Is Sola Scriptura idolatry?

[st_felicity]

Thanks for your reply.

This is what it boils down to…for me at least.

The question is, “What exactly did Paul have in mind when he penned 2Thess 2:15 and used the word “tradition”?”

I see no reason to believe that Paul meant the immaculate conception, assumption, treasury of merit, etc…at least not without accepting Rome’s authority.

Do you believe that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are present in the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist?

That is what most non-Catholic Christians reject as a “tradition.” However, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul explains that one must recognize Jesus in the celebration of the Lord’s supper–not only recognize Him in memorial–but discern His BODY–at the risk of damnation.

This tradition is referred to by Paul in reference to heresies occuring in Corinth.

**1Cor.11
27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
**

 

[st_felicity]

These traditions are dependant upon trusting the authority granted the Apostolic Church. The granting of authority is recorded in the Bible, it is Biblically OBVIOUS, it is historically consistent, and can be traced over the centuries through appostolic succession straight back to Jesus. So ultimately, to trust the Church, you have to trust the words of Jesus and believe Him when he said he would be with the Church always. It’s not really trusting the Church–it’s trusting Jesus.

 

[Calvinator]

Do you believe that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are present in the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist?

That is what most non-Catholic Christians reject as a “tradition.” However, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul explains that one must recognize Jesus in the celebration of the Lord’s supper–not only recognize Him in memorial–but discern His BODY–at the risk of damnation.

This tradition is referred to by Paul in reference to heresies occuring in Corinth.

1Cor.11
27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

I reject transubstantiation (sp?).

If this refers to the eucharist why aren’t many catholics weak and sickly?

From my catholic friends I hear all about how the confessional lines are short and every one receives communion now, which is apparently a complete 180 degree turn from how it was several decades ago.

I know some folks who aren’t even catholic and completely reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, but insist on receiving the eucharist anyway when they attend mass with friends or family. Why aren’t they stricken with some affliction?

 

[SyCarl]

Scripture alone is not idolatry. No Protestant worships the Bible.

Catholics rightly take exception if they are accused of idoltry by worshipping Mary and the saints. They do not intend worship even if it looks to us as if they are worshipping. I would similarly take exception to anyone saying that scripture alone is idolatry.

 

[st_felicity]

I reject transubstantiation (sp?).

If this refers to the eucharist why aren’t many catholics weak and sickly?

From my catholic friends I hear all about how the confessional lines are short and every one receives communion now, which is apparently a complete 180 degree turn from how it was several decades ago.

I know some folks who aren’t even catholic and completely reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, but insist on receiving the eucharist anyway when they attend mass with friends or family. Why aren’t they stricken with some affliction?

Their souls are in a sick state. It is disrespecting the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church, and even more importantly, an affront to Jesus himself.

What do YOU think Paul is talking about there?

 

[Calvinator]

Their souls are in a sick state. It is disrespecting the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church, and even more importantly, an affront to Jesus himself.

What do YOU think Paul is talking about there?

I have no wish to debate transubstantiation with you.

The thread is entitld “Is Sola Scriptura Idolatry?” and the clear answer is no.

 

[st_felicity]

I have no wish to debate transubstantiation with you.

The thread is entitld “Is Sola Scriptura Idolatry?” and the clear answer is no.

I’m not debating transubstantiation. I am asking how you interpret the scripture. If Sola Scriptura is such that the Bible is the authority on what is necessary for salvation, how do you reconcile the infered worship practices that Paul speaks of? He refers to something not explicitly outlined in the texts of the Bible–therefore, he obviously is refering to something that was passed on via oral tradition (which he also says he will clear up further when he is with them in person).

If the Bible explicitly demonstrates there are traditions and practices not recorded explicitly–and Church hierarchy and authority are clearly demonstrated in the Bible as part of the Church of the Apostles, how can clinging to the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura (dispite what those Scriptures say) be anything but giving higher regard to the philosophies of man, than for the revelation of God? That would be idolatry.

 

[Thomas_53]

“*If I am delayed that you may know how one ought to behave in household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth”
1st Timothy 3:15 *

Accordingly, the church is the pillar (upholder) and bulwark (defender) of truth…nowhere does the Bible make this claim.

