Dealing with Sola Scriptura

[CruciFixed]

I don't want to start any sort of debate on theology so I figured coming in here would be a good place to discuss this without any heat.

How do you deal with different bible verses that Sola Scriptura advocates use?

Such as:
2 Timothy 3:16-17?

That's what someone who is trying to get me away from Roman Catholicism posed to me. Also Hebrews 1:1-12

He said it proves that Scripture holds final authority.

How do you deal with those claims? Thanks

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I just ask them if they know how the Bible was codified. It didn't just drop out of the sky...lol! If you want some Scripture--2 Thess 2:15. I just find that usually cherry picking Scripture to toss around is pretty fruitless--especially without understanding where Scripture comes from.

 

[JennyKatz]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is beneficial for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16-17

My response to this argument is simple. It says that Scripture is useful for teaching, etc. It does not use the world sufficient. I might, for example, tell you that vegetables are beneficial for maintaining good health, but you certainly wouldn't take that to mean that vegetables are the only type of food you need to be healthy. You'd still eat fruits and grains and lean meats, etc. So why do people argue that saying that Scripture is "useful" for teaching, etc. equates to it being sufficient?
Also, the Scripture that this passage references is the Old Testament, not the writings we've come to know as the New Testament.
As for the verses from Hebrews, I have no idea how they're arguing that it proves sola scriptura. It's talking about Jesus, not the Bible.

 

[CruciFixed]

Hah it does say "Son" and that's still Jesus...

 

[JoabAnias]

I don't want to start any sort of debate on theology so I figured coming in here would be a good place to discuss this without any heat.

How do you deal with different bible verses that Sola Scriptura advocates use?

Such as:
2 Timothy 3:16-17?

That's what someone who is trying to get me away from Roman Catholicism posed to me. Also Hebrews 1:1-12

He said it proves that Scripture holds final authority.

How do you deal with those claims? Thanks

I dismiss them as ignorance of truth and scripture.

Without the Church there would be no Bible for anyone to profane.

Scripture_tradition.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura...

 

[JacksLadder]

I am wondering about these ECF quotes



"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)



"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

 

[Tonks]

I don't want to start any sort of debate on theology so I figured coming in here would be a good place to discuss this without any heat.

How do you deal with different bible verses that Sola Scriptura advocates use?

Such as:
2 Timothy 3:16-17?

That's what someone who is trying to get me away from Roman Catholicism posed to me. Also Hebrews 1:1-12

He said it proves that Scripture holds final authority.

How do you deal with those claims? Thanks

As them if they realize that it is referring to the Septuagint and not the "Bible" as they know it...it makes a bit of a difference. Then hit 'em with the "hold to the traditions you have been given either by word or epistle" bit...

 

[JoabAnias]

I am wondering about these ECF quotes

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

What about exactly bro; do you think that sounds sola scripturist?

What the Saint says is what the Church teaches. Thats not what Sola Scriptura teaches.

Take note of the word I bolded and try replacing it with singularly sufficient alone. Then you have the error.

Everything in the Church is supported by Sacred Holy Scripture.

Recommended reading:

Verse by Verse
"What's Your Authority?"
A Biblical Critique of Sola Scriptura

Are you aware of how Scripture is interpreted by the Church, the process of hermeneutics?

From the CCC:
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
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").

 

[JacksLadder]

What about exactly bro; do you think that sounds sola scripturist?

What the Saint says is what the Church teaches. Thats not what Sola Scriptura teaches.

Take note of the word I bolded and try replacing it with singularly sufficient alone. Then you have the error.

Everything in the Church is supported by Sacred Holy Scripture.

Recommended reading:

Verse by Verse
"What's Your Authority?"
A Biblical Critique of Sola Scriptura

Are you aware of how Scripture is interpreted by the Church, the process of hermeneutics?

From the CCC:
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
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").

I am not sure.... still sounds Sola Scriptura to me. Sola Scriptura is basing all doctrine off of the scriptures making them higher than church tradition. Which is what the ECFs seem to say here. Maybe you could elaborate?

 

[JacksLadder]

For additional info

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

This dose seem to be consistent with the ECFs.

 

[JoabAnias]

I am not sure.... still sounds Sola Scriptura to me. Sola Scriptura is basing all doctrine off of the scriptures making them higher than church tradition. Which is what the ECFs seem to say here. Maybe you could elaborate?

I will try but if you get a chance let those/these links I provided have a chance. They explain much better than I ever could.

Catholics do not place either Tradition or Scripture one above the other. We see them as equal. We see Scripture as coming to man from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through men. This required the Church. Though Sacred Holy Scripture is closed canon (rule of thumb) the inspirations of the Holy Spirit are not:

Joh 14:16 And I will petition the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may remain with you to the age,

Joh 14:26 but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and shall remind you of all things that I said to you.

Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine


"One of the major differences which arise among Christian denominations is the method by which authoritative doctrine is revealed. The next three chapters discuss how the Catholic Church views this process. There are two modes for one stream of revelation:

• • By "Letter", the written word, the Bible
  • By "Oral Statement", handing on, paradosis, tradition

The Church’s teaching authority, magisterium, is the method by which the Holy Spirit guides the Church in truth handling."

The Transmission of Authoritative Doctrine

 

[JoabAnias]

For additional info
This dose seem to be consistent with the ECFs.

