Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[fhansen]

That's true, but the thread concerns Sola Scriptura which holds that Scripture is the ultimate authority. It is concerned with what we consult when deciding on essential doctrine. Sola Scriptura does not deal with the interpretations that any individual may make of Scripture.
And yet the emperor has no clothes; there's no recognized mechanism for determining/deciding what is essential doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura merely recognizes that Scripture is the Word of God and then presents a claim that we-or someone?-should be guaranteed arrival at essential Christians truths by appealing to it. Then anyone who reads Scripture may well be convinced that such is the case with themselves, in which case they've made themselves a sort of pope even as they may also take comfort in the fact that they might find others who agree with them.

That's not quite the way to put it. Your church teaches what is called Tradition--customs, opinions, etc.--which it says have developed over time. That's the point of Tradition, at least in theory...i.e. that it is what it is (a second revelation from God after the Bible) BECAUSE the belief, whatever it is, has developed over time and consistently been held by the church all that time.

One can speculate that such is the case, or... the church simply teaches what she heard from the beginning. People with any kind of rational, objective mindset should be more impressed by the similarities between the east and west, after centuries of isolation, on issues such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the possible need for some kind of final purification before entrance into heaven, veneration of Mary, as the Theotokos, Mary's not undergoing a normal physical death, their liturgies, their positions on justification, sacramentology, the priesthood, to name just a few all of which date back to time immemorial, rather than going out of our way to emphasize perceived differences. Such doctrines and practices are actually almost uncannily similiar in fact, especially in light of the fact that many are dismissed as irrelevant or just plain heretical by many SS adherents, while others are often disputed among themselves.

 

[Albion]

One can speculate that such is the case, or... the church simply teaches what she heard from the beginning.

But of course she doesn't do that. The whole purpose behind creating the Holy Tradition theory was to justify adding as doctrines ideas that had grown up through folklore and custom and supposedly had endured a test of time.

People with any kind of rational, objective mindset should be more impressed by the similarities between the east and west, after centuries of isolation, on issues such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

There weren't "centuries of isolation." All these churches were located in the same empire (one that was renowned for a relative ease of travel) and representatives of both east and west attended the early church councils.

 

[JacksBratt]

Adoption doesn't end in marriage to the one that adopts you. And who said righteousness came through the Jewish law? Nobody. That's what Paul was talking of. Righteousness comes through obedience to God. And apparently you've never read James 2. It says plain and simple "a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone." It is the ONLY time that faith alone is identified with a relationship to justification, and since justification is part of salvation, it means that salvation is more than forgiveness.

If it isn't, then salvation is a license to sin.

There are a great number of scriptures that state that salvation is by faith alone. Now you show me this passage and claim that it is a contradiction of the other scriptures. This is quite common. I could bumble along and try to explain but instead I will let this explain it in a much better way than I could. This is from:

http://www.watchman.org/articles/other-religious-topics/james-vs-paul-salvation-by-grace-or-works/

I hope it helps you to understand that no salvation is ever a license to sin even though it is our faith that saves us and not our personal achievements. We are still justified by faith, not works.

Paul says that God is the, "...justifier of him which believeth in Jesus ...By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:26-28).


However James states, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24).

The major theme of Paul's letters is that salvation is a totally free gift -- not earned by good works, rituals, or obeying laws. Eternal life is by grace through faith.

In Romans chapters three and four alone, Paul states this principle no fewer than fifteen times.

However, when turning to James one finds what appears at first to be a direct contradiction.

This apparent conflict between the two epistles has caused confusion on the part of many Christians when people point to James as "proof" that one must earn salvation.

As one commentator, Dr. D. Edmond Hiebert, observes, "This paragraph [James 2:14-26] is one of the most difficult, and certainly the most misunderstood, sections in the epistle.

"It has been a theological battle ground; James often has been understood as contradicting Paul's teaching that salvation is by faith alone apart from works" (The Epistle of James, D. Edmond Hiebert, p. 174).

While some critics may even point to this as an example of the Bible contradicting itself, a close examination shows no contradiction between Romans and James -- both Paul and James were teaching the same Gospel.

In different contexts, the words belief or faith can mean a number of various things.


Someone may say, "I believe we will have rain tomorrow." This kind of belief is simply expressing an opinion or fact.


