Fallacies of sola scriptura

[paul_c]

No “religion” is right! Biblical Christianity is not a “religion” it is a relationship. “Religion” always requires YOU to do something to either win your salvation or to retain your salvation once won. “Religion” is DO while Biblical Christianity is DONE. The Lord Jesus Christ did it all! By believing in Him I become compete in Him. His righteousness is accounted to me. And I become a Child of God, a joint heir with the Lord Jesus Christ and as I mentioned, I am now complete in Him. Praise His wonderful name!

It is very appealling to claim that you need to do nothing but believe to go to heaven. It is so easy, right? Unfortunately, this is not the truth. Yes, you need to beleive, but you also need to live out that belief, otherwise that belief is not real but only empty words. Why do you think thath Jesus spent so much time teaching morality if all that was required was belief. Why did he forgive sins if sins don’t matter, only faith. Why did he tell us to come in through the narrow door, if the door was so wide that all you needed to do is believe?

You are also redefining religion. Religion is a system of beliefs. You have a system of beliefs, even though you might actually be the only one who shares them…

 

[Philthy]

I stand for my beliefs; that the practice of sola scriptura holds accountable all teachers and teachings,

How does it do this?
How does it communicate to the faithful that it has done this?
How do the faithful know that it has been definitively communicated to them by “the practice of sola scriptura”?
Can you provide a single example of the practice of sola scriptura holding a teacher or a teaching accountable?

it does not exclude in any way Tradition, councils and creeds, or confessions.

Which Tradition, exactly, does it include?
Which councils, creeds and confessions does it include?
Which does it not include?
How does sola scriptura reveal its will to the faithful?

Not looking for a fight, just looking for practical clarity on some fairly vague statements.

Blessings!

 

[MarcoPolo]

No “religion” is right! Biblical Christianity is not a “religion” it is a relationship.

The apostle James specifically contrasts Christianity as “pure religion” with “vain” religion. He then gives as an example of pure religion in action—a work of charity.James 1:26-27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by aburger forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Tradition might not be clearly related to scripture but it may never conflict with sacred scripture.

That is the way a Lutheran might describe sola scriptura.

Jon

Within the context of the relation ship of Scripture and Tradition, is this statement the same as saying, “That is* the* Lutheran description of sola scriptura”? Or are there different Lutheran understandings of sola scriptura? If so, which one of them is the one that holds the others “accountable”, and how do you know?

Again, not looking for a fight - been there, done that…

 

[JonNC]

I find this rather curious. So you, like us, look to your chruch for scriptural interpretation. Doesn’t that put you in the position of making Martin Luther your savior, since you are choosing his interpretations over those handed down through the generations by the Catholic Church?

No, it doesn’t, and I find the implication of your remarks disappointing. You know quite well that Lutherans, whom the Catholic Catechism calls Christians and brothers and sisters in Christ worship on the Christ, the son of the living God.

But to answer your question, Lutherans are not held to Luther, but to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. There are many things Lutherans said that were his opinion, and that is all. There are some things that Luther said that Lutherans reject completely. He was a man, that’s all.

Not all of the interpretations of the CC are rejected by Lutherans. We accept the teachings of the early councils, and look to the ECF’s for guidance in our understanding of the true faith. We do disagree with Rome on some things, and agree on many others.
What does need to happen is continued dialogue.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

His point was that Scripture is all protestants final authority yet they will conflict without end. The Orthodox have ‘their own’ final authoirty and we Catholics have ‘our own’ but we don’t divide on major Doctrinal issues the way you guys do. There is no way around it. Sola Scripture is a faulty premise because it cannot work.

How can there be 2 “final authorities”?

Papal infallibility and supremacy
Transubstantiation
Purgatory
Original Sin

We view our disagreements with other non-catholic Christian communions the same way we do with Rome. They’ve developed from their own division from Rome, and are not a splinter of Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

As a matter of fact, the final authority that we Catholics have is the final authority for everybody, because that authority is God Himself.

Agreed.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Please tell me what doctrine of the Orthodox is at variance with the Latin Church? I ask this because there is such a thing as the Byzantine Catholic Church, otherwise known as the Greek Catholic Church, which has the same foundation as the Greek Orthodox Church right on down to the same liturgy. They are not doctrinally at variance with the Latin Church.

