WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

[Albion]

No one is disputing that. But the Bible itself does not say which books were inspired and which were not.

And yet every Catholic who contributes to this discussion each time it comes around insists that the Catholic Church is the entity that made the Bible what it is. Are you instead saying that those councils made a mistake when they determined which books are inspired??

There is not one verse that says that the supremacy of Scripture is our ONLY authority. You are reading into these verse what is not there.

There cannot be more than one of anything that is "supreme."

If there are two, then neither is supreme or ultimate or the "last word."

That is very vague. But I think this is the verse you intended.

2 Timothy 3:16,17

It isn't. So the analysis is not applicable, but I will apologize if you expected the full treatment of everything I pointed to in my initial reply.

I find that when any of us does that, it's often a waste of time before the other person has a chance to lay out his own thinking more precisely.

 

[Swag365]

Did you read the previous post? Now go check out the Bible for yourself and see. I cannot force you to do that, of course.

I think we just did.

Not in the least. As I was attempting to show you...and I approached it from several different directions, the authority of Scripture is all over the Bible's pages!

First, these verses in Timothy are your strawman. You've chosen a verse that does not teach Sola Scriptura while avoiding numerous ones that do. And if you say they do not teach that what is there says it's all we need, read John 20:30-31 before you decide about that matter.

Well obviously everyone agrees as to the authority of Sacred Scripture. We are debating whether it is the ONLY supreme authority for a Christian.

Here is John 20:30-31:

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
​

The above verses do not teach that Sacred Scripture is all we need.

I agree that the verse teaches the material sufficiency of Sacred Scripture. But that is not the same as saying that it is all we need.

Now - to get back to the point - could you please provide a verse from Sacred Scripture that teaches that Sacred Scripture is the ONLY supreme authority for a Christian? Even, if only for the sake of argument, we assume that Sacred Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient for a person to get saved - it does not therefore logically conclude that Sacred Scripture is the only supreme authority for a Christian. You still need to provide a verse that proves this, regardless of whether or not Sacred Scripture is sufficient for a person to be saved.

 

[JAL]

There cannot be more than one of anything that is "supreme."

If there are two, then neither is supreme or ultimate or the "last word."

False conclusion. You can certainly have multiple final authorities. Consider a child with divorced parents. When he visits Mom, her word is final on all matters of obedience - no need to consult Dad on every single issue. Likewise when he visits Dad, his word is final.

 

[Albion]

No one is disputing that. But the Bible itself does not say which books were inspired and which were not.

And yet every Catholic who contributes to this discussion each time it comes around insists that the Catholic Church is the entity that made the Bible what it is. Are you instead saying that those councils made a mistake when they determined which books are inspired??

There is not one verse that says that the supremacy of Scripture is our ONLY authority. You are reading into these verse what is not there.

There cannot be more than one of anything that is "supreme."

If there are two, then neither is supreme or ultimate or the "last word."

That is very vague. But I think this is the verse you intended.

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16,17

That's one of them. There is also 2 Peter and others.

First of all, it says that ALL scripture is inspired by God. It does not say that ONLY scripture is inspired by God.

No, but that is faulty reasoning IMO. It would be possible to deny that ANY authority exists if it is pushed aggressively.

 

[packermann]

First, these verses in Timothy are your strawman. You've chosen a verse that does not teach Sola Scriptura while avoiding numerous ones that do. And if you say they do not teach that what is there says it's all we need, read John 20:30-31 before you decide about that matter.

Here is that verse:

Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

When it refers to "this book", John is not writing about the whole Bible. He is only writing about his book. So if he is writing about sola scriptura, it would be more than that. He would be writing about sola Gospel of John. So not only would this discard any tradition, it would also discard the other three gospels, the letters of Paul, the Book of Revelation, the letters of Peter, James, and John, as well as the entire Old Testament. If the Gospel of John alone is sufficient for us to believe then the rest of the Bible is not needed.

So if this passage supports sola scriptura, then that scripture would have to be very small - just the Gospel of John and nothing else!

 

[Albion]

The above verses do not teach that Sacred Scripture is all we need.

