Sola Scriptura stumped

[sandusky]

CThomas:

Hey, sandusky. You’re doing a fine job here, but my sense is that it’s going to be difficult to make progress with Chaldean Rite until he gets a better sense of what it is we believe. It’s hard for me even to respond to the claim that any of the passages below (all of which are his own citations) are even arguably problematic for sola scriptura.

He’s quoting Hodge from the link I’ve provided, point 6.
Chaldean Rite:

The problem is that unless CR is willing to hear our views out sincerely before jumping to debunk them, it’s going to be hard to have a productive discussion.

He’s probably argued this a hunerd times, and we won’t change his thinking on it.

(But, then again, neither will he change mine. )

 

[CThomas]

Oh, I see, I should have read your link. He was responding to the citations at the link. My bad – and apologies to Chaldean Rites for the error. Although I still do think that there is some basic confusion floating around there.

Regards,

CThomas.

 

[JimO]

Thanks, Jim. As an aside, for what it’s worth, I as a proponent of sola scriptura also believe that the age of the Earth is billions of years, in keeping with our ordinary geological knowledge. (I also actually believe that this is consistent with a literal reading of the text, because the Hebrew word translated into English as “day” can also refer to very long periods of indeterminate length.)

Regards,

CThomas

Well, to be fair, it is overly broad to characterize all those who would be considered Protestant along the lines of Calvin and Luther and who hold to various understandings of SS in the same way. I have Protestant friends who have a less literal understanding of Scripture, but who believe that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith. This leaves a lot of room for mutual agreement between Catholics and Protestants. However, as I am sure that you know, the truly important debate is on the matter of authority and, in my own layman’s terms, whether the Bible solely defines dogma or whether the Church has the authority to define dogma, including the dogma that the canon of Scriputure is composed of the books listed in the Table of Contents. Sorry for the amateur characterization of such an important debate, but I am an amateur.

 

[CThomas]

Jim – it doesn’t get any more amateur than me, my friend, so there’s certainly no need to apologize on that score. I appreciate your positive attitude in being willing to hear out those on the other side, and I hope to do the same.

CThomas

 

[clmowry]

Oh, I see, I should have read your link. He was responding to the citations at the link. My bad – and apologies to Chaldean Rites for the error. Although I still do think that there is some basic confusion floating around there.

Regards,

CThomas.

Not just from the Catholic side of the table either.

Part of the problem is the “sola scripturist” themselves mean many different things when they use the term here on these forums as well.

1.) Some folks at least “claim” that they really mean “the bible alone” and what it tells them personally through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and nothing more.

2.)Others mean “only that which is contained explicitly in the bible can be considered Christian doctrine”

3.) Others mean “Christian doctrine cannot be explicitly contradicted by scripture”.

4.) Still others mean “the bible as interpreted in light of the historic Christian faith is the final and ultimate authority.”

5.) I’m sure there are others….

It is kind of tuff to get a single “protestant” definition.

Getting both sides to agree on a single definition before debate begins is almost a prerequisite for any fruitful dialogue on this subject.

Chuck

 

[JimO]

He’s probably argued this a hunerd times, and we won’t change his thinking on it.

(But, then again, neither will he change mine. )

I have the highest respect and love or any true follower of Christ and, for my part, don’t try to change people’s thinking. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to change people’s hearts to line up with God’s Will. Frankly, I don’t really enjoy debating hotly with other Christians. I save those passions for the many atheists and agnostics I encounter on a daily basis.

I have had a lot of exposure over the years to various Christian experiences that were not Catholic and even came close to leaving the Church at several points. What made me come back and sit through what I foolishly saw as boring, ritualistic services was the amazing gift of the Eucharist. That’s why I refer to John 6 and I Cor. 11 (verses 23-33) when I discuss literal versus symbolic understandings of Scripture passages. In I Cor 11, Paul recites the very words that Jesus used at the Last Supper and he wasn’t at the Last Supper. He doesn’t say that he passed on to them what Peter, the Apostles, or other believers gave him, but what the “Lord” gave him. He was given direct revelation from Christ what happened at the Last Supper (see Galatians 1:12). After spending years receiving the Eucharist in a casual manner, I was confronted with these passages and realized what the Church was really teaching. It changed my life. I began to ponder why Christ would go to the trouble to make sure that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, would have to understand what the Last Supper was all about. It launched me into a personal revival, but this is off topic and would take many pages to relate.

