Fallacies of sola scriptura

[inkaneer]

Come on Quick Cat, lets lookat the body of christ discourse from John 6:
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Quick Cat, are you one of the one’s who think this teaching is too hard?

I went over this on another thread so I’ll give the condensed version here. Protestants like to use Jesus’ words in John 6 where Jesus says His words are spirit to mean they are figurative and not literal. But that is not the case. Jesus compared His body to the manna the ancient Jews ate in the dessert. The Jews of Jesus’ day were well aware of this manna and they knew that this was indeed bread from heaven. They understood the manna to be litteral and MATERIAL[food for the body]. Now Jesus as a teacher had the responsibility to explain His words if He knew they misunderstood Him. Recall that even His disciples misunderstood Him also for they said this teaching is hard. Some of them even walked away from Him. What does Jesus do? Does he say, “Hey come back I was not talking literally. I was only speaking figuratively” No. all He says is that His words were spirit. Inother words the Jews and His disciples were correct in understanding Him literally but they were wrong in understanding Him MATERIALLY. Jesus was speaking literally and Spiritually not MATERIALLY. The Eucharist is food for the soul not for the body. So at the Last Supper when He takes the bread and blesses it saying, “This is MY Body…” it is a meal for the soul. That is why Jesus can say “… my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” And that is why the Catholic Church can say that in the Eucharist there exists the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. It is no symbol. It is real.

 

[Garland]

inkaneer, your post #99, AMEN

 

[JonNC]

=Nathan Wagar;6631152]Yeah, and the actions of the apostles were a radical departure from the then-current understanding of the Scripture. Jesus made it pretty clear that current day interpretation outside of his own divine authority did not bind Him. Jesus was the fulfillment of Scripture, He did not bend His actions to Scripture. The apostles after Him were invested with His authority, and acted out of conjunction with the Old Testament Scriptures, so again you are left with the same question.

And those actions - of the apostolic era - are written down in scripture.

If you are implying that apostolic authority ceased with the apostles, I could argue the case about offices, succession, etc, but I’d rather just ask you where it says in the Bible that the Holy Spirit’s guidance ended after the apostles, to only be invested in the books of the Word? That seems a bit…tenuous.

When did I say that? The Holy Spirit guides teachers and teachings all the time. The only way we know for certain if they are indeed the guidance of the Holy Spirit is with His word, as that is what we have from the Apostles. Even Catholics will not contend that any teaching of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Magisterium, is in contradiction with scripture. I’ve heard Catholics say so, and if they do, they are, in a way, practicing sola scriptura. They simply trust Tradition equally with Scripture.
Lutherans, OTOH, hold Tradition accountable to scripture.

Jon

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Whoever mentioned that all denominations believe Jesus is Lord and died for our sins…

That’s not true. Unless I’m very much mistaken, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is St. Michael the Archangel. They deny the Resurrection and the doctrine of the Trinity, since Jesus did not really exist. And yet they consider themselves Christian.

 

[Victorious]

Lutherans, OTOH, hold Tradition accountable to scripture.

Which Scripture? You are missing whole books of Scripture.

Luther himself cannot have really believed sola scriptura. If sola scriptura is true, then no one has the authority to alter Scripture. Yet Luther took it upon himself to take a blue pencil and a pair of scissors to the Bible and cut out whatever he didn’t like.

 

[JonNC]

=Victorious;6634019]Which Scripture? You are missing whole books of Scripture.

And the Orthodox could say the same about all Western Christians, including Rome.

Luther himself cannot have really believed sola scriptura. If sola scriptura is true, then no one has the authority to alter Scripture. Yet Luther took it upon himself to take a blue pencil and a pair of scissors to the Bible and cut out whatever he didn’t like.

Your polemics aside, Luther’s translation into German included all the books of the Western Bible of his time, plus he added a book - The Prayer of Manasses. He did not remove any books from the Bible. I have a copy of Die Bibel, Luther-Unbersetzung, and it has 74 books in it. While one can arguably criticize American Lutherans for not insisting that Bibles include the D-C’s, but one cannot historically claim that Luther removed any books from his translation.

Sola scriptura, properly understood, is the practice (not a doctrine, nor even a belief, as such) of holding teachers and teachings accountable to scripture, the final norm. It doesn’t determine what the canon is. For Orthodox, their canon variably includes books Rome does not, and Rome includes as canonical books that Lutherans generally do not, though Lutherans have never technically closed the canon.
So, Lutherans confess the early councils, creeds, and the Book of Concord, even though they are not in scripture, because they rightly reflect and do not contradict scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Whoever mentioned that all denominations believe Jesus is Lord and died for our sins…

That’s not true. Unless I’m very much mistaken, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is St. Michael the Archangel. They deny the Resurrection and the doctrine of the Trinity, since Jesus did not really exist. And yet they consider themselves Christian.