If the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth…the upholder and defender of the truth …Aren’t we as Catholics right to listen to the Church regardings matters of faith and morals?

Shouldn’t we also listen to the Church regarding matters such as Mary, Purgatory and the proper interpretation of scripture?

It is my opinion that Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that actually nullifys the word of God.

The Bible no where makes the claim that it is the sole rule of faith (Sola Scriptura) for Christians.

If Sola Scriptura cannot be proved by the Bible Alone or by using Sola Scriptura… then how can it be a valid doctrine?

Thomas

 

[Thomas_53]

Calvinator states the following in Post #20:

**The question is, “What exactly did Paul have in mind when he penned 2Thess 2:15 and used the word “tradition”?”

I see no reason to believe that Paul meant the immaculate conception, assumption, treasury of merit, etc…at least not without accepting Rome’s authority.**

However unwittingly he accepts Rome’s Authority when he accepts the Canon of the New Testament.

The canon of the New Testament was determined by the Catholic Church at Council of Rome in 382 AD.

The same Catholic Church (Magisterium) determined the canon of Sacred Tradition.

Thomas

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I wonder about the material sufficiency doctrine, at least as it is applied by some Reformers who go on as though Salvation was in the Bible itself.

As though touching the Bible, holding the Bible, reading the Bible, knowing the Bible, thumping the Bible, owning the Bible will necessarily give you Salvation. It may. It may not.

To believe that it will as a sole necessity; to believe that the Bible has this kind of God-like power to impart Salvation as a sole necessity is to bow down before the Bible and worship it as an idol.

And to ignore all other sources of Salvation which God has provided in His tireless search for the 99th sheep.

Sola Scriptura is grounded in ‘specialness.’ That is what makes it so difficult to even understand among many Catholics. Because we are ‘ordinary people,’ ‘little people.’ We don’t have a fast track to the pulpit.

That takes years of discernment. Then years of study. Then years of being sent all over the map. If you don’t start out humble, you sure get humble in a big hurry.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator, I understand your question. First, we are told to “hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” 1 Thessalonians 2:15. This gives scriptural authority to oral tradition (“Sacred Tradition”). However, scripture contains no list of “Sacred Traditions” we are to observe. If it did, the particular beliefs on the list would have a scriptural basis and would not be “Sacred Tradition.” Therefore your question can never be answered satisfactorily.

Exactly. It is Luther’s Catch 22. If it’s in the Bible, then it is not Tradition. If it is Tradition, then it’s not in the Bible.

The thing is that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I reject transubstantiation (sp?).

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Don’t say you didn’t have enough information to make a free choice.

From my catholic friends I hear all about how the confessional lines are short and every one receives communion now, which is apparently a complete 180 degree turn from how it was several decades ago.

Yep. Our Pope has said that the Church will get smaller.

I know some folks who aren’t even catholic and completely reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, but insist on receiving the eucharist anyway when they attend mass with friends or family. Why aren’t they stricken with some affliction?

This is anecdoctal. How can we know that this is true? We can’t.

Is the afflication set out by Paul in the passage quoted above not grave enough for you?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Scripture alone is not idolatry. No Protestant worships the Bible.

Catholics rightly take exception if they are accused of idoltry by worshipping Mary and the saints. They do not intend worship even if it looks to us as if they are worshipping. I would similarly take exception to anyone saying that scripture alone is idolatry.

Faulty analogy.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Calvinator:

I have no wish to debate transubstantiation with you.

No one is asking for debate. Discussion will suffice. This is after all a discussion board – not a debate board. And if you wish to discuss the Real Presence then please allow me to recommend an excellent venue for just that:

Why did He let them walk away?

The thread is entitld “Is Sola Scriptura Idolatry?” and the clear answer is no.

Well, to be truthful, Mr Calvin’, Sola Scriptura is just about as clear as mud to many of us. So if you wish to persuade us of the wisdom of SS, then you are going to have to do better than posting arch sound bites.

As you may or may not know, first of all, there are many versions of Sola Scriptura. One may of course expect the same in a Reformer spectrum of 33 000 denominations and even more non-denominations.

