Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

[DHK]

Yes, the Canon of Scripture - duly compiled by the Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. There was no other - just one - and that is the truth!

Apparently you do not know the truth.
The Apocryphal books are not and never were part of the canon of Scripture. Let's consider some of the reasons why:

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, and use as a source of doctrine, come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-Testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.

The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore, were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by the Jews or biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.

Why do non-Catholic authorities and biblical churches reject the Apocrypha as being a part of the sixty six books of the canon?

There are mainly four reasons:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.

2. They teach doctrines, which are false and foster practices, which are at variance with inspired Scripture.

3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.

4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling and biblical truth.


Why do biblical Christians and churches reject the Apocrypha as being inspired of God?:
1. These books existed before New Testament times, yet there is not one single quotation from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.
Jesus quoted from twenty-four of the Old Testament books, and the New Testament quotes from thirty four books of the Old Testament.
Introductory phrases like "it is written" or "thus says the Lord" are totally absent from the books and therefore, the books themselves do not claim to be inspired of God.

2. Although some of the early church fathers quoted from these writings, and even accepted them as inspired, this does not mean they were inspired.

3. The Jews are the ones who canonized the Books of the Old Testament and they did not include them. They have always excluded these Apocryphal books because the material in these books is heretical and contains gross doctrinal errors and clearly not inspired of God.

4. The stories in the Apocryphal books are extra biblical, fanciful and clearly pure fiction. For example the story of Bel and the Dragon is clearly a fairy tale. The tale says that a pagan priest of Bel tried to deceive Daniel by using a trap door to consume food left for the idol Bel.

5. Some of the teachings in these books are colored and some are immoral. In Judith 9:10,13, it says that God, assisted Judith in the telling of lies. The Apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach that morality is based on expedience. In other words, according to these books it is right to sin in some situations.


No true Bible believing church as has ever accepted the books as canonical or inspired of God for these reasons. In order for a book to be considered inspired of God and included in the canon it must satisfy the follow requirements.

1. It must have been written by a prophet of God. None of the Apocryphal books claim they were.

2. It must come with the authority of God. These spurious books are strikingly absent of the ring of authority. None of them come up to or compare in any way to the character and quality of the sixty six Books of the Bible.

3. It must demonstrate that the power of God rests on the book. There is nothing transforming about these books.

4. It must tell the truth about God, man, history, science, etc. The books are full of contradictions, gross errors and even heresies. The Apocryphal books are full of untruth.

5. It must be accepted by biblical Christians as inspired of God. The Apocryphal books completely fail this final and fatal test.
http://bible-truth.org/Apocrypha.html

 

[herbert]

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 10pm Pacific thread will be closed.

Being rather new to this forum, I am not sure if the closing of a conversation like this is normal. Neither do I know why this is occurring. Thanks for the heads up, though! Since this will be cutting things short, I am going to post my second response to Martin below in hopes of covering some of the basis that we won't be able to cover in conversation (such as the nature of tradition and Isaiah's call regarding the Law and the Testimony among other things:

Response #2

There are some things we’ve said which may deserve a little more consideration. Again, the formatting is a bit tough. But I have tried to add to what we’ve already discussed in hopes of clarifying things:

Going back a ways, I said that the “right tradition," is the very thing Christ would be arguing for. And He appealed to Scripture to support His tradition, if you will, and not Scripture alone.

You responded, saying: You are making no sense. Where in Scripture does our Lord say that He is supporting any tradition?...Would you kindly translate this into English for me, please? I have absolutely no idea what you're on about

My newest response: My statement is a reflection of the fact that Catholics don’t see “tradition” as only referring to the specific customs, actions, and practices which are put into place by men, but also as a way of *understanding* God’s Law rightly. For Catholics, as one convert (Mark Shea) puts it, tradition is the way of ‘being, thinking, and seeing’ rightly according to one’s knowledge of God as it has been delivered through the Apostles to the Church. So when a person reads the 10 Commandments and rightly understands and applies them in practice, he is following “tradition.” So a tradition can be understood as the “received & correct understanding” of a given topic pertaining to faith and/or morals. With this broader understanding of tradition in mind, I think it’s quite clear that Christ was not simply appealing to Scripture, but also to a “right understanding” Scripture with regard to matters pertaining to the observance of Sabbath Laws. When Christ healed on the Sabbath, then, He didn’t appeal directly to the Law to justify His actions, but to the* right and proper understanding* and application of the Law. So it was the Pharisees who disapproved of his actions and were heaping unGodly traditions upon men which didn’t align with the Law at all, while Christ, rightly understanding the Law, exemplified its proper application and chastised the Pharisees for manipulating God’s law through their wrongful “traditions” for selfish gain. And as another Catholic Writer puts it “They (The Pharisees’ Traditions) were not of themselves evil. But they were pious customs of human origin passed down to support the living out of the law. Unfortunately, the Pharisees were incapable of distinguishing divine law from its human support system. Worse than that, they actually used pious customs as loopholes to help them get around the difficult demands of the Torah.” This is why I say that “...there are, found in your statement, two distinct notions. One of them represents the authority of the Scriptures to which Christ appealed. The other is the ‘argument’ or the ‘right understanding’ of a given topic…” Ultimately, Christ and the Apostles, being observant Jews, were following a host of traditions. St. John the Baptist, it seems, was a Nazarite and Christ considered him the greatest of all prophets.

I then went on to quote Dei Verbum and you said: “But where does this 'Tradition' lie? It lies in the imagination of men.”

My newest response: To that I say Scripture does not state that tradition lies in “the imagination of men.” As a matter of fact, with St. Paul’s affirmation of the validity of tradition passed on, whether by word of mouth or by letter, Scripture explicitly states the opposite of what you suggest. For tradition is rightly maintained within the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and its integrity is not conditioned upon the personal moral impeccability of individual Catholics any more than the validity of the Gospel was invalidated on account of the Apostles’ desertion of Christ. This is why GK Chesterton once wrote that “When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

You continued: The Church Fathers contradict each other much of the time. Moreover, Paul knew full well that apostasy within the Church would start almost immediately after his departure (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3-4). The ECFs are not to be trusted unless they comply with Scripture, in which case they are pretty much superfluous.

My newest response: The fact that there is not a constant and unanimous consensus among the Church Fathers does not justify skepticism toward their collective witness to the Faith. Despite various inconsistencies, we can appeal to them to recognize certain fundamental and unchanging aspects of the Faith. Collectively, their witness represents a profound harmony as they speak to the essential elements of the authentic Christianity. And where every Catholic looks back and recognizes a shared Faith with the Fathers, as I looked back from my Baptist perspective, I saw a conception of the Christian Faith entirely foreign to my traditions. Also, if contradiction with one’s peers is a measure by which you judge a person’s witness to the faith, how do you explain the myriad contradictory doctrines whose proponents all share the cry of “Sola Scriptura” and why don’t they delegitimize your own position? Further, just because St. Paul foresaw apostasy (and even dealt directly with it), such a fact in no way suggests that Christ’s Church, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, could fall in the face of corruption and apostasy. Finally, when you say that the Fathers are not to be trusted unless they comply with Scripture, since they saw themselves as being in compliance with Scripture, what you’re saying really boils down to “The ECFs are not to be trusted unless they comply with (my interpretation) of Scripture. This is why I’ve referred to the phrase “When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me.” as often as I have on this forum.

I continued, asking: Are "arguments" and the "Scripture" one and the same thing? You said yourself that Christ used Scripture "exclusively" to prove His arguments. But if His arguments themselves weren't Scripture, then He wasn't using Scripture "exclusively." He would have been, in that case, using Arguments + Scripture and not Scripture "exclusively" as you said. So again, which one is it? And where does the important distinction between you being a man (who's not an apostle and is thereby capable of error) and Christ being God Himself (and not capable of error) come into play here?

