A Defense of Sola Scriptura
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
They are not against sola scriptura, they are clarifying the term, which is probably against your (and many other people's) understanding of the term. There is only one correct meaning for the term sola scriptura, irregardless of how many different explanations that are given by different people. If the definition given does not jive with the correct term, then what they believe does not fall under the scope of sola scriptura. Therefore, if you take time to search out the correct meaning for yourself, then when you encounter someone who disagrees, you will be obliged to correct them. And you can do so based upon fact and not what you've been told by others.I have scanned your three links. The first two seemingly speaks against Sola Scriptura, although I may have overlooked something in my brief scanning.
Be aware that I've heard that before. Also, that's why I have decided to read the fathers for myself.The third link is easily refuted. Be aware that the early church fathers must be taken in context in the entire work quoted and the body of their writing concerning where they stand on this issue.
I disagree.Be aware that the early fathers debated their adversaries from scripture only because it was the only "common ground" between then; the heresies being put down certainly does not recognise Church authoriy and tradition.
Hello Bro. Curtis! I've read several of your posts and wanted to meet you, so here is my opportunity!Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Sir.
Was it the water that saved him and his family, or the faith it took to build the ark, and the faith it took to bring him and his family onboard, and the faith that God meant what he said, when he told Noah his family would be spared ?
Sir.
You too!Originally posted by LisaMC:
Bill,
I was really hoping to get to respond today, but didn't have a chance. Tomorrow! I promise!!
God Bless!!!
And what I've been trying to impress on you is that there is only one correct definition to sola scriptura. And once you figure out what it is, you will have the edge on your debate partner by correcting him.Thats a very good question!
You see, I have to sort of take a guess at it, so I have no idea whose "definition" other then what I have been able to derive by listening across the spectrum of
Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical thinking. And this is the reason, I think, Thessalonian, asked the question in the first place.
Yes. That's why I've decided that you should search out the one true meaning of the term and then you can quickly dispose of wrong definitions given to you and save yourself a lot of wasted hours.BINGO! (Famous Catholic term!)
Now, I suppose I could search out all of the denomminations of all the non-Catholic churches and congregations and attempt to compile what the definition of Sola Scriptura is.
Do you see the obvious futility of doing this, Lisa?
I didn't mean to imply that you did.Anyway, I make no claims on him, not at all!
Did it not perhaps ring a bell indicating that just perhaps you were getting close to defining SS?I just happen to note the link you gave as having the definition of Sola Scriptura that "rang a bell," coming close to what he has said, from the top of my fallible memory.
Other protestants disagreeing with the definition would not be evidence that the definition is wrong.As for White's definition of Sola Scriptura matching Robert Bowman's, I will let you confirm that. I know they sounded similar, and so if it comes close to being a "legitimate and reliable" definition, you may very well be right, but I think I will still find opposition to this among many Protestants I discuss these issues with (it being a while.)
Perhaps not. But, as I've conversed with you, I have thought about this. I'm sure than most non-RCs have gone along with the definition given by their respective churches and haven't sought the true meaning on their own. So, basically, what they are arguing, they may believe. However, the fact is what they believe is different than sola scriptura.I think it would also be quite remarkable if the James White definition of Sola Scriptura would match all of non-Catholic Christendom much better then the degree, all these communities regard the other disputed doctrines such as baptism, the Eucharist, confession, and the Trinity and others...
Okay.Oh, I don't rely on Rev. Smurd at all! I know better, having been challenged on them!
Well, this priest was sent packing.As for a priest teaching what you are claiming here, if I were his bishop, he would be hitting the road big time! Unfortunately, such renegades end-up founding their own non-Catholic communities!
Well . . . I believe we have to look closer to the Reformation era to find the right definition.That was earlier in my apologetics efforts. And by the way, where do I go to get the correct skinny on the proper definition of Sola Scriptura? The James White site? The
Robert Bowman site? Do you see where I am leading you here?
Yet, there are still people of the RC faith who have different understandings on RC doctrine. See my post from theBut when it comes to a Catholic teaching, I have only one place to go... (The Catechism of the Catholic Church being a good start) but note that the source for the correct definition is within one church. Get the idea now?
