Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[BobCatholic]

I reject Sola Scriptura because

1. The Bible does not come with a list of 100% infallible interpretations of every part of it. Yes, there are some interpretations, but how do protestants know about Luke 1:28 the word “until” means what they say it means? (if you want to discuss this, start another thread, or I’ll WHOMP you with a pillow!)
2. My infamous 4 questions cannot be answered using the principles of Sola Scriptura. They deal with the canon of scripture, determining the correct # of books belong, determining which versions and which translations are correct.
3. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that everything that is the Truth is inside the Bible. It even mentions oral tradition, and that not all signs worked by Christ were written down.
4. Nowhere does it say that “thou shalt not murder” applies to abortion as a proper interpretation. Abortion is not even mentioned.
5. Nowhere does it forbid to us ordinary laymen to practice polygamy. Bishops, yes. Deacons, yes. No-body else.
6. mark-shea.com/6.html
7. The book “21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura” by Joel Peters is another great read.
   geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
8. Sola Scriptura is practiced as if it were Solo Ego. Who determines that something is contrary to the Bible? “I DO” Who determines that something is scriptural? “I DO” Who determines who is right and wrong? “I DO”
9. Sola Scriptura eventually leads to doctrinal relativism. Look at the thousands of denominations, all practicing it, and all having contradictory and conflicting interpretations of scripture.
10. Related to 9) - there’s no way to determine which one of the thousands of interpretations of scripture is the correct one using the principles of Sola Scriptura. If there were, we would have one Sola Scripturist denomination period.

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

What is this some bizzare anti-positivistim Never Ending Story theory.

No, not at all. You said: “God cannot be logically proven because he transcends our simple minds.”

I simply meant that if you believe in your heart that He exists, then He does. If you try to apply science to it - and philosophy and psychology are sciences - then He doesn’t. The Catholic Church does not teach by circular reasoning, that which is based on tautological statements - statements which are true by their own definition, and therefore uninformative. The Church does not teach that which is uniformative. It teaches Scripture. Scripture, simply put, is what it is.

I would guess that many people in Sodom did not believe that God existed. It did not change that he destroyed them.

Not exactly true. In Gen. 18:16 - 33, The Lord is about to destroy Sodom, but does not want Abraham to know what he is about to do. Abraham says to the Lord, “Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? If there were fifty innocent people in the city would you destroy it?” The Lord said “If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole city for their sake.”

Had there been 1 innocent (read believer) in the city, God would have spared it. Remember, this is GOD Abraham is talking to. Would you say that Abraham was a simple man? Do you imagine he had a simple mind? Yet, he was conversing with GOD. Abraham was not concerned that someone might tell him that GOD did not exist. He knew in his heart that GOD, in fact, did exist.

One of your previous statements:

If you think that you can prove the existence of God without ultimately being tautological I would love to hear it.

That GOD exists is proven, tautology and circular reasoning aside. To say He does not exist is a contradiction, which is the opposite of tautology.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

SteveG:

The question is not what each individual accepts the teachings or not. Everyone retains free will under any system we are discussing. The question is whether the Church teaches the truth, not whether each person accepts it or not. I think you are looking at this upside down.

well, that isn’t really the point I was making. One could argue the exact same argument you are making for the scriptures. Does not God teach the truth through them?

The problem we all have is that words must be interpreted. The common arguments put forth for the necessity of an infallible church are very problematic because they don’t deal evenly with issues such as this.

Should we disbeleive Christ because one of his hand-picked apostles didn’t ‘get it’ and betrayed them? If you standard of perspecuity and eveyone accepting is the test, then both our systems fail and Christianity is doomed from the start because of Judas.

But you have to remember though my comment at the end right after the paragraph you quoted… Perfect perspicuity isn’t the test. I acknowledge that people can read magesterial documents and get the essential ideas out of them just as people can read the scriptures and get the essential idea from them. My arguments are meant to equalize two things (the interpretation of the magesterium and the interpretation of scripture) which many people put on two different levels.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

But in evaluating these competing claims, you can’t consider this as evidence. This is similar to claims of infallability. Looking at it objectively it’s only words on paper.

