Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[tqualey]

Hi, Telestia,

I had to go back to CopticChristian’s post #97 to see what you were addressing because I did not remember anything like this in his postings bringing on such a response.

The way I read #97 is totally different from what you lifted out (and, i would say out of context) from his post.

My suggestion would be to just paste the entire paragraph to avoid this problem.

And, yes, there is a major problem with SS because it trashes the teachings of Christ. If you want evidence that SS is fatally flawed, look at the 30,000+ Protestant groups all clamoring that they have the ‘truth’ in their interpretation of Scripture - and all disagree amongst themselves. In fact,the only thing these groups are able to agree upon is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong!

Oh, and considering the volume of writings from St. Augustine - and to dismiss him out of hand because of some concern for his knowledge of science - seems a bit odd to me. This Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church wrote many things that Catholics and Protestants claim as essential to their belief system. Here is a link that will provide you with some solid information on this most influential and great saint of God: newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm Hope this helps.

God bless

I’m not in a quandary by any means. I’m under God’s grace.

That happens to be true. The only people who get saved through Jesus finished work on the cross are sinners, myself included. We know form 1 John 1:5-10, all Christians do sin, and do so regularly. Thus salvation is truly a gift to us from God.

That’s easy, salvation comes by believing God.

Upon Jesus death on the cross, Jesus had kept the entire Mosaic Covenant throughout His entire life. JESUS FULFILLED THE ENTIRE MOSAIC COVENANT, EVERY LAST JOT AND TITLE OF IT. Jesus never sinned. This made Jesus the unblemished Lamb of God who takes away all our sins for all time, to all who accept The Blood of the Lamb of God as a covering and atonement for all our sins, past - present - and future.

For too long people sought to be saved by keeping the Law, a Sisyphean task, and the blood of the sacrificed unblemished Lamb was just another opportunity to keep the whole Law. In reality, it was the covering of the blood of THE PERFECT LAMB that covers our sins by which we are saved and transformed by God.

Upon Jesus death on the cross, God annihilated the Mosaic Covenant with its 613 laws. [See Zechariah 11 7-14, Zec 1-6 is the prophecy of the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 AD).

Upon Jesus resurrection, The New Covenant was established, and for the first time, Jesus plainly proclaimed to His Apostles the Gospel of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.
And as Paul writes in Hebrews, Jesus is not a temporal priest according to the priesthood pf Levi. Jesus is a Priest according to the far superior Everlasting Priesthood of Melchizedek, and where there is a change of of Priesthood, there is a change of Law. And that no one can be saved under the Mosaic Law, but under the Laws of Jesus Christ, God Saves Us.

Even though God annihilated the Mosaic Covenant in its’ entirety, Clearly He did not leave us lawless, for through His only begotten SON - Jesus, we are now under a new set of laws of Jesus Christ, which are:

LAW 1 - The Royal Law of Love: Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love others as you love yourselves.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

NC Commandment 2: The Law of Liberty: "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by The Law of Liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGMENT.

NC Commandment 3: The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Ro 8:1-11 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

[/quote]

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi, Telestia,

I had to go back to CopticChristian’s post #97 to see what you were addressing because I did not remember anything like this in his postings bringing on such a response.

The way I read #97 is totally different from what you lifted out (and, i would say out of context) from his post.

My suggestion would be to just paste the entire paragraph to avoid this problem.

And, yes, there is a major problem with SS because it trashes the teachings of Christ. If you want evidence that SS is fatally flawed, look at the 30,000+ Protestant groups all clamoring that they have the ‘truth’ in their interpretation of Scripture - and all disagree amongst themselves. In fact,the only thing these groups are able to agree upon is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong!

Oh, and considering the volume of writings from St. Augustine - and to dismiss him out of hand because of some concern for his knowledge of science - seems a bit odd to me. This Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church wrote many things that Catholics and Protestants claim as essential to their belief system. Here is a link that will provide you with some solid information on this most influential and great saint of God: newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm Hope this helps.

God bless

Exemplary for how some Protestants learn to read the Bible…and exemplary of the think speak you read in that posting and others. It is difficult to unravel the thinking and get any information from this person.

 

[passer_by]

I’m not in a quandary by any means. I’m under God’s grace.

That happens to be true. The only people who get saved through Jesus finished work on the cross are sinners, myself included. We know form 1 John 1:5-10, all Christians do sin, and do so regularly. Thus salvation is truly a gift to us from God.

