Scripture and reason; why must sola scriptura be false

[exiled]

Using both, can everyone give me their best arguments as to why SS is not only improbable, but impossible?

 

[ltravis]

The bible itself does not mention it, so the very teaching of sola scriptura would have to come from a human (non-bible) authority. It is a self refuting argument.

LT

 

[kleary]

Because “Sola Scriptura” is defined as the following: “All truth revealed by God is contained in Sacred Scripture alone”.

The Canon of Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is a truth revealed to man by God and it is not in Scripture.

Therefore with this truth in plain sight, Sola Scriptura must be rejected as heresy.

Ken

 

[Truthstalker]

Because “Sola Scriptura” is defined as the following: “All truth revealed by God is contained in Sacred Scripture alone”.

The Canon of Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is a truth revealed to man by God and it is not in Scripture.

Therefore with this truth in plain sight, Sola Scriptura must be rejected as heresy.

Ken

Interesting definition. Which reformer did you get it from? I suspect a strawman.

 

[tdgesq]

Interesting definition. Which reformer did you get it from? I suspect a strawman.

Perhaps what he meant is that it is accepted as the sole rule of faith. Regardless, his point that the canon is not revealed within scripture is a good one.

 

[Truthstalker]

There is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Nuda Scriptura. In the former case, tradition can inform Scripture but Scripture always triumphs. In Nuda Scrptura, Scripture alone is authoritative. It seems to me that the second is being attacked here.

 

[VociMike]

It is impossible because a book cannot clearly and unquestionably distinguish between different interpretations of itself. That is, if A says “I find X in the bible” and B says “No, I find Y in the bible”, the bible itself cannot say, with an authority and clarity recognized by both A and B, that one is right and the other is wrong. So SS can never prevent or correct major error.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Nuda Scriptura. In the former case, tradition can inform Scripture but Scripture always triumphs. In Nuda Scrptura, Scripture alone is authoritative. It seems to me that the second is being attacked here.

In the ancient Church (regardless of which church you believe that to be, it certainly wasn’t the modern day Protestants), especially years before there was a Biblical canon, Sacred Tradition was all that we had. Christ founded a living Church with living people… and did not command any of His Apostles to write books, except John’s Apocalypse. Thankfully, they did pen what happened, but they were not commanded to. The Church would not have fell apart if it wasn’t for our Scripture because there was a living authority present for all Christians. Most Christians at that time were illiterate, the ones that weren’t were only literate in Greek & Latin and the rest heard Christian morals & values during the liturgy… thus Sola Scriptura would be improbable. Our Jewish brethren have NO conception of anything close to Sola Scriptura at all… Sola Scriptura being not even formulated during the Protestant reformation, but a few years afterward (reorganizing). Sacred Scripture does NOT trump Sacred Tradition – they are both integral parts to the Christian lifestyle and one cannot be properly interpreted without the other (or you end up with 33,000 denominations such as the case the Protestants find themself today). Sacred Tradition is different from discipline, it is the living authority of the Church which is in the magisterium and protected by the Holy Ghost from error.

 

[Truthstalker]

In the ancient Church (regardless of which church you believe that to be, it certainly wasn’t the modern day Protestants) Ok, it was the ancient Christians, from whom came today’s Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox, especially years before there was a Biblical canon, Sacred Tradition was all that we had You seem to forget the gift of prophecy, the letters, and the lives of those in the church, as well as the fact that some of the writings were very early - we weren’t such a long time without Scripture, even if it wasn’t assembled for a while. Christ founded a living Church with living people… and did not command any of His Apostles to write books, except John’s Apocalypse. Thankfully, they did pen what happened, but they were not commanded to. So the apostles weren’t supposed to write the epistles and the Gospels? I doubt that. That they weren’t commanded is an argument from silence. The Holy Ghost inspired them to write. The Church would not have fell apart if it wasn’t for our Scripture because there was a living authority present for all Christians. Actually the apostles were spread out rather thinly - one reason Paul wrote was to spread the Word, and their faith was in Christ, and they were guided by the Holy Ghost, rather than relying on an human institution - which would not have worked due to the geographical dispersion, as well as language and cultural factors. Roman primacy was slow to be formulated and recognized. Christians at that time were illiterate prove it , the ones that weren’t were only literate in Greek & Latin there were other languages, such as Aramaic, at play - see Acts 2and the rest heard Christian morals & values during the liturgy… thus Sola Scriptura would be improbableno, they might rely on a written document as a for-sure rather than on what had been passed down orally, just as you might trust a written document more than something you hear - even if they are in agreement. Our Jewish brethren have NO conception of anything close to Sola Scriptura at all.Do you forget the existence of the Law, Histories and Prophets? They certainly had a concept of authoritative Scripture!.. Sola Scriptura being not even formulated during the Protestant reformation, but a few years afterward (reorganizing)I don’t understand this statement - are you saying Luther and Calvin were not part of the reformation??. Sacred Scripture does NOT trump Sacred Tradition – they are both integral parts to the Christian lifestyle and one cannot be properly interpreted without the other (or you end up with 33,000 denominations such as the case the Protestants find themself today) I would like to point out the discontinuities between parties that reject SS, such as the Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, and Episcopalians, for whom Scripture plus Tradition has NOT provided a refuge from theological division. and, although there are many denominations within the Protestant fold, whether it is 33,000 or 100,000 doesn’t bother Protestants, because unity is not based on formal structure but on faith. Catholics, it can be noted, agree in theory with their official teaching, but in practice we see a different matter, whether in frank disregard of official teaching or rebellion. Also, Sola Scriptura does not disallow tradition to inform Scripture: rather it trumps tradition. What is called Tradition can be pretty hazy and indeterminate. . Sacred Tradition is different from discipline, it is the living authority of the Church which is in the magisterium and protected by the Holy Ghost from error And Protestants maintain that, due to errors observed in the church, the manner in which the Holy Ghost protects the church must be different from the way Catholics claim He does. Without the firm anchor of Scripture alone the church has demonstrated a capacity for unchecked theological adventure. In particular I am thinking about the now-discredited policy of selling indulgences. I might cite a few other things but that would be off-topic…

