Huh, what a night.
Anyway, I finally have a chance to respond.
Beyond my original response which you found so insulting.
I agree that Sola Scriptura as you defined it is *largely* accurate.
Sufficient for [doctrinal] knowledge of Salvation, sure.
Infallible? Mostly: but in the sense that you have the passages in Proverbs which say back-to-back "answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes; answer not a fool according to his folly lest you become like him"...trying to interpret that literally leads atheists to chortle. I suggest that those two lines were a rhetorical device known as paradox. There are known issues with translation, e.g. the sculptures of Moses with horns because one of the bible translations got a word wrong (IIRC it was something like "glory" or "radiance" but got transcribed or translated as "horns".)
Contrary to Bart Ehrman, these are not faith-killers.
And, there are passages where St. Paul comes out and says, "Hey guys, I'm writing this, not the Lord; these other sentences, however, ARE the Big Guy Upstairs talking, so listen up!"
Quibbles, but minor, included for the sake of avoiding later nitpicks.
The big controversy (well, ok, two of them) on Sola Scriptura is:
1) Supreme Authority in matters of faith.
Catholics say, nope, no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20); and this is consistent with the real-life development that some Protestant groups break down into smaller and smaller splinter groups over increasingly miniscule points of doctrine. You can find a humorous account of this kind of thing in Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon Days in the chapter "Protestant."
The Protestants tend to quote 1 John 2:27, implying as it were the priesthood of all believers; and of course the famous 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
A few points.
First I don't accept 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as relevant, nor as dispositive of the issue.
Why?
Because it says "all Scripture is inspired by God."
It DOES NOT say "Scripture is the only thing inspired by God, and will remain forever the only thing inspired by God."
Second, I find it odd that the Protestants don't even consider the possibility that 1 John 2:27 might be a *corporate* guarantee. (Looking at BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/2-27.htm, I find that the "you" in that verse is *plural 2nd person*...How that necessarily guarantees an *individual* anointing, I'm still not sure of.)
Then, there are instances, both in the life of Jesus, and elsewhere in the Gospels, and in the various epistles, where it is clearly implied or stated, that the revelations of the Holy Spirit to the church, are meant to be ongoing over time. This does not mean that the cross and the Resurrection are overthrown, or usurped; but that God intends for His church to fight Satan in this world; and for that, additional help, prayers, guidance, and instructions are forthcoming. ("I will not leave you orphans.") 2) If the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, why do so many Protestant churches deviate from it (e.g. divorce, gay marriage, ordination of women, women praying without their heads covered, rejecting the Biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are explicitly covered in the New Testament)? For the Catholics -- one analogy would be that the Spirit is living and active, and many of the "empty rituals" were once living and active, and the Spirit has moved on. They are still imbued with Spiritual power for those who engage in them in faith (and, in some cases, may retain "cleanliness" and power to ward off Satan anyway); but many people do them as "vain repetitions". That does not however, imply that "vain repetitions" is all that they ever were. If one actually reads the writings of some of the Saints, it is striking how much they have in common even with the Pentecostals in their devotion to Christ and waiting for and obeying the rhema of the Holy Spirit. And the signs and miracles following.
And a great many of the doctrines taken for granted by Protestants, were hashed out with blood, sweat, tears, and fervent prayers, over centuries, by the Catholic Church. To say nothing of saving the West from Islam. Not just the Crusades: the Muslims almost overran *VIENNA* (you know, cultured central Europe, the home of countless composers and artists and such)...long after Shakespeare, after Luther, and less that 100 years before the Constitution was signed. They were saved by a Catholic Prince from Poland, Jon Sobieski.
That being said, it is odd that one of my favorite pieces of music is a progressive rock album entitled Sola Scriptura, on the life of Martin Luther (it even trashes the 1400s-1500s Popes explicitly). Here's the song about Luther and the Wittenburg Door:
The Door, Live (warning: blistering guitar solo).
But the most applicable song for *this* thread, is this ballad:
(no title, but I think it's called "Make Us One")
I think that the best Scripture of all, is Romans 14. ("Welcome the one whose faith is weak, but not for quarrels...and he will stand, for God is able to make him stand." It is a call for mutual forbearance and humility. Good night. :-)
My definition is accurate in the sense that the definition is accurate. Whether sola scriptura as a philosophy has merit, we’ll discuss... tomorrow.
Minor points before I go to bed. I’ll read deeper in the morning, Lord willing.
