• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

This doctrine is problematic for a number of reasons.

The first is that it is self refuting because it is itself extra-biblical doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is established no where in scripture. Instead, we find verses that refer to an oral tradition, countering Sola Scriptura :


In verse 15, the author refers to both an oral and a written teaching and the oral teaching is listed first.

In verse 16, the author refers to a gospel that is both deed and word.

Also, the canon itself is extra-biblical doctrine maintained by tradition. The canon of the OT is somewhat confirmed in the NT in the Gospels but it had already been compiled and maintained itself by tradition. No where in the NT is the NT established.

And so specific list of works that make up the canon is a tradition and without this tradition, we have no guide by which to establish this list.

Also, Jesus himself started the church not by writing anything but by teaching his disciples a new oral tradition. In fact, the entire early church was formed by oral tradition. By the time the New Testament was being written, an entire system of congregations was already in place. The entire NT was written as letters to the different congregations to clear and set firm doctrinal beliefs and practices that were already in place.

The early Church used same canon, the Septuagint, as many of the Jewish congregations up until 90 AD when the Jews abandoned the Septuagint in favor of the TaNaK. Since they were using mostly and sometimes entirely the same Bible as the Jews, the only thing that set them apart was the oral tradition.

And so the early church was not a Sola Scriptura Church and in fact could not have been, otherwise, they would have remained Jewish and the NT would have never been written.

Another place it falls apart is that it assumes a Bible outside of the physical steps that are required to maintain the Bible over the centuries. In Luther's and Calvin's time, the printing press had just been invented and so it was convenient for them to just ignore the fact that for the last 15 centuries, every copy of the Bible has to be done by hand. Copying the bible in this way made scripture vulnerable to human error and so many traditions were needed to ensure the integrity of the text over time.

The printing press eliminated the need to copy by hand but the need to ensure the integrity of the texts and the correct canon remained, all of which use tradition and extra-biblical scholarship as a guide.

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes access to a Bible and the ability to read it. In large parts of the world, the vast majority of people were illiterate before the invention of the printing press and universal education. Bibles had to be hand copied and so were rare and expensive and most people couldn't read even if they had access to one. And so by necessity, oral tradition was the only way that Christianity could be spread to these parts of the world

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is it assumes an ability on the part of every individual in the correct way to read and interpret the scriptures and this is demonstrably false. Martin Luther might have argued that the plan for salvation was clear and plain in the text for all to see but even in his own lifetime, the reformation already beginning to split along differences in interpretation of scripture and today, there are literally thousands of different protestant sects, each with their own spin on the Bible. Since many of these interpretations conflict with and contradict each other, it is by necessity that not everyone's interpretation is correct.

Many offer seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This sounds like sound advise on the surface and mostly is. The problem arises when we ask what exactly is meant by the phrase 'Holy Spirit?' When this offered in many protestant churches, what is meant is, ""God will directly enable you to understand what you are reading." No object outside standard is offered against which to test the individual's interpretation.

But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

And so how does one know that the spirit that is visiting them to help them read the Bible is the Holy Spirit/? How is one to test every spirit to see whether they are from God? Some would actually offering testing the spirit to see if what the spirit is telling matches up with scripture or not. But this assumes that you know how to interpret scripture. If the spirit is the one providing you with your interpretation of scripture, how are you supposed to test the spirit against scripture?

It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test their own ideas.

On a final note, God first gave the Law to Moses and the ancient Hebrews at Sinai. And when God did this, God gave them the Ten Commandments and wrote them in stone. This is the only record anywhere in the Bible that God provided a written Word. All the rest of the Law given to the Hebrews and all the rest of Word of God given to us throughout the entire rest of the bible, both before Sinai and after, came in the form of an Oral Word and was given and maintained by Oral Tradition before being written down.

The very story and nature of both the Bible itself and the story told within the Bible is contrary to very notion of Sola Scriptura on every single level.
 

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
You are correct; besides, those who claim "sola scriptura" cannot clearly identify which "scriptura" is the One "Real" Bible (Protestant? Catholic? Orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox? Etc.) - and why it is so.
True. However, in my personal studies, I have concluded that the mainstream Christian perspective on the authority of "Scripture" is at fault. General Christianity believes that all of Scripture have the same level of authority. Messiah, rather, appears to confirm that Scripture has varying levels of authority (cf. Mt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, etc.), along the lines of how Judaism sees it. Torah having the greatest authority, the Prophets next, and the Writings a distant third.