 

[herbert]

continued:
You responded, saying: You are being silly here. The Lord Jesus was making Scripture as He spoke. What is Scripture but the word of God written down? Our Lord said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will by no means pass away' (Matt. 24:35 etc.). Nor have they, for by the will of God they were written down. His 'arguments' are Scripture, for that is where we read them..

My newest response: There are a number of fallacies present here:

1. There are many thing Christ said which were not recorded in Scripture. Therefore, He was not “making Scripture as He spoke.” Scriptures were recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the agency of humans at dates quite removed from the utterances of the words of Christ.

2. You asked “What is Scripture but the word of God written down?” One thing that the Scriptures are, are the words of particular human authors. For, example, though the Scriptures are God-breathed, they are still, to some extent, to subjective expressions of human persons, such as is the case when St. Paul says things like “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” Yes, those are the words of God. And yes, those are the words of a man, St. Paul.

3. Again, I say that there is a fallacy at the heart of what you’re saying here and it relates back to the inductive argument because of which we can see, objectively, that your whole philosophical foundation is cracked. For the fact that Scripture is indeed the Word of God, doesn’t mean that Christians are to live by Scripture *alone.* And the fact that Christ spoke the words recorded in Matthew 24:35 is perfectly compatible with every teaching of the Catholic Faith. Nor does a Catholic deny that “by the will of God they (the words of Scripture) were written down.”

4. To say that His “arguments” are Scripture is to, once again, come face to face with James 2;24. For the verse says what it says. And only by “interpreting” it in such a way as to make it teach the opposite of what it actually says can you force-fit it into your attempt at a systematic theology, which is a problem for a person who doesn’t have the ability to appeal to apostolic tradition which allows him to harmonize apparently contradictory texts. For if God’s “arguments are Scripture, for that is where we read them…” then all I’d have to do to dismiss Sola Fide would be to recite James 2;24. But as a Baptist who held to Sola Scriptura, I would not have done such a thing. Nor, is it my impression based upon our conversation thus far, that you would deny Sola Fide. However, it is logic which dictates the fact that you cannot have it both ways. You can’t appeal to “uninterpreted” Scripture (by claiming that the Scriptures themselves are God’s “argument”) when it suits your position and then, in other cases, when the unvarnished Scriptures don’t align with your position, obviously appeal to an interpretation of Scripture in an effort to “explain” the meaning of the actual words away. To express a certain exegetical principle in these words “His 'arguments' are Scripture, for that is where we read them..“ on one hand and then “explain” James 2:24 to mean precisely the opposite of what it actually says, is to apply your professed exegetical principle in a manifestly ad hoc manner.

I continued: The mere fact that Christ does something does not amount to a demonstration of our being justified in adopting the same practice.

You responded: I say it does, and if someone is not seeking to follow the example of His Lord and Saviour, he needs to justify himself as a Christian in a better way than crying 'Ad hominem!'

My newest response: Notice the fact that rather than addressing my point, you’re directing your comment, once again, at a person, in this case, a hypothetical one. Further, I am not suggesting that we Christians should not seek to “follow the example” of the Lord. I never stated such a thing. What I said is that the fact that He does something does not amount to a demonstration of our being justified in adopting the same practice. For example, He went to the cross at Calvary. Such a fact does not indicate our ability to do the same. My point was intended to suggest the fact that to the extent we do what He did, we do so as followers. We cannot arrogate to ourselves, because we have the Scriptures, the Authority of God almighty any more than Fred Phelps was justified in appealing to the Scriptures for his imprudent approach to public “ministry.” Further, there are others who sought to arrogate to themselves the ministries of God’s appointed stewards. Korah certainly saw the ministry of Moses as an affront to his dignity in God. But one mustn’t mistake his self-assurance for a logical argument. This is why if a person claims that you have presented an ad hominem, the helpful response, in my view, would be to determine whether or not you did, not to point out the fact that he pointed out the fact that you did...

I continued: What I don't accept (yet still don't "despise") are any philosophical or interpretive traditions which are not revealed by God but which are, by men, insisted upon as legitimately revealed by God. Especially troubling are doctrines with no precedence prior to the 16th Century (and which could not, therefore, have been handed down to us from the Apostles), and which were not revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, or Scripture itself. And rather than just saying "You're wrong, Martin." I am trying to talk it over in all its detail. Further, if you're suggesting that I don't believe that Christians should, like Christ, quote Scripture, you're once again going after a straw man.

You responded: If they are not found in Scripture, then I agree with you. But if they are found in Scripture, then shame on the Fathers and the Church of Rome for not following them.

My newest response: This statement, as well as any which demonstrate the point I am making, reveals exactly what your logical problem is. The standard you’re attempting to apply (whether or not something is found in Scripture is what determines its validity) is itself not found in Scripture. It, therefore, fails to demonstrate its own validity. For though they apply it to the positions of others, by not applying it to itself, its adherents overlook its logical self-invalidation. In other words, this point begs the question because it relies upon, as one of its implicit premises, the legitimacy of Sola Scriptura in order to achieve its own validity. But since Sola Scriptura has not yet been demonstrated to be a divinely-revealed doctrine for the reasons I explained above (related to the nature of inductive arguments), your point is invalid. As far as the logic of what I am saying is concerned, consider the following from an online textbook on logic: “Inductive arguments are more modest when it comes to the inferential claim. It claims only that its conclusion probably follows from its premises. That is, the inferential claim is that since the premises are true or acceptable, the conclusion is likely to be true or acceptable. Put differently, the logical relation between the premises and the conclusion is claimed to be less than 100% supporting. (source: http://www.butte.edu/resources/interim/wmwu/iLogic/1.3/iLogic_1_3.html)” Hence the inescapable uncertainty of your argument for Sola Scriptura. Whatever you may come up with to defend your acceptance of the doctrine, it falls short of the certainty that comes through faith, logic, or revelation.

You responded: Paul said,'Imitate me [or 'follow My example']as I imitate Christ' (1 Cor. 11:1). So if we would follow Paul's example, we shall follow Christ's example. Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God. Sola Scripture.

 

[herbert]

continued:
I continued: Apart from having presented another non sequitur, again, you're still failing to speak to the actual point that I've raised. In other words, you blew right past that non sequitur and, building upon its cracked foundation, you're moving on to more straw men.

You responded: Non sequitur seems to be your word of the week. What I've written is nothing of the kind. You may not like my answer, but that is your problem, not mine. We must imitate our Lord's example, and whether you like it or not, it was Sola Scripture as I have explained to you several times.

My newest response: You suggest that you have not presented a non sequitur. I believe you did. This is why:

P1: Paul said,'Imitate me [or 'follow My example']as I imitate Christ'

P2: So if we would follow Paul's example, we shall follow Christ's example.

Conclusion: Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God. Sola Scripture.

Notice how your position begs the question by presupposing (and depending upon for argument’s sake) the legitimacy of Sola Scriptura as well as the intrinsically evil nature of all tradition (not just Pharisees’ Traditions). So your point both begs the question and represents a non sequitur as the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from its (2) premises.

I continued: For the record, notice that St. Paul isn't saying anything like "Follow Scripture alone." If he had intended such a thing, it's likely that he'd have written the notion down somewhere. But even 2nd Timothy, to which you turn as the "locus classicus" of Sola Scriptura, doesn't present such an idea. Even there you're mistaken in reading his text in such a way as to conclude that he had anything like Sola Scriptura in mind. If St. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were inclined to, it seems they could have just come right out with a clear teaching of the doctrine.

 

[herbert]

continued:
You responded: He has. Scripture is given 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' What extra thing is 'tradition' going to bring us? What good work in addition to 'every' is it going to equip us for? Paul is clearly teaching Sola Scriptura.

