WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

[Albion]

I think you meant "we are not on good grounds..."

That would have worked, but I actually meant it as a question...except that I forgot the question mark!

Assuming you meant this, I am not advocating that since sola scriptura is false that anything is open to speculation. I am advocating the Bible, tradition, and the teaching of the magisterium as our sources for authority.

Yes, but only as entries in a list of alternatives that are supposedly equal in authority. And if so, you are necessarily putting manmade concepts, customs, legends, and etc. on the same level as God's word.

Advocates of Sola Scriptura are saying, as I indicated before, that nothing other than God's own word IS, in fact, the equal of God's revelation.

t Since none of these sources teach that Noah built two arks I do not believe in them.

Why not? That is exactly the argument you have used against Sola Scriptura.

But the same cannot be said of Protestants. Not that they believe in two arks, but Protestant scholars speculate that the first five books in the Bible, traditionally attributed to Moses, were actually written by at least four different human authors. Not only that, but Protestant scholars also teach that the Book of Isaiah was written by two authors. True, there are some Catholic scholars who now follow this speculation as opposed to following the traditional belief that the Book of Isaiah was completely written by Isaiah.

Catholic and Protestant scholars alike think that some of the authors of some of the Bible books were actually written by someone other than the person whose name is on them. However, they all believe these books to be inspired. That is the point.

In fact, it makes your contention even weaker IMO for the very reason that your church DOES say that the Bible is divine revelation, not just insightful writings by men who were interested in religion, etc. SO if it IS God's word, we are back to asking "what beats --or equals--God's word when it comes to being authoritative?"

 

[packermann]

But if there are no verses that inform us of other ones, how can we then conclude that they exist? We cannot. And that is exactly what is wrong with "Sacred Tradition," the alternative to Sola Scriptura that some denominations promote.

It is speculation, a theory no more proven by Scripture to be what is claimed for it than if the Church had decided to say instead that someone had met up with a visiting Martian and was told X and Y, "so you know it has to be as good as the Bible!"

That, in fact, is what gets some movements/churches labelled as "cults, i.e. for basing their claims upon alleged information not known by the mainline churches.

It is not speculation. It is what safeguards the Bible.

The word "tradition" comes from the phrase "to pass on". That is what the Bible is - it is written tradition. We do not have any of the original documents. Scribes have made copies and copies of copies. If we cannot trust the early Christians to preserve the oral teachings of the apostles then how can we trust them to preserve the Bible for us?

Atheists and other skeptics argue that the the real Jesus was just a good man who taught about loving your neighbor. It was the later on that the early Church had inserted verses that made Jesus appear to be God and that He rose from the dead. How can you be sure that this is not true? If the Church added all these false doctrines, why wouldn't the Church also add verses to the Bible to make Him appear to be God?

But the Catholic believes that the early Church was very meticulous in preserving all the teachings of the apostles - whether it was given orally or in writing. The Catholic belief is consistent. But the conservative Protestant is inconsistent. He disdains tradition but wants to hold to the traditional view of the Bible. He believes that the early Christians were unfaithful about what the apostles taught orally but yet were faithful in preserving their writings.

 

[Albion]

It is not speculation. It is the that safeguards the Bible.

Well, of course it is. "Sacred Tradition" is entirely a man-made concept with no backing from Scripture. It is a theory.

Worse than that, it doesn't even function according to its own supposed rules in that the dogmas that have come from this that was dubbed "sacred" by churchmen were not believed from the beginning, not actually traditions, and certainly not accepted by the whole church.

With Scripture, however, we are at least dealing with 66 books that virtually all Christians--Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant--agree are divine revelation.

Because what follows in your message is to some extent already addressed by my comments above, I think that I probably should end my reply here.

 

[packermann]

Yes, but only as entries in a list of alternatives that are supposedly equal in authority. And if so, you are necessarily putting manmade concepts, customs, legends, and etc. on the same level as God's word.

You make that accusation without providing any proof.

Advocates of Sola Scriptura are saying, as I indicated before, that nothing other than God's own word IS, in fact, the equal of God's revelation.

But unless you find at least one verse in the Scripture that teaches this, then you are relying on an authority outside Scripture to believe it. This authority is Protestant tradition. Your teachers tell you this is true, and they learned it from their teachers, an so on and so on. But no one has given a scripture verse that actually taught this.

Why not? That is exactly the argument you have used against Sola Scriptura.

Not really. I believe in sola Scriptura-plus-tradition-plus-magisterum. So at least one of those sources must uphold the doctrine for me to believe it. Can you give an example of something we Catholics believe that is not taught by scripture, tradition, and the magisterium?

