Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[PJM]

This post is true.
I’m not just a “fellow Catholic”, I am a Catholic active in my diocese for causes that are labelled “conservative”, and have been criticized by liberal pastors and extended family members for what they call rigidity (“doesn’t the Bible preach tolerance, not dogma”?), and often disagree with all liberals and Protestants who fail to understand the importance of the Magisterium, that for 500 years private interpretation has always, always led to spiritual pride, and resistance to conversion, among both Catholics and Protestants.

OK. So I have lots of empathy for his POV. Now, go back and read the post I quoted above. Lutherans and SS supporters, are far more influenced by the current secular and religious culture, and the Holy Spirit, than by Luther, and other people who lived in his century. But they still have emotional loyalty to Luther. When Topper criticizes Luther, that makes them a little more resistant to the Magisterium that they see associated with Catholics like Topper and me.

In fairness to Topper, he does thorough research, he obviously cares for the Truth and his fellow posters. I would rather have a few more Toppers, basically solid but badly in need of redirection, when I am surrounded by clueless Catholics unaware of the war going on for our minds and souls.

GOSH

As I read your post I thought you were speaking about me.

God Bless you {and all those like us}

Amen!

 

[PJM]

When I was a Baptist I never even heard the words “Sola Scriptura”. It was a reliance on the Bible as the final authority, but no reference to Luther (whom they regarded as never taking his other foot out of the Catholic Church).

Interesting post, thanks

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Interesting post, thanks

Sometimes I hear the same kind of argument concerning ‘eternal security’ or ‘once saved always saved’. Some Catholic apologists will say it’s origin comes from Calvin and his ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ in his TULIP. But when you examine closer you see that OSAS is actually a ‘bastardization’ of that teaching. A fact even Calvinists agree on.
The same is true of SS. What we see today is not classic SS. Not in my opinion anyway. It may have looked that way a century or so ago. But the SS we see today seems to have more in common with fundamentalism than Reformed theology.

 

[guanophore]

I used the wrong word but you get my point!

It just seems unproductive to keep asserting that a “belief” does not exist,when millions of people for centuries have believed it. Asserting that it does not exist does not prevent us from suffering from it.

 

[Michael68]

It just seems unproductive to keep asserting that a “belief” does not exist,when millions of people for centuries have believed it. Asserting that it does not exist does not prevent us from suffering from it.

If a million people call a duck a horse, is it a horse?

 

[JonNC]

If a million people call a duck a horse, is it a horse?

OTOH, if someone doesn’t understand what a duck is, but is convinced by others that it is a horse, he might say a duck doesn’t exist.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

If a million people call a duck a horse, is it a horse?

A duck and a horse are in the material realm, and thus, able to be analyzed by science. We can investigate gentically and determine their identity. Beliefs and ideals are non-material, and thus can only be analyzed with theology, philosophy, psychology and other non-material based approaches.

It is impossible to have a productive theological discussion about a concept unless both parties can agree that the concept exists.

 

[rcwitness]

A duck and a horse are in the material realm, and thus, able to be analyzed by science. We can investigate gentically and determine their identity. Beliefs and ideals are non-material, and thus can only be analyzed with theology, philosophy, psychology and other non-material based approaches.

It is impossible to have a productive theological discussion about a concept unless both parties can agree that the concept exists.

… and the fact that this belief exists is irrefutable.

 

[guanophore]

… and the fact that this belief exists is irrefutable.

Well, apparently not for Michael 68.

The method somewhat reminds me of what we did when we were children and became overwhelmed with (name removed by moderator)ut. We would poke our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and keep repeating over and over “I don’t want to hear it, I don’t want to hear it”. As if that would make it go away!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Just,

The problem Topper is whatever the topic is, you bring it back to Luther and Lutherans. And no amount of re-direction from fellow Catholics seem to have any effect.

I realize you are new to apologetics. Take it from me and other converts and reverts here, you are damaging your credibility with this obsession you have with Luther.
You can take the advice, or learn the hard way. Your choice.

First of all Just, I find it interesting that just in the last day there have been 4 or 5 posts on this thread about me personally. As you know, from time to time we see a warning to return to the subject and that we are to comment about the subject and NOT the poster.

The subject of this thread is SS and the problems that are associated with it. What I completely fail to understand is why it is supposedly ‘politically incorrect’ to discuss the actual origin of Sola Scriptura. Personally I believe that if we are to EVER achieve the unity that we all desire, it will be necessary to understand how, and why, we have been divided. Both the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ takes us back to the historical origins of our division, in other words, back to the early 16th century, and back to the specific arguments that were made by both sides. Were the arguments made by the Reformers more compelling than those directed back at them, or was it the opposite?

