Sola Scriptura & Epistemology

[alwayswill]

Why didn’t they listen to him?

The name Lutheran** originated as a derogatory term** used against Luther by German Scholastic theologian Dr. Johann Maier von Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519.[10] Eck and other** Catholics followed the traditional practice** of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism#Etymology

 

[JonNC]

Why didn’t they listen to him?

Probably out of defiance of their opponents. This isn’t dramatically different than Catholics adopting the name Roman Catholic.
I wish they hadn’t, frankly, as Evangelical Catholic is far more accurate

Jon

 

[po18guy]

The burden is upon the accuser - in this case the SS adherents. They must prove, using the bible alone, that Jesus founded a bible and gave it all authority. They must prove, using the bible alone, that Paul wrote that the bible would be compiled sometime in the future and that it was the pillar and foundation of the truth. They must prove from the bible alone that the council in Acts 15 dug out the bible and made their ruling on circumcision. They must prove from the bible alone that the Bereans consulted with scripture that had not yet been written in order to see if Saint Paul was telling the truth. They must prove, using the bible alone, that Jesus taught to take disputes to the bible. They must prove from the bible alone that Jesus said to use the bible alone.

Of course, this is nonsensical. SS arguments are circular. The Catholic and Orthodox arguments are linear.

Fact: Philipp Melanchthon and others went to the Greek Orthodox Church (not the bible) with the intent to form an alliance against Rome. After several years and 400 pages of documents, the Greek Orthodox flatly refused any alliance, based on their authoritative ruling that no Church could be founded after discarding the Apostolic Tradition that both perpetuated the faith and produced the bible.

I pray that all who also love Christ will ponder the issues raised here, as did noted Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan. He realized that SS was untenable and had no foundation. While he simply could not become Catholic, he went form ordained Lutheran clergy to Eastern Orthodox layman. There is a litany of deep thinking men both before and after him that have been convicted that SS is untenable.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been reading Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura, trying to better understand their perspective to explain and point to the one true Church. Until recently, this has been frustrating because I’ve been unable to find any logical basis for Sola Scriptura, and its adherents I’ve talked to have held to a logically untenable position.

However, a recent essay by C. Michael Patton presented the first potentially reasonable argument I’ve seen. In his case (page 19-22 of this document: reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdf), he admits that Protestants have no absolute certainty that the canon of Scripture is correct, if there is no infallible Church to base it off of. However, he contends that it is also impossible for the Catholic to have absolute certainty, since we have no infallible source upon which to base our belief in an infallible Church. Instead, both groups rely on probable, rather than absolute, certainty in the truth of the Scriptures. He sums it up like this:

Catholic Position: Fallible Person -->(Fallible Belief in) -->Infallible Church -->(Infallible Declaration about) -->Infallible Scripture

Protestant Position: Fallible Person -->(Fallible Belief in) -->Infallible Scripture

This seems problematic to our “spiral argument” that historical evidence leads to infallible Church which leads to infallible Scripture. If the basis of our knowledge is fallible, then how can the consequence of it be infallible? As Catholics, how might we respond to these arguments? I feel like there’s some counterpoint I can’t quite grasp.

In the end faith, whether it be faith in Scripture and/or the Church and her teachings and/or God is a subjective affair; we come to place our trust in those things that seem the most trustworthy, that resonate the most clearly as truth, as the voice of God. Surely there are “motives of credibility” that help support that faith (just as logic alone ultimately dismisses sola scriptura as an untenable doctrine), but few of the truths we believe in can be proven conclusively to be true.

 

[guanophore]

The name Lutheran** originated as a derogatory term** used against Luther by German Scholastic theologian Dr. Johann Maier von Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519.[10] Eck and other** Catholics followed the traditional practice** of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism#Etymology

Oh that makes sense. The same is true of the term “Roman Catholic”.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura because of what it is. (it characteristics) Writings God breathed.
That is our starting point.

It is nearly irrelevant to the Sola Scriptura discussion on what is Scripture (which writings)
If the only God breathed writings we had were the Ten Commandments; we would still hold to Sola Scriptura

If the Chronicles of Adam or 3 Corinthians were God breathed writings; we would still hold to Sola Scriptura.