Catholic and Protestant scholars alike think that some of the authors of some of the Bible books were actually written by someone other than the person whose name is on them. However, they all believe these books to be inspired. That is the point.

But they originated by Protestants.

Not only that, but there are Protestants who do not believe in the Trinity (Unitarians, Jesus-Only Pentecostals) and who do not believe in the resurrection of Christ (Lutheran scholar Rudolf Bultmann). No Catholic can believe or teach these things.

In fact, it makes your contention even weaker IMO for the very reason that your church DOES say that the Bible is divine revelation, not just insightful writings by men who were interested in religion, etc. SO if it IS God's word, we are back to asking "what beats --or equals--God's word when it comes to being authoritative?"

Not sure what you mean by this. The Protestants are the ones who are more likely to believe in that the Bible is just a compilation of insightful writings. It was Rudolf Bultmann scholars who "demythologized" the Bible. Rudolf Bultmann separated the historic Jesus from the Christ of Faith. He died in good standing with the Lutheran Church. Martin Luther called the Epistle of James as being an "epistle of straw". He wanted to take that out of the Bible! No Catholic would dare to try to do that!

The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics must believe in the miracles in the Bible. They do not have to believe the appearance of Mary at Lourdes or the miracle at Fatima but they must believe in all the miracles recorded in the Bible. But a Lutheran scholar does not have to believe in the resurrection of Christ!

 

[Albion]

You make that accusation without providing any proof.

Accusation? Proof?

Most of this isn't in question.

The Bible IS considered to be the word of God, inspired writing, by all the leading churches. Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition ISN'T mentioned anywhere in Scripture. It is, however, what the Catholic churches claim to follow when making doctrine, instead of Scripture alone. It is NOT supported by the Early Church Fathers, even if we did consider them critical to this.

But unless you find at least one verse in the Scripture that teaches this, then you are relying on an authority outside Scripture to believe it.

Does that mean that you are convinced that the Bible ISN'T divine revelation?

I did assume that, being a Catholic, you naturally consider Scripture to be divinely inspired and that the early churches councils which canonized these books were correct in what they decided.

But if not, then you are correct that my point would not have much of an impact.

I believe in sola Scriptura-plus-tradition-plus-magisterum. So at least one of those sources must uphold the doctrine for me to believe it.

Can you give an example of something we Catholics believe that is not taught by scripture, tradition, and the magisterium?

What a strange argument. In discussing with me whether there is anything as authoritative as the word of God, as acknowledge by both of our churches to be exactly that, your reply is to say you believe in two pieces of information that are, in effect, alternatives to God's word.

I am, by the way, more than willing to give examples of dogmas that are allegedly based upon Sacred Tradition but which actually did not come from tradition. The Assumption (of Mary) is one, and Papal Infallibility is another.

Not only that, but there are Protestants who do not believe in the Trinity (Unitarians, Jesus-Only Pentecostals) and who do not believe in the resurrection of Christ (Lutheran scholar Rudolf Bultmann). No Catholic can believe or teach these things.

So what? Our discussion is about Sola Scriptura, not "What do Unitarians believe?"

The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics must believe in the miracles in the Bible. They do not have to believe the appearance of Mary at Lourdes or the miracle at Fatima but they must believe in all the miracles recorded in the Bible.

Yes, but now you are drifting away from the topic. Mary at Lourdes is not a dogma, just as you pointed out that it is not.

When we are talking about Sola Scriptura or its opposite number, Sacred Tradition, they are what they are because they define essential doctrine. It adds nothing to mention some beliefs that aren't in that category.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I already commented on that. There are no exceptions to the rule of conscience. You'd have to show me at least one clear scenario where it is clearly appropriate for someone to depart from this rule:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should do B".

No such scenarios exist - I don't care how "badly formed" the conscience might be.

I said the conscience has to be properly formed...not badly formed.

Here's your scenario:

Action A - evil: If I go to church, I leave my sick husband home alone...this is not good.

Action B - good: Maybe I'll leave my sick husband home along, but at least I'll go to worship God, as Hebrews states i should.

Which would you do?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Please don't frame my view as something that it isn't. I agree obeying God is not a work of the law. I agree we are required to obey God. So why do you frame an argument in a way that makes out that I don't agree with these things? This is called a "strawman". You build up a case that I am not making, then you tear it down. It is a dishonest debating technique. But my guess is you simply do not understand what I am saying.

