Agape4Robin
Member
Always?:squint:
How do you feel about Sola Scriptura?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Prolifeguyswife
New member
Saying that it's not in the Bible? Where is it then?
assuranceagent
New member
Check out the linked thread.
But here's the quick version:
If...
The Bible teaches that scripture is inspired and thus very highly authoritative in matters of doctrine and church practice (which we all know it does).
and...
The Bible does NOT teach that anything else (tradition, teaching, etc) is inspired and thus equally authoritative with scripture (which we all know it doesn't)
Then...
Everything else must be tested according to scripture, making scripture the final authority in doctrine and practice. In other words, scripture can make void the claims of doctrine, teaching, tradition, etc. But those things can never make scripture void, thus it is the final and highest authority.
And by that virtue...it stands alone. That alone part is the 'sola' Knight so dislikes.
That entire line of reasoning just came from scriptural teachings did it not? If so then 'sola scriptura' is biblical.
Agape4Robin
Member
I would tend to apply that principle when discussing art, poetry or an editorial in a newspaper or magazine, not God's Word.:nono:
I believe the key to Bible study is rooted in context and translation. That's why I have more than one Bible translation and an exhaustive bible concordance.:thumb:
I agree with Knight, “sola’ is the problem, it is not part of scripture, nor the early Christian tradition; the apostles would not have passed out scripture, if able, and said. “Read it”. Most of us need good ministers to teach us how to understand scripture correctly.
assuranceagent
New member
Yes, but those good ministers are still ultimately under the authority of scripture. Indeed, it is their adherence to scripture that most causes us to define them as 'good' in the first place is it not?
Even with good teaching and good ministers, scripture still holds a higher level of authority by virtue of it's inspiration. Therefore it is still the final authority. Wouldn't you agree Ktoyou?
Prolifeguyswife
New member
Hmmm...it seems like you ran circles around yourself trying to justify that one.
Just because you think an 'entire line of reasoning' can fall in line with Scriptural teachings, you can't forget that it was your line of reasoning to begin with. Half of the people on TOL have their own thoughts and ideas that they can "justify" through Scripture, but that doesn't mean that they are correct, nor that they truly justified their position. The whole Levitical Law stemmed from tradition. Did Paul believe in Sola Scriptura? How could he? He was writing the Bible, for goodness sakes. I'm not saying that the Bible isn't God's words to us or anything like that. But if the Bible were the only tool God's given us to interpret Itself, why doesn't it actually say so?
That's what seemed to make sense in the debate (other thread). There is no reason to insist that scripture is the only source of truth ...Sola Scriptura would be great if it didn't include the "sola" part.
That's a law I just can't follow (mainly because it isn't in scripture and therefore breaks it's own command). Sola scriptura is an overstatement of a really good idea. Yet it goes one step too far.
Sola scripture sans sola sounds super. :chuckle:
Lots of things seem to have redundancies in their titles. Open theism for one. Though redundancies are not always redundant .. :chuckle:
Agape4Robin
Member
:chuckle:
RC_Eagle
New member
Summary Against Sola Scriptura
Summary Against Sola Scriptura
This thread is apparently the Readers' Digest version of the other one, so I am posting my final rebuttal of SS here as well as in the original thread. Here goes:
... it is time for me to post my summary of why Sola Scriptura (SS) is an unbiblical doctrine. The debate has hinged on the precise definition of SS. There are essentially two versions that we have debated:
1) Man-on-the-street definition: All legitimate Christian doctrine must be explicitly written in the Bible.
2) Legitimate definition: The Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Knight’s argument addresses the first definition, and is useful because this is the operational definition one encounters in dealing with many Evangelical Protestants. Let’s call this version SS1 and the second version SS2. Clearly SS1 is unbiblical because if it were true, SS1 would be explicitly written in the Bible according to its own rule. But it is not, so by elementary application of logic, SS1 must be rejected. As a minor aside, Clete claims that this argument is based on the “stolen concept fallacy,” but as Paul McNabb has pointed out, the method of argumentation is straight out of high school geometry textbooks and has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks.