But, that's an unreasonable desire.And BINGO, you put your finger on exactly why I think Thessalonian posted his thread in the first place! What are we Catholic apologists to do when we discuss Sola Scriptura? We wish we could operate with one definition that is applicable to all
You left one out . . . Roman Catholicism., but alas, this is not so as we encounter the Baptists, Methodist, Pentecostals and their derivatives , JW's, SdA's, Church of England/Episcopal, Presbyterians and their derivatives, and on and on and on...where do I stop?
Okay.But I manage, having confronted this issue for years so really, it is no biggy for me any more.
Maybe in regards to knowing the ECFs and the Catechism you are correct. But, my experience with non-RCs is that they know their Scriptures pretty dern good.My goodness, girl, must I go back and relate my experiences over the years?
It's just the feeling I get, the conclusive observation I make, noting that for a Catholic to get out here and defend the faith, he had better have his nose into scriptures, the Catechism, the teachings of the early fathers, etc., and usually, most often then not, he is on top of the issues better then his non-Catholic counterpart.
Well, I don't think it would be too much for you to expect your counterparts to reveal their particular denomination or belief practices so you can argue effectively.But when it comes to Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian doctrines, including Sola Scriptura, we Catholic apologists are at a disadvantage simply because there is too much inconsistencies in their doctrines and beliefs to know them all in our heads.
Well, there is a definite definition for SS, you just need to figure out what it is.Do you now get the funny feeling that this is precisely why Thessalonian posted this thread in the first place? To have such a common definition would be a convenience to us, that we don't have to go digging into every denomination and their article of faith!
I don't think you would be being unreasonable if you refused to debate with such a person.And besides, the individual I am debating often does not even reveal his denomination, and in fact, it is like pulling hen's teeth to get his to state it! So I have to go blindly along, hoping I can dope out what he really believes.
Yes, we know where to go. However, it's not as easy as you believe.But you guys have it easy! To find out what we believe, you know where to go for a common source, don't you?
Maybe, but I think you can correct that.Whew! I thought it was obvious! When it comes to defining doctrine, we must steer clear of attempting to define a similar doctrine in all of Protestantism.
But, it's the RCs who place themselves in this position. If you stopped the argument of RCism vs all Protestantism, many of your major arguments used to disspell non-Catholic teachings would become null and void.On the other hand, you guys can easily discern where Thessalonian and I stand, don't you? Do you now see the disadvantage we have in attempting to relate to ALL of non-Catholic Christianity?
Could you just give me one tiny example. Maybe, I'll start another thread.Sure, that's fine. That's cool. But that is about the only thing that was carried-over from the Old Testament. But notice how Christ speaks of the Ten Commandments whereas, the Jews sort of compromised on it in the spirit (the letter being way too strict), especially in their Corban rule.
But for your information, Christ did quote from Jewish traditions, but it is not pertinent to the thread here. One day, we can discuss it further...
I disagree. Was the Church formed before or after the Gospels were delivered? Not necessarily written down, but delivered. Did the Church exist before Jesus' ministry? We know from Matt 16:18 that the Church was not yet formed, because Jesus said, " . . . upon this rock I will build my Church."Not at all! The only thing that was before the Church, that passed on into the new covenant was the Ten Commandments!
Yes, but you still have not proven that the Church was formed before the Gospel.The only real other reason the Old Testament was valuable was to show the prophesy of the Messiah to come, the foreshadowing of the new covenant to come, and to illustrate the history of the Jews in contrast to how Christians are to act in the gospel of Christ and His commandments. (Not to minimize the Old Testament at all, but it is now a closed covenant.) That is not the gospel of Christ! His gospel is the "Good News" of how we are to be saved, today, by the blood of the cross!
I know that. I wasn't trying to assert that the OT's importance was taking away from the NT, just to show that it is evident by the foreshadowing in the OT that the Gospel was planned already.I use the word "gospel" as the Teaching Word or the Good News of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the old covenant of the Old Testament, not for the moment taking away the importance of what the Old Testament teaches us.
Wait a minute now! We both and know that God is omnipotent, who knows all things past, present and future! He also know that the Church would come before anything would be written down!
Yes.So far as humankind knows, all of the gospel is in the hearts and minds of the apostles. All of this means that for all intents a purposes, in the history and time flow of all humanity during that period, The Church had all of the revealed truth before it was committed to papyrus.
