Posted on 05/31/2010 6:33:12 AM PDT by Cronos
1. Where does the Bible claim sola scriptura?
2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." --> it doesn't say that Scriptura is sufficient, just that it is profitable i.e. helpful. the entire verse from 14 to 17 says "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"
3. Where else do we have the term "sola scriptura" in the Bible?
4. Matthew 15 - Jesus condemns corrupt tradition, not all tradition. At no point is the basic notion of traidition condemned
5. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brehtern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"
6. 1 Timothy 3:14-15
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.note that the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth is The Church of the Living God
There is more Biblical proof for Sola Scriptura than for statues in churches, the wearing of crucifixes, crosses and beads, calling on dead saints for intercession, Sunday worship, a Pope, indulgences and the church being involved in ANY persecution of heretics (that’s called freedom of (from) religion). Just because someone believes different from you should not give any church the right to imprison or harm others.
The WORD that comes from the MOUTH of God. Was Jesus referring to the ORAL Word? So then should you reject the WRITTEN Word? No, Jesus at various places says Scripture in it's written form and here in it's ORal form is good.
It appears Irenaeus disagrees with you. Big 'T', Tradition to Irenaeus is nothing more than what is written in scripture.
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
When confronting the Gnostics Irenaeus says the following, which is also amazingly descriptive of todays RCC!
"When however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."
"For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce (orally)...For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to &‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves."
Today's RCC has much in common with the Gnostics Irenaeus was fighting.
Because he believed the Scriptures to be divinely inspired writings, Cyril taught that they are the ultimate authority for the Church and the sole source of doctrine and truth. Throughout his Lectures, Cyril defends each point of the Creed with Scripture, emphasizing repeatedly the necessity for every doctrine to be validated and proven from Scripture. He is emphatic that not the least point of doctrine is to be delivered without proof from the Scriptures:
"Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html
James White is representative of this above understanding of SS in stating,
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. ..
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. http://vintage.aomin.org/cathan.html
While some can go a bit too far in asserting the formal sufficiency of Scripture, both RC's and Protestants believe in the materially sufficiency of Scripture, but Rome derived more than is warranted from it. This effectively being “sola Ecclesia,” that the church is the supreme authority, that by declaring itself infallible according to its infallibly defined formula, it cannot be wrong when speaking thusly. The Jewish magisterium, sitting in Moses “seat,” and to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2,3) presumed such veracity, but were reproved by Christ for making interpretative but unwarranted and unScriptural teachings to be doctrines. (Mk. 7:9-13)
As for, “Where exactly does the bible say that it is to be ONLY the Bible and not Holy Tradition?,” this was answered by showing that as the Bible affirms the Scriptures to be only objective authority which is 100% inspired by God, (2Tim. 3:16) it establishes the standard by which the subjective word of God (oral tradition) and truth claims are tested. (Acts 18:28, 2Pet. 1:16-21)
In contrast, nowhere does the Bible assure us that whatever the church teaches in accordance with a formula will be infallible truth. What the Bible does show is validly teaching being given in accordance with Scripture, and its manner of attestation, (Acts 15) and supernaturally affirmed apostles adding to an open canon by manifestly Scriptural teaching, with noble souls testing such by the then-existing Scriptures. (Acts 17:11)
As for no one holding the Scripture as supreme for 1500 years, as what constituted Scripture become more manifest,there is evidence of its supremacy among many church fathers, but again, only the Scripture themselves are the supreme objective authority.
While this method is more problematic than implicit faith in an infallible teaching office, as unity require more by the former means, its unity is qualitatively better than the latter. Moreover, the premise that human infirmity demands an infallible office which men can unquestionably trust in is faulty, as God Himself does not operate that way. Consistent with this logic God never should have given man free will, as his use of it resulted in division, while miracles never should have used to attest to Divine sanction (to that by themselves they can), as such can be counterfeited. (Ex. 7:11, 22; 8:7,18)
The apostles did not rely upon self-proclamation, but manifested authority by the power of God, (Rm. 15:19; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 5; 2Cor. 13:4-10) and Scriptural teachings, reasoning with souls out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and personal holiness and love, (2Cor. 6:1-10) “not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2; cf. 5:11) Of such i (and we all) need.
As with the fathers who preceded him, Origen held to the unique authority of Scripture. He describes it as holy, sacred and inspired. Because Scripture is inspired by God it is uniquely authoritative for the establishing of doctrine and truth:
"Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture."
Along with Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, Origen recognized no other source of doctrine than Scripture:
"But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained."
Since Scripture is the sole source of doctrine there can be no apostolic teaching that is purely oral in nature:
"But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works."
http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html
Which greatly reduces the number of Catholics, while official unity in dogma itself is not a proof of supremacy, and others, if smaller, can assert the same on that level, but the basis and warrant thereby for dogma as well as claim to supremacy is the issue. See above.
