Where does Scripture say it is the standard?
And, of what is Scripture the standard?
And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?
|
Where does Scripture say it is the standard?
And, of what is Scripture the standard?
And if Scripture is the standard, shouldn't we be able to find that statement in Scripture?
Excellent!
JoeT
We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute TRUTH.
Consequently, we cannot simply hold what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, as truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or they both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God then for each individual there can be only One Truth, One Word. It’s an obscenity to believe Scripture can have ‘different meaning for different folks’. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.
O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2
Therefore, to have a ‘Standard’ of competing faiths with which to measure the same Truth, the same Revelation, is self-contradictory.
JoeT
Hi Joe,
While we're waiting for a response, it seems to me that the Scriptures say that the Church is the standard. Note the following verses:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
And this is consistent with how God works. In the Old Testament, God gave a set of laws:
Exodus 24:12
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written;...
And at the same time appointed a teacher. Note how the verse ends.
...that thou mayest teach them.
And this teacher had actually been appointed leader of the people of God long before:
Exodus 19:9
And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.
And Moses recognized his authority before God's people:
Exodus 18:14
And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
Listen to Moses' reply:
15And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Obviously then, Moses' recognized that he was the purveyor of God's word.
And Jesus' recognized Moses' authority. Did you notice that Moses' SITTEST before the people?
Matthew 23:2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Since the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, Jesus said that they should be obeyed. Even He obeyed them to the death:
Philippians 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
For the High Priest had said:
John 11:49-51 (King James Version)
49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Therefore Jesus recognized the authority of man.
And Jesus has now established His standard:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Note the last words:
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
This is an infallible standard. And simultaneously led by an infallible leader who was given the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
But Jesus left us another standard. Traditions. And they were several.
The Tradition of Magisterium. That is, of teaching:
Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The Tradition of the Mass:
Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
The Tradition of Baptism:
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And several more.
Soooo, it seems that there are several standards, of which Scripture is just one.
That is why Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
De Maria:
I would suggest that the Church is the corporate Teaching Authority, a guide, the Sheppard; correcting, disciplining or reasoning of Scripture in conformity with Truth through Gospels and the teachings of the Apostles. We can't forget that the Gospels serve two functions; a witness God's Truth, and the establishment of a catholic (universal) theology. Both teach that Christ's mission shouldn't be misconstrued, “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. To fulfil For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt 5:17) Christ didn't come to destroy God's Kingdom, rather to fulfill the prophecies, God's promises. Consequently the promise made to Moses is not abandoned but rather renewed in the heart; “you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” Exodus 19:5-6. Abandoning our claim to this inherited promise is to abandon Christ's promises to conquer death through His sacrifice.
JoeT
Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.
If we believe in this doctrine, then we should find it in the Bible, right?
In fact, we do not.
The scripture passage so often cited by proponents of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3: 15-17, however you shall see that Paul teaches nothing of the sort:
2 Timothy 3: 15-17:
"...from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Here there is not even the slightest implication that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. Indeed, it affirms the value of Scripture - and that it is from God (which Catholics are taught), however nothing implies that it is all we need. To say that Scripture is "useful" is one thing, but to say it is the only writing that ought to be followed is another altogether.
Not only is the idea of Sola Scriptura not found in Scripture, itself, the New Testament, in fact, teaches against it:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."
2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."
2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."
The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as Sola Scriptura.
1. Scripture was the beginning in which the standard of all is written... because it is the written Word of God..The inspired Word of God.. (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
2. of what is scripture standard: in what we follow
3. standard because it is Truth (John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.)
The foundation in the bread which we remember, and eat as holy in righteousness of truth.
That which we stand upon, and can raise us to eternal life .. The Rock
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1. "The Word" does NOT mean "Scripture".
2-3: That is the definition that SOME Christians use, but it is not "of Scripture".
Don't forget that whatever is written in the New Testament about "Scripture" does NOT include anything in the New Testament since that body was not recognized until 300 years after Christ.
The Word of God is a person. Not a book. John 1:1 refers to God the Son, the Word, Expression of God in eternity.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
It is A standard. Not THE standard. There's a difference.Quote:
2. of what is scripture standard: in what we follow
We have many standards in what we follow.
a. We follow the leaders in our faith:
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
1 Corinthians 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
b. We follow traditions by word
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
c. And we follow Scripture as you said.