There are only two possible areas for which you might base your comment. Both of them are false. One is the filioque and the other is the universal bishopric of the pope. The filioque was a red herring drummed up to justify a political rebellion. In fact there has recently been agreement on the filioque. So no variance there. On the universal bishopric of the Pope the Orthodox have done an about face compared to the early centuries. All of the big heresies of the early church originated in the East and the appeals for guidance and correct doctrine were made to Rome.

As for your question of which one is right the answer is simple The Latin Rite Catholic Church. The Orthodox are in schism which may be the answer why so much of the territory of the Eastern church has gone over to Islam. In fact the Haggia Sophia, the greatest christian church in the East, the church of the Holy Spirit, in Constantinople is now a Islamic mosque.

I don’t think the Orthodox would view the Filioque as a red herring.

Jon

 

[Des]

How can there be 2 “final authorities”?

I never said there can be 2 final authorities but that a system with a visible authority keeping things in check, will work over a system where each individual is their own authority regarding doctrines for all.

We view our disagreements with other non-catholic Christian communions the same way we do with Rome. They’ve developed from their own division from Rome, and are not a splinter of Lutheranism.

Jon

They only came about because what the first protestant (Luther) had done by making the Bible the ONLY final authority. If he and those who first followed him hadn’t done this, then Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Adventists, Shakers, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Charismatics, Anglicans, Reformed Plymouth Brethrens, Nazarens wouldn’t have come into existance. And of course we can’t forget the nondenominational Churches that came onto the scene 30 years or so ago.

 

[Doggg]

The adherents of Sola Scriptura are effectively supporting Subjectivism.

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.

It is possible that Catholics are likewise emulating secularist subjectivism. Is there some non-subjective method by which we can know that the RCC that exists today is the same church that was founded by Jesus?

 

[paul_c]

It is possible that Catholics are likewise emulating secularist subjectivism. Is there some non-subjective method by which we can know that the RCC that exists today is the same church that was founded by Jesus?

Sure, you can study the early church fathers, which shows both the continuity of leadership and the continuity of doctrine from the apostolic church to the present. I would suggest you start with Eusibius “History of the church”, which was written in 310 AD and compiles the writings of many of the Church Fathers back to apostolic times. It is available free on line: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t think the Orthodox would view the Filioque as a red herring.

Jon

Not now they would not. Too much water has gone over the dam for them to admit that. But it is what it is. Do not forget that the whole Eastern Schism was resolved at the Council of Florence if only temporarily. There the Eastern Bishops and theologians agreed with the Western Church on a definition of the filioque. But once the Eastern Bishops returned home they were subject to a political firestorm which caused them to renounce their agreement. This concept of “doctrine by popular vote” is entirely foreign to the New Testament. It certainly did not occur at any of the earlier councils. Quite frankly the Eastern Bishops abandoned their teaching authority in favor of what we would call today “political correctness” but in those days was more probably called “saving your butt”.

The schism was indeed a politically motivated event and stemmed originally from the emperor removing the legitimate patriarch named Ignatius in favor of one of his friends named Photius. The move did not work and Ignatius was later reestablished as the patriarch. Subsequently Ignatius died and once again Photius found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. None the less at the council of Florence the Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek bishops and representativess who were present and the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. It is clear therefore that the filioque was a political issue and not a theological one.

One more thing on the filioque. The Nicene Creed was enlarged at the Concil of Constantinople to include the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. This addition to the Nicene Creed was directed against the followers of Macedonius who claimed that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son and thus denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. However things were different in Spain. The Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith. Arianism had a different concept of the Trinity than the conventional christian view. They believed that God the Father working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, which was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. In correcting this error the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son, not as subservients, but as equals needed to be addressed and was with the Creed with the added filioque.

By the way this guy Macedonius was none other than the bishop of Constantinople. Another bishop of Constantinople was a guy named Nestorius. Two bishops of Constantinople and two heretics whose errors cost christianity dearly…

 

[JonNC]

=Des;6654941]I never said there can be 2 final authorities but that a system with a visible authority keeping things in check, will work over a system where each individual is their own authority regarding doctrines for all.

Originally Posted by Des
His point was that Scripture is all protestants final authority yet they will conflict without end. **The Orthodox have ‘their own’ final authoirty and we Catholics have ‘our own’ **but we don’t divide on major Doctrinal issues the way you guys do. There is no way around it. Sola Scripture is a faulty premise because it cannot work.

Sorry if I misunderstood the bolded part.

