Is Perspecuity Necessary for Sola Scriptura?

[patrick jane]

I did not know this was the alternative to sola scriptura.

Christ criticised the Pharisees for this tradition of following tradition (presumably the Talmud) rather than the Torah. What do you say about that?

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

View attachment 20945

 

[iouae]

Does John's gospel contain all of Christ's words and deeds? It doesn't. In fact it specifically states the contrary. So how were the unwritten teachings of Christ and His apostles transmitted from generation to generation of Christians?

The unwritten teachings of Christ were not passed down to us today.
Only what was necessary for salvation was passed down.

I have never felt I needed anything other than what is in the Bible.
Now you say we do.

You do realise there are many Christian groups out there saying that there are additional traditions/writings which unlock scripture. I don't want to name names, but we all know those "cults".

What gives the Catholic add-ons to the Bible any credibility?

Would you agree that if a tradition contradicts a scripture, that add-on is to be rejected?

I could get 100 North Koreans to read the Bible, and not one of them would come to the conclusion that we ought to worship God on Sunday.

Instead they would read "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy". They would see Christ honour that commandment. They would conclude that if there was any day to keep holy, it would be the Sabbath.

Which brings to mind Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[glassjester]

The unwritten teachings of Christ were not passed down to us today.
Only what was necessary for salvation was passed down.

I have never felt I needed anything other than what is in the Bible.
Now you say we do.

Here is a statement regarding Christian truth, that you believe, yet is not to be found anywhere in Scripture:

"The Gospel of Luke ought to be included in the Bible."


Here's a bonus one:

"The Gospel of Thomas ought not to be included in the Bible."

You do realise there are many Christian groups out there saying that there are additional traditions/writings which unlock scripture. I don't want to name names, but we all know those "cults".

What gives the Catholic add-ons to the Bible any credibility?

Yes, I know! What gives Catholic doctrine greater credibility is the fact that the Church's teachings are not "add-ons" at all. They've been there from the start of the Church. To get more specific than that, we'd have to discuss individual teachings. But here's one example:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

That's Saint Ignatius, writing about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - in 110 AD. Saint Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle. Is the real presence a Catholic "add-on," or has it been taught by the Church since the Church began?

Would you agree that if a tradition contradicts a scripture, that add-on is to be rejected?

If it is found in neither Sacred Tradition (Christian teaching upheld by the Church all along) nor Sacred Scripture, then yes. Reject it. Here's an example of a doctrine that can be proved by neither Sacred Tradition nor Scripture: sola scriptura.

 

[iouae]

Here is a statement regarding Christian truth, that you believe, yet is not to be found anywhere in Scripture:

"The Gospel of Luke ought to be included in the Bible."

I am not sure whether this is your private belief or Catholic doctrine.
This is what a Catholic?? site wrote...


https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976
St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Col 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220) and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel [has long been assumed to have been] written about 70-80.

Here's a bonus one:

"The Gospel of Thomas ought not to be included in the Bible."

Here again is what a Catholic?? site writes...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...omas-because-it-was-afraid-of-what-it-contain

Not on your life. Though we had fragments of it earlier, a complete copy of the so-called Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945. Once scholars had a copy of the whole thing, it was possible to see it for what it was: yet another gnostic-influenced "gospel" written in the second or third century, long after the canonical gospels were penned.

The Gospel of Thomas presents itself as a collection of sayings of Christ as written by Thomas the apostle. A few of these sayings are genuine because they were taken from the canonical Gospels. Others combine bits of things said in the true gospels. And still others are wholly made up, not only lacking any basis in the gospels but also contradicting things taught in them.

Consider, for example, the final saying Thomas contains: "Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’" (Thomas 114)....The so-called Gospel of Thomas is a fake."

Yes, I know! What gives Catholic doctrine greater credibility is the fact that the Church's teachings are not "add-ons" at all. They've been there from the start of the Church. To get more specific than that, we'd have to discuss individual teachings. But here's one example:

That's Saint Ignatius, writing about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - in 110 AD. Saint Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle. Is the real presence a Catholic "add-on," or has it been taught by the Church since the Church began?

I don't necessarily have a problem with the quote, but interpreting the bread to be LITERALLY flesh is only an INTERPRETATION of your quote.

