Against Sola Scriptura...

[Tree of Life]

You must mean "Protestant consensus" or more accurately "Presbyterian consensus" since your quote is from chapter one of the Westminster Confession of faith but even if that is what you mean your assertion is not correct. There is very likely no consensus among Protestant Christians about exactly what "sola scriptura" is.

Even though there is pretty strong consensus, this is immaterial. The definition I’m working with is made clear in the OP. That’s the only definition I’m interested in defending.

 

[redleghunter]

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth because She is built upon the One foundation -- Christ -- and upon the apostolic confession of faith, which has been upheld since the beginning by the power of the Holy Spirit breathing in the Life of the Church. No individual can build something other than that which has already been built from the beginning. One can only build upon that foundation from within the building that already rests upon that foundation, except perhaps in a mystical way known only by God.

But there is a visible Church organism whose existence is from the beginning and whose Faith is True to the Word and the Spirit of God, and so to God the Father.

Where we find the apostolic confession of faith should be in Sacred Scriptures?

If you mean the rule of faith Irenaeus and Tertullian proclaimed I think we are in agreement.

 

[redleghunter]

Assuming for the sake of the argument that all this is true, the Bible is what it is--and is available to all men, quite independent of anyones interpretation.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura is what it purports to be, even if individual readers are not receptive or responsive. But if that is so, the same applies to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings and what they base them on, too.

Indeed:

1 Corinthians 2: NKJV
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

Solomon makes it pretty clear that God cannot be contained.

1 Kings 8:27 “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!​

Indeed!

Welcome to the jungle Steve. Good to see you here.

 

[truefiction1]

Then we should be in agreement we should find what is Holy Tradition in the Sacred Scriptures?

To know and to Love God by the Holy Spirit that is in us is largely what we know Holy Tradition to be, and all of our ancient expressions of this Life in Communion with God both flow out of this Holy Tradition, or Holy Life, and point to that blessed Holy Life from which the expressions flow. Our expressions take the form of dogma, rites of worship, artistic expression, prayer and fasting, and any other elements of Christian Life not mentioned here, including all good works done for Christ's sake. The Apostle Paul insisted that we hold fast to the Tradition of the Apostles, and so we do, by the Spirit of God.

 

[GingerBeer]

Even though there is pretty strong consensus, this is immaterial. The definition I’m working with is made clear in the OP. That’s the only definition I’m interested in defending.

The only definition you are interested in defending is "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" so show me the passages in scripture that teach that doctrine. Be sure to show passages that assert (1) that the bible alone (the 66 book version of the bible that the Westminster Confession of Faith defines as scripture) is the word of God and (2) that the 66 book bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith. If you cannot do that then the doctrine that you defined is unbiblical and you've failed at the first challenge. Make sure that you prove your case. Make sure that you prove the 66 book bible that you rely upon is defined in scripture and that is it taught to be the only infallible rule of faith and practise.

 

[redleghunter]

There is only one visible Church organism that can pass the historical Holy Tradition test, with only one other Who even comes close.

If I was an interpreting type I would take the above to mean Eastern Orthodoxy is the One True Church.

Wanted to let you know there is another Church near the Tiber which claims the same.

 

[Tree of Life]

The only definition you are interested in defending is "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" so show me the passages in scripture that teach that doctrine. Be sure to show passages that assert (1) that the bible alone (the 66 book version of the bible that the Westminster Confession of Faith defines as scripture) is the word of God and (2) that the 66 book bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith. If you cannot do that then the doctrine that you defined is unbiblical and you've failed at the first challenge. Make sure that you prove your case. Make sure that you prove the 66 book bible that you rely upon is defined in scripture and that is it taught to be the only infallible rule of faith and practise.

You seem to be suggesting that we do not know what Scripture is without outside attestation. Is this correct?

The Reformed response has always been to say that the Scriptures, just like any ultimate standard, is and can only be self attesting.

