Sola Scriptura Isn't Scriptural, Historical or Workable

[spina1953]

as far as how to interpret scripture, we have to interpret with humility accepting the guidance of authoritative teachers. Countless times i have seen people project meanings on scripture that just aren’t there because of their cultural lens. Also tradition sheds light on some esoteric meanings that would be difficult to come by on one’s own.

Hi Mammoths, I agree that in reading Scripture its with humility and accepting the guidance of the authoritative teachings of the Church. I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment that people often project meanings of Scripture verses contrary to what the intended meaning was according to the author who wrote it and how the Church may have interpreted it.

 True Tradition does shed  light on some of the esoteric meanings that are rather difficult to properly understand, but this is true of the historical books of Scripture where history was not written as we in our modern sense understand it. There are other books of Scripture using various literary devices in order t convey a moral or ethical meaning. THis however should mean that someone not read Scripture to understand those things that might bring comfort or ease; but using the Church's authority and guidance really does help the reader to more fully come to grips with a better understanding that hopefully brings better and clearer meaning leadinging to following God's will for us.

    The problem with sola scriptura is the fact that when one read a verse of Scripture they tend from what I have seen, to take it out of context and try to make it mean something it did not mean or say.That is they use it to make it fit into something they have decided on and want the verse to fit it to make the point they feel or believe to say this is what it means so therefor you have to believe it that way because the Holy Spirit guided me to this interpretation, yet never really knowing if the Holy Spirit actually did guide them to it just that they believe He did.

      When we have the Authority of the Church to guide us as to what Scripture says and means, we come to a better understanding of what we are reading. But more importantly its all good well and fine to read Scripture but putting into action is quite another as when one puts into practice what we read we then begin to live in the way God wills and what Christ taught and handed down through His Church.

 

[Vonsalza]

as far as how to interpret scripture, we have to interpret with humility accepting the guidance of authoritative teachers. Countless times i have seen people project meanings on scripture that just aren’t there because of their cultural lens. Also tradition sheds light on some esoteric meanings that would be difficult to come by on one’s own.

I’ll jump in as I’m also an ex-protestant that dealt with a lot of the things you’re dealing with.

I think we can also safely apply that same critique to ourselves. How do I (or you) know that we are not interpreting scripture through our own cultural lens? After all, we can pretty well agree that it’s philosophically impossible to look at something from a reference point that is outside your own perspective. Axiomatically, you’re always viewing something as you.

You asked earlier about syllogisms. Here are a few;

The Christian Church began (at the latest) on the Day of Pentecost;
The first writings of the New Testament weren’t written for two more decades;
Ergo, the Christian Church existed independent of the New Testament.

The Christian Church began (at the latest) on the Day of Pentecost;
The canonization of scripture didn’t occur on any kind of consiliary basis until 393;
Ergo, the Christian Church existed independent of the modern biblical canon.

Assuming you accept the reality of the Church, the aforementioned syllogisms pretty well show that the Church did not existentially require scripture. Moving on;

Christ wanted His teaching to continue after he was bodily gone from the Earth;
Christ hand-selected men to learn from Him and pass on His teaching;
Ergo, the medium of transmission of Christ’s teaching is through those men.

The medium of transmission of Christ’s teaching is through the Apostles;
The Apostles voted Matthias as Judas Iscariot’s apostolic successor;
Ergo, the Apostles themselves could directly pass that teaching authority.

The Apostles themselves could directly pass that teaching authority;
I have not been personally appointed by the Apostolic heirs to have teaching authority;
Ergo, I do not have teaching authority.

---

Now, that’s not to say that I’m barred from spreading what has already been infallibly taught. I might even be free to create conjecture about unsettled theological matters.

