Whence sola scriptura?

[RhetorTheo]

Who is the "they" you're referring to who would say such a thing?

The "some" referred to in the question to which I was responding. I've known many people who've made those very arguments.

 

[orthedoxy]

I want to invite everyone to come to
http://www.christianforums.com/t84994 for further discussion

 

[InquisitorKind]

I want to invite everyone to come to
http://www.christianforums.com/t84994 for further discussion

Tim's letter is filled with unproven assumptions, gratuitous assertions and fallacious reasoning. I would be willing to participate in further discussion, but Protestants can't respond to what's argued against them in the OBOB forum.

~Matt

 

[Lotar]

FAQ: How to refute sola scriptura.

1.) Find heretical groups off the internet.
2.) Refute their illogical claims.
3.) Assume said group correct in their definition of sola scriptura.

Optional: Call said doctrine, of the devil.

 

[A. believer]

I want to invite everyone to come to
http://www.christianforums.com/t84994 for further discussion

Your link says I can't access the page.

 

[orthedoxy]

For some reason they took the link that i posted out.
I'm going to try to see what the problem was and maybe ask Tim to repost or i will post a new forum and let you guys know.
The mean time i'm still waiting for someone to show me where scripture teaches sola scriptura.
I beieveThe bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation for the truth therefore our foundation for the truth is not a book but a Church, if you don't accept that as your pillar you will crumble

 

[Lotar]

It was deleted, because it was inaccurate and inflammitory. So, it would do us all well if you do not.

Orthodoxy, I'm trying to figure out what your problem is. We have stated many times that sola scriptura does not require a biblical passage. Sola scriptura means it is the only infallible source of truth, it never meant that it was the only source of truth. There are many sources of fallible truth, including the church.

BTW, scripture says that the church is pillar and the support of the truth, it never says the church decides it.

 

[seebs]

Orthodoxy, I'm trying to figure out what your problem is. We have stated many times that sola scriptura does not require a biblical passage. Sola scriptura means it is the only infallible source of truth, it never meant that it was the only source of truth. There are many sources of fallible truth, including the church.

I'm not Orthodoxy, but...

If Scripture is the only infallible source of truth, but sola scriptura isn't found in scripture, then our knowledge of sola scriptura must be fallible, no?

 

[Lotar]

I'm not Orthodoxy, but...

If Scripture is the only infallible source of truth, but sola scriptura isn't found in scripture, then our knowledge of sola scriptura must be fallible, no?

Perhaps The infallibility of scripture is held up in both the bible and tradition, but the infallibility of tradition is never claimed in scripture. If tradition contradicts the bible, then one has to be fallible. Since tradition states that scripture is infallible, it would have to be proven fallible if scripture is fallible. So the only option is that either neither are infallible or only scripture is. Now, it is possible that individual pieces of tradition are infallible, but not as a whole.

 

[seebs]

Perhaps The infallibility of scripture is held up in both the bible and tradition, but the infallibility of tradition is never claimed in scripture.

So? The only way we know which things are scripture, and which aren't, is tradition. Scripture and tradition depend on each other. I don't see any way to conclude that a given set of texts is "scripture" except by being told.

If tradition contradicts the bible, then one has to be fallible.

To be pedantic, at least one.

Since tradition states that scripture is infallible, it would have to be proven fallible if scripture is fallible. So the only option is that either neither are infallible or only scripture is. Now, it is possible that individual pieces of tradition are infallible, but not as a whole.

My understanding has always been that the "infallibility" of Scripture presupposes competent interpretation (tradition) and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Part of the confusion here is that not everyone agrees on what it means to call something "infallible".

 

[Lotar]

So? The only way we know which things are scripture, and which aren't, is tradition. Scripture and tradition depend on each other. I don't see any way to conclude that a given set of texts is "scripture" except by being told.

Which is exactly why we conclude that tradition is a source of truth. It is only wrong when it contradicts or is extraneous to scripture. I know I'm probably screwing something up here, A. believer is much better on this topic than I am.

To be pedantic, at least one.

True, that's what I meant.

My understanding has always been that the "infallibility" of Scripture presupposes competent interpretation (tradition) and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Part of the confusion here is that not everyone agrees on what it means to call something "infallible".

