Against Sola Scriptura...

[truefiction1]

Could it be because there are so few Reformed left in the world in this century? The one true Church has always suffered, always been persecuted and she does not reside under one roof nor is she exclusive to any one denomination, she follows after Christ and she learns and grows and does the will of God wherever she may be.

Edited to add: Martyrdom is not THE hallmark of truth btw. It could probably be argued that more outside of Christianity have suffered and died than those inside. An example from this century would be the Holocaust. Other examples in history, as it has been described to me, the Muslims were nearly exterminated from earth. Again the Mormons were also persecuted terribly, and other groups. I hope this makes the point concerning martyrdom.

There is still one Church, even though her boundaries may be know only to God, and that one Church exists physically as a community practicing a Holy Tradition. That one Church does not rely upon Scripture alone for its Life in Christ. She did not rely upon Scripture alone in the beginning, nor ever, and never will.

 

[truefiction1]

Well, Sola Scriptura is not about being saved, so there is nothing that "must be acknowledged" with regard to that idea.

All of life is about being saved and about becoming by grace what God is by nature (which is our salvation). If Sola Scriptura is not about this, then it's not about anything of any real consequence.

 

[Afra]

The Church, the called out ones, the elect the ekklesia are the ones who uphold the Truth. They are not the makers of Truth but the speakers and communicators thereof.

I never stated that the Catholic Church is the maker of the truth.

Based on your post, you appear to believe that Sacred Tradition comprises things that members of the Catholic Church make up or create at various points in time. It is true that certain Catholics, in an overzealous attempt to defend the authority of the Church, sometimes speak in this manner. Perhaps that is where @Albion gets his often misguided and incorrect views of Sacred Tradition. But that is certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches. Tradition comes from Christ and the Apostles. It was given to the Church in apostolic times, and is handed down and better understood by the Church over time. This is all explained below.

Dei verbum

7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 2 Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)


But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[Afra]

How does one test "Church A" to see if they are truly the church of the living God? And as the pillar and ground of truth how do we test their claims as truth bearers?

This is how we should test it:

First, we should break with the Church that Jesus Christ personally founded while he walked the face of the Earth. Then, we should subjectively decide for ourselves which books belong in the Bible, and which do not, ignore most of Christian history, and remove several books from the Bible without any authority to do so. Then we should subjectively decide for ourselves how the books that we have chosen should be interpreted. Then we should consider what Church A teaches. If Church A agrees with our own subjective interpretation of the books that we have chosen, then we know that it is the church of the living God. If Church A disagrees with our own subjective interpretation of the books that we have chosen, then we know that it is not the church of the living God. Then, when someone else does the same and comes to an entirely different conclusion concerning Church A, we should go to an internet forum and have a debate over it. We will know whether Church A is the true church of the living God based on the winner of the debate.

 

[GingerBeer]

Or the OP is actually about hearing arguments against instead of presenting his paper here which is not finished.

The question I asked is a first and fundamental objection to sola scriptura. It is "If The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice then show me the passages from scripture that teach sola scriptura as you've defined it and explain how the passages provide 'good and necessary consequence' to establish the doctrine?" If that question cannot be answered with convincing scripture and sound reasoning then the premise of sola scriptura, as defined in the original post, is faulty and the doctrine is not biblical.

 

[mark kennedy]

The question I asked is a first and fundamental objection to sola scriptura. It is "If The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice then show me the passages from scripture that teach sola scriptura as you've defined it and explain how the passages provide 'good and necessary consequence' to establish the doctrine?" If that question cannot be answered with convincing scripture and sound reasoning then the premise of sola scriptura, as defined in the original post, is faulty and the doctrine is not biblical.

We can start with this:

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. (1 Cor. 14:36-38)​

 

[GingerBeer]

We can start with this:

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. (1 Cor. 14:36-38)​

That passage says nothing whatever about scripture. "God's word" is identified as the teaching of the apostles spoken to the people in Corinth. Paul did not deliver a completed bible to the Jews in Corinth who later became Christians nor did he give a completed bible to the gentiles in Corinth who later became Christians. The words that Paul spoke to the Jews and the Gentiles in Corinth are briefly mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles - which was written after Paul's visit to Corinth - and they are referred to as the gospel. The good news about Jesus Christ. So the passage you've chosen does nothing to establish "sola scriptura" as it is defined in the original post - specifically "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"

 

[Afra]

Perfect in what way?