I just can’t present my conjecture as authoritative. And when my conjecture runs in-contra to the infallible teaching of the Apostolic heirs, I must recant or I’ll be at-odds with Christ’s Church.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Vonsalza: I think you just hit the nail on the hear with you post and comments. and I totally agree with you. As you know and I think most do Christ never wrote anything and passed His teachings on to the Apostles who in turn passed them on to those they deemed to have understood those teachings and gave them authority to do so. At first the Apostles did not write but taught orally just as Jesus did. Then Paul came around and wrote to the various Churches he founded and so a few of the Apostles wrote some Gospels and some Epistles. However most of the Apostles so far we know never wrote.

The Apostles just as Jesus did showed how the OT fulfilled what now is the NT writings of the teachings etc. of Christ. While the Apostles were still alive and those writings that are called the Gospels were used and spread around to the various Churches,Oral teachings were still being used to teach and convert those hearing the Good News. None of the NT writers ever thought that what they wrote was some infalliable all end and final authority of what they were teaching. So in essence the Church came before the Canon of Scripture was decided so has the authority to say what Scripture says and means and what it does not say and mean. There are many things in Scripture that the Church does not say anything one way or the other until such time as some passage of Scripture verse is either contested or some dogma is attached to it that is contrary to what the Church teaches and understands and may take a long time before any decision is made. The Church however does guard Scripture against any false claims or teaching not found in Scripture ot has in some way been distorted as to meanings and understandings. So far the Church has not in anyway changed any of its teachings that had been passed on to the CHurch since the time of the Apostles. We are to read and learn from Scripture but we are not the authority to decide what it says and means. Only the CHurch has that authority to help us and to guide us in the proper understanding of Scripture.

 

[Mammoths]

I’ll jump in as I’m also an ex-protestant that dealt with a lot of the things you’re dealing with.

I think we can also safely apply that same critique to ourselves. How do I (or you) know that we are not interpreting scripture through our own cultural lens? After all, we can pretty well agree that it’s philosophically impossible to look at something from a reference point that is outside your own perspective. Axiomatically, you’re always viewing something as you.

You asked earlier about syllogisms. Here are a few;

The Christian Church began (at the latest) on the Day of Pentecost;
The first writings of the New Testament weren’t written for two more decades;
Ergo, the Christian Church existed independent of the New Testament.

The Christian Church began (at the latest) on the Day of Pentecost;
The canonization of scripture didn’t occur on any kind of consiliary basis until 393;
Ergo, the Christian Church existed independent of the modern biblical canon.

Assuming you accept the reality of the Church, the aforementioned syllogisms pretty well show that the Church did not existentially require scripture. Moving on;

Christ wanted His teaching to continue after he was bodily gone from the Earth;
Christ hand-selected men to learn from Him and pass on His teaching;
Ergo, the medium of transmission of Christ’s teaching is through those men.

The medium of transmission of Christ’s teaching is through the Apostles;
The Apostles voted Matthias as Judas Iscariot’s apostolic successor;
Ergo, the Apostles themselves could directly pass that teaching authority.

The Apostles themselves could directly pass that teaching authority;
I have not been personally appointed by the Apostolic heirs to have teaching authority;
Ergo, I do not have teaching authority.

---

Now, that’s not to say that I’m barred from spreading what has already been infallibly taught. I might even be free to create conjecture about unsettled theological matters.

I just can’t present my conjecture as authoritative. And when my conjecture runs in-contra to the infallible teaching of the Apostolic heirs, I must recant or I’ll be at-odds with Christ’s Church.

Not that I disagree with your goal, but your last syllogism Is a non sequined. cats CAN have fur. This animal has no fur. Therefore it is not a cat.

Change it to ONLY the apostles…

but, which is the magisterium?

Nice to meet a convert. I have a cradle catholic friend who’s response to my struggle was, “you are in a struggle I never had. My kids will have a harder choice than me.” When did you BELIEVE in the church?

 

[Memaw]

Why I’m A Catholic
By Kenneth Hensley

In this series of articles, Kenneth Hensley, a former Protestant minister who earned his Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary, examines the flaws in the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura which led to his conversion to the Catholic Church.

