Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Predated the NT Writings? Oral beliefs not in Scripture? In glancing through the links I posted, it seemed like dealing with Scripture was common practice, some even dealing with OC Scripture.But the fathers came from an entire, well, tradition, of beliefs amd practices-a way doing things-that predated the New Testament writings
P1: agree; P2: agree; C1:agree P3: disagree:I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:
P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.
What do you think?
For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?
I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!
That’s not the point. The church predated new testament writings. There was already a tradition of practices and beliefs in place before the NT writings and the earliest of the fathers were directly exposed to that. And to this day we’re still exposed to it. The ancient historical churches are not first and foremost Scripture-based, but simply revelation-based. The concept of Sola Scriptura was and is nonsense, important as Scripture is.Predated the NT Writings? Oral beliefs not in Scripture? In glancing through the links I posted, it seemed like dealing with Scripture was common practice, some even dealing with OC Scripture.
I didn’t say otherwise; I only said there are a lot of words there to cherry pick from if one seeks to be selective in their ECF research. Having said that, if one would read only a random fraction of those words objectively most would nonetheless end up being enriched overall and impressed in their opinions about the ECFs as well as most likely changed in their understanding of the faith.18 million can be quantity vs. quality.
We'll have to disagree that Scripture vs. various oral traditions that men may have, make, and favor is not the point. You also did not address whether or not most of the ECF writings I posted were dealing with interpretation of Scripture or even in unanimous agreement. I'll go back and look when I have the desire to.That’s not the point. The church predated new testament writings. There was already a tradition of practices and beliefs in place before the NT writings and the earliest of the fathers were directly exposed to that. And to this day we’re still exposed to it. The ancient historical churches are not first and foremost Scripture-based, but simply revelation-based. The concept of Sola Scriptura was and is nonsense, important as Scripture is.
It appears that the 'you' of these chapters is the Twelve and not just anybody. Do you believe that the 'you' there specifically includes you? It may not. Just sayin'. The context matters.Let’s see if the Word “church” has been added here and God’s Church are those who follow His Word.
John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. If Jesus wanted to say “the Church” here instead of “you” He would have said so.
The word “you” is not the definition of church. It is a person.
Jesus also said If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15 in this same passage, which doesn't mean only the 12 apostles are to keep and the rest of us can profane. Everything in scripture is for our teaching, training, instruction and correction 2 Timothy 3:16. I am sorry you do not think the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals, but that has not been my personal experience or millions of others. I think one way we receive more of the Holy Spirit is through our obedience to Him John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32.It appears that the 'you' of these chapters is the Twelve and not just anybody. Do you believe that the 'you' there specifically includes you? It may not. Just sayin'. The context matters.
I think all of us in this discussion, at least so far, hold a high view of Scripture. That Scripture is not self-refuting, that the Spirit does not refute Scripture. Some of us believe that the 'Sola' part of 'Sola Scriptura' is a misrepresentation of Scripture, a theological novum, and in fact a departure from Scripture and not found in Scripture or Tradition or the Magisterium of the Church. That it sprung from the mind of Martin Luther alone.So, I don't view SS as "nonsense" nor do I live by the various definitions of it, nor even by the terminology SS, nor by what SF seems to have been turned into by some, nor by the ECF. Rather than sorting through the 18 million words of the ECF, I still chose to sort through the 300k+ words of the NC Writings and the OC Scripture. As to the question of this OP, I'm not sure I care. Scripture is not self-refuting. The Spirit does not refute Scripture. Talk to any man long enough and he will self-contradict and self-refute and inevitably misinterpret Scripture. The Scripture and the Spirit are the epitome of what we've got of Truth. I see no reason to think otherwise at this point.
Of course not. Those are for all of us. And not just found here. But Jesus needed to bring home to the Twelve that they had better practice what they preach.Jesus also said If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15 in this same passage, which doesn't mean only the 12 apostles are to keep and the rest of us can profane.
Not everything is for everybody in the same way. We are not all apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers.Everything in scripture is for our teaching, training, instruction and correction 2 Timothy 3:16.
Have you somehow read my mind? I think not.I am sorry you do not think the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals,
And my experience. But I have not been told some things appropriate for others. And I do not pretend I am an apostle or a prophet or a teacher. They have different callings and different gifts even though they have the same Lord.But that has not been my personal experience or millions of others.
We don't hear much when disobeying.I think one way we receive more of the Holy Spirit is through our obedience to Him John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32.
Where in the scripture does it say you have to be a teacher, prophet or apostle to receive the Holy Spirit? I am glad you agree that the commandments are for all of us, and Jesus said those who keep His commandments receive the Spirit of Truth. John 14:15-18 so I trust the promises of Jesus.Of course not. Those are for all of us. And not just found here. But Jesus needed to bring home to the Twelve that they had better practice what they preach.
Not everything is for everybody in the same way. We are not all apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers.
Have you somehow read my mind? I think not.
And my experience. But I have not been told some things appropriate for others. And I do not pretend I am an apostle or a prophet or a teacher. They have different callings and different gifts even though they have the same Lord.
