Defense of Sola Scriptura

[One_in_Christ_1]

So how does one use sola scriptura to decide authoritatively which Christian denomination and theological doctrine to believe in?

For example, Calvinism and Reformed theology teaches (using sola scriptura) the doctrine of predestination, which maintains that God predestined some to eternal life, not because He saw that they would have believed on their own, but because of His own good pleasure.

Lutherans (also using sola scriptura), firmly reject the doctrine of predestination.

which one is correct?

I think Luther taught predestination with more force than Calvin. Sola scriptura is much different than what many Protestants practice which is quite the distortion of sola scriptura. Many Protestants practice the papacy of the individual, disregarding the traditions of the church in discerning truth.

How do Catholics determine the truth of predestination since the version of predestination is not exactly defined for you? Catholics officially believe in several versions of predestination which contradict each other.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So how does one use sola scriptura to decide authoritatively which Christian denomination and theological doctrine to believe in?

For example, Calvinism and Reformed theology teaches (using sola scriptura) the doctrine of predestination, which maintains that God predestined some to eternal life, not because He saw that they would have believed on their own, but because of His own good pleasure.

Lutherans (also using sola scriptura), firmly reject the doctrine of predestination.

which one is correct?

Actually, Lutherans embrace what you said, too.

But, while your question is a good one, it’s not permitted here (there’s a rule against hijacking a thread). And, with a Catholic, it’s moot since a Catholic wants arbitration but rejects any rule by which to arbitrate. We need first-things-first. We need to decide what is the canon before we can decide how to arbitrate according to it. Let’s say you are stopped by a friendly man in blue who states that you were driving 60 MPH. Yes, you could go to court - but without any rule/canon as to what is the proper speed, what good is that arbitration? Arbitration addresses the issue of whether the position “measures up” to the “measuring stick” (the rule/canon/norma normans). Where there is no rule, no arbitration is possible.

My Calvinist friend and I don’t agree on ALL things. Most, but then I agree with The Catholic Church at least 95% of the time. But my Calvinist friend and I agree with each other under the rule/canon of Scripture FAR, FAR more than you and my Mormon friend do each rejecting it and instead insisting that a teacher is incapable of error and unaccountable and just to be accepted with docility. Look at those that reject the Rule of Scripture. The RCC, LDS and every single one of the cults I studied. I find the diversity of positions among them to be FAR greater than between Lutheranism and Calvinism.

.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Sola scriptura is much different than what many Protestants practice which is quite the distortion of sola scriptura. Many Protestants practice the papacy of the individual, disregarding the traditions of the church in discerning truth.

No wonder there are so many different Protestant denominations today. sola scriptura, it would appear, is the fundamental cause of such division and confusion among its proponents.

Catholics officially believe in several versions of predestination which contradict each other.

Would you have a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that affirms your claim?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

No wonder there are so many different Protestant denominations today. sola scriptura, it would appear, is the fundamental cause of such division and confusion among its proponents.

Would you have a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that affirms your claim?

I would clarify that the distortion and abuse of sola scriptura is one of the main reasons of the numerous Protestant denominations today. It is a form of autonomy from the universal church which can be also described as the papacy of the individual. I don’t think the CC speaks of predestination, but the Catholic Church has many traditions on predestination such as Augustinian and Thomist views. Most Catholics will be enlightened by a study on predestination according to the Catholic Church.

 

[Vile_Servant]

I would clarify that the distortion and abuse of sola scriptura is one of the main reasons of the numerous Protestant denominations today. It is a form of autonomy from the universal church which can be also described as the papacy of the individual.

i would also add that sola scriptura lends itself particularly well to distortion and abuse.

2 Peter 3:16
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

i would also add that sola scriptura lends itself particularly well to distortion and abuse.

2 Peter 3:16
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Maybe you have missed my point between the doctrine of sola scriptura as believed by the Reformers and the modern day abuse of sola scritpura which is so common today?

 

[Vile_Servant]

Maybe you have missed my point between the doctrine of sola scriptura as believed by the Reformers and the modern day abuse of sola scritpura which is so common today?

has the doctrine of sola scriptura;
a) changed from what was originally defined by the Reformers to what is currently defined by modern day Protestants,
or
b) remained unchanged while the use of sola scriptura became abused over the centuries?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

has the doctrine of sola scriptura;
a) changed from what was originally defined by the Reformers to what is currently defined by modern day Protestants,
or
b) remained unchanged while the use of sola scriptura became corrupted over the centuries?

