Does Sola Scriptura lead to Moral Relativism?

[House_Harkonnen]

What makes one denomination’s interpretation of Scripture more accurate than another? For example, I understand both the Lutherans and the Baptists base their teachings on Sola Scripture, and yet they differ in their teachings. So, how can one tell which of the two, if either, is correct?

What do they differ on?

 

[marywarfield]

And I agree; evidence for primacy I can understand - and even support. Evidence for supremacy, however, seems a stretch. The East was never under Papal supremacy as it is currently understood, for example.

Not in so many words, but what else can be made of it when Boniface VIII claims that the state must be subservient to the Church in all matters?
" Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword…"
“…it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power…”
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Change the capitalization and I agree. But Unam Sanctam speaks to submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff as “absolutely necessary” for salvation. What, then, of the Orthodox?

Are we forgetting the Orthodox? We must also remember that at the time this was written, the pope was pulling out all the stops, including excommunication, to force a French king to do his earthly bidding.

Now, I know that modern day Roman Catholics claim that doctrine has “developed” since the original claims of Boniface and that Unam Sanctam no longer means what it once did - but I don’t see how an honest historian can deny what it was intended to mean at the time.

Of course not. Just as we object to those who claim to use SS, but in practice use Private Interpretation.

The practice of private interpretation BEGINS with
Sola Scriptura. A better way of viewing it would
be to say Lutherans are Sola fide while the privates
are sola Scriptura.

 

[St_Francis]

What do they differ on?

Baptism and how salvation occurs, the nature of the Lord’s Supper services, to name a couple.

 

[benjohnson]

This is why I suggested you read the document itself. It does not say this.

Unum Sanctum document is a bit ambiguous in the it can be read by modern readers to only suggest that Pope only had primacy. The trouble is that historically, several Popes acted like they had supremacy by engaging in the political intrigues of the time.

Given that the Church was always under assault from the secular world at this time, it’s hard to blame them at all - but the fact remains that various Popes at the time did play at being Kingmakers.

Even more troubling for this Lutheran is the claim made by the Pope in Unam Sanctam that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff”

That’s not primacy - that’s subjugation.

 

[StevenFrancis]

So what do you think on this subject?

Nearly all Christian denominations accepted artificial contraception as morally licit. After that you have the subject of Divorce,Some even accepted homosexuality as “part of God’s plan” even going to the point of celebrating homosexuality, blessing gay-marriages and ordaining
homosexuals to the clergy.

At the core of nearly all problems with protestantism is this particular doctrine of “sola scriptura”. I have had some pretty keen explanations from protestant family and friends on this this doctrine, and it has never rung true for me. Even during my own experiments with protestantism. It took me a LONG time to be a Catholic. But it didn’t take long at all for me to leave protestantism. In fact, looking back, I think that lack of magisterium, and the enormous number of versions of Christianity is what quickly led me from my protestant excursions to Buddhism/New Agism, where I stayed for most of my adult life until “discovering” true Catholicism, (which was always explained to me in a very distorted way by my family of cultural Lutherans while growing up. I wouldn’t even have known what a magisterium was back then, or even directly have knowledge of sola scriptura. So I will admit that these are retrospective realizations. But I truly remember being perplexed when entering the world of religion at so many different denominations, and I figured if there were so many different ways of being Christian that it couldn’t be the truth, or at least not the complete truth. It was a Methodist friend who got me back on the path of thinking about Christianity, but it was reading Catholics which finally tilled the soil in my mind and heart for the Holy Spirit to lead me firmly into the arms of Christ and His Church.

Honestly, none of this is a swipe at protestants, who I believe to mostly be God loving Christian people. My wife, myself and my Mother-in-law, in fact are the only 3 Catholics in the four family trees shared between my wife and I, as far as we can tell. So, outside of my own parish life, all my friends and family are either Lutheran, Baptist or Church or Christ, (and now a few “non-denominationals”. It’s just my own observation of my own life, and my own conversion story which informs me that for this Christian anyway, sola scriptura doesn’t hold up, and in fact may lead to groupings of moral relativists due to incomplete or exaggerated areas of catechesis based on too many interpretations of God’s Holy writ.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Baptism and how salvation occurs, the nature of the Lord’s Supper services, to name a couple.

