The issues with Sola Scriptura

[AnticipateHisComing]

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.

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.

 

[SeventyOne]

Nobody said the traditions of man. We said Holy Traditions, which are different.

Just because someone renames a turd as roast beef, doesn't mean I'll be inclined to take a nice healthy bite.

 

[Thursday]

I'm aware of the debate and the councils, but I couldn't disagree more with you regarding your interpretation of the circumstances. The Catholic Church didn't "choose" anything.

How did God choose the books of the New Testament? Through the body of Christ, which is his Church.

 

[Thursday]

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.

You can't even tell us which books are scripture without Catholic tradition.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Your argument didn't work before and doesn't work now. Scripture is God's word. Scripture existed the moment the words were spoken/written. You can not usurp any authority because you collated scripture into the Bible.

Wrong in your use of the term Scripture. Scripture means :the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.

This means the NT Scripture was not around until it was written. Prior to that was word of mouth teachings, which is tradition. To the last part of this quote, yes you can because since they put it together, they have the authority of interpreting it.

Not true. Can you tell me what criteria was used by your church to determine what books belong in the New Testament?

Scripture gave us a guide to test all teachings against scripture.

How do you test Scripture against Scripture when a clearly defined NT Scripture was not formed? Sure, the OT was around and was used, but the OT states nothing in regards to the works that Jesus performed. They had to base the scripture off of the teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ to determine which was true and which was false.

 

[Albion]

I enjoy how you come across in your response, thank you. Let me answer in kind.

Hi. I'm having computer trouble so I'm going to see if I can limp through a few answers. Don't make too much of their brevity.

It does not state that scripture is the highest authority.

As I noted, it does.

Most verses in the Bible in reference to scripture are referring to the OT, which the apostles used to show the world that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in the OT.

But since the Church that all of us descend from decided that the NT was also Holy Scripture, you can't take that view unless you disavow the Church.

Scripture does not support the concept of SS.

That's debatable, but it's impossible to add to Scripture without Scriptural justification, and that's lacking.

Scripture supports both scripture and tradition.

The verse that's always cited says to hold to unidentified traditions. So that means we don't know what they are in any case. But the word there means customs. The term Holy Tradition (spelled differently) is a concept devised by later churchman, was arbitrarily named, and has a totally different meaning.

Tradition does not compete with Scripture. They work together

That's not so. If a doctrine is created on the basis of Holy Tradition it is one that isn't otherwise established by Scripture.

It is the logical conclusion in terms of authority. Because there are so many different denominations, all claiming to be true, all following SS, obviously this means they are all right. But ask a Baptist how the Lutherans interpret scripture and they will say wrongly, and visa-versa.

But this is probably the most unpersuasive argument of all against SS. For one, SS doesn't evaluate interpretions and certainly doesn't deem any possible interpretation to be as good as the next one. It's all about what to look to when seeking to know the answer to any necessary doctrine.

For another, if it's true that many different SS denominations have different doctrines, what do we say about the suggested alternative? There are a number of different churches that utilize Holy Tradition instead of SS and, guess what? ...no two of them agree on doctrine although they all say they followed Tradition. If the Bible isn't good enough, the suggested remedy is even less so!

 

[Thursday]

Not true. Can you tell me what criteria was used by your church to determine what books belong in the New Testament?

Scripture gave us a guide to test all teachings against scripture.

Learn the truth in detail here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

[Wolf_Says]

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.

The teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ, preserved by His Church for 2000 years. This INCLUDES SCRIPTURE.

God made a Church, that Church is the incontrovertible truth. Through that Church came the Bible. Jesus performed works and gave commands, which are preserved through this Church started by Jesus.

 

[Albion]

You can't even tell us which books are scripture without Catholic tradition.

That's not Catholic tradition. It's simply an administrative task of determining which books were authentic and which were not. It wasn't even the decision of an Ecumenical Council with the presumed authority that is believed to attach to them. The reason we all have 66 agreed-upon books is because we think the purely human decision was correct in their case.

 

[Thursday]

That's not Catholic tradition. It's simply an administrative task of determining which books were authentic and which were not.

It was Catholic tradition because all Christians were Catholic at the time.

The books were selected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit using the Church, it wasn't just administration.

 

[Albion]

It was Catholic tradition because all Christians were Catholic at the time.

That might make it 'Catholic' but it doesn't make it tradition and definitely not Holy Tradition.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Hi. I'm having computer trouble so I'm going to see if I can limp through a few answers. Don't make too much of their brevity.

NP, I only am on the computer at work, so if I don't respond for hours it tends to be because I am at home.

But since the Church that all of us descend from decided that the NT was also Holy Scripture, you can't take that view unless you disavow the Church.

This still does not change the historical context of the passage. They were talking about OT, the only scripture at the time. This doesn't mean anything in regards to the Church deciding the NT part of Holy Scripture. So that last part is not true.

The verse that's always cited says to hold to unidentified traditions. So that means we don't know what they are in any case. But the word there means customs. The term Holy Tradition (spelled differently) is a concept devised by later churchman, was arbitrarily named, and has a totally different meaning.

Customs is Tradition, definition of Tradition: the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

Yes, what were the traditions taught that are not shown? Well that is where we have to turn to the Church that Jesus started, because scripture alone is not enough here, and the Church is the one held responsible for the upkeep of those traditions.