I would say that the bible itself is infallible, not anyones interpretation. Some people think infallible refers to only matters of faith, some think it refers to all matters, and some seem to think it refers to their specific interpretations

 

[seebs]

Which is exactly why we conclude that tradition is a source of truth. It is only wrong when it contradicts or is extraneous to scripture. I know I'm probably screwing something up here, A. believer is much better on this topic than I am.

The thing is, if tradition can be wrong, then it may have been wrong in identifying scripture as infallible.

In other words, if both are fallible, then they can still be sources of truth most of the time, and nothing is logically inconsistent.

As of yet, I have no idea; I have never been fully convinced that either is effectively infallible. It turns out not to matter; all we ever see is human interpretations of the Bible (including our own), so whatever we see is fallible, whether the Bible itself is fallible or not.

I would say that the bible itself is infallible, not anyones interpretation. Some people think infallible refers to only matters of faith, some think it refers to all matters, and some seem to think it refers to their specific interpretations

Well, exactly the problem. I guess... What difference does it make? Imagine a book just like the Bible, only with one single error which does not affect salvation. Who cares? What difference does it make? The number of errors we bring to the Bible seems to render the question mostly irrelevant.

 

[InquisitorKind]

The mean time i'm still waiting for someone to show me where scripture teaches sola scriptura.

It's not so much blatantly present as it's a process of elimination. We both hold the Scriptures to be an infallible, binding source of revelation on conscience of the believer. The issue is whether or not other infallible sources of revelation exist that are binding on the conscience of the believer. If you think there is another source that should be heeded, the burden of proof is on the objector to Sola Scriptura to present that alternate source and prove its validity as an object of binding revelation on par with the Scriptures.

I beieveThe bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation for the truth therefore our foundation for the truth is not a book but a Church, if you don't accept that as your pillar you will crumble

Sola Scriptura and the church as the pillar and foundation of truth are not at odds. If you have a specific question as to why you think they are, please state it and we'll address it.

~Matt

 

[pmarquette]

( discussion of tradition and scriptures )
It's not so much blatantly present as it's a process of elimination.
No it is one of those discussions , like " which came first : the chicken or the egg ; if a tree falls in the forest & no one is there , is there a noise " .... subjective isogensis ... irrelevant , as we both depend on both items being discussed .... tradition from Jesus to the reformation ; the bible from 14-1600's on ....

We both hold the Scriptures to be an infallible, binding source of revelation on conscience of the believer. but we look at book differently :
RCC's look at scripture to document dogma and doctrine practiced by tradition ' PCC's look at bible to find principles to practice

The issue is whether or not other infallible sources of revelation exist that are binding on the conscience of the believer.
the bible as we know it was not written down for 70-100 yrs after Jesus ascenction .... the importance of the bible came to a head previous to the reformation [ wycliffee , tyndale , hus , etc. -- english ( vulgar language ) editions ]; the bible as a tool was only practicle after the invention of Gutenberg's printing press ( affordable to average person ) ; and the fundamentalist use of " sola scriptora " has olny come into issue in the last 2-300 years ...

If you think there is another source that should be heeded, the burden of proof is on the objector to Sola Scriptura to present that alternate source and prove its validity as an object of binding revelation on par with the Scriptures.
It is not the scripture that is at odds , but the interpretion of scripture ; both camps seek to verify their particular use , at the other's expense : one saying that all is preached every 4 years in the gospel cycle of the RCC church , which is not true ( RCC doctrine and dogma every 4 years , not entire work from genesis to revelation ) ; the other camp citing that there are abiblical doctrines practiced by the RCC's and not by the PCC's , saying scripture is sufficent , not word of God in entirety ( for the scripture says not all was written down )

Sola Scriptura and the church as the pillar and foundation of truth are not at odds. Whether we use the Bible , the diadache , commentaries , writings of the " saints " ....out of the mouth of 2-3 witnesses ; or we use the writings of the church fathers , there should be some " witness " to what is being done , some matter being addressed , some error being corrected , and all the above being within the broad strokes laid down in the epistles by the church fathers ( in many cases what we argue about is there and has been there , but we refuse to yield to what is and has been in black and white for 2000 yrs. )

If you have a specific question as to why you think they are, please state it and we'll address it.
Scripture is not the olny source , never has been ....words by the Holy Spirit ( prophetic , wisdom , knowledge ; what is done in a particular body , by God as given John in Revelations 2 & 3 ) . For what 1 camp cites as tradition , the other camp is aware of , which is one reason there are now 2 camps.... offense , contention , disagreement of context , application , & interpretation of same .... by many church leaders , not qualified by the teachings and traditions of the 12 and the fathers ....

