Sola Scriptura "Scripture Alone" from the Conference on the Reformation "Solas"
You quote from Matt 15:1-9 and say this is what happens when we do not follow sola scriptora. Yet sola scriptora does not follow if men follow traditions of men. For men may follow human traditions even if sola scriptora is false, for divine revelation may well be in both oral and written form, and both forms are binding.
Quoting from the church fathers to provide evidence for sola scriptora is a fallacy. For the church fathers are not an authority from within the scriptures. So even if the church fathers taught sola scriptora, that teaching begs the question concerning sola scriptora existing within the scriptures. The external witness of the fathers may provide some witness for the doctrine of sola scriptora, but if sola scriptora does not exist in the scriptora then sola scriptora is only a human invention. As sola scriptora is not in the scriptures, then sola scriptora is only a human tradition which is not binding on the believer.
The church fathers also held Apostolic tradition and the binding authority of the church as authorities from God that bind the believer. Why then quote from the church fathers when the church fathers did not hold to sola scriptora?
You say, sola scriptora is not a denial of the authority of the church to teach in Gods name. The authority of the church is subordinate to the scriptures, but it is not an infallible authority and not a God breathed authority on par with scripture.
PM - sola scriptora require a scripture. The NT was not written at the time of Christ and the apostles. sola scriptora refers to the normative time after scripture had been given.
PM - We deny essential truths that were only preached and not written down.
Answer - Some truths presumed by Presbyterianism that were not written down.
1) The canon of scripture was not written down.
2) The truth that any text at all was ever written by God was not written down.
3) The presumption that oral tradition is not binding, or ceased when the scripture was given was not written down.
4) The authority of men to preach who do not have apostolic succession through sacramental ordination was not written down.
5) Christ’s intention that the scriptures are understood in accord with sola scriptora after the scriptures are given was not written down.
6) A clear definition of sola scriptora, which must be derived from the sacred text by believers in sola scriptora.
7) The four or five solas were never written down, but must be derived from the sacred text using reason by believers. There is no scriptural text that says faith alone, scripture alone, grace alone, or Christ alone.
8) The principle of private interpretation was not written down.
9) Denominationalism was not written down.
10) The Presbyterian understanding of the church was not written down.
11) The Westminster confession of faith was not written down.
12) Divorce and remarriage was not written down.
13) Contraception was not written down.
14) Faith as an instrument of justification was not written down.
15) The church (Calvinist version) as the invisible community of the elect was not written down.
16) The full meaning of every ambiguous scriptural text was not written down.
17) The cessation of the binding authority of apostolic oral tradition was not written down.
18) The defectability of the church to teach the true gospel was not written down.
19) The infallibility of the scriptures was not written down.
20) The authority of the Reformers was not written down.
21) The self-authentification of the scriptures was not written down.
22) The denial of extreme unction as a sacrament as taught in James 5 was not written down.
23) The words spoken that accompany the ordination to the ministry was not written down.
24) Presbyterian Canon law that is required to govern the Church was not written down.
25) The extent and binding nature of Church councils was not written down.
26) The relationship of the scriptures to the Presbyterian liturgy was not written down.
27) The affirmation of only two sacraments was not written down.
28) The affirmation of the Presbyterian understanding of the Eucharist as only a commemoration meal, without being a sacrifice to the Father was not written down.
29) The affirmation of the Presbyterian understanding of baptism those who receive the sacrament are, as not undoubtedly regenerated was not written down.
30) The theology of iconoclasm that denies the correct use of icons and statues in Christian worship was not written down.
21) The self-authentification of the scriptures was not written down.
22) The denial of extreme unction as a sacrament as taught in James 5 was not written down.
23) The words spoken that accompany the ordination to the ministry was not written down.
24) Presbyterian Canon law that is required to govern the Church was not written down.
25) The extent and binding nature of Church councils was not written down.
26) The relationship of the scriptures to the Presbyterian liturgy was not written down.