There are a number of different churches that utilize Holy Tradition instead of SS and, guess what? ...no two of them agree on doctrine although they all say they followed Tradition. If the Bible isn't good enough, the suggested remedy is even less so!

This is where the 3rd leg of that stool comes in. The Church, that was started by Jesus Christ. A stool cannot stand on 1 or 2 legs, it needs at least 3.

 

[Wolf_Says]

That's not Catholic tradition. It's simply an administrative task of determining which books were authentic and which were not. It wasn't even the decision of an Ecumenical Council with the presumed authority that is believed to attach to them. The reason we all have 66 agreed-upon books is because we think the purely human decision was correct in their case.

Sorry, it is 73 books. The Early Church agreed upon 73 books, the OT from the Septuagint and the books of the NT. 66 books is the version that Martin Luther came up with, disregarding the 7 books now commonly called the Apocrypha because the Jews rejected those books aswell, after Jesus had already died.

The 7 additional books gave more proof that could not be discarded that Jesus was indeed the intended Messiah, which the Jews did not believe, and they also were originally in Greek, not Hebrew, which the Jews rejected to try and preserve their Jewish culture.

 

[Albion]

NP, I only am on the computer at work, so if I don't respond for hours it tends to be because I am at home.


This still does not change the historical context of the passage. They were talking about OT, the only scripture at the time. This doesn't mean anything in regards to the Church deciding the NT part of Holy Scripture. So that last part is not true.

IOW, you don't consider the NT to be Holy Scripture. You don't intend to say that, of course, but this is the meaning of what you wrote.

Customs is Tradition, definition of Tradition: the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.

That would be traditions. "Holy Tradition" OTOH is something different, and it's HT that we are dealing with if we ditch SS.

what were the traditions taught that are not shown? Well that is where we have to turn to the Church that Jesus started

Oh, Please! Are you going to throw out all the careful reasoning and necessary linkages, etc. we've been striving for just like that? I might as well say that Joseph Smith vouched for the Book of Mormon, so I have to go with it.

So what was your answer to the fact that the Holy Tradition churches are in even more disagreement than the SS ones???

 

[Albion]

Sorry, it is 73 books.

I said we all agree on the 66. Yes, there are dozens of church bodies that have a different number--additional ones--but the agreement on the 66 is about as much unanimity as exists with anything in Christendom.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Wolf_Says]

<Staff Edit>
Of course I believe the NT to be Holy Scripture. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the verses talking about scripture in the Bible. Those verses are clearly talking about OT, because Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT. Simply because NT is also considered Holy Scripture now, does not mean we can remove the historical context of the passages.

Oh, Please! Are you going to throw out all the careful reasoning and necessary linkages, etc. we've been striving for just like that?

I did not throw anything out. As I stated, if the Bible does not contain the Traditions that paul is talking about, where then can we find them? Obviously they were important enough for Paul to write about them, reminding them to hold true to them. That leads to only 1 answer, the Church.

So what was your answer to the fact that the Holy Tradition churches are in even more disagreement than the SS ones???

Already did though. Holy Traditions cannot stand on its own, and neither can Holy Scripture. You need all 3 legs for that stool to stand. That 3rd is the authority of the Church, that was started by Jesus. Jesus also only started 1 Church, that I laid out in the OP.

 

[Albion]

Of course I believe the NT to be Holy Scripture.

As I said, that's the import of what you wrote. I know you don't intend to agree with the statement, but that's the conclusion if we were to go strictly by what you wrote. It's worth considering.

I did not throw anything out. As I stated, if the Bible does not contain the Traditions that paul is talking about, where then can we find them?

There is no particular reason TO find them. And there is no WAY to find them. This was a comment spoken to certain people and appears to be rather ordinary advice--keep on keeping on, attending synagogue, keeping the fasts, and etc. There is no reason to make it into a prime doctrinal directive akin to "This is my body. Do this...."

Already did though. Holy Traditions cannot stand on its own, and neither can Holy Scripture. You need all 3 legs for that stool to stand. That 3rd is the authority of the Church, that was started by Jesus. Jesus also only started 1 Church, that I laid out in the OP.

So you've reduced your side of the discussion to "Take my own denomination's word for all this stuff." You might as well have said that in the beginning if that is all that this was going to devolve down to.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Nobody said the traditions of man. We said Holy Traditions, which are different.

Well, Wolf Says, you really opened up a can of worms.

Let me give you one help. Holy Tradition in the Sacred Scriptures, plus the writings and teachings of the early Church Fathers, and the 7 Ecumenical Councils

 

[Wolf_Says]

As I said, that's the import of what you wrote. I know you don't intend to agree with the statement, but that's the conclusion if we were to go strictly by what you wrote. It's worth considering.

That is not the import of what I wrote at all. You made a jump when you said that they were referring to OT but since the Church made NT a part of Holy Scripture, we include that too. I claimed that this is wrong, I did not said I do not believe that NT is not Scripture.

So you've reduced your side of the discussion to "Take my own denomination's word for all this stuff." You might as well have said that in the beginning if that is all that this was going to devolve down to.

It is not devolving, you asked a question which I answered. Your question was about why churches who place HT above Scripture also differ.

I didn't say "take my denomination's word." My understanding comes from the history of the Church and Christianity.