Against Sola Scriptura...

[redleghunter]

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

Source?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hmmm. Luther died in 1546. Galileo published astronomical works between 1610 and 1632. I don't think Luther was talking about Galileo.



Calvin died in 1564. Same problem. I don't think Calvin was talking about Galileo.

He was no doubt speaking of Copernicus, but the issue is exactly the same. History has shown how they were wrong to oppose the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But they did it on the basis of interpreting scripture as a guide to how to accept science. And they were in error. Now how do you propose that, today, we avoid making that error?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What's that got to do with sola scriptura? It ought to be obvious that a room full of people who say that they believe the bible will produce a room full of different opinions about what this and that passage means. Not even religious groups as uniform as Jehovah's witnesses have absolute unity of doctrine. It is odd to expect any group, much less one with over a billion people in it, to have identical views on absolutely everything. Even the first missionaries and apostles in the first century had differences of opinion. Have you considered what is written in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's letter to the Galatians?

What do you suggest as a means to avoid error in interpreting scripture? I suggest that allowing reality to show us when an interpretation is amiss is a good idea. But doesn't that mean we have another guide to truth besides scripture . . . that is, reality?

 

[Afra]

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​

Yeah, yeah. The Catholic doctrines that are universally attested to in the ECF you reject as unsupported, so you cannot expect me to take these objections very seriously. Besides, the bodily Assumption of Mary is taught in Sacred Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

The catechism amounts to eisegesis and circular arguments.

Yes, it's interesting that everyone who disagrees with us is an eisegete.

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?

I can't imagine a Catholic thinking otherwise, at least in terms of being able to arrive at the fullest and most accurate meaning of the gospel. Scripture and Tradition are said to flow from the same source, from the revelation Christ gave at the beginning. They support and compliment each other, and, yes, God established a Church that would understand and interpret and teach from them, a Church that was born with them so to speak. That's really about all there is to it. Otherwise we have people who actually think they can just pick up the bible 1500 years later and correctly understand it without the benefit of the Church that produced and assembled and lived with it. In truth, a totally objective person picking up the bible for the first time, without any Church background and testimony to inform him, would read the bible, scratch his head, put it down and then proceed to clean the garage or something without giving it another thought.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

First, Luther was dead before Galileo was even born. Second, Calvin died the same year Galileo was born.

Gallileo did not stop the protestant opposition to the facts about the solar system.

 

[Afra]

Yes, it's interesting that everyone who disagrees with us is an eisegete.

Either that or "if you do not agree with my interpretation it is clear that you have never studied the Bible."

Some folks here have huge egos. They cannot even fathom the possibility that their own view could be wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation since all we know of original creation is that it was, 'in the beginning'. Creation week is another matter entirely, the point of the Genesis account is that God is creator of life.

Others interpret the Bible differently, as you know. How do we guard against erroneous interpretations?

 

[fhansen]

Which includes the following in which one Roman Catholic poster here denied earlier:

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture

​

The Catechism, like Scripture, shouldn't be read in isolated portions, but in its whole context. Better to read the entire thing, in fact, as I have. Anyway the Church understands the place and role of Scripture, Tradition, and the need to understand it in light of historical understanding:

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

It's kind of like Philip and the Eunuch. Philip, a member of that body of believers originally discipled by Christ, understood Scripture (the OT) as it pertained to and spoke of Christ, while Philip, on his own, could not.

 

[GingerBeer]

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.

I am not only appearing to say that you need to discover the canon defined in some passage or set of passages - not a vague reference to psalms, prophets, and law but detailed explicit designation of each book that is to be included in scripture - and then you need to find passages that teach that the 66 books and only those book are the "only infallible rule of faith and practice" and if you cannot manage that then you have failed to prove sola scriptura from the scriptures as you defined it. You're welcome to believe the doctrine that you defined but you will be believing a tradition invented by men and your academic paper will need to state clearly and honestly that sola scriptura is a tradition of men.