I agree that the verse teaches the material sufficiency of Sacred Scripture. But that is not the same as saying that it is all we need.

It (Jn 20:30-31) does say that it is all we need--as concerns Sola Scriptura's meaning, though. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture contains all the knowledge in the universe. Rather, it contains all that we need that is necessary for salvation. In other words, all the doctrine that is essential. No claim is made about other religious matters, let alone baking instructions, etc.

 

[Swag365]

There cannot be more than one of anything that is "supreme."

If there are two, then neither is supreme or ultimate or the "last word."

No, you are incorrect. Let me give you a few obvious examples:
1) Matthew's Gospel is a supreme authority. Mark's Gospel is a supreme Authority. Paul's letter to the Romans is a Supreme authority. These books were all written at different points in time. Some books existed when the others did not even exist. So they are different things that are each a supreme authority.
2) Our Lord Jesus did and said things that are not recorded in Sacred Scripture. Jesus is a supreme authority. Sacred Scripture is a supreme authority.
3) We also know that the Holy Spirit prompts Christians to act in certain ways in various life situations. The Holy Spirit is a supreme authority. Sacred Scripture is a supreme authority.

 

[Albion]

No, you are incorrect. Let me give you a few obvious examples:
1) Matthew's Gospel is a supreme authority. Mark's Gospel is a supreme Authority. Paul's letter to the Romans is a Supreme authority. These books were all written at different points in time. Some books existed when the others did not even exist. So they are different things that are each a supreme authority.
2) Our Lord Jesus did and said things that are not recorded in Sacred Scripture. Jesus is a supreme authority. Sacred Scripture is a supreme authority.
3) We also know that the Holy Spirit prompts Christians to act in certain ways in various life situations. The Holy Spirit is a supreme authority. Sacred Scripture is a supreme authority.

I disagree, but then lets not use the word and instead discuss the idea with some other ones. You know what the contention of Sola Scriptura advocates is by now, I hope.

 

[Swag365]

It does say that it is all we need--as concerns Sola Scriptura's meaning, though. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture contains all the knowledge in the universe. Rather, it contains all that we need that is necessary for salvation. In other words, all the doctrine that is essential.

Well I agree that Sacred Scripture contains all the doctrine that is essential for a person's salvation (the essential doctrine being being either explicitly or implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture). But as noted above, this does not prove Sola Scriptura (if we define Sola Scriptura here as the assertion that Sacred Scripture is the only authority that is binding on a Christian in terms of faith and morals). If you are using a different definition please let us know what it is.

 

[Swag365]

I disagree, but then lets not use the word and instead discuss the idea with some other ones. You know what the contention of Sola Scriptura advocates is by now, I hope.

It may be useful if you provide a definition of "Sola Scriptura" as you are using it in this thread. I offered my own definition above.

It seems that you might hold something more akin to the "Prima Scriptura" view described here:

Prima scriptura - Wikipedia

 

[Albion]

Here is that verse:

Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

When it refers to "this book", John is not writing about the whole Bible. He is only writing about his book. So if he is writing about sola scriptura, it would be more than that. He would be writing about sola Gospel of John.

But this verse--the very word of God--says that what is there is sufficient.

Unless there is some other verse somewhere that denies it, we do not need to check off every other book and every other verse in the Bible! This one gives us the meaning.

 

[Albion]

It may be useful if you provide a definition of "Sola Scriptura" as you are using it in this thread. I offered my own definition above.

Once again, Sola Scriptura means that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for its purpose, leading us to salvation. All doctrine that is essential IOW.

No other "authority" is its equal.

 

[Albion]

Well I agree that Sacred Scripture contains all the doctrine that is essential for a person's salvation (the essential doctrine being being either explicitly or implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture).

Great. What then is the point in making dogma that's binding on the faithful out of custom, legend, theological speculation, etc. as your church has done?

...this does not prove Sola Scriptura (if we define Sola Scriptura here as the assertion that Sacred Scripture is the only authority that is binding on a Christian in terms of faith and morals). If you are using a different definition please let us know what it is.