My newest response: Apart from the fact that Christians read this passage for centuries and never came to believe in Sola Scriptura (and most Christians still don’t believe it today) your point, without responding to my previous points concerning logic, linguistic convention, Scriptural context, etc. presumes the validity of *your interpretation* of these verses. In case you missed it, I will paste what I wrote earlier (numbered below) for your consideration:

1. The first portion of this text (2nd Timothy 3:16-17) is, according to both Catholic and non-Catholic interpretations, quite uncontroversial. We both agree that “All Scripture” is God-breathed, profitable, and useful for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in righteousness.
   
   
2. But since we aren’t wise to “read into” the Scriptures things they don’t say, we should here consider the meaning of the phrase “All Scripture.” This phrase would seem to suggest the idea that, on one level, Psalm 23:4 is “profitable” or “useful” for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in righteousness. Further, Isaiah 54:3 is “profitable” or “useful” for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in righteousness. And Luke 22:19 is “profitable” or “useful” for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in righteousness. In other words, just as St. Paul says, we should affirm the idea that “All Scripture,” that is, every single verse, carries within it the capacity to be put to use for these purposes. But certainly you don’t mean to suggest that, say, Judges 9:30 is alone capable of revealing to you everything you need to be “wise for salvation.” It may, however, prove profitable for some teaching point, some needed occasion of reproof or correction, or as one seeks to “train” another in righteousness.
   
   
3. The presence of a person or a teacher is necessarily indicated in the text through the phrase “instruction in righteousness.” So right there in the text we see a violation of Sola Scriptura. We see “Scripture + a trustworthy instructor.” In other words, St. Paul assumes that there will be a person present during one’s formation to guide and direct him just as St. Philip was there for the Ethiopian Eunuch who answered his question “Do you understand what you are reading?” by saying “How can I, unless someone guides me?” So just as the Holy Spirit, through St. Luke, illustrates the necessity of a trustworthy teacher by capturing this event for us in Scripture, so can we see this entire section of Scripture, as consistent with, as I mentioned, 2nd Timothy 2:2, which reads “ And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.“ We should see the Scriptures, in their entirety, as a witness to the New Israel, the Church, within which the pages of the New Testament itself were written, safeguarded, collated, recognized as God-breathed, affirmed, preached, and handed on to succeeding generations of believers.
   
   
4. All of this demands that we accept, by some principled and objective means- and not as a matter of mere human opinion- those texts which have been rightly ascribed Canonical status. After all, our affirmation of a text’s “God-breathed” status is only as reliable as our ability to rightly identify the text itself. And since the Bible did not come with an inspired Table of Contents, we must necessarily look outside of the Bible to rightly identify the valid contents of the Bible. This, we do, in part, according to the authority of Sacred Tradition.
   
   
5. Moving on, and very importantly, the clause “...that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” describes a goal St. Paul has in mind for the “man of God.” This clause represents the expression of an ideal end which St. Paul has in mind for the “man of God.” If someone said, for example “I want my 15 year old son to get a summer job so that he may grow up to be responsible, completely dependable, and thoroughly equipped for the job market.” one wouldn’t be justified in looking to the summer job he held during his teen years as solely responsible for his growing up to be a responsible employee. Rather, the job could be seen as profitable and beneficial for the sake of the boy’s development. But that would have something to do with the nature of the work, the boss on the job, the fellow employees, the wages. The job wouldn’t rightly be granted sole credit for the son’s healthy development apart from wisdom, his parents’ guidance, his faith community’s impact upon him, his school environment, etc. A similar point was made by utilyan above. I believe he cited James 1:4 which reads: “And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” or “And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” or “But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” One wouldn’t be justified in crediting “steadfastness” or “patience” alone with the final achievement of the goal identified in the text. Neither is one justified in working backwards from the description of the end goal that St. Paul has in mind for the “man of God” in an effort to, by some sort of attempt at logical induction, conclude that Scripture plays a role not described for it in the text itself.
   
   
6. Beyond all of this, the final phrase raises another important question. For we see that Scripture is “thoroughly equipping” a man. The equipping of the man of God is presented as being ordered toward some particular end or ends, however. In this case, then, we should ask for what the man of God is being equipped? We find that the verses culminate in a very concept which categorically removes the entire pericope from the question of salvation itself (according to the adherent to the doctrine of Sola Fide). The end for which the man of God is being equipped is “...for every good work.” For even if you’re rightly interpreting these verses concerning the question of Sola Scriptura (which I don’t believe to be the case), the whole matter is there at the end revealed as one distinctly NOT related to the question of salvation (or Sola Fide). It may have something to do with sanctification. But according to your framework of interpretation, the verses are manifestly NOT speaking to matters concerning a man’s justification before God. By identifying an end goal which, according to your own ideology, renders the previous text pointless as far as salvation is concerned, this section of text is categorically impertinent to the question of one’s salvation.
   
   
7. Also, what I wrote earlier applies to your question you asked above (“What good work in addition to 'every' is it going to equip us for?”), as well. It seems that you’re making the error that you made before, despite the fact that I pointed it out. For nothing in this text suggests indicates that “Scripture alone” is all that is at work to achieve this end. It says it’s “profitable” and not “solely profitable.” As I said, also, the text indicates that it’s not just Scripture Alone which is operating, but a teacher, as well, hence the “teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction” all of which require a person. : Notice what you did there. The text says 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' But you have rendered it to mean “The Scriptures are able to equip him...” Look again at the text, though. Nowhere does it say “The Scriptures are able to equip him...” Instead it says that the Scriptures are profitable toward a particular end that St. Paul has in mind. St. Paul describes Scripture in a manner perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching and then goes on to identify the goals or ideals that he has in mind for the man of God, which, also, are perfectly compatible with the truth of the Catholic faith. And as I said, verse 16 affirms the necessary role of a valid and trustworthy teacher by its inclusion of the term “training.” So simply put, verse 16 is about Scripture (and an instructor) and verse 17 is about the goals and ideals St. Paul has in mind for the man of God. You’ve somehow blended the ideas found in these two verses so as to credit the Scriptures alone with the actual achievement of the ideal which St. Paul identifies for the man of God. In other words, you’re, on account of St. Paul’s words related to the fact that Scripture is profitable in many ways, imagining Scripture as the *sole causal factor* in the actual consummation of those ideals which St. Paul outlines for the man of God (“...that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”).
   
   
8. Lastly, I’d like to add one more thing. In this verse St. Paul writes that “All Scripture is God-breathed.” I’ve read writers over the years who’ve addressed this verse. One of the comments I’ve read suggests that those who seek to find “Sola Scriptura” here in this verse are reading that first word as though it said “Only” instead of “All.” In other words, they read the passage as though it says “Only Scripture is God-breathed…” But such a substitution is not justified by the context at all.

 

[herbert]

continued:
I continued: For that matter, why isn't there a record of Christ clearly teaching such a doctrine?

You responded: There is, as I have pointed out to you. As with the Trinity, it is not spelled out as you seem to want, but it's there.

