Clarifying sola Scriptura

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 28452
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by coco » Sat May 05, 2018 4:14 pm

wosbald wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 6:22 am
+JMJ+
coco wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:46 pm
The Protestant might respond that it matters little what you think is a better system if your favored system is not indeed what God has put in place. …
Why do you keep bringing the "centrism" — the crux of the issue — back to "God" and not back to "Jesus"? Jesus may well be God, but in this instance, this seems beside the point, since you certainly don't seem to be appealing to that which Jesus "put in place".

IOW, is Protestantism prepared to make the claim that Jesus "put the Bible in place"? (And that thus — Jesus being God — God can be said to have "put the Bible in place"?)

And if not, does that mean that Protestantism's centrality — that place from which it begins it's "way forward", as you said — would not be a Christocentric place, but rather, some other sort of centrality? A "God-centrality" or Theocentric position? Or some other sort of centrality perhaps?
I was not attempting to make a fine point about the work of the persons of the Trinity. I was attempting to say that the American consumerist mentality does not provide a proper epistemic foundation for one's choices concerning ultimate belief. Of course, it is hard to see my point without the context (which you cut out).
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 21142
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by FredS » Sun May 06, 2018 7:42 am

Del wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 10:24 pm
coco wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:46 pm
j1n wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:05 pm
coco wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:16 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
The question is not whether or not differences of opinion exist, the question is the way forward. Protestants say that God has given no higher authority than the Bible (his very word), while Catholics say that the church itself is meant to provide authoritative interpretation.
Coco, I forget what tradition you are coming from. I guess knowing that would put your response into better context for me.
As someone who has been through MANY different Protestant denoms, non-denoms, sects, etc, I can honestly say that I think it's a much better system to have someone (or a council/organization) to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what Scripture is saying. Ive witnessed men with particular biases teaching their slant based on those biases. I'd hazard a guess that of the multitude of Protestant groups, sub-groups, and sects, there are about a million different things being taught. I'm in the process of inquiring (and then RCIA) with the Catholic Church. I feel like there is a foundation there that puts us in contact with what Jesus and his disciples taught. And I think that connection is the way forward.
The Protestant might respond that it matters little what you think is a better system if your favored system is not indeed what God has put in place. The Catholic might respond that God leads and guides one church and one only, and to abandon that church at your own peril. Which is right? Why?
Well.... the Bible tells us that Jesus established one Church, and that Church is not supposed to have factions and divisions. And we know that this Church was given a sacred Scripture, "The Bible." And that's how we know the Bible is inspired by God -- because the Church says so.

And the Bible itself says that this Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

So if I believe what the Bible says and I want to be sure of what the Bible means, then I have to cling to that Church which Jesus founded.

And not go looking at some other Church, founded by somebody who wasn't Jesus, claiming that the "the Bible says something different" from what Jesus's Apostles taught.

And then we look for a miracle or two to help confirm our faith. We note that the Western Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still very similar keeping our Apostolic faith, in spite of a thousand years of schism and separation. No human institution can match this.

In contrast, the Protestant sects diverged like shrapnel from a hand grenade a mere decade after Martin Luther's initial rebellion. It was like the Tower of Babel.

That's why this thread exists, until this day -- because the fundamentalism of American Evangelicals is so very different from the Sola Scriptura of the Protestant Fathers.
You've very conveniently dismissed the differences in Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy with the wave of your hand because it's easier to claim they combine to make the one true church than it is to explain how they can both be parts of the true church but no others can be. Dire Straights sing that "two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong". I see the same thing in your argument here.

Then you wrap up by saying the modern Protestant church has moved away from the Protestant Fathers. In their day, the Protestant Fathers made that exact claim against the Catholic Church. Irony much?
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19272
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by wosbald » Sun May 06, 2018 12:56 pm

+JMJ+
coco wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 4:14 pm
I was not attempting to make a fine point about the work of the persons of the Trinity. …
To reiterate and perhaps clarify …

J1N's point seemed to be that the Catholic claim (i.e. Jesus instituting a historical Church as the "favored system") simply makes reasonable sense.

Basically, as I see it, you put the Catholic claim into question without offering a an explicit counterclaim of your own. That is, at least, not a Christocentric counterclaim (e.g. claiming that Jesus "put the Bible in place" as the "favored system").

