Sola Scriptura help please

[zach_dunn]

I, however, miss the place dearly for some reason. An integral part of my “reversion” was when I realized that the best arguments offered against the Church tend to be completely preposterous when investigated to even the slightest degree. I began to notice the complete hipocrisy of the position held by most of the anticatholic posters. Most of them will charge Catholics with “checking our minds at the door” but then refuse to deal with the inconsistencies of their own arguments beyond mere pejorative. If one can remain emotionally detatched from what the goofballs are saying, it can be a rather fruitful and amusing place from time to time.

On the other hand, there’s the clear bias of the moderators…

Don’t ever call them biased, by the way, if you don’t want to end up banned…

And don’t ever actually demonstrate that bias with evidence if you don’t want to end up with a trumped-up three month ban.

Ah, the stories I can tell my grandchildren…

I guess I kinda feel the same way . . . I’ve come a long way since the last time I debated on those forums, and after reading this I just might go back from time to time!

 

[zach_dunn]

Yes, they do.
Trinity - “Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Christ’s divinity - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Quite explicit.

I dunno, that’s pretty sketchy for “explicit” if you ask me. If it’s that clear, I don’t understand how anyone could be a Unitarian or a Jehovah’s Witness . . .

Would you say that, for example, Mary’s assumption is explicit or implicit? I would say implicit. Is it wrong to believe in her assumption? No, as it does not conflict with scripture. Should the conscience of the Christian be bound to believe it, even though her assumption is not explicit, and belief in the assumption is not directly related to salvation. Again, no.
Doctrine relates to those things related directly to salvation - articles of faith, found explicitly in scripture.

OK, would you say that the items affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles Creed are related to salvation?

I wouldn’t say infallible. Definitive and authoritative, yes.

Jon

Why bother with anything that’s not infallible? You’ll spend all your time wondering if it’s really true! Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like I’m making fun of it, cause I’m not! That’s just how I see it . . . thank you for your replies, though.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach
I do not believe a properly educated Christian can be talked out of the Bible as their final authority.

I suppose that just makes them stubborn and narrow-minded then, just from what you say here you prove my point. You seem to be of the impression that sola Scriptura is the “intellectual” belief, thus declaring that you will refuse to listen to the other side’s reasoning behind their beliefs. This may not be how you feel but that’s how you come across to me.

I am curious though with at least 70 percent of people in the world being unsaved and going to hell, why we are so interesting to you?

I feel it is quite difficult for me to witness to that 70 percent for several reasons, and how’d you come up with that number? Just to let you know we have different opinions regarding salvation.

 

[zach_dunn]

Matt:

Once a long time ago I started a thread “What is Sola Scriptura” and came up with about seven definitions that ranged from nuanced to very brute force. The nuanced definitions are held by most Protestants (even those who don’t use the term “Sola Scriptura”). The more brute force definitions are of course the more problematic ones (at least for me).

In reading your statements, it seems like you are drawing on a number of sources. While what you have done is pretty good, some of these statements (for example Scripture being perspicuous and self interpreting) are not held by the more nuanced definitions of Sola Scriptura and if you think about them have some issues. I thought of going through your stuff with a fine tooth comb and nitpicking it, but decided against it.

I actually might suggest you use one source as your primary source. I might suggest a book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison. His definition is more nuanced than brute force and I for one had only a few relatively minor issues with it.

I believe you are addressing me (my name is Zach, not Matt ), so I will respond as such. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and this is just another thing that amazes me about sola Scriptura and Protestantism in general, how can you claim to “agree on the essentials” when you actually can’t?

 

[zach_dunn]

I said this in another thread and it applies here as well, “You are mistaken”.

How so? How does sola Scriptura avoid private interpretation?

 

[zach_dunn]

YES!!! I love it. A fellow Catholic who gets what Sola Scriptura really means. I wish we could get the rest of the Catholic population on board. I love this guy!

May God Bless!

Oh you!

Haha, thank you for the kind words. I’m here to learn about the doctrine from the Protestant side, not the Catholic one! Not to say that many Catholics don’t know what the doctrine is, it’s just that there is a certain degree of common misunderstanding about it . . . at least that’s how I feel! Thanks again for you kind words!