I know you don't know me, but I don't know debating techniques --- this is for scholars. I don't build strawmen. You mentioned the Law and to me it sounded like those that speak of THE LAW and tell me there's no need to follow it anymore because now we have the Holy Spirit.

To me,,,THE LAW can mean two different ideas:
1. The entire 613 laws of Moses --- of which I don't know anyone that keeps this Law.

2. The Moral Law which is the 10 commandments and which we ARE required to keep.

So when I hear someone say we're not under the Law, of course I believe they're speaking of the 10 commandments....OF COURSE PAUL MEANT THE 613 LAWS....We are no longer under that Law.

I even stated that Paul NEVER said we are no longer under the Moral Law. In every letter of his he states what we are NOT to do. Example
Romans 13:8-10
8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

What law is he speaking of when he talks of "Works of the Law"?

When Paul speaks of Works of the Law he is speaking about those works that persons do to try to gain salvation. Works do not save us, but faith does.

That's because walking the Spirit fulfills the spirit of the law. The law was God's best substitute for Himself. It was lesser, but the best He could do when the Israelites didn't want to come near Him themselves. So He put this veil between Him and them, the Law. Why would we ever want to go back under a veil? (2 Corinthians 3).

I agree that we need to understand what it means to walk in the spirit and we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

But it's necessary to walk in the spirit and also know what God expects from us - especially as new Christians. See the last line above of Romans 13:10
Paul states that love fulfills all the law....Jesus two Great Commandments....But Paul also noted some of the rules we are not to break WHEN following the spirit.

It's good to be clear.
As one matures in Christ, I believe it becomes less and less necessary to know all the rules and they become a part of the person.

If we walk in the Spirit, we will love as He loves and we will rest in Him. This sums up the spirit of the law. But make no mistake, the Sabbath rest was a ceremony pointing to Jesus. Today there is no Sunday Sabbath, nor Saturday Sabbath, rather there is an eternal Sabbath rest in Christ.

I believe I stated this, so I agree.
Christ is our rest now.
But we are also taught to put a day aside.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I did not mean to suggest that you do not adhere to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I am sorry if you understood it that way.

No problem. You said this:
For one, you should adhere to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in your every day life.

The way the word YOU is used in the English language leaves much to be desired.

I wrote that as an an example of an authority other than Sacred Scripture, that we should adhere to. But Sola Scriptura holds that we should only hold to the Bible as an authority, does it not?

I agree that the Holy Spirit is also to be adhered to and not only Scripture. I do find a small problem with this too however. Why is it that we all seem to believe the Holy Spirit is saying something different?

Sola Scriptura is not so bad...we do need some kind of authority.

But we also have solo scriptura...everyone seems to feel they could sit down and read the bible and understand it all by themselves. One needs to study for years to come to a real understanding of scripture. This is why our church needs to be believed to some point. Although, I do agree that all should be tested by the N.T. Acts 17:11
The Bereans examined everything that was told to them with scripture..that would have been the O.T. which did speak of Jesus (Isaiah 53).

Well that has not been proven as a matter of fact. For example, factually we do not know who wrote the letter to the Hebrews:
Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

The Epistle to the Hebrews of the Christian Bible is one of the New Testament books whose canonicity was disputed. Traditionally, Paul the Apostle was thought to be the author. However, since the third century this has been questioned, and the consensus among most modern scholars is that the author is unknown.[1][2]​

Well factually, as noted above, we do not know that all of the books of the Bible were written by Apostles or those that knew them. Martin Luther famously disputed this with respect to several books of the New Testament, for example.

The above is all true. I believe I posted in parenthasis that we know that John was an Apostle that wrote his letters and gospel. Luther disputed James because he wrote of works, stating that faith without works is a dead faith.

I do believe that those that wrote learned from the Apostles and I do believe that we can trust what the N.T. teaches us. For instance, The Adulteress Woman was most probably not in early manuscripts,,,but it does properly represent something Jesus would have done - so I don't have a big problem with this.

[Sure, the Pope can change some doctrine, and the Pope can teach error. It is also true that the Word of God (whether spoken orally or written) will never change.

Just as it is possible for the Pope or someone else to alter the spoken Word of God and communicate something false, it is also possible for someone to alter the written word of God and communicate something false. Fraudulent written documents are created all the time. In fact, this is what many people allege with respect to the Christian Scriptures. The Muslims allege that the Christian Scriptures have been corrupted. And so do many atheist scholars such as Bart Erhman. To be frank, as a purely factual matter it is impossible to prove that the Christian Scriptures have not been corrupted, because all of the original manuscripts have been lost, and the earliest complete purported copies of the originals date several hundred years after the originals were written.

