Sola Scriptora

[Fiosh]

4. Sola Scriptura assumes that if we are all reading the same book we will all have the same beliefs---this just isn't the case

Actually that is your assumtion regarding the doctrine. Sola Scriptura only assumes that the text has a single meaning. It never maintains that everyone who reads the passage will arrive at that meaning. That is something you have added to the mix

RE: "It never maintains that everyone who reads the passage will arrive at that meaning"

And that is the fatal flaw Sola Scriptura. I believe that God set up a system that enables us to be sure of the meaning of His word---namely the teaching authority of His Church.

No, that is not a fatal flaw of Sola Scriptura. If you try to cut down a tree with a hammer and fail, does that mean that hammer is flawed, or does it mean that you were trying to use the hammer for a purpose for which it was not designed?

You are faulting Sola Scriptura for not solving a problem that it was not designed or meant to address. Sola Scriptura is NOT about HOW someone interprets Scripture. It is ONLY about who has the right to interpret it. You are trying to pin differences in hermeneutic approach to Sola Scriptura, and that is simply wrong, and fall outside the scope of Sola Scriptura.

Again you are being illogical, Shiloh. (perhaps more coffee?)

If Sola Scriptura does not achieve its purpose, what good is it?

[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.

The issue is not whether tradition is negative, but how much authority it contains regarding Christian faith and practice. No, you did not demonhstrate anything about the inspiration of oral tradition in the OT or NT. Nothing you have cited thus far, speaks to oral tradition, especially in the NT. Moses wrote what God told him to write. He did not write on the basis of what was handed down. Oral tradition is unreliable, and indeterminate. It cannot by nature be inspired. It is subject to error and distortion. The Bible says that Moses wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, not as he had received from oral tradition.

I already addressed this and I disagree.

[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.

Shiloh, what you just said is not logical.

You definitely DO claim to have the authority to interpret Scripture. And even though you all use the same Bible---no matter how you slice it--y'all often disagree.

God is not a God of confusion.

I believe Jesus established a sure way to understand His Truth.

I claim the right and the commandment from God to study the Scriptures. BTW, disagreement and confusion are not the same thing. Furthermore, while I do believe that I have the commandment from God in the Bible to study the Scriptures, I do not assert that I am infallible in that interpretation.

You have yet to prove that Jesus established the Magisterium. You have also not demonstrated that they are infallible. You can't.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

The issue is not whether tradition is negative, but how much authority it contains regarding Christian faith and practice. No, you did not demonhstrate anything about the inspiration of oral tradition in the OT or NT. Nothing you have cited thus far, speaks to oral tradition, especially in the NT. Moses wrote what God told him to write. He did not write on the basis of what was handed down. Oral tradition is unreliable, and indeterminate. It cannot by nature be inspired. It is subject to error and distortion. The Bible says that Moses wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, not as he had received from oral tradition.

I already addressed this and I disagree.

That passages you cite demonstrate that you are misunderstanding the concept of oral tradtion, especially as it relates to Paul's epistles.

[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.

The issue is not whether tradition is negative, but how much authority it contains regarding Christian faith and practice. No, you did not demonhstrate anything about the inspiration of oral tradition in the OT or NT. Nothing you have cited thus far, speaks to oral tradition, especially in the NT. Moses wrote what God told him to write. He did not write on the basis of what was handed down. Oral tradition is unreliable, and indeterminate. It cannot by nature be inspired. It is subject to error and distortion. The Bible says that Moses wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, not as he had received from oral tradition.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit also guides the teaching authority of the Church. I believe the promise of Jesus in this regard.

[Guest shiloh357]

4. Sola Scriptura assumes that if we are all reading the same book we will all have the same beliefs---this just isn't the case

Actually that is your assumtion regarding the doctrine. Sola Scriptura only assumes that the text has a single meaning. It never maintains that everyone who reads the passage will arrive at that meaning. That is something you have added to the mix

RE: "It never maintains that everyone who reads the passage will arrive at that meaning"

And that is the fatal flaw Sola Scriptura. I believe that God set up a system that enables us to be sure of the meaning of His word---namely the teaching authority of His Church.

No, that is not a fatal flaw of Sola Scriptura. If you try to cut down a tree with a hammer and fail, does that mean that hammer is flawed, or does it mean that you were trying to use the hammer for a purpose for which it was not designed?

You are faulting Sola Scriptura for not solving a problem that it was not designed or meant to address. Sola Scriptura is NOT about HOW someone interprets Scripture. It is ONLY about who has the right to interpret it. You are trying to pin differences in hermeneutic approach to Sola Scriptura, and that is simply wrong, and fall outside the scope of Sola Scriptura.

Again you are being illogical, Shiloh. (perhaps more coffee?)

If Sola Scriptura does not achieve its purpose, what good is it?

Sola Scriptura's purpose is not make everyone agree, but only addresses the issue of whether or not the world must submit to the Catholic Magisterium in all areas of Doctrine. You don't understand the purpose of Sola Scriptura. You are assigning a purpose to Sola Scriptura that it is not designed to address, and then calling it faulty. Kinda like trying to cut a 2x4 with a butter knife.