I believe answer a) is the correct answer. All you have to do is study what the original Reformers believed in regards to tradition as compared to what most Protestants believe in regards to tradition. Tradition that is true should be received by all Christians.

 

[Vile_Servant]

I believe answer a) is the correct answer. All you have to do is study what the original Reformers believed in regards to tradition as compared to what most Protestants believe in regards to tradition. Tradition that is true should be received by all Christians.

so much for sola scriptura being hailed as the magic bullet to define infallible doctrines of faith and salvation.

 

[JonNC]

Dear Jon, there are many areas in which Roman Catholics and Lutherans reach agreement

The idea of transubstantiation was introduced into the Roman Catholic Church during sessions of Fourth Lateran Council (1215) as one way of explaining a Mystery, and it arrived as a scholastic understanding not a substance of the Faith. The Council of Trent (1545) found the ‘Transubstantiated Eucharist’ understanding “as most fitting.”

(“Lutheran - Roman Catholic Dialogue” October 1, 1967)

"On the 2 major issues which we have discussed at length…the progress has been immense. Despite all remaining differences in the ways we speak and think of the eucharistic sacrifice and Our Lord’s Presence in the Supper, we are no longer able to regard ourselves as divided in the one holy catholic and apostolic faith on these 2 points. We therefore prayerfully ask our fellow Lutherans and Catholics to examine their consciences and root out many ways of thinking, speaking and acting, both individually and as churches, which have obscured their unity in Christ on these as on many other matter.’

(“Bread of Life: Roman Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, Northeastern Ohio Synod - Youngstown Diocese. A Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist,” Cheryl Peterson, October 28, 2007)

“One of the things the Lutheran participants in that dialogue learned (Lutheran - Roman Catholic Dialogue, October 1, 1967) is that contemporary Catholic exposition of transubstantiation intend to affirm the fact of Christ’s presence and of the change which takes place, not to explain how Christ becomes present.
*Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession *affirms that Christ is truly present *‘under the form of bread and wine’ *- ‘In the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly offered with those things that are seen, bread and wine.’ **The true body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually through faith but orally with the bread and wine because of the sacramental union of the elements with the body and blood of Christ.”
**

Pope Benedict XV1 ( then acting as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), 2002:

"The Roman Catholic and Lutheran views are not necessarily irreconcilable"

(Pope Benedict XV1 is not a Thomist theologian.)

Yes, Kevin, this is what I was referring to. I absolutely agree with Pope Benedict.

Jon

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

so much for sola scriptura being hailed as the magic bullet to define infallible doctrines of faith and salvation.

You can give me a better answer than that…

 

[moondweller]

I believe answer a) is the correct answer. All you have to do is study what the original Reformers believed in regards to tradition as compared to what most Protestants believe in regards to tradition. Tradition that is true should be received by all Christians.

And what is the rule/canon that is to be used to determine what is “true tradition?” Obviously it must be something greater than all men, above mere human opinion, or a general consensus. What might that be?

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for your answer, Jon.

Why do you consider sola scripture a PRACTICE rather than a DOCTRINE ?

James White defined sola scriptura as follows;
"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

The Lutheran Confessions don’t call it a doctrine. It says: “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and. teachings are to be judged and evaluated.”
It is a formal principle, but I don’t remember it being formally called doctrine. I’ve always understood it as a practice, norma normans (ruling rule).

James White isn’t Lutheran, that I’m aware of. Whatever communion he is a member of might consider it doctrine.

Jon

 

[Pax]

Sola scriptura fits every definition that I have found in various dictionaries.

