Sola Scriptora

[Fiosh]

5. There IS definitely a visible church described in the Bible. True, the body of Christ includes all believers. Yet, time and again the Bible refers to an authoritative, hierarchical, structure within the body.

Yes. But, only the selection of elders and deacons at the local church level is prescribed. The statements regarding the Apostolic leadership is only descriptive in nature. There are no instructions or insinuations that this structure is to be perpetuated into the future. The prescriptive model in the New Testament is the local body of believers under the leadership of Godly elders. These elders are to be selected by the local body, and are subject to Jesus Himslf who is the head of His church. That again is the weakness of the Catholic position. They can provide no prescriptive texts that state how the Apostolic leadership is to be perpetuated, or even texts that state that it should.

Two things.

1. In the New Testament we do not yet have a "worldwide" Church to examine.

2. Even with in the scope of the existing Church of the New Testament there IS evidence of communication between the leaders of separate communities. Have you read Acts? Or note Paul's letters to various Churches. There was unity of understanding of the Gospel and a respect of the authority of the Apostles and their successors.

[Fiosh]

7. "Tradition is not a dirty word in Scripture:

*2 Thess 2: 14-15 "So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

*I Cor 11:2 "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

I agree. But the question still stands that asks you to demonstrate that the traditions mentioned in these passages refer to the traditions of the current Roman Catholic church. The problem is that the 2 verses you cite refer to traditions that Paul himself taught them. For all we know the traditions he spoke of were written don by another apostle or in one of the gospels. That again is the weakness of your position. The passage is non-specific in nature, but you seek to use it for specific application. I am open to see scripturally how you tie these passages to the traditions (any one of them) that the current Roman Catholic church holds.

And I did demonstrate in my post that oral tradition was accepted as inspired throughout the Old and New Testament ---with Scriptural references. This is only one simple part of the whole explanation, making the point that "tradition" is not always negative, as some believe.

[Fiosh]

Reasons to reject Sola Scriptura:

1. It is unbiblical. I constantly hear you citing 2 Tim 3:16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching,...."

And we all say, "Amen". No argument from me. That's what my Church teaches also. But please take note that in verse 15 Paul tells Timothy that he is referring to the scriptures Timothy has known since his infancy---the Old Testament. So if you want to claim that what Paul just told Timothy is that "the Scriptures" Paul is referring to are all you need---you just eliminated the New Testament.

You have stated that it is "unbiblical", but you have not really proved it. Your logic is this:

Since only the OT existed at the time Timothy was taught, Sola Scriptura is false. This statement does not follow. Part of the doctrine of revelation (of which Sola Scriptura is a part) is the concept of the progressive nature of special revelation (scripture). This doctrine states that God revealed himself to people with the information they needed to know in the times that they lived. It also states that this revelation was completed at the end of the Apostolic age.

So, Paul's statement is true. The scriptures that God provided for each age contained all individuals in that age needed to perform every good work. If you read my earlier post on why I believe Sola scriptura to be true, I also showed that Paul equated his own writings and those of Peter with OT scripture. Ths is not an accurate statement on your part. It is a logical deduction you have arrived at that is based on an incomplete comprehension of the doctrin of Special Revelation.

YOU are the one who insists on mis-interpreting the passage to indicate that it means "all" knowledge is contained in written Scripture. I do believe Paul's statement, as all Scripture, is true. But it is evident to me that this passage speaks to the certainty of Biblical teachings, and not to the fact that there is nothing more. Your argument to the contrary is what is weak.

[Fiosh]

a) Even in the Old Testament, we see time and time again where oral tradition is treated as "God-breathed". Moses wrote the Pentateuch hundreds and even thousands of years after the events took place. Yet for all those years the oral tradition was passed from generation to generation, protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

But Moses did write it. It does not really matter how long it took Moses to record the information. God inspired Moses as He wrote. There may have been oral tradition regarding some of these stories, but in no place does scripture state they were inspired. The only body of work for which scripture makes that claim, are the document Moses and the other prophets wrote. Scriptue does not say that Moses used oral traditions that were handed down from generation to generation. It says Moses was moved by the Holy Spirit as he wrote. Again this is an ssumption you are making as to the sources Moses used. You are actually contradicting the scriptural account of the inspiration process which states directly from God to the writer.

Yes, Moses did write it down. And, yes Moses WAS inspired by the Holy Spirit. No argument.

My point is that those oral traditions were kept pure by the Holy Spirit for hundreds.....even a thousand years. It is possible for the Holy Spirit to do that.

That is my point. Many argue against oral tradition, saying that it is tainted and corrupted. I hold that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would protect the faith against even "the gates of hell".

I believe that promise.

