Sola Scriptura: Are the Scriptures Sufficient as a Rule of Faith?

[thecolorsblend]

Your question proves the infallible authority of Scripture alone when you're asking me to go to it for proof.

I think you're mixing your doctrines there a little bit.

Afaik, nobody in this thread is questioning the infallibility of Sacred Scripture.

However, "sola scriptura" cannot be adduced from scripture alone. Or, if it can, adherents sure are shy about presenting evidence in this thread.

We see that Paul directed Timothy to the Scriptures alone as the source of his ability to do everything God called Timothy to do in the church.

[Citation needed]

 

[Tra Phull]

Whose magisterium beats up the other guys' magisterium?

 

[klutedavid]

Hey, when you get a minute, can you post the scripture saying "scripture should be one's sole authority"? Thx.

Your correct that the early church was based on the verbal transmission of information. When an apostle could not visit a church for some reason. Then that verbal transmission was written and then sent to the church.

Hence, we have a number of letters such as one Corinthians that explains, so many of the points. That the apostle would have verbally told the Corinthians. We even have the gospel message itself, written down in 1 Corinthians 15.

The beauty of the collection of letters written by the apostles, is that we have that source information. Not some bishop's interpretation of that information. Not some tradition that may have been taught in one church, but not in another church.

The danger of tradition is that any tradition, cannot be established as valid, especially from the first, second, or third century.

 

[mmksparbud]

So there are words of Jesus you called Scripture but aren't in written Scripture. I would say they are revelation but not Scripture, and that as they were heard by the apostles in their formation in the faith, have become part of the faith. That's what Tradition is. Jesus didn't waste his words. We have been given the whole cup, in different containers. Seven parts of eight isn't bad, and for most people only a few verses would do, but the whole cup is necessary for the Church as a whole to function.

But it is not by groups that Jesus saves, it it by individuals. He doesn't save a church, a people. We are not saved |"en mas"---God works through the heart of an individual. Maybe your church needs the whole cup---but the individual does not. Faith is the missing 1/8 cup.

 

[Tra Phull]

There were centuries before These squabbles about SS and East and West kinda sorta had a little falling out.

It's been a thousand years.

Whose magisterium wins?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your correct that the early church was based on the verbal transmission of information. When an apostle could not visit a church for some reason. Then that verbal transmission was written and then sent to the church.

Hence, we have a number of letters such as one Corinthians that explains, so many of the points. That the apostle would have verbally told the Corinthians. We even have the gospel message itself, written down in 1 Corinthians 15.

The beauty of the collection of letters written by the apostles, is that we have that source information. Not some bishop's interpretation of that information. Not some tradition that may have been taught in one church, but not in another church.

The danger of tradition is that any tradition, cannot be established as valid, especially from the first, second, or third century.

This is one of the interpretive difficulties with "sola scriptura".

The Holy Spirit is powerful enough to inspire men to write the New Testament.

The Holy Spirit is powerful enough to inspire subsequent men to recognize inspired texts.

The Holy Spirit is powerful enough to guide still later men into compiling the inspired texts into a single volume called "the Bible".

But the Holy Spirit isn't powerful enough to continue guiding the Church in matters of faith and morals up to the current day?

I find that premise to be illogical. If the Holy Spirit infallibly guided the Church in the first century (as He clearly did) why would He not infallibly guide the Church in later times? Since we're on the subject, if "sola scriptura" has any credibility to it whatsoever, why would the Holy Spirit stop infallibly guiding the Church before literacy became more widespread?

As ever, "sola scriptura" remains an utterly illogical and incoherent doctrine.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think you're mixing your doctrines there a little bit.

Afaik, nobody in this thread is questioning the infallibility of Sacred Scripture.

However, "sola scriptura" cannot be adduced from scripture alone. Or, if it can, adherents sure are shy about presenting evidence in this thread.

There is a lot of doctrine mixing when it comes to these things. As if not believing in Sola Scriptura means we don't believe Scripture, or it's (infallibility - deleted) inerrancy, both of which we do.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is a lot of doctrine mixing when it comes to these things. As if not believing in Sola Scriptura means we don't believe Scripture, or it's infallibility, both of which we do.

I find that, ahem, some ecclesial communities don't really grasp the full implications of what it means to say that a text is inspired.

Hence, the over-reliance on big boy words like "infallible" or "inerrant".

 

[chevyontheriver]

Whose magisterium beats up the other guys' magisterium?

For the most part that magisterium is rooted in the Fathers and thus is shared. We have our differences, most of which are frankly cultural. Our magesterii agree on seven sacraments and frankly the essentials of the faith. So it's really not a matter of one beating the other up.

 

[Tra Phull]

So Chevy confirms infallibility; and colors poo-poos it.

 

[Tra Phull]

It's really not a matter of a pope excomunnicating a patriarch?