Right, but it’s part of the Christian worldview. Because you are a Christian I speak to you this way. Outside of the Christian world all I can do is proclaim what I believe the scripture to be and offer evidence for it (which I obviously believe to be compelling).

I agree with you though that it is as you state above, yet…it still can not speak. It can not answer questions in a dynamic sense. It can only answer to the extent that the hands and mind that yield it do it justice. Ask the bible what we should believe regarding cloning. You will see that it can not answer you. It was not meant to answer you in an authoritative way.

A few things here:

1. This is why we have churches and theologians… to give us moral guidance. You have to remember, I’m not arguing for an atomistic vision of Christianity where everyone is totally autonomous. People exist within the social and moral structure of the church and in everyday life they generally abide by this. If they go outside of God’s will, it is for Him to ultimately judge. God has given men consiences and brains for a reason.
2. I think you would agree however that the scriptures certainly give guidance in principle for many of these issues. The scriptures , the Spirit and the church all help form a moral worldview in which Christians can evaluate the moral claims of society. Tell me, how many people do you know who take the scriptures and their Christian faith seriously really allow for things such as abortion and cloning? My point is simply that people do manage to figure a lot of these things out because God has not made these things so hard that a person cannot come up with it.

Yes, and is all his WORD in scripture? Christ is is his word, and the pages of no book can fully contain the meaning of Christ. To limit his word to the bible alone i think overly confines God and his majesty.

No, of course not. But that isn’t the issue. Rome claims specicic things are part of the revelation and I deny that those certain things really are. If someone can show an authentic part of the Word of God we are bound to believe it. My argument is not that you have it, but I don’t want to believe it… My argument is that you claim to have it, but in reality you don’t.

What is a sufficient understanding?

I believe I said it was sufficiency in regards to God’s saving purpose. In addition to that I would add Hi providential purpose. God will grant knowledge as He desires to build His kingdom.

We are not talking about trivial difference between interpretations here. The Eucharist, baptism (how it’s performed, it’s meaning), etc. Different systems think these items are critical to salvation to one extent or another.

Notice that you are assuming that disagreement on these things destroys that sufficiency.

I’m not even sure that the CC would acknowledge that these things do destroy that sufficiency, per my argument below:

1. All people who have valid trinitarian baptism and commit no mortal sin can go to heaven
2. Believing something different than the CC on all the above matters is not a sufficient ground for one to commit mortal sin (because of invincible ignorance)
3. Ergo - disbelieving these things is not sufficient to negate salvation.

There is a situation where someone can believe differently yet still achieve God’s saving purpose.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

It is nice sounding to say a sufficient understanding is enough. But how is these even possible if sufficient is defined differently based upon differing interpretations. It may take a Catholic his whole life to come to know sufficiently what he needs to know for salvation, but at least there is a target for him to aim at and discover. In the Protestant world, their is not even an agreement at the top, nay, there is not even a ‘top’, at which the Christian can aim to know.

Is salvation conditional on knowledge? I would argue that salvation is conditional on acknowledging the things you do know, putting your faith in God and repenting of your sin.

The confusion on moral issues among Christians helps to twhart His salvific will. What we do effects who we are and how we are percieved by the world. The certainty of truth is not a side issue. Birth Control, abortion, euthenasia, etc., etc. are not incidentals. As Catholics following in the footsteps of our Jewish roots, we understand that a person is not a shell of flesh in which is housed a soul. A person is an embodied soul. Integrated to such an extent that there ceases to be a distinction between body and soul. What we do with our bodies effects to a great extent our spirituality. If Protestantism is wrong for instance on Birth Control, then most Christians are hindering there own efforts at growing closer to God and being transformed by his love.

