Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Tomster]

Again, this seems to be arguing too little. It appears that you are again proposing a Sola Old Testament doctine, for, of course, St. Paul could not have been referring to the NT which was not yet written at the time of his command.

The Book of Acts gives us an example of this with the case of the Bereans “searching the Scriptures”. The Scriptures they searched were the Old Testament writings. St. Paul gave them the oral teachings of the New Law.

 

[PRmerger]

The teaching of the Trinity was proclaimed in early church writings at least as far back as the 2nd century. Initially it generated much controversy, and was not codified for another 200 years.

Right. This was proclaimed through…

Sacred Tradition.

Not because of Sacred Scripture.

Why? Because the NT canon was not yet codified.

I get the sense that your window is very narrow. I know that, in addition to the entire Old Testament, the writings of the Apostles were regarded by the early church as the Inspired Word of God, long before there was a “codified book”. So if you object to my summarizing these writings as “the Bible” prior to its codification, then please forgive my over-generalization.

The above is nothing except a wonderful apologia for your submission to Sacred Tradition as another channel of revelation. For is not

Let’s just settle for what the early church fathers called them … “Scripture”.

Does that include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, Simka?

Do you consider them* theopneustos *as some of the ECFs did?

Or do you reject them as not the inspired Word of God because…

the Catholic Church told you it was not inspired?

You do know that, even before the Apostolic era ended, Peter called Paul’s writing “Scripture”, right?

This appears to be a non-sequitur, Simka.

You do know that, one generation later, during the 2nd century, the Old Testament and the Apostolic writings were routinely appealed to as “Scripture” by virtue of their acknowledged inspiration, right?

Again, a testament to your submission to Sacred Tradition as another channel of Revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

St. Paul gave them the oral teachings of the New Law.

Indeed.

And we know that St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 19:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Logic dictates that everything he preached COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SECURED IN THE WRITTEN PAGE.

However, Sacred Tradition can accommodate all that he preached but was not confined to parchment.

 

[Simka]

Again, this seems to be arguing too little. It appears that you are again proposing a Sola Old Testament doctine …

No, not exclusively. Nor am I willing to accept a “sola NT” doctrine. “Sola Scriptura” applies to both OT and NT. Certainly, Paul referred to the OT as Scripture. Paul’s writings were referred to by Peter as “Scripture”. Immediately after the Apostolic period, the Apostolic writings were broadly referred to as “Scripture”.

I think trying to subdivide Scriptural authority between OT and NT is a red herring. When the only Scripture in existence was the OT, it was uniquely authoritative. It was the Inspired Word of God. The Apostolic writings were also soon recognized for their inspiration, and were added to the collection of authoritative writings known as Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

No, not exclusively. Nor am I willing to accept a “sola NT” doctrine. “Sola Scriptura” applies to both OT and NT. Certainly, Paul referred to the OT as Scripture. Paul’s writings were referred to by Peter as “Scripture”. Immediately after the Apostolic period, the Apostolic writings were broadly referred to as “Scripture”.

I think trying to subdivide Scriptural authority between OT and NT is a red herring. When the only Scripture in existence was the OT, it was uniquely authoritative. It was the Inspired Word of God. The Apostolic writings were also soon recognized for their inspiration, and were added to the collection of authoritative writings known as Scripture.

So then you are ok with going “beyond is written” in the literal sense, yes? You accept that St. Paul did not mean, literally, do not go “beyond was is written”?

 

[Simka]

So then you are ok with going “beyond is written” in the literal sense, yes? You accept that St. Paul did not mean, literally, do not go “beyond was is written”?

Say what?

 

[PRmerger]

Say what?

Sorry–I did not proofread.

You are ok with not taking St. Paul literally when he said, “do not go beyond what is written”, yes?

If you take him literally, then you must acknowledge that you cannot accept anything that was written beyond, or after, the OT.

If you acknowledge that he didn’t literally mean “do not go beyond what is written” so that you can include the NT writings, then that leaves room, of course, for Sacred Tradition.

 

[Simka]

St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. Logic dictates that everything he preached COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SECURED IN THE WRITTEN PAGE.

Not everything that Paul said, or the other Apostles said, was “secured in the written page.” That may be because not everything Paul or the other Apostles said, was inspired. If it was not inspired, there was no need to preserve it for later generations. Trusting that God knew what He was doing, I am satisfied that what was inspired, and intended by God to be transmitted to later generations, was preserved in their writings.