Both baptists and Lutherans agree that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. Those other details are simply secondary. But when there is a dispute in the church we do as scripture tells us to do, take it to the church. That there is no consensus is sad, and eventually we will all be unified after the Second Coming.

Interestingly enough I had the same problem as a catholic. We are in the same boat. My best friend is Coptic Orthodox. We disagreed about a great many things, how do you propose the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox resolve their respective doctrinal disagreements?

 

[St_Francis]

And I agree; evidence for primacy I can understand - and even support. Evidence for supremacy, however, seems a stretch. The East was never under Papal supremacy as it is currently understood, for example.

What would you say is the difference between primacy and supremacy?

Not in so many words, but what else can be made of it when Boniface VIII claims that the state must be subservient to the Church in all matters?
" Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword…"
“…it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power…”

It appears that this would refer to what we call the Social Kingship of Christ. In this particular instance, however, it deals with a particular problem and is not fully outlined here.

This is a good explanation of the teaching, but it is quite long–I first read it as a very small pamphlet. This is shorter and may explain well enough.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Change the capitalization and I agree.

You know this whole idea of all or some denominations being “catholic” is a fairly recent innovation (1800s on) because they wanted to fit themselves into the Nicene Creed, right? (I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church…).

When one considers the beliefs held by those who wrote of compiled the Creeds about the nature of the Church, etc., its actually kind of presumptuous of other denominations to adopt the term for themselves… kind of like what you seem to think of other Protestant denominations’ using the term Sola Scriptura for what they do.

But Unam Sanctam speaks to submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff as “absolutely necessary” for salvation. What, then, of the Orthodox?

What about the Orthodox? They removed themselves from the authority of the Pope.

Are we forgetting the Orthodox?

I’m not sure what bearing the Orthodox have in a discussion on SS!

We must also remember that at the time this was written, the pope was pulling out all the stops, including excommunication, to force a French king to do his earthly bidding.

And why was he doing that?

Now, I know that modern day Roman Catholics claim that doctrine has “developed” since the original claims of Boniface and that Unam Sanctam no longer means what it once did - but I don’t see how an honest historian can deny what it was intended to mean at the time.

I think it is your interpretation due to a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching which causes you to think that the Pope is saying he gets to decide who the ruler of a nation will be.

Of course not. Just as we object to those who claim to use SS, but in practice use Private Interpretation.

So you are criticizing Catholics for doing what Lutherans do?

 

[joe371]

So what do you think on this subject?

Nearly all Christian denominations accepted artificial contraception as morally licit. After that you have the subject of Divorce,Some even accepted homosexuality as “part of God’s plan” even going to the point of celebrating homosexuality, blessing gay-marriages and ordaining
homosexuals to the clergy.

You raise some good points, that is for sure. Jesus prayed that everyone within his church would be one just as He and the Father are one, and even sent the Holy Spirit to guide and preserve His teachings that have to do with morals, until His return. I guess it comes down to either believing what Jesus said - what He promised - or choosing to go another way. It seems really clear that Sola Scriptura leads to moral relativism, due to the few examples that you provided, If not scripture alone and the Protestant practice, then what?

 

[St_Francis]

Both baptists and Lutherans agree that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. Those other details are simply secondary.

Well, it is my understanding that Lutyerans believe tgat baptism accomplishes something in the soul, and teh Baptists believe it is purely symbolic. Lutherans believe infants can be baptized and that does something; Baptists believe onlt those of an age to chose to believe can be baptized. What do Lutherans think happens to all the unbaptized Baptist babies?

The fact that the two groups have mutual decided that those areas on which they disagree are secondart and not very important does not mean that they actually Are unimportant, only that neither party thinks it important enough to argue about.

But when there is a dispute in the church we do as scripture tells us to do, take it to the church.

When there is a dispute between whom? Which church?

That there is no consensus is sad, and eventually we will all be unified after the Second Coming.

Yes, it is sad that we are not one as Christ prayed we would be.

Interestingly enough I had the same problem as a catholic. We are in the same boat. My best friend is Coptic Orthodox. We disagreed about a great many things, how do you propose the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox resolve their respective doctrinal disagreements?