Blessings

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Part of the problem is the “sola scripturist” themselves mean many different things when they use the term here on these forums as well.

This is most of the problem, actually.

I think the actual term comes from Luther. Specifically, I think it was a response to Eck. Luther, at the time, was leaning toward a view that held Church Councils in greater authority than the Pope. I’d have to look back to remember the exact crux of this debate, but somewhere in there Eck tied Luther’s preference of the Councils to a person who was considered heretical to both Luther and Eck. So, Luther had to concede that Councils were not the sole authority for interpretation that he wanted them to be.

But, he still didn’t want it to be the Pope so, in a nutshell, this trail led him to Sola Scriptura. Martin Luther believed that anyone who read the Bible on their own would come, logically, to the same place he came to. Of course, that didn’t happen. In Luther’s lifetime all sorts of nuttiness ensued, and Luther died thinking that the Reformation was a failure.

It’s ironic that even the term Sola Scriptura has so many definitions now - most of them would probably be very foreign to Luther. The Fundamentalist view of the Scriptures is not the same as the Reformed.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

As for the second one, I would suspect that the Greek text of scripture would clear this up, and that one need only have a look at it to see where the seeming inconsistency came from. I haven’t done this research yet, however.

I asked a few people to research this possibility and the English is true to the word. So how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

 

[Cinette]

I have read many explanations regarding Sola Scriptura and I think that Catholic Apologists and history of the Church explains it well. It is a fact that the Bible emanated from oral tradition. When Jesus told the Apostles to spread the good news he meant orally because in those days the printing press had not been invented and, of course, the Bible had not been compiled. Yet, no matter how often this is explained the subject will come up again and again - it is like earthworms, the more you break them up they multiply!!!

I have a great respect for Protestants however and sometimes think that the Holy Spirit allowed them to exist so that we could all sit up and take note and learn about our Faith. Whenever I hear of Protestant speakers or meet Protestants I remember that the likes of Marcus Grodi, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, …came from their ranks and have so enriched our Holy Catholic Church with their witness.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Luke 16
29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Yes, Oral Tradition, not the bible ONLY.

Luke 10
26 But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Does not support SOLA scriptura.

Romans 4:
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.
Does not support SOLA scriptura.

John 5:39
You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
Does not support SOLA scriptura. Note, the “even” implies that something else gives testimoney of His behalf.

2 Tim 3
15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Does not support SOLA scriptura.

Is this guy serious? Where does it say the word ONLY? Please show me one verse at least.

We don’t have a problem with oral tradition, as long as it originated from God’s word.

 

[BradW]

As for a definition of Sola Scriptura, why not use the original from Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms?

Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.

This seems to state it rather plainly, doesn’t it? It is the definition from the proponent and originator, so it can’t be accused of being a strawman definition.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

We don’t have a problem with oral tradition, as long as it originated from God’s word.

From Jesus? Or by those books and epistles written and canonized by the Catholic Church which we now call the Holy Bible?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Bible was not written as a news report. It was written for various audiences using the literary forms of that day. It was written by human authors, hence subject to the limitations of those human authors. The early Church fathers, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, looked at the unity of scripture as a whole, and looked for the spiritual truths underneath the literal passages. Those truths is what we should be concerned with.The fathers weren’t worrried about small discrepancies.
.

**If the Bible is, as a book on the subject claims “free from all error”, of every kind, there should be no discrepancies of any sort at all. If there are, then the Bible is not totally inerrant: despite many assertions (many of them on threads on this site) to the contrary. One is either pregnant - or one is not pregnant; you can’t be mostly pregnant, or slightly pregnant. So with the Bible. **​

---

**If the Church believes its own dogmas - one of which is the total freedom of the entire Bible from all error of any kind - it has to account for the discrepancies. It cannot with any honesty or intellectual integrity wave them away as “unimportant”; to do so is cowardly & dishonest, as well as irresponsible. It cannot insist that Catholics believe something on pain of falling into heresy (as it does with this), then pretend that the difficulties that arise do not exist. **