Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Montalban]

I believe it was based on the authenticity of the writers as well as the content in relation to each other and OT scripture.

That still doesn't solve the problem. The books that we have in the New Testament were handed down through the centuries until they were compiled into the Bible

That means that some cleric is told by his leaders "This book here is the Gospel of Matthew". How's he know? Tradition. It was passed on through the generations.

Sure, it has the title "Gospel of Matthew", but we reject the "Acts of Peter", even though it claims to be of Peter.

If the traditions have not found their source in scripture, then what is it based on? Beliefs that are based on scripture are Christianity, while those that scripture cannot back are not. Traditions that stand on their own are false.

Then they had no reason for supposing that the authorship of Matthew was indeed by Matthew!

Unless you think Matthew's Gospel is self-authorising.

How do you know Matthew's Gospel is written by him? Because it's in the Bible, therefore it must be?

 

[Montalban]

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Rabbi Hillel (as recorded in the Talmud)

My point: Jesus quoting some book doesn't prove that this whole book is inspired.

Also...Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.

Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

 

[Montalban]

I find this argument moot. To say that the church decided what is scripture and what isn't only proves (from both p.o.v.) that what is written is accepted by all of Christianity.

Yes, that's the basis of tradition.

That doesn't make any church body/denomination etc. the higher authority of what was written. They excercised authority over what was left out not what was left in. What does that have to do with tradition vs scripture?

So you're saying that after the church held a council to decide which books should be included that people denied the authority of the church and made up their own biblical canons?

There'd be 100,000's of different canons.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Also...Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.

However that's not a case agains Sola Scriptura (as for Solo Scriptura let their proponents defend it) because we have it recorded now, and since we're living today and not in Paul's times.

At the same time, it is much harder to identify apostolic tradition so that in practice we have to rely on early liturgical prayers, early creeds and the unanimous consent of the early church fathers. But using those sources, I believe, you will be hard pressed to find a doctrine most denominations don't accept with the possible exception of apostolic sucesion.

 

[Montalban]

However that's not a case agains Sola Scriptura (as for Solo Scriptura let their proponents defend it) because we have it recorded now, and since we're living today and not in Paul's times.

I disagree. One can argue that they can use the quote now, as inspiration, because it's recorded, however it does show how Paul himself treated tradition.

What it does suggest, recorded as it is is that Paul himself relied on tradition - he heard it from somewhere. Paul didn't rely on what was written down.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I disagree. One can argue that they can use the quote now, as inspiration, because it's recorded, however it does show how Paul himself treated tradition.

What it does suggest, recorded as it is is that Paul himself relied on tradition - he heard it from somewhere. Paul didn't rely on what was written down.

iow, all of Protestism is wrong since it doesn't rely on tradition.

 

[Montalban]

iow, all of Protestism is wrong since it doesn't rely on tradition.

You're more than welcome to address the points I made

 

[Hentenza]

iow, all of Protestism is wrong since it doesn't rely on tradition.

Hi,

That is actually incorrect. Many mainline protestant churches do rely on tradition, however, the authority is scripture not tradition.

 

[Dorothea]

Reading a book right now that mentions this subject quite a bit:

The Bible a "Personal Matter"

Protestantism's Sola Scriptura insists that the interpretation of the Bible is a personal matter. This is a position that not only demands departure from what has been universally and consistently believed by Christianity since the time of Christ but which also directly contradicts the Bible itself: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).

The "dogma" of Scripture alone was a product of the Protestant Reformation's opposition to abuses committed by the Western Church at Rome under Pope Leo X in the early sicteenth century. Because the criticisms lodged by Martin Luther failed to result in correctio action, Protestant Reformers had no choice but to turn from organized religion and the Church's authority. This was a course that severed any and all reliance on apostolic teaching, the Church, and the Church Fathers.