I am not exactly sure why Lutherans are so concerned about relations between tye Catholics and Orthodox?

How do we propose to resolve our differences between the Orthodox and Catholics? Through amicable discussions. How else? Neither the Orthodox or the Catholics believe that what separates us is unimportant; one group or the other must come to understand its own error.

 

[St_Francis]

Because I believe it to be the position most clearly held in the early post-apostolic church up until politics, time, societal changes, etc. shifted the locus of authority in the western church to the papacy and to the magisterium. It would be too long of a historical examination. I would refer you to what I think is the best treatment of the subject, which would be the Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison, or the Church From Age to Age by Englebrecht.

How could SS possibly be the teaching of the Early Church, when there was no Bible yet?

And I still wonder why do you call your belief “catholic”?

 

[St_Francis]

Unum Sanctum document is a bit ambiguous in the it can be read by modern readers to only suggest that Pope only had primacy. The trouble is that historically, several Popes acted like they had supremacy by engaging in the political intrigues of the time.

Given that the Church was always under assault from the secular world at this time, it’s hard to blame them at all - but the fact remains that various Popes at the time did play at being Kingmakers.

Even more troubling for this Lutheran is the claim made by the Pope in Unam Sanctam that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff”

That’s not primacy - that’s subjugation.

What do you think the pope meant by submission? What is your definition of subjugation?

I want to find out before I write something which would turn out to be the wrong answer because you were thinking if something else…

 

[marywarfield]

Both baptists and Lutherans agree that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. Those other details are simply secondary. But when there is a dispute in the church we do as scripture tells us to do, take it to the church. That there is no consensus is sad, and eventually we will all be unified after the Second Coming.

Interestingly enough I had the same problem as a catholic. We are in the same boat. My best friend is Coptic Orthodox. We disagreed about a great many things, how do you propose the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox resolve their respective doctrinal disagreements?

Most interesting. So how do you “take it to the Church”
and which Church resolves it?

 

[Per_Crucem]

How could SS possibly be the teaching of the Early Church, when there was no Bible yet?

Do you think that the Scriptures did not exist in the Christian communities prior to the individual books being placed into a compendium?

And I still wonder why do you call your belief “catholic”?

It is catholic because it is the practice of the catholic church.

 

[St_Francis]

Do you think that the Scriptures did not exist in the Christian communities prior to the individual books being placed into a compendium?

Well, sure, writings existed, but they were not considered part of Scripture per se–that would have been what we now consider the Old Testament. And the writings they had varied in quality–some were accepted into the Canon, and some were not.

So, what were these supposed Sola Scriptura early Christians basing their teachings on?

It is catholic because it is the practice of the catholic church.

And how is it that non-Catholic denominations started calling themselves Catholic? As I noted earlier, this is a fairly recent development (1800s) among Protestants, this idea that you all are in reality “catholic.”

 

[benjohnson]

What do you think the pope meant by submission? What is your definition of subjugation?

As I read Unam Sanctam, my definition of submission would be the dictionary one. Where the problem arrises is that it would be fine to ask for submission as long as they were proclaiming the Gospel. There’s no caveat in the papal bull (Even Peter needed correction by Paul. ) - it’s just simple submission under the threat of losing salvation. Not even God has asked us this - only that we have faith as small as a mustard seed, and that we respond to the grace given to us as best we are able.

I have to admit that these discussions about Papal power are rather difficult in modern times - the recent holders of the papal office are great and holy men of Christ, and frankly, I wouldn’t mind it they did control our secular government.

But we’re not talking about recent popes - submitting to Leo X would be a ridiculous in Lutheran eyes.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Most interesting. So how do you “take it to the Church”
and which Church resolves it?

If I have a dispute with someone in my church I take it to the church. When my church has a dispute with another denomination, men above my pay grade hash it out.

Which church resolves the RC dispute with the Orthodox Church?

Seems to me our churches resolve disputes in much the same way.

 

[marywarfield]

Do you think that the Scriptures did not exist in the Christian communities prior to the individual books being placed into a compendium?

It is catholic because it is the practice of the catholic church.

Oh come on what a lame answer Per Crucem. Are you
seriously going to deny that except for the OT the Apostles
did not teach through oral accounts? That after the Resurrection
they took the time to hire a scribe to write out the Gospels
on papyri before they spread the word?