1: Infallible does not mean literal. Many of the authors used rhetorical devices common in their day, as well as devices common in our day such as metaphor, symbolism, and common sayings.
It’s still the Word of God, and God does not lie. It’s still directly from the pens of the Prophets and Apostles, and they were instructed directly by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
If anything is in contradiction to Scripture, it’s in contradiction to the Lord himself.
2: The problem with corporate interpretation like Roman Catholicism does is that if one error gets into the interpretation there is no chance for correction. And if the leadership of that group becomes corrupt, there’s no way for the rest of it to correct them.
Unless you are to declare the leadership permanently infallible, which I don’t think you want to do. Roman Catholicism doesn’t have a very good track record in maintaining incorruptible clergy, unfortunately, and many times in history, dissent and even power struggles were typically dealt with... brutally, as the Huguenots and Templars might tell you.
3: Finally, just because ‘splinter groups’ form doesn’t mean that we aren’t unified in Christ. Roman Catholicism rites have more differences between them than most Protestant denominations.
And the same questions can be asked of Roman Catholicism.
Why does Rome allow divorce? They just call it annulment.
Gay marriage? Rome has an even bigger problem in their priesthood they continue to cover up. Why is this allowed to continue?
Women praying with their heads covered? I seriously doubt you can find a Roman Catholic church that does this.
Rejection of the gifts of the Spirit? Not sure how you come to that conclusion.
Ordination of women? Yes, sadly there are denominations that are allowing this, wrongly I might add. But right now your denomination is beginning discussions of this.
Speaking of ordination, Rome forbids its clergy from marrying citing "tradition" for their rationalization of this deviation from Scripture.
Of all the errors of Roman Catholicism this is one of the easiest to point out.
Peter, (you remember him...right?) was married as were a good number of the disciples/Apostles.
Paul outlined requirements for men to serve and among these was the requirement of one wife.
Clearly the early church had no problem with their leaders being married.
But Roman Catholic "tradition" says otherwise.
When Christians reject Roman Catholic "tradition" as being equal to Scripture you can point to this as one of the reasons why we do.
It argues for sola scriptura as being the ultimate lens through which all beliefs are filtered.
**************
All that said there are a lot of areas that Roman Catholicism has departed from the faith in.
Mariolatry is the biggest.
The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, church documents calling Mary a "co-redemptrix", "mediatrix", "Queen of Heaven", approval of apparitions claiming to be Mary that require Roman Catholics to wear scapulars to avoid the eternal fire, are all in contradiction of the Scriptures.
Yet everyone one is allowed under the auspices of "tradtion".
It means both Proverbs 26:4,5 are applicable, with "according to his" not being in the Hebrew (it just says "folly") yet as provided, it is likely a warning in one sense, of arguing like a fool, dealing with foolish objections, and the other being advice in another sense, of condescending to refute such foolish objections "lest he be wise in his own conceit."
As the classic practical commentator )oh, wait, I though SS disciples are only supposed to use the Bible) Matthew Henry discerns,
See here the noble security of the scripture-style, which seems to contradict itself, but really does not. Wise men have need to be directed how to deal with fools; and they have never more need of wisdom than in dealing with such, to know when to keep silence and when to speak, for there may be a time for both. 1. In some cases a wise man will not set his wit to that of a fool so far as to answer him according to his folly “If he boast of himself, do not answer him by boasting of thyself. If he rail and talk passionately, do not thou rail and talk passionately too. If he tell one great lie, do not thou tell another to match it. If he calumniate thy friends, do not thou calumniate his. If he banter, do not answer him in his own language, lest thou be like him, even thou, who knowest better things, who hast more sense, and hast been better taught.”
2. Yet, in other cases, a wise man will use his wisdom for the conviction of a fool, when, by taking notice of what he says, there may be hopes of doing good, or at least preventing further, mischief, either to himself or others. “If thou have reason to think that thy silence will be deemed an evidence of the weakness of thy cause, or of thy own weakness, in such a case answer him, and let it be an answer ad hominem - to the man, beat him at his own weapons, and that will be an answer ad rem - to the point, or as good as one. If he offer any thing that looks like an argument, an answer that, and suit thy answer to his case. If he think, because thou dost not answer him, that what he says is unanswerable, then give him an answer, lest he be wise in his own conceit and boast of a victory.” For (Luk_7:35) Wisdom's children must justify her.
Contrary to Bart Ehrman, these are not faith-killers.
