Replies

Terribly sorry for the delay, everyone; for some odd reason, FreeRepublic was loading only partial pages whenever I tried to read and/or post in the past few days (and I eventually left it alone for a bit, to catch up on "real life")--it'd stop loading in the middle of this-or-that random sentence, and never get near the post I wanted to address! (*sigh*) Ah, well... better late than never, I suppose.

metmom wrote, in reply to my comment:

What then is sola scriptura? The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

All right. Perhaps you (or someone else) might show where the Scriptures say THAT? I've heard several attempts, but all of them have fallen either into the "Scripture is good and necessary" (to which I don't object at all--of *course* it is!) category, or into the category of mistranslated Greek (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16, and some claims that the word "perfect" shows up... which it does not).

If Sola Scriptura were truly taught in the Bible, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to cite the Scripture verse(s)?

(I might also add: if Scripture *were* to cite itself as being all-sufficient, that would be what logicians would call a "circular argument"--i.e. a fallacy, without logical weight. The Qur'an also claims to be Scripture, as do the Buddhist Scriptures, the Bhagavad Gita, and other non-Christian works, after all. But that's an issue which could best be left alone for the moment.)

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

With all due respect to Dr. James White (and yes, I've read a good deal of his material at Alpha-Omega Ministries, and elsewhere): he's making a provably false claim, here. For example:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.

No, it does not. In the least. It claims to be God-breathed (which it is), useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. (which it is), and necessary for equipping the apostle for his work (which it is). NOWHERE does it claim to be all-sufficient... and it would be a self-refuting claim, if it had.

The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement.

Yes, they are... and they say so, themselves (cf. John 21:25, 2 Peter 3:15-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, etc.). It's true that the FULL Scriptures (i.e. all 73 books... including the 7 books and parts of other books which Luther--mind-bogglingly--threw out, after 1000 years of their recognition and use as Sacred Scripture) contain all that is "materially" necessary for salvation, content-wise... but even that (full and complete Bible, rather than the maimed and incomplete Protestant piece of it) is not designed to work ALONE, as anyone can see easily; the Bible cannot interpret itself or apply itself to situations which the original writers did not foresee (e.g. what's the Biblical stance for or against human cloning?); we need an authoritative interpreter who can interpret needed doctrines infallibly, in order for it to work at all.

Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation.

That is quite true. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.

Their authority is not, per se; that is true. Their *interpretation*, and their application, and even their original compilation into one book (i.e. telling which books were "Biblical" and which were not), however, WERE (and are) dependent on the Church and Her Councils, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures are self-consistent,

Quite so.

self-interpreting,

This is nonsense (i.e. a logical impossibility), I'm afraid.

and self-authenticating.

This is also logically absurd; the fact that the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God proves nothing, per se... any more than I would "prove" anything by claiming to be the infallible emperor of the universe (and, being infallible, I couldn't possibly be *wrong* about being the infallible emperor of the universe!).

The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith

Correction: the Christians who follow the spiritual patrimony (and errors) of Luther believe thusly; the majority of Christians, including the original Church of Christ, do not.

and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Understood correctly, that is true.

Yeah, that was happening to a lot of people. Freepathon time, you know.

I was advised to set my pagination, number of posts showing per page to 20 instead of 50 and it helped. I have set it back to 50 now.

If Sola Scriptura were truly taught in the Bible, surely it wouldn't be that difficult to cite the Scripture verse(s)?

That's been done, numerous times in the past and is rejected by Catholics every single time.

No, it does not. In the least. It claims to be God-breathed (which it is), useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. (which it is), and necessary for equipping the apostle for his work (which it is). NOWHERE does it claim to be all-sufficient... and it would be a self-refuting claim, if it had.

Yes it does, in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit. Jesus used it against Satan in His temptation in the wilderness.

So, if the word of God is not complete, do tell us what is missing, how you know, and where to find it documented. What are the other sources that make it *complete*?

This is also logically absurd; the fact that the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God proves nothing, per se... any more than I would "prove" anything by claiming to be the infallible emperor of the universe (and, being infallible, I couldn't possibly be *wrong* about being the infallible emperor of the universe!).

OK, answer this question then. Is the Word of God TRUTH or not?

If it is the case that Scripture cannot be used to authenticate itself, then it certainly does not have the ability to authenticate the RCC. In which case, the RCC claims to infallibility and tradition, must also be held to that standard.

The RCC cannot then use its *sacred tradition* to support its use of sacred tradition.