Fallacies of sola scriptura

[losh14]

Iosh14 wrote: “an evangelical who led a ‘non-denominational’ Bible study I was in”.​

macaronte;6624282:

Isn’t it non-denominationalism a denomination in itself?

Most of the time, yes. They followed an evangelical theology with heavy dispensationalism.

Iosh, unless you was a protestant… why would you -or anyone else- want to go to a protestant bible study group?

We didn’t have a Catholic student group on campus - I tried to start one and invited a local priest to be our chaplain, but the school refused after heavy protest by the ministers of the only Christian student organization on campus. Actually it was a good experience - I understood how they approach the Bible, how they saw Catholicism, and we had good discussion such that some of them were actually going to Mass with me afterwards.

Weren’t the apostles (or those assigned by them) the ones that Jesus entrusted to teach the Good News? Why would anyone listen to a “false-prophet”.?

Sometimes it’s the only way to show them their errors. It’s one thing to leave the Catholic Church. It’s another to be brought up Protestant, live around Protestants all your life and hence condemn in Catholicism what you think incorrectly about Catholicism.

Personally speaking, I believe that Catholics that go to protestant bible studies are playing with fire. I don’t believe it’s the recommended thing to do.

I was 24 at the time (a non-traditional student) - it took a lot of maturity. I wouldn’t have wanted an 18-year-old Catholic there. It did help there was another Catholic, who was 22. He and I commisserated a great deal.

I should note that we made a good impression for the Church on them. The campus initially allowed us to post three crosses to mark Easter - and then renegged under protest from a group of Muslim students who found them offensive. The Bible Study group leader called for help to carry around a cross and pray for the campus. Everyone raised their hands but only three of us showed up - the leader and us two token Catholics. That was quite an image, the three of us standing with the cross, praying out loud and singing hymns within sight of an alumni dinner.

 

[macaronte]

Iosh14, when participating in a protestant bible study do you use a Catholic bible or do you limit yourself (as they do) to a deutero-canonical-less bible.?

Simile: I consider it would be impossible to play poker with an incomplete deck of cards. Same would apply in a protestant bible study with a “deutero-cannonical-less” bible. Do you follow the logic here? Pax et bonum. --macaronte

 

[macaronte]

Iosh14 wrote: “Actually it was a good experience - I understood how they approach the Bible, how they saw Catholicism, and we had good discussion such that some of them were actually going to Mass with me afterwards. Sometimes it’s the only way to show them their errors”​

I understand your point.
You seem to be a well-versed and deep-rooted Catholic, unfortunately not all of us Catholics are well equipped to discuss faith matters. I find that, for the most part, participating in a “non-denominational” bible study group could present many hidden dangers for lots of Catholics. Agree?. I congratulate you for your zeal of the one true faith.

God bless.
–macaronte

 

[losh14]

Iosh14, when participating in a protestant bible study do you use a Catholic bible or do you limit yourself (as they do) to a deutero-canonical-less bible.?

They gave me an NIV. I still brought my RSV, Catholic edition. There was, briefly, a conversation along the lines of
“Oh, you know the NIV is much better. You shouldn’t read that RSV.”
“Why?”
“Well, scholars prefer it.”
“Which ones?”
“Well-known ones.”
“Name them.”
“You wouldn’t know them.”
“Bet I would.”
“The Catholic version is a bad translation.”
“Didn’t you tell us last week that Catholics tried to take away the Bible?”
“Yes, they burned them in fact!”
“What are you trying to do now?”
“Let’s just get started.”

Simile: I consider it would be impossible to play poker with an incomplete deck of cards.

To continue the simile, you can play with an incomplete deck, but it skews the winning hands. Since hands are ranked in order of descending probability, with the rarest hands being the winner, it’s hard to know which is actually the least probable and hence most advantageous. A pair of threes should lose to a pair of fours, but not if you take two of the threes out of the deck.

At best, you’ll never end up with a royal flush - at worst, you’ll all be stuck with different pairs, unable to tell which one actually won.

I would recommend only those Catholics with a deep maturity of faith even think of going to a Protestant Bible study. And to be fair, they helped me be the Catholic I am today - at one point the leader challenged me to either reject Catholicism or reject the Bible. I spent the next week pouring over Scripture and the Catechism, with help from Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, David Currie and others. The following week I gave my answer and we spent the entire time arguing over doctrine and interpretation, up down left and right. It was after that that he and the rest of the group finally accepted me as a Christian though they still didn’t get much of Catholicism they at least grokked that we agree on much of the core.

