Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?

[po18guy]

The foundation for Catholicism is not found in the bible such as purgatory.

Well, this raises an interesting point: First, it is in both Catholic and Orthodox bibles, and part of it is in your own abbreviated 66 book bible. Your bible does not have the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, which cover the immediate pre-Christian time - a time which is devoid of scripture in protestant bibles. A point of God’s history in which there is no scripture? Would God really do that?

2 Maccabees 12:46 reveals that: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” Verses 39-46 speak of the sins of the dead and prayer on their behalf. But you don’t have this scripture.

That, combined with 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 sheds new light upon the issue - but that is for another thread.

Your argument could very well be 100% correct but you can’t back that based upon the bible its based upon Tradition. That is my only point.

If you have a complete bible, it makes a world of difference. Yet, look at Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40 and 1 Corinthians 11:34. Each of these, and many other verses, tell us that even the Catholic bible is not complete. Where is the rest of the story kept?

This is an epic sola scriptura fail.

 

[po18guy]

I disagree with your first sentence and thus the remaining premise. The Bible was God inspired not man inspired.

Please cite the source for the “Sacred Table of Contents” in your bible. Did Moses deliver it on stone tablets? No? Who, then?

You will be shocked at the answer.

 

[po18guy]

We can both make that claim, as evidence that purgatory is not explicit in the bible. When it helps your cause you say trust the bible, when the bible does not help your cause you say trust tradition.

But, you are defending tradition, too! Protestantism is a tradition, developed by men and handed on by men. We know their names. This is undeniable.

As to purgatory, you had better pray that purgatory exists! We all die with some level of sin on our souls. Nothing impure enters heaven (Revelation 21:27), yet we all die with sin. How, where and when does the sin “go away”? Do not claim “the cross” because that makes repentance unnecessary (Hitler would be in heaven) and Jesus told us that repentance is necessary. How are sins forgiven in the next life?

 

[Abu]

TraditonRules #54
…they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1)
Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

What a frightfully foolish fantasy!

St Matthew, 28:16-20:
[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold **I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **Perhaps the poster doesn’t know the meaning of consummation (=completion) or “end” (=finish/termination).

Disregard of history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

 

[po18guy]

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written.

One little problem: the bible does not list all of them. Thus, either the gates of hell have prevailed (making Jesus a liar), or we have a living authority. Jesus did not leave us orphans. He did not leave a bible - He left shepherds to guide and protect us.

This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1)

The only possible problem that I can see with this is that it is made up. Since this idea does not come from:

1. the bible,
   it clearly comes from:
2. the imagination

Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) (I think you mean “inerrant”) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

OK. So, answer this: Luther had no “Apostolic authority” to shred books out of the bible, did he?

But wait, there’s more! Luke was not an eyewitness - not an apostolic authority. Let’s tear out his Gospel and the Book of Acts then! Where do we start ripping and, more importantly, where do we stop ripping books out? :crud!:

 

[rdscheirer]

When St Paul said remeber the scripture AND tradition we have taught you- what does that mean-there was NO New Testament at that time.What could he have meant?

 

[po18guy]

When St Paul said remeber the scripture AND tradition we have taught you- what does that mean-there was NO New Testament at that time.What could he have meant?

He meant the OT scriptures which pointed to Jesus. At the same time, he delivered the NT by the oral tradition, which was explicit that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. No one could determine that from the OT. The Bereans (Acts 17:11) could not, and they did not until they received Paul’s oral paradosis (tradition) and tested it by the OT scriptures.

 

[Ignatius]

just curious.

Sola Scriptura is a false, extra-biblical doctrine of man. It was invented by some men sixteen centuries after Christ gave His teachings and founded His Church.

 

[exnihilo]

First you have to define what is meant by Sola Scriptura. People use the phrase to mean a lot of different things. But I’ll consider it to mean that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Yes there are several problems. The first problem is what is scripture? Someone or some organization had to determine what is scripture. This was not officially declared in any way until after the apostolic age. And for Protestants they removed books that were considered scripture for most of the history of Christianity. So really for them it was not until the 1600s that what is scripture was established. The first King James Bible had many books that are now missing from the ‘authorized’ version many Protestants use.

The next problem is that scripture itself, as defined by most adherents of this doctrine, does not make this claim. So the claim itself is extra biblical. Scripture actually says explicitly, in the Epistles, that believers should hold fast to the teachings they have received by hearing as well as writing. It is possible that all the teachings spoken made it into the Bible eventually through one of the Epistles, but we are not told that.

