Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Simka
No, not that I am aware of; in general terms, the practice came from a recognition of Scripture as the Inspired (therefore infallible) Word of God, and the authority of Scripture derived from that. It was common practice to rely on that authority in teaching the faith, and in setting doctrine

.

I am sorry,but that is not how doctrines are settled, defined and later ratified. Your method sounds more common in the non-Catholic world,but with the ancient liturigcal churches.

 

[Simka]

… that is not how doctrines are settled, defined and later ratified.

Nicea, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, I am unaware of anything about the 1st-century teaching position on Scriptural authority that would qualify it as a doctrine. I have no reason to believe it was something ever brought before a church council … for the simple reason that as a common practice it was unopposed. It went on, literally for centuries, and there was no dispute that had to be settled (unlike, for example the question of whether Gentile believers had to be circumcised). When the early church leaders taught the principle that Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard for accepting or rejecting any doctrine, I am not aware that any of them referred to their teaching as a doctrine, which would have been subject to debate and ratification.

What we do know is that it was a widespread practice that, even if not formally ratified, certainly received tacit approval throughout the church. It was just the way things were done.

I am unaware of any Council, prior to the 16th century, that dealt with the matter

 

[pablope]

Nicea, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, I am unaware of anything about the 1st-century teaching position on Scriptural authority that would qualify it as a doctrine. I have no reason to believe it was something ever brought before a church council … for the simple reason that as a common practice it was unopposed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sola Scriptura is new and man made after more than a thousands years of Church authority and its only purpose is to usurp the Body of Christ. And I’m not even getting into the etymological errors of its use and various meanings.

It doesn’t get any clearer.

*Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
*

Nowhere does it say, it is not written to be done this way. It clearly says we (people) gave these other persons NO INSTRUCTIONS. Full and complete authority from the men of the Church, not from a book.

*2 Timothy 2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
*

Nowhere does it say refer to this book. It tells Timothy to be strong in what he has HEARD from Paul. Not only that but that which Timothy heard conveys the ability and authority to teach others. For what purpose? To carry on these teachings!

*Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders (Priests) in every town as I directed you,
*

The Greek word for elder is:

4245 πρεσβύτερος presbuteros /pres·boo·ter·os/] adj. Comparative of presbus (elderly); TDNT 6:651; TDNTA 931; GK 4565; 67 occurrences; AV translates as “elder” 64 times, “old man” once, “eldest” once, and “elder woman” once. 1 elder, of age,. 1A the elder of two people. 1B advanced in life, an elder, a senior. 1B1 forefathers. 2 a term of rank or office. 2A among the Jews. 2A1 members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men). 2A2 of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice. 2B among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably. 2C the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God.

The word Priest derives from Presbyter.

Here Paul assigns other men as Elders to occupy positions of authority. Again, not a book.

*Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.*

Exhort and reprove with ALL authority! A man with all authority to exhort and reprove on the teaching and traditions passed down from Jesus to the Apostles to the Apostles Successors. Not a book.

 

[Simka]

Jesus gave His authority to the Church, not to a list of books. Simka…the protestant SS position is quite the opposite of what you say. If you do not believe this…then why are you protestant?

 

[Simka]

Simka…after the Jerusalem council…the church could not hold a council because Christians were on the run from persecution…no bible, gathering of writings in one place…there was no printing press yet, few could read and write…copying was by hand.
What went on literally for centuries…SS? You are doing a lot of guesswork here.

 

[joe371]

You may be right; I am not aware of any. And I am only prepared to defend what I understand was the earliest articulation of the SS position, that “Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holy living.”

Let’s say you are right and Scripture does in fact contain all knowledge necessary for salvation and holy living. (By the way, why did you ave that in quotes, if you don’t mind me asking?) Did Jesus, (knowing that He would not physically be around to wield His authority, doctrinally speaking) leave the world with a way to discern those biblical truths, especially in those cases where controversy and doctrinal division ensue? You and I agree, I think, that personal interpretation/discernment, as each and every Christian is moved by the holy spirit, does not work. In the end, the typical answer I am eventually given, by most sola-scriptura advocates is: we have an infallible book with no one to infallibly interpret it and discern truth via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Either Jesus safeguards, preserves and continues to transmit doctrinal truth via the confines of His very visible Mystical Body, the Church of which He is the Head, via apostolic succession (which is taught in the NT) or those folks are correct. I do not see a third option, in terms of knowing for sure the truth about something like the Eucharist, and that, as per the bible, is a very important teaching.

