Replies

Not meaning to neglect the specifics of your comment (#507), but: when you quote Westminster and previous posts, I see a great deal of good and noble sentiment (cf. “Wow, how awesome and useful is Scripture! How exalted! How sublime!” And no faithful Catholic would disagree with you. I don’t.), but no raw data to prove that it is (or claims to be able) to be used ALONE, much less that it’s sufficient for SALVATION when used alone.

This is what really baffles me about the approach of some non-Catholics (especilly anti-Catholic-Church non-Catholics): they string together literally dozens (if not hundreds) of Scripture citations which show how often Scripture was used by Jesus, by the evangelists, by St. Paul, and so on. They then string together dozens or hundreds of instances where Scripture says to have faith, and that we are saved through faith, and so on.

The faithful, well-informed Catholic is left (if he isn’t exasperated, yet) scratching his head and wondering, “Are we having the same conversation?” What’s the point of emphasizing the IMPORTANCE of Scripture and Faith (and they certainly are), over and over, when the topic is whether these two things are to be used (as per Luther’s view) ALONE?

It goes a bit like this:

Catholic: “Why do you believe in sola Scriptura?”

Non-Catholic: “Because Scripture is the Word of God!”

C: “I agree. But why do you believe in SOLA Scriptura?”

NC: “Because Scripture says that Scripture is vitally important, useful, God-breathed, inerrant, etc.”

C: “You still haven’t said why you need to use it ALONE, to the extent that you condemn anyone else’s practice of using other things such as Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.) and the teaching of the Church (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.), even though Scripture attests to them and endorses them (and even requires them)!”

NC: “Because all such tradition is the same as the content found in the Bible! And because the Church is the entire body of believers, not some hierarchy in Rome!”

C: “Care to prove those two assertions? I see those assertions nowhere in Scripture, and they’re awfully convenient ones for your argument.”

How I wish I could rent a billboard, and put in blazing letters upon it for all anti-Catholic-Church people to see:

WE UNDERSTAND THAT SCRIPTURE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH. COULD YOU PLEASE STOP POSTING SCRIPTURES WHICH SAY THOSE? WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE IDEA THAT EITHER OF THEM ARE SUFFICIENT TO BE USED *ALONE*, AND WHY YOU THINK THOSE WHO DO *NOT* USE THEM ALONE ARE *WRONG*!!!

No amount of Scriptures telling of the importance of Scripture (or long lists of Scriptures telling how important people used Scriptures a lot, for important things) will address that question AT ALL. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand, about that! EVERY time I’ve ever had a forum discussion about “sola” ANYTHING (in the Luther-esque sense), SOMEONE trots out long lists or dissertations about how IMPORTANT Scripture and Faith are (honestly, I know!), and how we are saved by faith (honestly, I *know*!)... but no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that Scripture ALONE (much less the truncated 66-book fragment of the Scriptures) is the sole guide to faith (or whatever variant on that definition you’d like to use on sola Scriptura)... and no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that we are saved by faith ALONE.

Note the word “ALONE”? THAT is the issue for Catholics. Not “Scripture” (yes, it’s vital). Not faith (yes, we know that we’re saved by/through faith in Jesus Christ). Address the concept embodied by the little five-letter word “ALONE”, please.

when you quote Westminster and previous posts, I see a great deal of good and noble sentiment ...but no raw data to prove that it is (or claims to be able) to be used ALONE, much less that it’s sufficient for SALVATION when used alone.

Are you still engaging in your SS straw man, so that SS negates the warrant for the teaching office of the church, which Westminster affirms? And do you believe that since the Reformers held that Scripture is the one sufficient standard for faith then they had no use for the writings of the ancients? Or is it your definition of sufficiency the problem? More on this further on.

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings” (From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men...not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same;... - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

However, do you really believe that one cannot read a text such as Peter's sermon in Acts 10:36-43 and become born again? What part of "able to make thee wise concerning salvation" (which has a fuller sense here) means it cannot?

You also did not answer my questions in the post you are responding to, which is necessary for your alternative for SS.

C: “I agree. But why do you believe in SOLA Scriptura?” NC: “Because Scripture says that Scripture is vitally important, useful, God-breathed, inerrant, etc.”

So what other objective transcendent comprehensive body of Truth is said to be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally used to make one completely equipped for every good work? And as the assured word of God, is alive and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

And was the source which oral preaching of the word of God was subject to?

