Concerning Sola Scriptura

[PedroX]

Mustbenothing,

While I think that you are grasping at straws, and attacking strawmen, I will give you some props for at least attempting to use Scripture to prove your point. All to often the prots. that I debate Sola Scriptura run quickly to Calvin or Luther to prove their point, which kind of defeats the point, no?

Still, the simple points remain. Scripture no where teaches that it ALONE is infallable. Luther and the others seized on this as a way to undermine the authority of the Church. They needed a way to distract the populace from the ages old teachings of the Church and to guide them into Protestantism.

peace...

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) The first century.

(dUSt) 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?

(Me) It was formed, it just wasn't formally received as canon by the Catholic Church. Check out my explanation to Jake Huether of the reception of the canon, and then see how that helps you understand my position.

(dUSt) 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.

(Me) Reformed Theology maintains that the revelatory word-gifts were operative during the Apostolic Era. So, we would clearly have other infallible rules of faith during that time.

(Previous) 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)

(dUSt) 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.

(Me) Earlier, Paul spoke much of the charismatic gifts, authority of apostolic tradition, and so on. In these, his last letters, Paul emphasizes the Scripture as a deposit once-for-all completed and delivered to the saints. Obviously, he is looking forward to that completion, which would occur shortly afterward.

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

(Me) Do they not show that the apostolic era ended in the first century, which is the point you asked me to demonstrate?

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

(dUSt) This may be why the Church compiled the New Testament.

(Me) He said that "the original 12 apostles were dead long before anyone even thought of a Bible w/ a New Testament." The reference clearly disproves it.

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

(dUSt) 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?

(Me) The second claim was "they intended to quit teaching the faithful once this had been created." I believe that this is a false claim, so there is no reason for me to try to prove it. If it seems that I ought to be accepting the claim, it may simply be the case that I misinterpret the claim. If so, please explain how I ought to interpret it, such that I would probably affirm it.

(Previous) 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.

(dUSt) 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?

(Me) No, because it's based on the writings of the leaders of the Reformation. I define the doctrine according to its proponents. Though I haven't read it, Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura is a modern, popular-level Reformed work on the topic. The standard recent (last 2 centuries) Systematic Theologies are Berkhof, Hodge, and Reymond; the classical Reformed Systematics are Turretin's Elenctic Theology and Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bavinck's works (from a century or so ago) are also informative.

If you're interested in seeing a modern defense of Sola Scriptura, try William Webster's three-volume Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture was a standard for centuries.

(Previous) 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.

(dUSt) 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.

(Me) Many of the NT books include evidence that they were intended to be read orally. So, a literate person would read them aloud, and others would listen. The outlines for early services I have read included Scripture readings. Additionally. providing a standardized, written corpus allows for there to be objective standards among the teachers.

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

(dUSt) 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.

(Me) This will only matter on a large scale. On a small scale (which is what most of these arguments were talking about), it will be irrelevant, as the Catholic Church surely will not step in and use infallible authority on the vast majority of private misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Even given this, however, you're presupposing that the audience will be able to understand the corrections of the misinterpretations. Therefore, you realize clearly that the fact that our interpretations of language are not infallible does not mean that we cannot have sufficient interpretations.

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

(dUSt) 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?

(Me) I've explained a number of times that there is a difference between Cartesian certainty and plausible certainty (that is, strong epistemic justification -- good warrant to believe in). I doubt we have certainty of anything in the sense that we can't even conceive of a case in which we could be wrong. For instance, it might well be the case that this isn't my monitor in front of me -- perhaps my roommate switched my monitor out for one that looks just like it. However, I can have a sufficient degree of certainty to say that my monitor is in front of me.

(PedroX) While I think that you are grasping at straws, and attacking strawmen, I will give you some props for at least attempting to use Scripture to prove your point. All to often the prots. that I debate Sola Scriptura run quickly to Calvin or Luther to prove their point, which kind of defeats the point, no?

(Me) Thank you

(PedroX) Still, the simple points remain. Scripture no where teaches that it ALONE is infallable. Luther and the others seized on this as a way to undermine the authority of the Church. They needed a way to distract the populace from the ages old teachings of the Church and to guide them into Protestantism.

