Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[fhansen]

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?

Well, the RCC considers NT Scripture to be written Tradition-that part of Christ's revelation to us that was recorded. None of the authors, including Peter, were endeavoring to produce a catechism. The letters were written on an as-need basis, as the authors were moved to address one issue or another.

 

[Albion]

But that's the point; they don't have "totally different doctrines".

Are you concerned about the word "totally?" Then let's just say--and please do not pretend that it's not so--that the EO and the RCC have a number of doctrines that are different from the other church's doctrines...and yet they both say that "Tradition" is what they followed (since Sola Scriptura allegedly leads to differences of interpretation.).

 

[Albion]

Well, the RCC considers NT Scripture to be written Tradition-that part of Christ's revelation to us that was recorded. None of the authors, including Peter, were endeavoring to produce a catechism. The letters were written on an as-need basis, as the authors were moved to address one issue or another.

It doesn't matter. The fact that Scripture is called "Tradition" is just superfluous since custom and legend and speculation are also considered to be Tradition...in other words, all of that is believed to be the equal of God's word.

 

[sculleywr]

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.

This is completely false. Nice try though. The Councils don't just pull dogma out of their hats in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I challenge you to find one doctrine that can't be shown to have been believed much earlier than the Council in which it was formally dealt with. Icons? Can be found in first century synagogues and churches. The reverence of the Saints? Can be found in the first and second century, starting with Polycarp and also in Jewish tradition prior to the Christian Church. The reverence for the Theotokos? Again, first and second century.

The reality is that while there have been changes in presentation of Tradition, there has never been a change in the CONTENT of Tradition. Every single time you've made an accusation of change in Tradition, your examples are all either from the Roman Catholic Church, which believes the content of Tradition can change, or else have been in presentation, and not content.

 

[Thursday]

Why the importance to test truth claims with the Inspired written Word of God.

From the CCC:

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.

The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.

 

[Albion]

You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.

The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.

Not relevant to the discussion of Sola Scriptura which isn't about interpretations.

 

[samir]

I think he's not sure yet. If he were, he would have joined one or the other.

I'm a non-denominational Protestant but unlike most Protestants I know I study to learn what the earliest Christians believed and how they interpreted scripture. I always find it interesting when people think I'm Orthodox or Catholic because I'm not following either church and just following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians.

Even though I'm Protestant, I have nothing in common with most non-denominational Protestants I know and don't even consider them Christians because they don't care what Jesus taught preferring instead to follow a man-made 21st century gospel that itches their ears by telling them what they want to believe which is that salvation is so easy you just have to believe something about Jesus (that he died for your sins) and it's guaranteed without any need to repent, become a disciple of Jesus, or live for God.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

So, give me some examples of what works need to be carried out in order to confirm that you have salvation?

You stated that you cannot "sin" away your salvation. Now, if we are saved by faith and there is no visible works ( what ever these acceptable works would be ) can you then lose your salvation for lack of these works?

 

[sculleywr]

Not relevant to the discussion of Sola Scriptura which isn't about interpretations.

Nice diversion, but the only way those interpretations could exist is because of sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, there wouldn't bethousands of contradictory interpretations. So yes, it is relevant. Just because you don't like that it stabs directly to the central error of SS, because it makes every person his own personal Pope.

 

[sculleywr]

So, give me some examples of what works need to be carried out in order to confirm that you have salvation?

You stated that you cannot "sin" away your salvation. Now, if we are saved by faith and there is no visible works ( what ever these acceptable works would be ) can you then lose your salvation for lack of these works?

Well, what works did Jesus bring up in His description of the judgement in Matthew? You know, sheep, goats?

But notice something else, as well, even Paul says that every man is judged by their works. The question isn't whether we are judged based on them, but how that judgement works. From what we know, we are judged by our works, justified by our works, and that they are part of making our faith alive. All three of those statements are true because they are statements literally ripped out of Scripture. If God says it, then it is true. But since they are not works of the law, nor based on a specific quota, then what are they? Let's look at what else James says:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, andto keep himself unspotted from the world.

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse yourhands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

The fact is that salvation isn't about heaven or hell, or forgiveness. It's about a relationship to God. It's about becoming like God.

 

[redleghunter]

You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.

The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.

Jesus had an answer for that in Matthew 4.

 

[PapaZoom]

Nice diversion, but the only way those interpretations could exist is because of sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, there wouldn't bethousands of contradictory interpretations. So yes, it is relevant. Just because you don't like that it stabs directly to the central error of SS, because it makes every person his own personal Pope.

Part of Martin Luther's problem with Rome was the fact that Popes contradicted each other. Sola Scriputra doesn't change, but the Popes have been inconsistent over the years. Just because people disagree on what the Bible means doesn't negate Sola Scriputra. But the fact that Popes have demonstrated their fallibility does negate their authority.