 

[Nicea325]

Simka:

In regards to Gregory of Nyssa, you posted:

*Taken in context, their views are consistent with Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote: **“We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”)/**I]

Please try to answer the following and let us examine if you truly are presenting his words in their proper context.

1.Did Nyssa say those words because he was advocating or defending SS?
2 Tell me what did he mean by:…harmonize with the intention of those writings. What writings?
3. Why did Nyssa say those words and to whom were they directed at?
4. What was going on at the time,which compellled him to convey such words?
5.What reasons did he have to defend Scripture in such a fashion in his above statement?
6. Kindly show me where Nyssa or any ECF ever say or teach: Scripture over everything else?
7. Please present one ECF who exhaustively writes on defending,promoting or justifies ONLY-Scripture and nothing else to defend the faith?*

 

[Nicea325]

pablope;10760938:

No, it was not SS that went on for centuries (although the teaching of the early church leaders was a forerunner of SS). And it’s a bit more than mere guesswork. The teaching by church leaders that doctrine was to be accepted or rejected on the basis of whether it was supported by Scripture …

. was common practice by the middle of the 2nd century, and it continued for centuries. I don’t pretend to be a church historian, though I have read many. None of my reading has given any indication that acceptance or rejection of doctrine on the basis of Scriptural authority was ever an issue that the church was called upon to adjudicate, until the Council of Trent. On the contrary, a lot of historical reading lends support to the claim that this teaching was common practice over a 1500 year span – and that’s why the official overthrow of that practice was of such significance in the 16th century.

If someone has information concerning an earlier point in time at which the teaching practice was officially discontinued, I’d be happy to be enlightened.

Simka:

What Scripture? The 2nd century? Seriously? Tell me what canonized texts (fixed canon…not a list) were being used and which ones were considered Sripture by the early church where doctrines were to be accepted or rejected? Are you aware scores of writings existed and different communities used them and considered them Scripture? Gnostics considered their writings Scripture.

Do not provide the list of texts,but the list of a **fixed canon **clearly showing us such a practice by the 2nd century because of Scripture?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, I am unaware of anything about the 1st-century teaching position on Scriptural authority that would qualify it as a doctrine. I have no reason to believe it was something ever brought before a church council … for the simple reason that as a common practice it was unopposed. It went on, literally for centuries, and there was no dispute that had to be settled (unlike, for example the question of whether Gentile believers had to be circumcised). *** When the early church leaders taught the principle that Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard for accepting or rejecting any doctrine, ***I am not aware that any of them referred to their teaching as a doctrine, which would have been subject to debate and ratification.

What we do know is that it was a widespread practice that, even if not formally ratified, certainly received tacit approval throughout the church. It was just the way things were done.

I am unaware of any Council, prior to the 16th century, that dealt with the matter

Simka:

No offense,but why do you ignore me? I’ll ask you again:

WHEN,WHERE and by WHOSE authority declared:

the early church leaders* taught the principle **that **Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard *for accepting or rejecting any doctrine

Simka…please provide sources showing me where this “principle” stood as the single authoritative standard?

Sources please…I am really want to see where you are gathering such information?

 

[joe371]

Simka:

No offense,but why do you ignore me? I’ll ask you again:

WHEN,WHERE and by WHOSE declared:

the early church leaders* taught the principle ***that Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard for accepting or rejecting any doctrine

Simka…please provide sources showing me where this “principle” was taught and stood as the single authoritative standard?

Sources please…I am really want to see where you are gathering such information?