However, it seems to me that you'd vaguely staked a counterclaim. A claim which elided any talk of the Trinitarian Persons and their historical missions and which, instead, appealed straightaway to the Divinity writ large (i.e. the "favored system" which GOD ALLCAPS "put in place"). Which is why I'd hesitantly labeled this a "Theocentric" claim, as being distinct from a Christocentric claim.

IOW, I'm simply trying to find out what sort of counterclaim you're advancing as against Catholic claims. Or barring that, whether you're trying to avoid making any sort of counterclaim whatsoever and are, instead, simply content to cast suspicion upon Catholic claims.

Or something else entirely?
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37504
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Del » Sun May 06, 2018 4:45 pm

FredS wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 7:42 am
Then you wrap up by saying the modern Protestant church has moved away from the Protestant Fathers. In their day, the Protestant Fathers made that exact claim against the Catholic Church. Irony much?
It is profoundly ironic, I agree.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19272
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by wosbald » Sun May 06, 2018 5:00 pm

+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:45 pm
FredS wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 7:42 am
Then you wrap up by saying the modern Protestant church has moved away from the Protestant Fathers. In their day, the Protestant Fathers made that exact claim against the Catholic Church. Irony much?
It is profoundly ironic, I agree.
Image
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13053
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tuttle » Mon May 07, 2018 7:42 am

Del wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:45 pm
FredS wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 7:42 am
Then you wrap up by saying the modern Protestant church has moved away from the Protestant Fathers. In their day, the Protestant Fathers made that exact claim against the Catholic Church. Irony much?
It is profoundly ironic, I agree.
I'd agree as well, but I also think this was the only realistic thing from Del's post. Frankly, I'm shocked that that kind of keen observation popped up at the end of such an erroneous post.

Image
"Do mo betta." -FredS

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21778
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Thunktank » Mon May 07, 2018 10:19 am

wosbald wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:00 pm
+JMJ+
Del wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:45 pm
FredS wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 7:42 am
Then you wrap up by saying the modern Protestant church has moved away from the Protestant Fathers. In their day, the Protestant Fathers made that exact claim against the Catholic Church. Irony much?
It is profoundly ironic, I agree.
Image
Oh for Pete’s sake!

The Protestants had good reason for believing that you know? I’m sure this is hard for you two to comprehend though. :wink:

Anyway, this historic rehash of proper authority only seems to matter to partisans these days.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Jester » Tue May 08, 2018 8:45 am

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
1:1 The Holy Scriptures
(a)The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
2 Timothy 3:15-17- "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Isaiah 8:20- "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." (same dawn used in 2 Peter 1:19,20 below)

Luke 16:29, 31- "But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ ..., He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (I think Jesus really preaches on Sola Scriptura right here if anyone was still looking for it in Scripture.)

Ephesians 2:20- "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"
(b)The light of nature and the works of creation and providence so clearly demonstrate the goodness, wisdom, and power of God that people are left without excuse; however, these demonstrations are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that is necessary for salvation.
(I think we agree here that nature reveals God's existence but that information alone is not sufficient for salvation. Please let me know if you disagree.)
Romans 1:19-21
Romans 2:14,15
Psalm 19:1-3
(c)Therefore the Lord was pleased at different times and in various ways to reveal Himself and to declare His will to the church.
Hebrews 1:1 -"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,"
(d)To preserve and propagate the truth better and to establish and comfort the church with greater certainty against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world, the Lord put this revelation completely in writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are absolutely necessary, because God's former ways of revealing His will to His people have now ceased.
Proverbs 22:19-21 -"That your trust may be in the LORD, I have made them known to you today, even to you. Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge, to make you know what is right and true, that you may give a true answer to those who sent you?"

Romans 15:4- "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

2 Peter 1:19,20 -"And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation."
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
Dug
Biff
Biff
Posts: 8996
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:00 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Dug » Tue May 08, 2018 9:10 am

j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old
Pfft. By 2013, that was already a well-worn CPS rut. :-D
Dug wrote:
Wed May 13, 2009 11:03 pm
There have been so many cartoons thrown around lately (and I'm not saying they're all in one direction) that I can't hope to respond meaningfully given my dearth of non-work time. But I did want to clarify a few points:

In Catholic teaching (and, although I don't presume to speak for them, I think what I'm saying here applies to Orthodox teaching as well), Tradition does not exist apart from or "over" Sacred Scripture. Together they form the depositum fidei -- the deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit and entrusted by the Apostles to the Church. Catholic teaching is -- and must be -- faithful to the Bible. If you want to see what the Catholic Church teaches about this, have a look at these sections of the Catechism:
Holy Scripture
The Transmission of Divine Revelation

Tradition is not whispered, secret knowledge, like the gnostic heresies combatted by the early Church Fathers. If you want to rassle with it, it would probably be more fruitful and intelligible to consider Sacred Tradition in some of its concrete forms -- such as the Canon, liturgy, and Church Councils.

