Sola Scriptura

[Selah]

Like I said...it implodes on itself.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='15 September 2009 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1252971103' post='1966549']
Many Protestants also believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John. Yet this cannot be proven from scripture alone
[/quote]
Yes, that is what was taught at the SBC congregation I attended. They did use a verse to justify it, trying to think of it. Oh wait, I think that was 1 Cor 13:10, and was actually used to justify that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were no longer around, not public revelation.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Archaeology cat

[Starets]

Well, from what I remember of my days as a tweenaged fundamentalist, the usual prooftext was 2 Tom 3:15 for Sola Scriptura and 1 Peter 1:3 for the all sufficiency of Scripture. Anyone wanna go on from here?

[MIKolbe]

As far as 2 Tim 3:15-16...

As for verse 15, that refers to the material sufficiency of Scripture, not formal sufficiency. as for verse 16, (which I get alot) scriptures are useful/profitable still does not make the case. a counter arguemnt could be: A washing machine is useful and profitable for washing clothes, but is not the ONLY way to wash them.

Additionally, is you go one verse up, to verse 14

[i]But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it[/i]

seems like a case arguing for tradition.

As for 1 Pet 1:3, it reads
[i]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in his great mercy gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, [/i]

I don't get the argument from that verse.

[Starets]

that should be 2 peter 1:3-4
my bad
There are other prooftexts, but those two are the main ones (that and 2 tim 3:15-16)

[MIKolbe]

I am interested in hearing the argument for the sufficency of Scripture given those verses as prooftext.

I have never heard those used before.

[Starets]

Neither have I
I would post the link to the page that is my source for this bit of "Devil's Advocacy" but it is to a known anti-Catholic (and indeed anti-every theological position other than their own!). So its a non starter. So I will summarise the arguments and post them later. Not till at least thoursday though. Many other things to do today and tomorrow is bread making day. I'd rather bake bread than summarise anti-catholic webpages!

[MIKolbe]

I would tend to agree with you!!!

Til Thursday, then!!!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='15 September 2009 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1253033050' post='1966841']
As far as 2 Tim 3:15-16...

As for verse 15, that refers to the material sufficiency of Scripture, not formal sufficiency. as for verse 16, (which I get alot) scriptures are useful/profitable still does not make the case. a counter arguemnt could be: A washing machine is useful and profitable for washing clothes, but is not the ONLY way to wash them.

Additionally, is you go one verse up, to verse 14

[i]But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it[/i]

seems like a case arguing for tradition.[/quote]
This is a good response.

A further point can be brought up in connection with the text from 2 Timothy, and that is that the text itself does not define what the limits of scripture are. To put it another way, 2 Timothy does not give a canon of scripture, and so it cannot be used to claim the sufficiency of scripture, since it does not give an account of which books are canonical and which books are not.

[Starets]

Now that I am back, I can quickly post my summary of the webpage that provides lots and lots of prooftexts for Sola Scripture. Not much in the way of exegisis(sp?), but the authors believe that such things are not really necessary as the Bible is so easy to understand even a child can understand it.

An-y-way, here is is. Please keep in mind that these are not my opinions but those of the website's authors. I merely wish to play Advocatus Diaboli

(though personally I'd rather be baking!)

First, it strings together these 4 texts:

"upon this rock I will build My church" (Mt 16:18)
"do not say ‘I am of Peter’" (1 Cor 1:10)
"as gardeners and builders... each man must be careful how he builds on it." (1 Cor 3:10)
"I used the gardener and builder figures to that you learn not to exceed what is written" (1 Cor 4:6)
therefore, the page argues, Jesus intended his church to built upon scripture, not Peter or oral traditions.
1. we are not to "exceed scripture"
2. use of oral traditions "exceeds scripture"
3. Therefore using oral traditions iz wrong

Next, they throw in Luke 1:1-4
This passage, they claim, isan "irrefutable blow" to the use of Oral Tradition. They have a nice little diagram showing that this text proves that written scripture is inspired and reliable and therefore brings certqinty. Oral Tradition, however, is inspired but unreliable and does not bring certainty.
They are very big on their charts and diagrams

Third, they hop on over to MT 4:1-11 and point out that in each temptation, Jesus said "it is written" (and not, say "oral tradition says" or whatever)

fourth is the "locus classicus" for all such arguments: 2 Tim 3:16-17. This proves the all sufficiency of scripture because, the page says, we are fully furnished for EVERY good work and not just some or most good works.

Fifth, they hop over to LK 10:26 which they claim proves that Jesus expected people to be able to read and understand the Bible all by themselves without some yucky churhc telling them what a given text means.

Sixth they throw in Acts 17:11-12. The authors claim that this proves that the apostles always used the Bible as the final determinant of trvth, not oral tradition. Oh, and us yucky catholics would never send anyone to scriptuere because we think everyone is too stoopid to understand it.

Seventh, the only time that Jesus ever referred to an oral tradition was to condemn it, in MK 7:7-13

Eighth, the string together lk 10:26, mk 12:24, mt 22:29, mt 26:24, LK 20:17, Jn 5:39 to prove that Jesus expected the average person to be able to understand the Bible without any need for any kind of third party. that includes, but is not limited to oral traditions or creeds such as the Nicene or Apostle's Creed.

