Problem with Sola Scriptura

[WALTHER]

Dogface Soldier,

You write:

to the contrary, i was merely using examples to illustrate my point regarding the logical defects in your argument. i know it’s tough to be a Lutheran on a Catholic forum, and i am sure many have made false and uncharitable implications of your faith and beliefs. however, i would appreciate it if you did not do so of mine.

You equated cupcake recipes and country’s constitutions with the Word of God as regards its effect. To do so demonstrates, quite clearly, a low view of Scripture.

You also write:

I must point out that it necessarily follows from your argument that everyone who merely reads the Bible would be saved. I guess before we go much further, I should ask whether you believe Sola Scriptura to mean that Scripture contains the entire deposit of the Christian faith, or that one may obtain salvation simply by reading Scripture alone, or both.

The question of why some are saved and some are not through the preaching, teaching, and reading of God’s Word is one better left to the sophists and philosophers, not to the theologian. The true theologian does not concern himself with such questions, rather he merely restates and reaffirms the words of the Prophets and Apostles.

Scripture teaches that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God [Romans 10:17]. Christ also states that if we abide in His Word, we will know the truth and the truth will set us free [John 8:32]. Therefore, it is the Word of God, whether it be verbal or written, that both causes faith and effects salvation. Likewise, it is through the abiding in this Word that we are given knowledge of the truth.

However, this does not mean that the verbal word is free to roam wherever it wishes, dreams, and fancies. On the contrary, the verbal word is limited to the teachings of Christ, as recorded by the Prophets and Apostles, “the faith that was *once for all *entrusted to the saints” [Jude v.3].

Therefore, the Holy Spirit works through the Word and the Sacraments to create, engender, strengthen, and preserve faith unto the end in the believer. Yet, some will fall away, not due to the unwillingness of the Spirit, but to the depravity of the sinner. Let us not, then, indulge in philosophical extrapolations concerning the Word of the Almighty.

You write again:

your analysis is simply incorrect. we are not born again of “words”; that doesn’t make logical or theological sense (Jesus death and resurrection would be operative whether or not anyone ever wrote a single letter about it). it does make sense, however, if we view “word” as the Logos as used by John. But even accepting your reading as accurate, you still haven’t shown why “word” must only be the written word.

We certainly are born again by the Word of God. The Sacraments exemplify this well. For both Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are effective due only to the command, institution, and inclusion of God’s Word. That Word has been taught to us–though in previous days in diverse manners–through the Scripture, just as St. Peter speaks of our having been born of that imperishable seed: the Word of God; the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sufficient, effective, authoritative, and perspicuous, the source of our salvation and hope.

WALTHER

 

[stbruderklaus]

You know, a basic student of history could do a better survey of this subject than our Roman apologists here. Since there seems to be no interest in real and honest discussion, I’m heading out again

I hope it stings the conscience that Roman apologists like the ones we have here, go a long way to helping reinforce my love of the Lutheran Reformation… An honest, simple, Apostolic and catholic approach to the Christian faith.

Perhaps when someone wants to honestly address the ideas and history, I’ll re-engage. Until then, I have souls to tend.

Peace be with you all.

 

[CalCatholic]

You know, a basic student of history could do a better survey of this subject than our Roman apologists here. Since there seems to be no interest in real and honest discussion, I’m heading out again

I hope it stings the conscience that Roman apologists like the ones we have here, go a long way to helping reinforce my love of the Lutheran Reformation… An honest, simple, Apostolic and catholic approach to the Christian faith.

Perhaps when someone wants to honestly address the ideas and history, I’ll re-engage. Until then, I have souls to tend.

Peace be with you all.

Maybe next time you will show a little more respect to the Catholic Church instead of referring to as ‘a papal system’. You come to a Catholic forum and say that, then you complain that no one here wants to seriously debate you with facts, what do you think the response will be? I think you need to do a little self reflection.

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

You equated cupcake recipes and country’s constitutions with the Word of God as regards its effect. To do so demonstrates, quite clearly, a low view of Scripture.

i did no such thing. i did, however, note that Scripture, recipes, and constitutions are all types of written data. I can enumerate different examples of a certain class without equating those examples with one another. I can point out that both a Rolex and a Timex are types of watches, and no one would think that i am equating, or even approximating the two. You know what I can’t do? I can’t accuse you of having a low view of Scripture just because you refer to it as the “Bible” (literally, “book”). It would be absurd, and probably offensive to you, if i accused you of equating Scripture with all other books.So, please, don’t be absurd or offensive.

The question of why some are saved and some are not through the preaching, teaching, and reading of God’s Word is one better left to the sophists and philosophers, not to the theologian. The true theologian does not concern himself with such questions, rather he merely restates and reaffirms the words of the Prophets and Apostles.

given your apparent theory of sotierology, i would think it is a centrally important question.

Scripture teaches that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God [Romans 10:17].

indeed it does, and we may be grateful for that. However, aren’t we called to be doers of the Word, not merely hearers?

Christ also states that if we abide in His Word, we will know the truth and the truth will set us free [John 8:32].

here you go again; why does “abiding” have anything to do with anything. you just said that faith comes from hearing, and you seem to imply that such a passive faith is sufficient. Which is it?