You asked
" So how does a Protestant know that Sacred Scripture is God’s word?"
I’ll answer the question that was asked (not what I think you may have meant)
That is the definition of Scripture: We call God breathed writings Scripture

Once again
We practice Sola Scripture
because of what Scripture is, not what is Scripture.

The faith many Protestants have in Sola Scriptura relies on the assumption of having a complete canon. If your canon is incomplete, how can you say Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith?

But to rise above the weeds a bit, how can Protestants know a given document is in fact Scripture? As a Catholic, I can point to, say, Church councils or Sacred Tradition to make my case. You may not agree with my methods but it cannot be denied that I have methods.

But it looks to me as though a preponderance of Protestants determined the deuterocanonical books aren’t Sacred Scripture using “That’s just how I feel” as their justification. If you believe that to be inaccurate, please correct.

 

[Topper17]

Source, please. You have these words that you here claim are Dr. Luther’s in quotes, so you must have a source.

In fact, here’s a real quote from Dr. Luther:

Jon

Hopefully this will help. It is from Luther’s writings. If you would like there are a lot of quotes from various Scholars dealing with Luther as ‘Prophet’.

"But since I am the “prophet of the Germans” (33) —for this haughty title I will henceforth have to assign to myself, to please and oblige my papists and asses—it is fitting that I, as a faithful teacher, warn my dear Germans against the harm and danger threatening them and impart Christian instruction to them regarding their conduct in the event that the emperor, at the instigation of his devils, the papists, issues a call to arms against the princes and cities on our side."

(33) Justus Jonas had referred to Luther in such terms in correspondence with him during his sojourn at Coburg, complimenting him on his steadfastness in the face of controversy, and Melanchthon was to use similar phraseology in his oration at Luther’s funeral. Cf. Julius Köstlin, Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften (2 vols.; Berlin, 1903), II, 215,
Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[alwayswill]

The burden is upon the accuser - in this case the SS adherents. They must prove, using the bible alone, that Jesus founded a bible and gave it all authority. They must prove, using the bible alone, that Paul wrote that the bible would be compiled sometime in the future and that it was the pillar and foundation of the truth. They must prove from the bible alone that the council in Acts 15 dug out the bible and made their ruling on circumcision. They must prove from the bible alone that the Bereans consulted with scripture that had not yet been written in order to see if Saint Paul was telling the truth. They must prove, using the bible alone, that Jesus taught to take disputes to the bible. They must prove from the bible alone that Jesus said to use the bible alone.

Of course, this is nonsensical. SS arguments are circular. The Catholic and Orthodox arguments are linear.

Fact: Philipp Melanchthon and others went to the Greek Orthodox Church (not the bible) with the intent to form an alliance against Rome. After several years and 400 pages of documents, the Greek Orthodox flatly refused any alliance, based on their authoritative ruling that no Church could be founded after discarding the Apostolic Tradition that both perpetuated the faith and produced the bible.

I pray that all who also love Christ will ponder the issues raised here, as did noted Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan. He realized that SS was untenable and had no foundation. While he simply could not become Catholic, he went form ordained Lutheran clergy to Eastern Orthodox layman. There is a litany of deep thinking men both before and after him that have been convicted that SS is untenable.

pure strawman arguments:
SS adherents do NOT claim Jesus founded a bible

SS adherents do NOT claim Jesus gave it all authority.

SS adherents do NOT need to prove, using the bible alone, that Paul wrote that the bible would be compiled sometime in the future …

etc etc:

Here is a fact
God breathed writings carry the same authority as God Himself speaking from His throne…

Or are you going to deny that?

 

[alwayswill]

,
Fact: Philipp Melanchthon and others went to the Greek Orthodox Church (not the bible) with the intent to form an alliance against Rome. After several years and 400 pages of documents, the Greek Orthodox flatly refused any alliance, based on their authoritative ruling that no Church could be founded after discarding the Apostolic Tradition that both perpetuated the faith and produced the bible.
…

In the context of Sola Scriptua; the Bible and Scripture are not the same thing.