 

[GingerBeer]

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

Oh, that's a whole different topic isn't it. How about you start a thread about that topic and let this one be about the question asked in the original post of this thread? That is what sticking to the topic is about. It can be enlightening to stick to the topic and see how your arguments stack up when you do.

 

[GingerBeer]

What do you suggest as a means to avoid error in interpreting scripture? I suggest that allowing reality to show us when an interpretation is amiss is a good idea. But doesn't that mean we have another guide to truth besides scripture . . . that is, reality?

I suggest sticking to the topic of this thread as a means of stopping this thread from meandering all over the place and failing to address the question raised in the original post. One challenge has been raised against the definition given in the original post - The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice - the challenge is to find the doctrine laid out in the definition in a passage or a set of passages in scripture or to find passages that combine to teach by 'good and necessary consequence' the doctrine of the definition from the original post. Everything else is a distraction.

 

[redleghunter]

Please consider them all you like

I have. I mentioned already the evidence of the Greek NT with no break and the Latin Vulgate.

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.

A false generalization as I pointed out the various variants were misspelled words and word order. The scholars rightly do not toss these out based on copying errors.

And as already pointed out we have thousands of copies to compare to ensure accuracy in transmission.

The Internet says otherwise

You quoted from the English translation. I specifically stated their has been no break in the Greek NT. There has not.

You assume, for some reason, the NT Scriptures were lost along the way and not until Hort and Nestle-Aland we could not determine what the Bible really contained. This is false as we do have the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century which incorporated the earliest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Which was extensively used along with the Greek patriarchal Byzantine text to compare with the Critical text. A most resounding result confirming the accuracy of the Scriptures. According to textual critics.

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

You are making an untenable argument. Textual criticism actually confirms the reliability of the Bibles we hold today.
Or do you have evidences of textual critics who do not have confidence in the accuracy of vast amounts of manuscripts accurately communicating the autographs?

I have not seen any NT scholars argue what you are arguing. I pointed out in my previous post:

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

What about Variances in the Early Texts?

As we know it today, there are around 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. There are literally hundreds of thousands of variants where there is not uniformity of wording. On average, for every word in the Greek New Testament, there are almost three variants. The large number is due to the large number of manuscripts. Are these differences capable in changing the meaning of the intent of the original authors? No. An overwhelming majority of alterations are accidental and trivial.

Textual differences are typically divided into four categories.

· Spelling and Nonsense Errors. This is by far the largest of the categories and the majority of these are spelling differences that have no impact on the meaning of the text. For example, in the Greek, John is spelled two different ways. The same person is in view; but the difference is in whether the scribe decided to spell John using two “n’s” or one. Another common difference found in Greek manuscripts is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a or an. These variances are so insignificant that most textual critics ignore them. Scribes who were tired or inattentive often created “nonsense errors.” For example, Codex Washingtonianus contains an error where a scribe wrote the word and instead of the word Lord. In the Greek, the two words are very similar (kai and kurios) and the mistake probably happened due to mental fatigue. In the overall context, the usage of the word and does not change the meaning of the text.

· Minor changes and alterations that do not affect translation. This category consists of variations in the usage of a definite article with proper names. Sometimes Greek uses the definite article with proper names while English does not. For example, in Luke 2.16, some manuscripts identify Mary and Joseph as the Mary and the Joseph instead of just Mary and Joseph. In other manuscripts, the article was not used. Also, word-order differences account for many of the discrepancies. An example of this can be seen in a sentence such as “Jesus loves John.” “In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least sixteen different ways without affecting the basic sense” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012). Word order changes are frequent in the manuscripts, yet these do not affect the basic meaning of what is being said.

· Meaningful changes that are not “Viable.” One example is found in 1 Thessalonians 2.9. A late medieval manuscript (from the 13th century) uses the phrase “the gospel of Christ.” This is a meaningful change, but not viable because almost all of the other manuscripts use the term “the gospel of God.” Other examples are seen throughout the gospels as scribes often tried to harmonize the wording between the gospel accounts. When they did so, they “tended to add material to one Gospel rather than take away material from another” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006).