Therefore, it is the Word of God, whether it be verbal or written, that both causes faith and effects salvation. Likewise, it is through the abiding in this Word that we are given knowledge of the truth.

However, this does not mean that the verbal word is free to roam wherever it wishes, dreams, and fancies. On the contrary, the verbal word is limited to the teachings of Christ, as recorded by the Prophets and Apostles, “the faith that was *once for all *entrusted to the saints” [Jude v.3].

need i point out that “entrusted” in no way implies written?

Therefore, the Holy Spirit works through the Word and the Sacraments to create, engender, strengthen, and preserve faith unto the end in the believer.

Are you claiming that the Word and the Sacraments are co-equal? Could you please provide me with a definition of what the Word is, and what it does, according to your belief?

For both Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are effective due only to the command, institution, and inclusion of God’s Word.

Your use of “Word” is very difficult to follow. The Sacraments are effective because Christ instituted them.

the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sufficient, effective, authoritative, and perspicuous, the source of our salvation and hope.

again, your usage is confusing. If by “Gospel”, you mean the literal sense of “the events and activity of Christ” and all that they entail, then I (and every Catholic) totally agree.

 

[inkaneer]

First, one must remember that the catch phrase “Scripture Alone” comes with a great deal of theological explanation. While it may be sef-gratifying for a Roman Catholic to lampoon the idea based on only the phrase, the more honest approach would be to address the complete idea.

Lutherans accept Scripture Alone in a very particular way (sort of how Romans accept Papal Infallibility in a very particular and nuanced way.) We believe, teach, and confess that what is recorded in Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God, and as such, it is the bedrock of what the Church believes, teaches, and confesses… i.e., it is the sole source and norm of Christian teaching and practice. It is uniquely verifiable, uniquely objective, and genuinely catholic for all Christians. The written words of the Prophets and the Apostles stand not on the individual prophet nor apostle, but on the God who speaks through them.

Lutherans also understand the Scriptures within the context of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is the Church which carries forth and promulgates the Scriptures in every age, and the Church which is called to be faithful to the Word of God as she carries them. We know that the Word of God is powerful, that faith comes by hearing it, and that by faith grace is received unto salvation. We preach the Word of God, because God promised that His Word will never fail, nor falter-- we might be free to reject it, but it does not lose its inherent dignity based on our own evil response. We recognize that there is a history of interpretation to the Holy Scriptures, and that no one can interpret it by themselves… it is a Word held in community, held in the very Body of Christ, the Church.

When we say “Scripture Alone,” we distinguish the Holy Scriptures from any particular interpretation or application of them. You will notice, if you read them, that the Lutheran Confessions are repleat with quotations and references to the Church Fathers. Lutherans stand in the line of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Athenasius, Irenaus, Clement, Bernard, and many others. The Fathers were never perfectly united in their interpretation nor application of the Scriptures… hence the Councils, where at least in the first 7, the bishops gathered together to figure out how to settle conflicts amidst the bishops, based on the Word of God. If you read the canons of the seven ecumenical councils, you’ll find this to be so. It is even an ecumenical council, gathered around the Word of God, which condemns Pope Honorius as a heretic-- no structure and no individual is ever above the Word of God, and the Church is always called to be faithful to it.

So, when Lutherans stood on “Scripture Alone” in the 16th century, it was against a papal system which had deviated from both the Scriptures and the faithful Fathers. Lutherans argued for a simple faith and piety of the Patristic age, and Rome argued for… well, they argued for something else, based on high-medieval scholasticism, Aristotle, and Peter Lombard. Today, Lutherans still confess “Scripture Alone,” but in a catholic context that does not sever us from either the One Holy Church nor the ancient Fathers, nor the historic creeds. While the purported traditions which have been “handed down” can be called into question and challenged for their veracity, the Word of God continues to be God’s unalterable Word to us, His Church. Hence, Lutherans judge tradition by the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,

Due to length my response will be in two posts. First let me address the comments about Pope Honorius I. The response to the claim of Papal authority “deviating” from the Scriptures and the Fathers and where sola scriptura actually came from and where it is today will be in my second post…

First, Pope Honorius I. He was not a heretic. This claim of protestants has been proved to be fraudulent. Pope Honorius I did not teach error nor has any pope taught error. Honorius was chastised for his inaction rather than his action. Honorius taught nothing that was in error. Instead he failed in not teaching anything. However, the event does prove that The office of the chief steward of the Apostles, the papacy, was very much a fact in the seventh century and recognized as such by the Orthodox. The Patriarch of Constantinople, a man named Sergius, wrote to Honorius asking for a clarification regarding the use of the expression, “…one operation” (energeia) of the Incarnate Word." as used by the Emperor Heracliusin a speech in which he tried to refute a Monophysite. Cyrus, Bishop of the Lazi, had considered this doubtfully orthodox, and had asked advice of Sergius. Sergius was not a great theologian and referred the matter onto Honorius saying that he did not wish to decide the matter but added that the expression had been used by his predecessor Mennas in a letter to Pope Vigilius. However, He apparently was unaware that the letter from Mennas to Vigilius was a Monophysite forgery. So it was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. However, he did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. In addition, there was no intent by Honorius to diseminate the letter to the whole church. Honorius died relatively soon afterwards. After his death Honorius was condemned but later when the Monophysite heresy was better understood the condemnation of Honorius was regarded as unfounded.

