The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

Sigh. No, that is not an accurate description of it - close enough to sound good, but far enough off to confuse the issue. From the OCA website:

The Orthodox do word their answer somewhat differently from the way Roman Catholics do, I agree. And that's true of many other teachings that people say the two agree on. It's a question whether "close" counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and comparisons of Eastern Orthodox with Roman Catholic theology.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sigh. No, that is not an accurate description of it - close enough to sound good, but far enough off to confuse the issue. From the OCA website:

Protestants have no problem with the early church fathers, or with the early councils of the Church, for that matter. But what they would NOT do is regard them as an additional source of revelation alongside the Bible.

 

[MichaelS]

Protestants have no problem with the early church fathers, or with the early councils of the Church, for that matter. But what they would NOT do is regard them as an additional source of revelation alongside the Bible.

That's not how the Orthodox regard them either. "additional ... alongside the Bible" is completely foreign to the integrated concept of Holy Tradition.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

this, i have noticed, has been a fallacy in thinking for most "professing christians"!

God created everything and you really don't need a book or anything written to prove that, (see romans 1:20).

so if one believes in God, then the scriptures are the only thing that was directly given to us by God, and as you said, there are plenty of scripture that supports.

now if one doesn't believe in God or that God is the highest authority, then the whole question is mute!

if there were no scripture, how else would anyone know what God wants? i don't believe that anyone believes that someone else could write it or tell it!

God is the author and the finisher of our salvation, (heb 12:2). and in that vein, He would be irresponsible to allow any other to communicate His thoughts.

the words are there in the bible and if anyone seems to run into a road block then that's where study and prayer will allow one to use the bible to make it clear.

IOWs, the bible does interpret itself!

2 Peter 1:20(NKJV)
20knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

the bible says that no one can interpret it!

here's an example of how the bible interprets itself.

let's look at revelation 6 where it talks about the "four horsemen". now, i have seen "unkteen" interpretations on that one, all wrong, because they obviously didn't read 2pet 1:20 or ignored it.

 

[JohnRabbit]

continue:

here's the text:

Revelation 6:1-8(NKJV)
1Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, “Come and see.”
2And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.
3When He opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, “Come and see.”
4Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.
5When He opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come and see.” So I looked, and behold, a black horse, and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand.
6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine.”
7When He opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come and see.”
8So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth.

now if you ask me what all of this means, i don't know.

no one does! and here's why.

it's in the first verse of the chapter. notice Who opened the seals! everybody skips over that!

the Lamb opened the seals and this is significant.

but let's back up to chapter 5 to get proper context.

Revelation 5:1-3(NKJV)
1And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?”
3And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it.

make sure you keep verse 3 in mind here. (read it about five times to really get the meaning ).

the scroll is a prophecy and the prophecy is sealed and no one, not in heaven or earth could open it, or open up it's meaning, save the Christ - rev 5:5.

it is Christ Who opened the meaning of the prophecy!

so we have to look to Christ to understand this prophecy, specifically the words of the Christ.

so let's look at the verses with the one and only interpretation "a la SS style"!

Revelation 6:1-8(NKJV)
1Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, “Come and see.”
2And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

Biblical interpretation by Christ, which comes from the famous mt olivet prophecy (matt 24), here Jesus tells us what the symbol for the white horse means, in the first seal.

1st seal
Matthew 24:3-5(NKJV)
3Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
4And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.
5For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.

many have come in His name saying that 'Jesus is the Christ' and deceive many, hence, the different denominations and the like. now i've heard people try to interpret this one to mean that like i say 'i'm the christ' and deceieve many, or IOWs, people just jumping up claiming that they are the Christ, just not so.

second seal:

3When He opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, “Come and see.”
4Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.

Matthew 24:6-7(NKJV)
6And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (the bolded here shows that the timeline is in sync with the prophecy from rev 6!)
7For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

third seal

5When He opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come and see.” So I looked, and behold, a black horse, and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand.
6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine.”

Matthew 24:6-7(NKJV)
6...And there will be famines...

 

[JohnRabbit]

continue

fourth seal

7When He opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come and see.”
8So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him.

Matthew 24:6-7(NKJV)
6...pestilences...

And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth.

so when we let the bible interpret itself there should be no confusion among scripture if we just listen to God and believe His word.

God is responsible for everybody's salvation and does not need any of our help in interpreting what He means, so He left His meaning in the scripture.

here a little, there a little...you know?

so, the bible is not just a book but rather the word of God and the Word of God is living and all knowledgeable!

 

[Monk Brendan]

Even if you invoke the term "Holy Tradition," which Catholics made up for the purpose, so that we have Scripture plus custom, legend, and speculation defining doctrine, it still is adding something to God's word that is considered its (Scripture's) equal.

How about 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Here, we are told by Paul that he has delivered things he did not write down.

 

[Albion]

How about 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Here, we are told by Paul that he has delivered things he did not write down.

What are they, then?

 

[lesliedellow]

What are they, then?

Whatever they choose to makeup.

 

[Albion]

...and that is the point of my question, leslie. The revelation isn't very revealing if it doesn't tell us what traditions to hold fast to. Of course, our friend Monk Brendan is wrongly assuming that "traditions" in that verse refer to the system of doctrine-setting that the church of a later time chose to dub "Tradition." They two words aren't even spelled the same way.