Would you be perhaps interested in answering the question I asked of Jon?

My question to him was, how did you come to believe in the Bible? Do you have actual reasons for believing in it?

Lets say you came to Christianity through a personal experience of Christ, how did you them make your way to the Bible?

Now as I explained to Jon, giving Biblical evidence for believing in the Bible is invalid since then that would be a circular argument. But if you cannot actually give a logical reason to go from your personal experience of Christ or the the resurrection of Christ to the Bible and Sola Scriptura, then your position would unfortunately be unreasonable at which point you have to abandon it.

 

[tqualey]

Now h-o-o-o-o-l-d on a minute, there, Passer_by - I think you have jumped to conclusions…

Since when did holding an illogical position caused the abandoning of that position?

Great post!

God bless

Would you be perhaps interested in answering the question I asked of Jon?

My question to him was, how did you come to believe in the Bible? Do you have actual reasons for believing in it?

Lets say you came to Christianity through a personal experience of Christ, how did you them make your way to the Bible?

Now as I explained to Jon, giving Biblical evidence for believing in the Bible is invalid since then that would be a circular argument. But if you cannot actually give a logical reason to go from your personal experience of Christ or the the resurrection of Christ to the Bible and Sola Scriptura, then your position would unfortunately be unreasonable at which point you have to abandon it.

 

[Safia]

I accept God’s gift, I am saved and will be with Jesus in Heaven.

Nothing imperfect enters Heaven. Are you perfect?

I’ll challenge you, Telestia, to read this book in its entirety, and then come back to me and tell me you’re still right.

Cheers.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

I have been puzzling over your comment.

Maybe a definition would be in order. Let me offer the following:

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
**
The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope. [Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church], the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.**

Here is the link to this source: newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Ah, did I miss his answers to your questions?

God bless

Tom

Hello Jon,
I would recommend you don’t open that can of worms. People may raise some of the following questions.
Where did Martin Luther get the right to redefine covenant, church, and salvation. After all those were already defined for 1500 years.

Peace
David

 

[JonNC]

Hello Jon,
I would recommend you don’t open that can of worms. People may raise some of the following questions.
Where did Martin Luther get the right to redefine covenant, church, and salvation. After all those were already defined for 1500 years.

Peace
David

Hi David,
I’ll open any can of worms you wish. We would contend that Augsburg is, deinitively, a catholic document. Even Cardinal Ratzinger pondered that a possibility, and there are significant portions of the confession that the Confutation agreed with.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8807067]Actually no Jon. This where you make the mistake.

Catholics first have to defend arriving at the Catholic system or set of axioms. It can’t be a blind jump. We explain that by pointing out how the most intuitive and logical thing to do after realizing Christ rose from the dead is to turn to the Apostles for advice on teaching and their successors.

What I am asking is the same thing from Protestants. I feel, and as far as my analysis has shown, there is none.

While I can’t speak for protestants, the Lutheran Confessions do just exactly what you said. We rely on scripture as the final norm, yes, but throughout the confessions, particularly the augsburg confessiona and its Apology, the ECF’s are regularly referenced.

If I ask you “Why become Lutheran”, the logical error that most fall in to is start quoting Scripture and other elements of faith. That is not reasonable.

Then I suggest you read our confessional documents. They start, first and foremost, with the three ecumenical creeds. This is not by random.

What you have to do is provide REASONABLE arguments for being Lutheran from outside the system. As in how to arrive that Lutheran axioms are the one to adopt from realizing Christ rose from the dead or that he is your personal savior.

Where does that realization come from? Yes, the Holy Spirit, and scripture itself says through hearing the word. And just as importantly in Baptism, where faith starts.

Where would I continue, after Baptism and the word, and “realizing Christ rose from the dead or that he is your personal savior” to become Catholic, or Orthodox?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Indeed, SS is usually linked to Luther. Obviously I am not a supporter of SS in doctrine,practice or whatever one chooses,but I have read and heard many different understandings and definitions of SS by other denominations. Unless I am incorrect?

Oh, my friend you are correct, but how others have (mis)interpreted it, at least from my position (in a discussion here) is irrelevent. I can’t defend their view, since I don’t hold or support it. To ask me to do so is like asking you to defend, for example, the Old Catholics’ rejection of papal infallibility. I can only defend the view as presented in the Lutheran Confessions, and that is quite a different position from that of, say, American evangelicals.
I think you know me pretty well, and you know that I am not trying to my Catholic siblings on the matter. I am only trying to present my understanding of the Lutheran position (if I’m wrong, there are plenty of Lutherans here whose correction I welcome). Further, I will dispute those who claim that human writings regarding the true faith should to be excluded, such as the early councils and creeds.