But, it was written down. Why do you suppose that is?The fact that God, from His omnipotent throne knows all of this is not the issue and it certainly is not pertinent to what God actually does, through His Divine Son, in imparting authority to a Church he creates, never mind when it may be written down.
It may not have been activated, yet. But, I believe it did exist.So, insofar as the "existence" of the gospel is concerned, it did not exist in the time of the Old Testament!
No, it's not. God already formulated the Gospel, before the Church was established. The foundation of the Church was part of His plan in the Gospel.God, in His timeless omniscience knowing of the gospel that was to be later in earth time, is non sequitur for the issue at hand.
But, not before the Gospel.So now we have a Church who came before the word of the gospel were ever committed to papyrus.
So, when do you assert that the Church was established?All things contemplated by God exist in the timeless realm of God! But earth is not timeless but in time flow, that it has a past, present and future. Therefore in the "present tense" of the Church being established, the gospel was in the process of being infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles.
That doesn't mean it didn't exist.It did not exist in the physical form of words on papyrus.
It has been preserved for us in writing. That's how the earliest christian leaders ensured that it was passed on accurately to us.And if it did not exist in that physical form, whence comes Sola Scriptura?
But, they did write it down. Why do you think they did?Infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles was His Word, given orally, not one command from Jesus to write a thing down! (While he was in the flesh and on earth with the apostles.)
And you continued to converse with this person?Good for you!
I had one "KJVonly" type tell me one time that Paul preached the gospel using the Authorized 1611 King James Version!
Where it's always been.But you are missing my point now - With the Church in existence, with the apostles in full force, having the gospel infused in their hearts and minds, where is Sola Scriptura?
Wherever the Gospel was being preached--church.If you were a "New Testament" Christian on those times, where would you go for the gospel message as authority for your doctrines, faith and morals?
But, the Gospel still existed.Remember, the New Testament was not written yet! (Some scholars think that the period of inscripturisation started about 20 to 30 years after Pentecost.)
Ingrained in the Gospel. You know I keep hearing, "NT Scripture wasn't written until . . . " However, that does not account for the epistles written by Paul. Maybe you can enlighten me. Did Paul not write those epistles? And there's no way to know for certain that none of these teachings were being cirulated in some type of written form.So, where is Sola Scriptura now insofar as the gospel of Christ is concerned in that period?
The authority was in the same place it is today, the Gospel as delivered in person by Jesus Christ. It's not the written form that gives the Scriptures their autority. It is the written form which has preserved the Gospel so that it would be passed on to us. No, I don't agree that the authority rested in the Church.But what say you after Christ ascended to the Father in heaven yet we still do not have the first scrap of papyrus with words on it. Still no Sola Scriptura yet, right? Where was the authority, Lisa? Will you agree with me that it was in the Church (the core of which were the apostles.........and...........their successors as they died off?
In the teachings delivered by Christ or in St. John's case in Revelation, as revealed by God.Now, we believe St. John, the author of the Book of Revelations, was the last apostle alive. Therefore, we think this book was the last one written. Where was "authority" at this time, Lisa?
If you read the New Testament you'll see it everywhere.Think real hard because at this time, the New Testament, while individual books were probably written, were not readily available to all - Local churches were probably lucky to have a copy of even one gospel or an epistle or two. Where then, is Sola Scriptura, Lisa?
And there are people today who can't read and therefore only hear the Gospel.Most lay Christians had never seen a papyrus scroll, let alone, could even read it!
To where the Gospel was being preached.You see, about 95% pf the population were illiterate. Where, then, did they go for their authority in confirmation of their faith, doctrine and morals, Lisa?
Yes.In fact, it was not until about 400 years after Pentecost that the New Testament was ever brought together into one single binding!
It's not the Scriptures which possess authority. It's the teachings contained therein that hold the authority.Did Sola Scriptura suddenly rear it's head, and the only authority around at the time, that very same authority that brought forth the New Testament in the first place, now displaced by the very document they brought forth?
I already have.Think hard, Lisa!
That still does not disprove the fact the Gospel was formed before the Church.What God knows in His infinite knowledge of all things remain "non-existent" to the earthly time flow until God brings it forth in the infusion in the hearts and minds of the apostles!
