Does Sola Scriptura lead to Moral Relativism?

[St_Francis]

You are welcome you heretic. Now off with your head!

Ah, so glad to live in this century with you modern-day papists.

 

[JonNC]

Ah, so glad to live in this century with you modern-day papists.

Why do my feet feel so warm.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Why? Scripture is true regardless of who is interpreting it, there are of course errant interpretations. That’s why the church needs to testify to the truth of scripture. But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, that’s sola Scriptura. If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

If Scripture is true then it follows that whatever meaning a reader gets out of it is true as well. Experience shows, however, that different readers get different meanings. Now, since these meanings all come from the same true scripture, but are nevertheless different, it further follows that truth must be relative. If truth is relative, how can the relativity of morals be far behind?

 

[mackbrislawn]

That’s why the church needs to testify to the truth of scripture. But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, that’s sola Scriptura. If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

The Church does testify to the truth of scripture. In fact, it is because of the Church that we believe in scripture at all. Indeed, it is the because of the Church that we even know what scripture is, let alone even having the physical copies of it!

“But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture.” Actually, I think it is the other way around. Scripture is normed by the Church’s doctrine. The Church determined which writings were qualified to belong to Scripture. The teaching in a writing had to be consistent with what the Church already believed. After all, the deposit of faith was given to the Church prior to the existence of Christian scripture.

As an example, Paul criticized the Galatians for listening to a different gospel. “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed…For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.” Gal 1:8…

The word preached is emphasized, because the Galatian gospel was received by the Galatians from Paul’s mouth. It was not written down. But, it is this very gospel which is to be compared to all other following gospels–a gospel which was not written down, but had to live in the memory of the Galatians. But that is okay, because “‘The word of the Lord abides forever’ and this is the word which was preached to you.” 1Pet1:25

So this is the check on scriptural interpretations that deviate from the first unwritten gospel. This prevents the relativising of truth and hence morals.

 

[Protestor]

So this is the check on scriptural interpretations that deviate from the first unwritten gospel. This prevents the relativising of truth and hence morals.

What exactly have we changed about the gospel? I am talking about SS churches like LC, Baptist, and different types of reformed theological churches. It has been my experience that nondenom, methodist, cofe, episcopal, pcusa, assemblies of G-d, church of G-d, penacostal, and different types of arminian churches do not stress SS or even believe it. This could be just a bias sense my experience with each is not extensive.

I will grant that I relativize “truth” that has nothing to do with the gospel. One thing that I have relativized is I condemn violence and military service like a few of the ECFs (you may not consider them ECFs but I don’t care) did. I realize that others do not hold that which I believe to be truth, and I realize that I may be wrong. This is not a subject that I will discuss on this thread

I see the differences in churches that uphold the solas from the RCC as being wildly exaggerated. At least in reference to the gospel their differences are purely semantic. This is how you can have the members of the LC claim that they are evangelical catholic.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by House Harkonnen
That’s why the church needs to testify to the truth of scripture. But the **church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, **that’s sola Scriptura. If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

Your belief and position is not consistent with church history and doctrinal development.

When,where and who made such a declaration in the early church,doctrines are normed according to scripture? So the doctrine of the Trinity had to be “normed” once Scripture was written? Where does Scripture teach it is the “norm” for all orthodox doctrines?

 

[St_Francis]

What exactly have we changed about the gospel? I am talking about SS churches like LC, Baptist, and different types of reformed theological churches. It has been my experience that nondenom, methodist, cofe, episcopal, pcusa, assemblies of G-d, church of G-d, penacostal, and different types of arminian churches do not stress SS or even believe it. This could be just a bias sense my experience with each is not extensive.

I will grant that I relativize “truth” that has nothing to do with the gospel. One thing that I have relativized is I condemn violence and military service like a few of the ECFs (you may not consider them ECFs but I don’t care) did. I realize that others do not hold that which I believe to be truth, and I realize that I may be wrong. This is not a subject that I will discuss on this thread

I see the differences in churches that uphold the solas from the RCC as being wildly exaggerated. At least in reference to the gospel their differences are purely semantic. This is how you can have the members of the LC claim that they are evangelical catholic.

The Catholic Church, in determining the canon (or contents) of the Bible, decided on using the Septuagint version of Jewish Scripture. It contains 7 more books than the bibles typically used by Protestants, who decided to use a different version of Jewish Scripture (Hebrew). Hence the Catholic view that the Protestants changed the Bible.

Additionally, the “Good News” contained much information that was not written down, bit which was preserved in the Catholic Church. Protestants leave that out.

What are “solas from the Catholic Church”?