We do know that the differences found in different manuscripts regarding the same verses have some changes in them but they are insignificant to the message of the gospel.

Notwithstanding the above, and I do agree with what you've stated, our N.T. can be trusted, and even the history in the bible can be trusted. Are you aware that it was believed that Jericho did not even exist until recently (maybe the 1930's)?
Due to excavations....
The home of Peter has been found...very recently.
and much more....

Even if you read the footnotes of your Bible sometimes, you will notice that there are passages where the text of the Bible is disputed, or where it is unknown whether the text should be part of the Bible at all (this is one of the reasons why the ending of the "Our Father" prayer is different among Catholics and Protestants).

So I do not think you have really given a solid reason to adhere to the Bible as an authority. You seem to reject Tradition because it cannot be proven factually certain, but the same can be said of the Bible, from a purely scientific perspective.

I think you've misunderstood what I stated.
I said that I often go to the ECFs to get an opinion from those that knew someone that knew Jesus.
There's nothing wrong with Tradition if we can verify where it comes from, and it is biblically based.

But let me give you a good reason to adhere to the Bible as an authority.
You can adhere to the Bible as an authority because you have faith in God and that is what he prompts you to believe.

So it is with Tradition.

Agreed.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Sola Scriptura is the claim that every voice must be exegetically tested. That's not even a clear assertion, and furthermore the biblical evidence militates against the idea that the divine Voice is to be tested. It is rather to be obeyed.

I never said we are to test God's voice.
What I said is that we can hear different teachings, or revelations from God that can be personal in nature and should not be used to TEACH. Some do this.
Other times God speaks to everyone exactly the same.
We can disagree on doctrine but we all agree on the basics of Christianity and this is because God has only ONE VOICE in this regard.

And that's because it convicts our conscience, thereby triggering the rule of conscience, for which there are no exceptions.

You're very interested in the conscience.
I wonder if you know philosophy.
I don't ponder too much about the conscience.
Mature Christians seem to know what God would want from them. But we all miss the mark at times.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Our "Conscience" is the voice of the spirit man (or woman) inside. Before one is born again, the conscience follows how the child was brought up. It could be a sin generator or it could be a fair guide.

On the other hand, once someone is born again, with a NEW regenerated spirit inside, our conscience IS our Guide: it is how we walk by the Spirit. It is very dangerous for a believer to ignore their conscience. Most of the time, if not all of the time, when someone is disobeying their conscience, it is the Holy spirit, in the Human spirit, trying to get a believer to stop sinning. That is why it is dangerous to disobey the conscience when one is born again.

I know what you mean, but I don't find this in practical every day living.

What about a Christian that smokes?
Is this a good thing?
Doesn't the Holy Spirit wish to make him understand that he's ruining the temple of God?
What about obese persons that eat too much or have a medical problem that is not being addressed?

In your opinion, if they had a good conscience, why are they still doing the above --- that was also being done BEFORE they were saved?

 

[JAL]

I said the conscience has to be properly formed...not badly formed.

Here's your scenario:

Action A - evil: If I go to church, I leave my sick husband home alone...this is not good.

Action B - good: Maybe I'll leave my sick husband home along, but at least I'll go to worship God, as Hebrews states i should.

Which would you do?

Relevance? Are you postulating a clear exception to the rule of conscience?

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

No exceptions. What would I do? I would follow the rule. If at that moment I feel certain that going to church is evil, I will stay home.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Relevance? Are you postulating a clear exception to the rule of conscience?

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

No exceptions. What would I do? I would follow the rule. If at that moment I feel certain that going to church is evil, I will stay home.

Indeed it is called scripture which is the standard of all truth and error by which we are told to test the Spirits to see if they are from God or not.

1 JOHN 4:1-6 [1], Beloved, BELIEVE NOT EVERY SPIRIT, BUT TRY THE SPIRITS WHETHER THEY ARE OF GOD: BECAUSE MANY FALSE PROPHETS ARE GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD.

Why would you teach a soldier not to put on the whole armour of God to fight the good fight when the enemy (false teachers) come in like a flood and say do not take your no sword (the Word) and Shield (faith)? How would the soldier fight the battle? God's Word is the very standard of right and wrong; truth and error. If you seek to destroy the standard than how can you determine right from wrong and truth from error?

You have yourself in a bit of a pickle don't you.

The Spirit of God works through the Word of God not outside of it in those who believe it *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-32.