I believe that fulfilled prophecy, as well as the corroborating testimony of Messiah, has established the authenticity and authority of the Tanach. Within the Tanach are rules given by YHWH to authenticate messages from Him. See Deu 13:1-5, 17:6, 18:18-22, 19:15, Num 35:30, also Mt 18:16, Jn 8:17-18, etc. Also, per Isa 8:20, etc. it is stated "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Any writing claiming to be "holy scripture" must be tested against the Torah and the Prophets; if there is disagreement, then it is certainly not from YHWH.

We have claims that the NT is "holy scripture." Using the established rules of authentication, we are now in a position to evaluate what is and is not truly "Scripture," and its associated priority among the three groupings in the established canon (Tanach).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married

We feel that this has become a slogan, and whenever the many instances in the Bible where the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is to be found, our critics become strangely silent.

Instead, we find verses that refer to an oral tradition

I think you mean that you find scanty references to holding onto "traditions," but can you tell us what one of these extra-Biblical dogmas is all about that we should believe it as necessary to salvation?

In verse 15, the author refers to both an oral and a written teaching and the oral teaching is listed first.

In verse 16, the author refers to a gospel that is both deed and word.
OK, answer me this question. If there is a doctrine that we have to adhere to but is not in the Bible -- although you are using the methodology of Sola Scriptura to prove that it's so (!) -- what is it?

Also, how do you know that these "traditions" are not the same as some issues that also are to be found in written form in the books of the Bible?

Also, Jesus himself started the church not by writing anything but by teaching his disciples a new oral tradition. In fact, the entire early church was formed by oral tradition. By

The question is not whether he passed on instructions or teachings by word of mouth. If it's recorded in scripture, we access it by reading scripture with no need to go outside scripture in the way you are advocating.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.


While SOME believe in the "all-sufficiency" of Scripture, that's not to be confused with Sola Scriptura.






There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a praxis. Praxis need not be normed by Scripture (if it did, I couldn't be posting on the Internet, could I?)







You seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Sola Biblica or Solum Novum Testamentum. Just as the Rule of Law embraces the Law but never declares what, exactly, that is so the Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture without declaring what, exactly, that is.



Also, Jesus himself started the church not by writing anything but by teaching his disciples a new oral tradition.


1. God wrote Scripture, doesn't that count? MUST Jesus have written such? Why isn't God good enough for you?


2. Where did Jesus even mention oral Tradition? If fact, when did He mention oral anything? And when He spoke of Tradition, it wasn't good.


3. Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura some 50 times. He never once referred to the RC Denomination or RC Tradition or Oral Tradition. For anything. About anything. In any manner or way.





By the time the New Testament was being written


There is no such thing as Solum Novum Testamentum. Scripture has never been limited to what the RCC currently regards as "the New Testament."

The New Testament began to be written within a dozen years of the Resurrection - centuries before there is any evidence for ANY denomination (yours or any other).




the early church was not a Sola Scriptura Church and in fact could not have been, otherwise, they would have remained Jewish and the NT would have never been written.


Lost me.... So, when Jesus and Paul and Peter and James used Sola Scriptura, they were not Christians but were Jewish?



Another problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes access to a Bible and the ability to read it.


News to me.... I've been studying this long before I left Catholicism, and I've never ever heard anyone say that.





Another problem with Sola Scriptura is it assumes an ability on the part of every individual in the correct way to read and interpret the scriptures and this is demonstrably false.


Also news to me. I've NEVER heard a single supporter of this practice say that. Never.

Do you reject the Rule of Law because not every human being on the planet can read every law of the planet (in hundreds of different languages), you thus reject the Rule of Law?






No object outside standard is offered against which to test the individual's interpretation.


Since Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation but rather deals with norming, I'm entirely lost as to what in the world this comment of yours has to do with the topic here?

