Sola scriptura

[Ms. Jack]

Where does the Bible claim infallibility for itself?

Essentially it doesn't, and I never claimed that it did.

Also, what infallible process was used to determine that the Bible was infallible?

You really ought to read the series I linked to. In particular, part 7 deals with this line of questioning and freely acknowledges that this is the most significant objection to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

You are well aware of this statement from the Title page in the Book of Mormon. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Please don't get defensive on me. I asked Mola Ram Suda Ram so that he could have the opportunity to clarify his position as different Latter-day Saints have told me different things on the matter---the title page of the BoM notwithstanding. There's no tricks up my sleeve.

There is a difference between perfect/infallible and "good enough" to fulfill His purposes.

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I believe the fallible early church tradition was sufficient for delivering to us the canon God intended.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, sola scriptura isn't "Bible alone." Sola scriptura is "Bible alone is infallible, tradition can be inspired but is fallible." However, for the purposes of what (I think) you're asking, sola scriptura does hold that the Bible is the only infallible Scripture we have so far.

That's just my theory though. There are probably better ones out there.

A question for you on how the LDS system compares to sola scriptura: would you ever call the Book of Mormon, the D&C, or the PoGP "infallible," either in their current form or in their original autographs? Or in other words, can the BoM, D&C, and PoGP contain errors, either in their current form or in their original autographs?

Infalliability opens a whole other can of worms.

Thank you for being honest (which I use the term loosly I am not impling that others were not honest) about being able to add scripture in theroy but not in practice.

So far we have a few people on here (maybe more than a few) that thinks that "sola scriptura" means infaliable bible alone.

Now I ask for scriptures that says "sciptrue = bible only and infalliable".

I don't think such a scripture exsists that scripture= bible alone let alone that scripture is infalliable.

As to LDS scripture we do not believe any of it to be infaliable. In fact our scripture tells us that there are probably errors but they are the errors of man.

I see that you never claimed that the bible claims that it is "sola scriptura".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please don't get defensive on me.

I like your style. Nothing wrong with telling it how it is.

[Vance]

It is the futility of God in giving Scripture if He knew it would be lost.

God spoke to man in Scripture. He was giving mankind a road MAP/TPW/pac/ for living. He spoke to show us the way.

Since His speaking was a miraculous undertaking, the begging question is: How could God start out to speak to man through Scripture and fail?

If mankind rejects the truth and corrupted the scriptures, does that mean God failed? No! I reject your premise.

If God wanted to speak to mankind, to give his Scripture to the world, how is it that He only succeeded in giving it to one or tow dozen generations?

How often in Biblical history did God need to call a prophet to restore people to the truth?

It is logically inconsistent to think that the Creator could set out to give us Scripture and then be foiled in His attempt by the foibles of men. It is logically inconsistent to think that God sent His Scripture and men lost it. It is logically inconsistent to think that God inspired Scripture if He did not intend to preserve it.

Does God always prevent evil from occurring? No! If God planned ahead to compensate/restore the truth to the earth why would He need to prevent the corruption?

Did you know that Jesus Christ quoted from the Old Testament copiously. He was satisfied that it had been faithfully preserved.

And yet He accused the lawyers of corrupting the scriptures.

Luke 11: 52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

He called it the Word of God. He read Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint. His confidence in the Old Testament gives us confidence in it.

Could you please provide a reference where Jesus call the OT the "word of God".

Textual criticism is the process by which scientists reconstruct the content of ancient documents. It is very simple in theory. Scientists simply gather together all the existing copies of an ancient document and compare them. Our certainty of the content of the original is linked to the degree to which the copies agree.

And this is needed because the text has been corrupted, and the autographs don't exist, right? Kind of blows away your theory now doesn't it!

Here is some information that I think you will find informative.

Throughout history, before the invention of the printing press, hand-copied books of the New Testament were carried throughout the Old World.

Today scientists have access to thousands of these ancient manuscript fragments, which were found in various parts of the world ? Africa, Asia, Europe.

These documents were copied in various times periods. Some come to us from the eighth century, some from as early as the second century.

A textual critic will assemble all the fragments of a particular portion of the New Testament and compare them to see if they agree or disagree.

Again, this is needed because the texts have become corrupted, right?

1. We start with the original manuscripts or the letters of Paul for example.

There are no "original manuscripts" of Paul or any other Biblical book author.

Remarkable agreement demonstrates supernatural preservation.

Really? Would you like to buy some beach front property in Nevada? sarcasm/off

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer ?no? for two primary reasons:

I like this question.

Now I would ask if "absolute infallible certainty" is not required why does "infalliablitly" need to play a role in scripture to "trust it".I don't think it does. And the bible certainly never claims it self to be infaliable.

[Vance]

Essentially it doesn't, and I never claimed that it did.

You really ought to read the series I linked to. In particular, part 7 deals with this line of questioning and freely acknowledges that this is the most significant objection to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Please don't get defensive on me. I asked Mola Ram Suda Ram so that he could have the opportunity to clarify his position as different Latter-day Saints have told me different things on the matter---the title page of the BoM notwithstanding. There's no tricks up my sleeve.

