Fallacies of sola scriptura

[JonNC]

Thank you Jon, and may I say, I have enjoyed lurking in this discussion, and profiting from your always courteous posts correcting the misperceptions attributed to the Lutheran faith. It is a pleasure to learn from such a tutor.

You are very kind. I feel like the discussion has been, for the most part, charitable and informative. And I appreciate the dialogue with good people like paul c, Philthy, and others.

Jon

 

[graceandglory]

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!

HOGWASH!

"Take up your cross and follow Me."
That is the Gospel.
That is an action.
Christianity is doing.

 

[QuickCat]

Quickcat,
your argument is not compelling because it is contradicted by the same scriptures on which you rely for insight.

All of the Apostles preached that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures. Why do you think otherwise? In fact, I showed you that in the Pentecost account from Acts 2, Peter made these very statements:
22 You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
23 This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.
24 But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says of him: ‘I saw the Lord ever before me, with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.
26 Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted; my flesh, too, will dwell in hope,
27 because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld, nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’
29 My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day.
30 But since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld nor did his flesh see corruption.
32 God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses.
33 Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear.
34 For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

And the fact that the four Gospels were writtten for the Jews alone is simply not true.

• Matthew did indeed write his gospel for the Jews, explaining throughly from the OT scriptures how Jesus fullfilled the prophesies. It was probably written in Aramaic initially.
• Luke, a companion of St. Paul, however, wrote his gospel for the Gentiles they were preaching to. In his gospel, he takes the time to explain Jewish customs to his audience, which would of course be unnecessary if the Jews were his intended audience
• Mark, the companion of Peter, combined these two works and added insight form Peter himself. This work was described by Eusebius as having been written in Rome.
• John wrote after all the others, filling in the blanks that were not answered by the other works. He was residing in Ephesus at the time and clearly was not written for the Jews alone, who had already dispersed from Jerusalem when it was destroyed.

Oh, and by the way, virtually all biblical scholars believe that with the possible exception of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Pauls letters are the earliest new testament writings. To say that his revelations weren’t available to the others is simply not understanding history. In fact, since Peter references Paul’s writiings in 2Peter3, it is very obvious that he had access to them.

You omit any comment on Luke 9:6; 18:31-34; John 20:9. The four gospels record the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to the “Jews only” [Matthew 15:24]. You ignore the address on the envelope. If I write a letter to John and Joe happens to pick it up and read it, Joe might find it interesting, but he will soon realize it WAS NOT WRITTEN TO HIM. Now, on the day of Pentecost Peter presents Israel’s last days. He remarks that “this was that” and he quotes Joel. Joel, nor any other O.T. prophet, foretold the Body of Christ. Peter presents the cross as bad news and accuses the Jews of murdering their Messiah. He tells the Jews to “repent and be baptized” AND THEN they would would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He presents our Lord in resurrection to sit on David’s throne. He does not raise Him in resurrection to be Head of the Body. Israel is to be a “kingdom of priest” in the coming kingdom [on earth] [Ex. 19:4,5 cf 1 Peter 2:9]. The initiatory rite into this priesthood is water baptism [Ex. 28:4; 40:12; Heb. 9:10 where the word “washings” is baptizo.] You, my friend, need a basic course in “rightly dividing the Word of truth.”

 

[guanophore]

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!

HOGWASH!

"Take up your cross and follow Me."
That is the Gospel.
That is an action.
Christianity is doing.

Not only is it hogwash, but anti-scriptural as well!.

James 1
[26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.
[27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

 

[guanophore]

You omit any comment on Luke 9:6;

Luke was written by a Gentile, for Gentiles. It is addressed to Theophilus.

  You ignore the address on the envelope.

Do you think “Theophilus” is a Jewish name?

 Peter presents the cross as bad news

How do you figure that?

He presents our Lord in resurrection to sit on David's throne.  He does not raise Him in resurrection to be Head of the Body.

Well, the Truth is that Peter does not raise Jesus at all…Jesus had the power to lay down His own life, and take it up again. The fact that Jesus sits on David’s throne, and is also head of His body, the Church, is not up to Peter.

Israel is to be a "kingdom of priest" in the coming kingdom [on earth] [Ex. 19:4,5 cf 1 Peter 2:9].  The initiatory rite into this priesthood is water baptism [Ex. 28:4; 40:12; Heb. 9:10 where the word "washings" is baptizo.]  You, my friend, need a basic course in "rightly dividing the Word of truth."

Somebody sure does!

It appears you have been mislead by dispensationalists.

