L
ltravis
Guest
I think we are all in agreement here. I think the real question is whether the bible speaks on ***all ***(necessary) matters.
LT
- Status
LT
H
HailMary
Guest
Here is mine: members.cox.net/humurabi/Catholic_Apologia.pdf
T
tdgesq
Guest
The most common defintion of sola scriptura that I have encountered is that the Bible is the sole rule of faith - that only what is taught explicitly therein is binding on the conscience of the Christian. But so long as we all have the same understanding of what is meant here by the term sola scriptura, I don’t really care how it is defined.
If church teaching merely informs a Christian about some truths contained in the Bible (or even “apart” from the Bible) then the sufficiency of scripture becomes a problem. Why? Because knowing what books constitute scripture is a predicate to being able to say that scripture is sufficient.
I agree with you that certain truths taught in the Bible are explicit and self-evident, but that just isn’t the case when it comes to the canon. I suppose a serious student of history could do the research and come up with an idea about what the majority of the fathers and the early church had to say about what writings are inspired and what writings are not. But that isn’t the same as an explicit and self-evident truth that comes from the Bible itself. It does not appear to me that the sufficiency of scripture alone works. A binding church teaching authority is necessary.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I think you are right in that this begs the question: what is ‘sufficiently clear’ and who decides it? Let’s take an example: we are commanded to pray to God. That is clear. It is clear to me whether I pray or not. It is also clear to God, to Whom it is clear what is clear to me and what I am fuzzy on. If I am obedient in the things I understand, well and good, even if I mess up on those things I don’t get. I can only obey what I know I must, in other words. I know I shouldn’t sacrifice chickens to the Penguin God to be saved, so if I do that, I am in trouble. That is clear. If I am unclear on what happens in the Eucharist, or in baptism, that is ok, as long as I understand what I am to do. Many Catholics, I am told, only understand that Jesus is there in the Eucharist and that baptism is something we must do, without much further understanding. We are saved by grace through faith, not because we are brilliant theologians. That is also clear.
I think God is the one who decides whether something is clear to me. The church may spend a lot of time trying to get something through my thick skull, but God alone is my judge.
I think your question illustrates a key difference between Catholic and Protestant thought: the Catholic orientation is towards authority placed in the church, whereas Protestants tend to downplay that mediation and regard the placement of such authority as granting the church an attribute that rightfully belongs only to God. In some ways then SS can only be rightfully looked at not in isolation but in conjunction with other issues, such as what the role of the church is in the life of the believer.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I won’t agree that it is either, but I will point out some problems with it. One is its arbitrary nature: if you say the 66 books are inspired, and I say the 73, and the fellow over there the Book of Mormon, and another the Koran, how can we come to a consensus? All of us have received the “inner light” telling us what is inspired. One must go to some other criterion to evaluate that “inner light”. Historical data, for example, could be examined to determine if one is correct in the subjective evaluation one has.
But then God, being God, might decide to break the rule and tell you what He wrote. He’s not bound by human logical constraints.
A second problem is that Scripture requires some kind of interpretative framework, a tradition if you will, for reading. One must understand vocabulary, syntax, interpretative skills, such as when to read something as literal and when as metaphor. One must know where Gad is and where Bethany lies in relation to Jerusalem to understand certain things, and there is background information that is useful, such as what time of year Judean shepherds watched their flocks by night. But I think we can overtax the requirement for sophisticated theological and historical nuanced understanding and read the plain words of Scripture in their clarity and be saved, without an authoritative church structure telling us what it means, as long as it has been translated into a language we can understand. The Holy Spirit will speak to us in the Scriptures and overcome all sorts of problems.
With God, then, all things are possible. Even SS. The question then is whether that is what He intends - which is another issue.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
But who makes the authoritative judgment that a theological statement is in accordance with the scriptures?
The scriptures are not going to sprout a mouth, hands and legs, stand up, wave their hands and scream “HEY YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ME!!!”