So there is more than one standard for Christians. And all three standards were established by Jesus Christ.
This is true. But remember that Jesus did not write any Scripture. In fact He established a Church and Tradition. The Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old.Quote:
3. standard because it is Truth (John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.)
Jesus Christ is the Rock. And the Rock appointed another Rock for us, Simon Peter. And neither of those Rocks is Scripture. Jesus Christ is God and man. Whilst Peter is human.Quote:
The foundation in the bread which we remember, and eat as holy in righteousness of truth.
That which we stand upon, and can raise us to eternal life .. The Rock
The Word is the spiritual truth that was given to us out of love from our Father. We are to confess our belief in that grace, as it is the begotten son of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Lets keep this in the time period which is meant. The teaching was meant for them to remember = (11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. ) And to remember who have spoken unto you of God: who faith follow = (2 Thess 3:6-7 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
We today acknowledged that they were ensample unto us to follow them. And we are told to consider the end of conversation because = (Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it)
This was all written in warning, in teaching us how to discern what we are taught and what to follow.
Yes as imitators such as written in (11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
They were ensampled for us today, we are to imiate them for they follow Christ. ( 2 Thess 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you) (2 Thess 3:8 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. )
There is only one standard for what is written shows us that the ensampled themselves followed ChristQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The Word is by the inspiration of God... I believe in HIS power..It is God who reveals Truth. The church is a followship of Christians that follow Christ. Servants of labor to doing the Will of God.. Bow before God and no other gods. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I believe in what is written Christ said:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Reference to Peter (John 1:48 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. )
In short: If Scripture is the standard, then Scripture should tell us that... but it does not. Instead it tells us otherwise.
So far, neither you, Tom, or anybody else has shown where Scriptures hold themselves to be the sole authority in matters of faith. In fact, as De Maria has shown, they allude to the authority being corporate, i.e. “THE CHURCH”.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
This is precisely the question here. What is that ‘standard’ and how is it shown to be an authority in the Scriptures? I haven’t found anywhere in Holy Scriptures where Scripture holds itself as the sole rule of life over cosmic revelations made by God; if you have, please share it with us. On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that its Teaching Authority (the Magisterium) is “right reasoning” in matters of faith.
Instead of answering the proposition, you offer innuendo, unsubstantiated I might add, and then make the statement that there is a ‘standard,’ again unsubstantiated. I fully realize we are treading on your free-to-interpret-Scripture toes, but if you’re in the right, you should be able to give some sort of a reasoned response. After all, if I want people to call the Church names, all I need do is step out on the veranda; there’re scads of folks here that’ll do it for you - with gusto.
JoeT
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
What I am saying is that never should anyone quench the Spirit. (1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit)
The church has authority because they are the body of Christ. Christ is within each member, and each are to walk in Christ. But let us not quench the Spirit. And prove all things, knowing that we hold fast to that which is Truth.
John 1 :14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
If you mean by quench is “to put out or extinguish” I agree. But how do you know whether it is the Holy Spirit? Are we to give credence to private revelations?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
I agree whole heartedly, except that I don’t think you would agree with me as to which ‘Church.’ So how do we discern which Church is correct and which isn’t?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
So then, does the Spirit tell different Churches different absolute Truths, i.e. one Church is as good as another?
JoeT
Right. All believers who are in Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
But is it? It may have evolved out of the early church of Acts, but has it remained pure? Is any church body pure, holding The Truth, when it is made up of fallible humans?Quote:
On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that its Teaching Authority (the Magisterium) is “right reasoning” in matters of faith.
Close, but not quite; any two believers who are ONE with Christ makeup the Church. Otherwise, we would have competing Truths – no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
In this you're trying to be polite. What's really being said here is that you think the Catholic Church is an apostate Church. But, you do remember Christ's promise that the Church would prevail against the gates of hell. So, then we've got a conundrum, do we not? (I barely know what the word means but I know we've got one). This is digging us deeper into a hole, either Christ didn't tell us the truth or the gates of hell have prevailed in spite of Christ. Or, maybe the Roman Church is correct and you're just trying to find fault where none exists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
Why competing? It's Christ's Church on earth. Later, it will be the Church triumphant. I'm not Catholic but am in Christ's Church on earth and destined for the Church triumphant. Other non-Catholic Christians are too. Or don't you think we are?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Not at all. But the Catholic Church is also made up of fallible humans.Quote:
In this you’re trying to be polite. What’s really being said here is that you think the Catholic Church is an apostate Church.