They may consider themselves Christian…

While Lutherans view Reformed, Baptists, etc as Christian (though heterodox), since JW’s reject the basic tenants of Christianity, we do not consider them Christian.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer, your post #99, AMEN

Give the praise to the Holy Spirit. He is the one who opened my eyes to it.

 

[po18guy]

Bottom line: “Sola scriptura” is a man-made extra-biblical doctrine that suddenly appeared 1,500 years after Christ. It was born of the spirit of rebellion and rejection, rather than the spirit of obedience and self-denial. Its fruits are division and heresy.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We do not consider them Christian, but I’m pretty sure they consider themselves Christian, right? Sort of like how when King Henry founded the Anglican Church, he excommunicated the Pope and the Pope excommunicated him!

I guess we’ll figure out who was right eventually…

 

[po18guy]

And the Orthodox could say the same about all Western Christians, including Rome.

Yes, they could. However, as I understand it, they cannot call a universal Church council, as they have neither the hierarchical structure nor the authority to do so. As well, it would appear that their canon is tradition. I’m sure that Mickey or another Orthodox member can clarify this matter.

However, the Orthodox and Catholic are in a constant state of working to heal the division. Where do you see that in bible-only land? Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true. It’s going to take some serious tribulation to re-unite Christendom.

 

[po18guy]

And those actions - of the apostolic era - are written down in scripture.

But are incomplete. What are the ‘other matters’ Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 11:34? They were and are in tradition, but not in scripture. If you are bible alone, you don’t have them - you can’t have them unless you go outside the bible.

The only way we know for certain if they are indeed the guidance of the Holy Spirit is with His word, as that is what we have from the Apostles.

Ah, but much scripture is a product of the Apostolic Tradition! Especially Mark, Luke and Acts, since they were not written by Apostles or eyewitnesses. The authors wrote down part of the oral tradition, that’s all. Not one of them claimed to be a prophet, or to have had direct inspiration for anything they wrote.

Even Catholics will not contend that any teaching of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Magisterium, is in contradiction with scripture. I’ve heard Catholics say so, and if they do, they are, in a way, practicing sola scriptura.

Turn it around: The bible is not in conflict with the Catholic Church, as the Church both preceded and produced the bible. The bible must support the Church.

They simply trust Tradition equally with Scripture.

Jesus did not teach scripture, He taught Tradition to the Apostles. He wrote nothing for them. Also, you must not forget the Magisterium - the teaching and interpreting authority. It’s a three legged table that does not wobble or fall over. Sola scripturists hold Tradition only to a private interpretation of that scripture. You certainly do not claim an authoritative Church, do you? That directly violates sola scriptura. Why did Peter warn against private interpretation? Because the ignorant and unstable twisted scripture, which has no authority of its own. There is authority behind it, but only with Spirit-lead interpretation.

Lutherans, OTOH, hold Tradition accountable to scripture.

Again, Lutheran Tradition is held only to a private, non-authoritative interpretation of scripture - unless you violate sola scriptura and claim that the Church has authority to interpret. Right?

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;6634748]But are incomplete. What are the ‘other matters’ Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 11:34? They were and are in tradition, but not in scripture. If you are bible alone, you don’t have them - you can’t have them unless you go outside the bible.

Are you saying that Tradition can contradict scripture? Depends on what one means by “Bible alone”. When I say sola scriptura, I am speaking only of the practice of using scripture as a final norm.

Ah, but much scripture is a product of the Apostolic Tradition! Especially Mark, Luke and Acts, since they were not written by Apostles or eyewitnesses. The authors wrote down part of the oral tradition, that’s all. Not one of them claimed to be a prophet, or to have had direct inspiration for anything they wrote.

It would be hard to imagine any of the unwritten contradicting the written.

Turn it around: The bible is not in conflict with the Catholic Church, as the Church both preceded and produced the bible. The bible must support the Church.
Jesus did not teach scripture, He taught Tradition to the Apostles. He wrote nothing for them. Also, you must not forget the Magisterium - the teaching and interpreting authority. It’s a three legged table that does not wobble or fall over.

How often did Christ say, it is written. He didn’t need to write anything. Others wrote.

Sola scripturists hold Tradition only to a private interpretation of that scripture. You certainly do not claim an authoritative Church, do you?

