Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[JacksBratt]

Nothing can veto God's Word. The Church was established to, among other things, correctly understand and proclaim God's Word, as we all desire to do.

So, what if someone proclaims something that contradicts the Holy Scripture?

 

[fhansen]

So, what if someone proclaims something that contradicts the Holy Scripture?

Then they're interpreting it wrong-and obviously not speaking for God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If the word of God is not the only source of pure truth, what, then, is the document or person that could Vito what the Word of God says?

Nobody is saying that the word of God is not the only source of pure truth. In fact, it is. What Catholics contest is the definition of the "word of God". We believe it's Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition + Sacred Magisterium. You believe it's Scripture only.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, what if someone proclaims something that contradicts the Holy Scripture?

If someone does such a thing, then it's not the word of God. But could you give an example?

 

[JacksBratt]

Nobody is saying that the word of God is not the only source of pure truth. In fact, it is. What Catholics contest is the definition of the "word of God". We believe it's Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition + Sacred Magisterium. You believe it's Scripture only.

So, where does "Sacred Tradition" and "Sacred Magisterium" come from and what is it based on?

 

[JacksBratt]

Then they're interpreting it wrong-and obviously not speaking for God.

How do you know if they are interpreting it wrong? How do you know that you are not wrong and they are right?

I'm just asking these questions because, IMO, it all boils down to whether anyone is proclaiming something that is in line with the Holy Scripture.

Nobody can vito it. Nobody can contradict it and nobody can add to it or take away from it.

To do so would be to say that what is in the scripture is either in error or was not complete.

This would imply that God made a mistake.

If someone proclaims something that is already in the scripture.. that is teaching Gods word.

If someone is proclaiming something that is not in the scriptures.... they are in error.

It all boils down to the fact that the solid foundation that we base truth on ... is the scriptures.

 

[fhansen]

How do you know if they are interpreting it wrong? How do you know that you are not wrong and they are right?

Yes! That's the whole question. How does anyone know who has the right answer? We all just assume that we're right, don't we? My money, now, is on the Church, after going round and round in circles with others on biblical interpretation-as if the "best" exegete should win even though differing interpretations are often quite plausible. But it cannot be that way. There must be a greater assurance, a way to know from someone or something that has a historical legacy/ experience/ tradition- call it what you want-that dates back to the beginnings of Christianity.

 

[pescador]

Why is faith left out of this discussion?

The argument about the veracity of the Bible is, to me, of the Old Covenant and the Pharisees. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that most of us read in translation.

Jesus is a living being; he is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, where does "Sacred Tradition" and "Sacred Magisterium" come from and what is it based on?

Why, from the Bible, of course. St. Paul told Timothy to pass on the traditions I have taught you, which covers both. Tradition is what Timothy was taught, and the teaching authority is the Magisterium.

 

[Albion]

Why, from the Bible, of course. St. Paul told Timothy to pass on the traditions I have taught you, which covers both.

Actually, it covers neither. That verse speaks of holding to the traditions that were already known to the listeners.

Not only are traditions not the theory of "Holy Tradition," but the traditions spoken of there say nothing about developing new doctrines in the years and centuries in the future, which is what "Holy Tradition," so-called, is all about.

 

[Bible2+]

JacksBratt said in post #1586:

If someone is proclaiming something that is not in the scriptures.... they are in error.

Not necessarily.

For while there are incorrect traditions from fallible men (Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18), which contradict God's Word (Mark 7:13); and there are correct traditions from God's Word (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, John 8:31b); there are also man-made traditions which do not necessarily contradict God's Word, but they still go beyond it (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6b), and so they are not binding on Christians, who can choose for themselves whether or not they will follow such traditions (cf. Romans 14:5-6).

JacksBratt said in post #1586:

It all boils down to the fact that the solid foundation that we base truth on ... is the scriptures.

Amen (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).

Also, the only solid foundation for Christian faith is doing God's will (Matthew 7:24-25, John 7:17, James 1:22). For if Christians remain in disobedience to God without repentance, their faith will come to have, as it were, a foundation of sand, so that their faith will collapse when trouble comes (Matthew 7:26-27, Matthew 13:21, Luke 8:13), such as during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:9-13). It is Christians' obedience to Jesus Christ's commands which causes Him to continue to manifest Himself to them (John 14:21,23, John 12:26).

 

[Bible2+]

pescador said in post #1588:

The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that most of us read in translation.

Jesus is a living being; he is the way, the truth, and the life.

Amen.

But note that His truth is still located in His Holy Bible (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).

And those in the Church are His disciples (Acts 11:26).

The original Greek noun (G3101) translated as "disciple" means "learner", just as the apostle Paul uses the verb form (G3129) of the Greek word to refer to what those in the Church have "learned" (Romans 16:17, Philippians 4:9; 2 Timothy 3:14), and need to "learn" (Titus 3:14), and can "learn" (1 Corinthians 14:31; 1 Corinthians 4:6).

We must continue to learn from Jesus Christ's Word the Holy Bible, if we are to be His disciples (John 8:31b).

The best way to study the Bible, as a whole, is simply to read every word of it (Matthew 4:4), over and over again. It ends up explaining itself once what it teaches has become engrained in your memory, and you see the connections between verses regarding something in one place in the Bible and other verses regarding that same thing in other places in the Bible. It is by comparing and combining related verses in different places in the Bible that we arrive at correct doctrine (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

It is also a good practice to always start and end each Bible-reading session with a prayer for understanding and remembrance of the whole Bible.

