Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

[thecolorsblend]

So, tell me, is the Thomist view of soteriology true, with the Molinists being semi-Pelagian (as the Thomists said around 1600)?

Or is the Molinist view true, with the Thomists being sem-Calvinist (as the Jesuits said around 1600)?

Or are they, perhaps, both wrong?

If you were arguing this issue in an American court of law, somebody would drop the hammer on you for leading the witness.

In any event, your post falls far outside the scope of what this thread is supposed to be about. Nevertheless, I will indulge this question for this one post.

To my knowledge, the Church does not forbid belief in either system. She does, however, discourage Catholics from labeling one side or the other heretics for believing in one system or the other or something else.

Jimmy Akin, a Catholic apologist of note, has discussed this matter on his blog so I hope you find his remarks insightful: Thomist Or Molinist Or Neither? – Jimmy Akin

 

[Radagast]

To my knowledge, the Church does not forbid belief in either system. She does, however, discourage Catholics from labeling one side or the other heretics for believing in one system or the other or something else

But this Thomist/Molinist debate is essentially the same argument as the Calvinist/Arminian debate, just with different words.

You seem to think that the Calvinist/Arminian gulf is so wide that, and I quote you, "an ignorant outsider might have a hard time understanding at first that they're actually adherents of the same religion."

How is the same thing not true for the Thomist/Molinist gulf?

To adapt your own words, "Indeed, how can the Holy Spirit be teaching Protestant Catholic organizations all truth as per St. Luke 16 when these same Protestants Catholics can't even agree across the board on any single point several important points of doctrine?"

 

[DamianWarS]

No, but it's not what Sola Scriptura is all about.

Every time some member goes off the subject (Sola Scriptura) we have to point it out, and I'm sorry if this seems impolite, but Sola Scriptura as a sufficient rule of faith is the topic.

It's not how many people have access to a Bible, how different readers who do have one come up with different interpretations, or whether there are other matters of religious importance which, however, are not matters of essential doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is much more straightforward and focused than most critics think.

My point is SS works on a theoretical level in the early church but not a practical level. The councils were really the things that stabilized the church and doctrines not affirmed in the councils were still being formulated, argued by scripture or tradition by the 1% but until the councils commented on it the doctrines were still wet cement, the nature of Jesus is a good example. The councils were dealing with a various challenges and affirm things not commented by scripture things like theotokos and iconography and even the Trinity, these things were fought out and bishops were quite aggressive with their perspectives and losers were banished and stripped of their rank and privilege labeled as heretics and enemies of the church. It seems if you had a point to say you better be committed to it but if you were caught on the wrong end of the argument you were in trouble.

The rules of all this changed with SS in the 16th century. Not because scripture was different but because scripture could be responsibly used as a tool to have greater accountability with the church in a greater role than it ever was. SS turned the bible in the most important authority and arguably kept the church in check, even those who reject SS. Today if the church puts out a position millions will instantly call you out if it's a false doctrine where 500 years ago that level of accountability was not possible. SS is an enviable product of the printing press and has allowed the uneducated and poor to call out the church. To me practically speaking SS only works in a post-printing press world.

 

[Radagast]

My point is SS works on a theoretical level in the early church but not a practical level. The councils were really the things that stabilized the church

The Reformers, while proclaiming Sola Scriptura, still held Church councils (with the Synod of Dordt being perhaps the most famous).

So if you think that Sola Scriptura means "no Church councils," you are radically misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura means.

Of course, 99% of those who criticise Sola Scriptura similarly misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means.

 

[DamianWarS]

Indeed, how can the Holy Spirit be teaching Protestant organizations all truth as per St. Luke 16 when these same Protestants can't even agree across the board on any single point of doctrine?

Every Christian can draw a straight line from themselves to Christ. The label someone calls themselves is arbitrary and the bible very clearly shows that historical claim or right to inheritance is meaningless. I'm not calling every nuanced interpretation correct but I am grouping your own in these. If Christ can turn the rocks into children of Abraham he can turn any believer into a steward of truth.

Your claim to the true church would be hotly debated by the Orthodox and they have very clear reasons why through an evolved church they could no longer commit to it which prompted their departure and it wasn't a rash choice as east and west have already been in disagreement for centuries. But the western empire collapsed and passed over to the eastern empire. The West calls this the dark ages trying to sweep under the rug that the east had the keys to church and no longer the West but in true west fashion they operate in a vacuum where everything outside doesn't matter.