 

[Albion]

I'm a non-denominational Protestant but unlike most Protestants I know I study to learn what the earliest Christians believed and how they interpreted scripture. I always find it interesting when people think I'm Orthodox or Catholic because I'm not following either church and just following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians.

Even though I'm Protestant, I have nothing in common with most non-denominational Protestants I know and don't even consider them Christians because they don't care what Jesus taught preferring instead to follow a man-made 21st century gospel that itches their ears by telling them what they want to believe which is that salvation is so easy you just have to believe something about Jesus (that he died for your sins) and it's guaranteed without any need to repent, become a disciple of Jesus, or live for God.

A so-called non-denominational Protestant who can't think of a single Catholic doctrine or teaching that he doesn't agree with. Hmm.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

From what we know, we are judged by our works, justified by our works, and that they are part of making our faith alive. All three of those statements are true because they are statements literally ripped out of Scripture.

Yes, they are "ripped," not consistent without the totality of Scripture on the subject.

First, works do not make our faith alive, except in the sense of making it manifest that it is alive, justifying one as having saving faith, which is the sense in which we are justified by our works. For everything you voluntarily do is a result of what you truly believe, at least at the moment of action. We are contending here as a result of believing in our doctrine, and that it warrant defending.

And in James 2, which is where you take all your text from, the issue is that of what manner of faith justifies, one that is inert - which is not faith - or effectual: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (James 2:14)f effectual, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

It is the one that shew their faith by their works that actually have faith. For as Peter testifies, God purifies the heart by faith, (Acts 10:43; 15:9) referring to the faith which was expressed in baptism after regeneration. (Acts 10:44-47)

It is faith in the heart that appropriates justification, but which must be the manner of faith that confesses the Lord if it is salvific, and thus salvation is promised not simply to those who believe, but in the light of their confession of the Lord Jesus, which is in word and in deed. Those who have not the latter fruit do not have true faith.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

A controversy arises with the statement by James that,

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:21-24)

Yet if James is speaking of justification in the same sense as Moses (And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:6) and Paul (For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:2-3) then we have a clear contradiction. Which is not because Paul is only referring to the works of the Law, for that is representative of all systems of justification by actual merit: "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

But instead, while Abraham was certainly a good man before his act of faith in God to do what he was helpless to do, it was his faith that was counted/imputed for righteousness, nor was it because he was regenerated at that time, but,

"being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." (Romans 4:21-22)

However, James places Abraham's justification in Gn. 22 with the offering of Issac, thereby leaving Abraham as not being justified before that, if speaking in the same sense as being salvifically counted as righteous as Paul is, in contrasting justification" by the merit of one's works versus faith, and being "accepted in the Beloved, and "made to sit in Heaven together with Him" by faith, on His account.

But contextually James is dealing with effectual, saving faith, versus mere profession, and in the sense of a confirmed saving Abraham was justified by works in Gn. 22, having a complete faith, which was the fulfillment of the declaration of his justified faith in Gn. 15:6, as true as that was.

For while faith, not the merit of works, whereby the heart sees the washing of regeneration and sanctification and justification, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; 1Co. 6:11; Titus 3:5) it is only effectually faith that does so, and thus salvation is promised to those who believe and to those who believe and obey, and excludes those who manifestly do not.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:4-6)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (Matthew 25:34-36)

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Romans 2:13)

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (Romans 8:4-5)
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:13-14)

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:5)

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. (Hebrews 6:7-9)

But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. (Hebrews 3:6)

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12)

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; (Hebrews 3:14)

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Revelation 2:11)

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Revelation 22:14)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (John 6:47)

"The fact is that salvation isn't about heaven or hell, or forgiveness. It's about a relationship to God. It's about becoming like God."

Which is a false dilemma, for salvation is about forgiveness, and being saved from Hell to Heaven, with a faith that effects characteristic holiness and obedience, and will finally result in being not simply presently being the sons of God, but that "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

The idea of souls having to become practically perfect in character in this life or in Purgatory in order to see and be with God in Heaven is contrary to what Scripture teaches, including wherever it manifestly speaks about the next place of believers after this life. (2Co. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-13; Acts 7:59; Lk. 23:39; 1Ths. 4:17)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Nice diversion, but the only way those interpretations could exist is because of sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, there wouldn't bethousands of contradictory interpretations. So yes, it is relevant. Just because you don't like that it stabs directly to the central error of SS, because it makes every person his own personal Pope.

Which is absurd. To be a pope the basis of the veracity of his definitive teaching would rest upon the premise of ensured infallibility. Thus as Keating states,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

In contrast, the basis for the validity of teaching by a SS advocate must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, by which the NT church established its claims.

Secondly, since very few verses of Scripture have been officially interpreted by Rome, RCs have a great deal of liberty to interpret them, and you could also obtain vast numbers of contradictory interpretations by them of their books of Scripture if they went thru their own thousands one by one.

In addition, while the likes of you censure relying upon Scripture as the supreme authority by citing the problem of variant interpretations, RC themselves often interpret their supreme authority differently. Not only can the magisterial level of church teachings be subject to variant interpretations, (which constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice) and thus the level of require assent, but also their meaning. Thus Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, formal or informal.

And as for the vaunted RC magisterium whom RCs tell us we need to submit it, as one poster wryly put it,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

The premise of unity in Catholicism is more smoke and mirrors than reality, and the basis for what one really believes is shown by what they do. And in reality the unity of Rome is quite limited and largely on paper, but in practical effect where it counts, those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to being the most unified religious group in basic beliefs, much in contrast to those whom Rome counts and treats as members. And an examination of classic evangelical commentaries will show widespread concurrence along with limited differences on a Book of over 31,000 verses.

It was actually because of core unity on fundamentals versus liberals that the modern evangelical movement began, and even in the diluted meaning of the term today it much manifests a remarkable unity based upon a shared conversion experience and basic beliefs, and that class is seen as the greatest ideological threat by liberals (whom the "Catholic vote" much favors) and (it often seems) conservative RCs.

Moreover, the diversity among evangelical "Bible church," from S. Baptists to Calvary Chapels to Assembles of God and smaller ones can be said to have expanded the kingdom of God over the decades of their existence.

However, none of this justifies the disunity among "Bible Christians," and the principal of a central Biblical magisterium is Scriptural (despite Rome being an argument against it), as is veracity being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

But the limited unity (rather than in the vast scope of theological issues that have arisen thru the centuries) of the NT church was under the most manifest men of God, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..." (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, 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)

The disunity today is a judgment due to the lack of such men today and their depth of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but the principal by which Truth claims are established remains. And thus in every generation "the church of the living [not dead] God," that of all true believers, must show that it is such, and so much the more in the light of the rise of atheism and non-committal "NONES" (the latter being the fastest growing group).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm a non-denominational Protestant but unlike most Protestants I know I study to learn what the earliest Christians believed and how they interpreted scripture. I always find it interesting when people think I'm Orthodox or Catholic because I'm not following either church and just following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians.

Meaning you reject Orthodox or Catholic as faithfully following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians? Which is true.

"Even though I'm Protestant, I have nothing in common with most non-denominational Protestants I know

"Nothing in common?" That is quite a statement.

"and don't even consider them Christians because they don't care what Jesus taught preferring instead to follow a man-made 21st century gospel that itches their ears by telling them what they want to believe which is that salvation is so easy you just have to believe something about Jesus (that he died for your sins) and it's guaranteed without any need to repent, become a disciple of Jesus, or live for God.""

Well then i would agree, but i would have to say that the non-denominational Protestants you know do not represent either what Reformers as Luther taught or multitudes of non-denominational Protestants.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.

The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.

Certainly the magisterial office is Scriptural, even as the Westminster Confession affirms, but without the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth being supreme then a Church can assert radically different understandings than that of scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

Not so simply, but after prolonged accretion of traditions of men.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure that that's so. The declaration of Papal Infallibility, for example, had so little of a track record prior to 1870 that it split the church when the armtwisting of the council's delegates got rolling. And many other doctrines for which "Tradition" was cited are based upon the opinions and customs of some ancients but in defiance of many others who held a contrary tradition. In other words, it's the controversy over something or other that was the "tradition," and the church just decided to go with one of them.

 

[fhansen]

Are you concerned about the word "totally?" Then let's just say--and please do not pretend that it's not so--that the EO and the RCC have a number of doctrines that are different from the other church's doctrines...and yet they both say that "Tradition" is what they followed (since Sola Scriptura allegedly leads to differences of interpretation.

).

While related to the need for Sacred Tradition, the matter of SS "allegedly" leading to different interpretations is its own, separate, issue. What an unbiased observer, say a secular historian, would consider interesting is the fact that for some reason the older churches, nearer in time to the beginning of Christianity, believe in a final state of purification for those who need it, prior to heaven, while most Protestants, going by Scripture alone, dismiss the idea entirely. And this also ties in with those same church’s views on soteriology, of course, that justice for man is not merely imputed but must involve a real, non-idealized change, that no sinners enter heaven, that one may lose their saved state, that repentance (change of heart) and confession must follow serious sin if one is to remain in Christ, that what we do, as per Matt 25:31-46 for example, ultimately counts towards salvation. These are issues that are either denied by most Protestants or debated among them.

Again, the matter of the Real Presence, the need for Baptism, infant Baptism, the priesthood, basic liturgical practices, sacramentology-all denied or debated among Protestants, due to SS, while these are simply the “way things are” with those churches-both east and west- whose continuous Traditions impact their theologies and practices.

While the names of various doctrines may or may not change, a rose is still a rose; the similarities between the older churches aren’t skin-deep; upon digging a little deeply the role of Tradition in maintaining consistency is striking. But that’s only as should be expected since, by its nature, Tradition is not bound to be as open to individual interpretations as Scripture is.