Scripture and reason; why must sola scriptura be false

  • Thread starter Thread starter exiled
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper_Fi said:
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”.
Click to expand...
This is probably a mighty fine argument against SS: not only can real Christianity be developed from Scripture alone, but so can Arianism. Some would argue that is not the case, but from what I’ve heard, the Arians used a lot of Scripture to prove their points.
 
Verita said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does everything she has have to have a Biblical basis? Does she use a telephone? A computer? Buttons? A car? Is perhaps the world flat because whether it is round is not spelled out explicitly in Scripture? Or is this truth limited to faith and morals?

Protestants have many definitions of SS. That’s part of the problem here, and an argument, as was pointed out, against SS. Why couldn’t God give them a leader, grouse the Catholics, to shepherd them into the truth? Oh yeah, they say, that would be the Pope. In contrast Protestants retort that they have Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that is more than enough.
 
Truthstalker said:
Does everything she has have to have a Biblical basis? Does she use a telephone? A computer? Buttons? A car? Is perhaps the world flat because whether it is round is not spelled out explicitly in Scripture? Or is this truth limited to faith and morals?
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps I should say that everything having to do with Faith and Morals has to come from the Bible. However, she would go so far as to outright reject any scientific evidence that does not support a 6 day creation exactly as is found in Genesis.
Protestants have many definitions of SS. That’s part of the problem here, and an argument, as was pointed out, against SS. Why couldn’t God give them a leader, grouse the Catholics, to shepherd them into the truth? Oh yeah, they say, that would be the Pope. In contrast Protestants retort that they have Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that is more than enough.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And I thought it was unfair of you to say a previous poster was erecting a strawman argument by saying that Scripture Alone actually means Scripture Alone. Many protestants do believe in it that way. That was my point.
 
Truthstalker said:
This is probably a mighty fine argument against SS: not only can real Christianity be developed from Scripture alone, but so can Arianism. Some would argue that is not the case, but from what I’ve heard, the Arians used a lot of Scripture to prove their points.
Click to expand...
That’s right. Not only that, every single one of the tens of thousands of interpretations out there, including mormonism and JW’s, can be developed from scripture alone. The only difference between all those denominations is: interpretation of scripture (tradition)

That is why it is important to hold to the Apostolic interpretation of scripture, and not man-made ones.
 
Scottgun said:
Ahh the SolO Scriptura vs. the SolA Scriptura ploy.
Click to expand...
I still don’t understand how there can be any difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura. Aren’t they the exact same word with different gender endings? In that light, can there even be a Solo Scriptura? Isn’t that a contradiction of gender? Who created the term Solo Scriptura? Was it just a ploy to try and create a difference in the theology? :confused:
 
I still don’t understand how there can be any difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura. Aren’t they the exact same word with different gender endings? In that light, can there even be a Solo Scriptura? Isn’t that a contradiction of gender? Who created the term Solo Scriptura? Was it just a ploy to try and create a difference in the theology?
Click to expand...
No this is an important distinction. It means that when the Bible is interpreted by a woman it is sufficient for doctrine but if done so by a man it could be anyone’s guess.

😃 😉
 
exiled said:
Using both, can everyone give me their best arguments as to why SS is not only improbable, but impossible?
Click to expand...
Certain letters of the New Testament were private letters, eg Titus, 1&2Timothy, Philemon, 2&3John. These letters were NOT originally intended to be published pubilicly in “The Bible” for any joe to read and interpret as they saw fit. The SS argument assumes the Apostles left behind a guidebook addressed to anyone and everyone so that anyone was free to reference it at any time.

p.s. Here is the most accurate definition of Sola Scriptura for those who dont know:

Sola Scriptura - Anyone is free to interpret the Bible how they want as long as it doesnt agree with the Catholic Church interpretation.
 
Verita said:
I still don’t understand how there can be any difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura. Aren’t they the exact same word with different gender endings? In that light, can there even be a Solo Scriptura? Isn’t that a contradiction of gender? Who created the term Solo Scriptura? Was it just a ploy to try and create a difference in the theology? :confused:
Click to expand...
In order to determine if there is a difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, we must first have a firm definition of sola scriptura.

Something we don’t have.

And when they want to use “solo” instead of “sola” they also are trying to play a game to get around the latin meaning of the phrase: Scripture ALONE. If it is scripture alone, that means NO TRADITIONS and NO MAGISTERIUM. Just the scriptures. No other authority. It is basic intellectual dishonesty.
 
BobCatholic said:
In order to determine if there is a difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, we must first have a firm definition of sola scriptura.

Something we don’t have.

And when they want to use “solo” instead of “sola” they also are trying to play a game to get around the latin meaning of the phrase: Scripture ALONE. If it is scripture alone, that means NO TRADITIONS and NO MAGISTERIUM. Just the scriptures. No other authority. It is basic intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced that accusing those who disagree with you of playing games and basic intellectual dishonesty is a way you will persuade anyone. Several definitions of SS have been offered; this issue was raised early in this thread. I have attempted to represent my understanding of SS as best I can and explore its pitfalls.

This thread is turning ugly. I’m unsubscribing from it.
 
Truthstalker said:
I’m not convinced that accusing those who disagree with you of playing games and basic intellectual dishonesty is a way you will persuade anyone. Several definitions of SS have been offered; this issue was raised early in this thread. I have attempted to represent my understanding of SS as best I can and explore its pitfalls.

This thread is turning ugly. I’m unsubscribing from it.
Click to expand...
Thus falls the Sola Scriptura theory- no wonder the Council Fathers at Trent rejected it.

