Sola Scriptura Is Not God's Plan - An Argument

[Nick_Jones]

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

I’m not denying that before they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve truly had free will. They were truly free to either to remain free, or to lose their freedom.

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.

What reason is there to believe that his contemporaries who perished ever really had the faith to begin with?

 

[mikeledes]

I’m not denying that before they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve truly had free will. They were truly free to either to remain free, or to lose their freedom.

So he could have chosen to obey God and avoid the fall?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[davidv]

I’m not denying that before they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve truly had free will. They were truly free to either to remain free, or to lose their freedom.

What reason is there to believe that his contemporaries who perished ever really had the faith to begin with?

I will offer you exhibit A: Cain and Abel and there sacrafices. Cain’s was rejected. Abel’s was accepted. Evidence of rejected faith in the first, acceptance it in the second.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.That analogy fails in that because that is precisely what God created them to do they are indeed doing what is pleasing to God. Conforming to the natural law that God instilled in them at their creation.

Mankind has that too and in that sense no doubt fulfills that same natural law when he complies with it, and as Romans tells us, is the first witness to the call to know God.

Aside from the reference to Romans, I don’t see that that has anything to do with Sola Scriptura.

 

[Nick_Jones]

So he could have chosen to obey God and avoid the fall?

God Bless,
Michael

Hi Michael,

I’m paraphrasing Rev. Christopher Ness here:

Adam’s standing (never falling) was possible respecting himself, but not respecting God. To say that Adam might not have sinned is a simple proposition, and will hold good, Adam being considered in himself as clothed with the freedom of his will; and to say also, that it could not be but that Adam would sin is equally true, considering Adam was subordinate to the decree of God, determining what Adam would do out of the freedom of his own will.

 

[Filius99993]

This is not “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. This is denominationalism - the inevitable fruit of sola scriptura.

An ominous leitmotif plays in the background. DUN DUHHHHN Sorry.

Yes, sola scriptura’s sole (pun not intended) purpose is to provide apostate Christians with “self interpretation”. And it mucks everything up.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I will offer you exhibit A: Cain and Abel and there sacrafices. Cain’s was rejected. Abel’s was accepted. Evidence of rejected faith in the first, acceptance it in the second.

We could go even further along those lines:

Rom. 9:8-16
In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

---

It isn’t about God accepting or rejecting our faith, or about anything good or bad that we’ve chosen to do; it is about God showing mercy on those whom He chooses. When God calls his lost sheep to come to Him, His sheep hear Him and they come to Him. No one can come to Him unless the Father draws him.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think that this can be easily addressed once the distinction is made between tradition with a small “t” (customs) and Tradition with a captial “T” (Divine Revelation). Many of the problems people have do not have to do with Sacred Tradition, but are related to customs, such as celibate priesthood. Indulgences are another example of that.

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.

Yes, this is a good point. Thanks for bringing it up. Most Protestants don’t know how far their theology is from the original Reformers

 

[Pwrlftr]

So he could have chosen to obey God and avoid the fall?

God Bless,
Michael

That would be the definition of free will wouldn’t it?

 

[guanophore]

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.

I wasn’t asserting that it was. My point is that our depravity is not total. Even evil people want what is good.

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?

This is an excellent point, and I think one that is very true. I think that most people who think they are Catholic are really Protestant, and don’t know it. I think that because I don’t believe in “cafeteria Catholic”. I don’t think you can pick and choose. It is an all or nothing deal. One who rejects the Teachings is outside the faith. I measure myself based upon how consistent I am with the Apostolic Teachings. I learn new things about this every day and can honestly say that I am a much better Catholic than I was when I came to CAF a year ago.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I wasn’t asserting that it was. My point is that our depravity is not total. Even evil people want what is good.

I don’t know how Nick will respond but “total depravity” doesn’t mean we are as evil as we could possibly be but rather the “total” in “total depravity” refers to the fact that original sin affects all of our being. Our physical bodies, our mind, our soul…everything is negatively affected by original sin and we are depraved in our totality, there isn’t a single part of us unaffected by original sin.

 

[reggieM]

One who rejects the Teachings is outside the faith. I measure myself based upon how consistent I am with the Apostolic Teachings.