Well all I can say at this point is thank you for confirming my belief that Catholicism is cultic, not Christian. I had been wavering on that due to Catholics belief in the Trinity and Nicene Creed, but with that post you've just pushed me over the edge into belief Catholicism is indeed a type of cult. A blind unwavering & unquestioning belief in a hierarchy of men, and then spin away whatever evils that hierarchy does is indeed very cultlike. You are very much controlled my friend that much is obvious.
All I can do is pray for you that the Lord will open your eyes to the truth. Please don't post to me anymore, I have no interest in any future spin you get from running to your 'apologists'.
You nailed it. The modern RCC is very gnostic, rather than Christian. All you have to do is read Cronos posts!
The individual Anglican & Lutheran, do not adhere to their own sects supposed "doctrines". If you start questioning them, you will find that they are YOPIOS just like all the rest.
As for the group like the "Traditional" Anglicans and Lutherans and their "teachings", let's discuss where the rubber meets the road, useful answers to life's everyday questions: Divorce? contraceptives? number of sacraments? Women Priests? They go with whatever is convenient, whatever will not chase the paying parishioners away.
Orestes Brownson, a former Congregationalist minister. [O.A. Brownson: “Protestantism in a Nutshell,” Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October, 1849, Loc. Cit., pp.136-142.]
The works [on Protestantism] we have, excellent as they are in their way, and admirably fitted to guard the faithful against many of the devices of the enemy to detach them from the church, and to aid and instruct persons in heretical communions who are virtually prepared to return to the church, do not hit the reigning form of Protestantism; they do not reach the seat of the disease,, and are apparently written on the supposition of soundness, where there is , in fact only rottenness. The principles they assume as the basis of their refutation of Protestantism, though nominally professed or conceded by the majority of Protestants are not held with sufficient firmness to be used as the foundation of an argument that is to have any practical efficacy in their conversion. They all appear to assume that Protestants as a body really mean to be Christians, and err only in regard to some of the dogmas of Christianity and the method of determining the faith; that Protestantism is a specific heresy, a distinct and positive form of error, like Arianism or Pelagianism; and that its adherents would regard themselves as bound to reject it, if proved to be repugnant to Christianity, or contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This is a natural and a charitable supposition; but we are sorry to say, that if it was ever warrantable, it is not by any means warrantable in our times [October, 1849], except as to the small number of individuals in the several sects who are mere exceptions to the rule. Protestantism is no specific heresy, is not a distinct or positive form of error, but error in general, indifferent to forms, and receptive of any form or of all forms, as suits the convenience or the exigency of its friends. It is a veritable Proteus, and takes any and every shape judged to be proper to deceive the eyes or to elude the blows of the champions of truth. It is Lutheran, Calvinistic, Arminian, Unitarian, Pantheistic, Atheistic, Pyrrhonistic, each by turns or all at once, as is necessary to its purpose The Protestant as such has, in the ordinary sense, no principles to maintain, no character to support, no consistency to preserve; and we are aware of no authority, no law, no usage, by which he will consent to be bound. Convict him from tradition, and he appeals to the Bible; convict him from the Bible, and he appeals to reason; convict him from reason, and he appeals to private sentiment; convict him from private sentiment, and he appeals to skepticism, or flies back to reason, to Scripture, or tradition, and alternately from one to the other, never scrupling to affirm, one moment, what he denied the moment before, nor blushing to be found maintaining that of contradictories both may be true. He is indifferent as to what he asserts or denies, if able for the moment to obtain an apparent covert from his pursuers.
Protestants do not study for the truth, and are never to be presumed willing to accept it, unless it chances to be where and what they wish it. They occasionally read our [Catholic] books and listen to our arguments, but rarely to ascertain our doctrines, or to learn what we are able to say against them or for ourselves. The thought, that we may possibly be right, seldom occurs to them; and when it does, it is instantly suppressed as an evil thought, as a temptation from the devil. They take it for granted, that, against us, they are right, and cannot be wrong. This is with them a 'fixed fact,' admitting no question. [b]They condescend to consult what doctrines they can profess, or what modifications they can introduce into those which they have professed, that will best enable them to elude our attacks, or give them the appearance of escaping conviction by the authorities from tradition, Scriptures, reason, and sentiment which we array against them. Candor or ingenuousness towards themselves even is a thing wholly foreign to their Protestant nature, and they are instinctively and habitually cavillers and sophisticators. They disdain to argue a question on its merits, and always, if they argue at all, argue it on some unimportant collateral. They never recognize it, unless it in their interest to do so, any distinction between a transeat and a concedo. and rarely fail to insist that the concession of an irrelevant point is a concession of the main issue. They have no sense of responsibility, no loyalty to truth, no mental chastity, no intellectual sincerity. What is for them is authority which no body must question; what is against them is no authority at all. Their own word if not in their favor, they refuse to accept; and the authority to which they professedly appeal they repudiate the moment it is seen not to sustain them. To reason with them as if they would stand by their own professions, or could or would acknowledge any authority but their own ever varying opinions, is entirely to mistake them, and to betray our own simplicity.