 

[inkaneer]

I’m going to assume a charitable stance on this, despite the obvious combativeness of the original poster.

First, one must remember that the catch phrase “Scripture Alone” comes with a great deal of theological explanation. While it may be sef-gratifying for a Roman Catholic to lampoon the idea based on only the phrase, the more honest approach would be to address the complete idea.

Lutherans accept Scripture Alone in a very particular way (sort of how Romans accept Papal Infallibility in a very particular and nuanced way.) We believe, teach, and confess that what is recorded in Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God, and as such, it is the bedrock of what the Church believes, teaches, and confesses… i.e., it is the sole source and norm of Christian teaching and practice. It is uniquely verifiable, uniquely objective, and genuinely catholic for all Christians. The written words of the Prophets and the Apostles stand not on the individual prophet nor apostle, but on the God who speaks through them.

Lutherans also understand the Scriptures within the context of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is the Church which carries forth and promulgates the Scriptures in every age, and the Church which is called to be faithful to the Word of God as she carries them. We know that the Word of God is powerful, that faith comes by hearing it, and that by faith grace is received unto salvation. We preach the Word of God, because God promised that His Word will never fail, nor falter-- we might be free to reject it, but it does not lose its inherent dignity based on our own evil response. We recognize that there is a history of interpretation to the Holy Scriptures, and that no one can interpret it by themselves… it is a Word held in community, held in the very Body of Christ, the Church.

When we say “Scripture Alone,” we distinguish the Holy Scriptures from any particular interpretation or application of them. You will notice, if you read them, that the Lutheran Confessions are repleat with quotations and references to the Church Fathers. Lutherans stand in the line of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Athenasius, Irenaus, Clement, Bernard, and many others. The Fathers were never perfectly united in their interpretation nor application of the Scriptures… hence the Councils, where at least in the first 7, the bishops gathered together to figure out how to settle conflicts amidst the bishops, based on the Word of God. If you read the canons of the seven ecumenical councils, you’ll find this to be so. It is even an ecumenical council, gathered around the Word of God, which condemns Pope Honorius as a heretic-- no structure and no individual is ever above the Word of God, and the Church is always called to be faithful to it.

So, when Lutherans stood on “Scripture Alone” in the 16th century, it was against a papal system which had deviated from both the Scriptures and the faithful Fathers. Lutherans argued for a simple faith and piety of the Patristic age, and Rome argued for… well, they argued for something else, based on high-medieval scholasticism, Aristotle, and Peter Lombard. Today, Lutherans still confess “Scripture Alone,” but in a catholic context that does not sever us from either the One Holy Church nor the ancient Fathers, nor the historic creeds. While the purported traditions which have been “handed down” can be called into question and challenged for their veracity, the Word of God continues to be God’s unalterable Word to us, His Church. Hence, Lutherans judge tradition by the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,

Now my second post on this subject. Your second error was the claim that the papal system in the sixteenth century had somehow deviated from the Scriptures and the Fathers. You offer no proof of this and nothing could be further from the truth. No pope ever taught error. The real truth for the Lutheran revolt is that Martin Luther was the product of abusive parents from whom Luther suffered both physical as well as emotional and psychological abuse. All one has to do is to read Luther’s own accounts. He never forgave his father and his description of the incident with his mother over “…an insignificant nut” is quite revealing. Luther grew up knowing authority as abusive. This was to form his basis of theology. Luther reacted to his abusive parents by running away. His father wanted him to be a lawyer but Luther ran and joined the Augustinians. But while he was freed from his parents he was now subject to the authority of the Augustinians and the Church. Again he ran away from both the Augustinians as well as the Church. His “Sola Scriptura” theology was the result. He would only respect the authority of the scriptures which he could control by his own private interpretation. So the two great doctrines of all protestantism, sola scriptura and private interpretation of the scriptures, were formulated. It sounded good and it made church authority obsolete. But it was new and had no basis in Scripture nor the Fathers. Luther lived to see the fracturing and division his doctrines would cause and are still causing.

For example, just this week the ELCA voted approval to “…permit local option on the ordination of gay clergy in committed, monogamous relationships.”

To read more, go here:
: post-gazette.com/pg/09237/993050-455.stm#ixzz0PIPUeBK3
committed homosexual relationships". post-gazette.com/pg/09237/993050-455.stm

So how does this new Lutheran tradition fit in with the Scriptures or what the Fathers said? And how do you then live up your claim that “…Lutherans judge tradition by the Scriptures.”

Another issue here is the fact that church doctrine is now decided by a democratic vote subject to the political whim of the voters. Lutherans do not have doctrine based on absolute truth if indeed they ever did. Their doctrines are based on what truth is relative to the voting membership. So homosexuality was once a sin but now is approved even for clergy in 'committed, monogamous relationships."