Each individual is not their own authority. I am not my own authority, anymore than you are. That is not what the practice of sola scriptura is.
As a youth, I was catechized, using in large measure the Small Catechism. I was not given a Bible and told I had permission, much less the authority, to go and interpret it for myself.
There may be some Protestants who believe that, but that is not the teaching of Lutheranism.

They only came about because what the first protestant (Luther) had done by making the Bible the ONLY final authority. If he and those who first followed him hadn’t done this, then Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Adventists, Shakers, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Charismatics, Anglicans, Reformed Plymouth Brethrens, Nazarens wouldn’t have come into existance. And of course we can’t forget the nondenominational Churches that came onto the scene 30 years or so ago.

I’m not willing to state that Zwingli or Calvin were such the lemmings that you seem to imply here. They and their colleagues - never Lutheran that I know of - were perfectly capable of making their own decisions regarding whether or not to stay in communion with Rome.
And again, sola scriptura does not teach that scripture is the ONLY authority, just the final norm, to which other authorities, including the Church, are accountable,

In addition, your speculation that they would never have come about can’t be proven either way. I will say, however, that had there not been a significant level of corruption and abuses in the 16th century Church, at least in Europe, then perhaps Luther might have died a Catholic monk or bishop that only Church history scholars would have known about. In other words, as the Catholic Catechism says, there was blame enough on both sides.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Not now they would not. Too much water has gone over the dam for them to admit that. But it is what it is. Do not forget that the whole Eastern Schism was resolved at the Council of Florence if only temporarily. There the Eastern Bishops and theologians agreed with the Western Church on a definition of the filioque. But once the Eastern Bishops returned home they were subject to a political firestorm which caused them to renounce their agreement. This concept of “doctrine by popular vote” is entirely foreign to the New Testament. It certainly did not occur at any of the earlier councils. Quite frankly the Eastern Bishops abandoned their teaching authority in favor of what we would call today “political correctness” but in those days was more probably called “saving your butt”.

The schism was indeed a politically motivated event and stemmed originally from the emperor removing the legitimate patriarch named Ignatius in favor of one of his friends named Photius. The move did not work and Ignatius was later reestablished as the patriarch. Subsequently Ignatius died and once again Photius found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. None the less at the council of Florence the Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek bishops and representativess who were present and the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. It is clear therefore that the filioque was a political issue and not a theological one.

One more thing on the filioque. The Nicene Creed was enlarged at the Concil of Constantinople to include the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. This addition to the Nicene Creed was directed against the followers of Macedonius who claimed that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son and thus denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. However things were different in Spain. The Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith. Arianism had a different concept of the Trinity than the conventional christian view. They believed that God the Father working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, which was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. In correcting this error the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son, not as subservients, but as equals needed to be addressed and was with the Creed with the added filioque.

By the way this guy Macedonius was none other than the bishop of Constantinople. Another bishop of Constantinople was a guy named Nestorius. Two bishops of Constantinople and two heretics.

There are some quite capable Orthodox here who can debate your statements if they choose. That wasn’t my point. My point is only that the claims of even virtual doctrinal unity between Rome and the EO are suspect.
Lutherans come down on the Catholic side of the Filioque anyway.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Within the context of the relation ship of Scripture and Tradition, is this statement the same as saying, “That is* the* Lutheran description of sola scriptura”? Or are there different Lutheran understandings of sola scriptura? If so, which one of them is the one that holds the others “accountable”, and how do you know?

Again, not looking for a fight - been there, done that…

I’m not a theologian, but the way I’ve expressed sola scriptura is, to my understanding, the way Lutherans practice it. I wouldn’t say that aburger’s quote would be the Lutheran expression of ss, but I would surmise it to be closer than that of ***solo ***scripturists, who often deny or reject any extra-biblical council, creed or confession.
Does that answer your question?

Jon

 

[Doggg]

Sure, you can study the early church fathers, which shows both the continuity of leadership and the continuity of doctrine from the apostolic church to the present. I would suggest you start with Eusibius “History of the church”, which was written in 310 AD and compiles the writings of many of the Church Fathers back to apostolic times. It is available free on line: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

True, we can all study the history of the early church, but the question was:

Is there some non-subjective method by which we can know that the RCC that exists today is the same church that was founded by Jesus?