Sacred Tradition can accommodate all that he preached but was not confined to parchment.

Would you care to elucidate on what doctrine Paul preached in the synagogue, beyond what was written, that has been “accommodated” by Sacred Tradition ?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority.

So according to you apostolic authority died with the death of the last Apostle?

However, Paul is not included in the Gospel. As such, Paul did not receive authority in the same manner as the 11. Do you consider Paul to be an Apostle? And why?

(Only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ had such apostolic authority [Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1]). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it would follow that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament.

So the Church died with the last Apostle?

And the Church was abandoned with no authority left behind?

And until there was such a thing as the New Testament there was no authority at all?

Only when the New Testament fell from the sky a new authority was established for the believers.

I can’t help but to be sarcastic since you are completely ignoring Church History and completely ignoring the millions of lives that died in the name of Christ by saying that we did not have an authoritative Church until a collection of books was gathered.

 

[PRmerger]

Would you care to elucidate on what doctrine Paul preached in the synagogue, beyond what was written, that has been “accommodated” by Sacred Tradition ?

Perhaps he included teachings that provided further explications on:
The Immaculate Conception
Assumption
Purgatory
Praying to Saints
The Divine Liturgy
The Papacy
Homosexuality as disordered
Abortion as always immoral
Genocide as intrinsically evil
Contraception as intrinsically evil
Racial slavery as intrinsically evil
The Trinity
Proclamations that Divine Revelation will end with the death of the last apostle
The hypostatic union

which is why the Catholic Church retained these teachings, as she was able to access his words through Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Not everything that Paul said, or the other Apostles said, was “secured in the written page.” That may be because not everything Paul or the other Apostles said, was inspired.

Interesting, this.

Clearly, we can agree that if St. Paul said, “I want to buy a new pair of sandals” that this was not inspired.

But if he was preaching, he who was an APOSTLE, you want to claim that what he preached as an Apostle, was not to be considered inspired?

If it was not inspired, there was no need to preserve it for later generations. Trusting that God knew what He was doing, I am satisfied that what was inspired, and intended by God to be transmitted to later generations, was preserved in their writings

You believe this because someone told you this, who heard someone else say this, who heard someone else say this…but no one ever read that in a single page of the Bible.

As such, it is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Simka.

This tradition has as much validity and credibility as those Christians who say that they are satisfied that Divine Revelation was contained to the 4 gospels alone, and that God was able to preserve His Word in those writings. As such, they exclude the writings of St. Paul as not being the Word of God.

Why? I dunno. I guess they heard someone say this, and they thought, “That sounds true to me!”

That’s the same model you’re using for claiming that the Word of God was preserved only in that which was written. Based on what? Because it sounds good to you I guess.

 

[Simka]

You are ok with not taking St. Paul literally when he said, “do not go beyond what is written”, yes?

If you take him literally, then you must acknowledge that you cannot accept anything that was written beyond, or after, the OT.

If you acknowledge that he didn’t literally mean “do not go beyond what is written” so that you can include the NT writings, then that leaves room, of course, for Sacred Tradition.

Paul was one example. He undoubtedly was referring in his comments to the OT. But this kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture.
Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2).
Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6).
John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19).

Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically.

 

[Simka]

Perhaps he included teachings that provided further explications on: <14 examples listed>…
which is why the Catholic Church retained these teachings, as she was able to access his words through Sacred Tradition.

Perhaps? Don’t you know? Does anyone know? Is anyone telling?
What was Paul’s contribution to “Sacred Tradition”?

All apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice of the church, and for “the wisdom that leads to salvation”, was preserved in sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is a reasonable and logical inference that God would preserve what He inspired. But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired”, except for what was recorded as Scripture.

Scripture is clear that, from the very beginning, God’s standard was that His revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations.
“Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26).
“Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7).
“Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book … ” (1 Sam. 10:25).
Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8).

Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets, right down to his contemporary. Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2).

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times. This testifies to the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

All of this makes a strong case for God’s intention from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in writing (Scripture), not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the Apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

 

[joe370]

Simka;10740734]But this is the entire crux of the argument over SS … the contention that the Scriptures contain all knowledge necessary for salvation. If all other necessary teaching is duplicated in Scripture, then Scripture is sufficient.

Nothing outside of sacred scripture, in terms of settling matters and resolving doctrinal differences, with Jesus’ church being the final arbiter. Right, based on your next statement?