On this earth, yes, Satan is busy.Quote:
the gates of hell have prevailed in spite of Christ.
I don't believe the Catholic Church has the only Truth or The Complete Truth.Quote:
maybe the Roman Church is correct and you’re just trying to find fault where none exists?
If they’re not competing then they are one and the same Truth. There is already a ‘Church Triumphant’.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I couldn’t agree with this at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I do believe the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Its Truth rests in Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
We're already dead?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Satan isn't hanging about?Quote:
I couldn’t agree with this at all.
I believe the Church is one holy catholic and apostolic Church whose truth rests in Christ.Quote:
I do believe the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Its Truth rests in Christ.
You’re still marching aren’t you? So I suppose that makes us the Church Militant. Then there’s the Church Suffering – they are in that place you don’t believe in – and the Church Triumphant. All belong to the Kingdom of God. There is only One Church, currently separated by death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Oh, he’s still here. But, he won’t win out. Don’t we have God’s promise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
The Church Triumphant is in heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Small c for catholicQuote:
Amen.
First, scripture does tell us this, for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV
It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.
As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
What you said is excellent! I know I am always agreeing with you but I loved the scriptures that you used. Very good. I don't know how they can poo poo it? It is right there in black and white.
I don't see much excellence or wisdom, T. There are a few problems with what's being suggested. The first of which should be obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3First, scripture does tell us this, for example:
2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV
It says that the scriptures (not tradition, not your denomination, not any man, but the scriptures - the Bible) provide us which what is necessary to understand salvation (is that not the purpose of the Bible, is that not the reason that Jesus came?) that the man of God may be "complete and thoroughly equipped" - It doesn't say mostly equipped, or partly complete.
As for "the church", once again a study of what the church is in scripture would quickly show that the word is used two ways, neither of which refers to any denomination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
If in fact we are to take 2 Tim 3 16-17 to be Scriptures' authentication and authority then we should only be reading the Septuagint, because that WAS the Scriptures when these verses were penned.
But, let's pretend to ignore the obvious and continue to look at these verses.
Verse 14: But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them:
The imperative is to continue with those things we have learned, knowing from who you have learned them. Now who might these teachers be? What about Paul who was Timothy's teacher? What about the other Apostles who for the most part taught by word of mouth?
Verse 15: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
To know implies 'right reasoning'. Therefore, verse 15 is instructing us to use right reasoning in Scripture. But, to reason, one must first learn how to reason; these instructions wouldn't come from the Church would they? In Timothy's example they came from a member of the Church, the Apostle Paul. The Holy Scriptures here, again, are those of the Septuagint. But, most Bible-Only folks believe in a dispensation that invalidates them. More important, if we are to ONLY receive our instruction from the Holy Spirit, why doesn't it say so here?
Verse 16: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
All scripture are indeed inspired by God. Yes very profitable for teaching and correction; but Scripture is not the 'only' profitable learning tool. And Holy Scripture can be used to instruct, but not mandated to be used. But where does it say they have sole authority in our faith? And where in these scriptures does it suggest that it is the sole revelation of God. As too, to take this verse correctly, we would have to say All Catholic Scripture is indeed inspired by God. You see, it was the Catholic Church that Holy Scriptures were entrusted; it is the Catholic Church given the Authority to Teach in the offices of the Magisterium.
Verse 17: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
Considering the source, it seems strange that this verse is quoted; that is, to be PERFECT IN GOOD WORKS. Are we agreeing that 'faith is dead without works'?
