The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

It was the Church that declared them as divinely inspired. Prior to this there was no guarantee that the books for true or false.

But the church, as has been said many times on these forums, is not just a denomination or institution. It's the whole people of God, and you are referring to an era in which there were yet to be Christian denominations, except for the heretical mystery religions, etc.

Once again I never said Scripture has no authority, I said that it is not the Sole or Highest authority given the reasons in the OP, which is what SS claims.

What is or can be "higher" than or equal to divine revelation?

 

[MichaelS]

Well, now you've taken it upon yourself to qualify my statement by adding to it. I'd suggest stopping there and turning your attention to the point I actually did make, whether or not you agree with it.

I'm working from your analogy that the Church "only recognized them in the way that Balboa found the Pacific Ocean", given that the Pacific Ocean clearly came into existence independently of Balboa. If you're not saying what I assumed you were saying, I'm not sure what the point of the analogy is.

 

[theDevolutionist]

Thank you for pointing out in your response that the Bereans used the three legged stool: they used Scripture. They used St. Paul's traditions (what else can you call the new message that he was preaching except for a [new] tradition?). And they also used St. Paul's interpretive teaching as a leader within the Christian Church. They utilized all three to discern the Truth; not just one.
And they accepted all three as the Truth in the end. And were correctly commended for doing so.

Peace in Christ
Hawkiz

The Bereans sought in the Scriptures to see whether the things Paul was teaching were true. And the commendation was for that diligence in evaluating Paul's teaching before blindly accepting it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well no, I remind them that Martin Luther decided what should be considered scripture. I fail to see your point in the matter.

Martin Luther was not, and is not, a Protestant Pope.

It is called the Synod of Hippo, and yes it was there that the biblical cannon was first approved, but then was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 and sent to Rome.

They were both local councils; not ecumenical councils.

 

[theDevolutionist]

Sola scriptura is not biblical. It is directly contradicted by scripture.

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Careful with this. Who is the "we" in this context? There is nothing here to suggest a blanket approval of derived tradition - only an admonition to hold fast to what was being taught by the apostles. And those things being taught were recorded in and are Scripture.

 

[Albion]

They were both local councils; not ecumenical councils.

This is true and important to keep in mind. They are not, therefore, considered to be infallible, even by the Roman Catholic Church. The most important aspect of the decision made by these councils is that their decision was accepted, but not as infallible, until both the Catholic and the Protestant churches changed their minds about which books to include.

 

[Thursday]

Careful with this. Who is the "we" in this context? There is nothing here to suggest a blanket approval of derived tradition - only an admonition to hold fast to what was being taught by the apostles. And those things being taught were recorded in and are Scripture.

The Church. Many of the things taught by Jesus and the apostles are not in scripture.

Catholic doctrine applies only to those things taught by Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Sibyl]

The book of Timothy is attributed to Paul and who I dismiss as a false apostle conspiring to promote his authority within the church. The last book of John (90 AD) attributed to "The Elder" ( John of Ephesus) refers to a book in verse 31. If 3rd John is a letter written to Gaius, a wealthy companion of Paul, what book is he talking about.? Does the association with Paul and Gaius election to bishop of the church make this communication suspect?

 

[Albion]

The Church. Many of the things taught by Jesus and the apostles are not in scripture.

But scripture itself tells us that we do not need to guess at them--which is exactly what Holy Tradition amounts to.

 

[Thursday]

But scripture itself tells us that we do not need to guess at them--which is exactly what Holy Tradition amounts to.

Wrong. Scripture tells us to listen to the Church. Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Jesus gave the apostles, the leaders of the Church, HIS authority.

 

[Albion]

Wrong. Scripture tells us to listen to the Church. .

Sure. You, however, are mistaken in thinking that the church is not the whole body of the people of God.

 

[lesliedellow]

The Church. Many of the things taught by Jesus and the apostles are not in scripture.

Catholic doctrine applies only to those things taught by Jesus and the apostles.

Oh sure. And why isn't there so much as a peep in the historical record about the Assumption of Mary, prior to the fourth century? Why didn't somebody, in all that time, think to mention it as something the apostles had taught?

 

[Thursday]

Oh sure. And why isn't there so much as a peep in the historical record, about the Assumption of Mary, prior to the fourth century? Why didn't somebody, in all that time, think to mention it as something the apostles had taught?

Mary lived with John. It was passed down as oral tradition, like other apostolic teachings.

 

[theDevolutionist]

The Church. Many of the things taught by Jesus and the apostles are not in scripture.

Catholic doctrine applies only to those things taught by Jesus and the apostles.

There are many traditions that date back to the apostolic era and are nevertheless wrong. Large portions of Galatians, Jude and 1 John are devoted to this subject. You cannot prove that many of the things taught by Jesus and the apostles are not in Scripture. Any attempt to do so is pure speculation.

 

[Thursday]

There are many traditions that date back to the apostolic era and are nevertheless wrong. Large portions of Galatians, Jude and 1 John are devoted to this subject. You cannot prove that many of the things taught by Jesus and the apostles are not in Scripture. Any attempt to do so is pure speculation.

The role of the Church is to separate true doctrine from false doctrine. That's why Jesus gave the Church his authority and the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them in all truth.

Tell me what Jesus taught during these 40 days:

Acts 1:3.... He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

 

[MichaelS]

If every catechism, confession, whatever was destroyed tonight, the Bible contains all the information needed to continue the work of preaching the Gospel to all people and making disciples of all nations.

But does it contain the means of accurately extracting and applying that information? My assertion is: No. It does not. If it did, we would not have the doctrinal chaos that currently exists. It does no practical good to technically have the right information, if you can't figure out what it means or how to use it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Mary lived with John. It was passed down as oral tradition, like other apostolic teachings.

I repeat, why do we hear not so much as a peep about it until the fourth century?

 

[Thursday]

I repeat, why do we hear not so much as a peep about it until the fourth century?

Why do we not know which books belong in the New Testament until the fourth century? Why is the Trinity undefined until the fourth century?

Where are the bones of Mary?

 

[MichaelS]

Oh sure. And why isn't there so much as a peep in the historical record about the Assumption of Mary, prior to the fourth century? Why didn't somebody, in all that time, think to mention it as something the apostles had taught?

To answer that question requires asking another, related question - why were certain things written down and others not?

It could be that the things not written down were unknown ideas invented later. Or, they may simply not have been controversial. Much of what was written in the New Testament and in other early Church writings was addressing various problems and/or false teachings, or in basic catechetical instruction. If a given teaching was not an issue, or something a novice didn't need to learn off the bat, it likely did not get addressed often (if at all) in writing.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why do we not know which books belong in the New Testament until the fourth century? Why is the Trinity undefined until the fourth century?

Where are the bones of Mary?

Iraeneus gave a list of canonical books towards the end of the second century, and it pretty much coincides with the NT as we have it today. The Doctrine of the Trinity predates the fourth century, and the Council of Nicea was convened because Arius had broken with an already accepted orthodoxy. Becides which, the Trinity is believed because it is implicit in the New Testament. The Assumption of Mary isn't.