 

[WALTHER]

Dogface Soldier,

You write:

i did no such thing. i did, however, note that Scripture, recipes, and constitutions are all types of written data. I can enumerate different examples of a certain class without equating those examples with one another. I can point out that both a Rolex and a Timex are types of watches, and no one would think that i am equating, or even approximating the two. You know what I can’t do? I can’t accuse you of having a low view of Scripture just because you refer to it as the “Bible” (literally, “book”). It would be absurd, and probably offensive to you, if i accused you of equating Scripture with all other books.So, please, don’t be absurd or offensive.

Do the Scriptures only *offer *salvation? Do they not also *effect *salvation?

Your analogy only provides for the former. Therefore, according to your own comparison, the Scriptures are lacking in effect in the same way that a recipe or a constitution lack in effect. This is a low view of Scripture.

You also write:

given your apparent theory of sotierology, i would think it is a centrally important question.

What do you mean by this?

Salvation comes by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit through the means of Word and Sacrament. Through these means the Holy Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

In addition, the Holy Spirit speaks not upon His own authority, but rather declares only the things which are of Christ, namely, the Gospel. The Holy Spirit fervently desires the salvation of all men, none being excluded. However, men, through their corrupt nature, lusts, and passions, deny Christ and the one true faith, being the sole cause of their destruction.

Yet, those who are saved, are saved apart from their own works, strivings, efforts, merits, reason, strength, and preparations, being the monergistic work of the Triune God.

Therefore, the paradox exists: why are some justified for Christ’s sake and others damned to hell when all along it is the Lord who desires all to be saved and come to a true knowledge and repentance? If God is omnipotent, will He not accomplish all that He desires? If God is omnibenevolent, will He not prevent all from perishing?

For us to peer into the divine and holy mysteries of God is nothing short of supreme arrogance. The hidden things of God belong to Him alone and are not to be philosophized, psychologized, anthropologized, or theologized, but only adored in simple and humble faith and submission. For if we are to “logically” pry into the secret and blessed will of the Father, we will end in utter error, as do the Calvinists, the Arminians, and, yes, the Romanists. Either one will deny the universal grace of God, or they will deny grace alone, and add their own “free will” as a cooperative agent in the role of their having been justified.

Hence, the true theologian leaves such frivolous and presumptuous discussion to the vanity of the sophists and philosophers, and, instead, clings tightly to the plain words of Holy Scripture, believing them in childlike faith, with all confidence and assurance.

You write:

indeed it does, and we may be grateful for that. However, aren’t we called to be doers of the Word, not merely hearers?

This leads us to the matter of whether a bad tree can produce good fruit. First make the tree good, then fruit will follow in abundance, not being a source or cause of the tree’s goodness, but a necessary result and effect of such goodness.

You then write:

here you go again; why does “abiding” have anything to do with anything. you just said that faith comes from hearing, and you seem to imply that such a passive faith is sufficient. Which is it?

Let me clarify. When I use the word “hearing” I do not speak of it in a human sense, but in a Scriptural sense. That is, one is not saved by a mere external hearing of the word, apart from faith. Rather, through the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, the Word creates and engenders faith through an internal hearing, a spiritual hearing. Thus both faith and this internal hearing occur simultaneously. Why the Spirit is only effective in some and not in all is by no means reflective of the Spirit’s lack of desire or will that all men be saved, but due solely to the fallen and rebellious will of men. Again, to pry any further is impious and wicked.

need i point out that “entrusted” in no way implies written?

Need I point out that “once for all” explicitly means “once for all”? My point being that the faith was delivered to the saints prior to the Epistle of St. Jude, being established during the 1st century.

Is the salvation of which St. Jude speaks distinct from that which St. Peter writes of in his first epistle? Is the “common salvation” of the saints anything more than belief in the good news that was preached to them, the eternal and undying Word of God?

You write:

Are you claiming that the Word and the Sacraments are co-equal? Could you please provide me with a definition of what the Word is, and what it does, according to your belief?

The Word is that which, in conformity to the written Word as it has been handed down the saints of Christ’s Church, is preached, taught, and received in the Sacraments.

You write:

Your use of “Word” is very difficult to follow. The Sacraments are effective because Christ instituted them.

The Sacraments are indeed effective because Christ instituted them. However, it is His Word which is in and with the Sacramental elements (whether it be water, or bread and wine), along with faith, that provide us with their profit and benefit.

You conclude:

again, your usage is confusing. If by “Gospel”, you mean the literal sense of “the events and activity of Christ” and all that they entail, then I (and every Catholic) totally agree.

I cannot articulate the Gospel better than Luther in his explanation of the second article:

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord. He has redeemed, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from power of the devil. He did this not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood, and with His innocent suffering and death, so that I may be His own, live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.

Amen.

WALTHER

 

[believer112]

The problem with Sola Scriptura couched in a syllogism.

All man-made things are imperfect
Sola scriptura is a man-made thing ( Luther and the Reformists made it up )
Therefore, Sola Scriptura is imperfect.

If sola scriptura is imperfect , then would you want to use it to guarantee your salvation.
Think about it.

 

[reccanboy]

Protestants believe in “Scripture only.”

Well, if that is the case, and they only get their information from Scripture, then answer this question:

Where in Scripture does it say “Scripture only”?

Where in the Bible does it say “Follow scripture, and not the book of Mormon”?