That didn't happen?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I find that, ahem, some ecclesial communities don't really grasp the full implications of what it means to say that a text is inspired.

Hence, the over-reliance on big boy words like "infallible" or "inerrant".

Right. People either are or are not infallible to limited degrees. But that word is inappropriate for Scripture. And while inspiration and inerrancy both apply to Scripture they mean different things.

I think a lot of this discussion has been a failure to communicate, to presume a lot about others, and to settle nothing. Part of that is the fifty or more different understandings of Sola Scriptura. Or for the guy who never heard of the phrase Sola Scriptura before then Scripture alone, or Bible alone. They do not all agree among themselves what that all means.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So Chevy confirms infallibility; and colors poo-poos it.

I misspoke. I should have changed the term to inerrancy. I sloppily just copied your words. My bad. Scripture isn't strictly infallible, because infallibility is something that applies to persons. Inerrancy applies to the Bible.

 

[Tra Phull]

In post 191, Chevy, you seem to affirm infallibility of Scripture.
A few posts later you switch the goalposts, saying the word is inappropriate for Scripture.
You're ate up, dude.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's really not a matter of a pope excomunnicating a patriarch?

That didn't happen?

It happened. But it's been lifted. Lifted in 1963 or so. Actually it was lifted 900 years ago with the death of the patriarch as excommunications are null as soon as a person dies.

 

[Tra Phull]

I claim neither infallibility nor inerrancy for Scripture, but SUFFICIENCY.
And as said before, I am not SS, but Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In post 191, Chevy, you seem to affirm infallibility of Scripture.
A few posts later you switch the goalposts, saying the word is inappropriate for Scripture.
You're ate up, dude.

I copied the word you used without being careful. I made a mistake. Actually you made a mistake too in using the word 'infallible' and I just failed to catch your mistake right away. So I copied your mistake. It's late and I'm going to bed now. Enjoy catching me in a mistake. Maybe if you read all of my posts in the future you will find a few other mistakes. You could own your own mistake in the matter though.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So Chevy confirms infallibility; and colors poo-poos it.

What I wrote was...

I find that, ahem, some ecclesial communities don't really grasp the full implications of what it means to say that a text is inspired.

Hence, the over-reliance on big boy words like "infallible" or "inerrant".

You're sort of proving my point for me.

 

[thecolorsblend]

there is a flaw in this argument. there is an interpretation I assume you deem as valid but where did this come from? when you go back far enough do you cross a point where private interpretations are now official church doctrine? Doctrines were often violently forged by bishops, fought out until the last man was standing won, the loser cast out and declared a heretic while the other honoured and declared a saint. There was a good many motivations and agendas that were not honourable but the positons are now Orthodox. Because they are early church father's their words are in stone and cannot be checked. I agree every verse seems to have 1000 interpretations from 1000 denominations and some clearly very wrong so how do we know which is right and which is wrong? do we cast them aside and label them private interpretations or is there a place to still be critical even with the old stuyff? saying something is a "private interpretation" is not really an argument it's a deflection, I might as well say your thoughts are also private interpretations but that doesn't say anything at all except I don't want to talk about it anymore.

This is a challenge, I suppose. How can we possibly know that we believe right doctrine? Although, that really raises all sorts of philosophical questions as to how we can know anything at all.

To rise above the weeds on that, Our Lord told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would come and be teach all truth.

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you."
-- St. John 16:13 (DRA)

The Catholic Church believes that she is guided by the Holy Spirit to this day, supernaturally protected from teaching errors in faith and morals.

As ever with Protestants, different Protestants believe different things. But most Protestants would likely be reluctant to claim that their ecclesial communities are supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from teaching error. Their members may claim to be guided in that way on an individual basis but not the corporate body itself.

Indeed, how can the Holy Spirit be teaching Protestant organizations all truth as per St. Luke 16 when these same Protestants can't even agree across the board on any single point of doctrine?

Meanwhile, the disagreements between the Catholics and the Orthodox are few and far between. Our disagreements with each other are more limited than some members of both Churches seem to realize. Even tho we're separated from each other, we disagree on very little. In one notable case, we disagree on only one thing.

By comparison, some Protestant bodies express such a wide variety of disagreement in their theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, etc, that an ignorant outsider might have a hard time understanding at first that they're actually adherents of the same religion.

If we take Our Lord at His word when He said that the Spirit would teach the Church all truth... well, obviously I think the Catholic Church has the strongest claim for being led to all truth. Far stronger than any Protestant community.

 

[Radagast]

By comparison, some Protestant bodies express such a wide variety of disagreement in their theology, soteriology

So, tell me, is the Thomist view of soteriology true, with the Molinists being semi-Pelagian (as the Thomists said around 1600)?

Or is the Molinist view true, with the Thomists being sem-Calvinist (as the Jesuits said around 1600)?

Or are they, perhaps, both wrong?