My newest response: You have pointed out, by inductive reasoning (based upon various appeals to Scriptural Authority), a conclusion concerning the role of Scripture in the life of the Christian believer which is anything but inexorably deduced from the content of Scripture itself. If you think it is necessarily logically deduced from Scripture, would you please demonstrate this to be the case? For in the case of Sola Scriptura, neither the doctrine nor the phrase is present in Scripture. While, in contrast, the doctrine of the Trinity, although the word isn’t used, the doctrine is certainly present in the Scriptures. And I am not arguing otherwise. To bring the question of the Trinity up in a conversation concerning the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to presume, without demonstration, a similarity between the two doctrines which is the very matter in question between us. In other words, it is similar to me referring to a Magisterial teaching to support my point. Since you don’t accept the Magisterium’s authority, though, I refrain from doing so. Similarly, I think it would be helpful if you’d refrain from presuming the very thing in question between us (that is, your interpretation of Scripture) by arguing your case according to a premise which presumes its validity. Also, what I want or don’t want has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a doctrine is actually found in the Scriptures. To refer to what you seem to think I want, has little to nothing to do with the content of Scripture and everything to do with your perception of my will as a person. The objective content of Scripture is available to us and, therefore, I’d prefer to focus upon it rather than what my personal desires may or may not be. For the truth or falsity of my claim that Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, unlike the state or intention of my will, is something which can be considered here in “public” on this site. Finally, it’s not that I demand Sola Scriptura to be present in some *specific* way, I demand that it be present at all (formally, materially, logically, etc.). So far, all that’s been presented are points which, by affirming the authority of Scripture (and not of Scripture Alone), are fully compatible with the truth of the Catholic Faith. These points have been used to argue, through induction, for a conclusion which does not follow from any of the given premises.

I continued: Further, why aren't Christians prior to the 16th Century found preaching "sola" Scriptura. They certainly preach the authority of Scripture. But they don't preach the "sola" to which you, by appeal to an egregious non sequitur, insist all Christians be bound. And for St. Paul's part, he's saying "Imitate me" or, as you put it "Follow my example." That is, no matter how you slice it, definitely NOT Sola Scriptura.

You responded: From the very beginning of the post-apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache and Barnabus) there was an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists like Justin Martyr and Atheagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of a verbal or extra-biblical tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

My newest response: I see a number of problems here. First, you ask that I keep things concise, yet in one sentence you present sweeping claims which themselves represent the opening of large cans of worms. So unless I just ignore your claim, what’s the point of making it. Further, why even bring these men up when you only accept them when they agree with you and to the extent they’re right are essentially “superfluous” to Scripture in their witness? Also, there was no “exclusive appeal” to Scripture presented by these men. They affirmed the legitimacy of the hierarchical organization of the Church, the importance of obedience to one’s bishop, the reality of Baptismal Regeneration, and the necessity of holding to the universal doctrines of the Church. Not only that, they, as bishops, lived out the Catholic Faith in its fullness which included their affirmation of Scripture’s authority as well as the way of “thinking, being, and understanding” (through Sacred Tradition) the faith which they received from the Apostles and handed on to those whom they taught. And though I’d only looked into the tragic and lamentable case of William Tyndale quite superficially (and was therefore somewhat mistaken about the actual specifics of his death), I have read these Fathers and therefore recognize the inaccuracy of your statement. For theirs was in no way “an exclusive appeal” to Scripture. Please consider below some evidence for my denial of your sweeping claim:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians:

“It is therefore fitting that you should by all means glorify Jesus Christ who has glorified you; that by a uniform obedience you may be joined together perfectly in the same mind and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same things concerning everything...That by being subject to your bishop and the presbytery, you may be wholly and thoroughly sanctified... For I ought to have been stirred up by you in faith, in admonition, in patience, in long-suffering; but because charity does not permit me to be silent towards you, I have first taken upon me to exhort you, that you would all run together according to the will of God... For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is sent by the will of the Father; just as the bishops, appointed to the utmost bounds of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ... Therefore it will suit you to run together according to the will of your bishop, as you already do... For your famous presbytery, worthy of God, is adjusted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp... Therefore in your concord and charitable agreement, Jesus Christ is sung, and every single person among you makes up the chorus...That so being all consonant in love, and taking up the song of God, you may in a perfect unity with one voice sing to the Father by Jesus Christ, with the result that he may both hear you and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of his Son... The reason it is profitable for you to live in an unblamable unity is so you may always share fellowship with God... For if I in this little time have had such a familiarity with your bishop, I mean not a carnal, but spiritual acquaintance with him; how much more must I think you happy who are so joined to him, as the church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father so that all things may agree in the same unity?... Let no man deceive himself: if a man be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayers of one or two be of such force as we are told, how much more powerful shall that of the bishop and the whole church be?... He therefore that does not come together in the same place with it, is proud and has already condemned [judged, or separated] himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us take heed therefore, that we do not set ourselves against the bishop, but that we may be subject to God... Especially if the Lord will make known to me that you all by name come together in common in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David according to the flesh, the Son of man and Son of God, by obeying your bishop and the presbytery with an entire mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality and our antidote so that we should not die, but live forever in Christ Jesus.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians:

“As therefore the Lord, although united to him, did nothing without the Father, neither by himself nor yet by his Apostles, so neither should you do anything without your bishop and presbyters... Neither endeavor to let anything appear rational to yourselves apart... But, being come together into the same place, have one common prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope; and be one in charity and in joy undefiled... There is one Lord Jesus Christ, compared to whom nothing is better. So come all together as to one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who proceeded from one Father, and exists in one, and is returned to one... Study therefore to be authenticated in the doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles, so that whatever you do from the beginning to the end, you may prosper both in body and spirit, in faith and charity, in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Holy Spirit... Together with your most worthy bishop, and the well- wrought spiritual crown of your presbytery and deacons, which are in accordance with God... Be subject to your bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and as the Apostles were both to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, so that you may be a unity both bodily and spiritually... Knowing you to be full of God, I have only briefly exhorted you.”

 

[herbert]

continued:
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians:

“I exhort you therefore, or rather not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, that you use none but Christian nourishment, and abstain from pasture which is of another kind: I mean heresy... For they who are heretics, while they seem worthy of belief, confound together the doctrine of Jesus Christ with their own poison... As men give a deadly potion mixed with sweet wine so that with treacherous pleasure he who drinks of it, sweetly drinks in his own death... Therefore guard yourselves against such persons. And that you will do if you are not puffed up, but continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God, and from your bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles... He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without, that is, that does anything without the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in his conscience.”

St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Epistle to the Phillipians:

"The Epistles of Ignatius written by him (Ignatius) to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat offaith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. Any more certain information you may have obtained respecting both Ignatius himself, and those that were with him, have the goodness to make known to us."

(In other words, Polycarp's Epistle represents a sort of cover letter to St. Ignatius's Letters. And St. Ignatius's Letters taught nothing like Sola Scriptura. For these men were Catholic Bishops who enjoined the faithful to follow bishops and be united in one faith around the altar. Heresy was avoided, in their minds, by subjecting one's self to the authority of one's rightful bishop, not by adhering to Sola Scriptura.)”

St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, 1st Clement-

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour…”

You continued: It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late 2nd Century that the concept of an apostolic tradition, which is handed down in the Church in oral form, is first encountered. The word 'tradition' simply means teaching.

My newest response:
Merriam-Webster’s Simple Definition of the term is far more developed than what you present. Consider the fact that rather than limiting tradition to what might be simply considered “teaching,” the actual definition includes notions of action, state of mind, possession of a particular perspective or understanding, etc.:

A. a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time

B. the stories, beliefs, etc., that have been part of the culture of a group of people for a long time

Merriam-Webster’s Full Definition is even more developed:
1. an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4: characteristic manner, method, or style

So “tradition” is quite obviously a deeper, broader, and richer term than simply “teaching.” And where the earlier Fathers you mentioned were living out the Apostolic Tradition (for example, by being bishops in a hierarchically-ordered Church), it is only by imagining a discontinuity between them and the later writers that their words do not necessarily indicate , that you come to see Irenaeus and Tertullian as figures who expressed a corruption (concerning Tradition) not present in the earlier days (All of this being separate from the question of Tertullian’s witness to “orthodoxy” in light of the fact that he died outside of the Catholic Communion).

 

[herbert]

continued:
You continued: Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written word. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic tradition that was orally preached in the churches, and it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic tradition that is not found in Scripture.

