Concerning Sola Scriptura

[ReformationNow]

II Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, bretheren, stand fast, and hold the traditions ye have been taught whether by word, or our epistle."

This verse would seem to indicate that scripture was not considered to be the only source of teaching in the early Church. Or am I interpreting this wrong?

[hyperdulia again]

you are correct. there are other such passages.

[mustbenothing]

(ReformationNow) This verse would seem to indicate that scripture was not considered to be the only source of teaching in the early Church. Or am I interpreting this wrong?

(Me) You are correct. Sola Scriptura affirms this wholeheartedly.

Edited July 30, 2003 by mustbenothing

[jasJis]

mustbenothing.

Please tell me what you think 'Sola Scriptura' is.

[hyperdulia again]

That's what I was thinking J. I can call my pet a cast, but if it barks it's a dog.

[mustbenothing]

Sola Scriptura claims that the Scripture is our alone infallible rule of faith oustide of the apostolic era. During the apostolic era, we had other infallible ways of receiving revelations from God -- the Apostles were entrusted with the Gospel, and the prophets would bring us messages directly from God. However, the Apostles' and prophets' foundational work has founded the Church, brought the Gospel in power, and delivered a once-for-all deposit of Apostolic teaching and Divine Revelation in the Holy Scripture. Now that their work is complete, the apostles and prophets have left the life of the Church, and we rely on the things they left us.

Edited August 1, 2003 by mustbenothing

[dUSt]

Peace be with you mustbenothing.

Question: When did the "apostolic era" end, and where can I verify this with scripture?

God bless.

[phatcatholic]

mustbenothing,

where is your proof for such a claim? for one, it would actually be the successors of the apostles who would make such a decision, since the original 12 apostles were dead long before anyone even thought of a Bible w/ a New Testament. So you would have to prove either two scenarios:

1. that the 12 apostles had forknowledge that a Bible would be created that included both the Old and New Testaments --and-- that they intended to quit teaching the faithful once this had been created, or....

2. the successors of the apostles--essentially the pope and the bishops in communion with him--intended to depend solely on the Bible once it was completed

it would be a task indeed to prove either scenario. in regards to #1, the shere quantity of scripture verses in support of tradition would prove that it was hardly the intention of the original apostles to abandon the faithful once a compendium of christian belief had been established. such verses include the following:

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

Acts 8:30-31 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

Rom 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

1 Cor 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

1 Cor 15:3,11 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.....Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

1 Thess 2:13 And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that,in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now atwork in you who believe.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Tim 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

2 Tim 3:14-15 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Heb 5:12 Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food.

1 Pet 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." This is the word that has been proclaimed to you.

2 Pet 1:20-21 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

2 Pet 3:16 speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

2 Jn 1:12 Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.

3 Jn 1:13-14 I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.

As you can see, the apostles praised tradition, and they put no time-table on when oral teaching should be abandoned for the purely written kind. Essentially, you have the grand task of refuting every one of these verses and somehow showing that they had something entirely different in mind.

In order to prove #2, you would have to give an example, either from the councils of the Church or from the writings of popes and bishops that they EVER intended to one day depend solely on the Bible. This is evidence, I assure you, you will not find.

If there ever was "man-made tradition" it was sola scriptura.

good luck and God Bless,

phatcatholic

[dUSt]

Hey.

Welcome phatcatholic.

[Jake Huether]

I was gunna ask the same thing. When did the Apostalic Era end? And if God was so smart, why would he leave us a WRITTEN rule of faith, when most of the ENTIRE WORLD was illiterate (even until now!). I mean, take me for example. I can't even write without making errors! Imagine how I read!

You said yourself that "(your) interpretation is not infallible". Why would God leave us an "infallible" written work to be interpreted by 1) illiterates and 2) fallible humans anyway!

Sola Scripture makes no sense considering the facts.

In a world where humans could read and interpret without error, then sola Scripture might make sence.

And I understand that you mean Scripture must be taught -even thought it itself is the sole source of faith. But then, since it will ALWAYS be taught fallibly, how will anyone ever know the true meaning of Scripture, and therefore the true way to salvation?

[cmotherofpirl]

WElcome to phatmass phatcatholic.

That was an excellent post.

Be sure to stop in the check in board and introduce yourself.

[mustbenothing]

(dUSt) Question: When did the "apostolic era" end, and where can I verify this with scripture?

(Me) The first century.

I would probably point first to Ephesians 2, which describes the once-for-all foundation-laying work of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets. They accomplished their work -- now we build on top of it (i.e., it is applied).

I might next point to Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, which describe the judgment of Israel and the wedding of Christ to His Bride (the Church -- compare Revelation 17's harlot, which is Israel, with Rev 21's bride, which is the Church). Since these occurred during the first century (see Rev 1:1, 3; 22:7, 12, 20), the kingdom must have been founded in the first century.

Finally, I would look at the tenor of Paul's Pastoral Epistles. These are written just before he dies, and in them he prepares his audiences for the times to come. He points to the completed Scripture (i.e., including the NT) and the Church very heavily, while he pointed to oral tradition, charismatic gifts, and the OT in his earlier letters.

Those are just a few reasons, but I think they are very good. My eschatological arguments (i.e., those based on the Olivet Discourse and Revelation) will probably be too lengthy to discuss in detail here. I could probably think of a lot of minor arguments, but I think that Ephesians and the pastorals should be sufficient.

(phatcatholic) where is your proof for such a claim? for one, it would actually be the successors of the apostles who would make such a decision, since the original 12 apostles were dead long before anyone even thought of a Bible w/ a New Testament.