Sure, I would accept that. BTW - I think this is one area where the CC is actually closer on target than most protestant groups. That being said, it doesn’t undermine the sufficiency argument I layed out because I’m not arguing for moral perfection, but that God in His mercy saves a people for Himself, irregardless of how screwed up and wicked they may be at times, just as He walked with the Jews who often did not live up to their covenant.

I am unclear on this. Right in what regard?

right as in true. In other words, arguments for papal authority often begin with a theoretical argument such that it would be better for unity if there is one person at the top giving infallible decrees. With this I agree in principle. However, in real life this theoretical principle becomes less compelling because the actual decrees themselves are not that convincing. In other words, perhaps if in another world the papacy had infallibly affirmed only the main aspects of the faith that were broadly known, there might not be much dispute over it’s role. However, the papacy has declared things which many Christians disagree with and find highly questionable. Thus, while it may be good in principle, in actual life it has not necessarily brought more unity (unless you assume that the church is only those in communion with the Pope, thus maiing unity quite easy) and it’s decrees do not share a broad acceptance.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

And scripture is subject to rational critique via the church, logic and history. I’ll say again, whether the Church’s claims are correct or not, they are most definetely far better, logical, and coherent than the alternative (Sola Scriptura).

well, we disagree on that last part, but the rest I would agree with.

Again, I’d ask in what regards? Maybe the arguments have not been made well. Do you doubt Peter is the Rock in MT 16? Do you doubt his role as Catholics understand it? Do you doubt apostolic succession? Where is it that these arguments are found wanting?

Some of those things and others such as the marian dogmas, the relation of scripture and tradition, the application of development, etc…

You may just need to see them made more clearly. I’ll be so bold as to say that I have a suspicion that you WANT such to be proven to you. I think you are wise enough to see the fatal flaws in the Protestant system, but fear to let go of it lest you find there is nothing better to turn to. Just my perceptions, so please forgive if I am way off base. I don’t intend to offend.

I don’t think you’re right here. I do see flaws in the protestant world, just as I see them in the Catholic world. I’m no perfectionist and no system looks fully coherent. God is merciful and He saves a people for Himself even though we are not perfect. If you follow my arguments, you will see that I don’t argue that any one position is totally right because I don’t believe that. Catholics have some things right and some things wrong, just as protestants do. Perfection is God’s attribute, not one that humans share.

I do however acknowledge that perhaps I just haven’t seen the best arguments. I always try to learn to make sure that I am.

Oh my, I hope not. If this is about earning that honor, then we are all certainly doomed.

No, I don’t so.

If earning the honor is the criteria then you’d better toss your scriptures, as none of the authors ‘earned’ the right to write them in an inspired and inerrant way. Either the Holy Spirit protected them DESPITE their not deserving it, or not. Likewise, either the Holy Spirit is protecting the church despite the Judases, doubting Thomases, et al. that live within her or not. There is nothing in Christianity from top to bottom that we have earned. ALL is given by the awesome grace of God.

I wasn’t speaking in moral terms, but in terms of justified belief. The scriptures have “earned” authority in my life because they have affected it deeply and consistently spoken to me and corrected my errors and my sins. Rome has not earned this because her declarations do not compel belief and moral action within me as God’s Word does.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Are you sure it’s wise to use this line of argument? It’s the same one the Mormons use when they hand folks the book of Mormon and ask them to see if they feel a burning in the bosom. The muslims claim the same for the Koran. These subjective emotional experiences don’t seem to be the best way make such judgements.

Yes, if it’s not used alone. The scriptures speak in such subjective terms and I just parrot that. Not everything about the faith is a perfect, objective syllogism. Jesus says that His sheep hear Him and follow. Just because Mormons claim the same does not mean they are right.

Frankly, I don’t really care so much anymore how I feel about these things. I’d rather know the truth and follow it as best I can and the grace of God allows me to. Life is not to me a journey of the intellect or emotion. It is a journey of growing in holiness and being sanctified by the Lord.