And that it became necessary later to do just that
because of the onslaught of false materials from
the Essenes and Gnostics?

Really?

We have a Canon for JUST that reason- to sort out
the myriads of spurious Gospels from the truth.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Well, it is my understanding that Lutyerans believe tgat baptism accomplishes something in the soul, and teh Baptists believe it is purely symbolic. Lutherans believe infants can be baptized and that does something; Baptists believe onlt those of an age to chose to believe can be baptized. What do Lutherans think happens to all the unbaptized Baptist babies?

The fact that the two groups have mutual decided that those areas on which they disagree are secondart and not very important does not mean that they actually Are unimportant, only that neither party thinks it important enough to argue about.

When there is a dispute between whom? Which church?

Yes, it is sad that we are not one as Christ prayed we would be.

I am not exactly sure why Lutherans are so concerned about relations between tye Catholics and Orthodox?

How do we propose to resolve our differences between the Orthodox and Catholics? Through amicable discussions. How else? Neither the Orthodox or the Catholics believe that what separates us is unimportant; one group or the other must come to understand its own error.

Well, it is my understanding that Lutyerans believe tgat baptism accomplishes something in the soul, and teh Baptists believe it is purely symbolic. Lutherans believe infants can be baptized and that does something; Baptists believe onlt those of an age to chose to believe can be baptized. What do Lutherans think happens to all the unbaptized Baptist babies?

The fact that the two groups have mutual decided that those areas on which they disagree are secondart and not very important does not mean that they actually Are unimportant, only that neither party thinks it important enough to argue about.

Yes, that’s a pretty serious disagreement, thankfully much better men than me are working on resolving the problem.

When there is a dispute between whom? Which church?

Which church is going to resolve the disagreement between the RC and the EO?

I am not exactly sure why Lutherans are so concerned about relations between tye Catholics and Orthodox?

Why are you so concerned about relations between baptists and Lutherans?

How do we propose to resolve our differences between the Orthodox and Catholics? Through amicable discussions. How else? Neither the Orthodox or the Catholics believe that what separates us is unimportant; one group or the other must come to understand its own error.

Why do you think baptist and Lutherans will operate any differently than that?

 

[marywarfield]

If I have a dispute with someone in my church I take it to the church. When my church has a dispute with another denomination, men above my pay grade hash it out.

Which church resolves the RC dispute with the Orthodox Church?

Seems to me our churches resolve disputes in much the same way.

Well frankly I don’t believe we do. The Orthodox go
their way and we go ours. But our primary dispute
with the Orthodox is not how to interpret Bible translations…
I don’t know if y’all have noticed this or not but point
of fact when a church is in schism the Roman Church lets
them remain that way. Orthodox are Catholics in schism.

Where as Lutherans are NOT Catholic and not in schism. Big difference.
And be glad of being heretics and not schismatics.
As McCord said: “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.”

 

[St_Francis]

As I read Unam Sanctam, my definition of submission would be the dictionary one. Where the problem arrises is that it would be fine to ask for submission as long as they were proclaiming the Gospel. There’s no caveat in the papal bull (Even Peter needed correction by Paul. ) - it’s just simple submission under the threat of losing salvation. Not even God has asked us this - only that we have faith as small as a mustard seed, and that we respond to the grace given to us as best we are able.

I have to admit that these discussions about Papal power are rather difficult in modern times - the recent holders of the papal office are great and holy men of Christ, and frankly, I wouldn’t mind it they did control our secular government.

But we’re not talking about recent popes - submitting to Leo X would be a ridiculous in Lutheran eyes.

Well, this is where one problem lies. The Pope, writing to Catholics, assumed a certain understanding. There are limits on what we submit ourselves to the Pope for. He is infallible *on matters of faith and morals. *But if he tells us who will win the World cup, it’s just his personal opinion and not something we have to believe.

Now, consider this. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, as evidenced by Christ having given Peter the keys to the kingdom. All are obliged to submit to Christ, are they not? And as Vicar of Christ, we are therefore obliged to submit to the pope, *as Christ’s representative on earth. *

I am going to write more regarding this in response to the questions about Orthodoxy, It may help clarify what I am saying here.