Sorry but your link doesn't address the issue I raised. Your link talks about the "fallible" collection of "infallible" books. But it doesn't address the (fallible) decision process to "determine/conclude" that the "infallible" books are in fact infallible.

Basically, you ASSUME that the books are "infallible" and then go from there. This approach is fine, as long as it is acknowledged UPFRONT that it is a foundational ASSUMPTION. And you don't use it as a club to beat those that don't buy it.

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I believe the fallible early church tradition was sufficient for delivering to us the canon God intended.

That is an interesting statement coming from a Protestant. Apparently the "canon God intended" was insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the Catholic Church (thus causing the "protest"/reformation). And it is still insufficient to unite the "universal church".

[Ms. Jack]

Now I ask for scriptures that says "sciptrue = bible only and infalliable".

IMO there is no such scripture. Some would attempt to use Matthew 5:18 or 2 Timothy 3:16, but I think such attempts are strained at best.

The best case for not doubting the scriptures can probably be found in how Christ uses the Scriptures in the Gospels. When He cites scriptures, He never seems to doubt their authority or authenticity. So why should we?

But even that isn't a perfect case because the New Testament hadn't been written yet.

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something.

Absolutely not. Speaking as an evangelical Christian, our message has never been "we have an infallible Bible." It has been Christ died for our sins and is risen. You don't have to believe in an infallible Bible to believe that. A few evangelicals even reject inerrancy; I. Howard Marshall and J. P. Holding are two examples.

I do have other reasons for believing infallibility is the best option, but no, it is not required.

Sorry but your link doesn't address the issue I raised.

Then I think you did not read it very carefully, which isn't much of a surprise. Frankly, you sound like you're more interested in safeguarding your beliefs in the superiority the LDS position than in genuinely understanding someone else's position.

This approach is fine, as long as it is acknowledged UPFRONT that it is a foundational ASSUMPTION.

I thought that Patton's series did an excellent job discussing this point and was very open about the matter. And I really fail to see why we're required to acknowledge "UPFRONT" the greatest weaknesses in our position. Nobody does that; Mormons certainly don't.

And you don't use it as a club to beat those that don't buy it.

This is an odd concern to bring up. Do you have examples of me doing this?

That is an interesting statement coming from a Protestant. Apparently the "canon God intended" was insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the Catholic Church (thus causing the "protest"/reformation). And it is still insufficient to unite the "universal church".

That is the funniest statement I have read in weeks. Likewise, modern-day revelation was insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the RLDS church, the Strangites, the Rigdonites, the Temple Lot Church, the fundamentalists and all of these Mormon sects right here. Good thing we have new scripture to straighten these things out for us!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

IMO there is no such scripture. Some would attempt to use Matthew 5:18 or 2 Timothy 3:16, but I think such attempts are strained at best.

The best case for not doubting the scriptures can probably be found in how Christ uses the Scriptures in the Gospels. When He cites scriptures, He never seems to doubt their authority or authenticity. So why should we?

But even that isn't a perfect case because the New Testament hadn't been written yet.

Absolutely not. Speaking as an evangelical Christian, our message has never been "we have an infallible Bible." It has been Christ died for our sins and is risen. You don't have to believe in an infallible Bible to believe that. A few evangelicals even reject inerrancy; I. Howard Marshall and J. P. Holding are two examples.

I do have other reasons for believing infallibility is the best option, but no, it is not required.

Sounds good to me and one I can respect.

That is the funniest statement I have read in weeks. Likewise, modern-day revelation was insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the RLDS church, the Strangites, the Rigdonites, the Temple Lot Church, the fundamentalists and all of these Mormon sects right here. Good thing we have new scripture to straighten these things out for us!

All it menas is that people have agency to do what they believe. Lack of scripture is not what is the problem. It is that people have changed what is there to fit their beliefs. Any way that is not my arguement and I will let you and Vance hash this one out. I just thought this was an apples to oranges comparison.

[Vance]

Then I think you did not read it very carefully, which isn't much of a surprise. Frankly, you sound like you're more interested in safeguarding your beliefs in the superiority the LDS position than in genuinely understanding someone else's position.

Wow, Why so defensive? I read it a second time and still don't see where this issue was addressed. So rather than imply that I am an idiot why don't you just quote the part that addresses this.

I thought that Patton's series did an excellent job discussing this point and was very open about the matter.

He did do an excellent job and was more open about this weakness than any other that I have seen or heard. Still, I don't see where he addressed the specific issue I raised. He does talk about fallibility in the process of deciding WHICH books to include in the "canon of infallible books" but NEVER touches upon the decision that ANY of the books are infallible to start with. In other words HOW do we know that ANY book is infallible? Why the need to insist that infallible books exist at all?

And I really fail to see why we're required to acknowledge "UPFRONT" the greatest weaknesses in our position. Nobody does that; Mormons certainly don't.

An HONEST person would acknowledge (at least to themselves) that a weakness exists prior to clubbing someone who doesn't agree. In fact I would think an honest person would NOT use Bible inerrancy/infallibility as a club at all.

This is an odd concern to bring up. Do you have examples of me doing this?

You mean you have never seen where EVs have tried to bludgeon Mormons with this stick before? Are you really that sheltered? P.S. I did NOT and do NOT accuse you personally of such behavior.

That is the funniest statement I have read in weeks. Likewise, modern-day revelation was insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the RLDS church, the Strangites, the Rigdonites, the Temple Lot Church, the fundamentalists and all of these Mormon sects right here. Good thing we have new scripture to straighten these things out for us!

Maybe you have a point.

But I would say that modern-day revelation was and is sufficient to prevent the apostasy of the LDS church!

Whereas the Bible was insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the Catholic church (according to the Protestants/reformers anyway). If maintaining the "infallibility" of the Bible was so important to God that He prevented its corruption by miraculous means (as is the position of the sola scripturaists), why didn't He just prevent the apostasy of the Catholic Church in the first place?

[Ms. Jack]

So rather than imply that I am an idiot why don't you just quote the part that addresses this.

You originally asked:

Also, what infallible process was used to determine that the Bible was infallible?

Patton's article explains (here):

I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Yet the list on page 23 of my Bible is not part of the canon. In other words, the list itself is not part of the inspired word of God. ... Since (I) do not believe in an infallible human authority that has determined what books belong in the Bible, how can I be certain what books belong in the Bible and still profess sola Scriptura?

It would seem that the Scripture alone is not sufficient to establish the Scripture alone!! Do we have an fallible canon of infallible books?

It was R.C. Sproul who first made the claim that Protestants have a fallible canon of infallible books.

IOW, your question is loaded. It asks me to back up a claim that neither I nor the people I'm citing have made. We don't believe the process for creating the canon was infallible, and we don't believe that the process for deciding the Bible is infallible was infallible. The method for which we arrived at those two conclusions (the canon & the Bible's infallibility) was, to paraphrase you, "fallible but sufficient."

Now, if you're asking me why I believe the Bible is infallible at all, that could easily become its own thread, and to be honest I'm not certain that I have time to go into all of the reasons. The point of this thread was to explain the doctrine of sola scriptura. I think inerrancy is rather its own subject.

An HONEST person would acknowledge (at least to themselves) that a weakness exists prior to clubbing someone who doesn't agree. In fact I would think an honest person would NOT use Bible inerrancy/infallibility as a club at all.

I agree.

You mean you have never seen where EVs have tried to bludgeon Mormons with this stick before?

I have, but I really don't care. I've seen Mormons use all kinds of distasteful and fallacious arguments before and I'm not the least bit interested in holding you accountable for them just because you're LDS. My rule is always to deal with the Latter-day Saint I have before me exclusively and only address the positions s/he espouses. If necessary, we can move on to comparing his or her positions to the teachings of the LDS church at large. I tend to expect the same from the people who address me.

But I would say that modern-day revelation was and is sufficient to prevent the apostasy of the LDS church! ... why didn't He just prevent the apostasy of the Catholic Church in the first place?

My understanding of LDS thought is that the early Christian church possessed modern-day revelation in the form of Peter, Paul, James, etc. And yet, it wasn't sufficient to prevent the apostasy of the early Christian church. Why couldn't God have prevented the apostasy of the early Christian church to begin with? Why was modern-day revelation insufficient to prevent the apostasy of the early Christian church, but now it's somehow sufficient to prevent the apostasy of the restored church?

That's why I laughed. Your logic here can just as easily be used to defeat the claims of the LDS church in any number of ways.

[Vance]

Jack,

I think we are making progress here. As I see it, my original question can be broken into at least two parts.

1) What books belong in the canon of "infallible" books. Which your link addressed, and

2) What (fallible) process/criteria was/is used to determine that books in the canon of "infallible" books (or ANY book for that matter) are in fact infallible. Which your link did not address.

So basically the "sola scripturaist believes that it is possible for an infallible God to use fallible men using the fallible and imperfect languages of man to create an infallible document and to preserve it throughout the rest of time.

And the mere existence of this "possibility" is sufficient to claim it not only possible but also probable. And the mere existence of this "probability" is sufficient to claim it not only probable but worthy of full and blind acceptance.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

IOW, your question is loaded. It asks me to back up a claim that neither I nor the people I'm citing have made. We don't believe the process for creating the canon was infallible, and we don't believe that the process for deciding the Bible is infallible was infallible. The method for which we arrived at those two conclusions (the canon & the Bible's infallibility) was, to paraphrase you, "fallible but sufficient."

It seems from what I am to udnerstand about all of this is that "sola scritpura" is just a self evident point of doctrine. Same with the bible being infaliable.

If that is the case I can appreaciate that point of view. I disagree with it but I can appreciate it.

If it isn;t the case perhaps I should read some more.

[cksalmon]

Mola:

We cannot discuss sola scriptura without at least mentioning sola fide--or justification by faith alone. After all, it was Luther's "rediscovery" of what he believed to be the biblical teaching about justification that led him to require Rome to justify scripturally its extra-biblical traditions that denied it. One of his more irenic attempts to explain justification by faith alone, dedicated to Pope Leo X, is 1520's The Freedom of a Christian.[1] The work is short and powerful. In it, Luther argues that justifying faith results naturally in works of love, but these must not, of themselves, be understood as contributing anything to God's act of justifying the sinner. (I would note in passing that this--or something very like it?is what many Evangelicals on this board have repeatedly argued.) Luther held that the Roman Catholic authorities had instituted a works-based system of righteousness unknown to the scriptures.

I raise the issue of sola fide in order to underscore the symbiotic nature of it to sola scriptura. What Luther was arguing was that the Roman Catholic Church mandated practices (indulgences, for example) that functionally destroyed the idea of justification by faith alone. Because Luther believed that sola fide was clearly taught in scripture (as do I), he demanded that Rome "justify" its practices by reference to the scriptures. After all, all agreed that the Bible is God's word--there was no argument there. So, in effect, he was demanding: "Show me from God's word that the Christian's conscience is duty-bound to believe in the efficacy of and participate in the buying and selling of indulgences," etc.

When asked to recant, Luther responded (as quoted above): "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

Johann Eck[2], responding to Luther, well summarized the Roman Catholic criticism against sola scriptura: "...Now you revive those [errors] which the general Council of Constance, composed of the whole German nation, has condemned, and you wish to be refuted by means of Scripture. In this you are completely mad. For what purpose does it serve to raise a new dispute about matters condemned through so many centuries by church and council? Unless perhaps a reason must be given to just anyone about anything whatsoever. But if it were granted that whoever contradicts the councils and the common understanding of the church must be overcome by Scripture passages, we will have nothing in Christianity that is certain or decided" (Luther Works 32.112-113).

(Parenthetically, I wonder whether or not Mormons would agree with Eck that rejecting "the authority of the Pope and councils" would necessarily lead to absolute uncertainty in the realm of Christian belief.)

Luther did not see the dire situation Eck outlined. I don't see it, either. Rather, I see sola scriptura as the gatekeeper of the Christian's theological conscience, not as a supernatural talisman, of late manufacture, crafted to ward off evil cultists.

As sola scriptura, historically, was a principle intended to rebut what Protestants have deemed to be extra-biblical Roman Catholic traditions presented as binding upon the Christian conscience, let me illustrate my point with some historical examples. I'll give three, but more can be adduced if you're interested.

I. Trent (1545-1563) -- Regarding the Nature of the Mass

Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

I reject that the Roman Catholic Mass functions as a "propitiatory" sacrifice for sin (that repeatedly appeases God's wrath in its daily execution).

In the Epistle to the Hebrews (9.24-38), after the author has already denominated Christ's sacrifice as propitiation for sin (2.17), we read:

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly[3], as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

I don't see how I might affirm Rome's teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin whenever the ritual is conducted, in light of what Hebrews seems clearly to teach. While Trent declared that my rejection on that count subjects me to its anathema, the principle of sola scriptura stands my Protestant rejection in good stead.

II. Vatican I, Section 9 -- Regarding Papal Infallibility (1869-1870)

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema (emphasis mine).

I reject this definition. I can find it nowhere taught in scripture. According to Vatican I, I am anathema thereby.

III. Munificentissimus Deus (Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950) -- Regarding the bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven

46. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.

47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Per Munificentissimus Deus, I will incur the wrath of God and Peter and Paul if I deny that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. The Protestant within me asks, "On what grounds?" The scriptures know nothing of this belief. Why should my conscience be bound to assent to a doctrine that is completely unknown to the biblical writers?

Well, this was not meant to be an anti-Catholic post, but the subject matter requires historical context. ("One of my best friends is Catholic?"; no, but seriously, he is. And, he's a convert from the SBC--the most obnoxious kind of Catholic you could hope to meet. And his daughter is in love with me, but that's another story.)

I will attempt to demonstrate in my next post (couple days maybe) that the underlying principle of sola scriptura is not a Protestant invention. While I don't believe the ECF's can be considered to be normative on any particular issue (since they seem, taken together, to have taught almost everything about anything), I will cite some early Church fathers who appear to have operated on the principle of sola scriptura, including Augustine, for what it's worth.

But, for now, I have some questions, Mola. And, they're not meant to be "gotchas." Just food for thought as we delve into the matter more deeply. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, do you believe (with the Roman Catholic Church) that the Mass is a repetitive propitiatory sacrifice, that the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements are infallible, or that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven?

I don't. And, subject to welcome correction, I don't know of any LDS precedents for so believing. I disbelieve because I am convinced that such traditions are not to be found in the scriptures. Therefore, my Christian conscience is not bound to accept them on pain of God's wrath or Rome's anathema.

Do you believe them? If you do, is it because you accept the Roman Catholic Church's authority to bind your conscience? If you do not, why not?

Do you consider the claims of the Roman Catholic Church above to be extra-biblical? If you do, on what grounds do you reject them (if, of course, you do--I won't presume to put words in your mouth)?

Best.

cks

[1] Luther's other works from 1520 (including his Babylonian Captivity of the Church) are quite a bit less peaceable, shall we say. Protestant historian Mark Noll, an unabashed admirer of Luther, wrote: "Luther could never be considered a model of Christian decorum. Rather, he was a blunt and sometimes crude writer who was almost as likely to embarrass his supporters and protectors as to edify them."

[2] Oddly, not the famous Johann Eck of the Worms debate, but another.

[3] Roman Catholic theology teaches that the Eucharist is a repeatable, literal, re-presentation (not representation) of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

[Pahoran]

I suggested Mola start the thread and I told him that I would respond. If you choose to characterize that as some sort of "deigning," great. I do so "deign," in your parlance, though, of course, I certainly wouldn't phrase my response in those terms.

The deigning consists in your willingness to now actually engage what was before apparently beneath you.

Sure. I would note, however, that my first response (that I apparently didn't make) apparently succeeded in eliciting a rewording on your part. But, no matter.

It was nonresponsive, hence not a response. This is your first actual response.

And my "rewording" consisted in inserting the single word "parenthetically," which had the effect of removing any pretext for you to start another red herring and thus avoid answering the questions. And clearly it worked. But, no matter.

With regard to your (1), I suppose I'd agree. My agreement in no way constitutes a wholesale dismissal of tradition or praxis that is consonant with scripture but not explicitly taught therein.

So the "sola" isn't all that "sola." If I understand you right, you seem to say that anything is okay as long as the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid or contradict it; is that correct?

If so, that seems like a rather expansive kind of Sola Scriptura. As a point of reference, let us see what the Church of England, the most "catholic" of the Protestant churches, has to say on the subject:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Did you get that? "Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby..." such as the manmade doctrinal innovation known as Sola Scriptura.

Moreover, I would note that, while I consider sola scriptura to be a Christian "doctrine," I do so in a fairly broadly conceived manner--as an informative and formative belief that I believe, all things being equal, ought to be held by Christians. But, I don't consider it deal breaker. In other words, I don't personally hold sola scriptura dogmatically. So, for example, if someone were to ask me, "Must I believe in sola scriptura to be saved?" my response would be, "Of course not."

That's just as well. Because it is certain that the first generation of Christians did not believe it.

This would be in contrast to certain Roman Catholic beliefs, e.g., belief in purgatory. Trent declared, in no uncertain terms, that my disbelief in purgatory will result in the damnation of my soul.

In the which, the great Concilium Tridentinum was wrong. It is your pertinacious anti-Mormonism that earns you an eternity shovelling coal.

With regard to your (2): I deny that sola scriptura cannot be adequately adduced from the scriptural witness. (Parenthetically, I have found attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there to be generally cogent.)

Really? Do tell. I've seen several attempts (well, actually I've seen the same one, repeated several times) and they have been quite feeble; so to see a "generally cogent" attempt would be a first.

Your (3), then, doesn't follow.

That remains to be seen.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

The deigning consists in your willingness to now actually engage what was before apparently beneath you.

It was nonresponsive, hence not a response. This is your first actual response.

And my "rewording" consisted in inserting the single word "parenthetically," which had the effect of removing any pretext for you to start another red herring and thus avoid answering the questions. And clearly it worked. But, no matter.

Well, golly gee, that's a claim that is patently and obviously false, Pahoran, as absolutely anyone can see. FARMS-like, I can only imagine what this might mean for your credibility.

So the "sola" isn't all that "sola." If I understand you right, you seem to say that anything is okay as long as the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid or contradict it; is that correct?

If so, that seems like a rather expansive kind of Sola Scriptura. As a point of reference, let us see what the Church of England, the most "catholic" of the Protestant churches, has to say on the subject:

Did you get that? "Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby..." such as the manmade doctrinal innovation known as Sola Scriptura.

That's just as well. Because it is certain that the first generation of Christians did not believe it.

In the which, the great Concilium Tridentinum was wrong. It is your pertinacious anti-Mormonism that earns you an eternity shovelling coal.

Really? Do tell. I've seen several attempts (well, actually I've seen the same one, repeated several times) and they have been quite feeble; so to see a "generally cogent" attempt would be a first.

That remains to be seen.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hi Pahoran:

Just go eat whatever sort of sandwich you folks favor there at midday and enjoy the rest of your afternoon. My compliments. Your comments are duly noted and will be answered in the order in which they were received. I'm interested in dialoging with Mola at this point, not in fruitless, circuitous sparring with you. You can come back to the table when you've eaten your vegetables.

Regards,

cks

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Did you get that? "Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby..." such as the manmade doctrinal innovation known as Sola Scriptura.

To be more accurate to CK he did say that it was not a requirement of salvation to believe in "Sola Scriptura". The thing this does raise to me then is: what is all the hubbub about. Any way that is my 2 cents.

Moving on tother things

Johann Eck[2], responding to Luther, well summarized the Roman Catholic criticism against sola scriptura: "...Now you revive those [errors] which the general Council of Constance, composed of the whole German nation, has condemned, and you wish to be refuted by means of Scripture. In this you are completely mad. For what purpose does it serve to raise a new dispute about matters condemned through so many centuries by church and council? Unless perhaps a reason must be given to just anyone about anything whatsoever. But if it were granted that whoever contradicts the councils and the common understanding of the church must be overcome by Scripture passages, we will have nothing in Christianity that is certain or decided" (Luther Works 32.112-113).

(Parenthetically, I wonder whether or not Mormons would agree with Eck that rejecting "the authority of the Pope and councils" would necessarily lead to absolute uncertainty in the realm of Christian belief.)