If it is found in neither Sacred Tradition (Christian teaching upheld by the Church all along) nor Sacred Scripture, then yes. Reject it. Here's an example of a doctrine that can be proved by neither Sacred Tradition nor Scripture: sola scriptura.

Are you referring to the Sabbath with this last statement of yours, that the Sabbath is found in neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture?

I cannot really reply to your assertions that this should be in the Bible and that should not be since you do not give any proof that this is official catholic doctrine or Glassjester doctrine.

I don't really feel I have to defend the canonisation of the Bible. That is a whole other discussion.

And likewise I am not sure St Ignatius would add anything to ones understanding of the Bible because I don't know if it is considered by the Catholics as equivalent to the Bible or not.

I trust God to have got the correct Bible to us.

All the doubts you have raised are to me just that. Doubts.

All they add at present to me is that you have now added a new thing which disciples are supposed to take on faith. Many Christian groups do this. Believe the writings of this cult leader AND the Bible.

To me these are just distractions, and detract from faith rather than add to it.

 

[glassjester]

I am not sure whether this is your private belief or Catholic doctrine.
This is what a Catholic?? site wrote...


https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976
St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Col 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220) and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel [has long been assumed to have been] written about 70-80.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying Luke shouldn't be included in the Bible.


I know that the Gospel of Luke is part of the Bible. But this is a matter of Tradition, is it not? Scripture itself (sola scriptura) cannot be used to prove that Luke is divinely inspired. You accept this based on the Tradition of the Church.

Catholicism teaches that we have two reliable, divinely inspired sources for God's Word: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I aim, here, to show you that you do in fact recognize, and rely upon, the validity of both sources. If I am incorrect, please correct me. You have said that doctrine not provable by Scripture ought to be rejected.

Can you employ sola scriptura to prove that the Gospel of Luke is a divinely inspired book of the Bible?

I don't necessarily have a problem with the quote, but interpreting the bread to be LITERALLY flesh is only an INTERPRETATION of your quote.

Hardly. He wrote quite plainly. Is there more exact phrasing that you'd prefer? Or would you remain unconvinced (uncorrected) no matter what the early Church taught?

Are you referring to the Sabbath with this last statement of yours, that the Sabbath is found in neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture?

I cannot really reply to your assertions that this should be in the Bible and that should not be since you do not give any proof that this is official catholic doctrine or Glassjester doctrine.

I'm not saying the Gospel of Thomas should be in the Bible. I am saying that your belief (and mine) that it is not divinely inspired is a matter of Tradition, and cannot be proven by Scripture alone.

I don't really feel I have to defend the canonisation of the Bible. That is a whole other discussion.

Why not? It's a matter of doctrine and truth. And it is a truth that has been preserved, not by Scripture itself, but by Tradition.

And likewise I am not sure St Ignatius would add anything to ones understanding of the Bible because I don't know if it is considered by the Catholics as equivalent to the Bible or not.

I trust God to have got the correct Bible to us.

You have professed a belief (highlighted above) that cannot be supported by sola scriptura.

All the doubts you have raised are to me just that. Doubts.

All they add at present to me is that you have now added a new thing which disciples are supposed to take on faith. Many Christian groups do this. Believe the writings of this cult leader AND the Bible.

And unless it can be demonstrated that those teachings are in fact apostolic, preserved over the millennia, and professed by the Church from the start, then we rightly reject them.

 

[iouae]

Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying Luke shouldn't be included in the Bible.


I know that the Gospel of Luke is part of the Bible. But this is a matter of Tradition, is it not? Scripture itself (sola scriptura) cannot be used to prove that Luke is divinely inspired. You accept this based on the Tradition of the Church.

But not on the tradition of the CATHOLIC church. There was an early church which we all lay claim to. The Catholics may claim they own the apostles and first and second century Christians, but this is just their claim. We all own the early Christians and their writings. They were not "Catholics".

On the canonisation of the NT...

"Most books were easily accepted. The authenticity of others was debated. Twenty of the twenty-seven books were clearly accepted by 180 A.D."
http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Canonization.html

Catholicism teaches that we have two reliable, divinely inspired sources for God's Word: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I aim, here, to show you that you do in fact recognize, and rely upon, the validity of both sources. If I am incorrect, please correct me. You have said that doctrine not provable by Scripture ought to be rejected.

Can you employ sola scriptura to prove that the Gospel of Luke is a divinely inspired book of the Bible?