The misrepresentation of these verses is exactly why Timothy was advised to live as One in Christ, 'But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error,'
JoeT
I notice, one small step... for a bad speller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That was a translation of the scriptures. (BTW, I have a copy of the Septuagint and have referenced it on occasion).Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Let's ponder this for a moment. In school, what are you expected to accept as truth - what you are taught from the textbooks, or whatever the teacher says? If the teacher were to tell you something other than what the textbook says, something which he or she believed but which was not a proven fact, they would be facing potential dismissal depending upon how serious it was. One teach not far from here had that happen when he taught that the holocaust was a hoax.Quote:
Verse 14: But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them:
The imperative is to continue with those things we have learned, knowing from who you have learned them. Now who might these teachers be? What about Paul who was Timothy's teacher? What about the other Apostles who for the most part taught by word of mouth?
So it is scripture that is the standard, not the teachers.
Really? Methink that you are mixing knowledge with analysis. One can know something without any analysis. Children in particular learn that way.Quote:
Verse 15: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
To know implies 'right reasoning'.
You are adding to scripture.Quote:
Therefore, verse 15 is instructing us to use right reasoning in Scripture. But, to reason, one must first learn how to reason; these instructions wouldn't come from the Church would they?
I am glad that we agree on that point.Quote:
Verse 16: All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
All scripture are indeed inspired by God.
True or not, the Bible tells us that we are to depend upon one source. No other source is given. To say otherwise is to add to what God's word says.Quote:
Yes very profitable for teaching and correction; but Scripture is not the 'only' profitable learning tool.
This is clear that it is our faith which will result in good works. I have endorsed the belief all along that faith without works is dead. But you need to understand what the word faith means in the original Greek. However that is a different topic for a different thread.Quote:
Verse 17: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
Considering the source, it seems strange that this verse is quoted; that is, to be PERFECT IN GOOD WORKS. Are we agreeing that 'faith is dead without works'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
All important religions are explained and/or reinforced by books which are considered as sacred by their followers. Mostly, because religion, as history, is basically transmitted from one generation to the next in writing.
Thus, you have the Upanishads, the Hindu Scriptures that constitute the essential teachings of Vedanta.
Or the Qur’an, the Sacred Scripture of Muslims.
Or the Dhammapada, a versified Buddhist scripture, traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. Probably, the best-known texts from the Theravada canon.
Or the Jewish Talmud, with its two components, the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE).
Or the famous Chinese I Ching, describing the Chinese ancient system of cosmology and philosophy.
And we have the Bible, or the Book, or the Scriptures.
John Piper , a theologian and Baptist pastor, writes:
“We are people of the Book. We know God through the Book. We meet Christ in the Book. We see the cross in the Book. Our faith and love are kindled by the glorious truths of the Book. We have tasted the divine majesty of the Word and are persuaded that the Book is God's inspired and infallible written revelation. Therefore, what the Book teaches matters. Doctrine is important for worship and life and mission. Education for Exultation is education saturated by the Bible”.
Whether it is considered as standard or not, I guess it is up to us. Yet, I would say that, if nothing else, Jesus’ Message should be taken and considered as our standard pattern of life to follow because it comes all the way directly from our Savior’s lips.:):)
I don't believe it is anyone's desire to "poo poo" 2Tim.3.14-17. But it is important, since this is after all Holy Scripture, not to misrepresent what it says. As RickJ has already demonstrated in post #6, this passage does not by any means endorse the doctrine of sola scriptura; instead it tells us that "the sacred writings" (i.e. the Septuagint, including books which are regarded by many as deuterocanonical) are useful for the purposes of instruction and are inspired by God. Now this is nothing which "they"--i.e. those participants in this discussion who reject the doctrine of sola scriptura on the grounds that it is not Biblical--disagree. Quite the contrary. Surely the frequency with which Catholic posters here cite and discuss Scripture gives the lie to the idea that somehow Catholics just don't care about the Bible. It is rather the case that Catholics do not regard the Bible the the whole of God's revelation to his people: Scripture is only a part--albeit an essential and indispensable part--of that revelation.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
And Catholics are by no means alone in this. The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself a relatively recent theological innovation, one which was utterly foreign to the earliest Christians. We know that the very first Christians did not hold this doctrine since the NT hadn't yet been written, and it took some time after the books of the NT were written for them to circulate at all widely. We know that the generation of Christians after them didn't endorse this doctrine because it is absent from their writings and because their writings show us that they regarded oral Tradition as no less divinely inspired than the books of Scripture themselves. We know that the generation after that also regarded Tradition as divinely inspired because the writings of this period included Tradition along with Scripture and apostolic succession in the rule of faith. And so it goes for each succeeding generation of Christians until we get to the Rennaissence. It was then that the doctrine of sola scriptura made its first appearance.