Also, the Church's exercise of its authoritative teaching office (the Magisterium) is not some exercise of naked, willful fiat, as some early comments implied. Just because the Church's decision is binding, doesn't mean that there is not deeply Scriptural deliberation that goes into that process. For example, the interpretive approach that PipeAndPint endorses, of interpreting individual Scriptural texts in light of the whole Canon, is an ancient Catholic exigetical approach. Similarly, the substance of the Catholic Church's deliberations that went into its authoritative definition of the Canon was not primarily "because we say so." They worked to discern what books had legitimate claim to Apostolic authority, weighing numerous factors, historical provenance, etc. But once the Church decided, that decision was authoritative. And what ultimately ensured the correctness of that decision was not an exegetical or evidentiary algorithm (which history shows cannot compel agreement or unanimity), but the leading of the Holy Spirit, pledged by our Lord to the Church to lead it "into all truth" and to safeguard its unity. (To take the Canon example, my recollection is that six books that ultimately were defined as part of the NT were disputed by some, and there were other books excluded from the NT Canon that had supporters. Do any here believe that individual believers have the God-given warrant to define their own Canons of Scripture?)

Anyhow, it's late and I'm starting to ramble.
coco wrote:
Dug wrote:and remembering all of us in prayer.
Thanks.

Seriously.
You're welcome, and I would be very thankful for your prayers, also, coco.

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21778
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 08, 2018 9:26 pm

Dug wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 9:10 am
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old
Pfft. By 2013, that was already a well-worn CPS rut. :-D
Dug wrote:
Wed May 13, 2009 11:03 pm
There have been so many cartoons thrown around lately (and I'm not saying they're all in one direction) that I can't hope to respond meaningfully given my dearth of non-work time. But I did want to clarify a few points:

In Catholic teaching (and, although I don't presume to speak for them, I think what I'm saying here applies to Orthodox teaching as well), Tradition does not exist apart from or "over" Sacred Scripture. Together they form the depositum fidei -- the deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit and entrusted by the Apostles to the Church. Catholic teaching is -- and must be -- faithful to the Bible. If you want to see what the Catholic Church teaches about this, have a look at these sections of the Catechism:
Holy Scripture
The Transmission of Divine Revelation

Tradition is not whispered, secret knowledge, like the gnostic heresies combatted by the early Church Fathers. If you want to rassle with it, it would probably be more fruitful and intelligible to consider Sacred Tradition in some of its concrete forms -- such as the Canon, liturgy, and Church Councils.

Also, the Church's exercise of its authoritative teaching office (the Magisterium) is not some exercise of naked, willful fiat, as some early comments implied. Just because the Church's decision is binding, doesn't mean that there is not deeply Scriptural deliberation that goes into that process. For example, the interpretive approach that PipeAndPint endorses, of interpreting individual Scriptural texts in light of the whole Canon, is an ancient Catholic exigetical approach. Similarly, the substance of the Catholic Church's deliberations that went into its authoritative definition of the Canon was not primarily "because we say so." They worked to discern what books had legitimate claim to Apostolic authority, weighing numerous factors, historical provenance, etc. But once the Church decided, that decision was authoritative. And what ultimately ensured the correctness of that decision was not an exegetical or evidentiary algorithm (which history shows cannot compel agreement or unanimity), but the leading of the Holy Spirit, pledged by our Lord to the Church to lead it "into all truth" and to safeguard its unity. (To take the Canon example, my recollection is that six books that ultimately were defined as part of the NT were disputed by some, and there were other books excluded from the NT Canon that had supporters. Do any here believe that individual believers have the God-given warrant to define their own Canons of Scripture?)