[Fiosh]

b) All the Old Testament prophets read and interpreted Scripture for the people. "And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading" Nehemiah 8:8

Please provide a passage that states only the prophets had the right to interperet the scriptures to the people. On the contrary, individuals in the OT were commanded to read and teach their children. Just because Nehemiah read and gave sense, does not imply that only he and a certain class of people had the right to do so. If you read the history surrounding that passage you would note that Nehemiah read this passage to the people as they returned to Israel from dispersion. They had not even been exposed to the scriptures for generation (at least many of them had not). This was a rebirth for the nation. It is descriptive of an historical event, not descriptive

Please give a passage that commands people to form their own doctrines based on personal interpretation of Scripture.

[Fiosh]

c) In the New Testament ALL teaching is done orally; the Gospel is living and interpreted by the Apostles and the disciples they anoint. And it is crystal clear that MUCH more was taught by Jesus and the Apostles than was ever written down.

* I Peter 1:25 "But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached to you". NOT written down---oral.

*In Acts 13:5 Paul and Barnabas preached in Salamis to the Jews. But we are never given the contents of their preaching.

* Acts 20:27, 31-32 Paul tells us that he taught 3 years to the Ephesians. Do you think those 6 chapters are all he said?

* Isaiah 59:21 describes the New Covenant as being passed down orally "from mouth to mouth"

* Romans 10: 17 says "faith comes from what is heard"

Again, the fact that more was taught that was not written down, does not prove anything. The only claim for inspiration made by the scriptures is for the scriptures themselves. True teaching was done orally in NT times. But the teaching they spoke is what was written down in scripture. Does the Catholic church claim to have the contents of what Paul preached at Slamis. I am open to seeing that and the substantiation for its contents, and scriptural support that we should accept what I am shown as authoritative and inspired. We are not told what they preached. What if they preached something that was written down in a future section of scripture. Your arguments don't prove your point. Notice it says in Romans 10:17 that faith comes from hearing, and hearing from church tradition? No it says hearing comes from the "word of God", which is inspired. That is why it produces faith. The pwer is not in the speaking. It is in the inpired word of God.

We have a clear indication thru documented accounts of the teachings of the early Church. We can see for ourselves how they lived out and applied the Gospel message. We can read their testimonies as to how those teachings were interpreted by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century Church. Holy men who learned from the Apostles, many of who were martyred for their beliefs give us insight into what the early Church believed.

Why do you refuse to even consider that wealth of information.

I mean, hey, even if you don't hold to the principle of "Sacred Tradition" , it amazes me that you turn a blind eye to Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, etc.

I don't understand your reluctance to at least consider the evidence.

[Guest shiloh357]

To start, a few thoughts about what's been said:

1. RE: Hodge's explanation of Sola Scriptura: ok, guys, be real. It's ludicrous to ask us to accept the anti-Catholic rhetoric of a 19th cent Protestant as the genuine article, and to use it as our working definition.

Lets begin by analyzing this statement. Basically you are saying

1. Hodge was ati Catholic

2. Hodge lived in the 19th century

3. Because of both of these facts, his definition of Sola Scriptura cannot be used or discussed

I'm sorry Fiosh, I don't see the logic here. Does that mean that if I can find Catholic doctrines that were written a long time ago by men who had certain biases, they are not open for discussion? Do you ignore them? Secondly, your contention that Hodge was anti-Catholic has not been substantiated. Clearly he disagrees with Catholic positions. But that does not make him anti catholic. This is basically an attempt to poison the well by attacking the person, rather than their position.

Nope. I did not attack Hodge. Please re-read my statement. I called his rhetoric concerning the Principle of Sola Scriptura anti-Catholic, not the man.

Hodges statement regarding sola scriptura is accurate. You desire to dismiss it because of the time in which it was written and because of biases you feel he may have had, just don't hold up in the face of logic. It would be like me saying, "Common guys, lets be real. You are asking me to use doctrines as working definitions that were written by men who lived centuries ago, and hated protestants so much they burnt them at the stake." That is equally unlogical. The fact that the doctrines are old, or that they were devised by men who had biases is not the issue. The issue is, "are they biblical"?

Nope. What I am saying is that...

1. I would NO more expect you to accept the definition of a principle written by a 19th cent Catholic that bashes your beliefs, than you should expect me to accept this.

2. My point concerning the fact that it was written in the 19th cent is that you are afraid of history. I challenge you to search the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries, and show me where the early Church taught Sola Scriptura.

3. Yes, "are they Biblical?" is a priority. But Sola Scriptura is not, as I have clearly shown in a previous post. In fact, is was IMPOSSIBLE in the first 400 years of the Church. It was not posited until the 1500's. It is a tradition of man.

Bless you,

Fiosh

1. So where is Hodge wrong in his definition of Sola Scriptura??? Can you copy and paste from the article written by Hodge and demonstrate where Hodge offered an incorrect summation of what Sola Scriptura is? You seem to just want to make a blanket allegation but you have yet to actually address the article itself and identify specific statements by Hodge and why they are faulty.