I tried as a former SS advocate. There is no such information! Nor is it to be found anywhere here - :bible1:

 

[Porknpie]

pablope;10759836:

First, to suggest Jesus gave all authority exclusively to the church, and not to inspired Apostolic writing,

is a gross oversimplification. We know from Jesus’ own chastisement of religious leaders of His day that the Written Word of God was an important standard which directed, and if necessary, corrected, errant practices of the religious establishment.

Simka,

A writing can be inspired and inerrant but it takes an authority outside of scripture to say that it is. Scripture can not be an authority. Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose and he gave St Peter the authority to lead the Church in his absence as was prefigured by the Prime Minister of the Davidic King’s in the OT. Whenever the King left the city, the Prime Minister was in charge …he had the authority and had the keys while the king was away. The office of St. Peter is the prime minister in the NT while Christ is absent on earth.

You implicitly trust that the books in your bible are inerrant and inspired due to the authority of the Catholic Church to say that they are…

Pork

 

[joe371]

Simka;10760969:

Simka,

A writing can be inspired and inerrant but it takes an authority outside of scripture to say that it is. Scripture can not be an authority. Jesus gave the Church the authority to bind and loose and he gave St Peter the authority to lead the Church in his absence as was prefigured by the Prime Minister of the Davidic King’s in the OT. Whenever the King left the city, the Prime Minister was in charge …he had the authority and had the keys while the king was away. The office of St. Peter is the prime minister in the NT while Christ is absent on earth.

You implicitly trust that the books in your bible are inerrant and inspired due to the authority of the Catholic Church to say that they are…

Pork

OT kings had their prime ministers who functioned in their stead, and they were endowed with authority, and so does the King of kings…

 

[Simka]

Simka;10761086:

Simka:

What Scripture? The 2nd century? Seriously? Tell me what canonized

texts (fixed canon…not a list) were being used and which ones were considered Sripture by the early church where doctrines were to be accepted or rejected? Are you aware scores of writings existed and different communities used them and considered them Scripture? Gnostics considered their writings Scripture.

Do not provide the list of texts,but the list of a **fixed canon **clearly showing us such a practice by the 2nd century because of Scripture?

Why do you ask such silly questions, Nicea? You know there was no “fixed canon” at that time. Are you really unaware that the church recognized inspired Scripture, even during Apostolic times?

The Apostles recognized God’s inspiration among them. The church in the post-Apostolic era recognized the OT, and the Apostolic writings, as “Scripture”. When I refer to 2nd century “Scripture”, I mean the same collection of inspired writings that the church recognized and regarded as such.

 

[Simka]

Simka;10760969:

A writing can be inspired and inerrant but it takes an authority outside of scripture to say that it is. Scripture can not be an authority.

A writing can be inspired and inerrant, and when, as early as the 1st and 2nd century, church leaders and the Apostles themselves recognized and declared certain writings to be inspired, those writings were widely accepted … as Scripture, as the Word of God. The Word of God was acknowledged to have its own authority in all matters pertaining to doctrine.

 

[joe371]

Simka

Why do you ask such silly questions, Nicea? You know there was no “fixed canon” at that time. Are you really unaware that the church recognized inspired Scripture, even during Apostolic times?

The Apostles recognized God’s inspiration among them. The church in the post-Apostolic era recognized the OT, and the Apostolic writings, as “Scripture”. When I refer to 2nd century “Scripture”, I mean the same collection of inspired writings that the church recognized and regarded as such.

To my surprise there were some books found in the bible today, that were questioned in terms of authenticity, and other books that are not found in the bible today that were actually read at church, in the 1st 2nd, 3rd and 4th century. I was quite surprised to find this out. Eventually it was the CC that assembled a couple of times over the years and finally settled the matter for all. I thought, long ago as a sol- scriptura advocate: if I can trust the CC to settle those types of doctrinal matters, then it only makes sense that I can trust the CC regarding all doctrinal matters. It’s only logical, to me anyway. My sister would agree with you…

 

[Simka]

WHEN,WHERE and by WHOSE authority declared:

the early church leaders* taught the principle ***that **Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard **for accepting or rejecting any doctrine

Sources please…I am really want to see where you are gathering such information?