The second version (SS2) is more subtle than SS1, and cannot be directly addressed by Knight’s argument, because it doesn’t claim that SS is to be found explicitly in the Bible. However, its proponents claim that SS2 is a logical deduction from the Bible. Here is the chain of reasoning offered to us by Assuranceagent:
A. Scripture is authoritative based on 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
B. Nothing else is as authoritative as scripture in matters of doctrine and church practice.
C. If A and B are true, then Scripture holds a singular or 'sola' position of authority since nothing else can make the same claim.
However, this argument is full of holes. First, as pointed out by both Knight and Paul McNabb, A is only an argument for the usefulness of Scripture and has nothing to do with SS. Assuranceagent claims B to be true from an absence of any passages in the Bible stating otherwise. Assuming for the moment that the premise of his argument is true, this is a very weak argument based on silence. But B is manifestly not true from Scripture itself. Here are the passages which support Tradition (hearing what is passed down by word of mouth as well as by letter) as an equal authority with Scripture:
2 Tim 2:2 “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
2 Thes 2:15 “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thes 3:6 “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
1 Cor 11:2 “Maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
1 Cor 11:23 “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.”
1 Thes 2:13 “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”
Assuranceagent claimed in a previous thread, SOLA vs. AND, that these verses argue for the validity of apostolic tradition only until the death of the last apostle. But what he never addressed was how SS could hold sway between the death of the last apostle and the very first canonization of the Christian Scriptures by Pope St. Damasus I in 382 at the Council of Rome. What this actually proves is that it is Tradition which begot Scripture, so Tradition must have an equal authority with Scripture.
As has been pointed out, SS2 is a deduction from Scripture. It is a teaching that was not obvious to Christians for over 1500 years until the Reformation, after which it was handed down. Hence it is on the same level formally as any other deduction from Scripture that has become a tradition. Therefore SS2 is self-contradictory because it is itself a (Protestant) tradition, yet it claims that there is no other source of authority than Scripture, including Tradition. This is a modified form of Knight’s argument sufficient to demolish SS2.
Finally, I have argued that it is impossible for Scripture to be an exclusive authority because Jesus, the Word of God, said “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:31).” (For you eggheads out there, this is an acknowledgment of the epistemological problem of self-reference.) Scripture is God-breathed only because it participates in the divine exchange that is the Breath of God (the Holy Spirit), in whom the Father witnesses to and glorifies the Son, and the Son witnesses to and glorifies the Father. Scripture constantly speaks of there being a need for two or three witnesses to establish any truth, precisely because this allows the Trinity to share its very breath with man. God does this equally through Scripture and Tradition. Therefore Sola Scriptura is not only unbiblical; it is a false teaching.
Summary Against Sola Scriptura
This thread is apparently the Readers' Digest version of the other one, so I am posting my final rebuttal of SS here as well as in the original thread. Here goes:
... it is time for me to post my summary of why Sola Scriptura (SS) is an unbiblical doctrine. The debate has hinged on the precise definition of SS. There are essentially two versions that we have debated:
1) Man-on-the-street definition: All legitimate Christian doctrine must be explicitly written in the Bible.
2) Legitimate definition: The Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Knight’s argument addresses the first definition, and is useful because this is the operational definition one encounters in dealing with many Evangelical Protestants. Let’s call this version SS1 and the second version SS2. Clearly SS1 is unbiblical because if it were true, SS1 would be explicitly written in the Bible according to its own rule. But it is not, so by elementary application of logic, SS1 must be rejected. As a minor aside, Clete claims that this argument is based on the “stolen concept fallacy,” but as Paul McNabb has pointed out, the method of argumentation is straight out of high school geometry textbooks and has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks.