The powers given to and the roles of the apostles and the church make the doctrine difficult. The church is clearly given great authority. The power to bind and loose sins is so great that it is clear the church is part of salvation and holiness. Common understandings of Sola Scriptura undermine this authority.

The doctrine ignores the fact that Scripture was written in languages which most people have no understanding of. So the actual original scripture is useless for most people. The only way Scripture can be of any use is for it to be translated. For a translation to be equivalent in meaning requires that the translators be supernaturally guided. For modern people to know which translation to trust means they must have a modern authority they can trust. If Scripture does contain all that is necessary for salvation and holiness we still need a trusted modern authority to translate it for us. So the doctrine, even if true, cannot guarantee our ability to access the Scriptures salvific knowledge.

 

[po18guy]

First you have to define what is meant by Sola Scriptura. People use the phrase to mean a lot of different things. But I’ll consider it to mean that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Yes there are several problems. The first problem is what is scripture? Someone or some organization had to determine what is scripture. This was not officially declared in any way until after the apostolic age. And for Protestants they removed books that were considered scripture for most of the history of Christianity. So really for them it was not until the 1600s that what is scripture was established. The first King James Bible had many books that are now missing from the ‘authorized’ version many Protestants use.

The next problem is that scripture itself, as defined by most adherents of this doctrine, does not make this claim. So the claim itself is extra biblical. Scripture actually says explicitly, in the Epistles, that believers should hold fast to the teachings they have received by hearing as well as writing. It is possible that all the teachings spoken made it into the Bible eventually through one of the Epistles, but we are not told that.

The powers given to and the roles of the apostles and the church make the doctrine difficult. The church is clearly given great authority. The power to bind and loose sins is so great that it is clear the church is part of salvation and holiness. Common understandings of Sola Scriptura undermine this authority.

The doctrine ignores the fact that Scripture was written in languages which most people have no understanding of. So the actual original scripture is useless for most people. The only way Scripture can be of any use is for it to be translated. For a translation to be equivalent in meaning requires that the translators be supernaturally guided. For modern people to know which translation to trust means they must have a modern authority they can trust. If Scripture does contain all that is necessary for salvation and holiness we still need a trusted modern authority to translate it for us. So the doctrine, even if true, cannot guarantee our ability to access the Scriptures salvific knowledge.

Excellent post. Frankly, you sound quite Catholic. High Church Lutheran or Anglican?

 

[bogeydogg]

I think the chief problem with Sola Scriptura is that no one actually practices it. I grew up in the LDS group and spent time in the emergent and Pentecostal and Baptist and non-denom and now I am a Lutheran (believe me this is not Church hopping this over many years) and no one actually practices Sola Scriptura.

Every preacher I have ever heard will preach the Bible but will quote fromJoseph Smith or Luther or Calvin or Augustine or Thomas or some other actual Church Father or Pre-Nicene Church Father to back up their teaching in the Bible.

So they say they believe in Sola Scriptura as Doctrine(with the exception of the LDS group) but without variation turn to tradition of one sort or another to validate their opinion of Scripture. So go figure…

God Bless

 

[EricFilmer]

We can both make that claim, as evidence that purgatory is not explicit in the bible. When it helps your cause you say trust the bible, when the bible does not help your cause you say trust tradition.

Actually there is notable difference between the claims that you and I make. Although the doctrine of Purgatory is, at best, implied in Scripture, there is nothing inherently contradictory about this doctrine.

This is not the case with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is paradoxical because it states that Scripture alone is to be used for the formulation of authentic Christian doctrine, and yet Scripture does not actually teach this. So this means that Sola Scriptura is an extra-biblical doctrine that teaches people to reject extra-biblical doctrines. In other words, it fails to pass its own test of authenticity! In light of this, the concept of Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory, and (according to the general rules of logic and philosophy) any proposed concept which is inherently contradictory must be disregarded as false.

 

[bogeydogg]

Actually there is notable difference between the claims that you and I make. Although the doctrine of Purgatory is, at best, implied in Scripture, there is nothing inherently contradictory about this doctrine.

This is not the case with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is paradoxical because it states that Scripture alone is to be used for the formulation of authentic Christian doctrine, and yet Scripture does not actually teach this. So this means that Sola Scriptura is an extra-biblical doctrine that teaches people to reject extra-biblical doctrines. In other words, it fails to pass its own test of authenticity! In light of this, the concept of Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory, and (according to the general rules of logic and philosophy) any proposed concept which is inherently contradictory must be disregarded as false.

