Larry Wilgus
Active Member
You reasoning is completely bogus! Scripture can stand on its own. It doesn't need another leg that contradicts what God intended us to know about Him.
Upvote
0
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.
You reasoning is completely bogus! Scripture can stand on its own. It doesn't need another leg that contradicts what God intended us to know about Him.The "three-legged stool analogy" actually does answer it. For SS churches, the sole authority is claimed to be the same (Holy Scripture) but the doctrines derived from it differ, even in essentials. This is a problem for the validity of SS as a hermeneutic principle. For the "three-legged stools", Scripture is the same but the other two legs are different. Thus the differences do not invalidate the principle, they simply highlight that those other two "legs" do make a difference.
The Bible can stand on its own. It doesn't need additional books called the Apocrypha that discredit what Jesus did at the cross.Nobody said the traditions of man. We said Holy Traditions, which are different.
Yes, in it's entirety. The Septuagint aka Greek Bible. NOT the Hebrew Bible which dismissed the 7 books now called the Apocrypha.
The Bible clearly teaches that the traditions of men make the Word of God void in their lives. I think I'd heed to that verse, and discard immediately any tradition that contradicts the Bible. God doesn't need man's foolish traditions.Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?(Answer: The Catholic Church)
How do you know what is scripture without tradition?
Since you won't and can't prove that you have another source of incontrovertible truth; How about you just provide one doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture.
That is not at all necessary. Let us look at a salvation-related doctrine that is in Scripture - baptism.
Is baptism necessary for salvation, or is it optional? SS churches differ. Is baptism by immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling, or are they all acceptable? Is the immersion/pouring/sprinkling done once, or three times in succession, or does that even matter? Can infants properly be baptized, or must the one baptized be old enough to make their own confession of faith? Can anyone in the church baptize, or must it be a preacher, elder, or other "official" person?
I have seen all of these differing positions justified by reference to Scripture. Which interpretations are correct? How do we make that determination? If Sola Scriptura is correct, why is there such confusion on this issue?
No. But you have to think this through. Is the NT part of Holy Scripture or not? ... If you say "Yes," then you cannot also say that the verse in question doesn't apply to the whole of Scripture, just as every other part of the OT is still considered to be divine revelation and in force unless specifically superseded by something in the NT.
Statements in the Bible must be understood in the context they were written.
Now we're into the realm of personal opinion and liberal theology, meaning that one person's POV is as good as the next one's.
Well, I've read a lot of posts lately from people who condemned Sola Scriptura but couldn't defend its alternative or ANY alternative, for that matter. But this one takes the prize. Not only are you unable to identify a single essential doctrine that is not from Scripture but you make no bones about it, immediately changing the subject by rehashing a list of erroneous statements about the meaning of Sola Scriptura that we have repeatedly shown to be false. To be fair, you're new around here and may not know that this disinformation has been thoroughly discredited already.
Not only are you unable to identify a single essential doctrine that is not from Scripture but you make no bones about it
You reasoning is completely bogus! Scripture can stand on its own. It doesn't need another leg that contradicts what God intended us to know about Him.
I think you'll have to explain what you mean by 'correctly understand' there. SS doesn't predict how any passage will be understood. The point is that this is the material to use when attempting to understand.The test of SS is NOT whether there are essential doctrines from outside of Scripture, but whether Scripture alone is sufficient to correctly understand the doctrines.
Which form of Baptism do you believe is required? How can we know which is right? Which church is correct? They all have the same Scripture regarding Baptism.
I think you'll have to explain what you mean by 'correctly understand' there. SS doesn't predict how any passage will be understood. The point is that this is the material to use when attempting to understand.
As I've pointed out before, no two of the churches that use Holy Tradition have the same doctrines, although they all used Tradition to come up with the ones each has. Why then, is there a special doubting of Scripture when the suggested alternative is less capable?
The Bible is central in the life of the Church and gives both form and content to the Church’s liturgical and sacramental worship, just as to its theology and spiritual life. Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical.
The Bible itself, however, not only determines and judges the life of the Church, but is itself judged by the Church since it “comes alive” and receives its proper interpretation and significance only within the life of the Church as actually lived and experienced by the People of God.
So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.
This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding
First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?
However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.
1) The defense of SS is circular logic
First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.
Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?
This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible
As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.
However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.
Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31
These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.
Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6
If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.
Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.
Now on the issue 3
3) SS and authority
Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"
There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."
The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"
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.
The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.
Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.
So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.
This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.
That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.
The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
God Bless
I am surprised that no one has brought this up, but there is an important bit of Paul's instruction to Timothy left off in the OP's quote:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So the Bible does seem to give a pretty solid indication that the Scriptures do contain all the knowledge that is needed for practical Christian living and to equip us for spiritual battle (again, in terms of revelation / knowledge; not to say that prayer, fasting or other spiritual disciplines are unimportant).
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
Even during the apostolic era, we find that the large majority of the decisions made in the New Testament Church recorded in Acts or the Epistles were made by studying the Scriptures and obtaining wise council. Relatively few were made under direction of immediate and unambiguous revelation.
As far as hermeneutics are concerned, the best approach is to let Scripture interpret Scripture wherever we can - as the Bereans were commended for doing. Systems of theology are good for helping us to organize our thoughts on major spiritual themes but also carry the danger of propagating error as we come to rely on them to interpret Scripture for us.
This interpretation assumes that Paul is not presuming any necessary pre-existing knowledge, training or the like for the "man of God". That seems highly unlikely. The "man of God" would be living in the Church, taught by her leaders, absorbing the interpretive framework that will allow him to make proper use of the Scriptures. Anyone coming to the Scriptures outside of that framework is as likely as not to bear more resemblance to this passage from 2 Peter 3
Similarly, I could say that a top-notch set of carpenter's tools will make a master carpenter "complete and thoroughly equipped for every type of carpentry", but they won't do much of anything for a plumber. He hasn't been trained in their use.
Indeed. In fact, Holy Tradition can be thought of as an accumulation of that "wise council" that allowed proper interpretation of the Scriptures.
To quibble, the Bereans were not commended for "letting Scripture interpret Scripture." They were commended because they "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
To "let Scripture interpret Scripture" does not bypass the need for an interpretive framework, because we cannot do it without determining which passage(s) is(are) the one(s) which needs interpreting, and which is(are) the one(s) to use to do the interpretation. To say "the clear should interpret the obscure" doesn't help much - as one example, there are passages which seem to clearly teach predestination, and others that seem to clearly teach free will. Which ones should interpret which? Calvinists and Arminians obviously come to different conclusions on that point. To go back to my carpentry analogy - the tools cannot teach you how they are to be used.
I think you'll have to explain what you mean by 'correctly understand' there. SS doesn't predict how any passage will be understood. The point is that this is the material to use when attempting to understand.
There are two problems with that approach. For one, SS is concerned with the source of the answer, not the ease with which we discern it. And two, this objection applies just as much or more to Holy Tradition which we are constantly being told by our Catholic friends solves all problems of doctrine. As I've pointed out before, no two of the churches that use Holy Tradition have the same doctrines, although they all used Tradition to come up with the ones each has. Why then, is there a special doubting of Scripture when the suggested alternative is less capable?
So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.
This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding
First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?
However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.
1) The defense of SS is circular logic
First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.
Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?
This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible
As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.
However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.
Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31
These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.
Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6
If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.
Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.
Now on the issue 3
3) SS and authority
Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"
There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."
The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"
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.
The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.
Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.
So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.
This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."
With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.
With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.
That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.
The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
God Bless
I never stated otherwise, what I am talking about is not Scripture, but the concept of Sola Scriptura which are not the same.
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?