I actually found Eck's rebuttle really bad. It looked as if he appealed to tradtion. "For what purpose does it serve to raise a new dispute about matters condemned through so many centuries by church and council?" I can see why Luther did what he did.

Sola Fide seems kind of an interesting approach to lead to Sola Scriptura. I read your post and I can't make sense of the steps that Luther took. It seemed as if he assumed a few things that he couldn't necissarly find in the scriptures whihc is ironic that he was using that to bash the Catholic church.

Now of course this is all from my LDS pespective. I appreciate your time in going through this in this matter, it is most enlightening to see were it came from and how it progressed.

Well, this was not meant to be an anti-Catholic post, but the subject matter requires historical context. ("One of my best friends is Catholic?"; no, but seriously, he is. And, he's a convert from the SBC--the most obnoxious kind of Catholic you could hope to meet. And his daughter is in love with me, but that's another story.)

I was just thinking what an "anti=catholic" post. JK. I understand what you are doing here and I doubt any catholics would object. After all it is history mixed with a few of your own personal views that happen to be similiar to Luthers.

But, for now, I have some questions, Mola. And, they're not meant to be "gotchas." Just food for thought as we delve into the matter more deeply. As a faithful Latter-day Saint, do you believe (with the Roman Catholic Church) that the Mass is a repetitive propitiatory sacrifice

I don't believe that I do else I would be a catholic. Lol I don't think I understand all that the question implies, it might be a new subject to me. I don't think going to church in and of its self is a "repetitive propitiatory sacrifice". I would argue however in the LDS sense the main purpose of going to chruch is to take the sacarment which is a renewal of our baptismal covenant, and that act makes our baptism new again or as if we were just baptised and washed clean.

, that the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements are infallible, or that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven?

Definatly not. I don't consider our own prophets to be infailiable or their prnouncements. What I mean by that is do we or even the prophet understand all that the pronouncement means when it is revealed? Might there be an error? Yes but I doubt it would be a major error it would ony be because of our limited understanding of things.

I don't. And, subject to welcome correction, I don't know of any LDS precedents for so believing. I disbelieve because I am convinced that such traditions are not to be found in the scriptures. Therefore, my Christian conscience is not bound to accept them on pain of God's wrath or Rome's anathema.

I agree you are not bound to them, solely on the basis that you are in charge of your own self.

Now from teh LDS perspective I understand the Catholic perspective, that the Pope can make new scripture, as I understand it (I could be wrong) the pope= a prophet.

Do you believe them? If you do, is it because you accept the Roman Catholic Church's authority to bind your conscience? If you do not, why not?

I do not accept what the popes say.

Do you consider the claims of the Roman Catholic Church above to be extra-biblical? If you do, on what grounds do you reject them (if, of course, you do--I won't presume to put words in your mouth)?

Best.

cks

The claims are extra biblical soley because they are not found in the bible. Just like the LDS claims, some of those, are extra biblical. The BoM is extra biblical.

I don't accpet the catholics church because I believe they went apostate one or 2 centeries after Christ died and lacked the proper authority to administer the ordinaces of the goespel. IOW when the Pope talked it was not from God. I am sure there are many that think when JS talked it wasn't from God.

[Pahoran]

Well, golly gee, that's a claim that is patently and obviously false, Pahoran, as absolutely anyone can see. FARMS-like, I can only imagine what this might mean for your credibility.

What part of it was false, CK? When I previously posted the above in the other thread, the totality of your response was to make a pharisaical quibble about the parenthetical remark at point 2.

Do you really think it qualifies as a response?

Hi Pahoran:

Just go eat whatever sort of sandwich you folks favor there at midday and enjoy the rest of your afternoon. My compliments. Your comments are duly noted and will be answered in the order in which they were received. I'm interested in dialoging with Mola at this point, not in fruitless, circuitous sparring with you. You can come back to the table when you've eaten your vegetables.

Regards,

cks

Ah, condescension. What fun.

Well, I've had my lunch. And my dinner, too. So, how about it, CK? Where's that marvellously cogent defense of Sola Scriptura from the Bible?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What part of it was false, CK? When I previously posted the above in the other thread, the totality of your response was to make a pharisaical quibble about the parenthetical remark at point 2.

Do you really think it qualifies as a response?

Ah, condescension. What fun.

Well, I've had my lunch. And my dinner, too. So, how about it, CK? Where's that marvellously cogent defense of Sola Scriptura from the Bible?

Regards,

Pahoran

There does not seem to be a source from the bible, that is what I am getting from posters here, I had asked if "It was just a self evident doctrine?" That is what it seems to be.

[cksalmon]

Hi Mola--

More later, but for now...

Now from teh LDS perspective I understand the Catholic perspective, that the Pope can make new scripture, as I understand it (I could be wrong) the pope= a prophet.

Our Catholic friends would certainly reject this, Mola. Per the Roman Catholic view, the Pope does not create new scripture; he may clarify or define dogmas, but Catholics believe that all the 'extra-biblical' dogmas (e.g., the Marian dogmas) are implicit in scripture. Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of scripture, but not in the formal sufficiency of scripture. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong discusses the difference between the two here.