What authority would you accept, to make the declaration I gave, above? If I cite Cyril, for example, who in his lectures to new believers instructed them,
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

This excerpt appears in *A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church *(Oxford: Parker, 1845), “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril” Lecture 4.17. How would you paraphrase the last two lines, say the same thing in other words?

Or, as J. N. D. Kelly reports *Early Christian Doctrines *(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46,]
“The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis”.

I doubt your sincerity, Nicea, because as you will recall, I tried this once … gave you a significant list of quoted writings, the content of which you obviously didn’t like. Your response was to accuse me of taking each one “out of context”, and eventually to insist that I stop!

I have no idea how I can provide excerpts from statements made by Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Irenaeus, and Tertullian, without exposing myself all over again to that same accusation. I can, as above, give you the names and the authors of the history books in which these works have been compiled, Catholic writers who, based on their analysis, come to the same conclusions I do … but if you don’t like what they say, you have shown repeatedly that you will use any means at your disposal to dismiss them out of hand … or, as you said of yourself, “I will not believe”. So, apart from your personal amusement, what purpose do I have in continuing to play your silly games?

 

[joe371]

What authority would you accept, to make the declaration I gave, above? If I cite Cyril, for example, who in his lectures to new believers instructed them,"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."This excerpt appears in *A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church *(Oxford: Parker, 1845), “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril” Lecture 4.17. How would you paraphrase the last two lines, say the same thing in other words?

Or, as J. N. D. Kelly reports *Early Christian Doctrines *(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46,]“The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis”. I doubt your sincerity, Nicea, because as you will recall, I tried this once … gave you a significant list of quoted writings, the content of which you obviously didn’t like. Your response was to accuse me of taking each one “out of context”, and eventually to insist that I stop!

I have no idea how I can provide excerpts from statements made by Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Irenaeus, and Tertullian, without exposing myself all over again to that same accusation. I can, as above, give you the names and the authors of the history books in which these works have been compiled, Catholic writers who, based on their analysis, come to the same conclusions I do … but if you don’t like what they say, you have shown repeatedly that you will use any means at your disposal to dismiss them out of hand … or, as you said of yourself, “I will not believe”. So, apart from your personal amusement, what purpose do I have in continuing to play your silly games?

In your opinion, was the practice of sola scriptura practised and endorsed by the apostles, and ultimately passed on to their successors? Kind of just a yes-or-no answer brother.

Also, did the apostles belong to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, one of the Protestant Churches, or all of them i.e. the invisible church? No sarcasm, I promise. These were just questions I asked myself long ago.

 

[pablope]

Oh my…Simka…did Jesus write anything down? Did he tell the Apostles to write anything?

Can you point in Scripture where Jesus is handing down authgority to an apostolic writing?

We know from Jesus’ own chastisement of religious leaders of His day that the Written Word of God was an important standard which directed, and if necessary, corrected, errant practices of the religious establishment.

Can you point out this instance in the Gospels?

Second, as so many here have pointed out, there is more than one “Protestant SS position”. I am currently attending a Protestant church that holds to the same position I espouse. I was pleased when I discovered that, though it was not a determining factor in my choice.

Does the protestant church you attend has the four marks as espoused by the creeds…ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC?

 

[pablope]

pablope;10760938:

No, it was not SS that went on for centuries (although the teaching of the early church leaders was a forerunner of SS). And it’s a bit more than mere guesswork. The teaching by church leaders that doctrine was to be accepted or rejected on the basis of whether it was supported by Scripture … was common practice by the middle of the 2nd century, and it continued for centuries. I don’t pretend to be a church historian, though I have read many. None of my reading has given any indication that acceptance or rejection of doctrine on the basis of Scriptural authority was ever an issue that the church was called upon to adjudicate, until the Council of Trent. On the contrary, a lot of historical reading lends support to the claim that this teaching was common practice over a 1500 year span – and that’s why the official overthrow of that practice was of such significance in the 16th century.

If someone has information concerning an earlier point in time at which the teaching practice was officially discontinued, I’d be happy to be enlightened.

Well…so far you have made statements…so where is the proof of your statemetn…where is the proof asked of you by Nicea?