working4christ2 working4christ2 working4christ2

RaiseMeUp · #1 Jul 11, '13, 6:55 am

I was discussing sola scriptura with someone and they brought up a point that I really did not have an answer for. Like the traditions of sacraments - they have biblical basis. So his question to me was then how is it not by scripture alone if its biblical. I tried to explain that it more refers to excluding the traditions and makes only written scripture adequate. He used Matthew 4:4 & II Timothy 3:16 as a defense for it...

jonathan_hili · #2 Jul 11, '13, 6:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiseMeUp

I was discussing sola scriptura with someone and they brought up a point that I really did not have an answer for. Like the traditions of sacraments - they have biblical basis. So his question to me was then how is it not by scripture alone if its biblical. I tried to explain that it more refers to excluding the traditions and makes only written scripture adequate. He used Matthew 4:4 & II Timothy 3:16 as a defense for it...

Scripture is part of the Church's Tradition, the written part. To go by Scripture alone - a principle that is not even in Scripture - is to ignore many other truths and graces of the faith. Not all Catholic doctrines are rooted explicitly in Scripture.

RaiseMeUp · #3 Jul 11, '13, 7:01 am

What would be some good examples that are not just written?

ahs · #4 Jul 11, '13, 7:24 am

Lots of things are "not just written". But what your friend is going to tell you is that BECAUSE it is written, that it came from the "written" ALONE...and then just got passed down after the fact.

You friend asked a ridiculous question: "How is it not by scripture alone if its biblical?". The question for your friend is, what makes him/her think that because something is written in Scripture, that the doctrine associated with it is based on Sola Scriptura?

Here's something you can present to your friend regarding SS: If everything we need to know about our Faith is found in Scripture, where in Scripture does it tell us which books belong in the Bible?

Is knowing which ancient writings really are "Scripture" necessary?

And if we just take it on the word of our ancestors as to which books belong in the Bible, then we are going outside of Scripture to accept a necessary Truth, aren't we?

If the list of books that belong in the Bible is NOT infallible...then do we have any assurance at all that the Bible really is God's Word, or must we necessarily accept that some of them might not be God's Word, AND that some of God's Word might not be in there...since it's only a "fallible" list?

ahs · #5 Jul 11, '13, 7:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiseMeUp

What would be some good examples that are not just written?

The table of contents of the Bible...aka the Canon of Scripture.

tvknight415 · #6 Jul 11, '13, 7:30 am

Mat 4:4 But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

Mat 4:4 is being taken so out of context it's not even funny. In Mat4, Satan is tempting Jesus in the desert, and in v.3 just tried to get Jesus to turn rocks into loaves of bread. Jesus is speaking about sustaining the body and the soul, but is nowhere talking about scripture being the sole basis for faith. So, there's a contextual problem here.

If he wants to equate the 'word that proceeds from the mouth of God' with the written word of scripture, I would remind him what John says in the last verse of his gospel, (Jn 21:25) But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

So, by that standard, everything that Jesus did (and said) is not written down.

In 2Tim, it says scripture is profitable. It doesn't say it's the ONLY source for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Your friend is reading something into scripture that simply isn't there.

ahs · #7 Jul 11, '13, 7:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvknight415

Mat 4:4 But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

Mat 4:4 is being taken so out of context it's not even funny. In Mat4, Satan is tempting Jesus in the desert, and in v.3 just tried to get Jesus to turn rocks into loaves of bread. Jesus is speaking about sustaining the body and the soul, but is nowhere talking about scripture being the sole basis for faith. So, there's a contextual problem here.

If he wants to equate the 'word that proceeds from the mouth of God' with the written word of scripture, I would remind him what John says in the last verse of his gospel, (Jn 21:25) But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

So, by that standard, everything that Jesus did (and said) is not written down.

In 2Tim, it says scripture is profitable. It doesn't say it's the ONLY source for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Your friend is reading something into scripture that simply isn't there.

Excellent points. The use of Mt 4:4 to "prove" SS makes a huge assumption...that "every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God" is WRITTEN. But Scripture tells us explicitly that this is not the case.