(Me) I would submit, rather, that they considered the vast errors they believed to exist in the Catholic Church to be the result of her own following the vain traditions of men.

Edited August 3, 2003 by mustbenothing

[phatcatholic]

woh, check out my post in this thread! its the first post i ever made here at phatmass. i busted in here like a man on a mission!!

anyway, i was feeling nostolgic so i thought i'd share

[StColette]

hehehe Phat !! my first post was in the Apologetics phorum lol

[MorphRC]

How many SS are there??? Theres one that accepts SS as only the bible, another one that does 2, but recognize there could be outside teaching, and another one which recognizes the bible only, but does recognize outside teachings, and refuses them.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Mustbenothing, I would just like to ask a brief question with regards to your definition of [i]sola scriptura[/i]. How is it that you hold this definition when it is not the one used by any of the most prominent Protestant theologians. Don Kistler, James White, Norman Geisler, Ralph MacKenzie, Robert Godfrey, [i]none[/i] of them support your claim.

The real question I have, however, is the following.

You state that "Sola Scriptura claims that the Scripture is our alone infallible rule of faith oustide of the apostolic era."

As you have made clear in that same post, you allow for non-scriptural infallible statements within the apostolic era.

The problem with the above is that you present a view of the history of the Church in which there are, at first, infallible teachings coming from extra-scriptural sources as well as scripture itself, but then you simply allow for all those extra-scriptural teachings to fall into nothing and fade away, to be forgotten or discarded. Then we are left with [i]sola scriptura[/i].

However, I maintain (and I believe the scholars I listed above would maintain as well), that such a position is utterly untenable, as it is self defeating. If the extra-scriptural teachings of the apostles are infallible, as you state, and the apostle's mission was to lay the groundwork for the church, then, just as the infallible teachings of the Scripture is necessary for the constant growth of the Church, so too are those other infallible teachings that come from the Apostles.

To state that an entire body of unwritten, infallible teachings were utterly forgotten or left behind is to state, point blank, that the Apostles did not complete their work.

Ironically enough, if the above is true, then one cannot, under your own definition, state that the apostolic era has come to an end.

Ultimately, it is much more tenable for a protestant to assert that there was no extra-scriptural [i]infallible[/i] teachings, even during the apostolic era, that to assert that there [i]were[/i] such teachings, but that they have since been forgotten or left behind.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 27 2004, 02:20 AM'] How many SS are there??? Theres one that accepts SS as only the bible, another one that does 2, but recognize there could be outside teaching, and another one which recognizes the bible only, but does recognize outside teachings, and refuses them. [/quote]
Lol... and I always found it ironic that protestants believe in sola scriptura and sola fide. How can you believe in two principles that have 'sola' in them?

[p0lar_bear]

Jeff,

mustbenothing hasn't posted in almost a year. I don't think you are going to get a response...

[Guest JeffCR07]

woah, I saw "August" and I didn't bother to read/process the "2003" that immediately followed, lol.

my bad....

[MorphRC]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Aug 28 2004, 01:10 AM'] Lol... and I always found it ironic that protestants believe in sola scriptura and sola fide. How can you believe in two principles that have 'sola' in them? [/quote]
Lol. Its very, very, very screwed up. [i]The 5 Solas[/i]. Its like [i]The 5 Oxymorons[/i].

[phatcatholic]

yea, i about died when i got my first tongue-lashing by a protestant for assuming that all protestants defined "Sola Scriptura" the same way.

[MorphRC]

Its gotta be one of the most confused and purposely confusing religions there is.

[ICTHUS]

Nice of you all to attack John when he's not here to defend himself.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Aug 27 2004, 09:40 AM'] Lol... and I always found it ironic that protestants believe in sola scriptura and sola fide. How can you believe in two principles that have 'sola' in them? [/quote]
I can't say as I understand the premise of your objection.

The five solas are meant to be taken as a unit..

Sola Gratia ~ Sola Fide ~ Solus Christus ~ Sola Scriptura ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, through the instrument of the atonement of Christ alone, all based on Scripture alone, to the glory of God the Father alone.

Glorious Gospel it is!

[MichaelFilo]

Alone is so un-unified

Edited August 29, 2004 by MichaelFilo