27) The affirmation of only two sacraments was not written down.
28) The affirmation of the Presbyterian understanding of the Eucharist as only a commemoration meal, without being a sacrifice to the Father was not written down.
29) The affirmation of the Presbyterian understanding of baptism those who receive the sacrament are, as not undoubtedly regenerated was not written down.
30) The theology of iconoclasm that denies the correct use of icons and statues in Christian worship was not written down.
Truths Denied or Ignored by Presbyterianism that were not written down –
1) The technical theological details of the nature of the Eucharist as transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or impanation.
2) The legal details of marriage regarding the circumstances required for a valid marriage, and a valid separation.
3) The technical theological details of all of the sacraments.
4) The full details of Christian worship as contained within the liturgy.
5) The rite of exorcism.
6) The legal means to perform penance for sin.
7) The technical theological details of indulgences.
8) The technical theological details of Mary’s Immaculate conception. For example, the early church that Mary was the second Eve.
9) The development of doctrine as understood within church history.
10) The binding nature of apostolic tradition.
11) The authority of successors from Peter and the other apostles.
12) The authority of the church of Rome as demonstrated by the consensus and use of such authority to resolve doctrinal issues within church history.
13) The technical theological details of Mary’s bodily Assumption.
14) The technical theological details of Mary’s intercessory power.
15) The technical theological details of the saints intercessory power.
16) The technical theological meaning of grace.
17) The existence of Limbo of the infants not baptised.
18) Explicit teaching on the baptism of infants.
19) The legal limits of authority within the church.
20) The binding nature of Church councils over the faithful.
21) The application and use of Icons and statues.
22) The union of the scriptures as inspired text with the Christian Eucharistic liturgy.
23) Explicit teaching on the wounds of original sin.
24) All of the consequences of sin.
25) The technical details of the relationships of all of the natural and supernatural virtues. For example the relationships between faith, hope and love, and the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude.
26) What constitutes a sin in different ages when the circumstances change. For example, men can now have IVF babies, and use diverse forms of contraception which were not discussed within the sacred text. Diverse forms of economic systems and political systems are also now used that are not discussed within the text and do relate to the Christian believer in the modern age.
27) The words spoken that accompany the anointing in James 5 to obtain the forgiveness of sin.
28) The words spoken that accompany the ordination to the priesthood.
27) The words spoken that accompany the anointing in James 5 to obtain the forgiveness of sin.
28) The words spoken that accompany the ordination to the priesthood.
PM - Sola scripture means the scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the infallible rule of faith.
Scripture alone is God breathed. To deny Sola scripture means there is something else that is God breathed.
Problems with this version of Sola scripture –
1) God breathed is undefined, so nobody knows what an inspired text is when it is said to be God breathed as a metaphor.
2) As God breathed is unknown, then nobody knows if there is no other authority or any other source that is or is not God breathed. The unknown meaning of God breathed infers other sources are also unknown.
3) If the believer cannot locate another God breathed authority other than the scriptures, it does not follow that that other authority does not exist.
4) Even if there are no other sources that are God breathed, sola scriptora does not follow. For God may have given other sources of revelation and authority for the believer which have another charism, of say infallibility, or of indefectibility, without that source having been God breathed. Or alternatively, there may be other sources that are God breathed, whereby God breathed is analogous to the God breathed inspiration of the scriptures.
5) The scriptures witness to the binding nature of tradition (1 Peter 1:25) and the church (Acts 15), so scripture is a strong witness against the scriptures as being the sufficient rule of faith for the believer.
Adherents of sola scriptora must define what God breathed means and show how God breathed is exclusive of any other infallible authority for the believer. And even of God breathed is defined, there is no sola in the scriptural text anway. Quoting from 2 Tim 3:15-16 does not establish the sola of the God breathed text as the sufficient and infallible authoriy for the believer.
Another problem - a sufficient authority of scripture as derived from 2 Tim 3:15-16 is not the same as the only authority. Nor is the union of God breathed with infallible authority establish the scriptures are the only infallible authority.