It’s the same journey for me, I’m just explaining an epistemological position because it happens to be part of the argument at hand.

Fine feelings are a wonderful consolation on the spiritual journey, but they don’t mean much beyond that. This is one of the huge problems I had with Protestantism. The empahasis on my individual subjective emotional experience. This is supposed to be about a community worshipping God, instead it often came across as individuals worshipping the experience itself.

Sometimes it can be that, but that is no reason to throw out the legitimate subjective elements of the faith. It ins’t Euclidean geometry, but faith in a Lord who works in both people and communities, easily verifiable truths and proofs only given by the inward witness of the Spirit.

What words are you not hearing? I am unclear on this as well

I don’t hear the voice of the Master in the words of Rome consistently. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. This is partly subjective and partly objective. I can “feel” they are not in consonance with God’s voice, but I can also argue history and theology that her words are not consonant with what God has delivered to us.

ken

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ Ken,
II Paradox II:

well sure, but we would argue that when God through the scriptures sets forth a teaching, one is not free to form his own beliefs to the contrary.

I recognize that. Let’s focus on how do we know when "God through the scriptures sets forth a teaching.

To be sure there are teachings which are self-evidently true and biblical. But the there are a heck of lot that aren’t. Within classical Protestandom, how does one do this?

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

right as in true. In other words, arguments for papal authority often begin with a theoretical argument such that it would be better for unity if there is one person at the top giving infallible decrees. With this I agree in principle. However, in real life this theoretical principle becomes less compelling because the actual decrees themselves are not that convincing. In other words, perhaps if in another world the papacy had infallibly affirmed only the main aspects of the faith that were broadly known, there might not be much dispute over it’s role. However, the papacy has declared things which many Christians disagree with and find highly questionable. Thus, while it may be good in principle, in actual life it has not necessarily brought more unity (unless you assume that the church is only those in communion with the Pope, thus maiing unity quite easy) and it’s decrees do not share a broad acceptance.

I would never argue that the Papacy is proved by such a theoretical argument based on unity in the sense you describe. I first came to beleive the NT was a reliable historical document, then found the arguments regading what Christ intended from scripture and the testimony of the early church clearly supported the papacy as Catholics understood it.

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

I do however acknowledge that perhaps I just haven’t seen the best arguments. I always try to learn to make sure that I am.

Maybe I can take a humble stab. Where to start? Anything that follows assumes that 1)We both agree that the NT is a historically reliable and 2) Scripture is indeed the inerrant word of God. I Don’t think you would object to either, correct?

Do you believe Peter is the Rock in MT 16:18?

 

[II_Paradox_II]

ferdgoodfellow:

To be sure there are teachings which are self-evidently true and biblical. But the there are a heck of lot that aren’t. Within classical Protestandom, how does one do this?

If a teaching is within the ROF, it is to be believed. We accept that everything within the bounds of scripture is binding.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

SteveG:

I would never argue that the Papacy is proved by such a theoretical argument based on unity in the sense you describe.

That’s good. I was saying though that often the arguments start out that way.

I first came to beleive the NT was a reliable historical document, then found the arguments regading what Christ intended from scripture and the testimony of the early church clearly supported the papacy as Catholics understood it.

ok. I have come to the opposite conclusion.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

SteveG:

Maybe I can take a humble stab. Where to start? Anything that follows assumes that 1)We both agree that the NT is a historically reliable and 2) Scripture is indeed the inerrant word of God. I Don’t think you would object to either, correct?

Do you believe Peter is the Rock in MT 16:18?

Actually, I havne’t put much thought into it. Patristically, it was interpreted quite a number of ways and even if you accept that he was, the Roman conclusions don’t necessarily follow. I read “Jesus Peter and the Keys” a number of years ago and my primary problem with the book was this. The CC’s interpretation is certainly possible, it just doesn’t seem likley based on the text itself, the way the text was interpreted histrorically and the end result.