There is not evidence of that. If so, can you please show me.Yet, before the New Testament was written, such doctrines were a part of the grand Sacred Tradition in the form of the total gospel of Christ, in the hearts and minds of the apostles!
You're going to have to show me this evidence.And we have evidence of these doctrines, in the providence of God that they would indeed, be presented in the Written Word! (We can discuss John 6 sometimes concerning the "real presence" in the Eucharist! )
Once again, I beg to differ. What we have in this passage is Jesus saying He will found His church . . . And I have to remind you that all twelve of the apostles, including Judas, were given the power to loose and bind. And as far as being given keys to the Kingdom, I don't see it as the same level of power/authority that you do. If I give someone the keys to my house, he will still operate according to the rules I lay down.Matthew 16:18-19 shows Christ establishing His church, based upon Peter who is given the "keys of the kingdom" of awesome authority ("keys" being the metaphor for authority, as we see in Isaiah 22:22) and on top of that, the power to "bind and loose,"
Just because it wasn't written does not negate it's existance.all there in the Church before this was written down!
Really? Guess we'll have to see about that.I have probably seen such attempts before and refuted them...
Authority rests with God. The people who wrote, taught, combined Scripture were merely vessels God used to deliver His message to us, just as Scriptures are merely the mode He chose to ensure their preservation.Good! I will look forward to that, but in the meanwhile, what other "authority" was there at the time who could do this, with physical hands, minds and a consensus of human individuals to had to audacity to claim such authority?
I never implied any such thing. And you are wrong in stating that many Fundementalists believe this way.You said this already in so many words, but I am going to give you my rendition of what I think many Fundamentalist think about the Bible: (With tongue in cheek...)
God wrote the Bible on beaten sheets of gold (the authorized 1611 Kings James version at that!), bound in the finest of Corinthian leathers, borne on the gossamer wings of cherubim, and come down gently to earth and into the hands of the early Christians!
Glad you think so!You're alright, Lisa!
I'm sorry I don't interpret those verses as giving Peter or the Church the authority claimed by the RCC.Of course! Jesus is the ultimate source of all authority given to the Church! But He did give authority to the Church! Check out once again, Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18, John 20:22-23; the commissioning of Peter in John 21:15ff; and of course, Matthew 28:19-20.
No, what you could say is that Christ bestowed the responsibity of spreading and teaching the Gospel upon the Church. But, He did not give the RCC the authority to define His word.Christ is always the head, from his holy throne in heaven! But the Church on earth has authority, authority and more authority as Christ gave to her.
Once again, I do not believe that those verses imply what you believe. There is a thread here on forgiving sins. Check it out, Briguy gives an excellent explanation of John 20:22-23.Shall we tear out Matthew 16:18-19, the very charter text" of Holy Church? Shall we forget about John 20:22-23 where He gave the awesome power to forgive or retain the sins of men?
Here's an analogy for you, say a person is a writer and dies, leaving masses of unpublished poems, short stories, etc . . . Then, some of his contemporaries and peers decide that an anthology of his unpublished writings should be published. So, they sort through the massive amounts of writings left by him. These people being very well versed on his style, etc . . . are able to tell that some of the texts are not actually written by him, so they discard these writings. Anyhow, they also find that some of his work is so similar that it is only necessary to publish one or two say of a particular type of poem that will represent this type of text. This helps in regards to space and number of pages. Do you see where I'm going with this? Although, fans of this writer are grateful to these people, who so diligently aspired to do justice to the author, they are not responsible for the authors work, they do not exercise authority over his work, etc . . . .It was the Church who husbanded the very New Testament, collated it, removing what was not inspired and determined and included what was inspired (and I wonder how they did this?) and made it available, starting from the determination of several church councils in the latter part of the 4th century, formalized finally at the Council of Trent. And having done this, this very same Church declared this New Testament as part of the written Word of God, including it with the Old Testament (which they also "canonized," I must add) and declared it as written authority that would stand with the very oral/traditional authority she already enjoyed!
But, the church didn't come before the New Testament.Yes, we have strayed a bit here, haven't we?
But you see, this is important when we discuss Sola Scriptura! How can this be a valid doctrine if the Church came before the New Testament?
The church was part of the plan of the New Covenant. It was not established before Jesus' ministry or even before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.How can this be? If the New Testament "existed" in the mind of God from all eternity, did not also holy Church?
