd or 3rd century, with all the agnostics and heretics going around. How can we tell?

Thanks for acknowledging the work of Mother Church, btw

But there is a danger if we strictly follow the logic you provided - How about the book of Enoch? He is in Genesis 5:24 and quoted from in Jude 1:14.

Why is it not included?

 

[pablope]

To be fair, even if Paul said “do not go beyond what is written.” It would be interpreted a certain way that says, “never mind that, it’s not what he meant.” by Catholics.

So regardless, no proof can be provided.

Is it because you cannot find one that will be defintely clear this once and for all?

 

[pablope]

That Paul only references the Old Testament is true from the human author’s perspective. However, since the Holy Spirit is the divine author, we can safely say that it applies to all of Scripture, since the Spirit knew that the New Testament would be written and inspired ).

So…to whom did the Holy Spirit give this table of contents?

(though even Paul quotes from other NT Scriptures, too, and references it as Scripture, esp. the Gospel of Luke

Hmm…a historical question…was Gospel of Luke written before or after Paul’s execution?

 

[dronald]

Well, we have to admit that in the 21st century we are reaping the works many have done before us in regards to Scriptures.

But if we are in the 2nd or 3rd century, with all the agnostics and heretics going around. How can we tell?

Thanks for acknowledging the work of Mother Church, btw

But there is a danger if we strictly follow the logic you provided - How about the book of Enoch? He is in Genesis 5:24 and quoted from in Jude 1:14.

Why is it not included?

I trust the Jews to do a solid job picking out which OT books belong in the Bible.

Just kidding. I’m not the greatest historian on OT books, but if the Jews did reject it can’t we assume that it should be left out? I know even Paul quoted an old (non-canonical) poem in Acts 17 but that doesn’t make it Scripture.

Also, why do the Ethiopian Orthodox accept it?

 

[pablope]

Well, let’s start from the beginning. The reason Paul says not to go beyond what is written is so that we do not become puffed up; so in this context, the one’s going beyond what is written are those becoming “puffed up.”

So are Paul’s letters Scripture? Do we have any evidence that Paul’s letters should be considered Scripture? Well, ask Peter:

 

[Per_Crucem]

So…to whom did the Holy Spirit give this table of contents?

The church.

Hmm…a historical question…was Gospel of Luke written before or after Paul’s execution?

If he quotes from it, then it must have been written beforehand!