So perhaps you would be kind enough to help us out as follows:

• decribe the various forms of SS to us;
• explain how these forms ‘evolved’;
• explain which one is the true one; then
• reconcile the contradictions.
  Fair enough?

 

[SyCarl]

This thread is about whether Sola Scriptura is idolatry. I think that whatever definition of it you use and whether you believe it or not, that it is not idolatry.

No one says that the Bible is God nor do they worship it.

As I have stated previously, Catholics rightly object when they are accused of worshipping Mary or images. They have no intention was worshipping Mary or the images. I respect that although I disagree on whether it is a valid practice.

Please give us the same consideration and do not accuse us of idolatry with respect to the Bible.

 

[st_felicity]

Please give us the same consideration and do not accuse us of idolatry with respect to the Bible.

I posted this in response to Calvinator, but perhaps you could explain the error in my reasoning.

If the Bible explicitly demonstrates there are traditions and practices not recorded explicitly–and Church hierarchy and authority are clearly demonstrated in the Bible as part of the Church of the Apostles, how can clinging to the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura (dispite what those Scriptures say) be anything but giving higher regard to the philosophies of man, than for the revelation of God? That would be idolatry.

That’s would be idolatry, wouldn’t it?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

This thread is about whether Sola Scriptura is idolatry. I think that whatever definition of it you use and whether you believe it or not, that it is not idolatry.

Sorry, you are going to have to get a lot more specific than that to make your point.

SyCarl:

No one says that the Bible is God nor do they worship it.

It is not what folks say but what they do that counts.

SyCarl:

As I have stated previously, Catholics rightly object when they are accused of worshipping Mary or images. They have no intention was worshipping Mary or the images.

And as I have stated previously, comparing accusations of Mariolatry with Bibliolatry is a faulty analogy.

SyCarl:

I respect that although I disagree on whether it is a valid practice.

This is a self-contradictorary statement. Disagreeing on whether it is a valid practice is in fact not respecting it.

SyCarl:

Please give us the same consideration and do not accuse us of idolatry with respect to the Bible.

The bottom line is whether or not it is provable. Is it? Or is it not? If you can’t make your point, then perhaps it is wise – very wise – to re-examine the safety of Sola Scriptura. Why? Because faith cannot be unreasonable.

 

[SyCarl]

I posted this in response to Calvinator, but perhaps you could explain the error in my reasoning.

That’s would be idolatry, wouldn’t it?

Your reasoning is faulty on a number of grounds.

1. You are assuming a definition of sola scripture that denies that there can be traditions and practices outside scripture. That is not true. Sola scripture does recognize that there are traditions but that they are subordinate to the scripture.

Let’s look at the Westminister Confession of Faith as an example.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Scripture does not contain everything but it does contain everything necessary.

1. You are assuming that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy and authority are clearly demonstated in the Bible. This is a problematic assumption. It involves accepting the interpretation of the Church in order to establish that authority. Yet until its authority is established there is nothing compelling us to accept its interpretation.
2. You assume that tradition as used in the Bible is the same as Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church. This is again assuming that the authority of the Church has been established first.
3. Even if it could be proved that the Catholic Church has authority, it assumes that it is infallible, which is again problematic, as it requires acceptance of the Church’s interpretation of passages claimed to show infallibility, without first showing that the Church is infallible.
4. It disregards the warnings of man made traditions.

3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?..
9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men. Matthew 15:3 & 9

8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: Colossians 2:8

1. It assumes that we can tell which traditions are valid and which are man made. Again this requires that the infallibility of the Catholic Church and its hieracrchy be established first.
2. It disregards that intent of accepting the agreed upon inspired scripture is valid to avoid following possibly man made traditions.

 

[SyCarl]

It is not what folks say but what they do that counts.

And as I have stated previously, comparing accusations of Mariolatry with Bibliolatry is a faulty analogy.

Please explain why it is a faulty analogy.
So if what you do is what is important and not what you say, let us look at Mariolatry.
Catholics have statues and images of Mary. They bow before these statues and pray before them.
They give grandiose titles to Mary such as Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix of All Grace, and a litany of others.
They pray to her, praising and flattering her, and requesting that she protect them.
They consecrate themselves to her service.
They offer a sacrifice of praise and thanks to her.(Hebrews 13:15 shows that praise is a sacrifice. “Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name.”)