The above sentence is similar to your objection, because Sola Scriptura isn’t a positive assertion that you must follow only scripture, but rather it is the claim that the Scriptures don’t speak of another infallible rule of faith other than the scriptures.

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

Do the Scriptures only *offer *salvation? Do they not also *effect *salvation?

Your analogy only provides for the former. Therefore, according to your own comparison, the Scriptures are lacking in effect in the same way that a recipe or a constitution lack in effect. This is a low view of Scripture.

No. No they do not. God effects salvation. He makes that possibility known through his Church, and through His Church, the New Testament. The Scriptures contain inspired data regarding Christ’s life and the Christian life in the Church. In this sense, they are of a distinct quality of written data, but they are written data nonetheless.

For us to peer into the divine and holy mysteries of God is nothing short of supreme arrogance. The hidden things of God belong to Him alone and are not to be philosophized, psychologized, anthropologized, or theologized, but only adored in simple and humble faith and submission. For if we are to “logically” pry into the secret and blessed will of the Father, we will end in utter error, as do the Calvinists, the Arminians, and, yes, the Romanists. Either one will deny the universal grace of God, or they will deny grace alone, and add their own “free will” as a cooperative agent in the role of their having been justified.

Hence, the true theologian leaves such frivolous and presumptuous discussion to the vanity of the sophists and philosophers, and, instead, clings tightly to the plain words of Holy Scripture, believing them in childlike faith, with all confidence and assurance.

i simply don’t know how to respond to this. Each of the faiths you denounce denounces your theology on the same grounds- that you “ignore the plain words of Holy Scripture”. If the words are so plain, then why does each denomination accuse the other failing to recognize their meaning? You are accepting a priori the validity of your own interpretation; such a position, unfortunately , is impervious to reason.

You write:

This leads us to the matter of whether a bad tree can produce good fruit. First make the tree good, then fruit will follow in abundance, not being a source or cause of the tree’s goodness, but a necessary result and effect of such goodness.

to pry any further is impious and wicked.

Says who? You are pretty liberal with your anathemas, here. By what authority do condemn contemplating the activity of God?

Need I point out that “once for all” explicitly means “once for all”? My point being that the faith was delivered to the saints prior to the Epistle of St. Jude, being established during the 1st century.

Well, that depends. John’s Gospel, as it is reprinted in the Bible on your nightstand, wasn’t complete until after Jude, nor were the first two chapters of Luke. But, if your point is that public revelation ended with the Apostles, well, then you have no quarrel with the Catholic Church. Of course, the fact that public revelation concluded does not preclude the ongoing exercise of ecclessial authority or definitive teaching on public revelation.

The Word is that which, in conformity to the written Word as it has been handed down the saints of Christ’s Church, is preached, taught, and received in the Sacraments

…

The Sacraments are indeed effective because Christ instituted them. However, it is His Word which is in and with the Sacramental elements (whether it be water, or bread and wine), along with faith, that provide us with their profit and benefit.

Your use of “Word” in the first passage is completely circular; “the Word is that which is the Word”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Luther acknowledged that he had received Holy Scripture from the Catholic Church. But, Protestants have also considered the Catholic church to be apostate and it was long an article of faith for them to call the Church the Whore of Babylon.

So, they have taken the holy book of an apostate church which is also the Whore of Babylon, and from that book have attempted to construct the true religion!

Does that make much sense? It’s like taking an English translation of the Koran and from that trying to construct the True religion!

That’s no problem at all. God can use even liars and adulterers to do his will - that does not mean he does not hate their lies and adultery. That he worked through the WoB (not my phrase BTW - I’m adopting the POV being argued against, for the sake of making a counter-argument) reflects no credit on it - he can use even the WoB to do his will: that does not mean the WoB is any less hateful because of its crimes. God used the Assyrian king Sennacherib as “the rod of [his] anger” to punish his own people: then he destroyed Sennacherib for his sins, by raising up the man’s sons to be his murderers. After that, he stirred up Nebuchadnezzar to besiege and destroy Jerusalem, its Temple & its king for its idolatry and wickedness - which Nebuchadnezzar did.​

A God who can work through idolatrous & heathen kings to punish his people, can certainly use a sinful Church to benefit his people. The book is no less holy for being in the hands of unholy men - otherwise, nobody could profit from reading it, as all on earth are sinners. God is sinless - even though man is not. This sinless God is well able to protect his own work from human sin - if he wants to. If Jesus could be uncomtaminated by sin although he lived among sinners in world of sin, why is the same not protection possible for the Bible ? AFAICS, the question is not whether God could do that, but whether he has done that. If the whole Church were inhabited solely by devils, he could do it.

There are problems with Scriptura Sola - but I don’t think your objection is one of them.

ISTM your objection could be put like this: is God capable of working through sinners ?

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

Where in the Bible does it say “Follow scripture, and not the book of Mormon”?

The above sentence is similar to your objection, because Sola Scriptura isn’t a positive assertion that you must follow only scripture, but rather it is the claim that the Scriptures don’t speak of another infallible rule of faith other than the scriptures.

that is a patently false claim. If we include 1 Timothy in the canon of Scripture (and there is no reason to presume that any particular Protestant would), then we find that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. It’s pretty hard to argue that the Church is not being identified in Scripture as an infallible rule of faith. Of course, infallibility does not imply exclusivity. For example, 2 Timothy (if it is accepted) speaks of the inspiration and utility of the OT Scriptures, a fair interpretation of this statement is the inerrancy or infallibility of the OT.