 

[AmateurPianist]

I believe you are addressing me (my name is Zach, not Matt ), so I will respond as such. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and this is just another thing that amazes me about sola Scriptura and Protestantism in general, how can you claim to “agree on the essentials” when you actually can’t?

“Sola Scriptura” is not an essential IMHO.

But point taken. There was an evangelical blog I read a while back that polled its readership on “what is essential” and there was a wide divergence of opinion of what exactly is essential.

My theory being is that folks add their own pet issues on to what is essential.

 

[JonNC]

=zach dunn;6932336]I dunno, that’s pretty sketchy for “explicit” if you ask me. If it’s that clear, I don’t understand how anyone could be a Unitarian or a Jehovah’s Witness . . .

I don’t either.

OK, would you say that the items affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles Creed are related to salvation?

And the Anthanasian, too.

Why bother with anything that’s not infallible? You’ll spend all your time wondering if it’s really true! Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like I’m making fun of it, cause I’m not! That’s just how I see it . . .

It didn’t occur to me that you were making fun.
How do you know what is infallible, other than God? If I said the Lutheran Confessions were infallible, would you not ask me the same question? I have often heard Catholics here say they believe the Catholic Church is infallible, and when the are inclined to believe something differently than the Magisterium, they accept what the Magisterium says **on faith. **

thank you for your replies, though.

You are quite welcome.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

How so? How does sola Scriptura avoid private interpretation?

If one understands that the practice is exercised by the Church - in my case Lutheranism - and not by me personally, then one sees how the practice is not in and of itself personal interpretation.

Jon

 

[SpectatorX]

I guess I kinda feel the same way . . . I’ve come a long way since the last time I debated on those forums, and after reading this I just might go back from time to time!

The trick is to see the fundamental inconsistencies in everything they say and find it amusingly ironic. Oh, and don’t expect a real debate most of the time. Mostly, they just repeat the same empty mantras in the face of an argument against the very same mantras, and then they’ll accuse you of the same. At such time, a brief sumary of the discussion revealing the precise opposite usually recieves no response at all (for some reason ). Done right, the place can be a playground for anyone capable of rational thought. Have fun with it, and tell them the Spectator says “hi”.

 

[zach_dunn]

“Sola Scriptura” is not an essential IMHO.

But point taken. There was an evangelical blog I read a while back that polled its readership on “what is essential” and there was a wide divergence of opinion of what exactly is essential.

My theory being is that folks add their own pet issues on to what is essential.

And perhaps they think the same about you? Who is to decide what is essential? How do you know what’s essential more than the next Evangelical who might disagree with you?

And considering the great differences in doctrine between the Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist doctrine, I would say that what we consider valid revelation and where we place authority (and what kind of authority) is of essential importance. But that could just be me.

 

[zach_dunn]

The trick is to see the fundamental inconsistencies in everything they say and find it amusingly ironic. Oh, and don’t expect a real debate most of the time. Mostly, they just repeat the same empty mantras in the face of an argument against the very same mantras, and then they’ll accuse you of the same. At such time, a brief sumary of the discussion revealing the precise opposite usually recieves no response at all (for some reason ). Done right, the place can be a playground for anyone capable of rational thought. Have fun with it, and tell them the Spectator says “hi”.

Ha, thanks for the advice and will do!

 

[zach_dunn]

I don’t either.

Perhaps because it’s not as explicit as you think? It’s easy to see these doctrines in the Bible if we’ve grown up with them.

And the Anthanasian, too.

Ok, what exactly does Jesus being born of a virgin have to do with my salvation, what about the Church? Or the communion of saints? They don’t seem directly related to my salvation to me . . .

It didn’t occur to me that you were making fun.

I wasn’t, like I said, I just didn’t want to give that impression.

How do you know what is infallible, other than God? If I said the Lutheran Confessions were infallible, would you not ask me the same question? I have often heard Catholics here say they believe the Catholic Church is infallible, and when the are inclined to believe something differently than the Magisterium, they accept what the Magisterium says **on faith. **

I know that God has guided the Church, and given it the charism of infallibility in certain circumstances. I would ask how you believed the Confessions were infallible using biblical and historical data. I’m kinda confused about the second part, are you saying that a person may be inclined to believe something different than that proposed by the Magisterium but they still do believe it on the faith that the Magisterium is infallible? If that is the case I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at . . .

 

[zach_dunn]

If one understands that the practice is exercised by the Church - in my case Lutheranism - and not by me personally, then one sees how the practice is not in and of itself personal interpretation.

Jon

But as I said, if you don’t have someone or something which is infallible to correctly interpret the Bible for you, how can you not privately interpret the Bible? Who was Luther to interpret the Scriptures? Why is his interpretation not private?

 

[AmateurPianist]

And perhaps they think the same about you? Who is to decide what is essential? How do you know what’s essential more than the next Evangelical who might disagree with you?

And considering the great differences in doctrine between the Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist doctrine, I would say that what we consider valid revelation and where we place authority (and what kind of authority) is of essential importance. But that could just be me.

Well maybe this is just me , but essential means you can not be Christian unless you believe such-and-such.

So if you are Protestant and holding Sola Scriptura as an essential then you have just eternally damned all Catholics and Orthodox. Since the vast majority of Protestants do not consider Catholics and Orthodox as nonChristian, then a mainstream working definition of Sola Scriptura (which I thought was what you are after) would not hold it as essential.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I suppose that just makes them stubborn and narrow-minded then, just from what you say here you prove my point. You seem to be of the impression that sola Scriptura is the “intellectual” belief, thus declaring that you will refuse to listen to the other side’s reasoning behind their beliefs. This may not be how you feel but that’s how you come across to me.

I feel it is quite difficult for me to witness to that 70 percent for several reasons, and how’d you come up with that number? Just to let you know we have different opinions regarding salvation.

I have heard all the reasoning behind beliefs that disagree with me. What do you think I have been doing on here the last three years?
Roughly 30 percent of the world is Christian. 70 percent is not. I believe that Jesus is the truth the way and the Life and no one can come to the Father except through him.
But that is where I get my 70 percent figure from. Your thoughts?

 

[JonNC]

=zach dunn;6933075]Perhaps because it’s not as explicit as you think? It’s easy to see these doctrines in the Bible if we’ve grown up with them.

Perhaps you are right. Then again, like you trust the early councils on these issues, so do I.

Ok, what exactly does Jesus being born of a virgin have to do with my salvation, what about the Church? Or the communion of saints? They don’t seem directly related to my salvation to me . . .

The nature of Christ - fully God, fully man - the Incarnation.
The Church - where the means of grace are made available for us.
The communion of saints I’ll have to think about.

I know that God has guided the Church, and given it the charism of infallibility in certain circumstances.

How do you know that?

I would ask how you believed the Confessions were infallible using biblical and historical data. I’m kinda confused about the second part, are you saying that a person may be inclined to believe something different than that proposed by the Magisterium but they still do believe it on the faith that the Magisterium is infallible? If that is the case I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at . . .

No, I meant they are willing to put aside their personal belief in deference to the Magisterium, because, as you stated above, they have faith that the Church is protected from error.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But as I said, if you don’t have someone or something which is infallible to correctly interpret the Bible for you, how can you not privately interpret the Bible?

Did the ECF’s privately interpret?
As I asked above, how do you know that the interpretation of the Catholic Church is infallible? So it comes down to this, I trust the confessions are a right reflection of scripture. It is an honest trust, based on faith, and includes a reliance on Grace if I am wrong.

Who was Luther to interpret the Scriptures? Why is his interpretation not private?

To one degree or another, we all privately interpret. It is, in part, the basis upon which we determine which communion we link ourselves to. It is at least one the reason you are not Orthodox or Anglican.

Luther’s interpretations are his own. Lutherans are not held to Luther, but to scripture and the confessions. Sola Scriptura holds Luther accountable also.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well maybe this is just me , but essential means you can not be Christian unless you believe such-and-such.

So if you are Protestant and holding Sola Scriptura as an essential then you have just eternally damned all Catholics and Orthodox. Since the vast majority of Protestants do not consider Catholics and Orthodox as nonChristian, then a mainstream working definition of Sola Scriptura (which I thought was what you are after) would not hold it as essential.

This is an excellent point. I thought I might add this excerpt from the James Kiefer article a recommended earlier to Zach.

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

Jon

 

[Big_Dummy]

If you want to do it right, you should start with Christ Alone because the other sola’s have that as their foundation.