We don't hear much when disobeying.
Thank you for your input. I know from other discussions with @fhansen that he too has a high regard for Scripture. Your input on the "Sola" matter is helpful. In reading some definitions of SS, it's clear that its adherents have a high regard for the work of the Spirit. I've also seen that over time some of the original meanings of some things from Luther took on some modifications. This is one of the reasons I normally just disregard the use of such terminology and don't function by such things. I think we begin opening up the arguments when we start talking about traditions and authorities.I think all of us in this discussion, at least so far, hold a high view of Scripture. That Scripture is not self-refuting, that the Spirit does not refute Scripture. Some of us believe that the 'Sola' part of 'Sola Scriptura' is a misrepresentation of Scripture, a theological novum, and in fact a departure from Scripture and not found in Scripture or Tradition or the Magisterium of the Church. That it sprung from the mind of Martin Luther alone.
I think in the minds of many who might disagree with that thought the 'Sola' has so merged with the 'Scriptura' that you think denying the 'Sola' is denying the 'Scriptura'. Not the case at all. In fact, some of us, following Catholic teaching about Scripture as found in Dei Verbum (Dei Verbum -The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II) from Vatican II. Here is but a snippet from that text:
"Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13)."
It does not. Where would you get the idea that I thought THAT? The Holy Spirit ministers to us individually as well as corporately. And we all have our callings within the Body of Christ. That does not mean we are all called to be the same, nor that we receive the same gifts.Where in the scripture does it say you have to be a teacher, prophet or apostle to receive the Holy Spirit?
Yes. That does not translate into every promise of Jesus for all of us equally. Or that any one of us has enough of anything from the Holy Spirit to go it alone.I am glad you agree that the commandments are for all of us, and Jesus said those who keep His commandments receive the Spirit of Truth. John 14:15-18 so I trust the promises of Jesus.
And yet people come up with all kinds of varying traditions based on personal interpretation of Scripture, resulting in varying personal beliefs and denominations. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has caused much more variation and confusion in Christain belifs than any other source. So, which is it? Is baptism regenerative- or not? Again, whichever side you come down on will be more or less guess-work, unless, as with some of the Protestant denominations, you acknowledge at least some valuable role for the past to play in certain instances.We'll have to disagree that Scripture vs. various oral traditions that men may have, make, and favor is not the point.
First of all you're not arguing aganst Rome only, but against all the various eastern churches as well that just "happen" to have similar liturgies, consecration prayers over the Eucharist, unwavering reverence for the Eucharist, belief in the Real presence, agreement on virtually all sacraments, among many other striking similarities including their views on justification. I guess everyone just went wrong right off the bat. You're arguing against history, echoed by the ECFs who are at least capable of giving us some real, personal insight into what the early church was like, while we may presume to just "know" what it was like based on some quite sketchy details given by Sripture which don't necessarily contradict any ancient or current practices we know of to begin with.There was an evolving integration of races in the first century with Gentiles attending synagogues and new local assemblies being established mainly by Jewish Apostles and those trained by them. Then the destruction of the Temple in AD70. As I said, there were also departures from The Faith of Christ and false doctrines & gospels being dealt with per the NC Writings. Personally, I have difficulty seeing synagogue turning into the Catholic Mass and the traditions go from the Jewish Paul who charged Christians to imitate him and avoid traditions of men to the Roman version of The Faith, and from a Torah loving people to an anti-Jewish religious hierarchy that kept writings to itself and demanded people convert to it claiming that it was the only way to Christ - the only Church.
Even now you are calling it the Church. So, does that mean all other denominations are not the Church and we must all submit to Rome? All other traditions are not the Tradition? The Body of Christ - the Household of God - the Ekklesia of God - Christ's Ekklesia is Rome? Surely fhansen, you haven't gone there, have you?
For my part I simply began agreeing with Rome, first of all, and most importantly IMO on the doctrine of justification.I have zero leading from the Text or the Spirit to join Rome.
Since you seemed to object to the word "you" that was used in John 14:26 to mean individuals Sola Scriptura Self-refuting? when Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those who obey. His commandments John 14:15-18 and the Spirit will teach us all things, which is a promise of Jesus for those who are seeking Truth and to those who obey Acts 5:32, The Spirit will also convict one of their sins which will hopefully lead one to repentance and a changed heart. This is why it’s so important to have an open heart and allow the Spirit to guide and the Spirit will never guide you away from God's Word. God’s Word is Truth. Psalms 119:160It does not. Where would you get the idea that I thought THAT?
So not sure why the objection to the scripture I posted or the word "you" to mean individuals. Of course the Holy Spirit guides individuals and His church. We probably have a different definition of His church though.The Holy Spirit ministers to us individually as well as corporately.
You are not making an argument I am making here.And we all have our callings within the Body of Christ. That does not mean we are all called to be the same, nor that we receive the same gifts.
Where is that in scripture? My pastor was an atheist living in a cave that someone left the Holy Bible. Reading the Bible alone led Him to Christ and a complete lifestyle change and he now has a very fruitful ministry that has reached people across the world, so I think the Holy Spirit can reach anyone, regardless where they are as long as they have an open heart to hearing God’s Truth.Or that any one of us has enough of anything from the Holy Spirit to go it alone.
