Isn't Sola Scriptura kind of... Paradoxical?

[jgrosshe]

Now I’m probably just uneducated on the doctrine of Sola Scirptura, but to me the idea seems to almost contradict itself…

For instance, if Scripture is all we have, then we must rely on its own opinion that it is the Word of God. Furthermore, if we rely on Scripture alone, there is no way of knowing what is indeed the Word of God, as there is no “Inspired Table of Contents”. Thus, if you dug up this manuscript saying:

“This is the Holy Word of God. You must do as this says, because it is the Word of God. You know that this is the Word of God, because you are supposed to believe what the Word of God says. This is the Word of God, and I am telling you that I am the Word of God, and because you are supposed to do what the Word of God says, you must do as I say, because this is the Word of God. You must believe that I am the Word of God, because that is what I, the Word of God, have just told you that I am.” (Paradox of Sola Scriptura 1:1)

Is that really what Bible-Only Christians believe the Bible is saying? That it is the Word of God, so you must do what it says? Also, how would this manuscript be ruled out as possibly also being the Word of God? Don’t you need something outside the Bible to support the idea of it being the Word? Was it not the Catholic Church to officially decide which writings of the Apostles and Paul were to be included? Thus, must there authority not also be equal to the Word of God as to define what is indeed Scripture?

So I guess in a nutshell my question is: Is not the very idea of a Bible entirely dependent upon Oral Tradition also being the Word of God?

So thanks for reading my post and if anyone could maybe explain I’d be grateful

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Now I’m probably just uneducated on the doctrine of Sola Scirptura, but to me the idea seems to almost contradict itself…

You get that impression, because it does

 

[2nd_Adam]

Just about all of the great Christian doctrines have great tension which appear contradictory through human reasoning. We accept these paradox tensions in faith as God wisdom is so beyond our wisdom. We should simply trust in the Lord with all of our heart, and not lean in our own understanding. God has revealed Himself and His will in Sacred Scripture.

 

[jgrosshe]

Just about all of the great Christian doctrines have great tension which appear contradictory through human reasoning. We accept these paradox tensions in faith as God wisdom is so beyond our wisdom. We should simply trust in the Lord with all of our heart, and not lean in our own understanding. God has revealed Himself and His will in Sacred Scripture.

However, I still feel that you are dependent upon the Catholic Church… Was it not the early Church that canonically determined what was included in the Holy Bible? Do you not accept their authority upon the decision of what writings were The Word of God (At least in the NT)? And how can their authority be great enough to determine what is indeed Holy Scripture if Sacred Tradition is not also the Word of God? Wouldn’t it have to be in order to authorize Scripture? And if you accept that God worked through the Catholic Church then, why would you deny that He is still with his One Church?

 

[gmcbroom]

Ahhh… now you understand. You see I believe and this is just my opinion mind you. But I believe the Reformers perceived corruption in the Catholic Church at that time called for the Reformers to act; to save what they could of the faith. That meant they took what they considered the core teachings… ie the Bible at that time and ran. This of course was a double edged sword. For while they could preserve what they could ie the book, ultimately they would have to build on it. Thats good for them as it gives them automy to repair the areas they perceived were in error. But bad because once the geniis out of the bottle. Then everything becomes fair game. That’s why some non denominational churches have female and homosexual clergy. I’m not judging the female or homosexual clergy as that province is God’s alone. I’m merely stating my own opinion of why some perceive Sola Scriptura to be paradoxical. Is it wrong to have female and homosexual clergy in the Catholic church yes it is. However, the other Christian churches can allow them all they want.

 

[2nd_Adam]

However, I still feel that you are dependent upon the Catholic Church… Was it not the early Church that canonically determined what was included in the Holy Bible? Do you not accept their authority upon the decision of what writings were The Word of God (At least in the NT)? And how can their authority be great enough to determine what is indeed Holy Scripture if Sacred Tradition is not also the Word of God? Wouldn’t it have to be in order to authorize Scripture? And if you accept that God worked through the Catholic Church then, why would you deny that He is still with his One Church?

I personally don’t because I believe there is great contiunity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Actually, the New Testament is made up of mostly Scripture from the Old Testament. The Apostles were mainly Jewish and Jesus quoted Old Testament Scripture. So, if I thought like you, I would recoginze the Old Testament Church first and foremost.