I think you are correct about a crass understanding about Sola Scriptura.

What Luther taught is that if there is an argument about councils or Papal Bulls or some such, that Scripture, if it had something to say about the matter, should be the final authority. Luthers problem was that he usually couldn’t manage to say this without calling the Pope the anti-christ which, to say the least, didn’t help. And when Cardinal Cajetan called him out on the very contradiction you have pointed out, Luther, instead of backing down, said a farmer should be believed over the Pope.

I think had someone with a cooler head that Luther been the one to raise his concerns the reformation never happens. Even as a Lutheran the longer I study and the more I think about it and deal with various denominations the more I wonder if it ever should have.

There is so much false doctrine and such a total abandonment of the sacraments in nearly every corner of Christendom that I think back to Rome warning Luther that a flood of iniquity would be loosed if a farmer were allowed to think of himself as being on equal footing with a Pope, and I see around me that very flood of iniquity.

One need only turn on the TV to see a health and wealth and prosperity preacher to know it is true. It makes me sad to see the Name of my Lord drug through the mud again and again for financial or political gain and I wonder more and more each day if the Reformation heros I was taught about really were the heros I was led to believe they were.

And I read this thread and I see how intractable the Sola proponents are and I wonder to myself if the schism will ever heal because the more I study the Catholic faith and read about it through the eyes of men like Augustine and Thomas the more I see we don’t have to be so far apart if we could just be a little more humble about what the Bible teaches.

As I have already said, people may teach Sola Scriptura, but they don’t believe it and you can by their preaching. They say they don’t believe in cooperating with grace or “works salvation” (which of course the RCC does not teach “works salvation”) but they have traded grace for prayer cards and I wonder how much different the peddled miracles on TV could possibly from Tetzel (again a practice the RCC never sanctioned).

So I think the schisms could be healed with humility, and I know the more I humble myself before the Scripture alone the stronger my affection for the Roman Catholic Church, so perhaps the Sola defendants should do the same.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

I think you are correct about a crass understanding about Sola Scriptura.

What Luther taught is that if there is an argument about councils or Papal Bulls or some such, that Scripture, if it had something to say about the matter, should be the final authority. Luthers problem was that he usually couldn’t manage to say this without calling the Pope the anti-christ which, to say the least, didn’t help. And when Cardinal Cajetan called him out on the very contradiction you have pointed out, Luther, instead of backing down, said a farmer should be believed over the Pope.

I think had someone with a cooler head that Luther been the one to raise his concerns the reformation never happens. Even as a Lutheran the longer I study and the more I think about it and deal with various denominations the more I wonder if it ever should have.

There is so much false doctrine and such a total abandonment of the sacraments in nearly every corner of Christendom that I think back to Rome warning Luther that a flood of iniquity would be loosed if a farmer were allowed to think of himself as being on equal footing with a Pope, and I see around me that very flood of iniquity.

One need only turn on the TV to see a health and wealth and prosperity preacher to know it is true. It makes me sad to see the Name of my Lord drug through the mud again and again for financial or political gain and I wonder more and more each day if the Reformation heros I was taught about really were the heros I was led to believe they were.

And I read this thread and I see how intractable the Sola proponents are and I wonder to myself if the schism will ever heal because the more I study the Catholic faith and read about it through the eyes of men like Augustine and Thomas the more I see we don’t have to be so far apart if we could just be a little more humble about what the Bible teaches.

As I have already said, people may teach Sola Scriptura, but they don’t believe it and you can by their preaching. They say they don’t believe in cooperating with grace or “works salvation” (which of course the RCC does not teach “works salvation”) but they have traded grace for prayer cards and I wonder how much different the peddled miracles on TV could possibly from Tetzel (again a practice the RCC never sanctioned).

So I think the schisms could be healed with humility, and I know the more I humble myself before the Scripture alone the stronger my affection for the Roman Catholic Church, so perhaps the Sola defendants should do the same.

God Bless

There is no voice like that of experience. Well said. Our Lord was meek and humble of heart, and the more we seek to emulate Him, the closer we are drawn to Him.

 

[EricFilmer]

I think you are correct about a crass understanding about Sola Scriptura…

Thanks for your insights on this.

So I think the schisms could be healed with humility…

I agree, and I think everyone involved should exercise the virtue of humility while seeking unity. Humility, after all, opposes pride, and pride is the source for a lot of divisions.

 

[Bezant]

just curious.

Well, I don’t know of any religion that has a ‘sola scriptura’ view of its holy texts, that a) isn’t a struggling/insignificant community b) remains true to that view. Forget about a lack of consistency, I think it’s a pretty short-lived concept.