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

Actually, I havne’t put much thought into it. Patristically, it was interpreted quite a number of ways

I’d be interested in seeing any evidence that it was interpreted otherwise. From what I have studied, the propenderance of the evidence is that Peter as the rock is the commonly accepted understanding. Would you agree that if not unanimous, this was the widely held belief of the Early Fathers?
II Paradox II:

and even if you accept that he was, the Roman conclusions don’t necessarily follow.

Of course it doesn’t necessarily follow and I wouldn’t argue such. But then again, it indeed might prove out to be true. Even if it were established, then there would still have to be a established so many other pieces that we’d be far from the Roman position. Nonetheless, I’d like to make the case in the way I know how. Again, this is simply my mode of operation. One step at a time, and this is fairly foundational.
II Paradox II:

The CC’s interpretation is certainly possible, it just doesn’t seem likley based on the text itself, the way the text was interpreted histrorically and the end result.

And therein lies a significant difference between our understanding. Let me lay out the arguments as I understand them and see where you think the Catholic position is not likely. You may have seen similar arguments elsewhere, so apologies if this is repetetive in your eyes.

First, I hope you would agree that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic (I think this is fairly clear even from scripture), but I address the scenarios even if He used Greek.

** Jesus would likely have spoken this in Aramaic not Greek**

1. Evna means little stone in Aramaic
2. Kepha means massive stone
3. Simon was given the name Kepha by Christ (rendered Cephas in English) . We know this because that name for Peter is preserved for us in two of Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians).
4. So we know now that in the Aramaic, Jesus would have said ‘You are Kepha (massive stone), and on this Kepha (massive stone) I will build my Church’.
5. It is now clear that Kepha 2 refers to Kepha 1. Peter is the Rock.

** IF the Greek was a translation from the original Aramaic.**

1. If the Greek is a translation, then the change in the first rock reference would have been necessary only because Petros is in the feminine form in Greek, and would have been inappropriate for a male name (see below). The switch to Petra is NOT to indicate a small rock, but to make the name fitting for a male.
2. Kepha 2 refers to Kepha 1. Peter is the Rock (as shown above).

** If Christ spoke Greek**

1. Petros and Petra were synonyms in Koine Greek (the dialect of the NT) and no real distinction existed with reference to size at the time Matthew was rendered.
   a. We already know that the word for massive stone in Aramaic is Cephas (as distinguished from Evna - small stone).
   b. In John 1:42, he is saying ‘You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’
   c. John is equating Cephas (massive stone) with Peter/(Petros).
   John uses Petros as an equivalent of Petra in linking it to Cephas in John 1:42
2. Further, lithos would have been the more appropriate Koine Greek word to use if He wanted to refer to a small stone. So it is likely Petros is not in reference to small stone, but again is interchangeable with Petra in first century Greek.
3. Petra has a feminine ending and could not be applied to Peter as a name. Thus, the first reference is transformed to Petros to give it a masculine ending suitable for a man’s name.
4. The evidence of an earlier rename again shows that it is not in association with the confession (see above).
5. Petra refers to Petros in the verse. Peter is the Rock.

 

[SteveG]

As I thought about where to start a little more deeply, I realized that even Peter being the rock, is too far down the road. I actually have an essay I researched and wrote (for fun if you can believe it!) on the charge of ‘Sola Ecclesia’. I wrote it in response this charge being thrown out by James White in a debate. If you don’t object, I’ll simply make the arguments I make there for your comment…

Here goes…
** Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life**
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.

According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

…Next…
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

I’d be interested in seeing any evidence that it was interpreted otherwise. From what I have studied, the propenderance of the evidence is that Peter as the rock is the commonly accepted understanding. Would you agree that if not unanimous, this was the widely held belief of the Early Fathers?