The second version (SS2) is more subtle than SS1, and cannot be directly addressed by Knight’s argument, because it doesn’t claim that SS is to be found explicitly in the Bible. However, its proponents claim that SS2 is a logical deduction from the Bible. Here is the chain of reasoning offered to us by Assuranceagent:
A. Scripture is authoritative based on 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
B. Nothing else is as authoritative as scripture in matters of doctrine and church practice.
C. If A and B are true, then Scripture holds a singular or 'sola' position of authority since nothing else can make the same claim.
However, this argument is full of holes. First, as pointed out by both Knight and Paul McNabb, A is only an argument for the usefulness of Scripture and has nothing to do with SS. Assuranceagent claims B to be true from an absence of any passages in the Bible stating otherwise. Assuming for the moment that the premise of his argument is true, this is a very weak argument based on silence. But B is manifestly not true from Scripture itself. Here are the passages which support Tradition (hearing what is passed down by word of mouth as well as by letter) as an equal authority with Scripture:
2 Tim 2:2 “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
2 Thes 2:15 “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thes 3:6 “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
1 Cor 11:2 “Maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
1 Cor 11:23 “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.”
1 Thes 2:13 “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”
Assuranceagent claimed in a previous thread, SOLA vs. AND, that these verses argue for the validity of apostolic tradition only until the death of the last apostle. But what he never addressed was how SS could hold sway between the death of the last apostle and the very first canonization of the Christian Scriptures by Pope St. Damasus I in 382 at the Council of Rome. What this actually proves is that it is Tradition which begot Scripture, so Tradition must have an equal authority with Scripture.
As has been pointed out, SS2 is a deduction from Scripture. It is a teaching that was not obvious to Christians for over 1500 years until the Reformation, after which it was handed down. Hence it is on the same level formally as any other deduction from Scripture that has become a tradition. Therefore SS2 is self-contradictory because it is itself a (Protestant) tradition, yet it claims that there is no other source of authority than Scripture, including Tradition. This is a modified form of Knight’s argument sufficient to demolish SS2.
Finally, I have argued that it is impossible for Scripture to be an exclusive authority because Jesus, the Word of God, said “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:31).” (For you eggheads out there, this is an acknowledgment of the epistemological problem of self-reference.) Scripture is God-breathed only because it participates in the divine exchange that is the Breath of God (the Holy Spirit), in whom the Father witnesses to and glorifies the Son, and the Son witnesses to and glorifies the Father. Scripture constantly speaks of there being a need for two or three witnesses to establish any truth, precisely because this allows the Trinity to share its very breath with man. God does this equally through Scripture and Tradition. Therefore Sola Scriptura is not only unbiblical; it is a false teaching.
Prolifeguyswife
New member
RC, that was an excellent, very well thought out post. I don't necessarily agree with everything you wrote, but I agree with your main points.
I do have a question - as a Catholic, do you disagree with Sola Scriptura because of the authority you believe the Pope has? In the Catholic church, can't the Pope speak "Ex Cathedra" with authority equal to Scripture?
I do have a question - as a Catholic, do you disagree with Sola Scriptura because of the authority you believe the Pope has? In the Catholic church, can't the Pope speak "Ex Cathedra" with authority equal to Scripture?
RC_Eagle
New member
Thanks for the feedback, Prolife. Ex cathedra statements by the popes have been few and far between. While the pope is the bottom line authority in the Catholic Church, there are other Catholic sources of authority that, like ex cathedra pronouncements, come under the heading of Tradition. This includes Ecumenical Councils, whose declarations are infallible if not opposed by the pope. Another source of Tradition is the consensus of the early Church Fathers. Yet another are the liturgical prayers said by the Church (such as the Mass), since how the Church prays is how it believes. The fact that there are all these ways in which Christ's truth is maintained throughout the ages (and all described as Tradition) is why I reject Sola Scriptura.