JOHN 6:63. It is the SPIRIT that quickens the flesh profits nothing THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.

JOHN 17:17 SANTIFIY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH. YOUR WORDS ARE TRUTH.

We cannot know what truth is dear friend if there is no Word and no Spirit that teaches it.

 

[JAL]

Indeed it is called scripture which is the standard of all truth and error by which we are told to test the Spirits to see if they are from God or not.

1 JOHN 4:1-6 [1], Beloved, BELIEVE NOT EVERY SPIRIT, BUT TRY THE SPIRITS WHETHER THEY ARE OF GOD: BECAUSE MANY FALSE PROPHETS ARE GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD.

Why would you teach a soldier not to put on the whole armour of God to fight the good fight when the enemy (false teachers) come in like a flood and say do not take your no sword (the Word) and Shield (faith)? How would the soldier fight the battle? God's Word is the very standard of right and wrong; truth and error. If you seek to destroy the standard than how can you determine right from wrong and truth from error?

You have yourself in a bit of a pickle don't you.

The Spirit of God works through the Word of God not outside of it in those who believe it *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-32.

JOHN 6:63. It is the SPIRIT that quickens the flesh profits nothing THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.

JOHN 17:17 SANTIFIY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH. YOUR WORDS ARE TRUTH.

We cannot know what truth is dear friend if there is no Word and no Spirit that teaches it.

You conveniently ignore the biblical doctrine of conscience (Rom 2:14-15;Rom 14:1ff;1Cor 8:1-13);

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You conveniently ignore the biblical doctrine of conscience (Rom 2:14-15;Rom 14:1ff;1Cor 8:1-13);

Nonsense, the scriptures you have provided are in relation to Christian conscience which is based on the knowledge of God's standard of truth and error and that would be the scriptures as guided through the Spirit of the Word of truth *1 JOHN 4:1-6; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-32; JOHN 6:63

 

[JAL]

Nonsense, the scriptures you have provided are in relation to Christian conscience which is based on the knowledge of God's standard of truth and error and that would be the scriptures as guided through the Spirit of the Word of truth *1 JOHN 4:1-6; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-32; JOHN 6:63

As expected. Doesn't matter how much Scripture you are shown, you just keep reasserting your conclusions.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

As expected. Doesn't matter how much Scripture you are shown, you just keep reasserting your conclusions.

Indeed because you teach people to throw away their sword and shield. If salvation is only by God's grace through faith *EPHESIANS 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God how can you have salvation when you have no Word (sword) and no faith (shield)?

 

[JAL]

Indeed because you teach people to throw away their sword and shield. If salvation is only by God's grace through faith *EPHESIANS 2:8 and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God how can you have salvation when you have no Word (sword) and no faith (shield)?

Why so much intellectual dishonesty?
Where did I tell people to jettison faith?
Where did I tell people to jettison the written Word?
Where did I tell people to jettison the divine/spoken Word?

 

[JAL]

Nonsense, the scriptures you have provided are in relation to Christian conscience which is based on the knowledge of God's standard of truth and error and that would be the scriptures as guided through the Spirit of the Word of truth *1 JOHN 4:1-6; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-32; JOHN 6:63

You glossed right over all those verses on conscience. Here's how Paul defines sin in Romans 14, for example:

"Each should be fully convinced in their own mind" (14:5)

That is precisely how my maxim defines sin:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B"

But instead of actually addressing the argument, I can predict you will respond with another reassertion of your position - and it will read something like this:

Nonsense, the scriptures you have provided are in relation to Christian conscience which is based on the knowledge of God's standard of truth and error and that would be the scriptures as guided through the Spirit of the Word of truth *1 JOHN 4:1-6; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-32; JOHN 6:63

Huh? Seems with you, there is never a real rebuttal.

 

[JAL]

I know what you mean, but I don't find this in practical every day living.

Yes you do. You LIVE by the maxim. Otherwise you'd have cited at least one scenario in your life that clearly calls for departure from it.

Obviously you find it the ONLY practical way to live - that's why you can't find any clear exceptions.

Over the years I've found a vast discrepancy between these two categories:
(1) What people recognize to be true.
(2) What they will actually acknowledge to be the truth.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Relevance? Are you postulating a clear exception to the rule of conscience?

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B"

No exceptions. What would I do? I would follow the rule. If at that moment I feel certain that going to church is evil, I will stay home.

How do you know that's the correct decision?
What if you felt that staying home was evil?
Isn't going to church part of keeping God's day holy?