No. The one making such a judgment.is a magisterium.
And if you accept this ruling as authoritative, then you are accepting the authority of the magisterium to make such a ruling. Violation of sola scriptura.
Seriously. If two or more sola scripturists disagree on their interpretation of scripture, where do they go to resolve the theological dispute?
Under sola scriptura, there is no answer. Remember, the Bible doesn’t come with a list of all the interpretations of scripture that the Apostles held to. Hence, relativism results.
So which definition is the correct one? The relativism of sola scriptura prevents that from being answered authoritatively for all sola scripturists.
The fact that SS cannot even be defined in such a way that all sola scrpturists accept it, is more proof of the relativism of sola scriptura.
It cannot be practiced, as it requires a magisterial authority which your post alludes to. This violates sola scriptura.
K
kleary
Guest
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR90302.htm
come2jesus.info/protestant.htm
No straw man here- seems pretty equal from EWTN and the Anti-Catholic website.
Sola Scriptura states that all truth revealed by God is contained in Scripture Alone.
Ken
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You are certainly bringing out the problems with it. The position I am familiar with is that the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture is its Author - the Holy Spirit. Where there are contradictory interpretations between two SSers, ideally they would go in prayer and ask God to show them who is right and who wrong. Introducing the Holy Spirit as the magisterium resolves the problem with the lack of one. Catholics argue that the magisterium is authoritative; SSers and Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit IS authority.
In reality, human failings, especially pride and stupidity, contaminate all our dealings with God and each other. Certainly the Catholic church has not been immune from failings. Neither have the Protestants. Protestants may be indicted not only for a relativism rising from a defective scholasticism but for reducing the reality of Christ’s presence to a symbolic one - the church being much less than the Catholics regard it to be. Catholics in contrast can be indicted for taking their theology seriously concerning the church being the body of Christ. SS, as I noted above, has as much to do with ecclesiology as with authority. Regardless of which definition of SS is used, one thing is clear: the ultimate authority under it is not the church but the Lord. Catholics will agree with that, but will insist on a much higher role for the mediation of the church in interpretation than Protestants are willing for it to bear.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
But who makes the authoritative ruling that an interpretation truly was done by the Holy Spirit versus another spirit?
Again, this comes down to another magisterium. And this magisterium is NOT the Holy Spirit.
Which according to this standard of yours, is not being done, as we have tens of thousands of denominations (including millions of “Churches of One”) all claiming their interpretation is truly guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He is God. Thus all of these interpretations cannot be true.
The only interpretation of scripture that is true is the one held by Christ and the Twelve Apostles.
Actually it doesn’t.
Who made the authoritative ruling that one’s interpretation truly is guided by the Holy Spirit?
And if an interpretation truly was done by the Holy Spirit, it would have been written down in the Bible (sola scriptura) or else it would be an extra biblical tradition, which is a violation of sola scriptura. And since this tradition would come from the Holy Spirit, it would be Sacred Tradition.
We Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition. Sola scripturists are not supposed to. But here they are defending a form of sacred tradition, while claiming to hold to sola scriptura.
Which is in the Bible or is Ephesians 5 a decoration?
But that’s the thing: Under sola scriptura, a magisterium or traditions are not allowed, yet protestants accept their interpretation of scripture (tradition) and the magisterium that declares their interpretation of scripture is truly by the Holy Spirit as authoritative.
We Catholics admit we hold to a theological tripod. Sola scripturists hold to a theological tripod too, but refuse to admit it.
T
tequilamac
Guest
As I said in another thread, sola scriptura is false as it is based on an errant understanding of who Christ actually is.
When Christ founded his Church he meant for it to be a. eternal, b. to continue His word. He accomplished this continuity by apostolic succession.
According to Scripture “Whenever two or three are gathered together…”
This is done by the Apostles and their decisions would be as infallible as Christ’s Himself.