[Fiosh]

Fiosh,

Shiloh provided a detailed explanation of Sola Scriptura. We asked you to interact with it and the scriptues he provided. Earlier you asked me why scripturally I believed in Sola Scriptura. I proveded a lengthy response repleat with passages. Both Shiloh and I asked you to interact with the passages. No such response came.

You dismissed Shiloh's post because it was old and biased (even through the scriptures in it come from the same Bible we use today). You did not respond to mine at all. I guess I would ask you once again to interact with the document Shiloh provided, and show biblically where it is faulted.

And, I told you that I refuse to take Hodge's article as a basis for this discussion as it is not objective, but rather biased against what I believe.

It would be a bit naive, if not stupid, on my part to go along with your suggestion.

I believe I have clearly stated my position. If I had more time, I would gladly address Hodge's anti-Catholic article point by point, but I'm sure that's already been done far better than I could do it. If I can find a Catholic response that is available for re-print I will gladly post it here.

I just don't have that kind of time.

Eric, I just responded to every one of your rebuttals. I'd be glad to continue this discussion when I return from vacation next week.

Oh, but your postion is not biased... You and Pax want us to demonstrate the validity of Sola Scriptura, and when the evidence is presented you don't want to discuss it, but prefer to just brush it aside. Of course it is biased against your position! HEEEEELLLLLLOOOOOO????? This is a debate. Debate is all about discussing biases and differences of points of view. You are being asked to refute Hodges definition of Sola Scriptura instead of just making blanket allegations.

I am discussing the implications of Sola Scriptura. I just refuse to accept Hodges as a working definition. And I refuse to waste hours refuting his anti-Catholic rhetoric. Like I said, I just don't have that kind of time. But I will try to find some info.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

The issue is not whether tradition is negative, but how much authority it contains regarding Christian faith and practice. No, you did not demonhstrate anything about the inspiration of oral tradition in the OT or NT. Nothing you have cited thus far, speaks to oral tradition, especially in the NT. Moses wrote what God told him to write. He did not write on the basis of what was handed down. Oral tradition is unreliable, and indeterminate. It cannot by nature be inspired. It is subject to error and distortion. The Bible says that Moses wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, not as he had received from oral tradition.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit also guides the teaching authority of the Church. I believe the promise of Jesus in this regard.

but Jesus' promise did NOT include forcing everyone to submit to one body of men to interpret the Bible for everyone. That is not what Jesus meant at all, and you have yet to prove otherwise.

[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.

Yes, but since the Bible is of Divine origin, we would expect God to be able to see down the line and leave us a set of instructions for a perpetual Apostolic succession ad infininum. The fact that no instructions were left pretty much torpedoes your assertions. You have to leave the Bible and follow the traditions of man to create this mythical apostolic succession. Essentially, you are reading Catholicism into the Bible instead of letting the Bible speak for itself.

ummmmmmmmm....no

The Bible clearly shows us the authority over the earthly church being given to Peter and the Apostles. It clearly shows the Apostles anointing bishops and disciples. It clearly shows the Church meeting in council to make decisions. It clearly shows the authority of the Church to teach doctrine.

[Guest shiloh357]

Fiosh,

Shiloh provided a detailed explanation of Sola Scriptura. We asked you to interact with it and the scriptues he provided. Earlier you asked me why scripturally I believed in Sola Scriptura. I proveded a lengthy response repleat with passages. Both Shiloh and I asked you to interact with the passages. No such response came.

You dismissed Shiloh's post because it was old and biased (even through the scriptures in it come from the same Bible we use today). You did not respond to mine at all. I guess I would ask you once again to interact with the document Shiloh provided, and show biblically where it is faulted.

And, I told you that I refuse to take Hodge's article as a basis for this discussion as it is not objective, but rather biased against what I believe.

It would be a bit naive, if not stupid, on my part to go along with your suggestion.

I believe I have clearly stated my position. If I had more time, I would gladly address Hodge's anti-Catholic article point by point, but I'm sure that's already been done far better than I could do it. If I can find a Catholic response that is available for re-print I will gladly post it here.

I just don't have that kind of time.

Eric, I just responded to every one of your rebuttals. I'd be glad to continue this discussion when I return from vacation next week.

Oh, but your postion is not biased... You and Pax want us to demonstrate the validity of Sola Scriptura, and when the evidence is presented you don't want to discuss it, but prefer to just brush it aside. Of course it is biased against your position! HEEEEELLLLLLOOOOOO????? This is a debate. Debate is all about discussing biases and differences of points of view. You are being asked to refute Hodges definition of Sola Scriptura instead of just making blanket allegations.

I am discussing the implications of Sola Scriptura. I just refuse to accept Hodges as a working definition. And I refuse to waste hours refuting his anti-Catholic rhetoric. Like I said, I just don't have that kind of time. But I will try to find some info.

So far, you have refused to accept ANY definition of Sola Scriptura. You refuse debate within the parameters of the doctrine itself and prefer to assign your own values to it and and argue agianst them. You cannot seem to argue against Sola Scriptura from true definition of the doctrine. Your implications are pased upon faulty premises.