(Me) Peter refers to the idea of the NT Scripture as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Paul also quotes from Luke (but I can't seem to remember the reference off-hand; I referred to it elsewhere in this thread, I think).

(phatcatholic) So you would have to prove either two scenarios:

1. that the 12 apostles had forknowledge that a Bible would be created that included both the Old and New Testaments --and-- that they intended to quit teaching the faithful once this had been created, or....

(Me) I would imagine that the above citations help establish the first claim. I reject the second claim.

(phatcatholic) As you can see, the apostles praised tradition, and they put no time-table on when oral teaching should be abandoned for the purely written kind. Essentially, you have the grand task of refuting every one of these verses and somehow showing that they had something entirely different in mind.

(Me) To be honest, I've dealt with the bulk of the important passages you raised elsewhere in this thread (and possibly other recent ones). I really don't want to have to spend all that time again, considering that another person like yourself may come post the same list and make the same requirements of me. Could you find a few of those passages that you find to be most difficult for my view to accept, and allow me to interact with just them?

I would also encourage you to read everything I have written over the last few days. I think that most people here are not used to the actual Reformation doctrine Sola Scriptura, as they have all had a substantially inaccurate view of it. I hope that many of those misunderstandings have been corrected through my work here.

[mustbenothing]

(Jake Huether) I was gunna ask the same thing. When did the Apostalic Era end?

(Me) The first century.

(Jake Huether) And if God was so smart, why would he leave us a WRITTEN rule of faith, when most of the ENTIRE WORLD was illiterate (even until now!). I mean, take me for example. I can't even write without making errors! Imagine how I read!

(Me) Because a written corpus is an objective, standing deposit. Memories can fade, and oral traditions can morph through time, but a piece of paper will remain standard. Only copying errors can provide a problem with a written standard, and God has blessed us with many manuscript lines so that copying errors can be double-checked, caught, and fixed.

(Jake Huether) You said yourself that "(your) interpretation is not infallible". Why would God leave us an "infallible" written work to be interpreted by 1) illiterates and 2) fallible humans anyway!

(Me) Why would God leave us an "infallible" Roman Catholic Church to be interpreted by fallible humans?

(Jake Huether) In a world where humans could read and interpret without error, then sola Scripture might make sence.

(Me) In a world where humans could listen, read, and interpret without error, then Sola Ecclesia might make sense.

(Jake Huether) And I understand that you mean Scripture must be taught -even thought it itself is the sole source of faith. But then, since it will ALWAYS be taught fallibly, how will anyone ever know the true meaning of Scripture, and therefore the true way to salvation?

(Me) There is a difference between having some kind of absolute certainty of facts and having sufficient certainty. For instance, I can't be absolutely certain that my monitor is in front of me -- what if my roommate snuck in a monitor that looks just like mine? I still have good reason to say that my monitor is in front of me, though.

[dUSt]

(dUSt) Question: When did the "apostolic era" end, and where can I verify this with scripture?

(Me) The first century.

I'm sure you are aware that the Bible wasn't formed until 300 years later. So if the "apostolic era" ended in the first century, how do you explain that the Bible was infallibly formed after that?

And regarding your arguments that the foundation was laid in the first century... this is a mute point, as this is what the Catholic Church teaches. It's very obvious that the foundation was laid by Christ and the original apostles--I don't understand who you are arguing with here.

Finally, I would look at the tenor of Paul's Pastoral Epistles.  These are written just before he dies, and in them he prepares his audiences for the times to come.  He points to the completed Scripture (i.e., including the NT)

This argument is almost to the point of being absurd. You mean to tell me that Paul is pointing to the completed Scripture? Where does he name the table of contents to the NT? I missed it.

I think that Ephesians and the pastorals should be sufficient.

Your arguments brought me no closer to understanding your viewpoint. Sorry.

Peter refers to the idea of the NT Scripture as Scripture:

This may be why the Church compiled the New Testament.

I would imagine that the above citations help establish the first claim.  I reject the second claim.

You reject the second claim? So you do believe that the apostles intended to continue teaching along side scripture, just like the Catholic Church teaches? Or, does "reject the claim" mean you're not answering it?

I think that most people here are not used to the actual Reformation doctrine Sola Scriptura, as they have all had a substantially inaccurate view of it.

That may have something to do with the fact that every other non-Catholic that comes in here has a different definition. I'm sure yours is more accurate though, because it's coming from you, correct?

[dUSt]

Because a written corpus is an objective, standing deposit.  Memories can fade, and oral traditions can morph through time, but a piece of paper will remain standard.  Only copying errors can provide a problem with a written standard, and God has blessed us with many manuscript lines so that copying errors can be double-checked, caught, and fixed.

You avoided the point of the question. The Church created the Bible for the reasons you stated above. You'll get no argument there.

Jake's point was that written text is worthless unless one can read. The interpretation of the written text is based on many factors, including literacy, culture, translation, language, etc, etc.

Please address the point, instead of stating the obvious.

Why would God leave us an "infallible" Roman Catholic Church to be interpreted by fallible humans?

The Church doesn't need to be interpreted, because it has authority. If it is being incorrectly interpreted, it has the power to speak up and correct the misinterpretation. The Bible can't do that.

There is a difference between having some kind of absolute certainty of facts and having sufficient certainty.

But I thought you said in a different thread that we can be certain we are saved? Are you now saying that we can only have "sufficient" certainty?