While this is good and true it’s not the only means you have of knowing if you are truly a Catholic versus being a false believer. What you’re talking about is a subjective view (the internal forum) where you question yourself whether you’re consistent with the Apostolic Teachings which have been handed down through the Church.

But more importantly, there is the external forum – the priests and bishops and finally the Pope (although it won’t get that far). With this, you have a means of validating whether your belief is Catholic or not. You can do this in Confession or if you feel you want to or need to – through Canon Law, or appealing to the bishop.

It’s not true that the bishops go around trying to find out which people have false belief but who think they are Catholics.

But what is required and expected that if a person thinks he might be drifting from the faith – he really needs to ask the priest and then follow the correction if needed.

This way, the question about whether we’re Catholic or not is not a subjective decision on our own part alone.

 

[Valke2]

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?

Just a little factiod. There isn’t any explanation in Genesis as to what Noah did to merit saving. What made him righteous?

 

[Valke2]

I’m not denying that before they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve truly had free will. They were truly free to either to remain free, or to lose their freedom.

what fall? I don’t recall anything in Genesis referring to a fall of man.

 

[anthony022071]

Yes, we would indeed reject God’s grace if we could.

If that were always so,then there would be no point in God giving commandments to men and telling them to “choose life” by following them. The commandments are good,and God gives us the choice to follow them or not,which means that we must have free will to choose good over evil.

But God doesn’t always let us DO everything that we want to do.

That’s true,but he does allow us the freedom to choose good over evil. When God does not allow us to do what we want,that is restraint,not the gift of grace.

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?

Noah was already a just man when God first spoke to him,and that is why God chose to save him. But even if we say that God made Noah his own at conception,that means that Noah was given a nature,or a will,that was not totally depraved but inclined to choose to what is good.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I don’t know how Nick will respond but “total depravity” doesn’t mean we are as evil as we could possibly be but rather the “total” in “total depravity” refers to the fact that original sin affects all of our being. Our physical bodies, our mind, our soul…everything is negatively affected by original sin and we are depraved in our totality, there isn’t a single part of us unaffected by original sin.

Hi Pwrlftr,

I agree with you completely. And thanks for pointing this out. It is an important point that is often overlooked.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Just a little factiod. There isn’t any explanation in Genesis as to what Noah did to merit saving. What made him righteous?

I’m guessing that his faith in God is what made him righteous.

 

[add1967]

If it really is rather simple, how can you be sure that the pillar of truth is the church?

Context; 1Tim 3: 14-15 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,if I am delayed,YOU MAY KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD,WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD,THE PILLAR AND BULLWARK OF THE TRUTH

 

[BobCatholic]

Following your logic we would need to add that grace cannot save anyone because there is no single agreed upon definition for the word, “grace.” To some people, “grace” (or increases in grace) can be merited by our good works, while other people say that grace is incompatible with human effort.

There is no firm definition of “grace” that all “saved by grace” adherents hold on to. How can you be saved by something that is not clearly defined and on which totally opposite views are held?

How does an ordinary believer practice “saved by grace”?

Hint: They don’t. Grace is something God does. God practices this - and He CAN AND DOES practice it! Perfectly!

Thus, your argument is comparing apples to oranges.

Meanwhile, my post about sola scriptura not being able to be practiced was not even dealt with in any meaningful way.

 

[BobCatholic]

Originally Posted by anthony022071
Grace doesn’t depend upon our ability to define it for it to be effectual.

Well I could say pretty much the same thing about sola Scriptura, couldn’t I?

I’m wondering how a doctrine that cannot be practiced, be effective?

This is like the following situation:
The state passes a law, which takes effect, requiring everyone to hold their breath for ten consecutive minutes each day, under penalty of death.

The law is “in effect”, but nobody can practice it. Eventually everyone is required to be put to death and nobody can do it either which way. Following the law to the letter causes people to die of asphyxiation. Not following the law causes people to die of death penalty. Eventually there are two types of people: Those who don’t follow the law, and the dead. Both don’t practice the law

So what is the point?

Such a law, is illegitimate because nobody can practice it. Same with sola scriptura. It cannot be practiced.