This type of belief, even when applied to religious truths, is not the kind of faith that saves. The devils believe that there is one God (a true Biblical fact) but this is not saving faith (James 2:19).

It is this type of faith that James is attacking.

Saving faith will produce a changed life. A person who is saved is trusting Christ alone for their salvation, not their works.

However, once saved by grace alone, a true Christian will want to practice good works such as feeding the poor (ie James). Not to earn salvation -- which they already have -- but because they are saved. (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

James is warning of a belief in facts -- a type of faith that never results in a changed life.


Saving faith comes when someone stops trusting their own goodness or work (Phil. 2:8) and puts all their trust in Christ for salvation. And this type of faith will naturally exhibit good works.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I always read the last chapter first to see if Im gonna like the book. View attachment 181829

How do you like the Bible? I love Revelation.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Only once in any of this do you address what I said,

Not true. I broke my response down in excruciating simplicity. You don't point out a single instance where my argument is false. You just dismiss it. You don't want to debate the truth of your argument, you only want to present your argument and run. That is called a soap box.

other than deny that one of the premises of the OP is that there's no source of incontrovertible truth other than the Bible. If you deny that, then why do you claim that no other source has been proven and challenge us to prove it?

Again, a Catholic tries to wiggle out of proving what they believe, but expect SS people to disprove their belief, there is another source of truth. As my OP clearly states I am not going to play that game. If you want to challenge the SS defense then prove your truth. So far it has not happened.

Otherwise this is merely a screed in which you repeatedly insult my intelligence rather than respond rationally to what I originally posted in response to the OP, which I had quoted.

I guess only the smarter one is allowed to insult the intelligence of another. Let's remember the words you used. If you want to play games, don't cry about it.

So far all you've done is dismiss my reasoning out of hand, which isn't a rational rebuttal at all because it's one big logical fallacy (and completely misrepresents my argument as well, and so is also based on false premises).

Your type of response to this topic is exactly the kind of thing that convinced me to abandon the incoherence of Reformation theology and become Catholic.

I never attempt illogical rebuttals, only logical ones. And I just made another successful one, but I have little hope that you'll admit it. If you decide to say something rational then I might reply

I don't have time to waste dealing with this kind of raving.

So much for your proof. A proof that is not defended/withstand scrutiny is a soap box which is done repeatedly here by Catholics.

You started the "logic" argument. I totally refuted it, using your "raving" style. I thought you could relate to it and liked it. I guess when it works against you, you just dismiss it with insult.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Then all bets are off. If we can't really be sure that any of the books of the bible really belong there, then we have no guarantee that any of them are actually God-breathed at all.
They identified the documents they recognised as being the ones handed on from the Apostles. And if the decision about the identity of sacred scripture isn't incontrovertably true, if it's possible that they were written by some random schmo, then the books that we think are sacred scripures aren't incontrovertably true either because that means we can't be certain that they actually are sacred scripture.

You should learn that not all logical arguments have to be disproved with logic concepts. The simplest way to disprove an argument is with an example that clearly contradicts the argument. Even though your "argument" was not a valid argument against my OP, I did respond with a glaringly obvious faulty example to your conclusion.

Let me break down your argument and make it simple so you can follow it.

A true scripture needs to be "established".
B words can only be established by an equal or greater source of truth
C the church established scripture
Conclusion: Since the church established scripture it must have equal or greater truth.​

Applying your "logic" to the Pharisees of Jesus' day and you can see how baseless it is to assume truth/authority above God's word, from those assigned to be leaders of the church. The Pharisees failed miserably at this and Jesus called them out for forcing their traditions on the Church.

The Jews were responsible for giving us the OT. And the NT credits them for this. Romans 3:In the same chapter Paul says this does not guarantee that they persist in or always speak the truth.

You Catholics are grasping at straws because you can't prove what you believe. You think we must prove scripture is true. Again, look at Jesus' teaching. He did not have to prove the OT. He proved that he was fulfilled prophecy in the OT. God's people did not question scripture. They followed it because they followed God.


Now read my response to your "argument" and see a clear example of a violation of your conclusion.

Your premise, like that of typical RC apologists, is that an infallible magisterial office is essential in order to assuredly know what is of God. And that as the instruments and stewards of Scripture, then the Roman magisterium is that infallible office, to whom all need to submit to.

