Sola Scriptura Is Not God's Plan - An Argument

[anthony022071]

I don’t see how having the ability to choose what we want gives us anything other than bondage if everything we want is evil all of the time. We need to be regenerated by the Spirit to want what is good.

Gen. 6:5-7
The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

But we don’t want what is evil all the time. That is not even true of heathens.

Romans 2,14-16:

< For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. >

If we naturally want what is evil all the time,then even the gift of God’s grace would not help us,because we would never want that gift and would choose to reject it. If grace is a gift to man,then man must want what is good.

Genesis 6,5-7 cannot be taken as an unqualified statement on the depravity of man,because Noah and his family were a part of mankind,and they were not totally depraved. And we are of Noah’s seed. And apart from that,even those whom God destroyed in the flood must have had instincts which were good,such as caring for one’s own children;otherwise humans would have become extinct on their own.

 

[add1967]

And if will you read all of what Augustine wrote in that piece, you will find that he is not setting the authority of the Church over against Scripture.

Elsewhere Augustine says:What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule for your doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought….Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

Augustine, De bono viduitatis. 2. See NPNF, Series I, III:442.

AMEN TO THIS

 

[justinthemartyr]

It seems that augustine was setting a doctrinal error straight in this section of his writings. taken out of context, this certainly could appear to be sola scriptura, but is far from that.

 

[JesseW]

Wow, what a fascinating thread! Even though I am a leader of a conservative Baptist church I feel that I may not speak for all Protestant Christians, or even Baptists! I do know that a lot of Protestants don’t have an understanding of Sola Scriptura. It is unfortunate that Fundamentalists (legalistic to the core) refuse any role of Tradition in the faith. As I have argued in another thread (I apologize for the repetition), Protestants must accept that Tradition is important or they must deny the early creeds, one of which used the traditional formulation of doctrine to shut down the heresies of Arias during the Council of Nicea. As a vast majority of denominations since the Reformation have upheld these creeds (even Luther), the concept of Sola Scriptura cannot, by practice, exclude Tradition. Every good heresy comes from individual interpretation of Scripture.

This places Protestants, myself included, in a precarious position. I would love to come back to a universal Church. I really do believe this was (and is) Christ’s will. All history before the Reformation belongs to all of us, as one Church. Many on both sides forget this. The biggest problem is that most Protestants do not have faith in some of the traditions that the Roman Catholic Church still adheres to. The problem that we see is that “tradition” is difficult to check against. What became manmade through the fallibility of human institutions versus that which is God-inspired? The fact that the Catholic Church can become corrupted is verified in the fact that it needed its own Counter Reformation in the 1600s. How do we know that it went far enough? When Scripture is silent on something, Protestants become suspicious when docrines are created with little or no support from the living Word of God.

A lot of this may indeed by inspired from God, but history makes us (Protestants) cautious to blindly fall into the fold.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yet history should actually encourage you to greater faith in the Catholic Church. What was the counter reformation but the counter against heresies concocted during the “Reformation”.

 

[JesseW]

Oh, it didn’t deal with corruption within the Catholic Church?

 

[Church_Militant]

AMEN TO THIS

The problem here is that what appears to be support for Sola Scriptura, (but is not) is actually support for the material sufficiency of scripture, which, if you actually read Augustine’s writings as well as the rest of the ECF, is what you find.

For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh, it didn’t deal with corruption within the Catholic Church?

Nope…I don’t know what "corruption"you speak of.

The Council of Trent refuted the heresies and errors of the reformation in much the same way that every council has done with whatever errors and heresies were prevalent in their respective days. This is especially true of Trent and SS, because it is not found in the Bible but in the errant modern day teachings of men.

As for corruption" I don’t see it. I see a few people who got reined in as needed, but as for something more widespread which you seem to infer, I don’t believe it existed, and history does not support it.

 

[guanophore]

Nope…I don’t know what "corruption"you speak of.