But, it will be said, the mere fact that Tradition had always been regarded as enjoying equal standing with Scripture is insufficient to prove that each generation of Christians wasn't in error, beginning with the first generation for whom there was as yet no NT. But think for a moment what that commits one to saying: It commits one to the view that Christ failed to keep his promise, that the Paraclete was not in fact sent to preserve the Church that Christ had established from error. Leaving to one side the question whether the Church established by Christ was one and the same as the Catholic Church, it requires one to hold that from the very beginning, the Holy Spirit failed to guide the people of God, this for the reason that not only is there no evidence that the early Christians held the doctrine of sola scriptura but the existing evidence is, in fact, univocal that they recognized Tradition as having equal standing with Scripture.
There are some who pay no attention to what the history of our faith teaches us about such questions, who adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura despite overwhelming historical evidence--evidence accepted by, among others, most prominent Lutheran historians--that this doctrine is a sixteenth century theological innovation without historical precedent in the earliest centuries of Christianity. What then can justify the doctrine of sola scriptura? Well, by its own lights, it ought to be--nay, must be, on pain of inconsistency--be justified by Scripture itself. There are, however, insuperable difficulties facing this attempt at justification.
First, there is the question about which books are to be recognized as Scriptural. The only existing canon recognized by the NT is the OT, including the so-called "apocryphal" books rejected by most sola-scripturists. It has long been recognized that the NT itself refers to, and even quotes, texts which are exluded by the overwhelming majority of sola-scripturists from their preferred canons of Scripture, a fact which gave Luther (though not Calvin) considerable pause. This would mean that, among others, the book of Enoch ought to be regarded as divine Scripture--if, that is, we are to use the NT as our guide to which texts are canonical and which are not. But this poses the additional problem of determining which texts belong in the NT: The only place where the NT gives us a clear indication of the canonicity of any of the texts now included in the received canon of the NT is at 2Peter 3.16, where it is clear that some of Paul's letter had come to be regarded as Scriptural. Sadly, no mention is made of which letters, so that doesn't help us very much. The titles of most of the books of the NT were not assigned to them until the second century, so the NT doesn't even let us know whether, for instance, the Gospel of Matthew was in fact written by Matthew. This is itself something that is received as a matter of Tradition. This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)
Second, there is the fact that Scripture itself not only fails to espouse the doctrine of sola scriptura, it expressly endorses the normative worth of oral Tradition. Some of these passages have already been mentioned by RickJ and De Maria, but it is worth mentioning them again, alongside several others, since the proponents of sola scriptura have yet to address them. They include:
1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
2Thess.2.15: "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers"
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard"
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"
Now to Catholics, and to the many non-Catholics who recognize the authority of Tradition, the doctrine of sola scriptura looks like the outright rejection of a vast portion of God's revelation to us. There is a tendency for some sola-scripturists to paint the Catholic, et al. position as one that is deflationary about Scripture, one that fails to accord God's revelation its proper due. But, as we can see, it is the sola-scripturist who is guilty of devaluing God's revelation, by adhering to only one part of it and disregarding the rest. It is thus not surprising to find disagreements about the meaning of Scripture: Catholics and others hold the Biblical view that Tradition, that the teaching authority of those who exercise ecclesial authority (exousia) ought to guide us in reading Scripture. In Acts 8, Philip asks the Eunuch who is a dutiful reader of Scripture the following question: "'Do you understand what you are reading?'" And the Eunuch replies, "'How can I, unless someone guides me?'" This is sound thinking. And we know that it is important that those who guide others be given the authority to do so, since Acts 15.24 records the displeasure of the Apostles with those who proceed "without instructions from us". For Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others, this authority is one that was given to the Twelve and passed from them to others. And we know that this authority is trasnmissable because we see its transmission in the NT itself, as some are given the authority to teache by the Apostles and those whom the Apostles have appointed. But we can set the issue of Apostolic Succession to one side for now. In the meantime, it remains for the sola-scripturists among us to show, for every one of that passages cited above, that it is not in fact talking about oral Tradition. Then he or she must provide unambiguous Scriptural evidence that the Bible itself endorses the doctrine of sola scriptura. This will require more than passages which affirm the value of Scripture, since this is not in doubt. Then, once such evidence has been proffered, some account has to be given of the means by which the sola-scripturist arrives at his or her preferred canon of Scripture, this for the reason that, as pointed out above, the NT nowhere indicates which books are to be accounted canonical.