Which means that the NT church had no established Divine writings to establish its claims by, and should have submitted to the magisterium of the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritor of promises of God. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4)

But the fact is that the church began because souls could and did ascertain who and what was of God, even in dissent from the historical magisterial office.

It was such who demanded of a certain itinerant Preacher of Galilee where He obtained His authority, to which He invoked the authority of another itinerant preacher of Scriptural repentance. Against which these leaders could say nothing censorious, "for all counted John, that he was a prophet indeed." (Mk. 11:27-33)

But under the premise that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, then these souls could only hope John was a prophet indeed, as well as the One He testified to.

I made the same argument with chilehed, which he just dismisses because he can't refute it. What he argues is a logical argument for their church's authority. Understand that logical arguments are weak ones. Contrast this with the examples in scripture that establishment of authority is done by things that testify, two or more.

Your rebuttal to chilehed is another logical argument. The other way to refute a logical argument is with an example where the conclusion has failed. As I say quoted above, the Jews in the OT while establishing the OT failed miserably at being faithful let alone a source of incontrovertible truth.


Lastly, I just want to say God bless you for your patient endurance here and continued defense toward truth.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

There is a big difference. When a Christian finds the truth in the church, he needs only be believe. When a Protestant believes he's found the truth in a book, he needs to spend years trying to figure out how to interpret book without ever having any way of knowing if his personal interpretations of book are correct.

How did you find truth? It wasn't from going to the RCC.
How do we know you speak the truth? You do not go to a RCC.
Your life belies your brash claim against Protestants.

Some of that is anti-catholic myths. If you want to know what catholics believe I recommend consulting catholic sources. Once you've done that, if you find a better church and can provide evidence it was the one church founded by Jesus I'm willing to listen.

Gotta love blanket dismissals because one doesn't like something in the quote. Of course the "error" is not pointed out, for the edification of the Church.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

One can speculate that such is the case, or... the church simply teaches what she heard from the beginning.

But of course she doesn't do that. The whole purpose behind creating the Holy Tradition theory was to justify adding as doctrines ideas that had grown up through folklore and custom and supposedly had endured a test of time.

I just have a simple question? If the RCC true protector of truth, if the RCC think it important to write down all the doctrine/traditions; Why didn't they just do this at the very beginning; like Peter himself do it?

 

[fhansen]

But of course she doesn't do that. The whole purpose behind creating the Holy Tradition theory was to justify adding as doctrines ideas that had grown up through folklore and custom and supposedly had endured a test of time.

Either way Sacred Tradition, itself, is a Tradition shared by both east and west, either side appealing to that background or experience through the life of the church, in support of her teachings.

There weren't "centuries of isolation." All these churches were located in the same empire (one that was renowned for a relative ease of travel) and representatives of both east and west attended the early church councils.

Tension began early on due to geographical and language differences. Certainly by 1054 neither side had much contact, any comparison of theological notes being extremely rare and sporadic. For centuries they simply did not communicate, both more interested in their own positions than the other's. And yet, as I mentioned, their general theologies remained remarkably consistent, as those teachings were held and revered as far back as their own histories go. Had SS ruled the day instead, that consistency would not have occurred; historically a much greater divergence of beliefs result, and in a relatively short period of time, when going by Scripture as the sole source of authoritative revelation.

 

[Albion]

Either way Sacred Tradition, itself, is a Tradition shared by both east and west, either side appealing to that background or experience through the life of the church, in support of her teachings.

They both say that. But then how did they come up with totally different doctrines...all supposedly thanks to that "Holy Tradition?"

 

[sculleywr]

There are a great number of scriptures that state that salvation is by faith alone. Now you show me this passage and claim that it is a contradiction of the other scriptures. This is quite common. I could bumble along and try to explain but instead I will let this explain it in a much better way than I could. This is from:

http://www.watchman.org/articles/other-religious-topics/james-vs-paul-salvation-by-grace-or-works/

I hope it helps you to understand that no salvation is ever a license to sin even though it is our faith that saves us and not our personal achievements. We are still justified by faith, not works.

Paul says that God is the, "...justifier of him which believeth in Jesus ...By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:26-28).


However James states, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24).

The major theme of Paul's letters is that salvation is a totally free gift -- not earned by good works, rituals, or obeying laws. Eternal life is by grace through faith.

In Romans chapters three and four alone, Paul states this principle no fewer than fifteen times.

However, when turning to James one finds what appears at first to be a direct contradiction.