I've already said that the church was already formulated--as part of the New Covenant plan.Was not the very Church He established also in the mind of God, Lisa? Why is it that you so quickly think that the New Testament is somehow mystically all present, when all things, in God's mind, are all present, including the Church?
Okay, the Church held a council (or councils) to determine what texts belong or didn't. The church took it upon itself to say the canon was closed. They did this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not of their own accord or based upon any type of authority.Lisa, the very fact that the Church had the authority to canonize the scriptures is all important! You see, if the Church had no authority to do this, whence the authority of the very bible you hold in your hands?
No, I don't see your dilemma. Scripture does not supersede the authority of the Gospel. It is the Gospel of which the church is supposed to follow. As the pillar and foundation of the Gospel, the church is suppose to preserve, uphold and adhere to the Gospel. The church operates according to the Gospel, which just happens to be contained in Scripture. It's only a problem for people who insist that the church possesses this infallible authority.Sola Scriptura implies that we no longer need the teaching authority of the church as scripture now supersedes it! See my problem here?
Like I said, all teachers have a text book they must follow when they are teaching.If the Church has teaching authority, how can scripture by Sola (the sole source) of doctrine, faith and morals?
This is only a dilemma for you, who insists the Church has this authority. For those of us who do not place the type of authority in the Church that you do, it's not a problem.And again, I tread on a probable misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura is in your mind, let alone in the rest of Protestantism! But if the Church continues to have authority after the Bible is complete, why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
No. You just need to obtain a different understanding of them . . .Shall we cut-out those same places of scripture I suggested above?
'Fraid I can't do that for you. You're going to have to get a grasp on the definition of SS and reconcile it for yourself.Reconcile this for me, please............
You're that old . . . .I have been doing this for many years now, Lisa. I am a convert who came into Holy Mother Church in 1953! I bet I am old enough to be your daddy!
Bless you, Pop!I consider you my sister (daughter?) in Christ Jesus.
You are most definitely in my prayers as I know you are praying for me.Please pray for me, a sinner, as I fall far short of the Glory of God......
Where I last said: (with a bit of editing.)Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
from WPUTNAM
Exactly! Which is why He waited until after His resurrection and His first appearance to the apostles that he gives His power to forgive or retain the sins of men in John 20:22-23!Here is where we will disagree. Your theory violates my belief in the OSAS doctrine. Let’s look at this verse...
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Yes, the blood you speak of is a foreshadowing of the blood that needed to be shed but once. And by our acceptance of Christ, come to believe in Christ, including to observe what He commands us,From the very beginning, God has required the shedding of blood to hide sin. When Adam and Eve could not face him due to their shame, God provided a blood sacrifice to cover them. We also see it in Egypt, on the very first passover, where people were spared only by the power of blood. You could have a good argument that water saves only with Namaan, but I still am not convinced. His faith, and God’s grace, were what healed him.
And neither were many catechumens (Under instruction in the faith) who were martyred before they were baptized.The thief on the cross was never Baptized.
As a matter of fact, Let me quote:I don’t even see where Paul was Baptized, but am willing to be proven wrong.
But this does not explain the tail-end of verse 21:The water, in Noah’s time, was judgement.
Please call me Bill!And you as well, Mr. Putnam. Please rest assured, even if we disagree on every major doctrine we discuss, and even if we feel the other is way off, you have the respect due anyone with gold on their cover. My angry posts come when I feel people insinuate that if I would only educate myself, I would be catholic also. I’m no Einstein, but I tested at 127 IQ in my pre-teens, and 123 last year. I graduated in the top 10% of anyone who ever went to my “C” school. I have moments of blinding brilliance, but speak in layman’s terms.![]()
Of course! And likewise with me in my position.Anyway, I don't expect you to agree, but at least understand my position.
Yet whenever this is brought up - the RC posts are "only" to condemn the concept NOT to argue "YES this is EXACTLY right and we also use tradition that way AS WELL".Dei Verbum, Article 21. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).
Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:Originally posted by thessalonian:
Sufficient for what is the questoin. So do you think that when Paul gave the Gospel to Timothy, before he wrote the letters to Timothy that the scriptures were sufficient for everything? If so, then why did he have to write the letter to Timothy? Did Paul think that those scriptures were insufficient? Gasp.