RC_Eagle
New member
I forgot to mention a couple of other important sources of Tradition. First are the official creeds of the Church (both Apostolic and Nicene, or Nicene-Constantinopolitan if you want to be picky). These creeds, by the way, are recited at worship services by many Protestant denominations. Second are archeological remains that testify to the early beliefs of the Church, such as the prayers and invocations to the Christian martyrs and to the Virgin Mary etched on the walls of the Roman catacombs.
rehcjam
Member
Just a few points.
When one moves away from Scripture he just becomes a humanist.
Tradition and teaching is fine as long as it conforms with Scripture.
Paul taught Scripture. Paul is not God. Paul was under the authority of Scripture. Paul did not teach whatever he felt like teaching and what he taught could be tested with Scripture. Not everything that Paul wrote, said or did was true or right but some things were.
The authority that Paul had he had regardless of if it was accepted or not. The Scripture that Paul wrote was Scripture at the time that it was written.
Not everything that was spoken by a prophet or an apostle was recorded.
We don't have apostles or prophets today.
Scriptures do not speak on everything.
1 Thes 2:13 “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”
What is the alternative?
When one moves away from Scripture he just becomes a humanist.
Tradition and teaching is fine as long as it conforms with Scripture.
Paul taught Scripture. Paul is not God. Paul was under the authority of Scripture. Paul did not teach whatever he felt like teaching and what he taught could be tested with Scripture. Not everything that Paul wrote, said or did was true or right but some things were.
The authority that Paul had he had regardless of if it was accepted or not. The Scripture that Paul wrote was Scripture at the time that it was written.
Not everything that was spoken by a prophet or an apostle was recorded.
We don't have apostles or prophets today.
Scriptures do not speak on everything.
1 Thes 2:13 “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”
What is the alternative?
assuranceagent
New member
Hmmm...it seems like you ran circles around yourself trying to justify that one.
The whole Levitical Law stemmed from tradition. Did Paul believe in Sola Scriptura? How could he? He was writing the Bible, for goodness sakes. I'm not saying that the Bible isn't God's words to us or anything like that. But if the Bible were the only tool God's given us to interpret Itself, why doesn't it actually say so?
/sigh...
The Bible is not the only tool God's given us to interpret itself. That's why it doesn't say so. It's also why sola scriptura doesn't say so.
I defined this doctrine at the beginning of this thread and about a hundred times in the other one. Clete defined it several times in the other one too. You are arguing the same strawman that Knight argues.
Your other challenges are also answered in the other thread by multiple posters including myself, clete, agape4robin, etc.
Don't try to make the doctrine say something it doesn't. That's where this whole debate has originated.
If anyone who reads this post would permit any Christian doctrine or religious practice to be falsified or rendered invalid SOLELY on the basis of the Scripture alone, or if you agree with the following sentiment...
then you believe in Sola Scriptura and should vote accordingly.
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me." - Martin Luther
then you believe in Sola Scriptura and should vote accordingly.
You are right, however, you are arguing from a single premise, but there are more than the negative critique
Choleric
New member
Of course everything should line up with Scripture. That does not mean we can't have traditions such as Christmas and Easter and Valentines day.
It only means that any doctrines, must be corroborated in Scripture.
It does not mean that just because a particular sect or cult (see Mormonism, JW's etc) get it wrong that the theory falls apart.
The Word is the plumb line and is what we use to line up all denominations and doctrines and it is how proper doctrine is determined. Just because people cannot discover proper doctrine using the word, does not mean it is the Word's fault.
If you say water baptism is necessary for salvation, show me in Scripture. If you believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, show me in Scripture, if you believe that confessing to a man in a box is necessary for salvation, show me in Scripture, don't just tell me it's because so and so said so, unless so and so wrote one of the 27 books of the NT.
:box:
assuranceagent
New member
No. No there is not. All sola says is that the Bible is the final authority and thus it can negate anything else that stands in opposition to it.
Clete's post encompasses ALL that the doctrine states in it's accepted definition.