Jon

 

[wendit]

I’d like to know how/where Protestants justify sola scriptura – the position that ** – within the “proof” I’ve outlined below (drawn from Robert A. Sungenis**). I’m genuinely curious. It’s self-evident to me, especially for someone who returned to the Catholic faith only after deep agnosticism and in-depth research.

“… it violates the principles of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture; and the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops of the Church, decided on the cannon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.”

All things necessary for salvation are explained in the bible clearly. The verse is John 3:16.

 

[Nicea325]

Telestia:
That’s easy, salvation comes by believing God.

That easy-eh? Does not the Bible even say the demons tremble in belief? Are they saved too?

 

[Nicea325]

Oh, my friend you are correct, but how others have (mis)interpreted it, at least from my position (in a discussion here) is irrelevent. I can’t defend their view, since I don’t hold or support it. To ask me to do so is like asking you to defend, for example, the Old Catholics’ rejection of papal infallibility. I can only defend the view as presented in the Lutheran Confessions, and that is quite a different position from that of, say, American evangelicals.
I think you know me pretty well, and you know that I am not trying to my Catholic siblings on the matter. I am only trying to present my understanding of the Lutheran position (if I’m wrong, there are plenty of Lutherans here whose correction I welcome). Further, I will dispute those who claim that human writings regarding the true faith should to be excluded, such as the early councils and creeds.

Jon

My friend you know I have always respected your positions and beliefs. It is always appreciated.

 

[Newsy]

All things necessary for salvation are explained in the bible clearly. The verse is John 3:16.

And where does the Bible say that is the case?

 

[tqualey]

Hi Wendit,

First, let me thank you for clearly identifying which religion you belong to. It makes it easier on this old man… Now, on to the business at hand.

Really? Let’s take a look at that verse with some context. This comes from when Jesus was teaching Nicodemus about the necessity of Baptism.

John 3:16-18 ** 14And just as Moses lifted up* the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” 16For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn* the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.**

What makes this a contextual issue is that this thread is about SS and many Protestants attempt to use this to justify SF. Additionally, anyone taking this section or all of Chapter 3 to mean that faith alone saves - period, or ‘once saved always saved’ has misunderstood the context of Christ message - which is larger than a a couple of verses or a Chapter in the NT. All must be joined in a comprehensive unity if one is to begin to work with through Grace with Christ’s saving message.

One liners just don’t do it.

Why, then do you think there are these thousands of Protestant groups all claiming that they have the correct explanation and the other - and that would be competing - Protestant groups don’t? Here is a classic example on Protestant confusion: Baptism. Some Protestants claim it is not necessary at all, some claim it is an option, some a symbol and not having anything to do with the removal of sin, some say it is required. All claim that that they are a ‘Bible Believing Church’.

This criticism goes beyond any group of Lutherans - it goes to the heart of Protestantism: SS totally trashes the teachings of Christ because it leaves it up to individuals to determine the meaning of Scripture. This is the very nature of Protestantism - while paying lip-service to Christ, it distorts His Truth.

Clarity is only achieved by having a real teaching authority to explain Scripture. Outside of the Magesterium, no such authority exists. And, the reason for this is that Christ granted His Holy Spirit to the Church He founded on Peter - not groups falsely claiming to represent Christ 1,500 years later.

By the way, a couple of posts back I provided a definition on SS. Do you have any disagreements with what I copied and pasted?

God bless

All things necessary for salvation are explained in the bible clearly. The verse is John 3:16.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nicea325,

We may have lost Telestia.

I thought I heard a story of someone having been carried away with a ‘cherry picker’ … but… who knows…

God bless

That easy-eh? Does not the Bible even say the demons tremble in belief? Are they saved too?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Nicea325,

We may have lost Telestia.

I thought I heard a story of someone having been carried away with a ‘cherry picker’ … but… who knows…

God bless

Oh well…we give it our best!

 

[CopticChristian]

Nothing imperfect enters Heaven. Are you perfect?

I’ll challenge you, Telestia, to read this book in its entirety, and then come back to me and tell me you’re still right.

Cheers.

How do you create a link like you did…read this book…to amazon?