One great way to read the whole Bible, over and over, is to think of it as seven volumes:

1. Genesis to Deuteronomy
2. Joshua to Esther
3. Job to Song of Solomon
4. Isaiah to Malachi
5. Matthew to Acts
6. Romans to Philemon
7. Hebrews to Revelation

You can read a chapter in each volume every day. This will keep you current in every part of the Bible. After a while, there will not be any part that you have not read recently enough to remember what it teaches. When you reach the end of a volume, simply start again at the first chapter of that volume. In this way, you will be cycling through smaller volumes like #6 and #7 much more often than larger volumes like #2, but the smaller volumes are so much more dense with doctrine that it is profitable to read them over and over more often.

Also, you can listen to recordings of people reading the Bible out loud whenever you need to keep your eyes on something else while you listen (such as keeping your eyes on the road while you are driving, or on a cutting board while you are preparing food, or on your clippers while you are trimming a hedge). In this way, you can listen to the Bible throughout the day, whenever you don't need to be thinking about something else (such as at your workplace or school). Also, you can listen to the Bible even while you are going to sleep, so that it will become part of even your subconscious mind.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, it covers neither. That verse speaks of holding to the traditions that were already known to the listeners.

Not only are traditions not the theory of "Holy Tradition," but the traditions spoken of there say nothing about developing new doctrines in the years and centuries in the future, which is what "Holy Tradition," so-called, is all about.

Thank you for your opinion.
Of course, you're wrong. It is true that the listener (singular-Timothy) knew the tradition, because it was taught (Magisterium) to him by Paul (apostle and therefore bishop). The tradition Paul was speaking of was those Sacred Traditions, not the traditional practices, or both, probably.
Lastly, there have been no new doctrines developed in the years and centuries following the writing of the letter to Timothy. And Sacred Tradition is not about new doctrines, especially since there are no new doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Thank you for your opinion.
Of course, you're wrong. It is true that the listener (singular-Timothy) knew the tradition, because it was taught (Magisterium) to him by Paul (apostle and therefore bishop).

But Paul, by himself, is not a "Magisterium," And he definitely is not the so-called Magisterium which the Roman Catholic Church says can create doctrine in our own times.

That's just one more example of a misuse of a theological term--just like calling alleged traditions (customs) by the labels "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" when new dogmas are invented.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But Paul, by himself, is not a "Magisterium," And he definitely is not the so-called Magisterium which the Roman Catholic Church says can create doctrine in our own times.

Granted that Paul is not the Magisterium by himself, but before he wrote that letter, Paul met with the other Apostles (Acts and Galatians) to ratify what he was teaching. The Magisterium does not and cannot create doctrine.

That's just one more example of a misuse of a theological term--just like calling alleged traditions (customs) by the labels "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" when new dogmas are invented.

We DON'T call customs "Sacred Tradition". They are 't'raditions, to be sure, but not "Sacred Tradition". An example of 't'raditions would be crossing yourself with holy water upon entering the church, praying the rosary. Sacred Tradition gives context to Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Granted that Paul is not the Magisterium by himself, but before he wrote that letter, Paul met with the other Apostles (Acts and Galatians) to ratify what he was teaching. The Magisterium does not and cannot create doctrine.We DON'T call customs "Sacred Tradition". They are 't'raditions, to be sure, but not "Sacred Tradition". An example of 't'raditions would be crossing yourself with holy water upon entering the church, praying the rosary. Sacred Tradition gives context to Scripture.

If traditions are not Tradition, then the sole verse in the Bible--and the one that is always resorted to by supporters of Holy Tradition--which says anything about the importance of holding to certain, but not all, traditions...does not apply. And that means that Holy Tradition is invalid.

 

[fhansen]

If traditions are not Tradition, then the sole verse in the Bible--and the one that is always resorted to by supporters of Holy Tradition--which says anything about the importance of holding to certain, but not all, traditions...does not apply. And that means that Holy Tradition is invalid.

That'd be like saying the term "Trinity" is invalid just because it isn't found in Scripture. The whole idea of concepts such as Tradition and the magisterium is simply to say that the Church has a continuous lived experience from which to draw on to understand the one faith: 'one Lord, one faith, one Baptism', and the authority to correctly teach/proclaim it.

Paul and other disciples understood the one faith correctly; they were of the church, but it was already quite possible to get it wrong in their day. Therefore the need for "safeguarding", by the Holy Spirit, to ensure the correct interpretation and understanding of anything having to do with the faith, of any source that we might derive our understanding from.

 

[Albion]

That'd be like saying the term "Trinity" is invalid just because it isn't found in Scripture.

No, it would not be. Sorry.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

What about "solo scriptura"?
[do a forum search on GT for "solo scriptura"]....Great topic........

Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?
Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

"According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth. In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead."

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority | Called to Communion

Read and discuss!

 

[fhansen]

No, it would not be. Sorry.

I guess I could just respond with, 'Yes, it would be', but instead maybe you could explain what the difference is. You seemed to be suggesting that a difference in case: tradition vs Tradition, is relevant, while the complete absence of a term altogether: 'Trinity' in this instance, is not.