 

[WALTHER]

Dogface Soldier,

No. No they do not. God effects salvation. He makes that possibility known through his Church, and through His Church, the New Testament. The Scriptures contain inspired data regarding Christ’s life and the Christian life in the Church. In this sense, they are of a distinct quality of written data, but they are written data nonetheless.

God always works in and through means. The Word is the means that He has chosen to reveal Himself to men (whether by Scripture or Sacrament). Therefore, God works in and through the Word. Hence, indeed, it is the Word that effects salvation, just as it was the Word that formed the heavens and the earth.

You write:

i simply don’t know how to respond to this. Each of the faiths you denounce denounces your theology on the same grounds- that you “ignore the plain words of Holy Scripture”. If the words are so plain, then why does each denomination accuse the other failing to recognize their meaning? You are accepting a priori the validity of your own interpretation; such a position, unfortunately , is impervious to reason.

It is “impervious to reason” to claim that Scripture becomes obscure by sole virtue of one (or many) denying its perspicuity. Does, then, papal authority, following your peculiar line of reasoning, also become non-authoritative by virtue of one (or many) denying its authority?

You write:

Says who? You are pretty liberal with your anathemas, here. By what authority do condemn contemplating the activity of God?

SCRIPTURE:

"Oh, the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

‘For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?’
‘Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."
[Romans 11:33-36]

Tell me, Dogface Soldier, what logic is there in searching for what is unsearchable?

Therefore, we may contemplate the majesty of God only to the extent of what has been revealed to us (for instance, His love for us in Christ, etc.). However, to pry and seek for that which He has purposely hidden from us and kept for Himself is indeed wicked and impious.

You write:

Well, that depends. John’s Gospel, as it is reprinted in the Bible on your nightstand, wasn’t complete until after Jude, nor were the first two chapters of Luke. But, if your point is that public revelation ended with the Apostles, well, then you have no quarrel with the Catholic Church. Of course, the fact that public revelation concluded does not preclude the ongoing exercise of ecclessial authority or definitive teaching on public revelation.

What of private revelation? Does your distinction imply that such revelation is still occurring?

You write:

Your use of “Word” in the first passage is completely circular; “the Word is that which is the Word”.

That is not what I wrote. Rather, I distinguished between that Word which is preached and taught with that Word of Scripture. The former is always held accountable to the latter, yet not in the sense of a word-for-word recitation, but in the sense that all preaching and teaching conform to the Scriptures thought-for-thought. All “doctrine” foreign to the plain reading of the Scriptures is nothing but vain and empty prattle.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[jpk1313]

2 peter 1:20-knowing this first of all that no prophesy or scripture comes from someones own interprettation.

It is the holy spirit that tells us what scripture means and not as the prodestants teach individual interpratation. it is becuse the R.C. church is guided by the holy spirit that it has remained theologicaly unchanged since the begining whereas prodestants have who knows how many denominations each teaching something different.

Jesus loves you

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

Walther,

i don’t think this dialogue is very productive. Your are working with a very nebulous and inconsistent definition of “Word”, which makes any discussion regarding Sola Scriptura difficult.

God always works in and through means. The Word is the means that He has chosen to reveal Himself to men (whether by Scripture or Sacrament). Therefore, God works in and through the Word. Hence, indeed, it is the Word that effects salvation, just as it was the Word that formed the heavens and the earth.

we’ve been over this. If by “Word” you mean “Logos” in the Johannine sense, then I agree that “the Word” effects salvation. If by “Word” you mean scripture, then no, as both as empirical and logical matter, the written Scriptures do no effect salvation, nor do they claim to. The claim that the Scriptures effect salvation can mean only a few things (1) The very existence of the Scriptures effects salvation for all; (2) Reading the Scriptures effects salvation for all who read (or hear) them; or (3) some other non-reading physical contact with the Scriptures effects salvation. The essence of the claim is that it is by operation of the Scriptures, not the reader, that salvation is effected. This is simply untrue. However, i can’t be certain of what it is you actually mean by “the Word”.

It is “impervious to reason” to claim that Scripture becomes obscure by sole virtue of one (or many) denying its perspicuity.

I don’t know what this means. I guess my best response is that there are many individuals who claim the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture, and yet arrive at very different conclusions as to what is the true nature of God, or how to obtain salvation. How can this be?

Does, then, papal authority, following your peculiar line of reasoning, also become non-authoritative by virtue of one (or many) denying its authority?

the claim of Papal Authority is not predicated on it being self-evident, which is how you substantiate your claims (the details of which I am still not entirely clear on).

Tell me, Dogface Soldier, what logic is there in searching for what is unsearchable?

Therefore, we may contemplate the majesty of God only to the extent of what has been revealed to us (for instance, His love for us in Christ, etc.). However, to pry and seek for that which He has purposely hidden from us and kept for Himself is indeed wicked and impious.

i would invite you to read the OT passage where that reference is found, and look at it in context in Paul’s letter. What do you think “searching” and “unsearchable” mean? What do they refer to (i.e., “judgments” and “ways”)? I am certainly grateful that the Early Fathers contemplated God and his nature and infallibly defined the trinity, and defended that doctrine against heresy. Do you confess the trinity? If so, why? I am grateful that the same fathers contemplated and defined the hypostatic union.