The claims are extra biblical soley because they are not found in the bible. Just like the LDS claims, some of those, are extra biblical. The BoM is extra biblical.

You bring up a good point here, which might prove instructive at some point. Yes, BoM is extra-biblical. For the Latter-day Saint, however, BoM is not extra-scriptural. I don't wish to confuse the issue, but thought that might be worth pointing out.

I don't accpet the catholics church because I believe they went apostate one or 2 centeries after Christ died and lacked the proper authority to administer the ordinaces of the goespel. IOW when the Pope talked it was not from God. I am sure there are many that think when JS talked it wasn't from God.

For clarification, why do you believe that the church went apostate one or two centuries after Christ died? I know that that's an LDS belief. I'm not questioning that you believe it, but wondering upon what grounds you do so. One of the grounds of course is surely the LDS interpretation of certain NT passages.

Can you tell me, in very brief, summary form (including the relevant NT texts and LDS revelation, etc.) why you believe this? (Not looking for a dissertation, just a sketch.)

I'm not actually driving at a particular point, here. I'm just thinking my way through the issues along with you.

I had asked if "It was just a self evident doctrine?" That is what it seems to be.

I'm not sure I'd agree that it is self-evident. But, I'm not sure that I'd disagree, either. It's an interesting discussion.

cks

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Mola--

More later, but for now...

Our Catholic friends would certainly reject this, Mola. Per the Roman Catholic view, the Pope does not create new scripture; he may clarify or define dogmas, but Catholics believe that all the 'extra-biblical' dogmas (e.g., the Marian dogmas) are implicit in scripture. Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of scripture, but not in the formal sufficiency of scripture. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong discusses the difference between the two here.

Well I learned something new, then on that grounds alone I reject the catholic church as I think some of their doctrines are extra biblical or extra scriptural. Since the pope can't make new scripture and thier scripture is the bible well....

You bring up a good point here, which might prove instructive at some point. Yes, BoM is extra-biblical. For the Latter-day Saint, however, BoM is not extra-scriptural. I don't wish to confuse the issue, but thought that might be worth pointing out.

Yes I would agree whole heartedly with this, from an LDS standpoint this is quite accurate.

For clarification, why do you believe that the church went apostate one or two centuries after Christ died? I know that that's an LDS belief. I'm not questioning that you believe it, but wondering upon what grounds you do so. One of the grounds of course is surely the LDS interpretation of certain NT passages.

I have the scriptures from 2Thes. that tells us that there will be a falling away before Jesus returns and there will be a restitution of all things. Also In rev. we find that the dragon will over come the saints and the women (the church) and she will retreat into the wilderness for a time. And also an angle that has the everlasting gospel to preach to men on earth this will happen in the latter days. I am paraphrasing this of course I will give more detailed refrences when I get back from my Metallica cover band practice.

Can you tell me, in very brief, summary form (including the relevant NT texts and LDS revelation, etc.) why you believe this? (Not looking for a dissertation, just a sketch.)

Other than some of the scriptures I partially quoted, from the LDS stand point the apostles held the preisthood authority to act in the name of God and when they were killed that authority was not past on. The Catholics claim that it was past on to Bishop.... Oh I forget his name, but a bishop does not = an apostle. IOW the aposltes were killed before they could pass that authority on. And the fact that scripture stopped.

I'm not actually driving at a particular point, here. I'm just thinking my way through the issues along with you.

Sounds good to me isn't that what we are doing? Yes?

I'm not sure I'd agree that it is self-evident. But, I'm not sure that I'd disagree, either. It's an interesting discussion.

cks

Well that is what I am after is were did "sola scriptura" come from. I can repsect your belief in sola scriptura and want to know more about. I disagree with it for obvious reasons but that is ok.

[cksalmon]

Sola Fide seems kind of an interesting approach to lead to Sola Scriptura. I read your post and I can't make sense of the steps that Luther took. It seemed as if he assumed a few things that he couldn't necissarly find in the scriptures whihc is ironic that he was using that to bash the Catholic church.

I'm afraid, in my oversimplification, I might have left you with a wrong impression about Luther. Many discussions about the relationship between faith and works here on MADB center around the LDS contention that Evangelicals believe in "cheap grace." But, would you believe that that was precisely what motivated Luther's rejection of Roman Catholic soteriology? It was.

Because the concept of sola fide has been altered and, I'd suggest, corrupted down through the historical line into modern Evangelicalism, it may be, at first, difficult to really appreciate this point. But, Luther's radical emphasis on salvation by faith alone was his battle cry against what he viewed as the rather lax view of sin ("cheap grace") held by the Roman Catholic Church of his time.

If one is to really understand Luther's Reformation, that is absolutely the place to start: As a rebellion against what he viewed as "cheap grace." But, that's a discussion for another time and would require quite a detailed discussion of the popular Roman Catholic piety against Luther's radical departure from Roman Catholicism took shape.

In sum, the point I'd leave you with, at this point, is that Luther found sola fide in every nook and cranny of the scriptural witness. It is not the case that he "couldn't necessarily find in the scriptures," but, rather, that he found it everywhere in the Bible! Thus, his confirmed rejection of any sort of notion that might even hint at "buying" God off with "good works."