All God breathed writings are of Scripture

The collection of all known God breathed writings is the Bible

Genesis was Scripture the moment it was penned.
Isaiah was Scripture the moment it was penned.
Revelation was Scripture the moment it was penned.

Genesis, Isaiah, and Revelation did not become Scripture when they were included in the Bible

 

[shockerfan]

In the context of Sola Scriptua; the Bible and Scripture are not the same thing.

All God breathed writings are of Scripture

The collection of all known God breathed writings is the Bible

Genesis was Scripture the moment it was penned.
Isaiah was Scripture the moment it was penned.
Revelation was Scripture the moment it was penned.

Genesis, Isaiah, and Revelation did not become Scripture when they were included in the Bible

Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”?

 

[alwayswill]

Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”?

irrelevant
We uphold Sola Scripture because of what Scripture is
not what is Scripture

based on your understating of what Scripture is;
(Its characteristics and attributes)
do you agree with these following statements?

• All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos) .

• A God breathed writing is Scripture the moment it is penned by a writer move by the Holy Spirit.

• Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors) .

• Scripture as the word of God is The Truth (not a truth, not merely correct) .

• Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error .

• It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.

• It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.

• God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.

• Someone misunderstanding God, Jesus, or Scripture does NOT diminish their authority .

 

[alwayswill]

Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”?

follow this analogy:
GOD

I adhere to the belief the God is the highest authority:
Everything He says or has said is 100% true…

whether Grandma Moses, or Jill St John , or Susan St. James tell me God said this or that is irrelevant;
I start with God is the highest authority.

Does anyone’s misunderstanding of God diminish His authority? of course not.
Is God required to state He is the highest authority for HIm to be the highest authority?
of course not.
God is the highest authority BECAUSE of who God is.

IN THE SAME WAY

Scripture is the highest authority BECAUSE of what Scripture is: Writings breathed out by God

 

[JonNC]

Hopefully this will help. It is from Luther’s writings. If you would like there are a lot of quotes from various Scholars dealing with Luther as ‘Prophet’.

"But since I am the “prophet of the Germans” (33) —for this haughty title I will henceforth have to assign to myself, to please and oblige my papists and asses—it is fitting that I, as a faithful teacher, warn my dear Germans against the harm and danger threatening them and impart Christian instruction to them regarding their conduct in the event that the emperor, at the instigation of his devils, the papists, issues a call to arms against the princes and cities on our side."

(33) Justus Jonas had referred to Luther in such terms in correspondence with him during his sojourn at Coburg, complimenting him on his steadfastness in the face of controversy, and Melanchthon was to use similar phraseology in his oration at Luther’s funeral. Cf. Julius Köstlin, Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften (2 vols.; Berlin, 1903), II, 215,
Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

And you understand the nature of sarcasm, and hyperbole.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

And you understand the nature of sarcasm, and hyperbole.

Jon

There was nothing sarcastic in my response but I did find yours to be interesting.

You were apparently looking for a source which showed that Luther considered himself to be some kind of a Prophet. I provided that source with an actual Luther quote and properly referenced it.

As for ‘hyperbole’ I have absolutely NO idea why you would say that about my post, which by the way, **was 100% factual and completely without any personal opinions or commentary. **

 

[guanophore]

There was nothing sarcastic in my response but I did find yours to be interesting.

You were apparently looking for a source which showed that Luther considered himself to be some kind of a Prophet. I provided that source with an actual Luther quote and properly referenced it.

As for ‘hyperbole’ I have absolutely NO idea why you would say that about my post, which by the way, **was 100% factual and completely without any personal opinions or commentary. **

Silly.

He was talking about LUTHER!

Great find, btw.

Please try to stay on the topic.

 

[shockerfan]

irrelevant

Really, irrelevant? You are betting your salvation on what is written in Scripture, so shouldn’t you be sure what exactly scripture is?

Its a simple “yes or no” question: "Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”? Please answer.

We uphold Sola Scripture because of what Scripture is
not what is Scripture

Where does it say that in the Bible?

based on your understating of what Scripture is;
(Its characteristics and attributes)
do you agree with these following statements?

• All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos) .

• A God breathed writing is Scripture the moment it is penned by a writer move by the Holy Spirit.

• Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors) .

• Scripture as the word of God is The Truth (not a truth, not merely correct) .

• Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error .

• It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.

• It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.

• God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.

• Someone misunderstanding God, Jesus, or Scripture does NOT diminish their authority .

I agree in principle, but there are additional, highly relevant questions:

1. Where did your list of statements come from?
2. By what authority did Luther use to claim seven books used by Jesus and the Apostles were no longer considered to be “God breathed”?
3. By what authority to you know the Didache or the letters of Clement are not “God breathed?”
4. There are many misunderstandings between Christians about the proper interpretation of God breathed scripture. How do we determine who has the correct interpretation? (Again, our salvation depends on proper interpretation)

 

[shockerfan]

follow this analogy:
GOD

I adhere to the belief the God is the highest authority:
Everything He says or has said is 100% true…

whether Grandma Moses, or Jill St John , or Susan St. James tell me God said this or that is irrelevant;
I start with God is the highest authority.

Does anyone’s misunderstanding of God diminish His authority? of course not.
Is God required to state He is the highest authority for HIm to be the highest authority?
of course not.
God is the highest authority BECAUSE of who God is.

IN THE SAME WAY

Scripture is the highest authority BECAUSE of what Scripture is: Writings breathed out by God

Your analogy does not address the points I have been making. You and I share the common ground of believing Scripture to be the inspired word of God. But from that point, there are disagreements on exactly “What is Scripture?” and “Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”

If you believe in SS, then by what process did you personally use to determine “What is Scripture?” At what point did you determine the KJV to be the correct version of the Bible, and not, for example, the New American Bible? What process did you follow to say that the Book of Mormon is not God breathed? Why do you reject Wisdom or 2 Maccabees as being God breathed?

 

[alwayswill]

Your analogy does not address the points I have been making. You and I share the common ground of believing Scripture to be the inspired word of God. But from that point, there are disagreements on exactly “What is Scripture?” and “Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?”

If you believe in SS, then by what process did you personally use to determine “What is Scripture?” At what point did you determine the KJV to be the correct version of the Bible, and not, for example, the New American Bible? What process did you follow to say that the Book of Mormon is not God breathed? Why do you reject Wisdom or 2 Maccabees as being God breathed?

Your points have nothing to do with SS adherents holding to the belief that Scripture has the same authority as God speaking from His throne

you are determined to change the subject to what is Scripture.

Scripture is the highest authority because of what Scripture is
not what is Scripture

does the authority of God depend on whether or not God ever said
“cleanliness is next to godliness”?

does the authority of God depend on whether or not God ever said
“I am the highest authority”?

 

[shockerfan]

Your points have nothing to do with SS adherents holding to the belief that Scripture has the same authority as God speaking from His throne

you are determined to change the subject to what is Scripture.

Scripture is the highest authority because of what Scripture is
not what is Scripture

does the authority of God depend on whether or not God ever said
“cleanliness is next to godliness”?

does the authority of God depend on whether or not God ever said
“I am the highest authority”?

I get why you refuse to answer my questions, because SS cannot lead you to a correct answer. An adherent to SS is left to their own “authority” to guess what is and is not Scripture.

Am I to assume that if a person who is searching various faiths for the truth, would come to you and ask “Is the Book of Mormon God breathed?”, that you would just answer “Its irrelevant”? Would you refuse to answer the question for them?

Perhaps you might answer this question:
When Jesus said, "“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” (John 6:53)…do you take Jesus literally or figuratively?
Some Christians take Jesus figuratively (most Protestants), and some take Jesus literally (Catholics, Orthodox, a few others). How does SS enable you to determine the proper interpretation of that quote?

 

[JonNC]

There was nothing sarcastic in my response but I did find yours to be interesting.

You were apparently looking for a source which showed that Luther considered himself to be some kind of a Prophet. I provided that source with an actual Luther quote and properly referenced it.

As for ‘hyperbole’ I have absolutely NO idea why you would say that about my post, which by the way, **was 100% factual and completely without any personal opinions or commentary. **

I didn’t say there was. I was talking about the quote you provided! Luther is known for sarcasm and hyperbole


Jon