See my previous post for that answer.

 

[Swag365]

Once again, Sola Scriptura means that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for its purpose, leading us to salvation. All doctrine that is essential IOW.

OK then. That helps. Thank you. We are talking about apples and oranges. I was using the rather common Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura found here:

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia
Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org
Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

I don't think that either of the above are proved from Sacred Scripture. If you are simply arguing that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient for a person to be saved I take no issue with that.

 

[Swag365]

Great. What then is the point in making dogma that's binding on the faithful out of custom, legend, theological speculation, etc. as your church has done?

Logical fallacy: Loaded question.

 

[Swag365]

But this verse--the very word of God--says that what is there is sufficient.

No. the verse does not state that what is there is sufficient. That is your gloss on text but that is not what it states.

 

[Albion]

OK then. That helps. Thank you. We are talking about apples and oranges. I was using the rather common Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura found here:

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia
Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

I agree that this definition is open to question.

What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org
Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

I suspect that this might be what many of the more fundamentalist denominations would say, in that many of them consider every last religious issue to be answerable from a reading of Scripture and required of all Christians. No matter what the issue is, the reply is going to be a Bible quote.

If you are simply arguing that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient for a person to be saved I take no issue with that.

Very well, but the other side of that coin is still important. For any denominations to claim that there are other doctrines that are essential for the people to accept and affirm, and these are not based upon Scripture but on something else, would be rejected by us...which of course is precisely the reason Sola Scriptura was presented by the Reformation as the rebuttal.

 

[JAL]

Once again, Sola Scriptura means that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for its purpose, leading us to salvation. All doctrine that is essential IOW.

No other "authority" is its equal.

Really? No other "authority" is its equal? So if God appeared to you today and offered you this choice:
(1) "I will be your personal mentor going forward. Face to face I will personally instruct you."
(2) "I will pay for your seminary education. You can go there and study the Bible."

I take it you'd opt for 2, since option 2 (the Bible) is a higher authority than option 1 (God Himself)?

Once again, Sola Scriptura means that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for its purpose, leading us to salvation. All doctrine that is essential IOW.

And why would you think that getting saved is the only question that we need direction on? Your words imply that we can't necessarily count on exegesis for anything more than getting saved. Obviously we need more than get-saved info. Haven't you therefore refuted Sola Scriptura?

 

[Swag365]

Unless there is some other verse somewhere that denies it, we do not need to check off every other book and every other verse in the Bible! This one gives us the meaning.

Actually I think that @packermann refuted your assertions concerning the verse.

Your argument appears to be:
1) A is sufficient for a person to be saved
2) Thus anything outside of A is not authoritative.

Alternatively:
1) A is sufficient for a person to be saved
2) Thus anything outside of A is not necessary for a person to be saved and can be discarded.

You can see the logic above in your question "What then is the point in making dogma that's binding on the faithful out of custom, legend, theological speculation, etc. as your church has done?" in your post above.

In the above argument you equate A to Sacred Scripture.

But if you read the verse carefully as @packermann did you notice that A is not the entirety of Sacred Scripture. In fact, A is the Book of John.

So if your logic were correct, then the other Books of Sacred Scripture would not be authoritative, because they are outside of A.

But in fact you hold that the other Books of the New Testament are authoritative. Thus, you refute your own argument.

It could be that I have misunderstood the formal logic of your argument. If this is the case, could you please state it for us?

 

[Albion]

Your argument appears to be:
1) A is sufficient for a person to be saved
2) Thus anything outside of A is not authoritative.

Alternatively:
1) A is sufficient for a person to be saved
2) Thus anything outside of A is not necessary for a person to be saved and can be discarded.

I just see neither of those to be what we have been talking about and I have explained.

I still would like to have some reply to the several questions I asked, however. For instance, what justifies Holy Tradition, the opposite of Sola Scriptura, the POV accepted by the people who reject Sola Scriptura?

When you said "If you are simply arguing that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient for a person to be saved I take no issue with that" what is the argument for its opposite number? That although certain religious ideas are not essential doctrines, the church nevertheless makes them be dogmas binding on the people???