Undoubtedly, many of our friends, who have not, like ourselves, been brought up Protestants, and have not to blush at the knowledge their Protestant experience has given them, may feel that in this judgment we are rash and uncharitable. Would that we were so. We take no pleasure in thinking ill of any portion of our fellow men, and would always rather find ourselves wrong in our unfavorable judgments of them than right. But in this matter the evidence is too clear and conclusive to allow us even to hope that we are wrong. There is not a single Protestant doctrine opposed to Catholicity that even Protestants themselves have not over and over again completely refuted; there is not a single charge brought by Protestants against the church that some of them, as well as we, have not fully exploded; and no more conclusive vindication of the claims of Catholicity can be desired than may be, nay, than in fact has been collected from distinguished Protestant writers themselves. This is a fact which no Protestant, certainly no Catholic, can deny. How happens it, then, that the Protestant world still subsists, and that, for the last hundred and fifty years [we may add another hundred and fifty years to this figure. Ed.] we have made comparatively little progress in regaining Protestants to the Church?
We may, it is true, be referred to the obstinacy in error characteristic of all heretics; but, in the present case, unless what is meant is obstinacy in error in general, and not error in particular, this will not suffice as an answer; because, during this period, there has been no one particular form of error to which Protestants have uniformly adhered. No class of Protestants adheres today to the opinions it originally avowed. In this respect, there is a marked difference between the Protestant sects of modern times and the early Oriental sects. The Jacobite holds to day the same specific heresy which he held a thousand years ago; and the Nestorian of the nineteenth is substantially the Nestorian of the fourth century. But nothing analogous is true of any of the modern Protestant sects. Protestants boast, indeed. their glorious reformation. but they no longer hold the views of its authors. Luther. were he to ascend to the scenes of his earthly labors, would be utterly unable to recognize his teachings in the doctrines of the modern Lutherans; the Calvinist remains a Calvinist only in name; the Baptist disclaims his Anabaptist origin; the Unitarian points out the errors he detects In his Socinian ancestors; and the Transcendentalist looks down with pity on his Unitarian parents, while he considers it a cruel persecution to be excluded from the Unitarian family. No sect retains unmodified, unchanged, the precise form of error with which it set out. All the forms Protestantism has from time to time assumed have been developed, modified, altered, almost as soon as assumed, always as internal or external controversy made it necessary or expedient. Here is a fact nobody can deny, and it proves conclusively that the Protestant world does not subsist solely by virtue of its obstinate attachment to the views or opinions to which it has once committed itself, or in consequence of its aversion to change the doctrines it has once professed . . . .
A sort of honesty and sincerity we certainly concede to the generality of Protestants; but as to the end for which they profess their doctrines, rather than as to the doctrines themselves. The principle common to them, and the only one we can always be sure they will practically adhere to, is, that the end justifies the means. The end they propose is, neither to save their souls nor to discover and obey the truth, but to destroy or elude Catholicity. The spirit which possesses them maddens them against the church, and gives them an inward repugnance to everything not opposed to her. To overthrow her, to blot out her existence, or to prevent her from crushing them with the weight of her truth, is to them a praiseworthy end, at least a great and most desirable end: directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, it becomes the ruling passion after money getting of their lives, a passion in which they are confirmed and strengthened by all the blandishments of the world, and all the seductions of the flesh. Any means which tend to gratify this passion, to realize this end, they hold to be lawful, and they can adopt them, however base, detestable, or shocking in themselves, with a quiet conscience and admirable self complacency.
The individual Anglican & Lutheran, do not adhere to their own sects supposed "doctrines". If you start questioning them, you will find that they are YOPIOS just like all the rest.......
see my complete posting above, a few seconds ago.
Orestes Brownson, a former Congregationalist minister. [O.A. Brownson: “Protestantism in a Nutshell,” Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October, 1849, Loc. Cit., pp.136-142.]
You’ve got to be kidding. Is this another Tan propaganda pulp reprint? If you want to invest any time or thought in trying to digest this regurgitative, self-delusional slander, that is your right. If you want to print it here, that too is your right. If I want to laugh in derision at such patent nonsense, that is my right.
The most perfect definition of a YOPIOS I have ever read.
Not sure what your point was quoting a biased rant from someone who is long on accusation but short of evidence.