 

[macaronte]

Iosh14, wrote: “And to be fair, they helped me be the Catholic I am today”​

Idem de idem. (Same here).
After returning to my baptismal faith after having wondered off half a lifetime of incredulity (agnosticism) I decided and took upon myeslf to deepen my knowledge of the (catholic) faith; the faith that I was going to re-embark on. I found falling totally in love with the Church that Christ Jesus founded on Cephas. The more I read and learned about our faith, the more convinced I became of the love of Christ for His Church. Soon, I realize the vast differences within “Christianity”. It was then that I decided to start reading Catholic apologetics in order to better explain my faith to others whenever questioned or challenged. So, just like you, and to be fair, I also, was helped by protestants for the Catholic that I am becoming. “Good writes straight in crooked lines”. Pax et bonum. --macaronte pd/ English is not my language, I hope I’ve made myself understood.

 

[macaronte]

Correction:

“God writes straight in crooked lines”.

 

[jerryb1020]

I would like some responses by our non-Catholic participants in this forum.

My question is, if Christians believe that Christ died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because it is in the Bible and it is there because the Apostles believed, shouldn’t all Christians believe everything that the Apostles believed?

Therefore, for example, since there is much evidence the Apostles believed that Jesus meant it literally, not symbolically, when He said ‘This is my body. This is my blood’, and there is vast evidence that the Apostles taught those beliefs to others, how can any denomination that teaches a symbolic interpretation of those words claim they are ‘bible believing’ and ‘following Christ’?

JB

 

[Garland]

Quickcat, when Paul was studing the scriptures and “rightly dividing the word of truth,” he was talking about the old testament. It would be another 375 years or so before there was a new testament to “rightly divide”. Blessings Garland

 

[macaronte]

“how can any denomination that teaches a symbolic interpretation of those words claim they are ‘bible believing’ and ‘following Christ’?”​

Didn’t Christ himself said that their would be false prophets that would confuse many followers. Well, this is a perfect example… isn’t it?. --macaronte

 

[CoachSTL]

Paul, our apostle, writes: “STUDY [Gk. spudazo] to show thyself APPROVED UNTO GOD, A WORKMAN WHO NEEDETH NOT TO BE ASHAMED, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.” We need to STUDY the Word of God. Luke 4:18,19 is a perfect example of “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” Several years ago I stopped at a busy street intersection while a large group of people crossed the street to enter a church on the corner. I was curious to see how many Bibles I could see in the hands of the folks. There was not one Bible visible in anyone’s hand. I wondered how many of those dear souls ever really STUDY the Word of God. The STUDY of the Bible is an exciting vocation, especially if one “rightly divides the Word of Truth.”

QC,

I need you to answer my question. You are evading it. Would you agree with me that in order to understand the true meaning of what is written in the Bible (NT and OLD), one would have to ask the authors of the books or letters? Yes or no.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm

Excellent book.

 

[Victorious]

Beyond that, those who are serious can find many great books that defend sola Scriptura and address the questions that are repeatedly raised here.

A tidal wave of “great books” defending sola scriptura is no match for the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ and teaching with His authority. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, period.

 

[John21652]

The adherents of Sola Scriptura are effectively supporting Subjectivism. Now, if you were to begin an argument with many of the followers of the Protestant denominations regarding the ‘break down’ of moral values in an ever increasingly secular society, they would all tell you how shameful it is that people are drifting away from the moral values that once bound a society together. I am yet to meet anyone who admits to being ‘Christian’ who would deny this point. It is rather obvious that the support for abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, etc, etc is predicated upon the ‘right to choose’ and the right to behave in a manner which is not at odds with one’s concience and does no harm to others. In other words, one can chart one’s own morality.

The sad thing is that the proponents of Sola Scriptura are advocating exactly the same approach to interpreting the Bible. Remember that all Protestent denominations are breakaways from the Catholic Church. The Wesleyans, the Baptists, the Mormons and others have all formed because of someone elses interpretation of the Bible. In other words, if we allow that the pro-abortion lobby has the right to a voice in civic affairs, then we must also allow that the break aways from the Catholic Church have a right to a voice in religious affairs. Then it follows that subjective interpretations of the Bible are quite OK.

However, it is plain to see that subjectivism effectively does away with any objective morality. Anything goes. Why, now in Britiain pagan religions are surfacing because of the allowance that people are free to do what they want, and worship whatever they want, any way they want. The result is, of course, a disjointed and broken society, but still labelled ‘British’. The ‘glue’ that holds society together is unravelling under secularism. Similarly with religion. If we admit subjectivism then we admit into religious affairs a multitude of Biblical interpretations and all with the Impramatur of being ‘in the Bible’.

For civil society to be cohesive we all need to willingly submit to a civil compact. Without a civil compact there is no society. Similarly with Christianity. If the religious ‘compact’ breaks down then there is no union of belief. As in civil society, there needs to be a final arbiter that decides upon true and correct interpretations of what the Bible tells us. In civil society there are endless arguments over how certain laws are to be construed and applied. We call it a legal system. We may not always like the given interpretations of the law, but we avoid anarchy by adhering to the umpires decisions. Unfortunately, down through the history of Christianity we have had dissenters who did not like the umpires decisions, have taken their bat and ball and gone off to form new clubs. Their unwillingness to stand their ground and argue a case before the umpire and within the bounds of the original Christian Church is a prime example of them knowing best and so preaching a subjective interpretation of the Bible and what it means. They broke the ‘glue’ of Christianity.