Whoa! Stop right there! On the contrary, I insist that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church … the body of Christ, comprised of all believers.

Which church? There are literally hundreds of isolated, self-governing churches…Please don’t say that all churches that comprise all believers are guided by the Holy Spirit, because that would make truth relative, and we know that truth is not relative.

Well, yes, and no.

I hate answers like that…LOL…Just joking around…

Remember, as I have said before, SS does not insist that Scripture is to be read, and studied, and its teachings learned, in isolation.

Through prayer, and tradition, and the teaching of the church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may interpret Scripture. Can we say our every interpretation is infallible? Not in this life.

Who’s we…? Me (catholic) and you (anglican) together…Or the leadership of Jesus’ one church via the guidance of God, via apostolic succession? That is the only logical conclusion I could draw even as a former protestant. I use that word to make a distinction between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.

You are correct; they did. But I don’t think this bears directly on the SS principle that Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

So, sacred scripture + sacred tradition, in your opinion, tells us that scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation, and when controversies arise as well as unresolved differences, we can trust Jesus’ church to settle the matter for all believers, such as you and me, even though you and I belong to two different churches i.e. both churches are guided by God?

In other questions of less significance than our eternal salvation, we may not know the real answers until the day we see Jesus again, face to face. To quote your example, one believer may hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity, another may not. Whichever position you hold on this issue, your salvation is not directly affected.

And Jesus did not Guide His church to preserve and transmit this particular truth in your opinion? How do you know? The CC via sacred tradition + sacred scripture, as they were, and continue to be, guided by God, disagree with you, and you just said - “I insist that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church … the body of Christ, comprised of all believers…Through prayer, and tradition, and the teaching of the church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may interpret Scripture.”

 

[Simka]

Which church? There are literallly hundreds of isolated, self-governing churches…

I mean the one Church, the one Body of Christ, into which all believers are baptized by the one Spirit (I Cor. 12:13,27).

So, sacred scripture + sacred tradition, in your opinion, tells us that scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation?

Not exactly. When you have the Scriptures, I see no need or purpose for tradition (sacred or otherwise).

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simka
There is one argument I have seen repeated here, that SS is “self-refuting”, invalid because it relies on the Canon which was determined by the Church. This position has one major flaw. It is based on a false assumption. According to Vatican I and Vatican II, it was God that determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon.

Nope you are in error. The CC has NEVER once taught that is was NOT God. What you like so many believers of a false belief called Sola Scriptura realize that it is not a question of WHO;morever, HOW did God gives us the canon? Through his mystical body (Eph 1) the church and via the Holy Spirit through its bishops. A FACT OF LIFE!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simka
I maintain that the principle of sola Scriptura was accepted and operational within the Church from the very beginning of post-apostolic times. The Reformers in the 16th century did not invent it; they were simply responsible for attempting to restore this principle to the Church

I don’t think so! There is not a single shred of evidence, SS was mentioned orally or written in defense of SS as a principle-NO WHERE!

Tell me what year and what ecumenical council defined Sola Scriptura as an official principle of the church? Two thousand years later and not ONCE at any ecumenical council it was mentioned?

 

[Nicea325]

Simka:

Not at all. Sola Scriptura was a doctrine most prevalent in the early church (although it was not yet so named).

You contradict yourself. At one point who said it is a principle and here you claim it is a doctrine? Secondly, you have yet to provide on single primary document from the early church remotely supporting your position. Third, you have been taken for a ride,because no where is SS ever mentioned prior to the 16th century. It is evident you merely go off what some revisionist historian wants to say rather than admit that SS has no shred of hope that it existed in the early church. It is called being disingenuous.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically.

Paul was one example. He undoubtedly was referring in his comments to the OT.

Egg-zactly, Simka. Exactly. :yup::clapping:

So you have acknowledged that you are not following St. Paul’s own exhortation and going beyond the OT, yes?

But this kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture.
Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2).

And yet you have done so by adding to the Law of Moses, yes?

Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6).

Amen!

The Word of God is found in both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19).

So now you’re a Sola Book of Revelation advocate? Clearly, St. John is talking about, when he says “this book” his own writings in Revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

You contradict yourself. At one point who said it is a principle and here you claim it is a doctrine?

Yes, Simka. What gives? Could you please address this question posed to you way back, pages ago?

Is SS a hermeneutic principle, a doctrine or what? And which one is the one the Reformers proclaimed–teaching or principle?