I start with FAITH in an inspired scripture.
It is an act of faith on my part that faith starts with believing that the Bible is inspired, complete, correctly canonised etc.

It might do no harm to examine the canonisation process as a matter of interest. But that is outside the scope of my expertise or interest.

Hardly. He wrote quite plainly. Is there more exact phrasing that you'd prefer? Or would you remain unconvinced (uncorrected) no matter what the early Church taught?

This may make a separate thread, but I know it is ridiculous to believe in transubstantiation - that bread BECOMES flesh. Every new thing one introduces as an ADDITIONAL thing one has to believe, is just an unnecessary burden. This is just your Catholic interpretation, not substantiated at all by my reading of scripture. Quoting Ignatius who means nothing to me, therefore adds nothing to someone not knowing or believing in Ignatius.

BTW you never answered my question why I never see the lay members drinking communion wine. That is 50% of the communion. And is that supposed to mutate into the LITERAL blood of Christ?

I'm not saying the Gospel of Thomas should be in the Bible. I am saying that your belief (and mine) that it is not divinely inspired is a matter of Tradition, and cannot be proven by Scripture alone.

Asked and answered. My faith begins with the concept that God, not the Catholic Church got the Bible to us today in the vernacular (no thanks to the Catholic Church which for centuries resisted getting a Bible into the hands of the laity, and in the vernacular).

Why not? It's a matter of doctrine and truth. And it is a truth that has been preserved, not by Scripture itself, but by Tradition.

Again, not relevant to sola scriptura which begins with faith in a faithful Bible

You have professed a belief (highlighted above) that cannot be supported by sola scriptura.

My belief is fully in line with sola scriptura which BEGINS with a trustworthy Bible. And that trustworthy Bible did not come to us via the Catholic church, but the Apostolic church - there is a difference.

And unless it can be demonstrated that those teachings are in fact apostolic, preserved over the millennia, and professed by the Church from the start, then we rightly reject them.

Likewise, already answered above.

 

[jamie]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the quote, but interpreting the bread to be LITERALLY flesh is only an INTERPRETATION of your quote.

Yes, Jesus instituted it figuratively.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat, this is My body." (Matthew 26:26 NKJV)​

We know this is not literal because Jesus' body had not yet been broken. The bread was broken but not Jesus' body at that time.

 

[glassjester]

But not on the tradition of the CATHOLIC church. There was an early church which we all lay claim to. The Catholics may claim they own the apostles and first and second century Christians, but this is just their claim. We all own the early Christians and their writings. They were not "Catholics".


On the canonisation of the NT...

"Most books were easily accepted. The authenticity of others was debated. Twenty of the twenty-seven books were clearly accepted by 180 A.D."
http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Canonization.html





I start with FAITH in an inspired scripture.
It is an act of faith on my part that faith starts with believing that the Bible is inspired, complete, correctly canonised etc.

I might do no harm to examine the canonisation process as a matter of interest. But that is outside the scope of my expertise or interest.


This may make a separate thread, but I know it is ridiculous to believe in transubstantiation - that bread BECOMES flesh. Every new thing one introduces as an ADDITIONAL thing one has to believe, is just an unnecessary burden. This is just your Catholic interpretation, not substantiated at all by my reading of scripture. Quoting Ignatius who means nothing to me, therefore adds nothing to someone not knowing or believing in Ignatius.

The early Church was most definitely Catholic. Really, read the writings of the early Church. By 107 AD, the Church, united by common doctrine, under the leadership of bishops - as successors to the apostles, was already called Catholic. The term did not simply refer to all Christian gatherings, but specifically to the Orthodoxy - those who held common beliefs, and were founded by the apostles, and therefore Christ Himself.
Within the first century of the Church, the successors of the apostles were already rejecting heterodox beliefs (ie, those denying the real presence), based on what had been taught to them.

A good way to start reading the early Church fathers, is to look for the origin of individual Church teachings that you believe have no basis in the early Church or Scripture.

Again, I invite you to investigate this. It's worth it. The more you read about the history of the Church, the more you see that it was indeed Catholic. If you do wish to discuss these teachings individually, I'd be truly happy to do so.




Starting with faith only in Scripture is problematic. First, it's arbitrary. Who is it, exactly, that you're believing when you say that you got "the right" Bible? Just the book, itself? Why? The Koran claims to be from God. So does the Book of Mormon. On what basis do you reject them?