This apparent conflict between the two epistles has caused confusion on the part of many Christians when people point to James as "proof" that one must earn salvation.

As one commentator, Dr. D. Edmond Hiebert, observes, "This paragraph [James 2:14-26] is one of the most difficult, and certainly the most misunderstood, sections in the epistle.

"It has been a theological battle ground; James often has been understood as contradicting Paul's teaching that salvation is by faith alone apart from works" (The Epistle of James, D. Edmond Hiebert, p. 174).

While some critics may even point to this as an example of the Bible contradicting itself, a close examination shows no contradiction between Romans and James -- both Paul and James were teaching the same Gospel.

In different contexts, the words belief or faith can mean a number of various things.


Someone may say, "I believe we will have rain tomorrow." This kind of belief is simply expressing an opinion or fact.


This type of belief, even when applied to religious truths, is not the kind of faith that saves. The devils believe that there is one God (a true Biblical fact) but this is not saving faith (James 2:19).

It is this type of faith that James is attacking.

Saving faith will produce a changed life. A person who is saved is trusting Christ alone for their salvation, not their works.

However, once saved by grace alone, a true Christian will want to practice good works such as feeding the poor (ie James). Not to earn salvation -- which they already have -- but because they are saved. (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

James is warning of a belief in facts -- a type of faith that never results in a changed life.


Saving faith comes when someone stops trusting their own goodness or work (Phil. 2:8) and puts all their trust in Christ for salvation. And this type of faith will naturally exhibit good works.

I already quoted and referenced it several times. And no, that claim that James is referring to a faith in a particular thing is not anything more than rationalizing. He very specifically contrasts a person who has faith without works and a person who has faith with works. He then asks if the faith without works can save a man. Those are the two types of faith he is referring to. And he even defines what works are in his letter earlier in the second chapter.

He poses the question of whether or not faith ALONE can save a person, and his answer is that "a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone".

Think of salvation as a Christmas present. If I give you a present, all wrapped up in a box, and you take the wrapped present and put it on a shelf without unwrapping it, will you have really benefited from the present? Of course not. In order to benefit from it, you must unwrap it, open it, and use the present. That mixer isn't going to be useful to you if it stays on the shelf. The same is true of salvation. Salvation benefits nobody if they do not use their salvation. It was still freely given to them, but they still have to use it, and that requires work.

 

[PapaZoom]

How do you like the Bible? I love Revelation.

I do too what I can understand.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I made the same argument with chilehed, which he just dismisses because he can't refute it. What he argues is a logical argument for their church's authority. Understand that logical arguments are weak ones. Contrast this with the examples in scripture that establishment of authority is done by things that testify, two or more.

Your rebuttal to chilehed is another logical argument. The other way to refute a logical argument is with an example where the conclusion has failed. As I say quoted above, the Jews in the OT while establishing the OT failed miserably at being faithful let alone a source of incontrovertible truth.


Lastly, I just want to say God bless you for your patient endurance here and continued defense toward truth.

Bless the Lord, and note that some RCs have even invoked those who sat in the seat of Moses, as if this supports the manner of submission required by Rome.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

How do I know if something is within the tradition? We are generally agreed that it should be attested to in scripture.

Not true in Catholicism, prayer to created beings in Heaven being one example among many.

So for example the argument about Petrine Primacy is attested to (certainly for some) with the Matthew 16:18 verse.

Rather, that Matthew 16:18 spoke of Petrine Primacy is not even close to having the often-claimed "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and above all must be understood by examination of the rest of the NT, in the life and teachings of the NT church.

And nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concurred with.

Moreover, findings of historical research are contrary to the RC propaganda of Peter being the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church from Rome.

The nature and extent of the authority of that primacy might find some guidance in Matthew 20:25 or Acts 15:1-21.

Yes, and the first text is certainly contrary to the historical Roman papacy, as is the second. Besides the contrast with Rome of the street-level leader among brethren of Scripture, and the latter primacy of Paul, in Acts 15 James provides the definitive judgment of what should be done, confirmatory of Peter and of Paul.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And yet truth doesn't come by majority vote or affirmation.

Yes, Truth is true regardless, as is whatever else is of God, but valid establishment of such by the people is a result of majority affirmation, as is true of classics as well as basic foods. All the FDA approvals would not make Surströmming a popular food.