 

[QuickCat]

You fail to realize that James, one of the first books written during the Acts period, writes to Israel. He is not writing about Biblical Christianity, but to Judaism. Note in James 2:2 “If a man come into your assembly” [synagogue]. You fail to “read the address on the envelope.” He writes to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad.” Which tribe do you belong to. Religion is only mentioned about 5 times in the N.T. and it is always the Jewish religion. Satan uses religion in an attempt to counter the plan of God. Religion is a bondage system that enslaves people. Look at every religion in this world - all of them teach a system of works for “hoping that you can work hard enough to get to heaven.” At the end of life there is still that doubt that you made it. I recall a video team interviewing folks who are coming from church service and they are asked: “How do you plan to get to heaven?” About 24 of them answer, “Well, I hope that the good things that I do will outweigh my sins and that God will give me credit for all the good that I do. And I try to keep the ten commandments” . Finally one young lady says, “I will get to heaven based on what the Lord Jesus Christ did for me on the cross. He paid my sin debt; He is my Savior and my Lord.” Interestingly, I have asked many of my Catholic friend how to get to heaven. Rarely to never do they mention the Lord Jesus Christ. Almost uniformly they tell me to “keep the commandments.” When I ask when what they are, they always reply, “Well, you know…” A priest told me that “everyone” is saved - no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. A monsignor told me to pray “three times a day, it doesn’t matter what you pray, but you must pray three times a day.” No mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. ???

 

[MarcoPolo]

You fail to realize that James, one of the first books written during the Acts period, writes to Israel. He is not writing about Biblical Christianity, but to Judaism. Note in James 2:2 “If a man come into your assembly” [synagogue].

He is writing to them about the new faith. It doesn’t make any sense for an Apostle of Christ to teach them how to be good Jews. In Acts 15, James clearly speaks up after Peter to explain how Christianity does not have to adhere to the Jewish tradition of circumcision. James advances Christianity among the Jewish diaspora.

The text in James 1 clearly has him promoting “pure religion”. As his example of pure religion he describes an act of love, which is the hallmark of Christianity. Religion is described in Scripture both positively and negatively. On this occasion it is positive because it is pure religion, undefiled.

Once again, the text reads:James 1:26-27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[Victorious]

He is writing to them about the new faith. It doesn’t make any sense for an Apostle of Christ to teach them how to be good Jews.

It does if your aim is to write off the Epistle of James, which is highly inconvenient from a Protestant point of view. Martin Luther certainly found it so; he called it “an epistle of straw.”

 

[paul_c]

You fail to realize that James, one of the first books written during the Acts period, writes to Israel. He is not writing about Biblical Christianity, but to Judaism.

He is writing to Christians of Jewish descent about the Catholic Faith. This was his role as the Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem. this statement from chapter 2: 1 is a clear statement that it is a Christian letter, not a jewish one. “My brothers, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.”

Note in James 2:2 “If a man come into your assembly” [synagogue]. You fail to “read the address on the envelope.” He writes to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad.” Which tribe do you belong to.

This is an absurd argument. Do you ignore Romans, because you don’t live in Rome. How about Hebrews? Do you ignore that because you aren’t a Hebrew? Corinthians, because you don’t live in Corinth?

Religion is only mentioned about 5 times in the N.T. and it is always the Jewish religion. Satan uses religion in an attempt to counter the plan of God. Religion is a bondage system that enslaves people.

You are ascribing things to religion that simply are not true: This is the definition of religion from Dictionary.com:

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.

Look at every religion in this world - all of them teach a system of works for “hoping that you can work hard enough to get to heaven.” At the end of life there is still that doubt that you made it. I recall a video team interviewing folks who are coming from church service and they are asked: “How do you plan to get to heaven?” About 24 of them answer, “Well, I hope that the good things that I do will outweigh my sins and that God will give me credit for all the good that I do. And I try to keep the ten commandments” *. Finally one young lady says, “I will get to heaven based on what the Lord Jesus Christ did for me on the cross. He paid my sin debt; He is my Savior and my Lord.” * This paragraph just reflects your own biases. some religions undoubtedly say you need to work hard to get to heaven. Others say all you need to do is believe in Jesus.
QuickCat;6656677:

Interestingly, I have asked many of my Catholic friend how to get to heaven. Rarely to never do they mention the Lord Jesus Christ. Almost uniformly they tell me to “keep the commandments.”

Well, the Catholics are saying exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 19, are they not:
16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

Is your answer better than Jesus’s?