I'd also like to mention, the Bible was not assembled into a complete volume until the 400's. Sola Scriptura rolled around much later. What were people supposed to do until then?
Whats more, sola scriptura is not in the bible. Its taking a doctrine that is not in the bible that states everything not in the bible is invalid. Wouldn't that make sola scriptura invalid?
Well, boo-hoo. Is the Bible Gods Word or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Indeed. 2 Pt 1:20-21: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Thes 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Pt 3:16 speaks of uninstructed/unstable people twisting Paul's written word.
Jesus says in Mt 10:40 that whoever receives one of the apostles receives him and the one who sent him. He makes a similar statement regarding those he appointed in Lk 10:16. The Lord even told us in Mt 23:2-3 that he honored the Jewish magisterium's authority but criticized their hypocrisy.
Scripture is very clear that Jesus established a Church with binding authority and that it's heirarchical in nature. Nowhere does it state that the apostles were to put together a how-to manual for future generations. I understand the need of some folks to debate which is the true Church Christ established. But to claim that he didn't establish a Church with authority is simply not scriptural. And Paul tells Timothy (1 Tm 3:15) that the Church (not scripture alone) is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth."
As a former sola scriptura Christian, I understand the game. It's easy to debunk Catholicism when you claim freedom to interpret the Bible in any fashion you choose. Especially when you misrepresent what the Church really teaches. And you give yourself ample room to overlook verses you aren't willing to apply to your own congregation (teaching on divorce, for example).
I'm more than happy to converse on this topic with those of open mind and good will. But articles, such as the one referenced by the OP, that don't even refer to Catholics as Christian, don't pass the good will test in my book.
Peace, NakedRampage :) I appreciated your comment.
Yeppers. Falls by its own criteria. And it fails in practice, resulting in trinitarian, unitarian, calvin, armenian, etc.
“I’d also like to mention, the Bible was not assembled into a complete volume until the 400’s. Sola Scriptura rolled around much later. What were people supposed to do until then?”
Good point, since it’s a common perception.
However, if the sole criterion for canonicity is apostolic authorship (either direct or overseen), then the recognition of canonicity is tAkenback to the point of authorship, which is why Peter used that phrase “other scriptures”. Both Peter and Paul knew they were writing scripture, and the readers knew as well. In fact, that is why apostolic authorship was counterfeited so often. The counterfeits were rejected the same way the BoM and Ko-ran were rejected: by the evidence of their falseness.
I find it an apt description of Rome's peculiar positions.
I'd also like to mention, the Bible was not assembled into a complete volume until the 400's. [...]
So what? The Old Testament was compiled long before that, and the Torah is ancient. How one interprets them would follow precisely into how one interprets the latter work... Or YHWH is schizophrenic... Or the latter work is not of YHWH.
Sola Scriptura rolled around much later. What were people supposed to do until then?
Whats more, sola scriptura is not in the bible. Its taking a doctrine that is not in the bible that states everything not in the bible is invalid. Wouldn't that make sola scriptura invalid?
It is your definition of sola-scriptura that is invalid. Sola-scriptura does not mean 'If it isn't in the Bible, then it doesn't exist.' That would be 'solo-scriptura'.
Sola-scriptura, simply put, means that the Bible retains a primacy over any doctrine, creed, or tradition. It does not negate any doctrine, creed, or tradition unless that thing changes (explicitly, or by inference) the meaning and nature of the Scripture.
And well it should have that primacy. After all, the Bible is a series of contracts, which is why it was written down. What efficacy can a contract have if either party to the contract can simply claim a verbal change of any kind? And more odd than that, the party of the second part, Man, who has no real binding upon himself within the contracts, thinks HE is the one that can change them... YHWH, the party of the first part, who has bound Himself to the words therein, has not changed a thing. He will do as He is contractually bound to do, and to the very letter thereof. To do otherwise would negate His Word, and open Himself to claims that He is not in fact, in perfect control. and therefore, not God.
In that context, sola-scriptura is of the highest sort of necessity, by the very nature of the thing.