"Infallible" decrees? The CCC? The magisterium? The writings of tradition? Note that the sufficiency of Scripture provides for the church and preaching.

“You still haven’t said why you need to use it ALONE, to the extent that you condemn anyone else’s practice of using other things such as Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.)

So you think SS precludes obedience to oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, versus that of preaching that which is not in Scripture but which is said to be binding Truth even 1800 years after a claimed event which lacks early "trustworthy" evidence, but the veracity of which is based upon the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility?

Since even Westminster affirms such things as the light of nature and the magisterial office, and Reformers made use of writings of the ancients language in understanding Scripture, and evangelicals have produced extensive commentaries on Scripture, then such as language as the Scriptures needing no other supplement must refer to another source of wholly inspired Divine revelation, not merely sources that contain truth.

Even if a so-called infallible decree is true, it is not wholly inspired Divine revelation, while i do not see SS as necessarily denying that which is supplied via spiritual gifts such as prophesying, but which does not add to the standard of Scripture, and the veracity of which is subject to Scripture as alone being the standard for faith, and which provides for these gifts (though much much abused).

In contrast, what Rome decrees is not subject to Scripture, as having declared herself infallible, Scripture can only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says it does, and which cannot contradict her. For according to herself, the church cannot err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals that all must believe or practice, while not even any non-infallible teachings can err to the extent that they would lead the faithful away from salvation. Which premise of ensured magisterial veracity is not how God preserved Truth and faith in Scripture, as instead He often raised up men from without the magisterium to do so.

Thus what I see as the problem is idea of the sola of Scripture, and the unScriptural nature of your effective alternative, that of sola ecclesia.

and the teaching of the Church (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.), even though Scripture attests to them and endorses them (and even requires them)!”

So you still believe the SS straw man that it excludes the magisterial office, or that of a perpetually ensured infallible magisterium that thus can make extra Scriptural traditions of men binding doctrine?

More questions: Did the church begin under the premise of the latter, or by Scriptural substantiation? And how is the tradition of Rome the same as what Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc? How do you know that? Does Rome speak under the full inspiration of the Spirit in providing new revelation that is equal to Scripture in authority?

NC: “Because all such tradition is the same as the content found in the Bible! And because the Church is the entire body of believers, not some hierarchy in Rome!” C: “Care to prove those two assertions? I see those assertions nowhere in Scripture, and they’re awfully convenient ones for your argument.”

Care to prove that what is referred to as oral traditions were not subsequently written, or were not that of Scriptural Truths contained in what was written?

Can you even tell me what oral tradition precisely is and consists of, and of its beginning and end, and where Rome teaches it under the full inspiration of the Spirit, thus being equal with Scripture?

And that the one true Church is not the body of Christ, the household of faith, which only consists of believers, versus one visible church in which believers express their faith but which is an admixture of sheep and goats?

and no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that we are saved by faith ALONE.

Which is either like an atheist claiming he cannot see evidence of God, or a thief who cannot find a police station, or it is the typical strawman of sola ecclesia. For while Abraham had done good works before Gn. 15:6, yet when faced with something he simply could not do, Scripture plainly states that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Nor does Rm. 4 simply exclude works of the Law, as Eph. 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5 do not refer to simply these, but the use of the Law is because "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

In contrast, under Roman soteriology, God justifieth the Godly, as one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness,” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) normally initially "infused" via regeneration effected by the act itself of sprinkling of water (ex opere operato), thus at that point the newly baptized is fit to enter Heaven. Thus Abraham must have become born again in Gn. 15:6.

However, due to failure to maintain this and as justification is based one one's own holiness, then under the Roman system of salvation, the RC (the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome) typically must endure postmortem "purifying torments" for an indeterminate time in purgatory until they atone for sins and once again become good enough to enter Heaven.

James also invokes Gn. 15:6 in teaching that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:24) which would be a contradiction of both Moses and Paul is speaking of being justified in the same sense. But while Paul is dealing with what actually appropriates justification, the merit of works or faith being counted as righteousness (yet not as merely being a white washed sinner, but one whose heart is purified by faith), James is dealing with the manner of faith that justifies, and which must be the kind of faith which effect obedience.

And which (to the chagrin of Caths) reformers taught that faith is:

a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99] More.

Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, but which is most manifest among RCs, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

Thanks for the occasion to better clarify what "alone" should refer to in both SS and SE.

Happy Valentine's day; you guys!!