Here’s one as an example:

doctrine:

n.
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

Clearly, “sola scriptura” fits the definition of a doctrine. I think it’s disingenuous to argue otherwise.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
I am looking for the church founded by God, in the 1st century, as opposed to the church founded by mere men, in the 4th century, the 11th century, the 16th, 17th…or 21st century. I have a feeling I know what you are going to say…LOL…

**You might try looking for the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18). But, alas…Jn. 3:3.
**

---

OK… I am still asking you to identify the historical church founded by God, (which Christ Himself is still presently building, as opposed to mere men ) - in the 1st century, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, as opposed to the church founded by mere men, in the 4th century, the 11th century, the 16th, 17th…or 21st century? I am in no way implying that these man made divided/ isolated and autonomous churches, founded long after Jesus and His Apostles died, (including the CC, if you are right - but of course you have yet to provide any evidence for that claim; when you do I will officially label the CC as a man-made church) - do not comprise the Mystical Body of Christ of which Christ is the Head and Savior. I am merely asking you a very simple question, and hopefully you will eventually answer the question! .

• In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. John 3:3*

Amen to that brother, but that is irrelevant to my question.

 

[Vile_Servant]

You can give me a better answer than that…

sure.

sola scriptura seeks to replace the infallible teaching of the Church regarding faith and morals, based on the infallible scriptures and the traditions handed down from the Apostles, with the fallible declarations of doctrine of faith and morals based solely on the infallible Scriptures. in this respect, sola scriptura runs contrary to Jesus’ command to the Apostles to teach the world with authority and without error. “and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)

Collectively, Protestants today are pretty hazy as to what actually are the correct doctrines of faith and morals to believe in, teach and confess. Let us take the issue of abortion. Is it a grievous sin in the eyes of God?

The Catholic Church has always been very clear in its teaching and condemnation of abortion as the sin of abortion clearly violates the sixth commandment; “Thou shalt not kill”.

On the other hand, Protestant views on abortion vary considerably. Christian fundamentalist movements condemn abortion, while “Mainline Protestant” demonimations take more nuanced positions, but are generally pro-choice with some exceptions. Are the ten commandments so hard to understand that Protestants cannot agree among themselves what constitutes a grievous sin, and is therefore deserving of condemnation?

“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” (Mark 3:25)
The mystical body of Christ, the Church, cannot be divided against itself, otherwise it cannot stand and would cease to be the Church.

That is why the **Church built by Christ **has never, and will never, fall into error, but always teach the infallible truth that is guided by the Holy Spirit. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). the collective body of the 34,000 Protestant denominations do not fit this description of the Church, but the Catholic Church does.

 

[joe370]

I believe answer a) is the correct answer. All you have to do is study what the original Reformers believed in regards to tradition as compared to what most Protestants believe in regards to tradition. Tradition that is true should be received by all Christians.

Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, just as the CC does; John Calvin believed and taught that the wine and the bread were merely symbols. Who was right and who was wrong, and who or what, in the end, has the the authority to resolve this matter, once and for all? Sola scriptura did not work for these 2 men!

Does sola scriptura via individual interpretation, or via church interpretation (which of course begs the question: which church) - determine the Traditions that are true versus the Traditions that are false?

 

[Vile_Servant]

Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, just as the CC does; John Calvin believed and taught that the wine and the bread were merely symbols. Who was right and who was wrong, and who or what, in the end, has the the authority to resolve this matter, once and for all? Sola scriptura did not work for these 2men!

Protestants will never be able to give you an answer to this question, because they do not have the answer. Anyone who claims to use sola scriptura in the Protestant world can justifiably promulgate any new denominations and doctrines as they please. the only certainty about sola scriptura is that it leads to uncertainty and confusion regarding the true doctrines of faith and morals.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Yes, Kevin, this is what I was referring to. I absolutely agree with Pope Benedict.

Jon

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Does sola scriptura via individual interpretation, or via church interpretation (which of course begs the question: which church) - determine the Traditions that are true versus the Traditions that are false?

A lot has to do with political persuasion: The argument that Jesus’ words “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” applied exclusively to the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, made less of an impression in the East than it did in the West. The rock in question was not originally interpreted, by Eastern or Western theologians, as having anything to do with the papacy; it was understood to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ.
In the early Church, Paul was able to argue with Peter and prevail. The early Church placed greater emphasis upon conciliary, or harmony of faith, rather than allegiance to a central authority.
In the West, Rome’s power became centralized, because Rome was the sole Western patriarchate and, after the barbarian invasions, the sole symbol of continuing authority. Jesus’ words “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” were given new meaning more appropriate to political circumstance.