RaiseMeUp · #8 Jul 11, '13, 7:41 am

I absolutely agree but couldn't come up with an explanation that he would understand.

Ad Orientem · #9 Jul 11, '13, 8:10 am

Consciously or not, he's equivocating on the phrase "biblical basis."

When a Fundamentalist Protestant uses that term, he usually means that the Bible is a comprehensive manual of Christian doctrine, in which anyone can look up a given item and understand it for himself.

When a Catholic uses the term "biblical basis" (which I don't, to avoid confusion), he hopefully means that the Church's Magisterium uses information from the Bible in its authentic teaching on a given matter. This is not at all the same thing.

RaiseMeUp · #10 Jul 11, '13, 8:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan_hili

Scripture is part of the Church's Tradition, the written part. To go by Scripture alone - a principle that is not even in Scripture - is to ignore many other truths and graces of the faith. Not all Catholic doctrines are rooted explicitly in Scripture.

What are some examples of tradition I can present that are not explicit in scripture? Because as far as the sacraments go, I've been able to explain to him why they are done and show him their biblical basis - which is what started this debate and where he got his point of view that if its all biblical then therefore its written and you don't need anything more than what is written.

TheWarriorMonk · #11 Jul 11, '13, 8:21 am

I could name some things, but what's the point? Someone believing in Sola Sciptura will reject them anyway.

pablope · #12 Jul 11, '13, 8:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiseMeUp

What are some examples of tradition I can present that are not explicit in scripture? Because as far as the sacraments go, I've been able to explain to him why they are done and show him their biblical basis - which is what started this debate and where he got his point of view that if its all biblical then therefore its written and you don't need anything more than what is written.

The Trinity was defined without a canon of the Bible.

Another example: Gospel of Mark....ask him where is it that Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

There is no such verse in the Bible...so how does he know Mark authored the gospel of Mark? Through Tradition.

Another question: How would he determine what is truth and what is not truth?Where does the Bible teach this?
From:1John 4..... Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world…………..6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Notice the passage does not say read the Bible...but listen or obey an apostle.

And use the example of St. Paul here:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

I think you can get more insights from this article:

http://www.mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Hope this helps.

pablope · #13 Jul 11, '13, 8:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiseMeUp

I was discussing sola scriptura with someone and they brought up a point that I really did not have an answer for. Like the traditions of sacraments - they have biblical basis. So his question to me was then how is it not by scripture alone if its biblical. I tried to explain that it more refers to excluding the traditions and makes only written scripture adequate. He used Matthew 4:4 & II Timothy 3:16 as a defense for it...

2 Timothy 3:16

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Notice here...he ignored the previous passages. If you start at v14, this changes the whole context:

2 Timothy 3:14-17

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Notice how the v14 speaks of oral instructions. So it is not scripture alone.

TRH1292 · #14 Jul 11, '13, 9:01 am

1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

1 Cor 11:2 "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."

Matthew 16:19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

You might want to ask your friend:

If the Bible is our only source for doctrine, why does the Bible say the Church is the foundation of the truth?

If Scripture is the only standard, then how do we know which books go in the Bible, sense scripture nowhere tells us?

Why do you rely on the judgement of the Catholic Church by using the new testament books they compiled?

How did the Churches govern themselves for the several hundred years before there was a complete bible cannon?

Why does scripture never actually say that scripture alone is the rule of faith, why does Paul always bring up tradition?

Where does the Bible say that each person has authority to determine what the Bible teaches?

Razanir · #15 Jul 11, '13, 9:26 am

The Bible itself acknowledges that it is not comprehensive.

Also, many things with sola scriptura are not expressed in the Bible:
*Where does it explicitly name the Trinity?
*Where does it say only written tradition is important, i.e. that one only needs the Bible?
*Where does it say these 66 books constitute the Bible, but most certainly NOT Tobit, Judith, 1/2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, these 6 chapters of Esther, and these 3 chapters of Daniel?

working4christ2 working4christ2 working4christ2

Saturday, August 17, 2013

catholic answers forum Stumped by Protestant on Sola Scriptura working4christ2 << working4christ2

No comments:

Post a Comment