 

[Truthstalker]

It is impossible because a book cannot clearly and unquestionably distinguish between different interpretations of itself. That is, if A says “I find X in the bible” and B says “No, I find Y in the bible”, the bible itself cannot say, with an authority and clarity recognized by both A and B, that one is right and the other is wrong. So SS can never prevent or correct major error.

The canned Protestant response on this is that there is sufficient clarity in Scripture on the major issues that it isn’t a problem. There is marked agreement on major issues (Jesus is Lord, for example) so that “Mere Christianity” is widespread. Protestants may argue about mode and age of baptism, but will agree baptism is in the Scripture. And Protestants trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into all truth - they may not be there yet, but they seek the leading of the Holy Spirit. They do not claim to have arrived to all truth.

The canned Catholic response to this is that the Holy Spirit will not lead two different Protestant groups into different interpretations, especially exclusive ones, and thus we arrive at the magic number of 33,000 denominations, none of which can be correct, because the CC has the sure-fire interpretation. And Protestants respond with several statements. One is that they are still on the way, another is that perhaps they are wrong, and this is a call for humility and trusting the Lord. Another response is that perhaps there is an over-focus on doctrine when God is calling us to lives of personal holiness and obedience, and His leading is clear enough in these areas, not that we have yet attained all that He has made clear to us so far in the Scriptures. There are things that are very very clear in Scripture (like “love one another”) that we all seem to have a great deal of difficulty with, and issues such as paedobaptism are secondary.

 

[exiled]

Truthstalker,
The “canned” responses you provided are exactly the answers that leave me speechless. I am unable to get an admission that Truth was made known to us in everything, but it’s like nailing jello to a wall, as the saying goes. If the person is “not there yet” that frees them of all responsibility to do what is right. I can’t stand this kind of reasoning in a discussion of Truth, but I guess there is no way around it with a hard-core Bible Christian, huh?

 

[Darrel]

Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life. He can’t offer multiple versions of his own truth. Sola scriptura offers multiple versions of Christianity and Christ’s truth. No loving father confuses his children with multiple versions of the truth.

-D

 

[Truthstalker]

Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life. He can’t offer multiple versions of his own truth. Sola scriptura offers multiple versions of Christianity and Christ’s truth. No loving father confuses his children with multiple versions of the truth.

-D

The problem you describe is one of interpretation, not authority. SS advocates argue Scripture is sufficiently clear - not that it is totally clear. It’s clear enough, it is said, with other things being beyond human comprehension.

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker,
The “canned” responses you provided are exactly the answers that leave me speechless. I am unable to get an admission that Truth was made known to us in everything I think there is still room for theological and scientific development…, but it’s like nailing jello to a wall, as the saying goes. If the person is “not there yet” that frees them of all responsibility to do what is right They are still responsible for acting in accordance with what they know. I can’t stand this kind of reasoning in a discussion of Truth, but I guess there is no way around it with a hard-core Bible Christian, huh?

Maybe this is one of those things that is separating the brothers. BTW, many Catholics would refer to themselves as hard-core Bible Christians. I think you mean SS advocates, but hopefully most will agree there are things they know for sure, even if some matters are still in doubt. Similarly, within Catholicism, some things are spelled out in the Catechism but a lot is still unsaid -even though people are of strong opinion on either side.

 

[Darrel]

The problem you describe is one of interpretation, not authority. SS advocates argue Scripture is sufficiently clear - not that it is totally clear. It’s clear enough, it is said, with other things being beyond human comprehension.