You’d have to give me a few weeks for that. Like I said, I don’t really deal with this particular topic much and I don’t like to put out arguments unless I really know them. However, I have seen enough (primarily from eastern orthodox sources) that I am suspicious of the claim that this was the dmininant patristic exegesis. I should add as well that I don’t really have any particular opinion whether this was the case or not because it seems the Roman claim is not so much that Peter is the Rock, but the host of claims that are inferred from this. These seem to me to be the weak point, not whether Peter is the Rock or not.

Of course it doesn’t necessarily follow and I wouldn’t argue such. But then again, it indeed might prove out to be true. Even if it were established, then there would still have to be a established so many other pieces that we’d be far from the Roman position. Nonetheless, I’d like to make the case in the way I know how. Again, this is simply my mode of operation. One step at a time, and this is fairly foundational.

ok, go ahead…

And therein lies a significant difference between our understanding. Let me lay out the arguments as I understand them and see where you think the Catholic position is not likely. You may have seen similar arguments elsewhere, so apologies if this is repetetive in your eyes.

Just so you know, my comment about it being possible but not likely was in reference primarily to the inferences catholics draw from Peter being the Rock, not whether the text teaches he is the rock. As the long list of protestant and EO scholars who accept peter as the Rock shows, one can hold that this is true without believing that the inferences drawn from this by Rome are true.

First, I hope you would agree that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic (I think this is fairly clear even from scripture), but I address the scenarios even if He used Greek.

I actually lean more towards the dominance of Hebrew, not Aramaic, but again it’s more of an intuition, I’m not a linguist.

As for the argument itself, I think it certainly is possible and perhaps even likely. But as I said earlier, that isn’t the crux of the issue, it’s the inferences pulled from this which are the problem. When I read “jesus peter and the keys” the arguments seemed pretty good all the way up through what you are doing now. It’s when they got beyond this that they began to lose their persausive force.

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

I should add as well that I don’t really have any particular opinion whether this was the case or not because it seems the Roman claim is not so much that Peter is the Rock, but the host of claims that are inferred from this. These seem to me to be the weak point, not whether Peter is the Rock or not.

As I said in my next post, I think even this is the wrong place to start. I’d rather give you a more cogent overview. I deleted the post on Peter, and as you’ve already mentioned you admit that Peter being the Rock is not a huge issue, so I’ll even skip over it. I understand your differentiation between this issue and the inferences, but I’d try not to argue only from such inferences. When/If the time comes, I’ll try to support each point on it’s own merits and not solely on any inferences (thought building on previously established points is obviously valid if the total argument holds together).

 

[II_Paradox_II]

SteveG:

As I said in my next post, I think even this is the wrong place to start. I’d rather give you a more cogent overview. I deleted the post on Peter, and as you’ve already mentioned you admit that Peter being the Rock is not a huge issue, so I’ll even skip over it.

ok, that’s fine.

ken

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Why I rejected Sola Scriptura?

As defined by many Protestants, Sola Scriptura is the foundational doctrine which asserts that the sole infallible source of authority is limited to the Protestant 66-book Bible.

So, using the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith

I cannot “read therein” nor “prove thereby” the doctrinal assertion that all things necessary to salvation are contained within the 66-book Protestant Bible. Therefore, such a doctrinal position ought not to be “required of any man” or believed “as an article of the Faith.”

Using the Lutheran Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod (1932):

the Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken

As I don’t find the above doctrinal position within Scripture, it is to be rejected in accord with their own doctrinal statement.

Using the Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture … those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Since I cannot find the above doctrinal statement within Scripture, either “expressly set down” or “deduced from Scripture”, then it is not a doctrinal statement that is “necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation.”

Simply put, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting doctrine.

 

[SteveG]

Paradox:
As I thought about where to start a little more deeply, I realized that even Peter being the rock, is too far down the road. I actually have an essay I researched and wrote (for fun if you can believe it!) on the charge of ‘Sola Ecclesia’. I wrote it in response this charge being thrown out by James White in a debate. If you don’t object, I’ll simply make the arguments I make there for your comment…

Here goes…
Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.

According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

…Next…
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model.