Good luck with that.
And what verse says we should depend on no other source but Scripture? In fact Paul teaches that Timothy should teach. 11 These things command and teach: (1 Tim 4:11). He didn't tell Timothy to write Scripture or read Sctipture. But to 'TEACH.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And what about 2 Time 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.
Oh, yes don't forget 1 Tim 6:2 "These things teach and exhort."
Why didn't Paul tell us what he meant --- Just read the Bible for your revelations? In fact, why did God bother to beget a son? Why didn't God just send a BOOK?
JoeT
Having grown up and lived for years in the heady atmosphere of the Lutheran version of sola scriptura, I now am conflicted (thanks, Akoue!). Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther. They accept the three Trinitarian creeds (written by Church Fathers) and practice the tradition of teaching those who want to hear and learn. Lutherans do not individually practice sola scriptura; it's a collective thing--which, to my way of thinking, takes it into the realm of tradition.
A little conflict is good for the soul. If often leads to deeper understanding and a more mature faith. Besides, as you and Joe and Fred and De Maria know, I'm still dealing with my own conflicts about divinization. It's fun though; and definitely good for the soul. (Oops, I'm repeating myself again.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This is how it has always seemed to me. I had a patristics professor years ago who was a Lutheran and a well-respected theologian. It was he who first introduced me to the trend in Luther scholarship away from the sort of sola scriptura one finds among fundamentalists. In fact, he spent a lot of time talking about Tradition in the early Church, so much so that I had at first assumed him to be Orthodox. But you are definitely right about the Church Fathers: Luther accorded profound weight to Augustine (of course, Luther had been a member of the Augustinian order) and explicitly regarded much of his theology as authoritative.Quote:
Lutherans have their own version of Tradition in that they accept the writings/teachings of certain Church Fathers and in particular, their own Martin Luther.
And Luther accepted all the councils through Chalcedon. A number of Luther scholars hold that he was far less hostile to Tradition than the received view of him. Similarly, a number of scholars think that he was less a sola-scripturist than he has been portrayed a being (a sense one gets from many of his commentaries) and that it was Melancthon who was the real radical. It is important to remember the dim view that Luther took of people like Carlstadt.Quote:
They accept the three Trinitarian creeds (written by Church Fathers) and practice the tradition of teaching those who want to hear and learn.
Again, this is how it looks to me. And certainly the work of Cullmann and van Campenhausen, two very widely respected Lutheran scholars and theologians whose work on the early Church has influenced scholars of all stripes (including the current Pope, who has had some very favorable things to say about Cullmann's work in particular), bears this out. The leading Lutheran scholars of the NT and early Church clearly recognize, and call attention to, the centrality of Tradition.Quote:
Lutherans do not individually practice sola scriptura; it's a collective thing--which, to my way of thinking, takes it into the realm of tradition.
So never do we quench the spirit ... we acknowledge rather that God has HIS plan for all things..Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
When the spirit is in you, you do know... (neither judge anyone else at anytime)Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Who is more abundant or less is not our decision.. For we know members are in Christ, and He in them.
1 Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Quench not the Spirit..Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Cr 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
1 Corinthains 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of ChristQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Thess 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Thess 5:16-23
Rejoice evermore.
Pray without ceasing.
In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
Quench not the Spirit.
Despise not prophesyings.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If scripture says that is is complete, and all that you need to know, then what exactly will you get from somewhere else that will add to what scipture provides you with respect to truth in doctrine? If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?Quote:
In fact Paul teaches that Timothy should teach. 11 These things command and teach: (1 Tim 4:11). He didn't tell Timothy to write Scripture or read Sctipture. But to 'TEACH.'
Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV
I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.