 

[redleghunter]

To say it is one thing. To be able to substantiate what is said is quite another. There is only One Church Who can substantiate this claim, with only one close runner-up in the Church of the Orientals. All others have come to proclaim false doctrines or reject True doctrines, which causes them to be in open opposition to a never-changing Holy Tradition.

Oh I thought you meant the Roman See was the close second.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm willing to discuss Sola Scriptura. However, it must be acknowledged that, historically and Traditionally, salvation was a thing that a person received by means of entry into the Life of the Church. Thus, salvation is not due to anything "alone". You are saved as a member of the Community of God. One is not saved by reading Scripture "alone". This very Truth (which is Biblical as well) stands firmly against the lone reader of Scripture salvation concept, so prevalent in the thinking of the reformation movement. The concept does not create Community. It creates endless breaking from communities, as evidenced by what actually takes place historically and as we converse right now.

Acts 2, 3 and onward confirms souls who heard the Gospel and believed were baptized and added to the church. I don't think you would get any opposition from Reformed and Evangelicals on such.

 

[redleghunter]

More Oriental Orthodox have suffered and died for Christ in this century alone, than Reformed and Tradition for Scripture in all the centuries since Christ. So we won't be in agreement any time soon, I'm afraid.

Most Chinese Christians adhere to a Reformed theology. And Dispensational eschatology. They have suffered much.

 

[Cis.jd]

Where we find the apostolic confession of faith should be in Sacred Scriptures?

Who told you that Matt-Rev is the true canon... is the true canon named/stated in sacred scriptures?

 

[Tree of Life]

Who told you that Matt-Rev is the true canon... is the true canon named/stated in sacred scriptures?

The Bible evidences itself to be the Word of God and the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that the Bible is the Word of God. Only God has the right to define what it and what is not his Word.

 

[redleghunter]

And why should it? The interpretation is in the teachings that she's possessed since the beginning. Want to understand John chap 6? Read the catechism on the Eucharist. Baptismal regeneration? Read the catechism on justification.

The catechism amounts to eisegesis and circular arguments.

The catechism will cite Scriptures to support a tradition or doctrine then say it was always like this. Then claim the magisterium is infallible because the select verses from Sacred Scriptures say so. Then have Catholics nuke the infallible claim by saying the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to know Truth, yet that is where the Magisterium says it comes from. Then claim the Sacred Scriptures are subservient to the magisterium even though they get their authority from said source.

Will at least one Roman Catholic admit they see Sacred Scriptures as a subset and servant to Holy Tradition? Because that is what most Roman Catholics are arguing on this thread.

Can I get one Roman Catholic to admit clearly they don't believe we can determine God's Truth without a magisterium?

 

[redleghunter]

If no one said it before. The bible doesn't say how we are to understand the word. So we need help from outside to interpret the bible, knowledge of the early church and traditions, and of course holy Spirit. An example would be: Jesus never says he is God. Even so through tradition and early teachings we know he is.

Jesus indeed claimed to be God.

 

[redleghunter]

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

The principle is sound, the practice less so.

Indeed. However how many disagreements are on the clear teachings in Holy Scriptures as opposed to the traditions of man who apply eisegesis to peddle their traditions?

 

[Cis.jd]

The Bible evidences itself to be the Word of God and the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that the Bible is the Word of God. Only God has the right to define what it and what is not his Word.

But isn't this the same argument that JW's and mormons use? They all claim that God spoke to them after reading the "truth" in scriptures...
Now since the scriptures do not state that Matt-Rev is the closed canon - the only true inspired word in the NT, why do you believe these books over the likes of Acts of Pilot, Revelation of Peter.. or why can't we add new/updated books and call them gospels?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Or as in the words of Cardinal Newman realize later.

• Newman: "in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council​

Which means the Roman Catholic Church can even declare something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), thensubsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of
previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59​

 

[redleghunter]

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 E

A false premise. We should test doctrinal claims using the very Truth which Christ and His apostles left us:

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 Against Heesies Book III.1) ​

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[redleghunter]

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"

Good point. Where do you find the good news about Jesus?