 

[graceandglory]

Not only is it hogwash, but anti-scriptural as well!.

[27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Oh, but if we believe everything we hear, then we would believe that “Religion isn’t biblical.”

The Book of James is awesome. No wonder the “reformers” wanted to axe it from the NT.

 

[JonNC]

Not only is it hogwash, but anti-scriptural as well!.

James 1
[26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.
[27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Indeed, guano. Those who are regenerate, in joyful obedience to Him perform good works
that He has prepared for us to do, in His name and for His sake.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Indeed, guano. Those who are regenerate, in joyful obedience to Him perform good works
that He has prepared for us to do, in His name and for His sake.

Jon

I do understand how it is that many have experienced the form of religion, without the power thereof. This is the world into which Christ was born. It was not religion that is the problem, that it should be jettisoned, but the hearts of those who embraced it.

 

[paul_c]

Indeed, guano. Those who are regenerate, in joyful obedience to Him perform good works
that He has prepared for us to do, in His name and for His sake.

Jon

Jon,
when you use the term regenerate, do you believe that every man is destined to either heaven or hell prior to his birth and that nothing he does in life will impact that destiny?

 

[paul_c]

You omit any comment on Luke 9:6; 18:31-34; John 20:9. The four gospels record the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to the “Jews only” [Matthew 15:24]. You ignore the address on the envelope. If I write a letter to John and Joe happens to pick it up and read it, Joe might find it interesting, but he will soon realize it WAS NOT WRITTEN TO HIM. Now, on the day of Pentecost Peter presents Israel’s last days. He remarks that “this was that” and he quotes Joel. Joel, nor any other O.T. prophet, foretold the Body of Christ. Peter presents the cross as bad news and accuses the Jews of murdering their Messiah. He tells the Jews to “repent and be baptized” AND THEN they would would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He presents our Lord in resurrection to sit on David’s throne. He does not raise Him in resurrection to be Head of the Body. Israel is to be a “kingdom of priest” in the coming kingdom [on earth] [Ex. 19:4,5 cf 1 Peter 2:9]. The initiatory rite into this priesthood is water baptism [Ex. 28:4; 40:12; Heb. 9:10 where the word “washings” is baptizo.] You, my friend, need a basic course in “rightly dividing the Word of truth.”

Quickcat,

Jesus ministered to the Jews because they were the pre-ordained chosen race to bring the good news to the nations. All of the Apostles (including Paul) were Jews. This is consistent with the rest of scripture.

Need I remind you that none of St. Paul’s epistles were written to you. If you were to e consistent in your logic, there would be nothing to redeem you

You continually talk about the body of Christ. Don’t you understand that Paul used that analogy to explain Jesus’s relation to the Catholic Church and the ralations of the members of the Church to each other?

Finally, When Peter addressed the crowds at Pentecost, he was explaining to them why the Christians were speaking in tongues. Remember, there was a great deal of confusion and some of the observers thought the Apostles were drunk. Peter clarifies that, explains how they came to know that Jesus was the messiah and when 3000 want to become Christians, he tells them to repent and be baptized. This brought them into the body of Christ, although he didn’t use that analogy.

You claim to be in the body of Christ, have you even been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
when you use the term regenerate, do you believe that every man is destined to either heaven or hell prior to his birth and that nothing he does in life will impact that destiny?

Goodness, no! Christ’s plan for all mankind is salvation. While Lutherans believe that we come to justification by Grace through faith and not of our own ability, we also know that we each have free will to reject grace, and turn away from Him.
Formula of Concord

1. We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.

Jon

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like Lutheran beliefs are very very very similar to Catholic beliefs.

 

[Murphs10]

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like Lutheran beliefs are very very very similar to Catholic beliefs.

That they are! I can’t wait for the day we are united!! I pray for it often.

 

[paul_c]

Lutherans are far closer to Catholicism than say, Baptist.

Jon,
What do you see as the major differences between what Catholics believe and what you believe…

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans are far closer to Catholicism than say, Baptist.

Jon,
What do you see as the major differences between what Catholics believe and what you believe…

Top of the list for me, at least, is the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope. That, said Lutherans generally recognize the Bishop of Roman as the western patriarch.​

While the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification has certainly narrowed our differences on this basic issue, there is still work to do.​

We need greater mutual understanding on the Sacrifice of the Mass.​

Purgatory, and related indulgences.​

There are others where it is more a difference in what should and should not bind the conscience of the believer, as opposed to the belief itself: Marian beliefs and Transubstantiation come to mind.

But you are right in your first comment, that as sacramental Churches, we indeed have much in common.