True,

In essence Protestants should be willing to openly say that Christ offeres multiple versions of his own truth within a guidline. The idea of multiple versions of truth from God can’t be backed up anyplace in scripture that I can think of.

-D

 

[BobCatholic]

Using both, can everyone give me their best arguments as to why SS is not only improbable, but impossible?

Simple.

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

There are those who say they hold to sola scriptura - the scriptures alone are their only authority. But what I see they do is practice something else.

They’ll make claims like “that’s not biblical” “your interpretation is wrong” and things like that, making a judgment, which is really just them exercising their own PERSONAL MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY.

Then they’ll interpret scripture, and that interpretation is nowhere in the pages of scripture, so that turns out to be an extra-scriptural TRADITION.

So what happens here is the sola scripturist is really holding to a theological tripod: Scripture, Tradition (their interpretation of Scripture) and Magisterium (their personal magisterial authority)

We Catholics admit we hold to a theological tripod of authority, but sola scripturists refuse to do so.

Thus, since sola scripturists are holding to a theological tripod, this means that 1) they are hypocrites or 2) sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

I’ll give the sola scripturists the benefit of the doubt and eliminate 1) from consideration as a conclusion.

Thus, the only remaining logical conclusion is that sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

So here we have sola scripturists claiming that God commands them to practice a doctrine they cannot practice. Sounds like a cruel eternal joke instead of a merciful God to me. I don’t buy it.

Then there’s another objection: There is no firm definition of what sola scriptura means, that all sola scripturists claim is true.

Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used”
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a definition to take hold.

 

[Truthstalker]

Simple.

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

There are those who say they hold to sola scriptura - the scriptures alone are their only authority. But what I see they do is practice something else.

They’ll make claims like “that’s not biblical” “your interpretation is wrong” and things like that, making a judgment, which is really just them exercising their own PERSONAL MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY.

Then they’ll interpret scripture, and that interpretation is nowhere in the pages of scripture, so that turns out to be an extra-scriptural TRADITION.

So what happens here is the sola scripturist is really holding to a theological tripod: Scripture, Tradition (their interpretation of Scripture) and Magisterium (their personal magisterial authority)

We Catholics admit we hold to a theological tripod of authority, but sola scripturists refuse to do so.

Thus, since sola scripturists are holding to a theological tripod, this means that 1) they are hypocrites or 2) sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

I’ll give the sola scripturists the benefit of the doubt and eliminate 1) from consideration as a conclusion.

Thus, the only remaining logical conclusion is that sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

So here we have sola scripturists claiming that God commands them to practice a doctrine they cannot practice. Sounds like a cruel eternal joke instead of a merciful God to me. I don’t buy it.

Then there’s another objection: There is no firm definition of what sola scriptura means, that all sola scripturists claim is true.

Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used”
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a definition to take hold.

No, the way it is practiced is that theological statements are examined in the light of Scripture: is this in accordance with Scripture or not? Somethings are very clear, others are not so clear. From the “Essentials of our Faith” in my church bulletin (Evangelical Presbyterian) today:

The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks.

There are different definitions of SS, but that doesn’t mean they are all wrong. SS is workable. It is practical. It is another question as to whether it is right. Note that the above definition allows for other, subordinate authorities, such as tradition or science, and that there may be areas on which the Bible does not speak.

 

[Truthstalker]

True,

In essence Protestants should be willing to openly say that Christ offeres multiple versions of his own truth within a guidline. The idea of multiple versions of truth from God can’t be backed up anyplace in scripture that I can think of.

-D

I’m not sure what you are saying. There is only one Truth. At times we will have different theories (currently Catholics dispute Thomist thought versus Molinist, for example) but that doesn’t refute a belief in one Truth.

 

[Darrel]

I’m not sure what you are saying. There is only one Truth. At times we will have different theories (currently Catholics dispute Thomist thought versus Molinist, for example) but that doesn’t refute a belief in one Truth.

I’ll try to clarify a bit. In order for a reasonable person to assume that God finds Sola Sciptura permissable he/she must assume that God allows for multiple versions of his truth. SS has divided Gods truth into many thousands of version from Ultra liberal to fanatical to drinking rattle snake venom. The question is, would God allow his truth to be divided by opinion or would he mandate an authority structure for his Church to abide under. The God I know from scripture would present one truth, the same way he presented one version of the law to Moses. The fact that multiple versions of Christianity are offered to all people at this time is either approved by God or it is not.

-D

 

[ltravis]

The problem you describe is one of interpretation, not authority. SS advocates argue Scripture is sufficiently clear - not that it is totally clear. It’s clear enough, it is said, with other things being beyond human comprehension.

By what authority do the “SS advocates” argue scripture is sufficiently clear? Regardless, if we accept that it is sufficiently clear, why the arguments for, against, and even within the SS camp? Why the confusion on the very nature of eucharist and the salvific role of baptism?

LT