Another problem -Sola scriptora is poorly defined in this presentation because the doctrine is an error and cannot be properly defined from the text, for from reason.
-----------------------
Another thought further to my prior post above - The minister assumes there must be an early church written witness to a doctrine for that doctrine to be considered as divine revelation, or as an authority over the believer. Yet there is no guarantee that everything believed as from Christ and the apostles was at any time written down. Even the church fathers did not write about every aspect of the faith, so we would expect some, or perhaps much that was only known through oral conversations by the church fathers. The burden of proof is upon those who hold that only that which is written after Christ in the church fathers is the fulness of the content of the faith. If there is no proof then the claim of the exclusive source of he fathers written word is only an empty claim that is not binding on the faithful.
In fact the claim of the minister has no proof, for the fathers did not claim to only believe and be bound from what was only ever written by the fathers. The fathers are in fact a witness to both written and oral traditions which are manifested in church history as known explicitly by church councils. For example, the doctrines of justification and the Eucharist as enunciated by the Council of Trent which ar denied by the Presbyterian minister would be at least in part located in oral tradition of the early and later church.
---------------------------
-----------------------
Another thought further to my prior post above - The minister assumes there must be an early church written witness to a doctrine for that doctrine to be considered as divine revelation, or as an authority over the believer. Yet there is no guarantee that everything believed as from Christ and the apostles was at any time written down. Even the church fathers did not write about every aspect of the faith, so we would expect some, or perhaps much that was only known through oral conversations by the church fathers. The burden of proof is upon those who hold that only that which is written after Christ in the church fathers is the fulness of the content of the faith. If there is no proof then the claim of the exclusive source of he fathers written word is only an empty claim that is not binding on the faithful.
In fact the claim of the minister has no proof, for the fathers did not claim to only believe and be bound from what was only ever written by the fathers. The fathers are in fact a witness to both written and oral traditions which are manifested in church history as known explicitly by church councils. For example, the doctrines of justification and the Eucharist as enunciated by the Council of Trent which ar denied by the Presbyterian minister would be at least in part located in oral tradition of the early and later church.
---------------------------
Presbyterian Minister (PM) - Scripture is self-authenticating. The bible is the standard. Scripture is the standard by which all other measures are judged.
Answer - Scripture is self-authenticating is only a self-serving statement made to prop up the apriori commitment to sola scriptora. There is no evidence that scripture is self-authenticating from the text, nor from reason. A text may be true in all parts and even record miracles, and yet it is a non sequitur that the text was authored by God. This simple truth is enough to undermine the ministers claims.
The bible is the standard - is also another statement without any evidence within the text, or outside the text. The claim that only scripture is God breathed and therefore only scripture is infallible is a non sequitur. For the scriptures bear witness to other authorities other than scripture such as tradition and the church.
PM – The scriptures tell us how to worship God.
Answer – there is only scant directives on how to worship God in the NT. Much of the detail of worship is found in tradition and the binding decrees of the historical church.
PM – There is no doctrine necessary to get into heaven that is not found in the scriptures.
Answer – 1. Sola scriptora, 2. sola fide, 3. sola Christus, 4. sola gratia, 5. the immaculate conception and 6. Mary’s bodily assumption are not explicitly in scripture, but are required to be believed for salvation. 1 to 4 are human traditions the Presbyterians believe are in scripture but are not. 5 and 6 the Presbyterians don’t believe, but are required for salvation. The minister, nor the Presbyterians have no authority to decide what is and is not to be believed for salvation.
PM – sola scriptora means that which is not found in scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience.
Answer – the canon of scripture is not in scripture, so the canon of scripture is not binding on the Christian conscience. See also the prior 20 points in the post below assumed by Presbyterians to be contained within the scriptures, but which are not.
PM – All traditions are subject to the higher authority of scripture.
Answer - the canon of scripture is not in scripture and therefore the canon of scripture is not subject to the authority of scripture.