Once Luther opened the door to the denial of Papal or Apostolic infallibility and succession, that part of Scripture was overturned, becoming one in which the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture would carry more weight, be more profound and infallible than say an ecumenical council of apostolic bishops.
The problem chiefly with sola scriptura is that it is based on the premise unspoken that the individual is infallible, but not the Catholic Church as a whole.
As a result they find themselves in a murky world of claiming scripture as sole authority but not able to accept Christ’s own words of “Whenever two or three are gathered…”
They may even, in a fundamentalist group, gather together in threes, and fours etc. to interpret scripture according to that passage, but at the same time they will deny the infallibility of the councils and magesterium of the Catholic Church.
Sola Scriptura not only cannot be found in Scripture, but, just as in the above infallibility issue, it actually frequently denies or contradicts scripture.
When Christ founded his Church he meant for it to be a. eternal, b. to continue His word. He accomplished this continuity by apostolic succession.
According to Scripture “Whenever two or three are gathered together…”
This is done by the Apostles and their decisions would be as infallible as Christ’s Himself.
Once Luther opened the door to the denial of Papal or Apostolic infallibility and succession, that part of Scripture was overturned, becoming one in which the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture would carry more weight, be more profound and infallible than say an ecumenical council of apostolic bishops.
The problem chiefly with sola scriptura is that it is based on the premise unspoken that the individual is infallible, but not the Catholic Church as a whole.
As a result they find themselves in a murky world of claiming scripture as sole authority but not able to accept Christ’s own words of “Whenever two or three are gathered…”
They may even, in a fundamentalist group, gather together in threes, and fours etc. to interpret scripture according to that passage, but at the same time they will deny the infallibility of the councils and magesterium of the Catholic Church.
Sola Scriptura not only cannot be found in Scripture, but, just as in the above infallibility issue, it actually frequently denies or contradicts scripture.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Amen to that.
By denying certain inconvenient scriptural verses, sola scriptura is promulgated, which then is a denial of the authority of scripture because of how it was promulgated
T
tdgesq
Guest
And I say that it is an unscriptural argument. Where does the Bible claim that this kind of private judgment is given by the Holy Spirit to each and every individual Christian to determine the canon? It has also proven unworkable in practice. The Mormon will tell you that the burning in the bosom allows him to know that the Book of Mormon is God’s undefiled revelation (not that the Mormon religion is typically referred to as Christian). We don’t even have to go that far. The existence of the deuterocanonical books is enough.
As has already been mentioned, the Christian Church existed well before the New Testament Scriptures. The structure of the Church and the authority given it are apparent from the scriptures, while the doctrine of sola scriptura and private judgment are not. I do not downplay the importance of the Holy Spirit in the life of every Christian. It just isn’t a guarantee that when a Christian reads an inspired writing that he will “know” by virtue of the Holy Spirit that it is indeed inspired.
J
jbuck919
Guest
I would put it this way. Sola Scriptura is a late and heretical invention, mainly of Martin Luther. Protestant denominations take it for granted, but in fact it is a foolishness born out the head of a single man 1500 years after Christianity was founded. Let me make an analogy: If you are personally unhappy with the state of your household, you don’t cast everyone into the street with the intent of replacing them with more suitable persons and throw away everything except the bed and the toilet. That is in effect what Luther did. He didn’t even want to keep all the books in the Bible; there are several he wished to discard. Never discuss sola scriptura with protestants on their own terms. They simply don’t know what they are talking about.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
sola scriptura is a erroneous theory from 16th century germany.
the obvious problem with sola scriptura is that you can’t have a collection of authoritative scriptures without someone or something outside of those scriptures saying they are. sola scriptura is a self refuting argument in a sense.
besides, to practice sola scriptura would require everyone and their grandmother to become biblical scholars and experts in hebrew, ancient greek and latin.
sola scriptura isn’t consistent in of itself or with the historical record.