· Meaningful and “Viable” Variants. This represents about 1 percent of all textual variants. In these cases, the difference in the manuscripts can affect the understanding of a passage. Daniel Wallace identifies three significant examples:

o Romans 5.1 – Some manuscripts read we have peace while others say let us have peace. In the original language, the difference in the word is found in one letter. “If we have peace is authentic, Paul is speaking about believer’s status with God; if let us have peace is authentic, the apostle is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound,[3]” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012).

o Mark 16.9-10 and John 7.53-8.11 are omitted in the earliest manuscripts and do not fit well with the style of writing of the authors. Even if one were to take away these passages, no essential matters of doctrine are changed.

Which you did not address.

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

No one made that claim. However they have been transmitted faithfully. In addition, we have such a vast sample we know what they say. No other documents from antiquity comes close to the accuracy and reliability of the NT manuscripts.

Asking for perfection in every manuscript shows me you don't fathom the depths of textual criticism. No NT scholar would agree with you. Agnostic and atheists there are a few for obvious reasons.

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

Skeptics are relevant as you are arguing the non Christian positions on textual perfection.

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

If so why argue the point of non Christian skeptics who are usually not NT scholars?

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.

Textual critics don't even argue for having the original autographs. The entire endeavor of textual criticism is to compare the various, and in this case abundant, manuscripts to determine variants. I pointed out already no textual critic makes the argument the Bible we have today is unreliable.

Perhaps you should explore the actual definition of inerrancy and infallible.

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.

Absolutely when the 10 percent is due to a spelling error or differing sentence structure. Or in the case of the DSS a different dialect. There were some significant differences in 2nd century BC Hebrew penmanship and dialect to the 2nd century AD Hebrew. However, we have scholars who can determine these differences and then compare to the Greek Septuagint. The result? Nothing in the text changed what is being communicated by God.

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.

Yes I am 100% confident what the Holy Spirit inspired in the autographs is 100% communicated in the vast amounts of manuscripts we had in 4th AD Vulgate and in the manuscripts today. I don't base this on textual criticism. I base this on God's Divine purpose that His words will never return to Him empty. I can read the Bible and see God's Divine attributes and inspiration. The scholarship just confirms what is already evident (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

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).

Well your Catholic NABRE NT is based on the Protestant Nestle-Aland critical text (NU).:
scripture

God Bless those Monks. We would know nothing of ancient secular history as well without them. There would have been no Reformation without their dedication in preserving the written Word.

Sola Scriptura was indeed employed by the early fathers and early councils. How do you think they argued their points?

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:

Just looked at the NIV. Mark 16 in total is there with a footnote and brackets. Yet even without Mark 16:9-20 what Christian doctrine is changed?

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

Considering the Maccabees has no prophet or thus saith the Lord, I leave that one.

Already addressed Mark 16 above.

Did you mean 1 John 5:7-8?

If so, it only appears in the text of four late medieval manuscripts in Latin. 25,000 vs 4. Not hard to pick out.

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

When has a perfect match of every manuscript or even one been a requirement for textual criticism? We would actually need the autographs to meet your standard. Not even your own church makes such a demand.

The vast amounts of manuscripts testify that what we have today is a faithful and accurate witness.

Where is the perfect teachings recorded by the apostles for Sola Ecclesia? That isn't even written anywhere.

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.

Well next time you pick up the NABRE thank the Protestants Nestle-Aland......they gave you your Bible.

You doubt the Bibles today do not contain the inspired words of God? If so you are at odds with your own catechism and the confessional is open early on Saturday.

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.

Your argument is the Scriptures are unreliable and therefore Sola Scriptura is not feasible. To get to this argument you even employed an erroneous understanding of textual criticism and unorthodox historic position. Add to that that humans cannot identify the Divine attributes of God's words and inspiration. Sure glad the folks at Pentecost did not believe this.

I would refer you to your own catechism for correction.