 

[Abu]

bogeydogg #72
What Luther taught is that if there is an argument about councils or Papal Bulls or some such, that Scripture, if it had something to say about the matter, should be the final authority.

Here he is wrong, for the final authority is Christ’s Supreme Vicar, the Pope who has Christ’s promise of the protection of the Holy Spirit against teaching error “when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” The Pope has to approve everything which is taught by an Ecumenical Council.

As taught by the Second Vatican Council: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Note that, as a companion of Christ, Saint John wrote: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

 

[exnihilo]

Excellent post. Frankly, you sound quite Catholic. High Church Lutheran or Anglican?

Thanks! If I had to pick I’d say very High Church Lutheran. I’ve come to realize I’m in the wrong church right now. I’ve been in the process for some time discerning where I should go.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You ignore the fact that what we call scripture was the result of men deciding what was inspired and what was not. Therefore this canon of scripture which you covet above an authoritative church is really a dreaded tradition of man. There is no inspired table of contents. Some men got together and decided the gospel of Matthew was inspired but the gospel of Thomas wasn’t. The gospel of Luke was inspired but the gospel of Peter wasn’t. If, as you claim, these men had no authority to do this then how can you hold onto their decision as to what is inspired? Can you prove the Epistle to Philomen is inspired? If you can’t then how can you make the claim that it is? It would be nice if the Bible dropped out of heaven, leather bound, gilt edged, on fine parchment, in the King’s English with the words of Jesus in red ink. But it didn’t. The truth of the matter is you place your trust in a book, the contents of which was the decision of the Church in the late fourth century while we Catholics place our trust in the Church that made the decisions on the contents of the book. How can the book be greater than the Church that was responsible for it? p

I disagree with your first sentence and thus the remaining premise. The Bible was God inspired not man inspired.

Where did I say the bible was man inspired??? I said men DETERMINED what was inspired. That is an absolutely true statement. Men made the decisions as to what was inspired. If you read the history of the early church you would know that. God never provided mankind with a list of books that were inspired. That’s why I said there was no inspired Table of Contents. The bottom line is you accept the bible as inspired because those Catholic Bishops decided what was and what was not inspired. Your whole basis of accepting the canonicity of the Bible is because the Catholic Church says so. And by doing that you implicitly accept the authority of the Catholic Church to make that decision. Now I can understand how and why you don’t like that because it blows your fundamental doctrine of sola scriptura out of the water and exposes protestantism as a man made tradition. And rightfully so.

 

[inkaneer]

First you have to define what is meant by Sola Scriptura. People use the phrase to mean a lot of different things. But I’ll consider it to mean that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. …

And who is to blame for that? Who do we blame for the various definitions of sola scriptura? Look this is a Catholic Forum and Catholics know Latin. It is still the official language of the church. Sola Scriptura as the term was originally coined by protestants meant that Scripture alone was authoritative. Later other protestants saw that this definition was not quite correct. And so came the progression of different definitions and sola scriptura morphed into fini scriptura, scripture is the final authority and now scripture has all the knowledge necessary for salvation.

Lost in all this was the real purpose of the scriptures in the first place. For over 300 years of the early church there was no Bible. Does that mean no one was saved because they didn’t have the “knowledge necessary”. No, there was the Oral Tradition that Paul told us in scripture to hold onto [2Thess 2:15] That verse has never been expunged from the scriptures. Nowhere, despite some claims from protestants, do the scriptures say that all of the Oral Tradition has been reduced to writing. The scriptures came about because of one thing, Gnosticism. Gnostic writings were being generated that were causing confusion in the early church. Churches in various locals were using different writings in their worship and some of them were Gnostic. Therefore in different locales local synods were held in which the issue was discussed and a list of books acceptable to be used in the worship of the Mass were drawn up. These synods were held in Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. They came up with the exact same list of books. They accepted the 46 books of the Greek Septuagint as books of the Old Covenant and 27 books as the books of the New Covenant. This paved the way for Jerome to translate the Greek texts into Latin and codify them into one book and thus we got the Bible. But note the purpose of the Bible was to gather into one book those writings which were suitable for use in the celebration of the Mass. The purpose was therefore liturgical. Protestants have taken a liturgical book and turned it into a self study guide and along the way discarded seven books that did not fit their theological ideas. They also discarded the authoritative church which gave them the scriptures. Blame the protestants for sola scriptura and its many definitions they invented it and they perverted it.