My newest response: What you say here sounds to me like a description of what we call the “material sufficiency” of Scripture. Those who hold to the material sufficiency of Scripture, as you well know, believe that, as one writer put it, all the “bricks” needed to “build” every Christian doctrine are present in Scripture. What you’re suggesting about the positions of these men, then, is perfectly compatible with the truth of the Catholic Faith. Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI wrote about this very topic and held to the material sufficiency of Scripture.

You continued: In other words, the apostolic tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing, and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church's faith.' [William Webster, 'Sola Scriptura and the Early Church']

My newest response: Once again, in the case of St. Irenaeus, you’re speaking of a Catholic Bishop. So to deny Apostolic Succession because you don’t believe that it is taught in Scripture, and then appeal to a Catholic Bishop to substantiate your position seems to me to be a most self-contradictory approach. And even if a Catholic bishop to whom you appeal doesn’t happen to leave a text explaining his view on Tradition or ecclesiology, the mere fact that he was an ordained Catholic bishop seems to represent an argument against “Sola Scriptura.”And regardless of William Webster’s characterization of the Saint’s perspective, we have his explicit teaching concerning Apostolic Succession presented as a fundamental element of the Christian faith. In Book 3, Chapter 3 of his famous Against Heresies, he says the following:

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the traditionof the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostlesinstituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be veryperfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity... Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere,

 

[herbert]

continued:
inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth thelaw, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand thetradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriouslymartyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, theecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundantproof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth… But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of

 

[herbert]

continued:
much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which theapostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says,A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of thetruth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”

You continue: I think Webster is being much too kind to Irenaeus and Tertullian who write a lot of nonsense at various points, but Irenaeus seems to have Scripture in mind when he writes about 'Tradition.'

My newest response: Once again, to determine whether or not a teaching is “nonsense” according to your attempt to apply the subjective principle of Sola Scriptura without having demonstrated the legitimacy of the doctrine itself is to beg the question concerning that about which we disagree. Also, what Irenaeus “seems to” have in mind isn’t really something one could build a sound position upon, is it?

I continued: In an effort to undermine or disprove the authority of Apostolic Tradition, you're appealing to a man who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the following: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2nd Thessalonians 2:15) and "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1st Corinthians 11:2) Again, though you claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, you're holding to, instead, your fallible interpretations of Scripture.

 

[herbert]

continued:
You responded: Ah! I said earlier that we would come to this sooner or later. I think we shall need to start a new thread on this, but it certainly needs to be tackled.

My newest response: Earlier you stated that essentially God’s argument is the Scripture itself (Here are your words: “What is Scripture but the word of God written down? Our Lord said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will by no means pass away'... Nor have they, for by the will of God they were written down. His 'arguments' are Scripture, for that is where we read them...“). With that position in mind, I am not sure what “needs to be tackled” concerning this verse. For there St. Paul clearly and unambiguously calls for an adherence to “tradition” whether relayed by word of mouth or by letter. If “His arguments are Scripture,” then He’s made himself quite clear: Tradition within Christ’s Church is valid whether it comes to us by word of mouth or by letter. For nothing St. Paul says suggests that those traditions to which he refers either “by word of mouth or by letter” became inscripturated.

I continued: You hop, skip, and jump your way from entirely Scriptural ideas which, for example, suggest that we should follow Christ's example, to completely unScriptural ideas such as: "Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God." For the Bible says nothing like that.

You responded: 'To the law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' That Scripture has been quoted to you time after time. You really should have got the message by now.

My newest response: Yes, it has been quoted time after time. But since it says nothing which contradicts Catholic teaching, it does not represent an argument for your position. Further, to present “Scripture” as evidence for the “sole” and ultimate authority of Scripture is to beg the question concerning the role God intends Scripture to play in the life of the believer. Again, it’s not Scripture which we disagree about. We disagree about interpretations of Scripture. As I’ve said, where Scripture affirms the legitimacy of tradition, you deny it. Where St. James says “not by faith alone” you say “faith alone.” Where Christ says “This is my body” you say “This is (not) my body.” With regard to Isaiah 8:20, though, I do have a few points for you to consider:

1. Please consider Isaiah 8:19, which reads: “When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” This verse reveals the fact that the matter in question here is concerned with the consultation of mediums and spiritists. The way to keep from being led astray by the appeal to such “mediums and spiritists” is, according to the Prophet, to remain true to the “law and to the testimony.”
   
   
2. If you see this as a “proof text” that I should understand by now, what exactly is, in your mind, the “law and… the testimony”? There is nothing in this text which indicates that the “law and… the testimony” amounts to “Scripture alone.” As a matter of fact, the term “testimony” refers not to God’s law directly, but to man’s attestation of it. In other words, if someone practices necromancy, he is guilty of violating the Prophet’s warning, God’s Law, and man’s witness of God’s law. Nothing here even begins to suggest anything like Sola Scriptura. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible has this to say: “The meaning is, probably, this: 'The law of God is the standard by which all professed communications from the invisible world are to be tested. If the necromancers deliver a doctrine which is not sustained by that, and not in accordance with the prophetic communications, it shows that they are in utter ignorance. There is not even the glimmering of the morning twilight; all is total night, and error, and obscurity with them, and they are not to be followed.” In other words, the Prophet’s witness or testimony is one authority against which the claims and practices of necromancers should be measured. So between a Prophet’s testimony and God’s Law, the practices of a necromancer are revealed as manifestly out of accord with God’s will.
   
   
3. What does it mean to speak according to “this word”? Strong’s exhaustive concordance defines this particular “word” not as “Scripture” but as the particular utterance which the Prophet is offering within the context of that particular pronouncement. In other words, “word” here doesn’t mean Scripture per se, but simply the particular matter in question here within the context of the Prophet’s remarks, which happens to be related to the practice of necromancy. In other words, the Prophet condemns necromancy, and by virtue of his personal status as one who speaks on behalf of God, he’s saying that if anyone does something other than what it is he’s saying, such a person has “no light” in him. Again, there is nothing present in this text which even begins to teach “Sola Scriptura.” If you think there, is, please explain what it is I am missing.

 

[herbert]

continued:
You continued: If the Lord Jesus had recommended some 'godly' traditions to us, you might have a point. But He didn't. He taught sola Scriptura and condemned tradition (Mark 7:5-8) as you know very well.

My newest response: As I mentioned above, tradition is not inherently and necessarily condemnable. It’s not as if Christ is condemning the washing of cups, the seeking of converts, and the decorating of graves as being intrinsically evil practices themselves (which are some of the traditions mentioned in Matthew 23, for example). Instead, He condemns the way in which the Pharisees had come to neglect the “weighty matters” of the Law while becoming obsessed with these and other lesser ceremonial, disciplinary, and customary acts. They even went so far as to use their traditions to justify their neglect of God’s Law. Let’s consider the broader context here:

"7 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

7 in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Notice that Christ is upset not about the washing of hands per se. The book of Leviticus gives a host of instructions pertaining to ritual cleansing. Neither is Christ upset with the giving of alms to God. He’s, then, not upset by the mere existence of tradition. He’s upset by the Pharisees’ manipulation of tradition to suit their selfish desires, which amounted to a particularly bad form of hypocrisy, The Pharisees had elevated their traditions so as to justify the violation of God’s Law. For example, by claiming that one’s wealth is “given to God,” one of these people could avoid having to care for his parents.

You continued: ...I'm inclined to leave your glossing over of centuries of Roman Catholic persecution and slaughter just as it is, so that people can see how your Church justifies itself for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents for no other reason than that they refused to bow the knee to your false Pope.

My newest response: I see a number of problems here.

1. The fact that I have not spoken directly to your remarks concerning persecutions, inquisitions, etc. need not be understood as a “glossing over” on my part. On one hand, you ask me to trim things down. Then later you claim that I am “glossing over” these offenses by not speaking to them.
   