Oh and they even have an answer for the objection about how 2 tim 3:16-17 can prove the all sufficiency fo the Bible alone if the Canon was not yet complete by throwing 1 tim 3:14-15, 2 peter 1:3-4 and 1 jn 2:1 at the reader

Ninth, they throw Rev 22:18-19, Dt 4:2, and proverbs 30:5-6 at the reader in order to prove that oral traditons are not to be used to augment what they call the 66 book canon of scripture.

All these texts are thrown at the reader with minimal, if any, exegisis. After all, they think that the meaning of scripture is so obvious that anyone with half a brain can understand it. It's obvious to them!

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='14 September 2009 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1252965140' post='1966462']
An couple inherent problems with sola scriptura......

1. Sola Scriptura doesn't tell you what books of the Bible are inspired. The Bible comes from Apostolic Tradition which is a big enemy of sola scriptura.

2. Sola Scriptura wasn't practiced until about 1500. So for about 1500 years, Christ's Church was apparently wrong. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img] A study of the Church Fathers demonstrates that Sola Scriptura was not practiced or recognized. So from a historical perspective, sola scripturist have a problem.
[/quote]


Excuse me, but after extensively reading the early fathers myself, it is a FACT, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, extolled HOLY SCRIPTURE as the fount and source of where they were looking to validate their doctrine. You could not prove that they were looking to a three-fold authority as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, if your life depended on it. So many comments on these threads are all "CLOUDS AND WIND....BUT NO RAIN" according to Proverbs 25:14.

[Selah]

Storm, if the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, what did the early Christians do before the Bible was compiled?

AND if the Bible is the foundation of faith, why are you missing books? Oh, right. Martin Luther didn't like them.

But I do have a Bible verse for you to think about:

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, [b]which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.[/b]

Looks like St. Paul believed it was the CHURCH that was the pillar of our faith. Not a book. Or else, you have tons and tons of incorrect interpretations of said book, leading to the thousands of denominations we all know and love!

Oh, and you say the Early Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura? Let's see the quotes then! Names too! Sources!

Edited September 18, 2009 by Selah

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='14 September 2009 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1252965140' post='1966462']
An couple inherent problems with sola scriptura......

1. Sola Scriptura doesn't tell you what books of the Bible are inspired. The Bible comes from Apostolic Tradition which is a big enemy of sola scriptura.

2. Sola Scriptura wasn't practiced until about 1500. So for about 1500 years, Christ's Church was apparently wrong. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img] A study of the Church Fathers demonstrates that Sola Scriptura was not practiced or recognized. So from a historical perspective, sola scripturist have a problem.
[/quote]


YOU ARE 100% WRONG! You are all talk but no action! I have every single quote from what the early fathers taught on this issue and it is SURPASSINGLY CLEAR that they were devoted to giving Scripture the highest place of authority when proving their doctrines. It is absolutely infuriating to read you make such an overtly FALSE and ignorant statement...in that that the concept of sola scriptura was NO WHERE practiced or recognized. That is a lie from the pit of hell. I have the proof right in front of me. Care to take a challenge with simple QUOTES from these nice gents??? YOU WILL LOSE and make a fool of yourself in the process. My emotions are meant to be a catalyst for everyone reading this to GO CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, instead of taking the lazy way out and blindly embrace such silly and foolish statements made from posters like this who simply make a claim and don't back it up with an iota of proof.

[Selah]

[quote]YOU ARE 100% WRONG! You are all talk but no action![/quote]

And you are all talk but no read!

[quote]I have every single quote from what the early fathers taught on this issue [/quote]

You are also all talk and no evidence.

[quote] It is absolutely infuriating to read you make such an overtly FALSE and ignorant statement...in that that the concept of sola scriptura was NO WHERE practiced or recognized. [/quote]

It's true. Unless you can prove otherwise instead of throwing a hissy fit.

[quote]My emotions are meant to be a catalyst for everyone reading this [/quote]

No, it's rather amusing though

[quote]instead of taking the lazy way out and blindly embrace such silly and foolish statements made from posters like this who simply make a claim and don't back it up with an iota of proof.[/quote]

Let's see your proof, then. Early Church Fathers who believed in Sola Scriptura. Chop Chop!

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='14 September 2009 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1252959432' post='1966399']
Okay Im opening up this debate on Sola scriptura so the one on transubstansiation wont be closed due to red herrings, and so that we all can come to know the truth about sola scriptura.

I will just give a lil at a time but first off.... The Bible does not even say by scripture alone will we know the truth.

So that pretty much kills and buries it. But to dig deeper so that sola scripura's stench wont even be able to rise through the coffins into our nostrils...

St. Paul says in 2 Thess. 2:15...."So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the [u]traditions[/u] which you were [u]taught[/u] [b]by us[/b], either by [u]word of mouth [/u]or [b]by letter[/b]." [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
[/quote]


"Pretty much kills and buries the Bible for coming to a knowledge of the truth?????????" You Catholics simply astound me!
Time to take a wake-up pill. Timothy KNEW THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FROM WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE CHILD WHICH WERE ABLE TO MAKE HIM WISE UNTO SALVATION! (2 Tim 3:15).

Edited September 18, 2009 by Stormstopper