My point was that the early churches were/are not like the many more recent versions which base their beliefs and pratices solely on a Book which they picked up centuries after the fact with no reference to or dependence upon the past. At the beginnings of our faith the beliefs and practices were already known and in place before the New Testament was written.(staff edit)
Yes, they do. Do you agree with everything Rome says? I'm no prophet but I don't see Rome being the end of denominations.And yet people come up with all kinds of varying traditions based on personal interpretation of Scripture, resulting in varying personal beliefs and denominations.
Correct.First of all you're not arguing aganst Rome only,
I did acknowledge this. It's called the Body of Christ of which every true Christian is a member. At this time IMO Christians are interspersed throughout many, many denominations. From what I recall, you agree with this, or at least did.As far as "the Church" goes, any Christian should at least acknolwedge that there can only be one Church-one that God established
I think we know there is a foundational belief we all must share and there are a lot of traditions that have little true bearing. Once again, I simply do not think that the Jewish Paul was instructing to stick with his traditions, and they look like Rome. As you know, only Rome believes in the charism of Rome. I doubt the bulk of the 1+billion know or care what that means, and I've little doubt there is much darnel in all denominations. I sure hope I'm misreading you and you're not suggesting the infallibility of Rome.Either way, Sola Scriptura is not the answer, providing no sure means of sufficiently determining truths of the Christian faith, of God's will for man, IOW. I think there should at least be a glimmer of acknolwedgement for the need of the gift or charism of inffalibilty
That's not Sola Scriptura. Christians who deny Sola Scriptura don't need to throw words out of the Bible.
- Live by every word, not just some words
This is not Sola Scriptura either. Christians who reject Sola Scriptura do not ignore or disobey Christ's teachings.
- Hear His sayings and teaching
- Obey
...And of course this also has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Christians have been reading Scripture and bearing fruit for thousands of years while rejecting the novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
- Read scripture
- Bear fruit
Respectfully, if you look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, the development of church tradition makes much more sense, and can be understood holistically. Catholicism vs. Protestantism is a false dichotomy, and also Sola Scriptura as proposed by Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer is a different doctrine than the Nuda Scriptura doctrine people tend to confuse it with, for Luther and Cranmer and even Calvin did not altogether reject tradition.We'll have to disagree that Scripture vs. various oral traditions that men may have, make, and favor is not the point. You also did not address whether or not most of the ECF writings I posted were dealing with interpretation of Scripture or even in unanimous agreement. I'll go back and look when I have the desire to.
There was an evolving integration of races in the first century with Gentiles attending synagogues and new local assemblies being established mainly by Jewish Apostles and those trained by them. Then the destruction of the Temple in AD70. As I said, there were also departures from The Faith of Christ and false doctrines & gospels being dealt with per the NC Writings. Personally, I have difficulty seeing synagogue turning into the Catholic Mass and the traditions go from the Jewish Paul who charged Christians to imitate him and avoid traditions of men to the Roman version of The Faith, and from a Torah loving people to an anti-Jewish religious hierarchy that kept writings to itself and demanded people convert to it claiming that it was the only way to Christ - the only Church. Even now you are calling it the Church. So, does that mean all other denominations are not the Church and we must all submit to Rome? All other traditions are not the Tradition? The Body of Christ - the Household of God - the Ekklesia of God - Christ's Ekklesia is Rome? Surely fhansen, you haven't gone there, have you?
You're more versed in the ECF than I and I've enjoyed much of what you have to say in some of the theological discussions. I've no doubt there are some good things to be derived from their 18 million words. On the other hand, there are way too many that long for the true Apostolic Ekklesia - the foundation of Christ and the Apostles & Prophets. I currently agree that Rome is not it and that succession is unfounded and that some of Rome's other traditions are just not worth the time to even think about.
Honestly, I have no desire for any of the traditions but those I can glean from the Text and the continual work to help interpret the Text. Even though I don't live by the terminology of various traditions, including Reformation terminology, I'm comfortable just remaining with the Bible and facing judgment with verses like John12:48. I have zero leading from the Text or the Spirit to join Rome. If I don't see it in the Word or get a sense of leading and guidance in Spirit, then IMO I'm not required to join any denominational tradition and am free to work to understand OC & NC writers as it seems the NC writers were doing to a large degree with the Hebrew Scriptures even post ascension.
So, I don't view SS as "nonsense" nor do I live by the various definitions of it, nor even by the terminology SS, nor by what SF seems to have been turned into by some, nor by the ECF. Rather than sorting through the 18 million words of the ECF, I still chose to sort through the 300k+ words of the NC Writings and the OC Scripture. As to the question of this OP, I'm not sure I care. Scripture is not self-refuting. The Spirit does not refute Scripture. Talk to any man long enough and he will self-contradict and self-refute and inevitably misinterpret Scripture. The Scripture and the Spirit are the epitome of what we've got of Truth. I see no reason to think otherwise at this point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?