What of private revelation? Does your distinction imply that such revelation is still occurring?

Private revelation may occur. It is not binding.

 

[WALTHER]

Dogface Soldier,

You write:

i don’t think this dialogue is very productive. Your are working with a very nebulous and inconsistent definition of “Word”, which makes any discussion regarding Sola Scriptura difficult.

A very unproductive dialogue, indeed.

However, my definition of “Word” is no different than that of the Scriptures.

You then write:

we’ve been over this. If by “Word” you mean “Logos” in the Johannine sense, then I agree that “the Word” effects salvation. If by “Word” you mean scripture, then no, as both as empirical and logical matter, the written Scriptures do no effect salvation, nor do they claim to. The claim that the Scriptures effect salvation can mean only a few things (1) The very existence of the Scriptures effects salvation for all; (2) Reading the Scriptures effects salvation for all who read (or hear) them; or (3) some other non-reading physical contact with the Scriptures effects salvation. The essence of the claim is that it is by operation of the Scriptures, not the reader, that salvation is effected. This is simply untrue. However, i can’t be certain of what it is you actually mean by “the Word”.

And, hence, the cause of our lack of productivity: your continued and obstinate attempts to impose unwarranted logical deductions upon the Holy Scriptures.

You continue:

I don’t know what this means. I guess my best response is that there are many individuals who claim the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture, and yet arrive at very different conclusions as to what is the true nature of God, or how to obtain salvation. How can this be?

Let me speak slowly and clearly, so that you may better understand:

SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE DENIES THE PERSPICUITY (THAT MEANS CLEARNESS) OF THE SCRIPTURES, DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT THE SCRIPTURES BECOME OBSCURE (THAT MEANS UNCLEAR) BY SUCH A DENIAL.

You also write:

the claim of Papal Authority is not predicated on it being self-evident, which is how you substantiate your claims (the details of which I am still not entirely clear on).

My point was simply this: If you are to say that the Holy Scripture becomes insufficient by sole virtue of there being so many heretics, fanatics, and enthusiasts running about and slandering God’s Word with their own vain private and false interpretations, then, by necessity, Papal Authority is also insufficient, as it too, can and has been denied and claimed by various Churches.

You write:

i would invite you to read the OT passage where that reference is found, and look at it in context in Paul’s letter. What do you think “searching” and “unsearchable” mean? What do they refer to (i.e., “judgments” and “ways”)? I am certainly grateful that the Early Fathers contemplated God and his nature and infallibly defined the trinity, and defended that doctrine against heresy. Do you confess the trinity? If so, why? I am grateful that the same fathers contemplated and defined the hypostatic union.

Unsearchable means that the ways of God are wholly and utterly UNSEARCHABLE.

To search means to look for, to seek after, to try to obtain, etc.

Yet, we do have a partial knowledge of God: through HIS WORD IN SCRIPTURE.

Therefore, we know those things which have been given us by God through His gracious Self-revelation to man; and, contrariwise, we do not know the ways of God that have not been spoken to us. Those hidden things belong to God alone, it is only the impious and wicked that search for them.

Once again, slowly and clearly:
We know what we have been told.
We do not know what we have not been told.

As to the matter of the Trinity:

1. Yes, I, with my whole being, gladly confess it.
2. It is defined for us in the Holy Scriptures.

As to the matter of the Hypostatic Union:

1. This doctrine is also defined for us in the Holy Scriptures.

To imagine that it took the brainwork of the early church fathers to formulate these doctrines, as though they were so obscurely hidden in the texts of Scripture that they could not be understood by them, is a violent and pernicious accusation against Scripture and its Author.

Private revelation may occur. It is not binding.

Why? Is not all direct revelation from God binding?

Answer as you see fit, Dogface. I see no need in wasting any further time with this wayward discussion, as we refer back to different foundations: I refer to Christ and His Scriptures, whereas you refer back to the recesses of your own impious head.

Good day,
WALTHER

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

However, my definition of “Word” is no different than that of the Scriptures.

well, then please direct me to the passage of Scripture that provides that definition.

Let me speak slowly and clearly, so that you may better understand:

SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE DENIES THE PERSPICUITY (THAT MEANS CLEARNESS) OF THE SCRIPTURES, DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT THE SCRIPTURES BECOME OBSCURE (THAT MEANS UNCLEAR) BY SUCH A DENIAL.

Walther, I am not here disputing the perspicuity of Scripture. I am making the observation that many different denominations claim the perspicuity of Scripture, and yet arrive at very different doctrinal conclusions. I don’t think that you, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Presbyterian, and Pentecostal will agree on fundamental matters of Christian doctrine. Yet all of you insist on the perspicuity of Scripture. How can that be possible?