And how do you “know” you are going to Heaven?

 

[HannahBroussard]

I have not read through all of the posts on this thread, but I was just wondering if any of you posters have read the book, ‘By What Authority?’ by Mark Shea??

I am reading it now and it has much to do with this topic. Would love to talk about it with others who are reading/have read…

 

[Protestor]

The Catholic Church, in determining the canon (or contents) of the Bible, decided on using the Septuagint version of Jewish Scripture. It contains 7 more books than the bibles typically used by Protestants, who decided to use a different version of Jewish Scripture (Hebrew). Hence the Catholic view that the Protestants changed the Bible.
Additionally, the “Good News” contained much information that was not written down, bit which was preserved in the Catholic Church. Protestants leave that out.

What are “solas from the Catholic Church”?And how do you “know” you are going to Heaven?

What do those book have to do with the good news? Can you name something in those books that if I did not know it I wouldn’t go to heaven? What is the addition to the “Good News” that you have and that protestants don’t? Do you believe in assurance of salvation as a catholic? I don’t view OSAS and assurance of salvation as being the same thing or even that one entails the other.

Sola scriptura is just one of a group of five our discussion is only on one but most churches that hold one will typically hold them all. I am a christian, I have a living faith, I love because G-d first loved me, I have tasted of the heavenly gift, take your pick of why I am going to heaven. The only thing that could stop me is if i fall away. Good question, I guess you could say I am not under the authority of the CC and am not invincibly ignorant. So to you, in all likelihood, I am not going to heaven. I am glad that you caught onto my joke I am sure most do but do not acknowledge it and I cannot bliam them it isn’t all that funny.

 

[St_Francis]

What do those book have to do with the good news? Can you name something in those books that if I did not know it I wouldn’t go to heaven? What is the addition to the “Good News” that you have and that protestants don’t?

Imagine a young man who got a lot letter from the love of his life would do if his lttle sister stole a page or two from it. God caused Scripture to be written for those who love Him, so we should all be eager to read every bit, not just the parts that will “assure” us a more fomfortable eternity.

Do you believe in assurance of salvation as a catholic?

I believe that Christ will keep His promise *as long as I keep my soul clean: *ie, maintain a good relationship with Him. “If you love Me, you shalt keep My commandments,” no?

I don’t view OSAS and assurance of salvation as being the same thing or even that one entails the other.

Since you wrote, “The only thing that could stop me is if i fall away,” below, what you are saying sounds very much like the Catholic position.

What do you think about Christ’s having said, “Unless you eat of My Flesh and drink of My blood, you shalll not have life within you.”?

Sola scriptura is just one of a group of five our discussion is only on one but most churches that hold one will typically hold them all. I am a christian, I have a living faith, I love because G-d first loved me, I have tasted of the heavenly gift, take your pick of why I am going to heaven. The only thing that could stop me is if i fall away. Good question, I guess you could say I am not under the authority of the CC and am not invincibly ignorant. So to you, in all likelihood, I am not going to heaven. I am glad that you caught onto my joke I am sure most do but do not acknowledge it and I cannot bliam them it isn’t all that funny.

We do not presume to judge a person’s eventual destination

From my point of view, I think it is much easier to attain Heaven from within the Catholic Church than from without.

 

[Nicea325]

The Church does testify to the truth of scripture. In fact, it is because of the Church that we believe in scripture at all. Indeed, it is the because of the Church that we even know what scripture is, let alone even having the physical copies of it!

“But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture.” Actually**, I think it is the other way around. Scripture is normed by the Church’s doctrine**. The Church determined which writings were qualified to belong to Scripture. The teaching in a writing had to be consistent with what the Church already believed. After all, the deposit of faith was given to the Church prior to the existence of Christian scripture.

As an example, Paul criticized the Galatians for listening to a different gospel. “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed…For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.” Gal 1:8…

The word preached is emphasized, because the Galatian gospel was received by the Galatians from Paul’s mouth. It was not written down. But, it is this very gospel which is to be compared to all other following gospels–a gospel which was not written down, but had to live in the memory of the Galatians. But that is okay, because “‘The word of the Lord abides forever’ and this is the word which was preached to you.” 1Pet1:25

So this is the check on scriptural interpretations that deviate from the first unwritten gospel. This prevents the relativising of truth and hence morals.

Exactly! SS advocates convey a message that the church developed from Scripture. Jesus taught and placed the deposit of faith into the hands of the church,not the other way around.

 

[joe371]

Exactly! SS advocates convey a message that the church developed from Scripture. Jesus taught and placed the deposit of faith into the hands of the church,not the other way around.