To be Lutheran, I am held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. So, I certainly do claim the confessions of the Lutheran Church authoritative.

That directly violates sola scriptura.

No, it doesn’t. Sola scriptura is not the same as personal or private interpretation. Sola scriptura is the practice of holding teachers and teachings accountable to scripture, the final norm.

Why did Peter warn against private interpretation? Because the ignorant and unstable twisted scripture, which has no authority of its own. There is authority behind it, but only with Spirit-lead interpretation.

Martin Chemnitz also warned against private interpretation.

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

I have no authority, as a Lutheran, to interpret for myself articles of faith, if I wish to stay Lutheran. I was chatechized a Lutheran. I was not given a Bible and told to go interpret it for myself.

Again, Lutheran Tradition is held only to a private, non-authoritative interpretation of scripture - unless you violate sola scriptura and claim that the Church has authority to interpret. Right?

As a Lutheran I am held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, not my own personal interpretation, and that is how ss is supposed to be practiced.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, they could. However, as I understand it, they cannot call a universal Church council, as they have neither the hierarchical structure nor the authority to do so. As well, it would appear that their canon is tradition. I’m sure that Mickey or another Orthodox member can clarify this matter.

However, the Orthodox and Catholic are in a constant state of working to heal the division. Where do you see that in bible-only land? Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true. It’s going to take some serious tribulation to re-unite Christendom.

Goodness, so are Lutherans and Catholics. Google Lutheran Catholic Dialogue sometime. There’s quite a bit going on between us.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Jon,
How can scripture be the norm, when it can be interpreted differently by different people. The Norm is actually the Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Here’s the thing Jon. You asked me “When have there never been Scriptures?” I think that’s a fallacious line of reasoning, because I can point out a time there were no Scriptures. What YOU have to do is point out a time to me where there was ever Scripture prior to a believing community with a hierarchal authority to receive those Scriptures?

There is, in fact, no New Testament evidence that the apostolic was an “imperfect process” designed to be “crystallized” in writing. Neither Jesus (who never wrote any Scripture) nor the Twelve (who were never commanded to commit anything, much less everything to writing except the Book of Revelation), nor any other New Testament author, provide any support for the idea that the written Word “swallowed up” the oral tradition of the apostles. You say Jesus didn’t need to write anything. Yeah well guess what, he didn’t tell anyone else to either. And if you assume he did, you’re not getting it from the Bible, otherwise you’d only have the last book. There are all kinds of extra-biblical references in the New Testament, that you won’t know anything about unless you are aware of an oral tradition carrying on from the New Testament.

Exactly how, on the basis of Bible alone, do we know that the tradition handed on by letter and the tradition handed on by word of mouth are identical?

How can you claim the Lutheran confessions authoritative if there is no apostolic succession? Wouldn’t even theoretically it be safer to pick, oh I dunno, someone closer to the source? And this is assuming you are leaving the Holy Spirit completely out of the equation.

Bottom line is, for you to even believe that Scripture is the final authority for the Church to be judged, it has to say that somewhere. Except it doesnt. It says the Church is the pillar of truth. It’s for THAT reason that we don’t depart from the Scriptures. Seems subtle, but it’s worlds apart.

 

[po18guy]

Are you saying that Tradition can contradict scripture? Depends on what one means by “Bible alone”. When I say sola scriptura, I am speaking only of the practice of using scripture as a final norm.

Just a little finger poke in the ribs, Jon. You are always one of the most reasoned and measured non-Catholics here - and we all appreciate that.

As to traditions disagreeing with scripture, none should. Many post-reformation traditions do, if we look around the world of Christianity. All scripture backs the Catholic Church, but especially the NT, as it derives from the Church, not the other way around. True Tradition and Sacred Scripture always agree, or complement one another.

It would be hard to imagine any of the unwritten contradicting the written.

That would mean that God was be divided against Himself, correct?

How often did Christ say, it is written. He didn’t need to write anything. Others wrote.

Since Christ is the Word incarnate, no. However, neither did he command the Apostles to write, but to teach. Writing was one of the methods they chose, which reveals Apostolic authority.

To be Lutheran, I am held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. So, I certainly do claim the confessions of the Lutheran Church authoritative.

But, to confess anything means that the confessions had to be formulated, propounded, argued, debated, revised, winnowed (), etc. If they were not formulated by an authoritative Church, what guarantee of being Spirit-lead would those confessions have? Certainly, a lot of scripture is understandable to the common man, but not all.