Ken
 
Truthstalker said:
I’m not convinced that accusing those who disagree with you of playing games and basic intellectual dishonesty is a way you will persuade anyone.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I say 🙂 I don’t accuse those who agree with me of playing games. I have yet to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest. I’m saying that solo/sola tactic is intellectually dishonest. Of course, you can prove me wrong by refuting my claim about the sola/solo tactic.

I’m still wondering why the latin phrase “sola scriptura” doesn’t mean what it says in latin: Scripture alone. I guess when the early proponents realized it wasn’t as good as originally proposed (that old “oops, I just bought a bill of goods” realization) the later ones must come up with some way to justify buying the bill of goods.
Several definitions of SS have been offered; this issue was raised early in this thread.
Click to expand...
None of which is the official definition of SS which all sola scripturists hold to.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents any agreement on even what sola scriptura means.
This thread is turning ugly. I’m unsubscribing from it.
Click to expand...
Ugly? I had no intention of being ugly, simply because I smash a heresy to smithereens.
 
BobCatholic said:
None of which is the official definition of SS which all sola scripturists hold to.
Click to expand...
There is no definition of Sola Scriptura that all Protestants hold to. One reason for Catholics not even to get caught up in the mess the Reformers have created. By creating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura out of thin air – the Reformers have caused more damage to the Christian religion than they ever intended. Schism after schism and broken families due to personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture. The Church is a family and if it can’t be sound on doctrinal matters then the family will crumble and split. The Catholic Church has been alive and well for 2,000 years, and although there have at times been nasty schisms (some of which still unfortunately are around today) the Church has been preserved because of Christ’s promise to not let the gates of Hell prevail. The Reformers, by creating their own Churches, assert that Christ is a liar and that He did not keep the gates of Hell from prevailing. Sola Scriptura is a false tradition of men. It is Satan who wishes to divide and conquer, not Christ. Some Protestants even go so far as to assert that Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation when it’s spelled out clearly in Sacred Scripture. So much for Sola Scriptura. 😦
 
Truthstalker said:
This is probably a mighty fine argument against SS: not only can real Christianity be developed from Scripture alone, but so can Arianism. Some would argue that is not the case, but from what I’ve heard, the Arians used a lot of Scripture to prove their points.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Group hug. 🙂 While these debates might all be very important, we all must remember to respect each other and you just displayed a great amount of charity. God bless!
 
exiled said:
Using both, can everyone give me their best arguments as to why SS is not only improbable, but impossible?
Click to expand...
  1. Because it is a self contradictory doctrine. If Scripture Alone is to be the basis, then Sola Scriptura must be within Scripture. The idea of “Bible Alone” (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the most that Scripture claims for itself is "profitable for teaching, admonition, . . . ".
  2. The Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. That fact alone should be enough to discredit it. Another is the very fact that it is not ex;icitly in the bible.
  3. Nowhere in the Bible are the words which state that the Word of GOD is restricted solely to what is written within Scripture.
  4. If Sola Scriptura is true, then when a doctrinal dispute arises between “sola scriptura” believers, who has the authority to resolve the dispute?
  5. Who has/had the authority to determine which books belong in the New Testament?
There’s much more if you’d like.
 
Semper_Fi said:
Thank you. Group hug. 🙂 While these debates might all be very important, we all must remember to respect each other and you just displayed a great amount of charity. God bless!
Click to expand...
Agreed. It takes a lot to admit what he admitted. 👍
 
So many helpful points, and I thank each of you. It is compelling that Scripture Alone has led to Mormonism, JW-ism, etc.
Sola Scriptura, being a doctrine that it’s advocates believe is, at least, implicitly taught in the Bible, ends up being, at best, less clearly taught than the Immaculate Conception, IMO.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Certain letters of the New Testament were private letters, eg Titus, 1&2Timothy, Philemon, 2&3John. These letters were NOT originally intended to be published pubilicly in “The Bible” for any joe to read and interpret as they saw fit.
Click to expand...
That’s a really good point. I’ll have to remember it. 🙂
The SS argument assumes the Apostles left behind a guidebook addressed to anyone and everyone so that anyone was free to reference it at any time.
Click to expand...
No, the SS argument is that God left behind the guidebook. In the SS belief system that I came out of it was sort of assumed that the people who wrote that Bible were just God’s human tools.
 
Sola Scriptura presupposes the following:
  1. Access to the bible
  2. Knowing how to read Greek/Latin/Aramiac
  3. Leisure time
  4. A list of books of the bible. To know what is inside the bible, you need to look outside the bible since there is not a list in the bible that says what books are in the bible
  5. The printing press was not invented until 15th century - most people during this time did not know how to read
  6. Scripture is easy to understand.
    “…In them there are some things hard to understand that
    the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures” - 2 Pet 3:16
  • Sola Scriptura was absolutely impossible before the NT was completed
  • Before the 4th century, Sola Sciptura was theoretically impossible since the Canon was not determined (the Catholic Church determined it then at the great Council)
  • Majority of today’s Christian Africans population are not literate - so what? They are damned to hell? No. They have the Church.
  • The Ethopian in Acts did not understand the Scripture he was reading - this verse further highlights the arrogance of Sola Scriptura. The Ethopian did NOT say, “how can I unless the HOLY SPIRIT guides me” or something of that nature; “Then Philip opened his mouth” - The Ethopian was TAUGHT by Bishop Philip.
  • The Church is the final authority (Matthew 18:15-18)
This Theory of Sola Scriptura is impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top