   
2. Second of all, my response to you doesn’t represent the entire Catholic Church’s response to your claims and comments. In other words, regardless what I say or don’t say, I am not in a position to reveal “how (my) Church justifies itself for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents…”
   
   
3. I don’t deny the presence of scandal in the Church any more than I deny the presence of scandal among the Apostles. Neither does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I stand by documents like this one: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
   
   
4. The sins of members of the Catholic Church, even Popes, though they scandalize the Church, don’t compromise its essential integrity just as the sins of a person do not disqualify him from accepting and sharing the Gospel. If that is the point you’re presuming, (that sins of its members disqualifies a “church” or institution from fulfilling its duty) if you wish to avoid begging the question, its soundness will need to be established before you can proceed in conversation according to a presumption of its validity. If a man’s witness to the Gospel is only as valid as he is moral, even St. Paul’s witness would have to be rejected as he suffered with a “thorn in his flesh” which prevented him from becoming conceited (apparently a sin of some kind). He also considered himself to be the chief of sinners. His words here apply to the Church just as they do to men and women: “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
   
   
5. Also, the many questions surrounding the historical injustices of our common past are not directly on-topic here as this discussion is supposed to focus upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Further, your statement, instead of discussing the validity of the Papacy, presumes its illegitimacy and thereby is another example of your having begged the question.

 

[herbert]

continued:
I responded: ...Also, you mentioned recent events. The betrayal of Christ by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 whom He selected to be an Apostle, isn't exactly a recent event. Neither are St. Peter's denials of Christ. Did you have some other unique and innovative sins in mind worse than those committed by the very men upon whom Christ chose to confer His divine authority?

You responded: I am aware of Roman Catholics who have led exemplary lives. It is not they whom I criticize- I am sorry for them that they give their best efforts to a false church. You know very well what I was referring to, and the wicked cover-up that appears to have come from the very top.

My newest response: Though you were alluding to it, I avoided bringing up the matter of priestly sexual abuse and various efforts to cover it up very deliberately to make a point. Firstly, the priestly abuse scandal is a horrible thing. Those who were involved (and wherever such sins may be occurring as we speak) will answer to God for their offenses. The damage they have done to the witness of the Church is inestimable. But growing up in Baptist Churches, I have known of many cases of abuse. As semi-autonomous bodies, however, no larger, institutional “Baptist Church” can be blamed in the media for these many offenses. In the case of the Catholic Church, her unity is the very thing which allows the enemies of Christ to, for the sins of a minority of its members, paint the whole Institution as even when such is not the case. What the Catholic Church is isn’t essentially evil. It’s essentially human. So in an effort to appeal to a principle which maintains the idea that the Church’s fundamental integrity can remain despite the grievous sins of her members, I spoke of the Apostles’ offenses against the Lord. For if the Apostles can desert and deny Him yet still be used to go about His work, what evidence do you have Biblical or otherwise which would suggest that we who’ve received the Catholic Faith cannot, by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s safekeeping, affirm its essential integrity? Again, though, these matters are not directly related to Sola Scriptura and they presume, according to a Sola Scriptura framework, the invalidity of the Catholic Church which is a matter whose consideration hinges directly upon the very question we’re supposed to be discussing here.

You also said: It's apostolicity is a joke as long as it denies sola scriptura

I responded: This point, apart from the fact that it begs the question by presuming the illegitimacy of my position without bothering to demonstrate it in rational terms, speaks to matters which are objectively and publicly accessible to all. For early Christian writers presented to us public and verifiable records of Papal Succession which you're free to demonstrate as invalid. To do so, according to Sola Scriptura, mind you, would be both unScriptural and invalid until you take the time to demonstrate how points 1 and 2 above lead to point 3. And to deny them according to the very point whose legitimacy you've not yet demonstrated is to, again, beg the question.

You continued: My point is that it denies the authority of the apostles by sidelining their words as found in Scripture.

My newest response: How one determines whether or not the Apostles’ words are sidelined by the Catholic Church has much to do with his acceptance or his rejection of Sola Scriptura as well as the way he conceives of the unity of the Church. To deny Catholicism’s legitimacy according to one’s adherence to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (along with the specific interpretive traditions of his given sect) is to maintain one’s position according to a presumption of its legitimacy, which is to beg the question. Again, until it’s demonstrated that Sola Scriptura is a divinely-revealed doctrine, this conversation just represents one enormous begged question.

 

[herbert]

continued:
You continued: As for Papal Succession, I deny the Papacy altogether. Where is a 'Pope' found in Scripture? Where are your 'cardinals' and all the other placemen? What saith the Scriptures?"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven"(Matthew 23:9).

My newest response:

1. You’re begging the question. By asking “Where is a ‘Pope’ found in Scripture?” you’re demanding that Catholic teaching not measure up to Scripture, but to your interpretation of Scripture. Sola Scriptura, however, is the very doctrine in question between us.
   
   
2. If you’re going to appeal to Christ’s proscription concerning the title “father,” I am curious why you’ve been using it throughout this conversation with regard to the Early Church Fathers. Also, did you ever call your own father “Father”? If so, why?
   
   
3. I wonder if you don’t use the term “mister” or “doctor” or “teacher” or “instructor,” either? If you do, why?
   
   
4. I wonder if you fault St. Paul for what he wrote in Philemon 10: “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.” For here, St. Paul violates the proscription by calling himself, a man, the (spiritual) father of Onesimus.
   
   
5. Just as an acorn which is something very small and unassuming grows into a large Oak, so do Catholics understand even the Church’s self-understanding to have developed over time according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
   
   
6. Again, we believe that the “bricks” needed to build the case for Petrine Authority are present in Scripture. But this conversation is not supposed to be focused upon Petrine Authority or the Papal Office.

You continued: But as for your 'Papal Succession,' I've already told you that 'Pope' Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council in 680, and by 'Pope' Leo II and by every other 'Pope' until the 11th Century when Hildebrand reinstated him so as not to have any heretical 'Popes' on record. I've also told you about the three 'Popes' fighting it out in Rome in around 1040, and the Great Schism where there were rival 'Popes' at Rome and Avignon busily excommunicating each other for seventy years or so. Your 'Papacy is a joke. Some of the most wicked men imaginable have held the office.

My newest response: When the question at hand is a clear and straightforward question, and we’re making our way through historical points (however important they may be), we’re getting off-topic. Though these are VERY important topics, until we address the question of SS, we can't approach them with the hope of reaching some sort of agreement or assuming a similar vantage point. I see the case of Honorius as a matter to be tackled after one either does or doesn’t demonstrate the validity of Sola Scripture. Further, there are answers which actual historians (many of them converts to the Catholic Faith) can and do offer to demonstrate a view which suggests that despite these trials of history, there is nothing here which invalidates the Church’s sacramental unity. Consider, too, the fact that the office of Judas Iscariot came to be filled despite his betrayal of Christ. This event is recorded for us in Scripture. In a similar way, the Papacy, despite speedbumps in the history of the Office, isn't essentially comprised as a result. Further, statements such as “Your ‘Papacy’ is a joke.” allow me to point out my belief in Christ’s institution of the Papacy. In other words, I accept the Papacy because I believe that Christ instituted the Papacy. Therefore, I don’t see it as “my Papacy” or “my papal succession.” I see the Chair of Peter as divinely instituted and therefore as something for which Christ claims responsibility. Further, I see Apostolic Succession, also, as something Christ instituted which is, thereby, worthy of the assent of Faith.

You continued: To preach the word of God is to take the Scriptures and expound them, and bring out their meaning. The very fact that you have to ask shows that you're not familiar with the genre.