Anyhow, it's late and I'm starting to ramble.
coco wrote:
Dug wrote:and remembering all of us in prayer.
Thanks.

Seriously.
You're welcome, and I would be very thankful for your prayers, also, coco.
Hey Dug, how about taking some time and giving us an update on you in a new thread?
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17382
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by TNLawPiper » Wed May 09, 2018 7:08 am

Dug wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 9:10 am
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old
Pfft. By 2013, that was already a well-worn CPS rut. :-D
Dug wrote:
Wed May 13, 2009 11:03 pm
There have been so many cartoons thrown around lately (and I'm not saying they're all in one direction) that I can't hope to respond meaningfully given my dearth of non-work time. But I did want to clarify a few points:

In Catholic teaching (and, although I don't presume to speak for them, I think what I'm saying here applies to Orthodox teaching as well), Tradition does not exist apart from or "over" Sacred Scripture. Together they form the depositum fidei -- the deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit and entrusted by the Apostles to the Church. Catholic teaching is -- and must be -- faithful to the Bible. If you want to see what the Catholic Church teaches about this, have a look at these sections of the Catechism:
Holy Scripture
The Transmission of Divine Revelation

Tradition is not whispered, secret knowledge, like the gnostic heresies combatted by the early Church Fathers. If you want to rassle with it, it would probably be more fruitful and intelligible to consider Sacred Tradition in some of its concrete forms -- such as the Canon, liturgy, and Church Councils.

Also, the Church's exercise of its authoritative teaching office (the Magisterium) is not some exercise of naked, willful fiat, as some early comments implied. Just because the Church's decision is binding, doesn't mean that there is not deeply Scriptural deliberation that goes into that process. For example, the interpretive approach that PipeAndPint endorses, of interpreting individual Scriptural texts in light of the whole Canon, is an ancient Catholic exigetical approach. Similarly, the substance of the Catholic Church's deliberations that went into its authoritative definition of the Canon was not primarily "because we say so." They worked to discern what books had legitimate claim to Apostolic authority, weighing numerous factors, historical provenance, etc. But once the Church decided, that decision was authoritative. And what ultimately ensured the correctness of that decision was not an exegetical or evidentiary algorithm (which history shows cannot compel agreement or unanimity), but the leading of the Holy Spirit, pledged by our Lord to the Church to lead it "into all truth" and to safeguard its unity. (To take the Canon example, my recollection is that six books that ultimately were defined as part of the NT were disputed by some, and there were other books excluded from the NT Canon that had supporters. Do any here believe that individual believers have the God-given warrant to define their own Canons of Scripture?)

Anyhow, it's late and I'm starting to ramble.
coco wrote:
Dug wrote:and remembering all of us in prayer.
Thanks.

Seriously.
You're welcome, and I would be very thankful for your prayers, also, coco.
I miss Dug.

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13053
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tuttle » Wed May 09, 2018 7:42 am

TNLawPiper wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 7:08 am
Dug wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 9:10 am
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old
Pfft. By 2013, that was already a well-worn CPS rut. :-D
Dug wrote:
Wed May 13, 2009 11:03 pm
There have been so many cartoons thrown around lately (and I'm not saying they're all in one direction) that I can't hope to respond meaningfully given my dearth of non-work time. But I did want to clarify a few points:

In Catholic teaching (and, although I don't presume to speak for them, I think what I'm saying here applies to Orthodox teaching as well), Tradition does not exist apart from or "over" Sacred Scripture. Together they form the depositum fidei -- the deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit and entrusted by the Apostles to the Church. Catholic teaching is -- and must be -- faithful to the Bible. If you want to see what the Catholic Church teaches about this, have a look at these sections of the Catechism:
Holy Scripture
The Transmission of Divine Revelation

Tradition is not whispered, secret knowledge, like the gnostic heresies combatted by the early Church Fathers. If you want to rassle with it, it would probably be more fruitful and intelligible to consider Sacred Tradition in some of its concrete forms -- such as the Canon, liturgy, and Church Councils.

