The issues with Sola Scriptura

[lesliedellow]

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.

Even if it was not in the New Testament, you would think somebody would have mentioned it prior to the fourth century. Why isn't it in the Didache, for instance?

 

[Thursday]

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.

Actually, it is implicitly found in scripture.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary

 

[Thursday]

Even if it was not in the New Testament, you would think somebody would have mentioned it prior to the fourth century. Why isn't it in the Didache, for instance?

The Didache is an instruction manual for Christian living, not a history book.

Also, Mary may still have been living when it was written and the books of the New Testament were written.

 

[MichaelS]

Even if it was not in the New Testament, you would think somebody would have mentioned it prior to the fourth century. Why isn't it in the Didache, for instance?

Again - why should it be? Much of the teaching that went on in those days was oral. Letters and books were written primarily to address various points at issue, or to provide a common ground of basic instruction. If nobody disagreed with it and it wasn't something new catechumens needed to hear before they could get trained personal instruction, no one would have a compelling reason to write it down.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

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.

Where is the proof?
Where is one doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture?

 

[MichaelS]

Where is one doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture?

How do you know which doctrines are necessary for salvation?

I'm not being flippant. I return to my earlier point on baptism - some churches treat it as necessary for salvation, others do not. If they cannot agree on that distinction with a doctrine that does appear in Scripture - multiple times at that - what is the point of talking about anything not in Scripture?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

<Staff Edit>
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.

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.

You who think it wrong to capitalize God's Word, capitalize Traditions thinking you can fool us into thinking it is something incontrovertibly holy from God.

You who capitalize the Church when talking about your church/RCC do so to usurp authority. Your whole OP goes on about "the Church" when your church, the RCC defines the Church to be the People of God, baptized believers. Be honest to your church's doctrine on this.

 

[Rick Otto]

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?(Answer: The Catholic Church)

How do you know what is scripture without tradition?

Whaevet they got right isn't because they were Catholic.

 

[Thursday]

Whaevet they got right isn't because they were Catholic.

Of course it was. Jesus promised that the Church would be led in all truth.

Jesus didn't make such a promise to Martin Luther or John Calvin.

 

[Rick Otto]

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


I have never disagreed that scripture is an authority, because it is the divinely inspired written word of God. I am saying that it is not the SOLE authority or HIGHEST authority, which is what SS claims.

I agree that all denominations believe in the importance of scripture. Once again I have never said otherwise. It does not state that scripture is the highest authority. 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.

I apologize if my wording is confusing. I am referring to everything in regards to doctrine and practice.

It does not. Scripture does not support the concept of SS. Scripture supports both scripture and tradition.

Tradition does not compete with Scripture. They work together, along with the Church, to form the 3 legs of authority that I posted at the bottom of my OP.


This is with the issues of the concept of SS, not just the definition. I started the thread with the definition so that we all might start at the same understanding. SS leads to the arguments about authority, by claiming that it is the highest authority.


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.

I don't accept your definition for one thing, and your conclusion that multiple interpretations are due to whatever the authority is, is patently wrong.

 

[Rick Otto]

Of course it was. Jesus promised that the Church would be led in all truth.

Jesus didn't make such a promise to Martin Luther or John Calvin.

Yes He did, He made the promise to all believers (the church).
Thinking it is saying the church would follow in all that it is led, is in contradiction to what our savior says in Revelation about the seven churches, describing their ERRORS.

 

[Thursday]

Yes He did, He made the promise to all believers (the church).

This is a false statement. Jesus made that promise to the apostles in the upper room. He clearly delineates their role from that of those who will follow their message.

You reject this scriptural truth because it conflicts with your man made dogma.

 

[lesliedellow]

Actually, it is implicitly found in scripture.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-assumption-of-mary

Nothing there. Just attempts to explain away scriptural passages, and to say that they don't mean what they appear to mean.

By way of contrast, the divinity of Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, are all attested to in the NT. Along with monotheism, which is also attested to in the NT, the Trinity follows from that.

 

[Thursday]

Nothing there. Just attempts to explain away scriptural passages, and to say that they don't mean what they appear to mean.

By way of contrast, the divinity of Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, are all attested to in the NT. Along with monotheism, which is also attested to in the NT, the Trinity follows from that.

You obviously didn't even read it. Why ask if you don't care?

 

[lesliedellow]

Again - why should it be?

Because if that doctrine is so important that the Pope lays it down as something Catholics must believe, you would think that the divine author of the Bible would arrange for at least a mention of it to appear somewhere - and before the fourth century.

 

[Thursday]

Because if that doctrine is so important that the Pope lays it down as something Catholics must believe, you would think that the divine authorof the Bible would arrange for at least a mention of it to appear somewhere.

As I just mentioned, it is likely that Mary was still alive when most of the books of the New Testament were written.

 

[lesliedellow]

As I just mentioned, it is likely that Mary was still alive when most of the books of the New Testament were written.

Indeed. Then she must have been a ripe old age, mustn't she? Not many people living to be over a hundred in those days.

 

[Thursday]

Indeed. Then she must have been a ripe old age, mustn't she? Not many people living to be over a hundred in those days.

Mary was likely 15 when Jesus was born, so in AD 60 she would have been about 75 years old.

 

[lesliedellow]

Mary was likely 15 when Jesus was born, so in AD 60 she would have been about 75 years old.

Well, Jesus was born in or before 4BC, and John's Gospel is usually dated to the nineties. Which would make Mary at least 109 at the time. Luke maybe a decade before that, which would have made Mary at least 99. Even Mark would have her in her eighties.

 

[Thursday]

Well, Jesus was born in or before 4BC, and John's Gospel is usually dated to the nineties. Which would make Mary at least 109 at the time. Luke maybe a decade before that, which would have made Mary at least 99. Even Mark would have her in her eighties.

I said most of the NT books. The gospels all end with by the Resurrection, so we wouldn't expect them to include events that happened decades later.