Or is your point we cannot know Truth without an infallible magisterium telling us? Which is Sola Ecclesia. And where exactly do we go to confirm said magisterium is truly infallible other than saying so?

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.

Even the Vulgate revision had nothing to do with doctrine but the same insignificant variances mentioned twice in blue above quoted.

You can't say now the Sacred Scriptures are infallible after making the argument we need the autographs to be sure of perfect transmission. Either the Scriptures are infallible or they are not. You either make the argument from your own Church catechism which affirms the OP statement or you argue from the atheist untenable argument. You can't have both.

As your own catechism affirms Sacred Scriptures are directly from God, infallible and inspired that means the OP @Tree of Life has a valid argument for Sola Scriptua even from a Catholic perspective.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Provable? Textual criticism is not based on subjective proof but objective evidence. There's a huge difference.

Your experiment above is not an example of the variants found in the manuscripts. Your example has three statements which agree and one that does not. It amounts to someone promoting deception as the three manuscript copies contradict the unknown autograph.

First how would one know if they did not have the original to compare? Answer: the manuscript scribes all decided to deceive the reader. And did so from three different geographical locations hundreds of miles apart. Not only is this a terrible example, it is not even textual criticism unless you think our Bibles today contain a concerted deception.

Actually this is what the textual critics deal with:

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.



Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.​

 

[redleghunter]

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".

The passage clearly demonstrates such.

 

[GingerBeer]

The passage clearly demonstrates such.

What passage demonstrates what truth? Did you take the time to read the passage?

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"

But the passage below 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.

 

[redleghunter]

I like the quote from Irenaeus but he wrote it before the new testament canon was decided and the gospel that came down to him was handed on verbally by bishops and apostles speaking it. The written gospels were in circulation in the early third century when he was writing and the scriptures to which he refers are likely the old testament scriptures and possibly a collection of letters and perhaps a gospel or maybe all four but he is not speaking of the bible as you have it. Context in history is important too. It is useful to know when a writer was writing and what the words he used meant when he used them.

No Irenaeus was actually referring to the Gospels and confirms in the very statement the apostles wrote it down. Meaning they proclaimed it publicly first then wrote it down.

 

[redleghunter]

No - you have to find "scripture" in the Bible to support the teaching of "sola scriptura"

That and anywhere someone teaches "it is written" or directly or alluding to scripture already written.

Which of course is demonstrated throughout the NT by Jesus and the apostles.

Frankly, I believe some are skittish on affirming Sola Scriptura because they have not actually examined the Scriptures according to what you and I wrote about SS being demonstrated.

 

[GingerBeer]

No Irenaeus was actually referring to the Gospels and confirms in the very statement the apostles wrote it down. Meaning they proclaimed it publicly first then wrote it down.

I do not really know what your post is intended to mean. Please explain your intended meaning.

As for the quote from Irenaeus, it is from Against Heresies written around 180 AD (in the second century AD) quite a long time before any official canon for the scriptures was decided.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)

The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, Maker of heaven and earth.

1. 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. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.​

 

[mark kennedy]

I think that your posts might try to stick to the thread's topic. Return to the original post and check what that topic is. The thread topic is not what you believe or what I believe. Stick to the topic and see how you go with a single argument (among many) against sola scriptura as defined in the original post. As a refresher the definition is "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice". And the single argument against it is "Where does scripture teach that doctrine?" The doctrine is not biblical. If that is so then sola scriptura make an unbiblical assertion in order to establish the bible alone etcetera.

I am on topic but you wanting a direct quote that is the word for word equivalent to the definition. Nothing about the test for the canon of Scripture, Apostolic, Levetical or prophetic authority. Nothing concerning the internal evidence for authority or verification. Just this circular question you use to navigate around core issues. I think your the one dragging this off topic every time a valid point is raised. I have learned from long experience chasing rhetorical questions in circle is pointless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt the first couple of times but after that I'll deal with the nature of the fallacy being used and let the conversation go where the underlying principles take it.