Subject: Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
Bible Note: Regarding my claim that the Protestants hold that there is only ONE apostolic tradition, you wrote: "And just where do you get that from? Can you give chapter and verse? Or is it human tradition?" Early church history shows that the post-apostolic church used the Scriptures as the standard. The "two-level" tradition arguments did not rise in the RCC until around the beginning of the Middle Ages. Check out _The Shape of Sola Scriptura_ by Keith Mathison for an in-depth analysis of the historical arguments for ONE tradition. He traces it from the sub-apostolic era through the present-day. As far as Biblical support for one tradition, the burden of proof should be on those who assert that there is more than one tradition. In any case, there are a number of verses in Scripture that indicate that the purpose of writing down the doctrine is for the express purpose of preserving it. "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL handed down to the saints." --Jude 3 You wrote: "Paul makes no claim that the church is without error but he does regard it as being the foundation of truth. You may note the absence of the word Bible here. Paul doesn't say refer to the scriptures." You are right when Paul makes no claim of the inability of the church to err. That is a later doctrine of the RCC. However, I hope you are kidding when you assert that "Paul doesn't say refer to the Scriptures." How many times does he himself refer to the Scriptures? This is an argument not even worth having. Here is what Paul says about the church: "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." --1 Timothy 3:15. The "pillar and support of the truth," not the basis of truth, and definitely not synonmynous with the truth. "I don't think you understand what infallibility is. It doesn't mean that we are without error. It does mean that the church has authority to determine what is truth. We must have this, or we have nothing." You sure want to attribute a lack of understanding to me! "Infallible" means "unable to fail." It is more than saying that something is inerrant. Something or someone that is infallible is incapable of error. The church has authority to PRESERVE the truth, not to DETERMINE truth. Truth would still be truth if the church was 100 percent wrong on every point of it. If the church were to suddenly abandon the doctrine of teh Trinity, would God cease to be triune simply because the church said so? God is the source of truth. He has infallibly and inerrantly revealed it through the prophets, in the person of Jesus, testified to by the apostles, and in the Scriptures. The church is charged with proclaiming and correctly interpreting the Scriptures, but not with adding to them or purporting that there is "new revelation" that comes through the church or that extra-biblical or un-biblical doctrines they hold are apostolic just because the RCC says they are. Jesus responded to challenges to his teachings on countless occasions be saying, "It is written..." He recognized the unique authority of the Hebrew Scriptures in the face of the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees. What we see at the Protestant Reformation is the same claim: that the traditions of the religious leaders, unless they have their basis in God's clearly-revealed written truth, have no authority. Likewise, not once will you find the epistles making any appeal to the traditions of human beings. However, they cite the Old Testament countless times in support of their teachings. Really, if the church determines what is truth, what is the point of the Scriptures in the first place? That was the apparent argument of the RCC during the Reformation, prohibiting the private ownership of Scripture, burning English-language Bibles in the open square and arresting those who possessed them. Bottom line? We have one infallible standard that God has given us. Like the game of "telephone," oral traditions are fallible. God gave us a written standard to avoid the kinds of theological metamorphosis that we see once a second, "infallible" tradition is fabricated and put on an equal or higher level than God's Word. --Joe! |