What it boils down to is Luther and whether he was justified in his revolt against the doctrinal teachings of the Church. If he was then that would seem to grant the Protestant movement as a whole a certain validity and credibility. On the other hand, if a full and historically accurate understanding of Luther’s actions and his ‘lesser known’ teachings indicate that he was actually WRONG to Revolt against the Church, well…………then…………that would lead to a different conclusion.

I believe that the history of the early Reformation shows very clearly that Luther was NOT justified in his doctrinal revolt against the Church and that the arguments against him and vice versa prove that conclusively. The proof is in the details and those details should not be suppressed.

Probably 90% of the quotes that I post are from Protestants, and of that, Lutheran Scholars are VERY over-represented statistically. Responses to my posts often completely fail to deal with the actual facts and Protestant comments that I have posted. As an example, has anyone commented on the various Protestant Scholars I have posted which have given Luther ‘credit’ for the ‘discovery’ of Sola Scriptura, or the ramifications that result from such a judgment?

One of the things often mentioned by converts from Lutheranism, whether in print or here on these threads, is that learning the actual facts about the early Reformation was very influential in their decision to convert. Personally, I would think that this would be viewed as being important on a Catholic apologetics forum.

You might not think that historical evidence adds much to the discussion here, but you really can’t suggest that it is overdone here.

God Bless You Just, Topper

 

[guanophore]

What it boils down to is Luther and whether he was justified in his revolt against the doctrinal teachings of the Church.

It is certainly the case that you boil it down to this as often as you get the chance. But the question of the thread is directed to modern Protestant Christains.

I believe that the history of the early Reformation shows very clearly that Luther was NOT justified in his doctrinal revolt against the Church and that the arguments against him and vice versa prove that conclusively. The proof is in the details and those details should not be suppressed.

Yes, of course. You have been very consistent and vehement with your beliefs.

What you don’t seem to realize is that finding fault with Luther is not sufficient for all modern persons using SS to stop.

  Probably 90% of the quotes that I post are from Protestants, and of that, Lutheran Scholars are VERY over-represented statistically.  Responses to my posts often completely fail to deal with the actual facts and Protestant comments that I have posted.  As an example, has anyone commented on the various Protestant Scholars I have posted which have given Luther ‘credit’ for the ‘discovery’ of Sola Scriptura, or the ramifications that result from such a judgment?

There is no question of your diligence in scholarly research, Topper. You may have most of your doctoral dissertation completed.

One of the things often mentioned by converts from Lutheranism, whether in print or here on these threads, is that learning the actual facts about the early Reformation was very influential in their decision to convert. Personally, I would think that this would be viewed as being important on a Catholic apologetics forum.

Yes, I think it is. It was for me too. It is also not difficult to find the facts as you have posted them repeatedly in many threads.

You might not think that historical evidence adds much to the discussion here, but you really can’t suggest that it is overdone here.

God Bless You Just, Topper

The Protestant Chrisitans who are being asked have not even had a chance to state whether they have had any problems yet!

I can suggest that the ferver with which you attack Luther sometimes overwhelmes the thread. Attacking Luther is not always the most effective apologetic.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The subject for discussion is Sola Scriptura, not Luther.
Please remain on topic.

 

[PJM]

Sometimes I hear the same kind of argument concerning ‘eternal security’ or ‘once saved always saved’. Some Catholic apologists will say it’s origin comes from Calvin and his ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ in his TULIP. But when you examine closer you see that OSAS is actually a ‘bastardization’ of that teaching. A fact even Calvinists agree on.
The same is true of SS. What we see today is not classic SS. Not in my opinion anyway. It may have looked that way a century or so ago. But the SS we see today seems to have more in common with fundamentalism than Reformed theology.

Thanks!

God B;ess,

PJM

 

[MaryT777]

Topper, this Prudent advice from a voice of wexperieced-reason. You’d do well to listen to it.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Topper
I would ignore all these off topic posts about you and say you are just what is needed sometimes. Wishy Washy anything goes posting to me is as useless as the criticisms of you.
I know many who were swayed by arguments that were three times as harsh as yours about the Catholic Church and became non Catholics.

The true church needs strong witnesses.

Sola Scriptura had led to division of the church which is so widespread one must surely know it does not originate from God.

Mary.

JMO

Mary.