My newest response: Ok. But if the meaning of a particular passage is subject to misinterpretation, who’s there to settle a matter of dispute? What happens when this process of “bringing out” the meaning of Scripture leads one to recognize the fact that Scripture Alone is not, according to Scripture, a truly revealed doctrine? In other words, by following Sola Scriptura rightly, one will come to reject Sola Scriptura as it is a self-defeating doctrine by virtue of the fact that Scripture Alone nowhere teaches Scripture Alone. And simply insisting that you have the right meaning and a Catholic doesn’t won’t do. Again, self-assurance is no substitute for a logical argument.

I also wrote the following: He did endorse an "other form of revelation" (apart from Scripture) as "normative" when He introduced Himself as "The Son," who is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

You responded: Everything about the Lord Jesus Christ was foretold in Scripture.
That He was the Seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15).
That His mother would be a virgin (Isaiah 7:14).
That He would be the Seed of Abraham (Matthew 1:1).
That He would be both the descendant and Root of David's line (Isaiah 11:1, 10).
That He should be named before He was born (Isaiah 49:1).
That He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
That His birth should entail sorrowing for others (Jeremiah 31:15; cf. Matthew 2:16-18).
That someone should go before Him to make ready His way (Malachi 3:1).
That His advent would give sight to the blind etc. (Isaiah 35:5-6).
That He should speak in parables Psalm 78:2),
And so on. To deal with your points specifically,

That He was the Son of God and should reign over all creation (Psalm 2:6-9; Psalm 110; Isaiah 53:10-12; Jeremiah 23:5-6etc.).

But where do you read that He is 'the image of the invisible God? In Scripture! If it were someone's tradition, we would not believe it, but there it is in Colossians 1:15. Sola Scriptura!

 

[herbert]

continued:
My newest response: So if I don’t refer to Scripture, my point is illegitimate because I am following tradition. But if I cite Scripture, my doing so, in your mind, represents a demonstration of the legitimacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? That doesn’t add up. The fact that Christ is foretold in Scripture and the fact that I cited Scripture don’t amount to *Sola* Scriptura. Again, to suggest so is to present a non sequitur. The fact that “everything about the Lord” was foretold doesn’t require us to affirm any “sola” concerning Scripture. Christ didn’t teach that. The Scriptures themselves don’t contain such a teaching. A prophet of God never revealed it. And no Angel has come bearing that message. Neither does inductive reasoning provide us with any sound basis for the acceptance of the doctrine.

I continued: Further, He saw it fit to confer upon the Apostles the power to bind and loose, to forgive and retain forgiveness, to be "keepers of the keys" in His absence, etc. In other words, by the promise of the Holy Spirit, He most certainly did identify the "normative" authority of His Church, born on Pentecost, which is mystically bound to Him. All of these actions are recorded for us in Scripture.

You responded: With regard to the actions being recorded in Scripture, exactly so. The question here is not Sola Scriptura but the Church of Rome's faulty interpretation of the verses in question. I am happy to discuss that in another thread

My newest response: Again, earlier you wrote that “His 'arguments' are Scripture, for that is where we read them…” which seems to imply that Scripture itself is the argument. Now you’re appealing to “faulty interpretations” of Scripture. Which one is it? In teaching wrongly, is the Church just denying the bald and obvious meaning of Scripture? Or is Scripture subject to misunderstanding? For the moment you acknowledge the possibility of the Church having adopted the wrong interpretation of Scripture the question of your own accuracy arises. If the Church has adopted a faulty interpretation, what prevents you from doing so, also?

I continued: The "traditions" Christ condemned were unGodly traditions, not all traditions. What you're doing by condemning all tradition on account of Christ's condemnation of Pharasaical traditions is falling prey to the "fallacy of composition" which fails by understanding all of a particular thing to have, by composition, the same qualities or weaknesses as all of the things of the same "composition." In other words, by assuming what's true for some traditions (for example, the unGodly traditions of the Pharisees) is true for all tradition, you've made quite a misstep. Your position, then, seems to be based largely upon the unproven (and unBiblical) assertion that because some traditions were indeed bad, then all traditions are bad.

You responded: What you have to do, Herbert, is to show me where the Lord Jesus differentiates between 'good' tradition and 'bad' tradition. You say that those condemned by our Lord in Mark 7 were 'ungodly traditions; where are the 'Godly' traditions that He endorses? What I see is Him condemning the traditions of 'the elders' (Mark 7:3, 5). That could equally be translated, 'the traditions of the fathers.'

My newest response: As I said above, there is nothing wrong with the ceremonial washing if the washing assumes its proper place among the thoughtful and rightly ordered practices of a Jew or a Christian. Neither is there anything wrong with decorating a burial site. Neither is there anything wrong with giving alms to God. These things, though, when they’re done to avoid serving God in a more weighty manner, become particularly revealing of the evil in one’s heart. As I said, there’s nothing wrong with straining gnats from one’s water. But as Jesus said, the Pharisees strained gnats while they swallowed camels. They “gave to God” so that they would be able to see themselves as freed from the responsibility to care for their parents, for example. It’s your reading of the texts, which is done according to a particular interpretive tradition, which leads you to see the traditions of the Pharisees as “essentially” evil rather than “contextually” evil because of the particularly hypocritical and systematic unrighteousness which had developed among the Pharisees.

I continued: Here as we reach your conclusion we encounter a clear demonstration of the fact that your position rests upon a sweeping and fallible inference (or probability), which is itself, grounded upon a non sequitur. Your syllogism is used to demonstrate, not how a particular assertion necessarily (deductively) follows from a set of premises, but rather, where exactly the burden of proof lies. But determining where the burden of proof lies is itself something which is dependent other factors which you've, in formulating your syllogism this way, glossed over.

 

[herbert]

continued:
You responded: What I notice is that you are not prepared to take the onus of proof upon yourself and show why the fact that our Lord specifically condemned tradition still permits you to follow it. Until you do that, with respect, everything else you write is so much hot air.

My newest response: Allow me to clarify my position. I don’t believe that the question is “Will I follow tradition or not?” I believe we are both in a situation which asks, instead “Which traditions will we follow?” So it is that I see the both of us adhering to tradition. Remember, when one defines tradition as an received way of “being, thinking, and acting” it should be clear that we all have “traditions.” I presumed the validity of the tradition into which I was born as the Grandson of a Moody Graduate from the Post-War era. I had no reason to question Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide for most of my life. Eventually, though, I came to see that, as I’ve said before, we all have traditions, like glasses which are so comfortable, we forget we have them on,.. Well, if my glasses could come between me and getting closer to Christ, they had to come off. This involved a painful and challenging process of re-orientation. I think Frank Sheed described it well when he said: “Bernard Shaw phrased the experience very admirably: ‘When we learn something, it feels at first as if we have lost something.’ It is so, for instance, with a new stroke at tennis. Our old stroke had been a pretty incompetent affair, of the sort to make a professional laugh. But it had been ours, we were used to it, all our muscles were in the habit of it. The new stroke is doubtless better, but we are not in the way of it, we cannot do anything with it, and all the joy goes out of tennis—but only until we have mastered the new way. Then, quite suddenly, we find that the whole game is a new experience.” To become Catholic was to adopt a new stroke at the same effort, following Jesus.

I said: I know I keep changing your words around.

You responded: Yep!

I said: But I do so simply to pinpoint your position.

You responded: I don't think you do. I think you are trying to make my words into some sort of Aunt Sally at which you can throw your philosophical coconuts, rather than addressing the issue, which is that our Lord specifically denounced tradition and you and your church are desperately trying to avoid the obvious conclusion of that.

My newest response: Please understand, again, that I don’t change anything in an effort to twist your words. The benefit of dialogue is that wherever I may misrepresent you in my effort to pinpoint your position, you’re right here to set me straight. Also, I am not trying to throw coconuts at anybody’s view. I genuinely do not believe Sola Scriptura to be a divinely-revealed doctrine. If such is the case, the whole Protestant system falls like a house of cards. For it presumes the legitimacy of the doctrine. Further, as I’ve been saying, I don’t wish to avoid the issue of tradition. I’ve taken the time to attempt to address it above to demonstrate as much. At the same time, I’d prefer to save that conversation for the post you recently started which concerns it. For the sake of this conversation, I’d rather focus upon SS.