And is was not by infallible magisterial decree, but by the people rightly discerning both men and writings as being of God that the church began.

"And while all Christians may affirm that Scriptural writings are God's Word, that in no way ensures that they will affirm each other's interpretations or understandings of those same writings. If I believe Scripture to be God's Word while misunderstanding what I've read, what does that say about my belief that Scripture is God's word to begin with? The church simply teaches what she heard from the beginning.

Wrong, as there is no guarantee particular to a perpetual magisterial office that it will infallibly interpret the word of God, or even discern what it consists of. And in reality, very little of Scripture has been infallibly defined, and within basic parameters, RCs have a great deal of liberty to (mis)interpret the Scriptures as they see fit to support RC teaching, often abusing it thereby.

Instead of the word of God being established upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and overcoming error thereby, it must be by "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2) Whereby evil is be overcome by Good, error with Truth.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your church teaches what is called Tradition--customs, opinions, etc.--which it says have stood the test of time. That's the point of Tradition, at least in theory...i.e. that it is what it is (a second revelation from God after the Bible) BECAUSE the belief, whatever it is, has been consistently held by the whole church during all that time.

Except that it manifestly has not, except upon the premise that, based upon what the Catholic church interprets Tradition, Scripture and history as teaching, then what the Catholic church interprets Tradition, Scripture and history as teaching cannot be wrong in any conflict.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Such doctrines and practices are actually almost uncannily similiar in fact, especially in light of the fact that many are dismissed as irrelevant or just plain heretical by many SS adherents, while others are often disputed among themselves.

Unity itself does not translate into Truth, which Scripture, as the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth, is the sure source of. And aside from the limited and mostly paper unity of Catholicism, those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to the strongest unity in basic beliefs.

The same basis for the Truths we concur with Catholics on is the basis for those we disagree with them one, while the issues evangelical type typically disagree with have many parallels among Catholics, but are not manifest due to the overall lack of a wide scope of doctrinal intensity.

 

[sculleywr]

They both say that. But then how did they come up with totally different doctrines...all supposedly thanks to that "Holy Tradition?"

The difference is that Romans think Tradition can be altered while Orthodox do not. That's why the Orthodox call it Apostolic Tradition and Romans call it Sacred Tradition. But of course, you think they have the same Tradition. Because you create your strawman. The only one that claims to believe the same functional doctrines as the Apostles is the Orthodox, because the Romans believe in the "Development of Doctrine", a belief defined by Thomas Aquinas. This is why a good Roman Catholic from the 19th century would be considered a heretic today under their current doctrines. They would be anathema for rejecting the infallibility of the Pope.

So it isn't thanks to the same Tradition. The only two that use functionally the same Tradition are Coptics and Eastern Orthodox, which have come to the point of admitting we are preaching the same Faith and are in the process of rejoining. That kind of thing takes a while when you have 1500 years of people feuding to deal with.

The fact is that those who keep the same Tradition teach the same Faith. You foolishly think Orthodox and Romans claim to use the same Tradition. We don't. We haven't used the same Tradition since Rome began to alter it in the late 10th century.

All alterations of doctrine, all doctrinal innovation, comes about when a group decides to leave the Tradition and create something new. The Filioque, the five Solas, and all heterodox doctrines are a result of people leaving Tradition. Innovation is NEVER the result of Tradition. It is ALWAYS the result of the rejection of Tradition.

But you will never give up your strawman, because it's so much easier to beat on your strawman than it is to deal with reality.

 

[Albion]

Except that it manifestly has not

That's certainly true, but in that post I was mainly concerned with the fact that Tradition doesn't even adhere to its own rules.

IN THEORY, it's supposed to be something that the church has always believed, everywhere, and by all...but in reality the church leaders simply choose to dogmatize whatever legend it finds the most beneficial to the institutional church (denomination) or on some other practical basis.

 

[fhansen]

They both say that. But then how did they come up with totally different doctrines...all supposedly thanks to that "Holy Tradition?"

But that's the point; they don't have "totally different doctrines". They're waaay more consistent with each other than either are with Protestant groups. Most of the east share the same number of sacraments, or mysteries -seven - with the RCC. To mention one, which can be highly controversial among Protestants, Confession and repentance after serious sins are integral, necessary parts of their soteriology. Neither side needs to look to Scripture for this teaching since 1) they've always practiced it this way, and 2) Scripture can certainly be understood to support it as well.