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi David,
I’ll open any can of worms you wish. We would contend that Augsburg is, deinitively, a catholic document. Even Cardinal Ratzinger pondered that a possibility, and there are significant portions of the confession that the Confutation agreed with.

Jon

I have a problem with the Augsberg confession based on my understanding that it was created under the direction of The Emperor Charles the V, John of Saxony/Elector, Phillip of Hesse, Margrave George of Brandenburg, the Dukes Ernest and Francis of Lüneburg, the representatives of Nuremberg and Reutlingen, and other counselors, besides twelve theologians. I understand that Martin Luther was not in attendance at its formation and it was forumulated not by a Church but by Government overseers. This is my understanding. Am I incorrect?

 

[Radical]

Sorry for coming late to this discussion…

well, I guess I should apologize for taking so long to address these two posts….but I thought I would b/c again, I find the argument weak

….but I hope this article will shed more light to you…and the other readers.
Excerpts:

How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. …This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it.** For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.**

Ironically, from this side of the fence, this is exactly how one could describe the CC’s approach WRT its Sacred Tradition (ST). Does the tradition (Pope’s statement/council’s decision) agree with the current position of the CC? If so, then it is ST and is evidence that the ST has been taught all along. If not, then the Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra on that occasion or then the council wasn’t declaring an official binding decision. An additional strategy is to clarify or develop the original statement/decision so as to make it conform to current belief.

The problem with the pick-and-choose approach is that it is entirely ad hoc insofar as one picks and chooses from among Church Fathers and councils only those statements one agrees with, to be ‘authoritative.

yep, that’s it all right

A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.

Really? Consider this question: “Is the gospel of Mark properly included in the NT canon? …and then this question “Is the perpetual virginity of Mary (PV of M) a legitimate belief? Are those two questions of the same nature? Is the evidence for the inclusion of Mark as scripture from the same time and from the same sources as the evidence for the historicity of the PV of M? It seems that they are very different questions with very different evidence from quite different time periods….and so, given those differences, the rejection of one and the acceptance of the other may or may not be “ad hoc”.

As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship,…

critical scholarship is something that could be employed….but is it really critical scholarship to note that by the time of Irenaeus the gospel of Mark has been quoted by other fathers and four gospels were clearly recognized (by at least a portion of the Church). On the other hand, wrt the PV of M, it first shows up at around Irenaeus’s time in a rather dubious source. That is quite a difference. One could do something similar for 1st Corinthians and the bodily assumption of Mary and so on….

The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between the Gnostic conception of the Church and the biblical conception of the Church as a living and hierarchically unified Body.

some leadership is contemplated in the NT, but it is hardly the hierarchical thing that is seen in the CC (see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops).

 

[Radical]

The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church, that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth, and that He will be with her to the end of the age, It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

hmmm….and who does the NT identify as members of the body of Christ? => those who possess the Holy Spirit. And who does the NT identify as those who possess the HS? => those who believe in Christ. As such, the body of Christ, also known as the Church, consists of all believers possessed of the HS (regardless of any hierarchy’s relation to that believer)

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.” The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err.

It sure would be nice if the NT expressly made these claims wrt indefectibility as opposed to us being left with an institution identifying itself as the one true Church and then interpreting passages to validate its claim to inerrancy and authority….I don’t view that as being the better position

In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them.

“Apostolic successors” is another concept not put forward in the NT of the Apostolic Fathers (again see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops)

This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession.

IMHO the facts speak otherwise

V. An Objection
One possible objection to my argument against ecclesial deism….

why not just call it what it was and is…fallible leadership?

… is that God in His providence might allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy in order to bring about a greater good.

that is an odd objection…I would simply attribute it to free will and an inclination to sin. It isn’t any big mystery, it is how man has acted since the start….where is yhere any indication from Christ that God will prevent the exercise of free will (in the hierarchy) on the matter of determining doctrine, but will continue to allow freedom in all other matters.

The Church is not a merely human institution; it is the Body of Christ, who is divine. He is the greatest good, the good than which there can be none greater.

Christ is w/o fault or sin and we aren’t.

The Church cannot fall into heresy because she is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot fall into heresy or apostasy.

but the Church can fall into gross misconduct even though she is the body of Christ and Christ cannot fall into sin….the inconsistency is disingenuous

The Holy Spirit, who is the very Soul of the Church, cannot be led into heresy or apostasy.

It is not that the HS is led…the HS leads and the hierarchy may or may not follow.