Yes, I agree, it IS dangerous and most unsound for self to insist that self is the sole interpreter of Scripture - unaccountable at that. I agree. But note that only one does that. It's the RC Denomination. Read the Catechism of itself, # 85. Where it appoints itself as the sole interpreter. Then see #87 where it itself makes itself unaccountable for such. Search and search and search forever - you will not find a single catechism of a single Protestant denomination - not one - that does what your denomination does and that you rightly rebuke. But we are WAY off topic, let's return to the issue of norming and the most sound norma normans....





But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."


... the basis of Sola Scriptura and the very point where the RCC so passionately disagrees with it. It will not permit itself to be tested - with Scripture or anything else for that matter. Rather, all are to "quietly" and "with docility" embrace whatever it and it itself alone says (CCC 87 for example). The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects testing (of itself anyway) - by Scripture or anything else. Take up 1 John 4:1 with the only denomination on the planet that rejects it: Yours. I did. It's one of the reasons I left the RCC.




It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test their own ideas.



BINGO!
Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...







.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Fireinfolding
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

Okay. This isn't really far removed from what I posted in the OP, just worded differently.

I am reading this to mean that scripture is the standard by which all doctrine will be judged.

The problem with this is line of reasoning is that is backwards. The scripture was established according to doctrine and practice that was passed on by tradition.

Also, the norming process assumes a universal understanding of scripture. What if there are disagreements to the meaning of scripture? Then where do we turn?




What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

Okay

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this process.

Except for it isn't. As stated before, the meaning of scripture isn't always clear. If it was, the Jews and the Christians would all be part of one big religion.


This can apply to the subject of interpreting scripture. We don't except Bob's private interpretation of 6 ft. because we have a standard that we all agree on (established by tradition) that tells us what 6 feet is.


Alright. I agree with this. But it is still tradition that established what 6 ft is before the tape measure was manufactured.


I do accept the Bible as the Word of God but only because I can objectively verify what it claims is true and because I can verify the claims of those put the Bible together and maintained it.

I'm not opposing the Bible as the Word of God or as an Authority. What I'm opposing is the idea that the Bible carries authority but those that wrote, canonized and maintained it do not.


Except for what I can do is make a copy of it and alter it to suit me own ends. There is evidence of this having been done from time to time. The JW's use the New World Translation that has been altered.

Also, not everyone is using the same canon.

And so it's not just the question of the Bible's authority but the authority of the particular Group, Individual, Church, Institution, etc, that provided your particular copy, canon and translation of the Bible.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none.

Except for that it has been. Or at least some versions of it.


I'm not advocating using Oral Tradition in place of or in opposition to the Bible but rather in cooperation with the Bible. The oral tradition tells us what books are in the Bible and how to interpret them.

The claims of the Church as an Authority are every bit as legitimate as the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't agree that the authority of the Bible can be established without establishing the authority of those that produced it.


And that is why Sola Scriptura fails. Without an objective yardstick by which to measure our interpretation and use of scripture, we have nothing but our own private interpretation which may or may not be any more valid than anyone else's.



Again, this is the position that scripture stands by itself.

I am arguing that scripture AND tradition together are the authority, not just scripture alone.

And my argument is more sound because scripture is itself a tradition.

 
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

Quoting scripture is not the same as Sola Scriptura. Nowhere in quoting these scriptures or in these scriptures themselves is the authority of tradition ever invalidated.

There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a praxis. Praxis need not be normed by Scripture (if it did, I couldn't be posting on the Internet, could I?)

Gotcha.


Not familiar with those terms. Will have to do research.

1. God wrote Scripture, doesn't that count? MUST Jesus have written such? Why isn't God good enough for you?

You seem to be overlooking the point that the reason we believe that God had a hand in writing these particular books is because we trust that the men that wrote them were men of God. And we trust that claim, because we trust the people that claimed they were men of God. Or least some of us do.

2. Where did Jesus even mention oral Tradition? If fact, when did He mention oral anything? And when He spoke of Tradition, it wasn't good.

He attacked many of the practices of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees but at the same time, he did engage in tradition. His first recorded miracle was at a wedding, which is a tradition. When he taught, because he spoke instead of wrote and order his disciples to go and preach instead of "stay home and write letters" he establish the tradition of transmitting his stories orally. He engaged in Baptism and the last supper and in the process established the tradition of the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.

3. Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura some 50 times. He never once referred to the RC Denomination or RC Tradition or Oral Tradition. For anything. About anything. In any manner or way.

Except for he spent his entire career establishing the teachings, the sacrament and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.


The RCC is universal, not a denomination.

Lost me.... So, when Jesus and Paul and Peter and James used Sola Scriptura, they were not Christians but were Jewish?

In the early Church, before there was a New Testament canon, or even writings, tradition was the norm and the standard because there were not yet any Christian scriptures to be the standard.

The Jews and the early Christians were using the same Bible but reaching two different conclusions about Jesus. And so it wasn't Sola Scriptura which was the standard but tradition. It was tradition that served as the standard until the Bible was written and Canonized. Now, it is tradition and Bible.

News to me.... I've been studying this long before I left Catholicism, and I've never ever heard anyone say that.

It's never stated because the moment that the assumption is pointed out, the argument for Sola Scriptura falls completely apart.

The point is that Sola Scriptura assumes availability of scripture. If scripture isn't available, it is only through tradition that one has access to the gospel.

Also news to me. I've NEVER heard a single supporter of this practice say that. Never.

Again, it's an assumption that goes unaddressed because the moment that it is acknowledged, Sola Scripture falls apart. If the meaning of scripture is not clear to all, then how can it alone be the standard?

Do you reject the Rule of Law because not every human being on the planet can read every law of the planet (in hundreds of different languages), you thus reject the Rule of Law?

No. But I'm not seeing how this applies.

Since Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation but rather deals with norming, I'm entirely lost as to what in the world this comment of yours has to do with the topic here?

I don't see how Sola Scriptura and interpretation can be seperated. How can Sola Scriptura be the standard if a universal interpretation is not already assumed?

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
 
Upvote 0

OpenDoor

Faith + Hope + Love
Apr 17, 2007
2,431
145
✟18,286.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So instead of just arbitrarily deciding what tradition to follow, instead we should follow the church with the strongest historical support.
If I don't recognize your church to have the strongest historical support, were do we go from there?
 
Upvote 0

OpenDoor

Faith + Hope + Love
Apr 17, 2007
2,431
145
✟18,286.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My alternative is not to abandon scripture but to use tradition as a guide to understanding scripture.
Since you are Roman Catholic you would probably say that the position of Universal Bishop (Catholic Pope) is found in church tradition. However, Orthodox Christians would say that the position of Universal Bishop is a teaching not found in church tradition and unknown to the apostles. What now?
 
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If I don't recognize your church to have the strongest historical support, were do we go from there?

I would then say, "let's examine the reason you think so," and I would offer the evidence in support of the Catholic Church.
 
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

Scripture, Matthew 16:18 specifically backs up the Church's position on this.

With that said, the historical evidence in support of the Orthodox is very strong. And although I believe the Church is the true instrument of Christ on this earth, I believe that the Orthodox faith is a legitimate expression of Christian faith.
 
Upvote 0

Abrahamist

Roman Catholic Convert
Mar 21, 2012
304
6
United States
✟22,960.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No it doesn't

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus appoints Peter the first Pope. I know protestants disagree with this interpretation of that verse but I do not find their argument to be the least bit convincing.

Edit: And I came to this conclusion back in my days as a protestant, a good decade before I ever even considered joining the Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Standing Up
Is the thread about SS or something else?
It's about Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture plus tradition.
Beating dead horses is always fun

http://www.christianforums.com/t7634884-10/#post59862962
Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus appoints Peter the first Pope. I know protestants disagree with this interpretation of that verse but I do not find their argument to be the least bit convincing.

Nor do we accept that Christ appointed Peter to a position that didn't exist for another 400 years, wasn't mentioned in that verse, was rescinded a few verses later (I know that no Catholic cares about THOSE verses), and conflicts with the purpose for which Peter was chosen to proclaim the message of the Messiah. IOW, there's no point in making your argument just to make it for the jillionth time, knowing it's just a theory.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Is the thread about SS or something else?

It seems to be about sayings used to belittle the use of scripture. If there were actual concerns, we'd be more than interested in engaging and explaining, I'm sure.

As it is, there doesn't seem to be anything new here.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.