 

[DKconvert2006]

Adam, thank you for posting the links. I would have been confused by your quote out of context.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Adam, thank you for posting the links. I would have been confused by your quote out of context.

You are more than welcome. My motive is to get everyone to read those two links in its entire context. They are a bridge to Christian unity.

 

[bookgirl32]

You are more than welcome. My motive is to get everyone to read those two links in its entire context. They are a bridge to Christian unity.

Beware: 2nd Adam has his own very unique understanding of those documents that is not in line with official Catholic teaching. He has every right to hold that understanding, but he can be confusing at times in the way he presents them.

 

[jgrosshe]

I personally don’t because I believe there is great contiunity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Yes I would agree entirely with their continuity. However, didn’t Paul write numerous writings that are not considered canonical? Surely they were also in continuity with the OT? Simply put, how do we know that they are not to be the Word of God as well? Unless that is, that we depend upon the authority of the Catholic Church in order to determine that?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Yes I would agree entirely with their continuity. However, didn’t Paul write numerous writings that are not considered canonical? Surely they were also in continuity with the OT? Simply put, how do we know that they are not to be the Word of God as well? Unless that is, that we depend upon the authority of the Catholic Church in order to determine that?

Please help me out. What does the Catholic Church teach in regards to her role in regards to the Old Testament? Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament consistently. Therefore, Jesus authenticated the Old Testament simply by referencing them as the Word of God during His earthly ministry.

 

[guanophore]

Just about all of the great Christian doctrines have great tension which appear contradictory through human reasoning.

I am not sure this is true, but I am sure that Sola Scriptura is not a 'great Christian doctrine". On the contrary, it is a doctrine of men that has spawned more division in the Body than any other!

We accept these paradox tensions in faith as God wisdom is so beyond our wisdom.

Well, speak for yourself, 2nd. Those who have received the One Faith from the Apostles do not accept any such heresies. However, it is go that you realize SS is a paradoxical tension.You are also right that it is “beyond wisdom”. Even common sense will attest that such a doctrine would have to come from Scripture, otherwise, it violates itself.

 We should simply trust in the Lord with all of our heart, and not lean in our own understanding.

I agree that we should trust the Lord. However, he did not leave us orphaned. The idea of each one doing what he thinks is right in his own eyes is not consistent with God’s plan for mankind.

God has revealed Himself and His will in Sacred Scripture.

Indeed, He has. This is why we do not see the doctrine of SS contained in Scripture. This is why He established a Church,and gave authority to people, not writings, however Holy.

 

[guanophore]

However, I still feel that you are dependent upon the Catholic Church… Was it not the early Church that canonically determined what was included in the Holy Bible? Do you not accept their authority upon the decision of what writings were The Word of God (At least in the NT)? And how can their authority be great enough to determine what is indeed Holy Scripture if Sacred Tradition is not also the Word of God? Wouldn’t it have to be in order to authorize Scripture? And if you accept that God worked through the Catholic Church then, why would you deny that He is still with his One Church?

This is the very issue that 2nd has been trying to dodge since he got here.

 

[guanophore]

So, if I thought like you, I would recoginze the Old Testament Church first and foremost.

Except that there was no such thing.

Jesus founded His Church. there is only One, and it belongs to the NT.

 

[guanophore]

Please help me out. What does the Catholic Church teach in regards to her role in regards to the Old Testament?

Please don’t derail yet another thread, 2nd. This is a good question, but it belongs over in Apologetics.

Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament consistently.

The Septuagint!

Therefore, Jesus authenticated the Old Testament simply by referencing them as the Word of God during His earthly ministry.

Including the Deuterocanonicals.

This is why we accept the Septuagint. However, the list of books that belongs in the NT is not contained in the NT. Therefore, how do you know the collection that you have is valid?

Why are not more of the 400+ floating around at the time, claiming to be inspired, included? why are the letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Didache not included? They were used extensively at the early church.

 

[crazzeto]

Just about all of the great Christian doctrines have great tension which appear contradictory through human reasoning. We accept these paradox tensions in faith as God wisdom is so beyond our wisdom. We should simply trust in the Lord with all of our heart, and not lean in our own understanding. God has revealed Himself and His will in Sacred Scripture.