Perfect in this way:

Definition of PERFECT

a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless : a perfect diamond

For the NT, when you have over 25,000 manuscripts in Greek, Syriac, Latin and a few other languages,

Yes, and 24,900 of those manuscripts were created more than a 1000 years after the originals were written.

it is not hard to figure out.

Yes, it is. That is why there are hundreds of of scholars who devote decades of their lives studying the texts, and there is still not complete consensus among them concerning the original texts.

That is if you are trying to build the Bible from scratch as if no one in the history of Christianity has done so in past. We have those to consider as well.

Please consider them all you like.

The Eastern Orthodox had no break in Scriptures as they have the very same Greek NT throughout history. Just ask them.

The Internet says otherwise:

Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible - Wikipedia

The Old Testament (in progress) is based on the Greek text of the Old Testament (Septuagint / LXX) with all major Masoretic and Dead Sea Scroll variants documented in the footnotes. For reasons documented in the comprehensive introductory section, the EOB also provides the Hebrew / Masoretic versions (WEB) of Job, Jeremiah and Esther.

The New Testament (completed and available) is based on the official ecclesiastical text published in 1904 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (again documenting all significant variants to the Critical Text, Majority Text and Textus Receptus). It also provides extensive footnotes and Appendices dealing with significant verses such as Matthew 16:18; John 1:1,18; John 15:26. The Patriarchal Text was selected on Mount Athos from among a large number of reliable ecclesiastical manuscripts and appears to be identical or similar to Minuscule 1495 (KR subgroup).

Because it is controlled and updated within the Orthodox community, it is independent from non-Orthodox commercial publishers and can benefit from constant input from Eastern Orthodox scholars and theologians. Currently there is a popular online bookstore selling a revised version EOB New Testament with a 2013 copyright date.

New Testament Patriarchal Text (ANTONIADIS TEXT) 1904 - Logos Bible Software

The Patriarchal Greek New Testament (PATr) was published by the Patriarchal Press of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on February 22, 1904. It was published as: The New Testament, Approved by the Great Church of Christ, with the intention of being the most authoritative text of the Greek New Testament available. As more critical or eclectic editions of the NT became the norm by the nineteenth century (replacing the Byzantine Text), the Patriarchate of Constantinople assembled a committee of scholars for the purposes of studying various manuscripts of the NT at both Constantinople and Mount Athos. Their goal was to provide “the best reconstruction of the most ancient text of ecclesiastical tradition and, more specifically, of the Church of Constantinople” (from the preface to the 1904 text). The manuscripts they selected were from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries, and were largely from lectionaries (that is, from texts that were actually used in the worship of the Church). After the Patriarchal Greek New Testament’s initial publication in 1904, Professor Vasileios Antoniades of the Theological School of Chalki made some minor corrections to the text in 1912.

You are basically ignoring historical custodianship.

No, you are denying historical facts in order to justify a false doctrine (Sola Scriptura).

That is an agnostic, atheist, Jewish and Muslim assertion and not a historic Christian held belief.

There is no historic Christian held belief that the original texts of Sacred Scripture have been perfectly copied throughout the centuries.

What the skeptics want to do is ignore our long church history of copyists and scribes preserving the Word.

What the skeptics want to do is irrelevant to the discussion. You are simply going down the route of ad-hominem.

For example, the entire Bible was translated into Latin by St Jerome in the 4th Century AD from the on hand manuscripts then, both Greek and Hebrew.

I was already aware of that, but thank you for the clarification.

When you have just one or two love letters from a couple it is hard to confirm if the two love letters belong together. When you have over 25,000, well it is quite convincing.

The number of copies is relevant. They are not proof because you do not have an original text to compare the 25,000 copies to. Let's just do a simple thought experiment:

An original text written in the year 50AD: "Afra is a very good person".
Copy A written in the year 51AD: "Afra is a very bad person".
Copy B written in the year 52AD: "Afra is a very bad person".
Copy C written in the year 53AD: "Afra is a very bad person."
Copy 25,000 written in the year 2018: "Afra is a very bad person."