There was another alternative to the split with Rome. Prostestant Reformers could have returned to the church that had been established by the Lord Jesus Christ in the first century. Unfortunately, that avenue was not pursued and without any connection to the historical New Testament Church Protestantism was left at sea in an every-man-for-himself dilemma.

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (Jn. 14:26 & Jn 16:13), is the dwelling place of God in Spirit (Eph. 2:22), and is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). As such the Church serves as the keeper and protector of apostolic teaching (which, in part, involves written Scripture). This, to turn from the Church must also result in departing from what the Body of Christ has always believed, a replacing of that corporate belief with personal opinion. And in turn this undermines the authority of the bible because if one doesn't trust the tradition that produced it, one can hardly trust the Bible.

The collection of the books of the New Testament scriptures into a book was the church's and the Church Fathers' fourth-century response to rising false teachings that claimed aposolic authority.

One of the many insurmountable problems within Protestantism involves the quandary resulting from the claim that the Holy Spirit provides each believer with an accurate interpretation of Scripture (the foundation of Sola Scriptura). Yet there are countless contradictory understandings of the same verses. For instance think of the controversy over infant baptism, over the various views of creation and evolution, or how to intrepret biblical teachings on the so-called End Times.

The Bible says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8), so for there to be even two valid interpretations of Scripture is impossible.

Another strange consequence of Sola Scriptura is the disregard of some Bible passages in favor of others. This is particularly alarming because the precept of Sola Scriptura includes the contention that Scripture is the binding, sole authority yet there exists many departures from clear biblical verses. Take by way of example:

* Protestant denominations generally do not accept that our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon His disciples the power to forgive sins. The Savior said: "If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (Jn. 20:23). And Christ Jeus also stated that "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you gind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:19; see also Mt. 18:180.

*Most of Protesantism insists that the Eucharistic bread and wine are not the actually Body and Blood of Christ, finding them instead to be a symbolic remembrance of all Jesus Christ ad accomplished on the cross. But in the bible we see that the Lord says, "This is My body...this is My blood" (Mt. 26;26, 28). Christ Jesus also instructs that: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life...for My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed: (Jn. 6:53-55).

***from the book West of Jesus

~cont'd on next post~

 

[Dorothea]

cont'd from previous post on this subject of Sola Scriptura from the book West of Jesus.


*Protestants proclaim that upon belief in Christ a salvation attaches to a person that cannot be lost. This "eternal security" theory misconstrues verses such as "I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present nor things yet to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38-39) and "I gave them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (Jn. 10:28).

* As a companion to, or a by-product of, the eternal security philosophy there exists the mistaken view of "the just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17), to which Martin Luther added "alone" in order to imply that man is saved by faith alone. The book of James rebuts that proposition: "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17) and again, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:20).

Of special interest, when contemplating how Protestants both support Sola Scriptura and contradict some Bible verses, is with the precept of Scripture alone. For instance: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped by every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

St. Paul was obviously referring to the Old Testament. This means that if interpreted as Protestants do, as an invalidation of anything other than Scripture, then not only would Holy Tradition (the Church, oral apostolic teachings, etc.) have to be done away with but the New Testament would also have to be discarded because it had not been written when St. Paul authored this passage.

Additionally, in the same chapter (2 Tim. 3:8) we find an example of oral tradition. The names of Jannes and Jambres, the two magicians who opposed Moses in Exodus (chapters seven and eight), are listed, and that the names of these two magicians do not appear in Exodus but were known to Apostle Paul demonstrates a use of, and validates as genuine, oral tradition. Consequently, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 does not serve as a passage that establishes a "Scripture only" rule but rather authenticates the Bible as a legitimate component of Holy Tradition.

