Evidence from Sola Scriptura - right from the Bible itself

[Albion]

We had a poster who asked to ignore the visible Church and consider Scripture alone, and presumably personal understandings of Scripture.

I believe that the first 3-4 centuries of the Church were critical in bringing together both Scripture and the faith. And yes, I am only speaking of the decision made by the Church as a whole, meeting in Council.

"Ignore the visible Church." "Critical in bringing together." This is wording that is open to a lot of quibbling and second-guessing, I'd think. But if the issue is what I believe, I believe what my church and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion hold, which is that Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith and contains all that is necessary for salvation. Various councils, both the ecumenical councils and others, codified the Bible, wrote the Creed, and determined the Church's position on various matters. That's important, yes.

 

[Root of Jesse]

One of the problems with saying that one accepts the early church fathers is that it doesn't explain what is "accepted" about them. That they are great figures, and influential, in the history of the church is one thing. Talking, as many people do, as though they were either all of one accord, or formed a continuous consensus of belief, or something like that is something else.

I don't personally believe, nor do I know anyone else that does, that the ECFs were all of one accord on everything or that they formed a consensus of belief. We find elements of Truth in all of them, though, and places where they weren't so...great. Which is human. None of the ECFs was Pope, if I recall right. Therefore, not infallible. But where they are in agreement with the teaching of the Church, we quote them freely.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Ignore the visible Church." "Critical in bringing together." This is wording that is open to a lot of quibbling and second-guessing, I'd think. But if the issue is what I believe, I believe what my church and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion hold, which is that Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith and contains all that is necessary for salvation. Various councils, both the ecumenical councils and others, codified the Bible, wrote the Creed, and determined the Church's position on various matters. That's important, yes.

Are the 39 Articles Biblical?

 

[Albion]

I don't personally believe, nor do I know anyone else that does, that the ECFs were all of one accord on everything or that they formed a consensus of belief. We find elements of Truth in all of them, though, and places where they weren't so...great. Which is human.

The significance of that, however, is that many people -- here on CF and elsewhere -- cite a single ECF, or two, and insist that "this proves doctrine X was believed in by the church from the beginning." In reality, and as you agree here, it does no such thing. They're scattered comments.

It might show that something was KNOWN at a certain date, but it does nothing for continuity or catholicity or to establish what the Apostles taught. Yet this is the way that "Tradition" creates doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Are the 39 Articles Biblical?

Is the Bible Biblical? Is Scripture Scriptural? Yes, the Articles are in accord with Scripture.

 

[patricius79]

Acts 17
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see IF these things were so.


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.





No doubt one Magisterium was replaced by another - but the model/pattern/example we have from Christ remains the same - he hammered the traditions of the one true church (nation church in his case) started by God - and he did so "sola scriptura".

Bereans went totally against what their magisterium told them to do - by testing the teaching of Paul "sola scriptura" and then making the switch. This is the only method that works across denominations. "To see IF those things were so" means testing Paul - not blindly swallowing.

And yes in the case of Mark 7:6-13 nothing at all other than written Word of God was appealed to by Christ - so while not denying all the other ways that God speaks other than what had already been written at the time of Christ - He did appeal to scripture alone to hammer the Magisterium.

Traditions, doctrines, practices that pass the test of scripture - are not error.

I'm not hearing answers to some of my questions. Maybe I missed something. If Sola Scriptura is a true doctrine, why did the Bereans need the oral Word to understand the Bible?

Another question: why does Paul tell us to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether given orally or by letter?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not hearing answers to some of my questions. Maybe I missed something. If Sola Scriptura is a true doctrine, why did the Bereans need the oral Word to understand the Bible?

Are you using circular reasoning? These are not Christians asking Paul to teach them and then just accepting whatever he said - because of course "he is the teacher explaining". But rather these are non-Christians and they are not convinced at all that whatever Paul might say is even true. They first have to check it out - to see if scripture condemns or supports his teaching.

That is very different from coming to Paul as "Their Apostle" and asking him to teach because of course whatever he would teach surely must be true.

in this cross-denominational model the person from the "other denomination" can have more information or better understand... they can also be horribly contradicted by the Bible. It can go either way. And to know - one first has to "test".

The straw man - is the idea that even doing that test - STILL they must learn nothing from what Paul says even if the Bible affirms his teaching. That would be appear to be in your question - but is not the SS doctrine at all.

Another question: why does Paul tell us to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether given orally or by letter?

As stated before - SS does not say "all tradition will fail the test of scripture".

Not sure why this keeps coming up.

Tradition that is good should pass the test of scripture. IF it does not - then it is not good.

And of course whatever they had in the first century as doctrine is known to us at his late date ONLY in scripture. So even that is moot.

 

[BobRyan]

Are the 39 Articles Biblical?

Test them and see.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't personally believe, nor do I know anyone else that does, that the ECFs were all of one accord on everything or that they formed a consensus of belief. We find elements of Truth in all of them, though, and places where they weren't ..

indeed ... a bit dicey. Not only that but you have the confirmed forgeries and the seriouslyhh-doubted - and the hoped-is-true in that list.

 

[patricius79]

Are you using circular reasoning? These are not Christians asking Paul to teach them and then just accepting whatever he said - because of course "he is the teacher explaining". But rather these are non-Christians and they are not convinced at all that whatever Paul might say is even true. They first have to check it out - to see if scripture condemns or supports his teaching.

That is very different from coming to Paul as "Their Apostle" and asking him to teach because of course whatever he would teach surely must be true.

in this cross-denominational model the person from the "other denomination" can have more information or better understand... they can also be horribly contradicted by the Bible. It can go either way. And to know - one first has to "test".

The straw man - is the idea that even doing that test - STILL they must learn nothing from what Paul says even if the Bible affirms his teaching. That would be appear to be in your question - but is not the SS doctrine at all.

I don't see how that answers my question. I'm asking why the Bereans didn't understand the Gospel from the Bible alone, but, instead, from the Bible under the light of the oral Word preached by Paul and Silas.

Yes, the Bereans tested the oral Word against Scripture; and it agreed, as it always does.

If the Bereans had decided that it did not agree, they would have been wrong.

This all would seem to support the Catholic Church's position.

As stated before - SS does not say "all tradition will fail the test of scripture".

Not sure why this keeps coming up.

Tradition that is good should pass the test of scripture. IF it does not - then it is not good.

And of course whatever they had in the first century as doctrine is known to us at his late date ONLY in scripture.

"And of course whatever they had in the first century as doctrine is known to us at his late date ONLY in scripture."

I know you are sincere and are trying to follow your conscience. But I don't think the Bible says that.

Paul doesn't say that his oral traditions might contradict Scripture.

He says that we are to hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter.

This is the living and effective word of God for all time: Sacred Tradition, of which Scripture is a crucial part.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No you don't have to waste time posting anything.

Being disingenuous is not a great character trait... if you have no intention of reading something, then be honest about it and don't ask for it.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

And even if there were no divisions at the time os Scripture, there were many, many denominational differences in the next 2-3 centuries before the actions by Constantine and by the councils.

Basing your doctrines on a Roman Caesar and the people he decided to give the spiritual power to in the empire is not sound... I'd rethink that if I were you.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Do you believe that the church txt Christ formed is to one Church of early times, the Church that canonized the Scriptures and defended the faith against all comers, consolidating it in the Nicene Creed?

I think it important to accept the early church and the early church fathers. Obviously, there have been many schisms since the councils at Nicea and Constantinople.

God could have used an illiterate peasant woman to create canon if He so chose... it does not imply supreme authority on everything.

 

[mark46]

God could have used an illiterate peasant woman to create canon if He so chose... it does not imply supreme authority on everything.

But he didn't.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

But he didn't.

No, but my point is, that just because God used the early church to accomplish some of His plan, doesn't automatically mean they are now the infallible organ of truth... that is arrogance.

 

[BobRyan]

No, but my point is, that just because God used the early church to accomplish some of His plan, doesn't automatically mean they are now the infallible organ of truth... that is arrogance.

Jesus said "Salvation is of the Jews" in John 4 - around the very time they were about to have him crucified. Within a few short years. So they were accomplishing some "good" while at the same time they were pursuing some bad ideas.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Are you using circular reasoning? These are not Christians asking Paul to teach them and then just accepting whatever he said - because of course "he is the teacher explaining". But rather these are non-Christians and they are not convinced at all that whatever Paul might say is even true. They first have to check it out - to see if scripture condemns or supports his teaching.

That is very different from coming to Paul as "Their Apostle" and asking him to teach because of course whatever he would teach surely must be true.

in this cross-denominational model the person from the "other denomination" can have more information or better understand... they can also be horribly contradicted by the Bible. It can go either way. And to know - one first has to "test".

The straw man - is the idea that even doing that test - STILL they must learn nothing from what Paul says even if the Bible affirms his teaching. That would be appear to be in your question - but is not the SS doctrine at all.

I don't see how that answers my question. I'm asking why the Bereans didn't understand the Gospel from the Bible alone

They used the "Bible alone' to test Paul. They did not ask Paul to show them that the Bible supported him by believing whatever he said that the Bible said. Rather to "test" to "See IF" they had NOT use Paul.

Your point above conflates the idea of testing Paul vs -- not ever learning anything from Paul since the Bible is the only source of learning. And that is an "insert" into SS that is not there. SS does not mean that you cannot learn from any source but the Bible. It is that you have to test all sources by the Bible.

Two very different concepts.

Yes, the Bereans tested the oral Word against Scripture; and it agreed, as it always does.

It failed utterly to agree in Mark 7:6-13 as Christ points out.

Those Jews in Berea could not assume that scripture was always going to confirm whatever someone on the street was teaching. That is not a "test" that would just be circular reasoning.

Paul says "even if WE (apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9.

Paul did not say "accept whatever we apostles say - no need to check it out - it can never be in error if it comes from the Apostles or an angel from heaven"

Those are opposite teachings.

 

[patricius79]

They used the "Bible alone' to test Paul. They did not ask Paul to show them that the Bible supported him by believing whatever he said that the Bible said. Rather to "test" to "See IF" they had NOT use Paul.

Your point above conflates the idea of testing Paul vs -- not ever learning anything from Paul since the Bible is the only source of learning. And that is an "insert" into SS that is not there. SS does not mean that you cannot learn from any source but the Bible. It is that you have to test all sources by the Bible.

Two very different concepts.

I'm hearing you say we can learn from traditions so long as they fit with Scripture. But I heard you state this oral traditions, too: ""And of course whatever they had in the first century as doctrine is known to us at his late date ONLY in scripture."

It failed utterly to agree in Mark 7:6-13 as Christ points out.

In Mark 7 the oral Word of Christ entirely agreed with Scripture, as with the Bereans. Sacred Tradition always agrees with Scripture, because Scripture is a part of it.

What didn't agree were the false oral traditions such as the Korban rule which went against Sacred Tradition (the Word of God)

Those Jews in Berea could not assume that scripture was always going to confirm whatever someone on the street was teaching. That is not a "test" that would just be circular reasoning.

Paul says "even if WE (apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9.

I see your point. And that Gospel that they preached was preached orally, right?

Paul did not say "accept whatever we apostles say - no need to check it out - it can never be in error if it comes from the Apostles or an angel from heaven"

Judging by 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul would say that we should test the teachings of people against what was handed on by the Apostles, whether orally or by letter.

But I heard you state: ""And of course whatever they had in the first century as doctrine is known to us at his late date ONLY in scripture."

But where does the Bible say that? And how, then, are we living out 2 Thessalonians 2:15 today?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Test them and see.

I don't have the time for that. I've been non-Catholic and when I had a choice, I chose the Truth, thanks.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I don't have the time for that.

Pesky Bible study taking up so much of our precious time...