You continued, saying: It might be helpful to consider the views of a few prominent Church fathers on this subject. First, Cyril of Jerusalem:

'Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Holy Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.' [Catechetical Lectures IV:17]

My newest response: Cyril, Bishop and Doctor in the Catholic Church, though he here proposes the legitimacy of Scripture, does not propose the legitimacy of *Sola* Scriptura. Remember, he was a “bishop” in the Church who said things like this about the Eucharist: “Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, ye are become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.1 Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” (Catechetical Lectures)

You continued, saying: Next, Basil of Caesaria:

'We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of god; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin.' ['Prolegomena,' 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii)]

My newest response: Basil, Bishop and Doctor in the Catholic Church, here affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture. As an ordained teacher, he was fit to do so, however. For in his teaching office as Bishop in the Church Christ established, he was in a position to teach rightly from the Scriptures, to teach in accord with the way of “being and thinking” handed down from Christ through the Apostles. Further, in Chapter 10 of his De Spiritu Sancto, he said things like this, too: “Whence is it that we are Christians? Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism. How else could we be? And after recognising that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away ‘that form of doctrine’ (Romans 6:17) which we received? Would it not rather be ground for great groaning if we are found now further off from our salvation ‘than when we first believed,’ and deny now what we then received? …. For if to me my baptism was the beginning of life, and that day of regeneration the first of days, it is plain that the utterance uttered in the grace of adoption was the most honourable of all. Can I then, perverted by these men’s seductive words, abandon the tradition which guided me to the light, which bestowed on me the boon of the knowledge of God, whereby I, so long a foe by reason of sin, was made a child of God? But, for myself, I pray that with this confession I may depart hence to the Lord, and them I charge to preserve the faith secure until the day of Christ, and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism.”

You continued, saying: Lastly, Augustine of Hippo:

'Let us not hear: "This I say, this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is in the books of the Lord on whose authority we both believe. There let us seek the church, there let us discuss our case.....Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: What do you want to remove these things from the midst? because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles......Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of the Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.....Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.' ['On the Unity of the Church, 10]

My newest response: Augustine, Bishop and Doctor in the Catholic Church, can only be appealed to by someone with views similar to yours in the most superficial way. For with the writing he left us, we know very clearly what it is he affirmed and what it is he denied. If you mean to suggest that he implied a “sola” anywhere in what he wrote, to indicate anything like what it is you mean by the doctrine, you’re quite mistaken. Again, though, for all of this talk, I am awaiting a clear demonstration of the fact that the doctrine is divinely-revealed. You claim to have done so. But I have explained why it is I don’t agree. If you think my reasoning is wrong, could you explain where I’ve gone wrong?

And I closed with the following: The “onus” isn’t on me to prove tradition. The “onus” is on you to prove the illegitimacy of tradition. For right alongside the authority of Scripture it’s been affirmed all along, throughout the entire history of the Christian faith, by Christianity’s greatest witnesses to the unbelieving world.

Thanks again, Martin!

Herbert

 

[herbert]

Herbert -

Jesus said, He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:48

Answer this question: By what, according to Jesus, will you be judged in the last day? By His Word or by your popes?

Hello, ReformedBaptist-

Since a Catholic believes that Christ instituted the Papacy and founded the Catholic Church, to suggest that s/he must choose either His Word or Catholic Popes represents a false dilemma.

Unfortunately, since this conversation is being ended abruptly, we will likely not be able to discuss this further. But thanks again for your time and concern for my soul.

Peace be to all here in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Herbert

 

[BobRyan]

Truth is not built on a lie.
There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome, not even his remains are in Rome.

Peter would have had to die in Rome - to ever have been there.

Here are a couple of lies promoted by the RCC:
1. That Peter was the first Pope at Rome[,/b] and secondly, that he ruled from there for 25 years. That is far-fetched fable,

True - but why go out on a limb? -- if Peter was ever in Rome it would not make him Pope.

Paul was in Rome -- it did not make him Pope.

It is one thing to argue that Peter was never Pope and never ruled the Christian church from Rome - it is quite another to argue that he never spent any time at all in Rome. That is a needless extension that only serves to weaken the argument.

In Acts 15 there is but one church: The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem,

In Acts 15 you have a world-wide church that meets in Jerusalem so that the Jewish leadership of that denomination ("sect" as they call it in the Bible) can decide for all the other local congregations what the rule is going to be regarding gentiles having to be circumcised and become Jews in order to be saved.

Certainly you are right that there was only one such church/sect/denomination in Acts 15 and you are right that among the Jewish leaders of the church - James seems to be in charge in Acts 15 of that council's decision.

It had but one pastor, Pastor James.

1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 place the role of Apostle above that of Pastor.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[herbert]

John stated that ALL saved have the annoiting of the Holy Spirit to be able to understand the truths of the Bible, and all doctrines and practices per paul are found in the Bible, so when Rome gets so many of her doctrines from man made traditions that violate the Bible, what is up with that?

And you realise that Rome claiming to be the infallible teacher of what the Bible means is exactly same as Mormons and JW, right?

Hello-

I am not sure why it is still possible to post here. Had I known the conversation was going to be open for a bit longer I would have proofread my longer response to Martin.

Since I have another chance to respond, though, I would like to speak to your point.

As I see it, your point would be valid if Sola Scriptura led to doctrinal unity. Such is not the case, however. Some who hold to Sola Scriptura believe in Baptismal Regeneration, some to predestination, some to Sola Fide, some to Christ's Real Presence in Holy Communion... So when two people who by all accounts "have the anointing" of which you speak, yet disagree with one another, certainly it can't be Scripture to which they appeal. For in such a case both parties reached their respective doctrines through Scriptural study.

This is why I suggest that we all have our "traditions." It is by these traditions that we think, act, and believe. It is by these traditions, or received understandings of the Faith, that we (as I used to) come to accept Justification by Faith Alone, for example, or any number of other fundamental doctrines about which Christians disagree. GK Chesterton expressed the point well with these words: "The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement..." (From his essay Why I am a Catholic)

The cover of (recent convert to Catholicism) Christian Smith's book "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture" reads as follows: "Biblicism, an approach to the Bible common among some American evangelicals, emphasizes together the Bible's exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Acclaimed sociologist Christian Smith argues that this approach is misguided and unable to live up to its own claims. If evangelical biblicism worked as its proponents say it should, there would not be the vast variety of interpretive differences that biblicists themselves reach when they actually read and interpret the Bible. Far from challenging the inspiration and authority of Scripture, Smith critiques a particular rendering of it, encouraging evangelicals to seek a more responsible, coherent, and defensible approach to biblical authority." (my emphasis)

Do you see what I am getting at?

Thanks for chiming in!

Herbert

 

[herbert]

DHK,

Instead of speaking directly to the question of Sola Scriptura, you're once again discussing another topic. However, your attention to this topic does raise a question in my mind.
Please consider these quotes:

Writing to the Roman Church in the 2nd Century, St. Ignatius said the following: "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict"

Dionysius of Corinth wrote the following in a letter to the Pope toward the end of the 2nd Century: "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"

In his famous Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus wrote the following which refers directly to St. Peter's work of evangelization in Rome: "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church"

And Clement of Alexandria wrote the following right around the beginning of the 3rd Century: "The circumstances which occasioned [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed"

So I ask you this: Why is it that you prefer modern archeological guesswork (concering St. Peter's long-past whereabouts) to the witness of the early Christians, many of whom were writing before the time during which you claim that the Church became entirely corrupt (under Constantine)?

Herbert