Except this one really is contradictory, and completly unsupportable scriptually.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Please don’t derail yet another thread, 2nd. This is a good question, but it belongs over in Apologetics.

The Septuagint!

Including the Deuterocanonicals.

This is why we accept the Septuagint. However, the list of books that belongs in the NT is not contained in the NT. Therefore, how do you know the collection that you have is valid?

Why are not more of the 400+ floating around at the time, claiming to be inspired, included? why are the letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Didache not included? They were used extensively at the early church.

And what about one of the most important the Gospel of Mary, the only gospel of the ministry of the chief woman disciple - Mary Magdalene.

 

[benidict]

I am not sure this is true, but I am sure that Sola Scriptura is not a 'great Christian doctrine". On the contrary, it is a doctrine of men that has spawned more division in the Body than any other!

Well, speak for yourself, 2nd. Those who have received the One Faith from the Apostles do not accept any such heresies. However, it is go that you realize SS is a paradoxical tension.You are also right that it is “beyond wisdom”. Even common sense will attest that such a doctrine would have to come from Scripture, otherwise, it violates itself.

I agree that we should trust the Lord. However, he did not leave us orphaned. The idea of each one doing what he thinks is right in his own eyes is not consistent with God’s plan for mankind.

Indeed, He has. This is why we do not see the doctrine of SS contained in Scripture. This is why He established a Church,and gave authority to people, not writings, however Holy.

here we go again brother! i just cannot wait to see what adam comes up with next, and how you will refute it with the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth! so helps yep i said helps you God!

 

[SSTeacher]

jgrosshe;5879766:

Now I’m probably just uneducated on the doctrine of Sola Scirptura, but to me the idea seems to almost contradict itself…

You get that impression, because it does

I think one’s response to this doctrine probably depends upon one’s presuppositions. The Catholic view and the Orthodox view are that the doctrine is flawed and it’s the view that I now endorse. But during the time that I was an Evangelical Christian I saw nothing amiss with the doctrine. Indeed, I very much enjoyed applying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or, in my case, SOLO Scriptura) to my life and with hindsight I believe I benefited greatly from doing so.

So I guess in a nutshell my question is: Is not the very idea of a Bible entirely dependent upon Oral Tradition also being the Word of God?

Assuming Catholic presuppositions the Catholic argument against the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura is, I think, a weighty one. But if one comes to doctrine with the notion that the Catholic Church might have fallen into error the argument is a lot less compelling.

I guess most would agree it was the Church that decided the canon of the Bible. However, I think people then begin to think differently. Catholics seem to align themselves with the notion that the Catholic Church is the guardian of the Bible and that she alone has the right to interpret what the Bible means. An alternative view is that the Church was indeed the discoverer of the canon but in subsequently introducing doctrines and practices that contradict what the Bible says the Catholic Church exceeded its authority and consequently must now be vigorously opposed.

Amongst Evangelical Christians I know many that take the Bible very seriously. For them it is the Word of God so they read it every day and try to act upon what they learn. But it’s my experience that Catholics – despite the fact that the Catholic Church formally encourages the reading of Scripture – are often biblically illiterate because they rarely, if ever, pick up a Bible.

Isn’t that kind of… Paradoxical?

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[SingleMomMonica]

IAmongst Evangelical Christians I know many that take the Bible very seriously. For them it is the Word of God so they read it every day and try to act upon what they learn. But it’s my experience that Catholics – despite the fact that the Catholic Church formally encourages the reading of Scripture – are often biblically illiterate because they rarely, if ever, pick up a Bible.

Isn’t that kind of… Paradoxical?

Ecumenically,
Mick

When I was a practicing Catholic, one of the things that would drive me nuts when speaking with Catholics who had either fallen away from the Catholic Church or were in the process of falling way from the Catholic Church is that they would claim that they were never taught the Bible! I would tell them that the Bible was read at every single Mass every day, but the would tell me things like, “Well, I don’t know what kinda Catholic Church you’re going to, but at …such & such… Roman Catholic Church, they never read the Bible once and I was attended every Sunday for my entire life.”

How is it that fallen away life-long Catholics attended Masses regularly for years, if not their entire lives, but never once noticed that the Bible was being read to them?

To this day, it just puzzles me.