No, it doesn’t. Sola scriptura is not the same as personal or private interpretation. Sola scriptura is the practice of holding teachers and teachings accountable to scripture, the final norm.

But, sola scriptura not only allows private interpretation, it demands it. One must have authority to interpret scripture, and, lacking an authoritative Church, the self is all that’s left. Scriptire is not a norm, unless it is properly interpreted, and there’s the rub. Methodists and Presbyterians use it as a norm as well, but they don’t agree and you don’t agree with them. How to solve this, since you all read the same words???

Martin Chemnitz also warned against private interpretation.

Will have to Google him, as he’s not on my radar.

I have no authority, as a Lutheran, to interpret for myself articles of faith, if I wish to stay Lutheran. I was chatechized a Lutheran. I was not given a Bible and told to go interpret it for myself.

But those who went before you did just that. I mean, someone had to put the confessions together, and I do not believe they had any more authority than you or I possess.

As a Lutheran I am held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, not my own personal interpretation, and that is how ss is supposed to be practiced. Jon

So, Lutherans must maintain that the confessions are inspired?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[po18guy]

Goodness, so are Lutherans and Catholics. Google Lutheran Catholic Dialogue sometime. There’s quite a bit going on between us.

Jon

Well, where have I been? You are a part of this, as well. May God dissolve our differences and unite us as one.

 

[QuickCat]

QuickCat,
Since you have avoided answering the simple question ‘shouldn’t we believe everything the Apostles believed’ twice, I gather that you don’t believe we, as Christians, should or need to believe everything the Apostles believed, is that correct?

I haven’t “avoided” anything. Do I believe everything the apostles believed? Of course I do. I believe that they were sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - Mt. 10:5-10. I believe that they were to preach, "The kingdom of Heaven is at hand - Mt.10:7. I believe that they believed this “kingdom at hand” to be the long promised earthly kingdom promised to Israel - Acts 1:6. I believe that they agreed with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel - Gal. 2:7-9. I believe that Paul is the “apostle to the Gentiles” - Rom. 11:13. I believe that the 12 believed that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel - Mt 19:28. Etc, etc. Of course I believe what the apostles believed. But I don’t believe that everything they believed is for the Body of Christ church. Read the address on the envelope.
QC

 

[paul_c]

I haven’t “avoided” anything. Do I believe everything the apostles believed? Of course I do. I believe that they were sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - Mt. 10:5-10. I believe that they were to preach, "The kingdom of Heaven is at hand - Mt.10:7. I believe that they believed this “kingdom at hand” to be the long promised earthly kingdom promised to Israel - Acts 1:6. I believe that they agreed with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel - Gal. 2:7-9. I believe that Paul is the “apostle to the Gentiles” - Rom. 11:13. I believe that the 12 believed that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel - Mt 19:28. Etc, etc. Of course I believe what the apostles believed. But I don’t believe that everything they believed is for the Body of Christ church. Read the address on the envelope.
QC

You are very selective in you reading of scripture, reading only what supports your precoonceived theology. Come into the light

This passage is from ACTs 8:
3 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.
4 Now those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.
5 Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them

You can see from this passage that while Paul was still persecuting the chruch, Philip was preaching to the Samarians. The very same Samarians that Jesus would not preach to because they weren’t part of Israel.

And how about this from later in Acts 8:

26 Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, “Get up and head south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert route.”
27 So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
32 This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
33 In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.”
34 Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?”
35 Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
36 As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?”
38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.
39 When they came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but continued on his way rejoicing

Obviously here, we have an apostle, prior to St. Paul’s conversion, preaching to and baptizing an Ethiopian.

and how about ACTs 10, which recounts how God led Peter to baptize the gentile Cornelius and all his household.

Finally, lets look at Acts 15:
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they

As you can see, Peter is the one who God made the choice to speak to the Gentiles. (as we saw clearly in Acts 10).

I know Paul claims in Galatians 2 that it was agreed that he and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles and so they did, but not exclusively. If you read Acts, you know they usually started in the local synagogues and then went to the Gentiles… And I know he says the others would go to the circumcised and they did, but not exclusively nor for all time. From the passages I quoted above, you already know that Philip and Peter were preaching to the uncircumcized prior to Paul even becoming a believer. And ultimately as history tells us, Peter moved first to Antioch and then to Rome and preached to Jews and Gentiles alike… In 1Peter he addresses 5 cities in Asia Minor not confining it to Israel: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

As you can see, your claim that Paul was exclusively the apostle to the Gentiles is without merit and in fact is clearly wrong.