The HS controls the ship, not the ship the HS. So when I hear a comment of "that's your private interpretation" why is it that argument does't hold with you? You must see how saying "because we are the true church" is not looking at this critically, anyone can make that claim heritage however is not good enough to prove it. Your claim needs to pass your own arguments first. I wonder what the Jews of the first century called the church? Did they also think only the Jews were the stewards of truth? We know how well that work out.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Reformers, while proclaiming Sola Scriptura, still held Church councils (with the Synod of Dordt being perhaps the most famous).

So if you think that Sola Scriptura means "no Church councils," you are radically misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura means.

Of course, 99% of those who criticise Sola Scriptura similarly misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means.

I don't mean that at all. I mean effectively the early church was "sola ecumenical councils". Which I know is a limited statement but I mean to stress the roll the councils had in forming doctrine.

 

[Radagast]

I don't mean that at all. I mean effectively the early church was "sola ecumenical councils". Which I know is a limited statement but I mean to stress the roll the councils had in forming doctrine.

I'm saying that Nicaea was just like Dordt; it didn't form doctrine, it allowed pastors to discuss which interpretation of Scripture was the right one.

You seem to be denying that the early Church had or used Scripture; that's patently wrong. Read the early Christians; they are constantly citing Scripture.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm saying that Nicaea was just like Dordt; it didn't form doctrine, it allowed pastors to discuss which interpretation of Scripture was the right one.

You seem to be denying that the early Church had or used Scripture; that's patently wrong. Read the early Christians; they are constantly citing Scripture.

Only the few had access to scripture and the few of the few at the councils, SS, or more specific, the printing press, is a great leveler of that model. Doctrines were wet cement in the early church and scripture wasn't the only thing used to establish them. The early church was as much oral as it was written. Councils established oral into written where Dordt had more of a SS role.

If polycarp was a student of John his words are John's. And if Ireanaeus a student of Polycarp, then his words are Polycarps and this is how oral tradition develops, scripture couldn't always practically be the guide. But those rules don't work in the 16th century.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Astute observation.

If anyone can finally pull the long promised and eagerly awaited rabbit out of his hat to prove that "Scripture is sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith", then I am sure the audience will expect an encore and ask him to show us that "Scripture is the only possible Rule of Faith".

But at this stage it looks like we won't need to worry about the encore. We're still listening to the rolling of the drums.

There is no salvation without Gods Word. Perhaps you did not consider these scriptures provided below that disagree with your claims in your post here.

Romans 10:17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are you saved through faith (faith comes by the Word of God); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

Romans 14:23 ...whatsoever is not of faith is sin

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Matthew 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

According to the scriptures no word = no faith and no faith = no salvation. Now how about you prove that scripture is not all sufficent?

.................

Yep seems like "ALL SCRIPTURE" seems pretty sufficient to me don't you think?

Hope this helps.

 

[Radagast]

Only the few had access to scripture

But the pastors certainly did. And many other people had Scripture memorised.

Councils established oral into written

Incorrect.

If polycarp was a student of John his words are John's.

Have you ever actually read Polycarp? He's constantly quoting Scripture: CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)

And if Ireanaeus a student of Polycarp, then his words are Polycarps and this is how oral tradition develops

Seriously?

Irenaeus wrote books. His books constantly refer to Scripture because, as he says, "the treasure hidden in the Scriptures is Christ."

 

[Tradidi]

We've just passed the 200 posts mark, the noise is increasing, but still no sign of anyone willing, let alone able to prove the claim in the OP.

I got so bored reading the blabber in this thread that I decided to listen to a real debate about the sufficiency of Sola Sriptura, this one between Tim Staples and James White. At least in that debate the blabber was only half of what it is here, i.e. when James White opens his mouth.

Just like Patrick Madrid and Gerry Matatics did, Tim Staples almost literally wipes the floor with James White and his pathetic arguments. Not only that, Tim Staples exposes the sheer dishonesty of this "great" Protestant Apologist, who misquotes the Church Fathers to try and make them say the opposite of what they were saying in the very next sentence. And he has been caught red handed doing that before. That one fact alone is enough to put me off the whole Protestant mindset. If that is the best that the church of Sola Scriptura can come up with, heaven help us!

Anyway, carry on, this thread has now devolved into an open duck season, so bring along your own topic and have a great day!