Tom, et al:
Holding the Sola Scriptura view how do you answer these contradictions?
These contradictions form the screen door in the little submarine sailed by the interpreted-by- me-crowd.Quote:
This presents a nexus of difficulties which sola-scripturists simply cannot resolve without violating the doctrine of sola scriptura: Many books of the of the NT weren't attributed to, say Matthew or whomever, until at least a century after Christ's death, and so without appeal to Tradition there is no way to settle (a) who wrote them and (b) which books should be included in the NT. (Luther, recall, wished to remove James, Jude, and Revelation. By his own account, he rejected Maccabees on the ground that it would seem to support the doctrine of Purgatory, a doctrine which he had antecendtly come to reject.)
JoeT
Where does Scripture say that it is "complete"? What canon of Scripture is "complete" and where does Scripture list the books that belong to that canon? Where does Scripture say that "all you need to know" is Scripture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I provided several passages that clearly indicate a standard other than Scripture, namely oral Tradition. It might be a good idea for you to explain how it is that you read each of these in such a way as to indicate that there is in fact no other standard besides Scripture. It might also be a good idea were you to provide some passages that clearly state that Scripture alone is the sole standard. (Then maybe you can tell us where Scripture tells us which texts belong to the canon of Scripture and so consitute the sole standard as you understand it.Quote:
If it tells you what scripture says, then clearly it is the standard. If it tells you something else, then clearly it is leading you away from the truth.
No one denies that Scripture is a standard (or that Scripture is part of the standard). So we are all agreed on the importance of Scripture. As I quite clearly explained, opponents of the doctrine of sola scriptura do not deny the importance of Scripture. The question is whether Scripture alone constitutes the whole of God's revelation, whether it alone is the sole standard. I've given reasons to think that it is not. Why don't you provide a response, one that clearly demonstrates the errors of which you take me, and those who agree with me, to be guilty.Quote:
So you think that Paul got his doctrine from somewhere else? What does scripture say about the men of Berea when they went to scripture to see if what he was saying was true?
Right, Scripture is important. No one is denying that. In the case of the Bereans, Scripture was the OT. Did the Bereans learn anything from Paul? If so, then what they learned must have been an addition to the Scriptures they were searching, something that those Scriptures did not themselves say. Like the Eunuch in Acts 8, they needed someone to guide their reading of Scripture. So we are all agreed that the OT is Scriptural and is part of the canon of Scripture. What about the NT? How do you respond to the objections I raised to the doctrine of sola scriptura?Quote:
Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV
I've provided several passages that speak of a teaching that is oral. Do you mean to deny the importance of what was taught orally? Perhaps you could go back to my post from earlier today and explain the error of my ways, clearly indicating along the way what Scriptural grounds you have for (1) using the canon that you do and (2) restricting God's revelation (or, to put it as you have above, "the standard") to those Scriptures that you regard as canonical. What Scriptures support your view? Please show us the nature of the error you take me to have made regarding the passages I listed earlier.Quote:
I'll believe that what you say about teaching might carry some weight in your favour if you can show me where it says to teach something other than what God's word says.
Thanks.
I think this is a super response. Tell your boss I said you deserve a raise! I'll sign off on a big raise. It encapsulates the entire Sola Scriptura issue, with plenty to ponder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
How, are the cosmic issues of life and faith in God resolved subjectively, within one’s own authority?
JoeT
We still don't know who wrote all of them - so what? Where is the supposed contradiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Get with the program and read my prior posts before responding, then you will understand what is being said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That is the problem. Scripture is not denominational and neither was Jesus - he did not found a denomination- all Christians accept the 66 books of the Bible. What is denominational and what varies is what various denominations add to wha the Bible says.
We know what you THINK Scriptures say. But quote some passage that says, “complete, and all that you need”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Yes, he certainly didn’t have New Testament Scriptures to read. What do you think he was doing all those years after being struck by the ‘light’? Writing his epistles so that he can then turnaround and read them, and thereby becoming enlightened? Boy, even that one doesn’t take much wattage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So they searched the New Testaments? Or the Septuagint, maybe even the book of Maccabees?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Where is it implied or stated that they taught anything else but orthodox Catholic faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
JoeT
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:25 PM. |