If you check into the history of the sola Scriptura doctrine you will discover that its original meaning has changed quite a bit since it was first purported and that it is mostly an unwritten indoctrination that Sacred Scripture is all thats needed for salvation while denying or ignoring what Sacred Scripture itself says to do.

When Catholics speak against sola scriptura, we speak against the original premise of Scripture as ALONE being sufficient for salvation because we believe Sacred Holy Scripture itself contains the ordinances of the Lord that must be followed; I.E.: Apostolic authority and the Sacraments that comprise our praxis in all its variants or otherwise known as Tradition and even that this Tradition preceeded the gift of Scripture as the Church from whence Scripture came.

David Armstrong has some great history here: [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Bible: Sola Scriptura[/FONT]

 

[JacksLadder]

If you check into the history of the sola Scriptura doctrine you will discover that its original meaning has changed quite a bit since it was first purported and that it is mostly an unwritten indoctrination that Sacred Scripture is all thats needed for salvation while denying or ignoring what Sacred Scripture itself says to do.

When Catholics speak against sola scriptura, we speak against the original premise of Scripture as ALONE being sufficient for salvation because we believe Sacred Holy Scripture itself contains the ordinances of the Lord that must be followed; I.E.: Apostolic authority and the Sacraments that comprise our praxis in all its variants or otherwise known as Tradition and even that this Tradition preceeded the gift of Scripture as the Church from whence Scripture came.

David Armstrong has some great history here: [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Bible: SolaScriptura[/FONT]

I don't know the link seems like a bit of a straw man.....

Seems like anything and everything the apostolic authority must do would then have to be supported by a scripture

 

[JoabAnias]

I don't know the link seems like a bit of a straw man.....

Seems like anything and everything the apostolic authority must do would then have to be supported by a scripture

Go back to history. Find out when Pope Damasus commissioned the Bible and when St. Jerome translated it from the Textus Receptus.

It wasn't until the Church had been practicing the Sacraments for nearly 4 centuries.

How could the Church have been following scripture that didn't exist as canon yet?

What your picking up on is why the Scripture and the Church cannot contradict each other and also why its so important to interpret the Scripture in light of the Church who compiled it else one risks getting a false interpretation.

 

[JacksLadder]

St Irenaeus just two generations from the apostles knew the four gospels. The scriptures are the teachings of the apostles as the early church confirmed so....I still don't see how Scripture is invalidated since it is the earliest source of Christian doctrine.

I was 95% convinced the Catholic church was totally right on all issues till I ran across this today...

 

[sempervirens]

Following scripture alone and without any other guide reasonable people come to different conclusions regarding the eucharist (despite Jesus' best efforts in John 6). Yet the eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life and its inconceivable that its truth could be lost - yet thats a distinct possibility following scripture alone. Sacred tradition safeguards our communal hearth, keeping the flame alive always, fulfilling Christ's promise as a reality beyond all our hopes and understanding:

Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age.

 

[JoabAnias]

St Irenaeus just two generations from the apostles knew the four gospels. The scriptures are the teachings of the apostles as the early church confirmed so....I still don't see how Scripture is invalidated since it is the earliest source of Christian doctrine.

I was 95% convinced the Catholic church was totally right on all issues till I ran across this today...

The Scriptures weren't written until the end of the first century. Luke was a disciple of Paul, neither of who met Jesus and Mark was a disciple of Peter and dictated to from Peter.

Sorry for my inaccuracy in times (I was referring to the canon not the writing) but the writing was still nearly a century after the establishment of the Church. It was about the last thing St. John did before he died.

It is theorized that the Apostles waited so long to start writing because they held hope that Jesus would return again in their day. They didn't understand everything Jesus taught them at first either.

What St Irenaeus was speaking of was what they had at the time, that wasn't the whole Bible until it was gathered and canonized but various writings held in different places by different Churches. Some would later be determined to be gnostic or spurious.

It took the authority of the Church to discern which of the several hundred letters and books that were gathered from all the Churches all over were indeed inspired.

St Irenaeus was correct, but what was scripture and what wasn't at that time was still subjective. Remember, the word Canon itself means the rule of thumb. It doesn't mean its the only way God reveals truth to us. He does that through the working of the Holy Spirit in all men and the Church Jesus promised to guide.

These links I am giving you aren't straw men at all. They are packed with facts and reasoning. We can continue but I am sure if you put the effort into researching those links you will find your answer.

Perhaps it may be helpful to now turn to how Jesus established the Church on the 12 and gave it the authority to canonized infallible Sacred Scripture in the first place:

The Church: A Biblical Portrait

 

[JacksLadder]

But I am not talking about Scripture alone just that it seems the ECfs held Scripture as the tradition through which other ones are judged.

 

[JacksLadder]

Perhaps it may be helpful to now turn to how Jesus established the Church on the 12 and gave it the authority to canonized infallible Sacred Scripture in the first place:

Ill check it out again but history can just make it that much more confusing

 

[JoabAnias]

But I am not talking about Scripture alone just that it seems the ECfs held Scripture as the tradition through which other ones are judged.

Its a symbiotic relationship. Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict.

They must go hand and hand else we are not completely in Christ.

Nevertheless, even though Tradition must never contradict Scripture it must ascend to Scripture which can be viewed as a product of Tradition.

I promised myself I wouldn't linger on here to late bro. I am logging and will check back tomorrow. Your search is in my prayers for you to find your definitive answer.

Peace.