Also, the Church's exercise of its authoritative teaching office (the Magisterium) is not some exercise of naked, willful fiat, as some early comments implied. Just because the Church's decision is binding, doesn't mean that there is not deeply Scriptural deliberation that goes into that process. For example, the interpretive approach that PipeAndPint endorses, of interpreting individual Scriptural texts in light of the whole Canon, is an ancient Catholic exigetical approach. Similarly, the substance of the Catholic Church's deliberations that went into its authoritative definition of the Canon was not primarily "because we say so." They worked to discern what books had legitimate claim to Apostolic authority, weighing numerous factors, historical provenance, etc. But once the Church decided, that decision was authoritative. And what ultimately ensured the correctness of that decision was not an exegetical or evidentiary algorithm (which history shows cannot compel agreement or unanimity), but the leading of the Holy Spirit, pledged by our Lord to the Church to lead it "into all truth" and to safeguard its unity. (To take the Canon example, my recollection is that six books that ultimately were defined as part of the NT were disputed by some, and there were other books excluded from the NT Canon that had supporters. Do any here believe that individual believers have the God-given warrant to define their own Canons of Scripture?)

Anyhow, it's late and I'm starting to ramble.
coco wrote:
Dug wrote:and remembering all of us in prayer.
Thanks.

Seriously.
You're welcome, and I would be very thankful for your prayers, also, coco.
I miss Dug.
I dig Dug.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37504
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Del » Wed May 09, 2018 9:10 am

Jester wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 8:45 am
The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
1:1 The Holy Scriptures
(a)The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
2 Timothy 3:15-17- "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Isaiah 8:20- "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." (same dawn used in 2 Peter 1:19,20 below)

Luke 16:29, 31- "But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ ..., He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (I think Jesus really preaches on Sola Scriptura right here if anyone was still looking for it in Scripture.)

Ephesians 2:20- "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"
(b)The light of nature and the works of creation and providence so clearly demonstrate the goodness, wisdom, and power of God that people are left without excuse; however, these demonstrations are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that is necessary for salvation.
(I think we agree here that nature reveals God's existence but that information alone is not sufficient for salvation. Please let me know if you disagree.)
Romans 1:19-21
Romans 2:14,15
Psalm 19:1-3
(c)Therefore the Lord was pleased at different times and in various ways to reveal Himself and to declare His will to the church.
Hebrews 1:1 -"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,"
(d)To preserve and propagate the truth better and to establish and comfort the church with greater certainty against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world, the Lord put this revelation completely in writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are absolutely necessary, because God's former ways of revealing His will to His people have now ceased.
Proverbs 22:19-21 -"That your trust may be in the LORD, I have made them known to you today, even to you. Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge, to make you know what is right and true, that you may give a true answer to those who sent you?"

Romans 15:4- "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

2 Peter 1:19,20 -"And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation."
This is a strange post, friend Jester. And I say this with deep respect for the work you have done.

No one in this thread doubts the authority of Scripture. Everyone accepts what Scripture says about its own authority. We all believe in the verses that you list.

And we all agree that natural reason and philosophy is very powerful, but we cannot know God fully until He reveals Himself. Scripture is a very useful part of that revelation.

It's just that the Sola has caused so many errors and factions and things that are condemned by Scripture. That is why there are so many verses in Scripture which insist that Scripture is not the only authority.


Let's examine one of your particular examples:
Jester wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 8:45 am
Luke 16:29, 31- "But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ ..., He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (I think Jesus really preaches on Sola Scriptura right here if anyone was still looking for it in Scripture.)
I don't see why you think this is Jesus, preaching Sola Scriptura. Jesus does not mention Scriptures at all. Jesus refers to "Moses and the Prophets" and that is what He meant... because the Jews did not live by sola scriptura. They had an Sacred Tradition of both oral tradition and divine teaching authority, just as Christ established in His Church.

An example of oral tradition preserving the Prophets:
Matt 2:23 wrote: And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Jesus fulfilled another "bible" prophecy! Only problem -- this prophecy is nowhere recorded in the Old Testament. Check the footnotes in your study Bible. This bit of divine inspiration was preserved in the oral tradition of the Jews. Yet we know it is true, because the Holy Spirit inspired this to be included in the Gospel. (Just as Christians preserved much of what we know about Mary -- her perpetual virginity and her assumption into heaven. We save this stuff, same as we saved the Scriptures, because the Holy Spirit leads us to do so.)

An example of Divine Teaching Authority:
Matt 23:1-3 wrote: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
Note: There is also no mention of "Moses' Seat" in the Old Testament. This recognition of divine authority by Jesus also comes from the sacred oral tradition of the Jews.