2. So Sola Scriptura was not taught prior to the 1500s? What about this... "This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves." - Augustine City of God Book 11 chapter 3

I was amazed when I found this. That quote from Augustine was written in the 5th century. You won't find a more accurate definition of Sola Scriptura, even by our standards today. For the Scriptures to have Paramount Authority means that it cannot be equaled by any other authority. According to Webster's, Paramount means, Superior to all others, possessing the highest title or jurisdiction; Emminent, of the highest order." So Augustine, amazingly understood and affirmed the concept of Sola Scriptura even if he did not articulate it by that name.

3. Sola Scriptura IS biblical and it is shown by studying the lives of Jesus and the apostles. Jesus appealed to Scripture when he debated the Pharisees. When Paul delivered his message to the Bereans, he did not invoke "Apostolic authority" to convince them. Rather the Bible commends the Berean Jews as being more noble in that they searched the Scriptures to evaluate the accuracy of Paul's words. Paul according to Acts reasoned with the Jews out of the Scriptures. In Galatians Paul said that if anyone is found to be preaching another gospel than the one he delivered, they should be accursed. How would one distinguish the true Gospel from a false one? The only dividing line between the words of men is Scripture. In a previous post which got ignored, I pointed out that Jesus came against the Jews for putting oral tradition on the same level as Word of God. He would not be pleased with Christians who do the same thing.

Again, you are still avoiding your responsibility to provide a Divine, independant witness as to the authority and infallibility of the Magisterium to interpret Scripture.

[Fiosh]

d) Of the 12 Apostles, only 3 wrote anything down. What about all that the others must have preached and taught?

Tradition is the means by which we know what the Apostles taught orally.

Perhaps because God communicated what He wanted to through the channels that He chose. This is again an argument from silence. The logic is that since there were other apostles, they must have also had inspired communication that we missed. I see no place in scripture that indicates that all of the apostles would record inspired scripture. No place does scripture place any oral tradition on anequal plane with scripture

Are you an insomniac??? You were very busy in the wee hours.

Wrong. The Bible gives many references to the importance and inspiration of oral teachings, and I posted several Scriptural references to support this.

[Guest shiloh357]

3. Anyone who reads and interprets Scripture does so within a framework of knowledge and life experience that is uniquely their own. You are influenced by commentaries you have read; theologies you have studied; sermons and lectures you have listened to; even people you have met. You do not read and interpret Scripture in a vacuum.

It is absolutely true that anyone who approaches the text does so with cultural, personal, and theological biases. Theproblem for your using this as an argument is that so does your magesterium.

The real issue is where does the ultimate authority lie. Scripture teaches that God has placed that authority in the scriptures themselves. Our authority is limited to our faithfulness to the text as it was written by the original authors. This is a practical argument that really does not impact the doctrine. If God places all authority in His word. He does. So the real question is does the scriptures indicate the doctrine is true. If it does, it does no matter how many practical weaknesses you can cite. They are meaningless, because God set up the system that way in His wisdom.

Yes, that is the real issue "where does the authority lie?". If you say it lies with you, then you make yourself the infallible interpreter of Scripture. As I have made clear, I believe that authority lies with the Church of Jesus, not with the individual.

But EricH did not say that the authority lies with him, but that the authority lies with Scriptures. Our right to read and interpret Scriptures does not extend beyound the words of the Bible. Your assertion has been that the authority lies with a group within the Catholic Church called the Magisterium, and you have yet to provide ONE Divine witness independant of the Catholic Church that corroborates that assertion.

[Fiosh]

2. IT IS UNHISTORICAL

When Jesus ascended into heaven He left behind a Church, not a book. And that church thrived and grew for years before a single word was written down. So clearly the New Testament church was based on oral teaching. Sola Scriptura would have been impossible.

THE BIBLE CAME FROM THIS CHURCH----FROM ORAL TRADITION.

The church took almost 400 years to define the inspired books of the canon of Scripture. It is only thru the oral tradition of the church that we know Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew and Mark wrote Mark.

And when He left behind the church He did not say that a certain group of leaders of that church would be the sole repository of His word. The apostles were alive when the NT church was formed. What they taught to the NT church that God intended to be normative for al NT believers was recorded in scripture. That is the promise we have. The Pope is not an Apostle. Again. what the people of God needed for the time that they lived was provided by God either directly from the mouths of his prophets and Apostles, or in the words recorded in scripture. No such Apostles or prophets exist today. There is not new inspiration happening.

RE: "There is not new inspiration happening."

At least we agree on this.

Maybe I should clear this up, it sounds like we have a misunderstanding on this point.

Yes, there is no new revelation after the death of the last Apostle---I absolutely agree!

I look to Sacred Tradition to search out what was taught BY the Apostles. I look to the authority of the Church to interpret and teach those truths. Right! the Church CANNOT teach NEW revelation. It can only interpret existing revelation present in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The reason you see some teachings as "new" is that you do not have the benefit of Sacred Tradition to give you a clearer perspective of the understanding of the early Church.