Anyone who makes such apparent contradictions to be faith-killers would have a real problem sooner or later in dealing with speaking and writing in everyday life.
And, there are passages where St. Paul comes out and says, "Hey guys, I'm writing this, not the Lord; these other sentences, however, ARE the Big Guy Upstairs talking, so listen up!"
Quite a paraphrase, but Scripture was never a formal project of a magisterium or of a man, and God's inspiration was at work even when the writer did not know it.
The big controversy (well, ok, two of them) on Sola Scriptura is: 1) Supreme Authority in matters of faith. Catholics say, nope, no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20);
And which actually is a case of misinterpretation of Scripture, for contextually Peter is not even referring to interpretation of Scripture, but that of the writing of prophecy not being the product of man's own understanding, but to the contrary,
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter 1:11)
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)
And thus the use of 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," as an argument for an infallible interpreter would actually be a argument against it if they had an infallible interpretation of this verse as teaching what they invoke it for. And if not, then it testifies to the inadequacy of relying upon an infallible interpreter as a guard against erroneous interpretation, since Catholics engage in the latter, while arguing against personal interpretation under the premise that is is only allowed if not contradicting Catholic teaching. Yet as seen in this thread, what that all consists of and means is a matter of interpretation among Catholics.
The Protestants tend to quote 1 John 2:27, implying as it were the priesthood of all believers;
While not a good support for this, and often abused by "solo Scripturists," the fact is that the priesthood of all believers is the only priesthood in the NT church, in which there is no distinctive t Catholic priesthood .
First I don't accept 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as relevant, nor as dispositive of the issue. Why? Because it says "all Scripture is inspired by God." It DOES NOT say "Scripture is the only thing inspired by God, and will remain forever the only thing inspired by God."
However, if Scripture is the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth then it includes whatever falls under that class. And God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Then, there are instances, both in the life of Jesus, and elsewhere in the Gospels, and in the various epistles, where it is clearly implied or stated, that the revelations of the Holy Spirit to the church, are meant to be ongoing over time.
Private revelation, not public, which even Rome holds as being ceased (though as with the Assumption , she can claim to "remember" what history forgot.
And a great many of the doctrines taken for granted by Protestants, were hashed out with blood, sweat, tears, and fervent prayers, over centuries, by the Catholic Church. To say nothing of saving the West from Islam.
And of Judaism it must be said that we have "entered into their labours" (John 4:38) yet which simply does not mean that 1st century souls should have assented to all the judgements of its leadership
I think that the best Scripture of all, is Romans 14. ("Welcome the one whose faith is weak, but not for quarrels...and he will stand, for God is able to make him stand." It is a call for mutual forbearance and humility. Good night. :-)
Which has to do with areas of personal liberty, not doctrine.
So; the Scripture that Rome has given us IS adequate to get a person saved and on to heaven.
Thanks.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
What else could it be??? It certainly can't be the Catholic Church or any church that has unsaved people in its ranks...Unsaved people have not received any kind of annointing...So it has to be (a group) of individually annointed people and the citation is to each and every one of them and the group as a whole...
Then, there are instances, both in the life of Jesus, and elsewhere in the Gospels, and in the various epistles, where it is clearly implied or stated, that the revelations of the Holy Spirit to the church, are meant to be ongoing over time.
You mean indefinitely??? Nah, there ain't no scripture like that in the bible...
This does not mean that the cross and the Resurrection are overthrown, or usurped; but that God intends for His church to fight Satan in this world; and for that, additional help, prayers, guidance, and instructions are forthcoming.
Yes church, but not Church...There are no xtra-biblical doctrines or rosaries or dead Saints that can help...Ya see, scripture has already told us what the only weapons to figtht Satan are...
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
The word of God; the Bible...The ONLY weapon Christians have to fight off Satan is the Bible...
If the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, why do so many Protestant churches deviate from it (e.g. divorce, gay marriage, ordination of women, women praying without their heads covered, rejecting the Biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit, all of which are explicitly covered in the New Testament)?
You tell us...The Catholic Church deviates from the Bible more than the rest combined...The reason is they don't like what it says or they just don't believe it...And you gave an excellent example:
First I don't accept 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as relevant, nor as dispositive of the issue.
There are known issues with translation, e.g. the sculptures of Moses with horns because one of the bible translations got a word wrong (IIRC it was something like "glory" or "radiance" but got transcribed or translated as "horns".)
Would this be it???
Deu 33:16 And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren.
Deu 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.