The Council of Trent refuted the heresies and errors of the reformation in much the same way that every council has done with whatever errors and heresies were prevalent in their respective days. This is especially true of Trent and SS, because it is not found in the Bible but in the errant modern day teachings of men.

As for corruption" I don’t see it. I see a few people who got reined in as needed, but as for something more widespread which you seem to infer, I don’t believe it existed, and history does not support it.

Actually, I don’t think it is relevant how widespread the error is. During the Arian controversy, the majority of bishops fell into error and were teaching wrongly. I think the problem here is that persons who say “the church was corrupt, that is why a counter-reformation was needed” do not perceive that there is a difference between the pure bride of Christ, who cannot err, or fall into corruption, and the fallible,errant, and sometimes corrupt individuals who are members of her.

 

[add1967]

The problem here is that what appears to be support for Sola Scriptura, (but is not) is actually support for the material sufficiency of scripture, which, if you actually read Augustine’s writings as well as the rest of the ECF, is what you find.

Thanks 4 this CM as Ihave recently shared my home with a n-C brother and have found this an easier way in which to acquire more wisdom for defense of my RC faith.I hope you forgive my manner of enticing the answer i am looking for.I guess his style of debate on some level has rubbed off on me.
In Spirit & Truth…add1967

 

[JesseW]

As for corruption" I don’t see it. I see a few people who got reined in as needed, but as for something more widespread which you seem to infer, I don’t believe it existed, and history does not support it.

Wow, we all study history with prescription glasses, don’t we? When I read Church history, I see that the widescale investigations of abuses at all levels done by Pope Paul III in 1536, funding St. Peter’s through indulgences, etc. as evidence to this claim. This does not discredit the Bride of Christ, but it does point to the very fallen nature of human institutions. This doesn’t mean Christ can’t continue to work within it, it just means that we should keep our eyes open and see where the enemy has managed to creep in.

 

[mikeledes]

I find this argument to be not at all persuasive. Atheists don’t believe the gospel; should we avoid proclaiming the gospel to atheists just because they find it offensive? I sure hope not. If I were a RC, and I truly thought the RCC was a necessary and essential authority over mankind, I would make every effort to argue in favor of RC authority in a manner that is consistent with my beliefs and I would not hesitate to declare what I believe is true just because some people are set against it. I really can’t tell you how to do apologetics, but as for me, the truth should NEVER be compromised just because lots of people won’t like it.

If an atheist does not believe that the Bible is inspired, then quoting the Bible in order to prove that God exists would not make sense. One of the most effective ways to prove the existence of God is through nature. Remember, as Romans points out, the existence of God is clearly evident in His works. God reveals Himself in nature. From there you can show that what is clearly evident in nature ultimately points to the truthfulness of the Bible.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

Wow, we all study history with prescription glasses, don’t we? When I read Church history, I see that the widescale investigations of abuses at all levels done by Pope Paul III in 1536, funding St. Peter’s through indulgences, etc. as evidence to this claim. This does not discredit the Bride of Christ, but it does point to the very fallen nature of human institutions. This doesn’t mean Christ can’t continue to work within it, it just means that we should keep our eyes open and see where the enemy has managed to creep in.

Yet that has nothing to do with doctrine, and less still to do with Sola Scriptura. Look at the fundamental nature of that one error and the host of cascading errors that descend from it.

That buries any other problems within the church IMO.

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually, I don’t think it is relevant how widespread the error is. During the Arian controversy, the majority of bishops fell into error and were teaching wrongly. I think the problem here is that persons who say “the church was corrupt, that is why a counter-reformation was needed” do not perceive that there is a difference between the pure bride of Christ, who cannot err, or fall into corruption, and the fallible,errant, and sometimes corrupt individuals who are members of her.

A very good point.

 

[JesseW]

Yet that has nothing to do with doctrine, and less still to do with Sola Scriptura. Look at the fundamental nature of that one error and the host of cascading errors that descend from it.

