Fatal Errors with Sola Scriptura’s “God Breathed” Argument

1.) I just did. 1 Thess 2 and 2 Thess 2 clearly state that the oral teachings existed alongside the written, and both were the word of God, passed down throughout the ages. Paul isn’t talking about what was in them, just sources. Since we’re dealing with the Biblical rule of faith, you have to give me the expiration date.

2.) Yes, Hebrews 13:7 is quite clear. But all the Protestant has to say is “they are contradicting scripture, so non-serviam.” There’s no way to refute that except by powers of persuasion. At which point, if you can’t persuade, Hebrews 13:7 becomes a joke. Hebrews 13:7 doesn’t say “obey them if they make a persuasive case. that you are in the wrong.”
3.) I can say “yes, the RC contradicts Scripture, ergo I’m no longer a Catholic.” If I did, then I’d be placing my eternal salvation in danger. So we are in a completely different boat.
4.) Unless you want to show where such authorities have the power to bind your conscience, even if you feel they are out of line? Where does such authority come from? Did it exist 500 years ago? 1,000? Back during Apostolic times? How can you tell? How can you verify it when people challenge that lineage?
I give you credit for realizing the quandry of things like Hebrews. I don’t give you much credit for your rationalization of it.

1.) Whether or not they are or aren’t recorded in Scripture is completely besides the point. The Catholic Church doesn’t proclaim that the traditions passed down orally are extra-scriptural. Rather that the Word of God was communicated in two ways, and both have been passed down through the ages. That’s entirely Biblical. We can quibble about the other stuff later, but you need to establish the rule of faith first. Sola Scriptura isn’t the rule of faith, because the First Christians couldn’t believe it. Nowhere does Scripture hint that at x point in history, the rule of faith will switch from 2 Thess 2:15 to Sola Scriptura.
2.) Yes, we should refuse to obey a command which contradicts Scripture. But I say something is scriptural, you say it isn’t. Who decides? The power of persuasion? If so, that makes a mockey of Hebrews 13. Eventually, we have to have that external authority which can bind the conscience. Again, lets leave out the particulars for the moment, and focus only on the Scriptures, which you seem extremely reluctant to do.
3.) We agree that things must be rooted in the Scriptures. But who decides if they are rooted in the Scripture? Is it up for the individual believer to determine the extent and nature of God’s word?
4.) This is why God breathing on the Apostles is so darn important. When God breathed upon them, he gave them authority and dominion. That authority and dominion has been passed down through the ages, and we don’t need God’s business card to determine it. You accept one part of something breathed out by God, but not another, for entirely subjective reasons. You determine when you will accept and reject someone based on your own criteria.

1.) Actually the argument I’m making is quite different. We know from the Bible that there were oral teachings safeguarded, and written teachings safeguarded. Both comprised the Gospel. Since the Apostles died, they can’t write anymore, and they can’t preach anymore. So far so good?

My point is that the Church Christ founded safeguards and upholds both. Whether or not the revelation is different is entirely besides the point, and the interesting debate of theologians. It matters little to the claim that both existed, and both, whatever they are, are upheld by the Church. Before we can get to specifics, we have to get to the principle the Scripture outlines. And on this one, I’m on a lot more solid ground than you are.

2.) I don’t need an infallible interpretation of every verse of Scripture to understand my faith. I don’t claim you do either. What I asked was, do you have the ability and authority to decide for yourself what the Word of God means? I don’t need every verse dogmatically defined, because we have the understanding of the word of God passed down through the ages, protected by the successors of the Apostles. To make this an even easier job, they also safegaurded and protected the Sacred Scriptures, which the Catholic Church teaches her doctrines must be based on.

3.) Yes, the warnings for deceptions are for all Christians. Yet what is the root of such deceptions? Is it through the teaching office of the Church following the path of Moses and Aaron, or those following the path of Korah, who believe that they to have an equal authority? (Jude 23)

4.) No, my leaders aren’t “divine spokesmen who must be believed at all times.” Individual bishops, even popes can and do error. What we do know is that Christ instituted a teaching and governing office of the Church. When making rules on governance, we have to obey them, even if we don’t like them. On rules of doctrine, we believe that, pursuant to Christ’s words, the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. When there are questions that touch upon the purity of that doctrine (or on the ability to communicate said doctrine), the Church calls together her leaders, and with and through Peter (Acts 15) a decision is made. When such is made, the discussion is closed.

As far as “there is nothing in Scripture that He breathed on bishops and pastors who are to have the same authority as an apostle” you so sure about that?
When Peter speaks of the fall of Judas, and the requirement to have a successor, he states that for Judas, his “episkope” let another take. Episkope is the root word for episcopal, or Bishop. St. Paul writes to Timothy and gives a clear line of succession: Paul, Timothy, Timothy’s successor, and their successor. We know that Timothy received the authority to teach and govern by the imposition of hands from Paul.
While they aren’t equal to the Apostles in terms of the ability to give revelation (they could not, as they were not witnesses to Christ), today’s bishops most certainly do possess the governing authority the first apostles had. That authority came from God breathing upon the Apostles, giving them authority and dominion, and it continues today, unbroken through the Catholic Church.