The Foundational Error of Sola Scriptura
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-the-foundational-error-of-sola-scriptura

Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural

Part I
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-i

Part II
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-ii

Part III
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-iii

Part IV
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-iv

Part V
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-v

Sola Scriptura Isn’t Historical

Part I
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-historical-part-i

Part II
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-historical-part-ii

Part III
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-historical-part-iii

Part IV
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-historical-part-iv

Sola Scriptura Isn’t Workable

Part I
kennethhensley.com/blog/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-workable-part-i

Part II
kennethhensley.com/blog/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-workable-part-ii

And that’s probably why there are from 30,000 to 50,000 different Protestant denominations today!!! Everyone interprets it for themselves. If you don’t agree, start your own!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[MichaelP3]

… 30,000 to 50,000 different Protestant denominations today… God Bless, Memaw

Source?

This figure changes every time… by the thousands?

 

[Mammoths]

Source?

This figure changes every time… by the thousands?

Way to go. Holdem to the facts. But even if it’s a mere ten splits over doctrine schism is still an abomination.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not that I disagree with your goal, but your last syllogism Is a non sequined. cats CAN have fur. This animal has no fur. Therefore it is not a cat.

Change it to ONLY the apostles…

but, which is the magisterium?

Nice to meet a convert. I have a cradle catholic friend who’s response to my struggle was, “you are in a struggle I never had. My kids will have a harder choice than me.” When did you BELIEVE in the church?

The “only” is generally implicit in syllogisms because the only matter under consideration is the matter under consideration. The sequence didn’t allow for any other authoritative transferal of Christ’s teaching because no other was given. It came exclusively from men, as Christ didn’t write. And these men obviously selected other men to carry the same mission. Matthias first, then others like Timothy, Titus, Barnabus, Linus. The list goes on to the present day.

It’s a top-down leadership structure. There was no “pastor selection committee” made of laity in the history of Christendom until the Protestant “rebellion”

I came to believe in the Church when I took Christ at his word in that Hell could not prevail against it. Ergo the Church is ancient, or Christ was wrong.

Your only real contenders for the ancient Church are Catholics, Orthodox or the Oriental Communions. The rise of Islam has nearly obliterated the third and severely curtailed the second.

If you assume Chalcedon as authoritative, your choice falls to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The central dispute between the two isn’t the primacy of Peter’s chair. It’s “what does that primacy mean?” “Filioque” was simply an adjacent matter.

The rumbling of schism was present as early as the 6th century. It came to a head in the 11th and was formal in the 14th when Catholic Venice sacked Orthodox Constantinople - the greatest disaster in the history of Christianity, in my humble view. Even though it launched the Christian west into dominance of the New World (we simply WERE NOT going to buy directly from those Mohammed-worshipping heretics!).

Forgot to answer you on the Magisterium. Think of it as the Catholic (as actually authoritative) version of Wayne Grudem’s or John Calvin’s Systematic Theology. It is the compiled teaching of those authoritative men over the centuries. Its authority does not derive from itself. It derives from those men.

 

[Vonsalza]

Source?

This figure changes every time… by the thousands?

Depends on how you slice the pie, really. If by formal congregations with a common charter, its a few thousand. If it’s also independent congregations, then the number is likely in the 30 thousands. With more added virtually every. single. day.

This utter chaos is the greatest “fruit” of the Protestant Reformation. Luther himself became keenly aware of it in his “Table Talks”. He died, no doubt, questioning the legitimacy of the chaotic reformation he played a key role in promoting.

 

[PRmerger]

The scripture has examples of the apostles quoting each other as scripture. Scripture was recognized as such by the church before the ink was dry because of the authority of its authors.

How was Hebrews discerned to be theopneustos then?

 

[PRmerger]

Depends on how you slice the pie, really. If by formal congregations with a common charter, its a few thousand. If it’s also independent congregations, then the number is likely in the 30 thousands. With more added virtually every. single. day.