You have 100% agreement among copies A, B, C, and copy 25,000. Yet none of the copies is an accurate copy of the original.

Do you see how that works? Your case is not provable. And you do not even have 100% agreement among the Bible manuscripts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls come in at a more than 90% match to the 10th century AD Masoretic text. The DSS has manuscripts from every OT book except Esther

You are willing to base your entire faith on something that is only 90% accurate? Our Lord said that you shall know the truth. I do not recall him saying anything about you shall know 90% of the truth.

Depending on the textual scholar there is a 95%-99% recovery rate for the entire NT Scriptures:

Please see my comments above. The only thing that differs is the number.

Let's say that the scholars concluded that there is a 10% recovery rate. Would you be willing to base your entire faith on that? Would Sola Scriptura be justifiable if the recovery rate were 10%? No, of course not, and even you would agree to that. The only thing that is different is the number, but the result in any case is that you are basing your faith on copies that are not 100% accurate. You are basing your faith on something that is imperfect.

As opined on and sourced above, you make a mountain out of a molehill.

No, I am quite confident that "our long history" (that of the Catholic Church, not yours) has resulted in modern translations that are very reliable and close to the original texts. But "our long history", i.e., the dedication of the Catholic monks who copied the text for centuries, is not enough to justify Sola Scriptura. And this is why Sola Scriptura is not found in "our long history" (no matter how much you proof-text the ECF in vain).

Not omit but footnote the variants.

No, entire verses have been removed from some of the more recent translations. Google is your friend. Here is a list of some of them:

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

Which would you like to offer which changes Christian doctrine or throws it into question?

You can start with these:
2 Maccabees 12: 38-46
Mark 16:16
John 5:7-8

Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. Which specific manuscripts are the inspired word of God, and perfectly match the original writings?

Frankly I have done extensive research and have come across the usual "liberal Christian" skepticism I would expect from such churches which deny the infallibility of God's inspired written words; have seen such from agnostic, atheist, Jewish apologists and Muslims. However, never encountered a Roman Catholic siding with such.

Sacred Scripture is most certainly the inspired word of God. What is not inspired are the numerous copies and translations of Sacred Scripture, which vary and disagree with each other. If the copies and translations were inspired, at the very least they would all agree.

Unless of course your point was we cannot know God's inspired words without a magisterium telling it is so.

My point is that Sola Scriptura is not justifiable because we do not have perfect copies of the original inspired texts. You are basing your rule of faith on imperfect copies and imperfect translations of imperfect copies, of the original inspired texts.

Because your own catechism states the Sacred Scriptures are the infallible Word of God.

Yes, again Sacred Scripture is the infallible word of God. But the Catholic Church does not claim that Sacred Scripture has been infallibly copied or translated. If that were the case, there would have been no need for a revision of the Vulgate roughly 30 years ago.

 

[mark kennedy]

That passage says nothing whatever about scripture. "God's word" is identified as the teaching of the apostles spoken to the people in Corinth. Paul did not deliver a completed bible to the Jews in Corinth who later became Christians nor did he give a completed bible to the gentiles in Corinth who later became Christians. The words that Paul spoke to the Jews and the Gentiles in Corinth are briefly mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles - which was written after Paul's visit to Corinth - and they are referred to as the gospel. The good news about Jesus Christ. So the passage you've chosen does nothing to establish "sola scriptura" as it is defined in the original post - specifically "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice"

That's called rhetoric, I'm not chasing it down a rabbit hole. Paul makes it clear what he is saying is the word of God as did Moses, the prophets and the Apostolic witness. Now if you going to make it up as you go along then so be it, I know a fallacy when I see one. If you want to talk about the Scriptures as the word of God, do yourself a favor, get a standard.

 

[GingerBeer]

That's called rhetoric, I'm not chasing it down a rabbit hole. Paul makes it clear what he is saying is the word of God as did Moses, the prophets and the Apostolic witness. Now if you going to make it up as you go along then so be it, I know a fallacy when I see one. If you want to talk about the Scriptures as the word of God, do yourself a favor, get a standard.

With the sloppy hermeneutic evident in your post any doctrine could be "proved" but that does not make the passage teach what you claim. The fact is that the passage says nothing whatever to support the definition from the original post. The passage does not teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice".

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Unfortunately if it were as simple as that, there would be no disagreements and denominations.