But more importantly, Jesus admits that the scribes and Pharisees, though wicked, still teach with a divinely guided authority. Jesus tells His disciples that they must follow whatever those in "Moses' seat" tell them to do. Moses is gone, but his authority abides.

This is why it is still matters that Jesus established His Church upon Peter, and gave Peter the "keys" with the authority of "binding and loosing." He was saying to Peter, "I will establish a new kingdom. You and your successors will sit upon My seat." That is why we respect the offices of Pope and Bishop, even when the guys were wicked. We continue to trust that the Holy Spirit guards His Truth, even when men are sinful.
=========================================

The thing that we do not find anywhere in Scripture or in sacred history -- is a teaching that we are supposed to rely on Scripture alone.

"Sola" Scriptura is a man-made doctrine that is imposed as if it came from God. We can't do that. And because it quickly resulted in numerous factions and splinters and schisms, we are forced to admit that the experiment failed.

If the old, wicked Catholic Church had fallen into ruin -- and the Reformed Church had ascended as a great unity of holiness -- that would be the great sign that the Reformation Fathers had gotten it right.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Jester » Wed May 09, 2018 10:01 am

Del wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:10 am
Jester wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 8:45 am
The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
1:1 The Holy Scriptures
(a)The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
2 Timothy 3:15-17- "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Isaiah 8:20- "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." (same dawn used in 2 Peter 1:19,20 below)

Luke 16:29, 31- "But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ ..., He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (I think Jesus really preaches on Sola Scriptura right here if anyone was still looking for it in Scripture.)

Ephesians 2:20- "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"
(b)The light of nature and the works of creation and providence so clearly demonstrate the goodness, wisdom, and power of God that people are left without excuse; however, these demonstrations are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that is necessary for salvation.
(I think we agree here that nature reveals God's existence but that information alone is not sufficient for salvation. Please let me know if you disagree.)
Romans 1:19-21
Romans 2:14,15
Psalm 19:1-3
(c)Therefore the Lord was pleased at different times and in various ways to reveal Himself and to declare His will to the church.
Hebrews 1:1 -"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,"
(d)To preserve and propagate the truth better and to establish and comfort the church with greater certainty against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world, the Lord put this revelation completely in writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are absolutely necessary, because God's former ways of revealing His will to His people have now ceased.
Proverbs 22:19-21 -"That your trust may be in the LORD, I have made them known to you today, even to you. Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge, to make you know what is right and true, that you may give a true answer to those who sent you?"

Romans 15:4- "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

2 Peter 1:19,20 -"And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation."
This is a strange post, friend Jester. And I say this with deep respect for the work you have done.

No one in this thread doubts the authority of Scripture. Everyone accepts what Scripture says about its own authority. We all believe in the verses that you list.

And we all agree that natural reason and philosophy is very powerful, but we cannot know God fully until He reveals Himself. Scripture is a very useful part of that revelation.

It's just that the Sola has caused so many errors and factions and things that are condemned by Scripture. That is why there are so many verses in Scripture which insist that Scripture is not the only authority.


Let's examine one of your particular examples:
Jester wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 8:45 am
Luke 16:29, 31- "But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ ..., He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (I think Jesus really preaches on Sola Scriptura right here if anyone was still looking for it in Scripture.)
I don't see why you think this is Jesus, preaching Sola Scriptura. Jesus does not mention Scriptures at all. Jesus refers to "Moses and the Prophets" and that is what He meant... because the Jews did not live by sola scriptura. They had an Sacred Tradition of both oral tradition and divine teaching authority, just as Christ established in His Church.

An example of oral tradition preserving the Prophets:
Matt 2:23 wrote: And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Jesus fulfilled another "bible" prophecy! Only problem -- this prophecy is nowhere recorded in the Old Testament. Check the footnotes in your study Bible. This bit of divine inspiration was preserved in the oral tradition of the Jews. Yet we know it is true, because the Holy Spirit inspired this to be included in the Gospel. (Just as Christians preserved much of what we know about Mary -- her perpetual virginity and her assumption into heaven. We save this stuff, same as we saved the Scriptures, because the Holy Spirit leads us to do so.)

An example of Divine Teaching Authority:
Matt 23:1-3 wrote: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
Note: There is also no mention of "Moses' Seat" in the Old Testament. This recognition of divine authority by Jesus also comes from the sacred oral tradition of the Jews.