It would involve quite the time commitment (3+ hours), so I don't expect you to get to it right away: but, if you find yourself with a long road trip before you, alone (and with iPod in hand), I can't recommend highly enough Scottish historian Carl Trueman's series of lectures on Luther and the Reformation (parts 1, 2, and 3): here. Trueman's lectures are simply brilliant and squarely place Luther and the Reformation he began in their proper historical context.

cks

[cksalmon]

I am paraphrasing this of course I will give more detailed refrences when I get back from my Metallica cover band practice.

Okay. On the off-chance that you aren't just messing with me, Mola (good show, if you are): says me. My favorite Metallica song from my favorite Metallica album. Oh, gosh, I hope you're aren't just fooling me into revealing my love for hardcore 80's metal.

cks

PS. But, then, there's always my fav Megadeth song.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay. On the off-chance that you aren't just messing with me, Mola (good show, if you are): says me. My favorite Metallica song from my favorite Metallica album. Oh, gosh, I hope you're aren't just fooling me into revealing my love for hardcore 80's metal.

cks

PS. But, then, there's always my fav Megadeth song.

Oh boy, I know now that you are true metal fan, not just a follower of pop metallica music (black labum forward). We do cover several song inculding MofP and Sanitarium. You would also be happy to know that we do "One", "Fade to black", and "Creeping death". WE also do all the old classic like "four horse men" and "seek and destroy" we might even try a new one of the latest album "All Nightmare Long". We have our first gig at tentitve date of oct 30th. We will see how it goes. I hope to have video of the gig when we play it. My wife will be there to record our first event. FYI I have been playing for 13 years now. And am schooled in guitar after Ozzy's finest guitar players including Randy Rhoads and Zakk Wylde.

I have to say that Rust in Peace is Megadeth's best album to date inculding the brand new one featuring Chris Broderick. Marty Friedman is amazing on taht album, my favotrie song is 5 magics. For more Marty Friedman goodness you need to check out Cacophony. That was his and Jason Becker's band. That stuff is amazing. Check out "Concerto", "Go Off", and "Speed Metal Symphony". Those songs are instrumental but what they do on them is amzing to me. Good times.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm afraid, in my oversimplification, I might have left you with a wrong impression about Luther. Many discussions about the relationship between faith and works here on MADB center around the LDS contention that Evangelicals believe in "cheap grace." But, would you believe that that was precisely what motivated Luther's rejection of Roman Catholic soteriology? It was.

Because the concept of sola fide has been altered and, I'd suggest, corrupted down through the historical line into modern Evangelicalism, it may be, at first, difficult to really appreciate this point. But, Luther's radical emphasis on salvation by faith alone was his battle cry against what he viewed as the rather lax view of sin ("cheap grace") held by the Roman Catholic Church of his time.

If one is to really understand Luther's Reformation, that is absolutely the place to start: As a rebellion against what he viewed as "cheap grace." But, that's a discussion for another time and would require quite a detailed discussion of the popular Roman Catholic piety against Luther's radical departure from Roman Catholicism took shape.

In sum, the point I'd leave you with, at this point, is that Luther found sola fide in every nook and cranny of the scriptural witness. It is not the case that he "couldn't necessarily find in the scriptures," but, rather, that he found it everywhere in the Bible! Thus, his confirmed rejection of any sort of notion that might even hint at "buying" God off with "good works."

It would involve quite the time commitment (3+ hours), so I don't expect you to get to it right away: but, if you find yourself with a long road trip before you, alone (and with iPod in hand), I can't recommend highly enough Scottish historian Carl Trueman's series of lectures on Luther and the Reformation (parts 1, 2, and 3): here. Trueman's lectures are simply brilliant and squarely place Luther and the Reformation he began in their proper historical context.

cks

Yes I understand that you might have over simplified it. Oh yeah I forgot about some of the past Catholic practices, perhaps they are still around to day, but Luther did have a problem with paying the preist to repent of sins. It is possible I disn't remember it right. either way Luther had a problem with what he thought was unbiblical practices.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have the scriptures from 2Thes. that tells us that there will be a falling away before Jesus returns and there will be a restitution of all things. Also In rev. we find that the dragon will over come the saints and the women (the church) and she will retreat into the wilderness for a time. And also an angle that has the everlasting gospel to preach to men on earth this will happen in the latter days. I am paraphrasing this of course I will give more detailed refrences when I get back from my Metallica cover band practice.

Here are the relevant passages. I am sure you have heard them before.

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by bletter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Coupled with this verse

Acts 3: 21

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

This is a great vesre also for moderday prophets. In intertpetion of course.

Rev. 13: 7

7 And it was given unto him (the dragon) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 14:6

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

This we believe is a direct prophecy of the Angel Moroni, that an angel is the means for this restitution.

Rev 12:1-6,17

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The woman is the church and the man child is Christ and the seed is those that belong to the church. And there is a time given for how long the woman retreats to the wilderness until the woman returns.

Any way there you have it. There is plenty of evidence that God's church will be taken away and restored before CHrist returns.