I was actually pointing out that the original intent of Sola Scriptura, which is Scripture foremost (and not alone) does lean on the early Church creeds, which is Tradition. But most Protestants are reluctant to “return” to Catholicism because of its distrust of other traditions such as indulgences, etc. By denying that this was a wide-spread problem in the realm of Tradition is a major issue for those being asked to place Tradition and Scripture on equal footing.

Sorry for the confusion, its difficult to articulate a position over several responses and keep the intent clear.

I am curious why no one is making the distinction between Sola and Solo Scriptura, though. The original intent of the Reformers is not what is widely held today- and that’s important to consider whenever Sola Scriptura is placed on the examining table. To blur the two makes all Reformers sound like fanatic Fundamentalists.

 

[Nick_Jones]

You are right, of course, but we don’t only want what is evil all the time. Even the unregerate want good things. As Jesus said “even you, being evil, will give good gifts to your children, if you child asks for a piece of bread…”

The unregenerate heart cannot effect what is of God, but still wants it.

This too, is totally unconvincing. As far as God is concerned, there is nothing “good” about giving good things to your children if you do so without faith. Animals give good gifts (food) to their young too, but animals have no capacity for moral reasoning or faith at all. So, the giving of good gifts to one’s children doesn’t mean that the giver is good.

 

[Nick_Jones]

If an atheist does not believe that the Bible is inspired, then quoting the Bible in order to prove that God exists would not make sense. One of the most effective ways to prove the existence of God is through nature. Remember, as Romans points out, the existence of God is clearly evident in His works. God reveals Himself in nature. From there you can show that what is clearly evident in nature ultimately points to the truthfulness of the Bible.

God Bless,
Michael

I must respectfully disagree. Although there are some very good arguments from nature that clearly demonstrate the existence of God, it isn’t enough to show the atheist that some sort of god exists because even the demons believe that a god exists. God’s written word is able to accomplish everything it is intended to accomplish. It is salvation to those God intends to save, and it condemns those who God condemns. It might appear that ALL atheists reject ALL Scripture, but the fact is, God often uses the written (or spoken) word to save those whom He has called to be His own. Salvation is a spiritual working of God. It would be a huge mistake to exclude Scripture in reaching out to those who say there is no God.

 

[Nick_Jones]

If we naturally want what is evil all the time,then even the gift of God’s grace would not help us,because we would never want that gift and would choose to reject it. If grace is a gift to man,then man must want what is good.

Yes, we would indeed reject God’s grace if we could. But God doesn’t always let us DO everything that we want to do.

Genesis 6,5-7 cannot be taken as an unqualified statement on the depravity of man,because Noah and his family were a part of mankind,and they were not totally depraved. And we are of Noah’s seed. And apart from that,even those whom God destroyed in the flood must have had instincts which were good,such as caring for one’s own children;otherwise humans would have become extinct on their own.

Noah was born under the curse of Adam just like you and I were. How did Noah find favor with God unless it pleased God to make Noah one of His own?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Yes, this is Catholic teaching. If a person calls himself a Catholic and rejects this doctrine, then he is not Catholic. He may not realize it, but he is out of order.

In that case there might be millions of people who all believe that they are Catholic who are not. And then you have to ask yourself how do you know if YOU are?

 

[davidv]

Yes, we would indeed reject God’s grace if we could. But God doesn’t always let us DO everything that we want to do.

Noah was born under the curse of Adam just like you and I were. How did Noah find favor with God unless it pleased God to make Noah one of His own?

If we cannot reject God’s grace how was it the Eve, then Adam, disobeyed and ate of the tree that was forbidden?

I believe that in Noah’s case, as in ours, he had the gift of faith in him. He chose to fan that faith into flame, thereby finding favor. His contemporaries chose not to. I submit that this acceptance of faith that made him God’s own.