Also, for the first 300 years of the Church, there was no NT Canon. Some of it was still being written! By what standard did the earliest Christians validate their beliefs, and reject heresies? It could not have been on Scripture alone.

Pleas do not so readily dismiss Saint Ignatius. He was the Bishop of Antioch, and wrote to defend and preserve the doctrine taught to him by John the Apostle!

Christ taught authoritatively. Christ gave His apostles this same authority. His apostles granted this authority (to teach, defend, and preserve Christian doctrine) to their own successors.

BTW you never answered my question why I never see the lay members drinking communion wine. That is 50% of the communion. And is that supposed to mutate into the LITERAL blood of Christ?

The bread does not contain only 50% of His divinity, does it? Why does this bother you? More importantly, why do you dismay at the idea of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist? Could God not accomplish this miracle? Did Christ not affirm it repeatedly in John, Chapter 6?

Asked and answered. My faith begins with the concept that God, not the Catholic Church got the Bible to us today in the vernacular (no thanks to the Catholic Church which for centuries resisted getting a Bible into the hands of the laity, and in the vernacular).

No thanks to the Catholic Church? Be fair. You wouldn't have a Bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Church.

Do you really take no interest at all in how the Bible came to be in your hands? If it had been written last Thursday, would your faith still begin with the concept that God got the Bible to you? If not, why not? This is important.

My faith begins with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, His founding of the Church, and the faithful teachings of His apostles, which have been preserved and handed down through the Church He founded, for that very purpose.

Again, not relevant to sola scriptura which begins with faith in a faithful Bible

This remains, then, a doctrine which you hold to be true, yet cannot prove via sola scriptura.

My belief is fully in line with sola scriptura which BEGINS with a trustworthy Bible. And that trustworthy Bible did not come to us via the Catholic church, but the Apostolic church - there is a difference.

When exactly did the two diverge?

 

[glassjester]

Hello Iouae,

I have enjoyed our discussion very much.
I will be back on TOL on Monday, and I would be glad to continue the conversation then, if there remains anything to be said!

Until Next Time,
Glassjester

 

[iouae]

Hello Iouae,

I have enjoyed our discussion very much.
I will be back on TOL on Monday, and I would be glad to continue the conversation then, if there remains anything to be said!

Until Next Time,
Glassjester

Glassjester

I have also enjoyed the discussion.

If you are wishing to continue it, let me tell you the direction I will take.

I will say EVEN IF the 2nd century church was "Catholic" (which I disagree with)....
And EVEN IF the Catholic church preserved and canonised the Bible (which I don't believe is true)...

THEN I will say to you exactly the same thing that I would say to the Jews, which is the following...

If you were there first, and if you preserved and canonised the Bible for us, then WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE WHAT THE BIBLE COMMANDS?

Here is a list of 50 ways the Catholics differ from Biblical teachings. This only scratches the surface.

http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm

 

[iouae]

Hello Iouae,

I have enjoyed our discussion very much.
I will be back on TOL on Monday, and I would be glad to continue the conversation then, if there remains anything to be said!

Until Next Time,
Glassjester

Because I am going to fall back on what I believe in, which is sola scriptura, and because you are going to fall back on what you believe in, which is the authority of the Catholic Church, I personally do not hold out much hope of this discussion going anywhere.

I will try to prove by scripture where your doctrines are wrong. But since you do not believe in sola scriptura, you will not be impressed with my arguments.

And you will try to prove by history and tradition that the Catholic Church somehow has authority over us today, an argument which I will be utterly unimpressed with.

Do you see any way around this impasse?

 

[glassjester]

I will try to prove by scripture where your doctrines are wrong. But since you do not believe in sola scriptura, you will not be impressed with my arguments.

And you will try to prove by history and tradition that the Catholic Church somehow has authority over us today, an argument which I will be utterly unimpressed with.

Do you see any way around this impasse?

I think so.

Is it possible to evaluate the orthodoxy of sola scriptura, itself? Or is this doctrine completely beyond any and all questioning?

What I mean is, would it be possible to determine whether sola scriptura was taught by Christ, and the apostles, and characteristic of the Church from its start - as opposed to recent, novel, and heterodox?

 

[iouae]

I think so.

Is it possible to evaluate the orthodoxy of sola scriptura, itself? Or is this doctrine completely beyond any and all questioning?