Jon

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Thinking about it a bit, I think the reason for the great similarity (even the major differences JonNC listed did not strike me as unexpected) between Catholicism and Lutheranism is that many of Luther’s objections, such as faith and works vs. faith alone, were really just misunderstandings of Church dogma and doctrine.

 

[paul_c]

Top of the list for me, at least, is the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope. That, said Lutherans generally recognize the Bishop of Roman as the western patriarch.​

While the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification has certainly narrowed our differences on this basic issue, there is still work to do.​

We need greater mutual understanding on the Sacrifice of the Mass.​

Purgatory, and related indulgences.​

There are others where it is more a difference in what should and should not bind the conscience of the believer, as opposed to the belief itself: Marian beliefs and Transubstantiation come to mind.

But you are right in your first comment, that as sacramental Churches, we indeed have much in common.

Jon

An interesting list.

• What does it mean to be the Western Patriarch?
• What do you think still separates us on justification?
• What don’t you agree on about the mass, other than the fact that we believe you need to have a valid Priest to consecrate the host and bring about the real presence of Christ? Or is that it?
• Purgatory is the state where one enters prior to heaven to complete the purification process if it isn’t completed on earth. What are your objections to that? Indulgences are things you do on earth to purify yourself in advance.

Not really a very substantial list, when all is said and done. Other than the pride aspect that led Luther away, its hard to understand why he would so feel the need to separate.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I thi nk Lutherans believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation-We Catholics believe the Eucharist’s substance is literally transformed into Jesus’s body and blood, while Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ is “joined” to the bread and wine, like fire and iron.

 

[Philthy]

Except that interpretation, and interpreters are accountable to scripture. It is only different in that the Catholic Church, as I understand it, hold these things to Scripture and Tradition.

Obviously this was not the case when the Church, independent of an established Scriptural criteria, established the canon of Scripture based upon Tradition. Tradition established the final norm and remains the arbiter of what that final norm means.

Justification is monergistic, and sanctification in many ways synergistic, and it is there that good works come into play, as my obedience to Christ’s commands.

Sanctification, as far as I can tell, is basically irrelevant in all Protestant theology.
Unless you are prepared to say that there is an eternal consequence associated with sub-optimal sanctification, who cares?

Well, sola fide refers only to justification.

Really? I didnt know that. So when Paul says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” the Lutheran Church understands that as a reference to justification and not salvation? Interesting…

Lutherans do not believe that failure to do good works is non-salvific, but that repeated, unrepented sin does drive out faith, and the loss of faith costs can cost one salvation.

This is really splitting hairs IMHO. First of all, failing to do the right thing is a sin. Failing to do a good work that God has prepared in advance for us to walk in is a sin, no? So failing to do Gods Will (which includes the works he has prepared for us to walk in) constitutes a sin that can lead to a loss of faith. But then, somehow, its the “loss of faith” (whatever that now means) that causes a loss of salvation? That seems awfully academic to me. It presumes that we have a knowledge of our faith apart from how our lives are shaped by it. But that can’t be true because from the statement below works are the evidence of faith. So that is confusing to me.
Also, on a very practical level, its like saying, “If you play with fire you dont get burnt - its not playing with it that causes the burn, its the fire itself”. It’s a pointless distinction. And on this side of eternity, its a pointless distinction to say that although failing to do good works may cause you to lose faith which can lead to a loss of salvation, its not actually the failure to do good works that’s the problem. What is the point of such a distinction - especially when the works are the “evidence” of our faith?

1. “We believe, teach, and confess also that not works maintain faith and salvation in us, but the Spirit of God alone, through faith, of whose presence and indwelling good works are evidences.”
   Formula of Concord

Works alone do not save us, I agree, but this statement has another side which I consistently find Protestants unable to agree with. And that is: Failure to do good works is evidence of a lack of salvific faith. Can you agree with that statement? If not, why not?

Funny, because I was referring, in part, to Pope Benedict’s words about reconciliation, that men cannot do this, but the Spirit can.

I dont think this is quite what he was saying, but I could be wrong. I think he was saying that men, alone, can’t do it but that it requires the Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Spirit alone, also will not do it - we must cooperate with the Holy spirit.

In many ways I agree with you; the Spirit will not work to bring us to unity, unless we are all willing to prayerfully dialogue and follow His lead. He will not lead those unwilling to follow.

Agreed.

 

[Philthy]

You are very kind. I feel like the discussion has been, for the most part, charitable and informative. And I appreciate the dialogue with good people like paul c, Philthy, and others.

Jon

Aw shucks!