Actually every Protestant Church has developed based on the leader who established the Protestant Church, and his/her teachings derived from scripture. Like you said this is backwards. Jesus left the world with His church and entrusted those leaders (beginning with the apostles) with deposit of faith, and we can trust them because the Holy Spirit gets all the credit in terms of using fallible men to preserve truth, within Jesus’ church.

Within the Protestant sphere, truth is either relative, or unknowable regarding those doctrines that continue to divide.

 

[joe371]

What do those book have to do with the good news? Can you name something in those books that if I did not know it I wouldn’t go to heaven? What is the addition to the “Good News” that you have and that protestants don’t? Do you believe in assurance of salvation as a catholic? I don’t view OSAS and assurance of salvation as being the same thing or even that one entails the other.

Are you suggesting that those books that don’t directly tie to our salvation, don’t need to be read?

 

[Protestor]

Imagine a young man who got a lot letter from the love of his life would do if his little sister stole a page or two from it. God caused Scripture to be written for those who love Him, so we should all be eager to read every bit, not just the parts that will “assure” us a more comfortable eternity.
What you are saying sounds very much like the Catholic position.What do you think about transubstantiation? We do not presume to judge a person’s eventual destination (paraphrased)

I understand your simile and I empathize or sympathize with it I don’t feel like looking those words up. I just thought you were saying that there are somethings (knowledge,deeds) that are not in the bible that are required for salvation.

I believe that the CC got many things right. I find it very sad when my friends say that the CC messed things up so bad that G-d had to send the reformers. I believe in the transubstantiation of the eucharist, but not really the same way you do. I do presume to evaluate wether someone is a christian or not. I am sure that you could ask many who have been around for a while I am not a card carrying member of the church.

 

[Protestor]

Are you suggesting that those books that don’t directly tie to our salvation, don’t need to be read?

I am at least implying that they do not. I have only read Tolbit all the way through so I am not going to say with a 100% assurance that they do not.

 

[marywarfield]

I am at least implying that they do not. I have only read Tolbit all the way through so I am not going to say with a 100% assurance that they do not.

Hmm. They were part of the original Septaugint
or at least the Greek version of the OT that Christ
and the Apostles used. So I have to ask myself
two questions immediately:

1. Considering it was astronomically expensive to
   pay a scribe to ink out anything, why would anyone
   spend the money and labor to include relatively
   useless books that are the Word of God? Or
2. Does God spend a lot of time in idle chatter?

 

[pablope]

But the church’s doctrines are always normed by scripture, that’s sola Scriptura.

If not, then the church is putting its doctrines over scripture. I don’t believe that’s consistent nor logical.

Well, can you give an example of this?

How does Scripture norm doctrines? Are you then implying that the Scripture came first before doctrines? Or that Scripture came first before the full faith was delivered to the Apostles?

 

[pablope]

Aye, this is the best option. And the one to which I subscribe.

Lutherans believe we are the correct continuation of the unchanging teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church; our doctrine does not change according to the whims of the social zeitgeist. We also happen to be Sola Scripturists in the purest sense. To return to the topic, this hardly makes us supporters of moral relativism. We, like Roman Catholics, simply think we are and have always been correct.

Well, how can you say the LC have unchanging teachings when you have ditched the importance of the sacraments of Holy orders, confirmation and marriage and to a certain extend, confession and annointing of the sick, which has always been taught by the East and West?

And have discarded the authority of bishops, which the early Church has always taught is where the authority in the Church resides, and call one bishop as Anti-Christ-so how can you be a valid continuation?

 

[Protestor]

I am not really here to dispute wether or not they should be in the bible. I think you forget that I was the one who was asking a questions.

“What do those book have to do with the good news? Can you name something in those books that if I did not know it I wouldn’t go to heaven?”

To answer your questions. I don’t know why or even if He did. I do not think G-d is all to worried about resources and I do not think that those books are useless. A for your or ? I don’t know, maybe, possibly, if it somehow brought him more glory.

 

[Nicea325]

Actually every Protestant Church has developed based on the leader who established the Protestant Church, and his/her teachings derived from scripture. Like you said this is backwards. Jesus left the world with His church and entrusted those leaders (beginning with the apostles) with deposit of faith, and we can trust them because the Holy Spirit gets all the credit in terms of using fallible men to preserve truth, within Jesus’ church.

Within the Protestant sphere, truth is either relative, or unknowable regarding those doctrines that continue to divide.

And that is what happens when one kicks to the curb the ancient aspect of the church called TRADITION. All chaos breaks out!

SS advocates seem to believe the church and belief of doctrines could not be in place until Scripture popped up.