1.) You see, this is where you are holding me to a double standard. You want to extent of oral tradition. Can you show me the extent of the written word of God from just the Scriptures? Then why ask of me what you are unwilling to do yourself?
Here’s what I know: I trust that The Holy Spirit revealed, throughout time, the canon of Scripture to the people of God. The institution He chose to reveal it through was the Catholic Church. Throughout history, the Catholic Church has safegaurded that canon of Scripture, just as she has safegaurded what was revealed orally. There is no difference or distinction in how she upheld them. Since we know both were extent during Apostolic times, where’s the expiration date for one, so then we can follow Sola Scriptura? Is this in Scripture?
2.) We can quibble about the extent of doctrines later. Not now. Right now, we deal with what the rule of faith laid out in the Scriptures is. Everytime I go to this rule of faith, you try to shift the grounds of the debate. My rule of faith is the same structure as the one in the Bible. Yours isn’t, since they didn’t practice sola Scriptura. That’s the problem you have. And we’re going to continue to focus on that, or I’ll be honest, this discussion really can’t go much further.
3.) Indeed, false teachers do come up from within the Church. Yet there’s also the promise “the gates of hell shall not prevail” and “the Holy Spirit can lead to all truth.” When there’s a rogue leader, the Church deals with them. It’s what Peter and John did in Acts. It’s what happened in Acts 15. For you guys, there’s really no such system. It’s all rule by consensus. You have to be able to persuade someone they are in the wrong, otherwise they really aren’t bound to accept your judgement, or the judgement of their elders.
4.) The Scriptures do indeed speak of the authority I outline. They don’t speak of yours. As far as the “office” of Apostle, an Apostle was merely those Christ made bishops (when he breathed on them) who saw the risen Christ. If you didn’t see Christ, you couldn’t be an Apostle. Yet you were still a bishop. Timothy was a bishop, and he spoke with in Paul’s name and with Paul’s authority wherever he went. Why? Because he was a Bishop! To be disobedient to Timothy and his successors was the same as to be disobedient to the Apostle Paul himself.

Such it continues today. To resist those bishops who are the successors of the Apostles is to oppose the Apostles themselves.

1.) I was more making a point. You accept that the Spirit preserved throughout history the written word, including through a visible Church that proclaimed a Bishop of Rome, Apostolic succession, The Eucharist, etc. Somehow they preserved the written word, but not the oral? We have already established Scripture forsees the preservation of both. What changed in history?
2.) When I say “rule of faith”, I mean the following: What do the Scriptures state about how the word of God is communicated and preserved? Nowhere does the Scriptures imply sola scriptura. They couldn’t, as the first audience was not Sola Scriptura.
3.) I’m dismissive of your claims about Protestant bishops because they are, for the most part, paper tigers. Harsh, but consider: they typically lack any credibility or authority outside the consent of their congregations. Outside of democratic debate where people argue over what they think the Scripture means and whether or not they are required to obey, these elders have absolutely no authority.
Now with me, My Bishop might not have authority in Chicago, but he is recognized as a successor to the Apostles, and that he has jurisdiction over Detroit. This is the Biblical model, as those pastors were instilled and made bishop by the Apostles. They spoke with their authority, and in a dispute, each bishop even today can visibly trace back their succession to the Apostles. So their is a huge difference.
As far as the Apostles, yes, they most certainly DID refer to each other as Bishops. The language of the time used even in the first century understands “elder” as that of Bishop. Makes sense, since most communities were very small, and they were established by the Apostles, who laid hands on a leader. (Timothy, Titus, etc) Paul uses the phrase bishop explicitly.

Justas 399, 2 Thess 2:15 does not give the whole picture. In 2 Peter 3:16, St. Peter declares St. Paul’s Epistles to be Scripture, placing them on the same level as the Old Testament. St. Paul, in his Epistle 2 Thess 2:15 equates his Epistles with his oral teachings. In Luke 10:16 Jesus says “whoever listens to you listens to me,” not whoever reads what was written. Why? Because as St. Paul tell us in Romans 10:17, “faith comes from what is heard.” How important was spoken teaching and oral tradition? St. Paul tells us in 2 Thess 3:6, “shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.” And remember that in the first years of the Church there was no Bible to which Christians could refer except the Old Testament. The only authority was the Church herself, which St. Paul calls, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” in 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus himself, in Matt 18:17 instructs his disciples, “if he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector,” which in other words, means to shun him as St. Paul also instructs us. The Magisterium of the Church is an infallible teaching authority because it is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). There must be an infallible authority to interpret Scripture because if there is not, then anything can be correct, even Satan’s twisting of Scripture in tempting Jesus (Matt 4). In fact, 2 Peter 1:20 states that no prophecy of Scripture is open to personal interpretation. And consider this as well: Jesus breathed on his Apostles, yes, but after his Ascension the 11 voted on a new 12th, quoting Psalm 109:8 as their reason. They asked for the guidance of God to do it, and in order for Matthias to actually become an Apostle like them, they had to have the power to pass on the Holy Spirit as Jesus passed it on to them. While Scripture does not state specifically that they did this, it is implied because we know the Apostles were able to bestow the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-18), and it tells us that Matthias was “counted among the eleven Apostles,” after the election. Jesus, just before breathing on them, said, “as the Father has sent me so I send you,” meaning he gave them the power of ordination he had so they could ordain as he had.

Justas399, in 1 Corinthians 11:23, St. Paul explains that one oral teaching he handed on was the Consecration from the Mass, which still survives to this day. In fact, the short preamble he writes is used, as is what he writes immediately afterward. Part of what St. Paul handed on verbally was what Jesus meant when he said “do this in remembrance of me,” and “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Do what? The Mass involves gestures and actions as well as words. Jesus showed his new priests how to celebrate Mass at the Last Supper, and he showed St. Paul, too. And St. Paul taught those he ordained before he wrote it down. Those teachings still survive and are not in the New Testament.