the obvious problem with sola scriptura is that you can’t have a collection of authoritative scriptures without someone or something outside of those scriptures saying they are. sola scriptura is a self refuting argument in a sense.
besides, to practice sola scriptura would require everyone and their grandmother to become biblical scholars and experts in hebrew, ancient greek and latin.
sola scriptura isn’t consistent in of itself or with the historical record.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
No, I include that in Sacred Tradition – as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church; and as a matter of fact, ALL of those things you mentioned are included in my definition of “Sacred Tradition”. The epistles of the Apostles eventually became part of the Biblical canon when councils of bishops defined the canon because the Holy Ghost promised to protect the Church (not JUST the book) from error. Again, I claim that and yes I accept that Scripture (which canon? the Catholic canon) was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
I never claimed the Apostles weren’t “supposed” to write down the Scriptures. The only book which we can verify from SCRIPTURE ITSELF (i.e. Sola Scriptura) where God COMMANDED the author to pen it - is the Apocalypse where Jesus tells John to write it down.
AMEN! You point out the Sacred Magisterium in work! The Church was an institution which was the Body of Christ (aka all Christians) and the leaders appointed leaders for when they left (i.e. apostolic succession which can be proven in the Book of Acts when St. Peter (yet another proof for the Petrine Primacy) calls all of the Apostles together to elect a successor to Judas Iscariot – the Apostle Matthias.
Of course other languages were “at play” but the New Testament was written in Greek and it is a fact that most peasants could not read or write.
In the time of the ancient Church there were many heretical books purporting themselves as written by the Apostles, which is why church councils (the Sacred Magisterium) were called to dispute these heresies such as the gnostics and the Arians. The Arians were the first modern day Protestants and Muslims, they relied on their own personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture to come to the belief that Jesus Christ was NOT the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The Church councils preserved Sacred Tradition and the Christian religion. Sacred Tradition is NOT just “oral tradition”.
V
Verita
Guest
But there are many, many Protestants who do believe that Scripture alone is authoritative, what you call Nuda Scriptura. And these same Protestants would reject your terminology. I came into the Catholic Church from just such a belief system. My mother for example (though she wouldn’t put it in these terms) basically believes that if it’s not from the Bible it’s basically worth nothing. To her EVERY truth must come from the Bible. Nothing else matters.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
That’s not sola scriptura. That’s prima scriptura. Prima scriptura CAN be practiced.
Also, this definition you present contradicts 2 Thess 2:15, where Paul writes that his tradition and scripture are on equal grounds. Obviously, it is a man-made tradition. Also, Paul writes in another verse that we are to withdraw ourselves from those who hold to other traditions not from the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
Well, first we need an authoritative definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists hold to.
Since there is none, then that ALONE is proof sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
Since there are multiple definitions, I’ll stick with the latin, thank you very much. Sola Scriptura = Only Scripture That was the original definition promulgated by Pope Martin Luther I.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Another point:
Sola fide = salvation by faith alone
Sola gratia = salvation by God’s grace alone
Sola scriptura = scripture alone
The 3 solas of the reformation. Only sola gratia is acceptable to Catholics.
Somehow, saying that sola scriptura allows tradition and a magisterium is a stretch. That’s like saying sola fide allows works to help you gain salvation in addition to faith. Or that something else in addition to God’s grace can help you gain salvation.
Sola fide = salvation by faith alone
Sola gratia = salvation by God’s grace alone
Sola scriptura = scripture alone
The 3 solas of the reformation. Only sola gratia is acceptable to Catholics.
Somehow, saying that sola scriptura allows tradition and a magisterium is a stretch. That’s like saying sola fide allows works to help you gain salvation in addition to faith. Or that something else in addition to God’s grace can help you gain salvation.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
If you’re interested, here’s a classic presentation of Sola Scriptura:
mbrem.com/bible/solahodge.htm.
mbrem.com/bible/solahodge.htm.
- Status