But more importantly, Jesus admits that the scribes and Pharisees, though wicked, still teach with a divinely guided authority. Jesus tells His disciples that they must follow whatever those in "Moses' seat" tell them to do. Moses is gone, but his authority abides.

This is why it is still matters that Jesus established His Church upon Peter, and gave Peter the "keys" with the authority of "binding and loosing." He was saying to Peter, "I will establish a new kingdom. You and your successors will sit upon My seat." That is why we respect the offices of Pope and Bishop, even when the guys were wicked. We continue to trust that the Holy Spirit guards His Truth, even when men are sinful.
=========================================

The thing that we do not find anywhere in Scripture or in sacred history -- is a teaching that we are supposed to rely on Scripture alone.

"Sola" Scriptura is a man-made doctrine that is imposed as if it came from God. We can't do that. And because it quickly resulted in numerous factions and splinters and schisms, we are forced to admit that the experiment failed.

If the old, wicked Catholic Church had fallen into ruin -- and the Reformed Church had ascended as a great unity of holiness -- that would be the great sign that the Reformation Fathers had gotten it right.
Moses and the Prophets is a direct reference to scripture. It can also be translated to the Law and the Prophets. In fact Jesus is telling them, "You have Moses and the Prophets."

Paul goes on this same line when he is talking to Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:15-17- "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

It may seem strange to you Del. The same way a lot of the Mary Alone thread seems strange to me. I will continue down this route but not to argue with you but to Clarify Sola Scriptura.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
Goose55
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 7213
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:44 pm
Location: Southern Arizona, U.S.A.

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Goose55 » Wed May 09, 2018 10:20 am

I think what is most important in viewing scripture is that it has a mysterious power. Christ in John Ch 1 is called "The Word of God, and the Word became flesh." Whoever reads scripture with an open mind & heart will be transformed. And yes, there are times when the scripture must be interpreted by another, such as was the case with the Ethiopian eunuch.

Ephesians ...
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. "
"At present we're on the wrong side of the door. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so." ~ C.S. Lewis

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17382
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by TNLawPiper » Wed May 09, 2018 10:23 am

Which Scriptura is the Scriptura on which Sola Scriptura stands? The Scriptura that includes the Deuterocanon, or no?

And why did God stop the direct revelation a few decades after Christ died?

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Jester » Wed May 09, 2018 10:24 am

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
1:2 (lists all books of the Bible)
1:3 (Gives explanation of why we don't include the Apocrypha, this is an interesting discussion I am skipping over because it does not help clarify Sola Scriptura.)
1:4 The authority of the Holy Scriptures obligates belief in them. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church but on God the author alone, who is truth itself. Therefore the Scriptures are to be received because they are the Word of God.
2 Peter 1:19-21- "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Timothy 3:16- "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

1 Thessalonians 2:13- "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

1 John 5:9- "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son."
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13053
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tuttle » Wed May 09, 2018 10:51 am

Del wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:10 am
If the old, wicked Catholic Church had fallen into ruin -- and the Reformed Church had ascended as a great unity of holiness -- that would be the great sign that the Reformation Fathers had gotten it right.
But would it? Has the Catholic Church ascended as a great unity of holiness? My point is that I don't think your standard of falling into ruin vs ascending to united holiness is a mark we ought to look for to be able to see which is the 'correct' side. If that's the standard, we all fail.

I don't think it would shock or surprise anyone by saying that Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine that developed out of the Reformation. But with this qualifier, it developed out of necessity, and if everyone is being fair, it is grounded in what Scripture reveals about itself, namely that it is sufficient for the faithful. But let's not let what I said slide. It is a doctrine that men developed some 1500 years after the foundation of the Church.

But that should come as no surprise. Many doctrines have been developed since the foundation of the Church, and mostly they never are needed to be developed until some form of controversy strikes. Why did the Church develop the doctrine of the Trinity? Why did they stress that such a thing was held to be true by the Scriptures even though the Scriptures do not spell it out in big bold letters? Because controversy arose and there was a need to clarify truth in order to continue shepherding the flock.