Leoni wrote:
“The most perfect definition of a YOPIOS I have ever read.”
Then you are profoundly uneducated and ignorant ... unless by “YOPIOS” you mean that stupid cereal box graphic someone put up on FR some years ago. In that case you really have done something. It is the breakfast of champions.
In fact, why don’t you go back and find that graphic somewhere and post it from time to time. It will help as all to take you more seriously.
You don't agree on anything but eluding Catholicism. The pope kissed the Koran? I'm not defending that.
YOPIOS contracepted millions upon millions who will never even have eternal anything. The Catholics who committed the same sin are legion in Hell, AND yet YOPIOS delude themselves that they are saved?
Which YOPIOS would not tell their single daughter to get a secret abortion to hide their shame? The Catholics who committed the same sin are legion in Hell, AND yet YOPIOS delude themselves that they are saved?
Which YOPIOS would not divorce and remarry the wife or husband that they married for life before God? The Catholics who committed the same sin are legion in Hell, AND yet YOPIOS delude themselves that they are saved?
All those sins AND YOPIOS "are saved", and YOPIOS carry on about the pope kissing the Koran?
I think that YOPIOS will debate about every letter in scripture and argue about anything JUST TO KEEP THE LIGHT OF TRUTH FROM SHINING on the real quaetions of life.
YOPIOS can't even decide if Saturday or Sunday is the Lord's Day. That says it all.
What a silly response. It is transparently obvious that you seek only to tar the whole with the supposed or real (and the difference between such seems not to matter to you) sin/sins of any one part. I suppose it will have some effect on the weak-minded - for which shame on you. In the Cold War years the Soviets called this tactic “dezinformatsia,” active measures. They used it both to set the various western powers against each other and the third world nations against the first world nations. But the end, in their mind, justified the means ... and the terrible toll to all the little people. It was despicable and dishonorable then, and remains so. It is the more so in this case since you seek to associate such tactics with the Lord and His church.
Go back to your YOPIOS cereal, Mikey.
Too little and too late. No prolixity of propaganda from those who cannot allow that Rome’s IM could be wrong, and thus cannot allow that one could objectively disagree with Rome, can justify her. Her basis for her supremacist claim is still herself, and the assuredly inspired authority on truth reproves her,
Appeal to him from the Bible, reason, private sentiment, and he appeals to the church and its declarations (and requires implicit faith in it), and propaganda, while misrepresenting the opposition. Convict him by facts, and he resorts to skepticism (of facts that show the poor condition of Catholics) and to personal attacks.
At least your former Presbyterian, Universalist, Transcendentalist, Bible critic, then Catholic political conservative, but whose liberal views got him into trouble with the Catholic hierarchy, and for being overly critical in defense of the Catholic Church, extolled highly the literary excellence of the King James Version.
You YOPIOS can't even agree which day is the Lord's Day, Saturday or Sunday?
Is Jesus Christ 100% equal to God the Father, is the Holy Ghost? You don't agree!
You don't agree on anything but eluding Catholicism. The pope kissed the Koran? I'm not defending that.
YOPIOS contracepted millions upon millions who will never even have eternal anything. The Catholics who committed the same sin are legion in Hell, AND yet YOPIOS delude themselves that they are saved?
Which YOPIOS would not tell their single daughter to get a secret abortion to hide their shame? The Catholics who committed the same sin are legion in Hell, AND yet YOPIOS delude themselves that they are saved?
Which YOPIOS would not divorce and remarry the wife or husband that they married for life before God? The Catholics who committed the same sin are legion in Hell, AND yet YOPIOS delude themselves that they are saved?
All those sins AND YOPIOS "are saved", and YOPIOS carry on about the pope kissing the Koran?
I think that YOPIOS will debate about every letter in scripture and argue about anything JUST TO KEEP THE LIGHT OF TRUTH FROM SHINING on the real quaetions of life.
YOPIOS can't even decide if Saturday or Sunday is the Lord's Day. That says it all.
Leoni expectorated:
“Silly? NOT!”
On reflection I have decided you are right. Your previous response to me was not silly. It was instead both bilious and fatuous. Since you are so well read, I’m sure you will not have to look up the definitions of those two words.
YOPIOS breakfast cereal “... let’s give it to Mikey. He hates everything. (brief pause) He likes it!”
He refuses to interact with Sola Scriptura and continues to beat strawman SOLO scriptura to a pulp. It is apparent that Leoni's final authority is the RCC, period.
He/she is trusting the church for salvation, trusting that the church is infallible, saving him from having to perform any due diligence in checking out her claims.
No amount of evidence will matter in the slightest to Leoni. The church says to jump and Leoni asks, how high?
It is actually tragic. There will be no hiding behind the "one true church" as an excuse for not believing the Gospel of Grace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.