Then too, Paul is not shown by that verse to have "delivered" any traditions. He merely tells his audience to hold fast to the traditions that they already have. And there is no reason to think that he's referring to anything that amounts to a doctrine. Traditions are usually about practices, such as attending synagogue, keeping the fasts and holy days, etc.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I'm not sure why that's needed. Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas, he undoubtedly spoke with eyewitnesses of the events.

I have heard that Mark was a scribe for Peter, and he was the young man that ran away naked Mark 14:51-52

 

[lesliedellow]

How about 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Here, we are told by Paul that he has delivered things he did not write down.

We have only four short gospels recording Jesus' sayings and doings, and the final week of his life accounts for 50% of what is to be found in each of those gospels. Therefore, assuming that his ministry lasted three years, 99.99% of what Jesus said and did must be completely unknown to us.

So what do we do about that? Invent a tradition which has him saying, "In the twenty first century there will be somebody called Leslie Dellow living in Britain, and I command the Catholic Church of that time to pay him a million pounds a year?"

 

[Sibyl]

He is referring to the book he has just finished writing (the Gospel of John). Chapter 21 is evidently a postscript, possibly added by John himself.

If 3rd John is a letter written to Gaius why would he refer to it as a book? Is something being lost in translation?
I'm trying not to get lost in the weeds, but I keep getting distracted by inconsistancies.

 

[Albion]

If 3rd John is a letter written to Gaius why would he refer to it as a book?

Don't we refer to most of the letters that make up the New Testament as "books" of the Bible?

 

[JohnRabbit]

We have only four short gospels recording Jesus' sayings and doings, and the final week of his life accounts for 50% of what is to be found in each of those gospels. Therefore, assuming that his ministry lasted three years, 99.99% of what Jesus said and did must be completely unknown to us.

indeed!

John 21:25(NKJV)
25And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

So what do we do about that?

Invent a tradition which has him saying, "In the twenty first century there will be somebody called Leslie Dellow living in Britain, and I command the Catholic Church of that time to pay him a million pounds a year?"

what we do is what the bible tells us to do:

2 Timothy 2:15(NKJV)
15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

we are to watch the events of the world in relation to prophecy.

Matthew 24:42(NKJV)
42Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.

by doing this, we can be very discerning!

 

[Albion]

We have only four short gospels recording Jesus' sayings and doings, and the final week of his life accounts for 50% of what is to be found in each of those gospels. Therefore, assuming that his ministry lasted three years, 99.99% of what Jesus said and did must be completely unknown to us.

So what do we do about that? Invent a tradition which has him saying, "In the twenty first century there will be somebody called Leslie Dellow living in Britain, and I command the Catholic Church of that time to pay him a million pounds a year?"

You seem to have a good command of the way this works. I'd remind you that it helps to add that the idea of giving Leslie Dellow a million pounds a year is a tradition and comes from the Apostles. Those additions cinch it, and no one can disprove either of them since there is no evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

If 3rd John is a letter written to Gaius why would he refer to it as a book? Is something being lost in translation?
I'm trying not to get lost in the weeds, but I keep getting distracted by inconsistancies.

I cannot see anywhere in the epistle where John refers to his note as a book. It is just a convention in to refer to everything in the Bible as a book - whether it be as long as Isaiah or as short as 3 John.

 

[MichaelS]

What are they, then?

Fine. Here are some examples from St. Basil the Great, in his "On The Holy Spirit" (mid-4th century):

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.

Rufinus the Presbyter, in his commentary on the Apostles' Creed, beginning of the 5th century:

To this formulary, for many and most sufficient reasons, they gave the name of Symbol. ... because, at that time, as the Apostle Paul says, and as is related in the Acts of the Apostles, many of the vagabond Jews, pretending to be apostles of Christ, went about preaching for gain’s sake or their belly’s sake, naming the name of Christ indeed, but not delivering their message according to the exact traditional lines. The Apostles therefore prescribed this formulary as a sign or token by which he who preached Christ truly, according to Apostolic rule, might be recognised. ... And for this reason, the tradition continues, the Creed is not written on paper or parchment, but is retained in the hearts of the faithful, that it may be certain that no one has learnt it by reading, as is sometimes the case with unbelievers, but by tradition from the Apostles.

St. John Chrysostom, in the (late?) 4th century, sums up the attitude towards the tradition of the Church:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.

 

[MichaelS]

You seem to have a good command of the way this works. I'd remind you that it helps to add that the idea of giving Leslie Dellow a million pounds a year is a tradition and comes from the Apostles. Those additions cinch it, and no one can disprove either of them since there is no evidence.

Hilarious. Ridiculous, but hilarious.

 

[Graham Dull]

We are all held individually responsible for how we handle the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles. We are responsible before God to whom we must give an account.
It does not matter whether we are an individual within 'the church' or outside 'the church,' all are capable of misrepresenting the message of Jesus Christ as testified to by the Apostles.
Our responsibility is to God. He will judge. The church is not its own final authority.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, one who needn’t be ashamed, one who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15