What I mean is, would it be possible to determine whether sola scriptura was taught by Christ, and the apostles, and characteristic of the Church from its start - as opposed to recent, novel, and heterodox?

I would like to continue the discussion.

But I see me collecting all scriptures to prove my case....
...and I see you bringing all 1st and 2nd century church historical documents to prove your case.

But are we not back to square one again since I am trying to prove sola scriptura using sola scriptura?

And you are trying to prove non-sola-scripture using non-sola-scriptura?

In other words, neither of us recognises the authority of the other's arguments.

 

[brewmama]

I would like to continue the discussion.

But I see me collecting all scriptures to prove my case....
...and I see you bringing all 1st and 2nd century church historical documents to prove your case.

But are we not back to square one again since I am trying to prove sola scriptura using sola scriptura?

And you are trying to prove non-sola-scripture using non-sola-scriptura?

In other words, neither of us recognises the authority of the other's arguments.

There's plenty of scriptural evidence against sola scriptura, and only interpretations of scripture to support it, which do not, on their face, support it.

 

[iouae]

There's plenty of scriptural evidence against sola scriptura, and only interpretations of scripture to support it, which do not, on their face, support it.

So if I go to the trouble of pointing out scriptures which are pro sola scriptura, will you recognise their authority?

Especially also if I show you scriptures knocking religious establishment traditions?

 

[brewmama]

So if I go to the trouble of pointing out scriptures which are pro sola scriptura, will you recognise their authority?

Especially also if I show you scriptures knocking religious establishment traditions?

I'm quite aware of Protestants' interpretations of scripture that they stretch and manipulate to suit their needs. A perfect example in your post: that religious tradition is "bad" because Jesus criticized certain traditions. But your imagination on this topic is misled. Jesus himself followed Jewish tradition. The Apostles followed tradition. There is definite support for tradition in the NT. Protestants themselves have their own traditions that they clutch fiercely. So using a verse where Jesus criticizes the way certain Jews have distorted tradition is no proof that you should throw it out en masse.

 

[iouae]

I'm quite aware of Protestants' interpretations of scripture that they stretch and manipulate to suit their needs. A perfect example in your post: that religious tradition is "bad" because Jesus criticized certain traditions. But your imagination on this topic is misled. Jesus himself followed Jewish tradition. The Apostles followed tradition. There is definite support for tradition in the NT. Protestants themselves have their own traditions that they clutch fiercely. So using a verse where Jesus criticizes the way certain Jews have distorted tradition is no proof that you should throw it out en masse.

There are 60 references to "the truth" in the NT.
That can only refer to scriptural truth, not human traditions.

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Any church which does not keep his commandments is called "a liar".


2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Is your church full of fables, such as Mary worship?

Here is a timeline of fables introduced by the Catholic Church.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

"The truth" = sola scriptura.

 

[brewmama]

There are 60 references to "the truth" in the NT.
That can only refer to scriptural truth, not human traditions.

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Any church which does not keep his commandments is called "a liar".


2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Is your church full of fables, such as Mary worship?

Here is a timeline of fables introduced by the Catholic Church.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

"The truth" = sola scriptura.

Ah, you prove my point so well. Your interpretation, that has no bearing on the actual words you profess to use as proof.

Please show where Jesus says to use the Bible over the Church, since scripture in reality talks of the Church.

"church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (NOT Bible only)

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all"

"And he is the head of the body, the church."

Amazing how you ignore the fact that Jesus founded the Church, not the Bible.

 

[Wick Stick]

You don't hold any religious beliefs that are not based on Scripture?

I can't think of any that are completely divorced from it.

Jarrod

 

[iouae]

Ah, you prove my point so well. Your interpretation, that has no bearing on the actual words you profess to use as proof.

Please show where Jesus says to use the Bible over the Church, since scripture in reality talks of the Church.

The Bible indeed does say something about a church.

"church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (NOT Bible only)

There are true believers everywhere which constitute the church

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter was a "pebble" but on the Rock or Christ the church is built, not Peter. BTW Peter had a wife, so why don't you follow that tradition.

"And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all"

And the true Church is subject to The Head or Christ, unlike the false churches who do not do as The Head commands.

"And he is the head of the body, the church."

Amazing how you ignore the fact that Jesus founded the Church, not the Bible.

But nowhere does He mention the Catholic Church.