Scripture unequivocally condemns a fractured spiritual state: "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). Verses 1 Cor. 11:18 and 1 Cor. 12:25 provide similar exhortation as does St. Clement, "the abominable and unholy schism," and St. Ignatius, "if anyone follows a maker of schism he will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Other consequences of biblical self-interpretation include acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and then going on to ignore the authorities He established over us: "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive" (Heb. 13:17) and "Submit yourselves to your elders" (1 Pet. 5:5). In addition to disregarding Church authorities there is the previously treated abandonment of Holy Tradition's other three strands. That is to say, self-interpretation deviates from what has been believed for two thousand years; from the interpretation of apostles, "according to the glorious gospel of the blesssed God which was committed to my trust" (1 Tim. 1:11), and Church Fathers, "I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you" (1 Cor. 11:23) and "I delivered to you first of all that which I also received" (1 Cor. 15:3). The interpretation and teaching by apostles and Church Fathers has, through Sola Scriptura, been replaced by the fallen human intellect of modern man, assuredly a transgression of the instruction to "keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first century faithful possessed no New Testament Scripture yet still accuractly lived the apostolic faith. We observe a deviation from Scripture because rather than insisting that the Bible is the sole guide for Christian living we find in Scripture that faithful believers are an example of the life in Christ:

* Brethren, join in following my example, and not those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern" (Phil. 3:17)
* "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1)
* "Be an example to the believers" (1 Tim. 4:12)--also 1 Pet 5:3 "being examples to the flock.

Protestantism insists on a Scripture-only path, condemns as "man-made" and extraneous first and second century Church Father's writings, and then goes o nto draft modern bookk after "authoritative" book on "Christian life" and "Bible interpretation." This is a far cry from the just-read-the-Bible mantra. Not only is there an inconsistency here but it is also incredibly arrogant to set oneself up as the expert and authority in lieu of the apostles and Church Fathers.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you for taking to time to post those very inspiring and edifying posts Dorothea

But I myself still remain Solo Scriptura

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

You're more than welcome to address the points I made

 

[lighthouse_hope]

I disagree. One can argue that they can use the quote now, as inspiration, because it's recorded, however it does show how Paul himself treated tradition.

What it does suggest, recorded as it is is that Paul himself relied on tradition - he heard it from somewhere. Paul didn't rely on what was written down.

First of all, we don't know if it was written down or not. Secondly we cannot speak of a extra-biblical tradition until the Bible was finished

 

[Montalban]

First of all, we don't know if it was written down or not.

To an extent I agree. We have no OTHER record of it.

Secondly we cannot speak of a extra-biblical tradition until the Bible was finished

Actually I think we can, given that they taught without the NT, until it came into being we can naturally enough say that they could teach without the NT!

They could teach extra-biblically BECAUSE the Bible wasn't in being.

Now of course that the Bible is in being they can teach extra-biblically - but we'd have other reasons for arguing that they can do so.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

To an extent I agree. We have no OTHER record of it.


Actually I think we can, given that they taught without the NT, until it came into being we can naturally enough say that they could teach without the NT!

They could teach extra-biblically BECAUSE the Bible wasn't in being.

Well they were the writers of the books, I'm sure they did know about their stuff I mean we cannot compare our knowledge with theirs.

 

[Montalban]

Well they were the writers of the books, I'm sure they did know about their stuff. I mean we cannot compare our knowledge with theirs.

Is there any indication that Ignatius of Antioch, taught by Peter, didn't know his stuff?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Dorothea,

Very many thanks for those wonderful quotations

It would be interesting to have the views of our non-Orthodox, non-Catholic friends on the passages you quote.

peace,

Anglian

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Is there any indication that Ignatius of Antioch, taught by Peter, didn't know his stuff?

No

 

[stelow]

Acts 17:11
11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Anglian]

Acts 17:11
11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

OK, they were looking in Scripture - that would be what we now call the Old Testament. Now how do you know that Acts is 'Scripture' on a par with the OT - Paul never said so, nor did Christ - and nor does it say anywhere in the NT what books are in it.

If you can't prove from the NT that it is scripture, how can you be sola scriptura? Show me one place in the NY where it tells you what books are Scripture?

peace,

Anglian