Nor is tradition , apart from the scriptures sufficient .... for the Holy Spirit has revealed now , what Jesus said " they could not bear " prior to his departure; and much of the text is as written in Deuteronomy 29.29 -- a need to know baisis , a " mystery " , revealed on a need to know basis , to his ministers , desciples , lay & helps ministers , each according to their gift and call ...

what divides us now is :
application
interpretation
relavance

of , in essense , what we both practice ....

~Matt

 

[InquisitorKind]

but we look at book differently :
RCC's look at scripture to document dogma and doctrine practiced by tradition ' PCC's look at bible to find principles to practice

ortheodoxy is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not well studied in Eastern Orthodoxy, but my impression is that they approach the Scriptures in a more Evangelical way, rather than the Roman Catholic approach you've just mentioned.

the bible as we know it was not written down for 70-100 yrs after Jesus ascenction .... the importance of the bible came to a head previous to the reformation [ wycliffee , tyndale , hus , etc. -- english ( vulgar language ) editions ]; the bible as a tool was only practicle after the invention of Gutenberg's printing press ( affordable to average person ) ; and the fundamentalist use of " sola scriptora " has olny come into issue in the last 2-300 years ..

How does this address the issue of whether or not there is another source of infallible revelation binding on the conscience of the Christian? You'll have to explain in greater detail why your comments are relevant.

It is not the scripture that is at odds , but the interpretion of scripture ; both camps seek to verify their particular use , at the other's expense : one saying that all is preached every 4 years in the gospel cycle of the RCC church , which is not true ( RCC doctrine and dogma every 4 years , not entire work from genesis to revelation ) ; the other camp citing that there are abiblical doctrines practiced by the RCC's and not by the PCC's , saying scripture is sufficent , not word of God in entirety ( for the scripture says not all was written down )

This doesn't make sense as a response to my comments. I didn't say the Scriptures were at "odds" with anything, nor do I see how your other comments are applicable to the particular method I've raised to determine the validity of Sola Scriptura.

what divides us now is :
application
interpretation
relavance

The current issue is additional sources of infallible, binding revelation, not how those sources are to be applied to our lives.

I didn't comment on your other responses because they don't address what I've written or the specific subject at hand. If you feel that the method I've suggested to ortheodoxy is invalid, or have other comments that are relevant to it, please feel free to post them.

~Matt

 

[mrversatile48]

For readers who have no Bible, type"bluebible" to a search, & type reference, to find book, chapter & verses, into its seardch line: or type "BibleGateway"- which has more study aids - but both have several translations online

2 Peter 1:19/21 - "& we have the word of the prophets made more certain, & you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns & the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"

For the best bargains in Man's Maker's Manual, type STL Publishers, or Wesley Owen Bookshops, or Good News Bookshops, into a search engine - I just got NIV Life Application Study Bible @ 75% of usual price: praise God for January sales!

Alpha man Nicky Gumbel's "Questions of Life" has a very good chapter on this question

So does "Questions On The Christian Faith Answered From The Bible", by Roger Forster

 

[orthedoxy]

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.
By believing Sola Scriptura aren’t you saying you can’t come up with doctrines outside the Bible?

 

[A. believer]

It was deleted, because it was inaccurate and inflammitory. So, it would do us all well if you do not.

I actually already saw it and responded to it because it was a copy of a PM that was written directly to me. You should have seen it in its entirety--especially along with the other PM the same person sent me last summer telling me why he was "leaving CF for good." Aye aye aye!

 

[Lotar]

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.
By believing Sola Scriptura aren’t you saying you can’t come up with doctrines outside the Bible?

Do you even read our posts?

 

[A. believer]

I'm not Orthodoxy, but...

If Scripture is the only infallible source of truth, but sola scriptura isn't found in scripture, then our knowledge of sola scriptura must be fallible, no?

Human knowledge is always fallible because humans are, by nature, fallible. There's no such thing as infallible human knowledge--at least not this side of heaven, anyway. But that doesn't mean that humans can't know things correctly.