This is a self-contradictorary statement. Disagreeing on whether it is a valid practice is in fact not respecting it.

It is not contradictory. I can respect your reasons for doing something without agreeing with them.

The bottom line is whether or not it is provable. Is it? Or is it not? If you can’t make your point, then perhaps it is wise – very wise – to re-examine the safety of Sola Scriptura. Why? Because faith cannot be unreasonable.

The bottom-line is if we intend to worship the Bible. And, no. Faith does not require reasonableness.

18 For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. 1 Corinthians 1:18-19]

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He that taketh the wise in their craftiness: 20 and again, The Lord knoweth the reasonings of the wise that they are vain. 1 Corinthians 3:19

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SyCarl:

Your reasoning is faulty on a number of grounds.

Let’s see.

SyCarl:

1. You are assuming a definition of sola scripture that denies that there can be traditions and practices outside scripture. That is not true. Sola scripture does recognize that there are traditions but that they are subordinate to the scripture.

Let’s look at the Westminister Confession of Faith as an example.

Why should we look at the Westminster Confession if it is a traditions subordinate to the scripture?

[

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/](http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/)

Why should we look at this link when we can look at Scripture?

SyCarl:

Scripture does not contain everything but it does contain everything necessary.

Is that why the Apostles taught by speaking to the crowds? And praying with the crowds?

SyCarl:

1. You are assuming that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy and authority are clearly demonstated in the Bible.

Yes. But also it is evident by means of logic and by means of looking into history.

SyCarl:

This is a problematic assumption.

As is the reality that for millennia, the folks to whom the Church has been speaking have been unable to read the Bible.

SyCarl:

It involves accepting the interpretation of the Church in order to establish that authority.

No.

It involves asking oneself why Jesus would abandon us for 1500 years before establishing authority in 30 000 denominations.

Or it involves asking oneself why Jesus would immediately establish authority in 30 000 denominations and then hide them for 1500 years until Luther could unwrap them and bring them out into the light of day.

And all this asking must be done while ignoring the reality that Jesus prayed for 1 Church – not for 30 000 denominations. Now do the math. 1 is not equal to 30 000.

And all this asking must done while ignoring the reality that Jesus promised us that he would never abandon us. How many times would he abandon us? 30 000? Or never? Now do the math. 0 is not equal to 30 000.

SyCarl:

Yet until its authority is established there is nothing compelling us to accept its interpretation.

There is history. There is reason. Are history and reason nothing? But you are right. Nothing compels you to look at history and reason. Because you have the free will to choose Truth or to choose error.

SyCarl:

1. You assume that tradition as used in the Bible is the same as Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church. This is again assuming that the authority of the Church has been established first.

Yes.

SyCarl:

1. Even if it could be proved that the Catholic Church has authority

And it can.

SyCarl:

, it assumes that it is infallible,

No. It does not assume that it is infallible. Only in certain areas is it infallible.

SyCarl:

which is again problematic, as it requires acceptance of the Church’s interpretation of passages claimed to show infallibility, without first showing that the Church is infallible.

The problem you are having is that you will not accept the evidence. You have started at the time of the Reformation and you have rewritten history from there. Even in light of Luther himself saying that he invented the term Sola Scripture; that he himself unilaterally and with neither inspiration nor with evidence added Sola.

SyCarl:

1. It disregards the warnings of man made traditions.

Like the Westminster Confession? Like Luther’s doctrines which later became Hitler’s doctrines? And which later became the doctrines which dictated the marginalization of First Nations peoples?

SyCarl:

1. It assumes that we can tell which traditions are valid and which are man made. Again this requires that the infallibility of the Catholic Church and its hieracrchy be established first.

One would have to put some store in what Jesus said. Instead of putting store in one’s own sayings.

SyCarl:

1. It disregards that intent of accepting the agreed upon inspired scripture is valid to avoid following possibly man made traditions.

The agreed upon inspired scripture? That scripture was compiled by who? Who gave you the Bible, SC?

Hint: The Catholic Church!