 

[Tradidi]

By the way, if anyone knows of a Christian forum where real debates happen, please let me know.

 

[DamianWarS]

But the pastors certainly did. And many other people had Scripture memorised.



Incorrect.



Have you ever actually read Polycarp? He's constantly quoting Scripture: CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)



Seriously?

Irenaeus wrote books. His books constantly refer to Scripture because, as he says, "the treasure hidden in the Scriptures is Christ."

I'm sure they knew scripture well and were highly informed by it, but they weren't governed by SS.

 

[Radagast]

We've just passed the 200 posts mark, the noise is increasing, but still no sign of anyone willing, let alone able to prove the claim in the OP.

Personally, I think it's up to you to disprove it.

One could never prove the Sufficiency of Scripture to a Catholic because, quite obviously, Scripture is not "sufficient" to derive the Immaculate Conception of Mary or other specifically Catholic dogmas (dogmas which, as a Reformed Protestant, I believe to be false).

 

[Radagast]

I'm sure they knew scripture well and were highly informed by it, but they weren't governed by SS.

That's a matter of opinion.

When I read the early Church fathers, the arguments are all "this is true because of Scripture."

The arguments are not "this is true because the Pope says so" (such arguments were not invented until much later) nor are they "this is true because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me last night" nor (prior to 325 AD) are they "this is true because a Church council said so."

 

[Dave L]

Are you right? How would anyone know for sure whether you are right?

Scripture says I'm right. If it thoroughly furnishes us, how can we need any more?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We've just passed the 200 posts mark, the noise is increasing, but still no sign of anyone willing, let alone able to prove the claim in the OP.

I got so bored reading the blabber in this thread that I decided to listen to a real debate about the sufficiency of Sola Sriptura, this one between Tim Staples and James White. At least in that debate the blabber was only half of what it is here, i.e. when James White opens his mouth.

Just like Patrick Madrid and Gerry Matatics did, Tim Staples almost literally wipes the floor with James White and his pathetic arguments. Not only that, Tim Staples exposes the sheer dishonesty of this "great" Protestant Apologist, who misquotes the Church Fathers to try and make them say the opposite of what they were saying in the very next sentence. And he has been caught red handed doing that before. That one fact alone is enough to put me off the whole Protestant mindset. If that is the best that the church of Sola Scriptura can come up with, heaven help us!

Anyway, carry on, this thread has now devolved into an open duck season, so bring along your own topic and have a great day!

Not really dear friend. Your OP claims have been proven false here...

There is no salvation without Gods Word. Perhaps you did not consider these scriptures provided below that disagree with your claims in your post here.

Romans 10:17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are you saved through faith (faith comes by the Word of God); and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

Romans 14:23 ...whatsoever is not of faith is sin

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Matthew 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

According to the scriptures no word = no faith and no faith = no salvation. Now how about you prove that scripture is not all sufficent?

.................

Yep seems like "ALL SCRIPTURE" seems pretty sufficient to me don't you think? You not believing the scriptures here does not make your claims in the OP true. In fact the scriptures already provided prove your OP not to be true. Ignoring God's Word does not make it disappear. It simply becomes our judge come judgement day according to the scriptures *John 12:47-48

Hope this helps.

 

[DamianWarS]

That's a matter of opinion.

When I read the early Church fathers, the arguments are all "this is true because of Scripture."

The arguments are not "this is true because the Pope says so" (such arguments were not invented until much later) nor are they "this is true because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me last night" nor (prior to 325 AD) are they "this is true because a Church council said so."

When christianity became the de facto religion and legalized demand for refined doctrine increased. Are you thinking this is where the church started to go off course from scripture?

 

[Radagast]

When christianity became the de facto religion and legalized demand for refined doctrine increased. Are you thinking this is where the church started to go off course from scripture?

Huh?

How does that response relate to what I said?

And why are you falsely putting words in my mouth?

 

[concretecamper]

Personally, I think it's up to you to disprove it.

1. I've read the Bible.
2. The Bible doesn't claim to be the Sole source of Christian faith.
3. The Bible doesnt claim to be the measuring stick by which a Christian should test doctrine.
4. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not Biblical.

Q.E.D.

It would be better to be intellectually honest and just say, "it's the way we treat the Bible". You'd get no argument, instead there is this need to try to twist scripture. Doesnt make any sense to me.