PM – A tradition other than the scripture makes the bible irrelevant.
Answer – this is a false claim of those who hold to sola scriptora. Matthew 23:1-3 teaches an oral tradition and a binding authority of Moses chair in the OT which was functional at the time of Christ. There were binding oral traditions and authorities other than scripture in the OT, and likewise the same principle applies to the NT church. Tradition and the church are additional beneficial authorities to scripture.
Also, the canon of scripture is a tradition other than the scripture, which according to the Presbyterian minister, makes the scripture irrelevant. That’s one absurd outcome of sola scriptora.
PM – Bowing down to a cross is bowing in front of a graven image.
Answer – the OT principle of idolatry carries forth into the NT. But the image of God is known in Christ and Christians may then make images of Christ to assist worship which are not graven images.
PM – the reason for so many Protestant denominations is not practicing sola scriptora.
Answer – If Protestant denominations do not practice sola scriptora, then who does in fact practice sola scriptora? Do the Baptists practice sola scriptora? What about the Jehovahs Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists? Who knows who practices sola scriptora when scripture does not tell us who is practicing sola scriptora?
PM – if everyone practiced sola scriptora, everyone would be a Presbyterian.
Answer – The above statement begs the question concerning the truth of Presbyterianism in relation to the content of scripture. Anyone can claim they have the truth in accord with sola scriptora, and that’s why sola scriptora is unworkable and therefore false.
PM – are there any sayings of Jesus in tradition that are not in scripture.
Answer – the canon of scripture as known by Jesus is binding, and is a tradition not in scripture.
Also, Jesus said He would send the Spirit who would lead Christians into all truth. Therefore, through the action of the Holy Spirit, all the truths stated by Christ are known as recorded in tradition and the statements of the church councils. For when the spirit acts, the spirit acts in accord with what Jesus said and did.
Question – If the scriptures are sufficient for the man of God, are the scriptures always formally sufficient, or always materially sufficient, or a combination of formally and materially sufficient? How do you know?
Question – if the canon of scripture is not in scripture, how then was the canon determined?
Question - If there is no authority greater than scripture and the content of scripture is determined by an authority other than scripture (such as the church at council), how can the scriptures have supreme authority when the content is only defined by another authority apart from scripture?
Question – if the content of scripture is determined by the church at council, was that authority infallible or fallible? Please explain.
Question – if the content of scripture is determined by the church at council and the church’s decision is fallible, then don’t believers only have a fallible collection of texts they believe were written by God, when in fact there is no infallible certitude the texts were in fact written by God? Please explain.
Question – if the content of the canon of scripture is not determined by the church at council, who had the authority to determine the canon?
Question – if the content of the canon of scripture is not in scripture, how is the canon of scripture not a tradition of man condemned by the bible itself?
Question – if inspiration is the cause of scripture being the highest authority, was the decision to form the canon not inspired, and if so doesn't that mean the scriptures are formed by an authority that is not based upon inspiration? Please explain.
Question – if the canon is formed, based upon a decision and a tradition that was not inspired, then there is an authority(s) for the believer that is not inspired. Therefore how does the believer know of the limits of authority are only determined from what is inspired, as you claim with the inspired text of scripture, when the content of the scriptures are dependent upon uninspired sources?
Question – if inspiration is the cause of scripture being the highest authority, was the decision to form the canon inspired, and if so doesn't that mean the scriptures are the canon, plus the decision made to form the canon? Please explain.
Question – if inspiration is the cause of scripture being the highest authority, was the decision to form the canon not inspired, and if so doesn't that mean the scriptures are formed by an authority that is not based upon inspiration? Please explain.
Question – if the canon is formed, based upon a decision and a tradition that was not inspired, then there is an authority(s) for the believer that is not inspired. Therefore how does the believer know of the limits of authority are only determined from what is inspired, as you claim with the inspired text of scripture, when the content of the scriptures are dependent upon uninspired sources?
No comments:
Post a Comment