Sola Scriptura causes a return to observance of law?

[Vanessa]

Reading about St. Thomas More, and his debate with Martin Luther, the author (Anne Murphy) wrote that St. Thomas More saw Luther’s Scripture dependancy as returning to an Old Testament oppression of law. That in our era, the law is written in our hearts.

For More, Luther’s stress on the written, necessarily external word, was a return to the old law, and a movement away from the gospel of the new covenant:

Is not Luther moved at all by the words of God, mentioned also by the Apostles: ‘I will put my laws upon their hearts and upon their minds I will write them’? HE wrote the old law first on stone, later on wood, yet always externally. HE will write the new law inwardly by the finger of God on the book of the heart …what he has written on the heart will last indelibly./I]

I’m thinking about it. Any thoughts?

 

[Cachonga]

This has not been my experience, and I left the Catholic Church primarily because of Sola Scriptura. It’s true that God has written His law on the hearts of believers, but how can you know whether the law in your heart is God’s law or your own law if you don’t compare it to Scripture? If you rely on the teaching authority of the Church, how are you different from Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, both of which rely on the “infallibility” of their leaders? You may claim an unbroken line of succession from Peter to today. Remember what Jesus told the hypocrites of His day - “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance; and do not begin to say, We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” (Luke 3:8 DR). I would suggest that God could also raise up Apostolic Successors out of the very stones of the ground.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

We had to give authority to someone or some group in order to have the bible canon that we have today. Somebody had to decide which books were divinely inspired and which were not.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

As a response to your question: I think I agree with St. Thomas More. It seems that Sola Scriptura would support an observance of all of the laws in Leviticus.

 

[Cachonga]

praise_Jesus:

We had to give authority to someone or some group in order to have the bible canon that we have today. Somebody had to decide which books were divinely inspired and which were not.

The Old Testament was available to the Church from the beginning. The ECF’s used quotes from the Gospels and Epistles in many of their writings. They recognized the Scriptures early on. I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is this - Jerome (who knew Hebrew and the Jewish Canon) rejected the “apocrypha” as inspired. He translated them into the Latin Vulgate because he was told to (by people who didn’t know Hebrew or the Jewish Canon). Even so, he made it clear that these other books were not authoritative in matters of faith (see here). This opinion was held all the way up to the Council of Trent. How can you trust these men to accurately recognize inspired scripture? Of those involved in the Council of Trent, who knew Hebrew or Greek? Who was able to accurately examine the Scriptures in their original language? What documents did they examine, and how did they determine their authenticity? I suggest that, since God’s Word is important, that God has preserved it and make it known as such. That being said, how can something that has not been accepted as Scripture for well over 1,500 years become so? I will hold the opinion of St. Jerome, thank you very much!

praise_Jesus:

As a response to your question: I think I agree with St. Thomas More. It seems that Sola Scriptura would support an observance of all of the laws in Leviticus.

Easy to see why you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. You obviously don’t understand it! I recognize the Law of Moses, but I also recognize that I am no longer under the law, but under grace (Rom 6:14). I also recognize this doesn’t give me a “license to sin” (Rom 6:15-16).

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

I have the utmost respect for St. Jerome and I do not doubt that he was qualified to translate the bible.

But when does an individual have the power to determine canonicity?

St. Augustine believed that these books were inspired. As an Early Church Father I think Augustine’s opinion may also be valid.

 

[Cachonga]

praise_Jesus:

But when does an individual have the power to determine canonicity?

If Jerome was the only person in all of Church history to take this position, I would agree that he was wrong. However, since his position has been affirmed by others (including Popes like Gregory the Great), that gives me reason to accept his opinion in regard to the apocrypha. His educational background also gives him greater credibility in determining Sacred Scripture than most other ECF’s of his day.

praise_Jesus:

St. Augustine believed that these books were inspired. As an Early Church Father I think Augustine’s opinion may also be valid.

St. Augustine didn’t know Hebrew, Greek, or the Jewish Canon. I would ask on what basis does he accept these writings as inspired scripture, but we are straying from the topic and getting into a new topic completely. That being the case, I will not respond to any further questions in regard to the apocrypha or the ECF’s.

 

[AwGusTeen]

snip…
Easy to see why you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. You obviously don’t understand it!
snip…

Yes, and I don’t think that most people who claim to hold to this man-made doctrine actually understand it either. To clear things up a bit, let’s start with a definition of the phrase Sola Scriptura. I’ve seen many variations, but here’s the one upon which most Prodestants seem agree:

SS posits that Scripture alone is the sole authority concerning faith and morals.

If you agree with this definition, then please provide us with some scripture that proves this doctrine. If not, then please give us YOUR definition of SS.

 

[incense]

QUOTE=Cachonga;5327147]This has not been my experience, and I left the Catholic Church primarily because of Sola Scriptura. It’s true that God has written His law on the hearts of believers, but how can you know whether the law in your heart is God’s law or your own law if you don’t compare it to Scripture?

But how do you know after checking with scripture? Every protestant claims they do, yet they come up with quite contradictory results. Is abortion wrong, or was the recently murdered abortionist a compassionate Christian as his church claims? Is divorce and remarriage wrong, or we only recent Christian able to finally figured out it’s really okay? Or recenlty, is it okay to call down God’s judgement on bad people, or should we pray for their conversion?

Yet, if the law is written on our heart, we should be able to find it too, without contradictions. Of course, maybe true Christians aren’t contradicting each other. But how would you know who the true Christians are? There could be gray levels of true Christians, where some are baby Christians, or haven’t totally rejected sin from their life. But that would be a Catholic idea. I think Protestants think you’re saved or you’re not, end of story.

I know I’ve been stunned sometimes at how other’s struggle with whether something is right or wrong, or the best thing to do. It seemed pretty obvious to me, but they had to find a scripture that satisfied them. I just figured it was my Catholic background that taught me so clearly to distinguish good from evil. But maybe I dont’ give myself enough credit, maybe I could read the law in my heart, and they couldn’t or wouldn’t. Maybe, they were being too legalistic?

It never would have occured to me, but if More is right, then it wouldn’t be just the doctrinal inheritances which have been rejected, but also the personal ability to read their heart. I hope that’s wrong.

 

[incense]

If you rely on the teaching authority of the Church, how are you different from Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, both of which rely on the “infallibility” of their leaders? You may claim an unbroken line of succession from Peter to today. Remember what Jesus told the hypocrites of His day - “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance; and do not begin to say, We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” (Luke 3:8 DR). I would suggest that God could also raise up Apostolic Successors out of the very stones of the ground.

So you’re saying that the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventist churches are the new successors to the Apostles? Who else?

And isn’t the idea of penance rejected by protestants? Don’t they teach that the word shoud be “repent”. Otherwise, you’d be required to do an action, and actions aren’t required for there salvation.