This utter chaos is the greatest “fruit” of the Protestant Reformation. Luther himself became keenly aware of it in his “Table Talks”. He died, no doubt, questioning the legitimacy of the chaotic reformation he played a key role in promoting.

And the number doesn’t really matter. It’s definitely more than 5

–and that’s proof enough of the chaos and confusion that emanates from using the Bible divorced from the faith which gave us the Bible, the Catholic Church.

 

[Mammoths]

How was Hebrews discerned to be theopneustos then?

The same way all the nt books were recognized. it was recognized as coming from an authoritative source from the beginning. That knowledge was preserved by tradition which the bishops in the fourth century were able to draw on in including it in the canon. In modern times there is still evidence they got it right.
The doctrine of the book is in line with what is in the other books.
The language in the books is similar in some verses to Paul, and in others to James sugesting apostolic authorship–possibly a colaberative effort by several apostles working together. I have not heard whether the council in 390 new the authorship, but they did know it was inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

The same way all the nt books were recognized. it was recognized as coming from an authoritative source from the beginning.

Was recognized. By whom? By the ecclesial authority?

Or by all the Christians?

 

[PRmerger]

In modern times there is still evidence they got it right.
The doctrine of the book is in line with what is in the other books.

So you’re saying that there was Sacred Tradition first, and then all of the books which conformed to the teaching of ST were considered to be theopneustos by the magisterium, right?

 

[Mammoths]

So you’re saying that there was Sacred Tradition first, and then all of the books which conformed to the teaching of ST were considered to be theopneustos by the magisterium, right?

If by first you mean the few decades before scripture was written then yes. But scripture did not become sacred 345 years after it was written. It was sacred the moment it was inspired. God’s word is never un-sacred. Jesus gave the apostles binding authority to teach. Whether that teaching was oral or written it is still the sacred word of God always. I have explained this before. Scripture was first inspired and written. Then it was received and recognized by the church and incorporated into the tradition of those who received it. Over time spurious writings were also distributed. In order to preserve the tradition of scripture the magisterium formally canonized those scriptures which were recognized as genuine. Scripture was not created late in the 4th century. It was canonized.
Inspired-written-received-recognized and preserved-formally canonized.

The bishops could not have canonized scripture unless it was truly the word of God already.

 

[Mammoths]

So you’re saying that there was Sacred Tradition first, and then all of the books which conformed to the teaching of ST were considered to be theopneustos by the magisterium, right?

First is the authority of Christ which by which he ordained the apostles with binding authority. The apostles established tradition,including scripture and apostolic succession. You can’t treat scripture like its above tradition which is the error of the protestants. But you also can’t see it as a lesser derivative of tradition. The same authority that established the church also gave us scripture. Scripture is a sacred part of tradition. There is a unity.

 

[PRmerger]

If by first you mean the few decades before scripture was written then yes.

Yes. That’s what I mean.

The entire Christian faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

But scripture did not become sacred 345 years after it was written. It was sacred the moment it was inspired. God’s word is never un-sacred. Jesus gave the apostles binding authority to teach.

Indeed.

Whether that teaching was oral or written it is still the sacred word of God always. I have explained this before. Scripture was first inspired and written. Then it was received and recognized by the church…

Recognized by the bishops. By the magisterium.

And then the flock obeyed.

Over time spurious writings were also distributed.

And, again, it was spurious because the Church (the ecclesial authority) discerned them to be…and the flock obeyed.

 

[PRmerger]

First is the authority of Christ which by which he ordained the apostles with binding authority. The apostles established tradition,including scripture and apostolic succession. You can’t treat scripture like its above tradition which is the error of the protestants. But you also can’t see it as a lesser derivative of tradition. The same authority that established the church also gave us scripture. Scripture is a sacred part of tradition. There is a unity.

Indeed.* Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione.*

 

[Memaw]

Source?

This figure changes every time… by the thousands?

That may be because so many pop in and out so fast it’s hard to keep count! I know one minister that has his service in his home. There is only ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Steve_Timm]