The Catholic Church has an abitration system that defines and refines Biblical interpretations on behalf of all Catholics and gives a uniformity based on an Objective approach to Biblical interpretation. The protestant denominations need to realise this and stop defending Sola Scriptura because its defence is indefensible on the grounds that they are emulating secularist subjectivism.

 

[sonichuiscool]

As a Protestant I concede the point that there are thousands of denominations. However, there are thousands of individual priests and Catholics that each espouse their own subjective opinions.

Now, you can simply retort that these are outside the bounds of orthodoxy, but then this calls into question the priests in the first place who have such divergent views, who have all been called by the Holy Spirit to be mouthpieces of the Catholic Church and proclaim Christ’s word.

I’m no anti-Catholic and have been to hundreds of masses (mostly because I spend time with Catholics and have a love for them) and I have seen an AMAZING amount of theological diversity. While liberal protestants appear to be a moribund group, liberal Catholics seem to be the majority in parishes across the US in terms of attendance (at least in my city).

However, if you go to nearly Protestant denominations you will find that the message is clear. Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the word of God. God’s word does allow for some ambiguity on even big issues, but overall this argument is a smokescreen.

The Bible as authority, in practice, DOES produce more fruit than allowing human authority.

 

[Victorious]

Now, you can simply retort that these are outside the bounds of orthodoxy, but then this calls into question the priests in the first place who have such divergent views, who have all been called by the Holy Spirit to be mouthpieces of the Catholic Church and proclaim Christ’s word.

When priests preach heterodox views, they are not being a mouthpiece of the Catholic Church and they are not proclaiming Christ’s word. The Holy Spirit does not call them or inspire them to preach error. When they preach error, they are being unfaithful to their mission.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There are certain teachings that the Magisterium and the Pope have declared infallible teachings. These MUST be taught by ALL Priests; if they do not preach these things they are preaching heresies.

 

[WesleyF]

Here is one problem I have with Sola Scriptura. The New Testament was not written like a catechism of the Christian faith. I would argue that Paul didn’t even know that he was writing Scripture when he wrote the letter to Timothy.

For eg. he says things like, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments”

He is speaking casually.

If I knew that I was writing scripture, I would not make such casual statements. You can’t imagine a statement like, “Hey Timothy, you’ve got a headache huh, take some aspirin” in the Bible

I would be more focussed on explaining the faith and difficult subjects like the Trinity. Paul never explains the Trinity anywhere in his writings; there are only brief allusions.

So to say that the New Testament plus the Old Testament is ALL that a Christian needs sounds illogical to me.

 

[Berean2]

However, it is plain to see that subjectivism effectively does away with any objective morality.

True, when subjectivism becomes rampant/the dominant societal paradigm, then anomy reigns.

As in civil society, there needs to be a final arbiter that decides upon true and correct interpretations of what the Bible tells us. In civil society there are endless arguments over how certain laws are to be construed and applied. We call it a legal system. We may not always like the given interpretations of the law, but we avoid anarchy by adhering to the umpires decisions.

I’m all for overall law-abiding (yet even there, overlegislation is a political and social cancer), but your analogy is fallacious: since they’re manmade, laws are not infallible or immutable (as you point out in the sentence that I blued); they are temporary (cf. for example the fact that in the U.S. in the 19th century, homosexuality was punishable by death) and relative (one state/country might outlaw X, another state/country might not).

Also, your analogy implies that once again, the Church could punish (persecute, imprison, torture, what have you) those who infringe against any of the Church’s many decrees. It is one thing to make/enforce laws concerning the outer behavior of citizens, it’s quite another to dictate belief and religious practices. (And yes, I realize that underlying every form of government, there’s an implicit cosmology/theology, as Spinoza showed. But that’s a topic for another thread—maybe already debated here @ CAF?)

 

[Berean2]

You can’t imagine a statement like, “Hey Timothy, you’ve got a headache huh, take some aspirin” in the Bible.

I would argue that Paul didn’t even know that he was writing Scripture when he wrote the letter to Timothy.

And yet, Peter already referred to Paul’s writings as “Scripture” (interestingly enough, not vice-versa).

 

[QuickCat]

QC,

With all due respect to you, the key to understanding what is written in the Bible (the Word of God) is to hear from the writers of the letters and books what they meant by their writings. Agreed?

Thanks! The writers do tell us what they mean. When Paul says that we must “rightly divide the Word of Truth” in order to be “approved of God,” he means just that. When he says, “Follow me as I follow Christ,” he means just that. When he says, “I am the apostle to the Gentiles…,” he means just that. When he says, “I am the pattern for those who follow after…”, he means just that. Seems obvious to me. Whatta ya think?