The principle is sound, the practice less so.

The number of denominations today, owes as much to separation of Church and state than anything. Want fewer denominations? Do it in Lord of the Rings fashion.

 

[mark kennedy]

With the sloppy hermeneutic evident in your post any doctrine could be "proved" but that does not make the passage teach what you claim. The fact is that the passage says nothing whatever to support the definition from the original post. The passage does not teach that "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice".

More of the same tired rhetoric, am I supposed to jump through your flaming hoops now. Honest questions I don't mind but this kind of carrot on a stick doesn't interest me much. So if you have something substantive to say let's hear it, otherwise, have fun with that.

 

[mark kennedy]

The number of denominations today, owes as much to separation of Church and state than anything. Want fewer denominations? Do it in Lord of the Rings fashion.

If there is one ring to rule them all, Jesus wears it.

 

[GingerBeer]

More of the same tired rhetoric, am I supposed to jump through your flaming hoops now. Honest questions I don't mind but this kind of carrot on a stick doesn't interest me much. So if you have something substantive to say let's hear it, otherwise, have fun with that.

All I ask for is bible passages that really do teach what the original post defines as sola scriptura. Just passages that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" If you cannot supply such passages then clear the field and let somebody else try. Your post's reference to "rhetoric" is just empty bluster that signifies no more than that you do not have any passages that make the case for the definition.

 

[mark kennedy]

All I ask for is bible passages that really do teach what the original post defines as sola scriptura. Just passages that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" If you cannot supply such passages then clear the field and let somebody else try. Your post's reference to "rhetoric" is just empty bluster that signifies no more than that you do not have any passages that make the case for the definition.

I have and you ignored them, but it's not that big of a deal. You don't deal with Scripture and that's to be expected. Keep running that tired rhetoric in circles and I will just simply watch and laugh.

 

[GingerBeer]

I have and you ignored them, but it's not that big of a deal. You don't deal with Scripture and that's to be expected. Keep running that tired rhetoric in circles and I will just simply watch and laugh.

I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" didn't you just try one passage from 1Corinthians? Or was that another person? No, it was you wans't it. In the post show below.

We can start with this:

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored. (1 Cor. 14:36-38)​

But that passage says nothing whatever about the bible and nothing whatever about written revelation included in scripture. The passage ought to be read in its context. Here, take a look

1Corinthians 14:29 As for the prophets, let two or three speak, with the others commenting on what has been said. 30 If a revelation comes to one of those sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 Even all of you could prophesy, one by one, for the instruction and encouragement of all. 32 The spirits, speaking through prophets, are submitted to prophets, 33 because God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. 34 (Let women be silent in the assemblies, as in all the churches of the saints. They are not allowed to speak. Let them be submissive, as the law commands. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them consult their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in Church.) 36 Did the word of God, perhaps, come from you? Or did it come only to you? 37 Anyone among you who claims to be a prophet or a spiritual person, should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he does not recognise that, God will not recognise him. 39 So, my friends, set your hearts on the gift of prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 However, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.​

The words being discussed are the words of Prophets in Corinth and the people who interpret messages given in tongues but these words are not in the scriptures, Paul does not include them in quotes in his letter. Obviously the passage is not about the bible which is a book - written words rather than spoken words. But you are welcome to search the scriptures to find a passage or many passages that teach what the definition in the original post claims to be a definition of sola scriptura.

 

[Cis.jd]

What is your understanding of Sola Scriptura, as what is posited above is not.

My understanding that it is all based on points of view but made to look like it's actual gospel truth.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have seen no passages from you that teach "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" didn't you just try one passage from 1Corinthians? Or was that another person?

So you've seen at least one, and there are others, you will dismiss the exact same why. You have no clue about Apostolic authority, that much is obvious. So how do we get into the prophetic witness when you are determined to argue this into ever shrinking circles?

 

[akaDaScribe]

I'm going to be a bit picky here, but I'm only doing it so you can tighten up your statement.

The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Isn't Jesus the Word of God?

By the Word of God do you mean God spoke those words?

The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Do you mean that the Bible has no inconsistencies?

Do you mean everything in the Bible is always applicable?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Let me ask you a question. Where exactly does holy scripture teach that The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." - Irenaeus