In the same way the doctrine of Sola Scriptura arose, for better or worse, to combat controversy. There was a problem within late Medieval Catholicism; everyone agrees with that. Reform was necessary; everyone agrees with that. Where everyone disagrees was what needed to be reformed and how to reform it. This shouldn't be much of a surprise either. Luther, as a Catholic pastor, was concerned that the developed doctrines/traditions of the Church were actually hindering and hiding the plain gospel he read in the Scriptures. He saw the corruption with his own eyes in the very heart of Christendom. He saw the harmful effects of certain doctrines that were later developments (which may have also risen due to controversy). When he made his concerns known the conflict was in full bloom. Can you see Luther's conundrum? How was the Church to fix corruption and teachings that outright conflicted with the Scriptures if the Church had the final say? The answer to Luther (and millions of other Catholics) was obvious. The passages they've been pouring over for years on end to feed their flock began to shine. If the Scriptures were the Word of God, recognized by the Church as such, then the answer to a corrupt Church was the pure Word of God.

I'm convinced that had the Church never reached the point of corruption (in various spheres) that it did, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would never have been developed. If it felt like a severing blade of a doctrine, it's because it was. The reason and necessity for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was to destroy that which needed to be destroyed, in order to save that which needed to be saved. Like a surgeon cutting out a tumor, or a gardener with her pruning shears. Held by a man who knows the best way to wield it, a scalpel, a tool for destruction, can be the very tool to save a life. Held by a man who gets his kicks from cutting, it can be dangerous. Every analogy breaks down at some point, but stick with me on this for a second. Post-Reformation, Sola Scriptura is the Protestant tool of choice to maintain a flourishing garden. (Why? Shocker...It works!) When something comes along that we don't find in line with the Scriptures (either because it's really not there or because we're immature or blind to it), snip, snip. But as we all know, some Protestant gardens are far from flourishing. Some view their garden as strictly a place to get nourishment in the most efficient form. They care nothing for beauty or that which is true but unnecessary. This is why it's important to preach against pragmatism. They'll pare down everything they can't see as necessary, and because they've likely been malnourished in the Scriptures from their pragmatic forefathers, they don't understand the true purpose of the shears they've been given and they chop down everything they see, so long as they don't starve to death. They might even cut things down simply so they can lick the blades because they've been led to believe that's the only form of nourishment that works.

Do you see what I'm getting at though? It's a tool. A good tool when properly used. A bad tool when abused (like all tools). Some denominations are better at wielding it than others. But because the conflict forced the Catholic Church to double down and claim authority over the Scriptures, they have effectively banned all blades from entering their garden. The only things they can remove have to be done by hand, and that can be a problem, especially when there are some pretty gnarly thorn bushes with roots that stretch back 1000 years that are choking out some pretty important plants.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37504
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Del » Wed May 09, 2018 10:53 am

Jester wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:01 am
Moses and the Prophets is a direct reference to scripture. It can also be translated to the Law and the Prophets. In fact Jesus is telling them, "You have Moses and the Prophets."

Paul goes on this same line when he is talking to Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:15-17- "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

It may seem strange to you Del. The same way a lot of the Mary Alone thread seems strange to me. I will continue down this route but not to argue with you but to Clarify Sola Scriptura.
Like I said: We all agree with what the Scripture says about its own authority.

Okay then! I will not bury you with quotes from Scripture about how "the Church" is the "pillar and foundation of truth." And how Apostolic preaching (in addition to the letters) is authoritative. And how Christ didn't write any Scripture, but vested His Church's authority in a personal office. I trust that you have heard all of that.

So, what are you trying to accomplish in this zombie thread? What are you trying to "clarify" about Sola Scriptura?

- Are you trying to establish that Scripture has authority?
- Are you trying to establish that Scripture is the only authority?
- Are you trying to "clarify" how the sola scriptura of Calvin was different from the fundamentalism of modern American Evangelicals?
- Am I missing something entirely?

Please shine some light on this.

For my part, I want to establish from Scripture that Scripture admits that Scripture is not the only authority.
And I mean to show from history that sola scriptura has failed to achieve the Reformation's promise of restoring original Christian faith.

That's my agenda. I think we can improve our fellowship if you help me to see yours.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17382
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re:

Post by TNLawPiper » Wed May 09, 2018 11:04 am

UncleBob wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:48 pm
Whoa! Jo#'s is posting in the Theology Forum.

Assemble the Pirates.
Ironically, his posts in this thread were to be his last. I hope the pirates acted quickly.

Post Reply