My point was simply this: If you are to say that the Holy Scripture becomes insufficient by sole virtue of there being so many heretics, fanatics, and enthusiasts running about and slandering God’s Word with their own vain private and false interpretations, then, by necessity, Papal Authority is also insufficient, as it too, can and has been denied and claimed by various Churches.

and i think you missed my point. The claim of Papal Authority is not based on it being self-evident. It is a historical claim, based, ultimately, on Matthew 16. The claim is further supported by other historical evidence regarding the status of Peter and his successors in the Church. Those who dispute this claim dispute it on historical grounds; they do not believe that these events occurred, or that they did have the effect we ascribe to them. But no one claims that Papal Authority is self-authenticating, as you do regarding Scripture.

Unsearchable means that the ways of God are wholly and utterly UNSEARCHABLE.

To search means to look for, to seek after, to try to obtain, etc.

Yet, we do have a partial knowledge of God: through HIS WORD IN SCRIPTURE.

“wholly and utterly” is incompatible with “partial”, as you use “knowledge of God”.

Therefore, we know those things which have been given us by God through His gracious Self-revelation to man; and, contrariwise, we do not know the ways of God that have not been spoken to us. Those hidden things belong to God alone, it is only the impious and wicked that search for them.

OK, but how do you know which things are given, and which things are hidden? For example, did God give us which and how many books should constitute the canon of Scripture? Please answer this.

Once again, slowly and clearly:
We know what we have been told.
We do not know what we have not been told.

As to the matter of the Trinity:

1. Yes, I, with my whole being, gladly confess it.
2. It is defined for us in the Holy Scriptures.

can you give me some citations from Scripture that describe “the Trinity”? Or “the triune Godhead”? Or the homouiosis?

As to the matter of the Hypostatic Union:

1. This doctrine is also defined for us in the Holy Scriptures.

Then why don’t other Scriptural perspicuity affirming denominations agree with you?

To imagine that it took the brainwork of the early church fathers to formulate these doctrines, as though they were so obscurely hidden in the texts of Scripture that they could not be understood by them, is a violent and pernicious accusation against Scripture and its Author.

Evidently, it was necessary. See the Arian, Marcion, Manicheaen, Gnostic, etc. heresies.

Why? Is not all direct revelation from God binding?

Yes, it is. But not all claims of revelation are authentic. Nor are all the books claiming to be Scripture authentic. Nor are all the doctrines that claim to be derived from “plain meaning of scripture” authentic, et c., et c…

 

[boeck249]

remember the original christian church learned from the original word of god, Jesus directly. He told us to spread the gospel not to wait for the book to come.
The word became flesh.

 

[Portrait]

2 peter 1:20-knowing this first of all that no prophesy or scripture comes from someones own interprettation.

It is the holy spirit that tells us what scripture means and not as the prodestants teach individual interpratation. i

t is becuse the R.C. church is guided by the holy spirit that it has remained theologicaly unchanged since the begining whereas prodestants have who knows how many denominations each teaching something different.

Dear jpk1313,

You have indicated, nose on, that the whole notion of the perspicuity of Scripture is unsustainable. There are two fundamental problems: firstly, if Sacred Scripure is so transparently clear and easy to understand, why do we have 20,000 plus different Protestant denominations? It will simply not do to say that what differences do exist only involve so called “second order” issues and that there is a broad consensus on “… the faith once delivered to the saints”. Unfortunately all these diverse groupings do not merely disagree about secondary, peripheral matters such as whether women should wear hats in church or whether a baptismal candidate should be sprinkled, dipped or dunked. On the contrary, they actually diverge over very significant questions of doctrine - is baptism necessary for salvation?; is grace indefectable; what role do good works play; what is a sacrament and how does it work?; how does a person get “saved”; can women and homosexuals enter Holy Orders. It is so very easy to state the Bible is essentially clear, but, alas, empirical observation and experience do not bear it out, since all the different Christian groups/individuals make their apppeal to the very same Bible to make their conflicting points. From the very beginning it was this way; in the second century there were Christians who refused to accept that Jesus was God incarnate, whereas others conteneded, quite rightly, that He was. The problem was, as now, that there were folk on both sides of the controversy who were good Christians and who equally argued their case powerfully from Sacred Scripture.

Undeniably, God has used many of the 20,000 different denominations to further His work in this world of woe, but then God always endeavours to pull good out of our human sinfulness. Of course the Catholic Church values diversity, but its model is not 20,000 different denominations all existing as a law unto themselves. Contrastly, the diversity of emphasis, culture and theological approach exist within the organic unity of the Catholic Church. We have unity not uniformity. Sectarian religion expects uniformity and only posseses internal unity because it has split from everybody else.

The second obvious problem is, what does one do when the Bible does not present a clear, unambigous teaching on an issue of crucial importance. This is surely quite a pivotal question in our own day as many important ethical issues are products of the modern age. Sacred Scripture simply doesn’t discuss things like in vitro fertilisation, human cloning, atomic warfare or that perenial burning (sorry no pun intended) question, global warming. When there are differences of opinion about such matters and when the Bible does not speak clearly, who will be the final arbiter? In other words, who will interpret the Bible for our needs today?; it is either up to you and me or some other authority greater than both of us. Catholics believe that God has provided us with such a central Christian authority in the Church which was founded upon St. Peter; crucially we believe also that this Church alone can heal the unhappy divisions of Christendom as men and women submit to its Divine authority.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait