Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

[teak421]

Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;

ahhh … i stated that the creeds to not mention scripture … and I’m clearly wrong
how embarrassing

does my faux pas mean that I have proven sola scriptura?

michel

My missal says fulfillment… But, ack!

 

[SemperReformada]

I do not remember if that was one of the 21, if not… there’s the 22nd. If Sola Scriptura was so important, it would have been in the documents listed above. Wonderful catch!

• Michael

–
Check out my blog at: http:\www.edailymissal.org

If the assumption, treasury of merit, infallibility, transubstantiation, etc. was so important, it would have been in the documents listed above…but it isn’t.

I personally try to stay away from arguments that can be used against me.

 

[cazayoux]

If scripture alone was the mindset of the early church, why is it we only have 3 apostles with contributions to the new testament.

We have 9 other apostles (including Matthias) that went out, far out, into the world to PREACH.
We have apostles that went to India in the East and possibly as far as Britain in the West.
They taught authoritatively without the writings of the new testament.
As well, it may have been even decades before these areas got writings that are now in the new testament.
How is it those churches functioned without scripture and only with the Tradition handed on by the apostles?
If there was supposed to be a switch to sola scriptura after some point, there should be a huge sign stating that things will change from how they have been.
However, we do not see such a message (in scripture, or even outside of it).

I just don’t see that the early church functioned with sola scriptura.
We don’t see it in the old testament, either.
(Most protestants agree since these are time where revelation was still happening.)

If there was going to be such a HUGE change in the normative way the church functions, you’d think it would be crystal clear, in scripture, that “hey … things will change … instead of an authoritative teaching church … we will switch to scripture alone”.

My brother, sola scripturist, when discussing another topic told me “if scripture isn’t overt about it, then we are not to yell about it”.
Yet, he bases his whole faith system on an idea (sola scriptura) that is not even hinted at in scripture.

michel

 

[teak421]

If the assumption, treasury of merit, infallibility, transubstantiation, etc. was so important, it would have been in the documents listed above…but it isn’t.

I personally try to stay away from arguments that can be used against me.

Excellent point SemperReformada!

 

[teak421]

If the assumption, treasury of merit, infallibility, transubstantiation, etc. was so important, it would have been in the documents listed above…but it isn’t.

I personally try to stay away from arguments that can be used against me.

I’ve asked on an earlier post, do you believe the Doctrine of Sola Scripture is correct. Could you please answer? With specific historical and Biblical references?

Thanks!

• Michael

 

[cazayoux]

If the assumption, treasury of merit, infallibility, transubstantiation, etc. was so important, it would have been in the documents listed above…but it isn’t.

I personally try to stay away from arguments that can be used against me.

Good point … what IS in those creeds above … the CHURCH.
This is the church that scripture says Jesus founded.
This is the church that scripture says is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
the truth … this is key
even Pilate asked, “what is truth?”
Jesus even calls Himself ‘Truth’ (ego sum via et veritas et vita)
This church, that is the protector of truth, the protector of the word of God, existed before the new testament.
This is the church mentioned in the creeds.

This is the church that gathered in council in Acts 15 to settle a doctrinal issue (circumcision).
This is the church that gathered in council in 325 to define the trinity.
This is the church that gathered in council in 382 (and afterward) to define the canon.

This church, that you trust implicitly as authoritative at all three of these councils, defined things not in scripture or not yet in a creed.
Why should it surprise you that this same church clarified teachings, not just in the fourth century, but in the fifth? … and sixth …

michel

 

[SemperReformada]

It occurs to me that you and I might have a different definition of ‘infallible’.
When Catholics say the pope is given the charism of infallibility, what do you think we mean by that?

michel

Only doctrines of faith and morals fall under the scope of infallible church teaching. Ecumenical councils, the pope and the ordinary magesterium can potentially exercise the charism of infallibility. Practically speaking I think only the ecumenical councils and popes use the supposed charism effectively since the ordinary magesterium seems like a rather vague concept given to ambiguity but nonetheless it is supposed to possess the charism too. I realize that infallibility and impeccability are two entirely different things. I also realize that not every encyclical or bull from a pope is infallible and also realize that not every statement from a council is infallible.

 

[SemperReformada]

Good point … what IS in those creeds above … the CHURCH.
This is the church that scripture says Jesus founded.
This is the church that scripture says is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
the truth … this is key
even Pilate asked, “what is truth?”
Jesus even calls Himself ‘Truth’ (ego sum via et veritas et vita)
This church, that is the protector of truth, the protector of the word of God, existed before the new testament.
This is the church mentioned in the creeds.

This is the church that gathered in council in Acts 15 to settle a doctrinal issue (circumcision).
This is the church that gathered in council in 325 to define the trinity.
This is the church that gathered in council in 382 (and afterward) to define the canon.

This church, that you trust implicitly as authoritative at all three of these councils, defined things not in scripture or not yet in a creed.
Why should it surprise you that this same church clarified teachings, not just in the fourth century, but in the fifth? … and sixth …

michel

I’m not surprised by any of what you typed above. Why should anything you typed give me concern?

 

[SemperReformada]

I’ve asked on an earlier post, do you believe the Doctrine of Sola Scripture is correct. Could you please answer? With specific historical and Biblical references?

Thanks!

• Michael

There is only one of me and several Catholic posters which are all heading different directions. I’m not intentionally ignoring you but I may not get to your question.

 

[SemperReformada]

If scripture alone was the mindset of the early church, why is it we only have 3 apostles with contributions to the new testament.

We have 9 other apostles (including Matthias) that went out, far out, into the world to PREACH.
We have apostles that went to India in the East and possibly as far as Britain in the West.
They taught authoritatively without the writings of the new testament.
As well, it may have been even decades before these areas got writings that are now in the new testament.
How is it those churches functioned without scripture and only with the Tradition handed on by the apostles?
If there was supposed to be a switch to sola scriptura after some point, there should be a huge sign stating that things will change from how they have been.
However, we do not see such a message (in scripture, or even outside of it).

I just don’t see that the early church functioned with sola scriptura.
We don’t see it in the old testament, either.
(Most protestants agree since these are time where revelation was still happening.)

If there was going to be such a HUGE change in the normative way the church functions, you’d think it would be crystal clear, in scripture, that “hey … things will change … instead of an authoritative teaching church … we will switch to scripture alone”.

My brother, sola scripturist, when discussing another topic told me “if scripture isn’t overt about it, then we are not to yell about it”.
Yet, he bases his whole faith system on an idea (sola scriptura) that is not even hinted at in scripture.

michel

First, sola scriptura does not deny the presence of tradition nor does it deny that teachings were passed on via oral tradition. Sola scriptura would not have been the norm while the scripture was being developed. That said, what sola scriptura does deny is that there is another infallible set of teachings outside of scripture, ie. tradition is not believed to be infallible. Tradition is not ignored, or at least it shouldn’t be, but it’s authority is less than tha of scripture.

 

[SemperReformada]

I’ve asked on an earlier post, do you believe the Doctrine of Sola Scripture is correct. Could you please answer? With specific historical and Biblical references?

Thanks!

• Michael

Teak,

I owe you a better response than the one I just posted. I don’t have enough reference material at my disposal to discuss the patristics view on tradition vs sola scriptura.

As for a biblical defense of sola scriptura…I’ll try to get to it but again, there is one of me and several of you guys…with the discussion covering a large range of sub topics.

 

[teak421]

Teak,

I owe you a better response than the one I just posted. I don’t have enough reference material at my disposal to discuss the patristics view on tradition vs sola scriptura.

As for a biblical defense of sola scriptura…I’ll try to get to it but again, there is one of me and several of you guys…with the discussion covering a large range of sub topics.

Fair enough… Please visit my blog, I have some stuff that may make your cringe, but you appear to be quite reasonable and reasonable folks are the best folks to learn stuff from.

Be sure to read the entry on Truth!

• Michael

 

[cazayoux]

I’m not surprised by any of what you typed above. Why should anything you typed give me concern?

If the assumption, treasury of merit, infallibility, transubstantiation, etc. was so important,

Your quote above seems to indicate that there are items that the church teaches that you do not consider authoritative.
You thought the church was authoritative during the first century, and even up through the fourth (trinity, canon).
However, at some point since, when these other items are clarified by the church, you do not believe it to be authoritative.
So at what point in history did the church councils cease to be authoritative?

Tradition and the Magisterium are different from scripture. You want to rank them, but they are different in essence. We agree that scripture is the only written record from the first century to be considered inspired. The authority of the church to teach infallibly is a different animal altogether. You don’t compare one to the other, they are complimentary. I would be like asking what is more important, the orange or the orange peel. They go hand in hand.

michel

 

[teak421]

Your quote above seems to indicate that there are items that the church teaches that you do not consider authoritative.
You thought the church was authoritative during the first century, and even up through the fourth (trinity, canon).
However, at some point since, when these other items are clarified by the church, you do not believe it to be authoritative.
So at what point in history did the church councils cease to be authoritative?

Tradition and the Magisterium are different from scripture. You want to rank them, but they are different in essence. We agree that scripture is the only written record from the first century to be considered inspired. The authority of the church to teach infallibly is a different animal altogether. You don’t compare one to the other, they are complimentary. I would be like asking what is more important, the orange or the orange peel. They go hand in hand.

michel

Michel,

You make an excellent point… Protestants accept the authority of the Catholic Church to define the doctrine of the Trinity, Christmas (date) and canon, but reject other things… Its odd to me.

• Michael

 

[SemperReformada]

Your quote above seems to indicate that there are items that the church teaches that you do not consider authoritative.
You thought the church was authoritative during the first century, and even up through the fourth (trinity, canon).
However, at some point since, when these other items are clarified by the church, you do not believe it to be authoritative.
So at what point in history did the church councils cease to be authoritative?

Tradition and the Magisterium are different from scripture. You want to rank them, but they are different in essence. We agree that scripture is the only written record from the first century to be considered inspired. The authority of the church to teach infallibly is a different animal altogether. You don’t compare one to the other, they are complimentary. I would be like asking what is more important, the orange or the orange peel. They go hand in hand.

michel

That was’t my point. A poster, Teak?, said something to the effect that if sola scriptura was so important it would have been mentioned in one of the creeds. My point was that there are many things that the creeds don’t mention but Catholics hold true. In other words if sola scriptura is false because it wasn’t mentioned in the Nicene creed then there are a great number of doctrines that Catholics must throw out too.

I don’t know how to answer your question as to when did the councils stop be authoritive. I don’t believe any of them were ever infallible (save the council of Jerusalem where the apostles were present) so we differ on how we view their authority.

 

[SemperReformada]

Fair enough… Please visit my blog, I have some stuff that may make your cringe, but you appear to be quite reasonable and reasonable folks are the best folks to learn stuff from.

Be sure to read the entry on Truth!

• Michael

Thanks Michael.

I will visit your blog this weekend.

 

[TheWhoFreak]

In the absolute terms you are speaking of one can’t be sure. However, many Catholics seem to believe one must have 100% infallible certainty or no certainty at all with no room for middle ground. I doubt they apply this standard to any other area of their life.

Well it makes sense. If the Church were to teach error (which it doesn’t) all other doctrine as defined by the Church (all Christian doctrine) would fall into doubt. So the Church is left with this choice: A) Teach Truth and preserve the Faith B) Teach error and cast all Christian doctrine into doubt.
And besides, it’s the only practical area of our lives where we can apply this standard.

Tell me, how do you know your understanding or your priests understanding of Catholic teaching is free from error?

Jesus promised it in Matthew 16:18. Unfortunately your pastor(s) do not have this protection.

How does the gates of hades not prevailing against the church suddenly equal the church not being capable of teaching error? Not only that, when you say the church is incapable of teaching error, that’s true only under certain specific circumstances isn’t it?

Well, The Gates of Hades are synonymous with the Forces of Satan. So saying that Satan will never overcome the Church means that the Church will never teach something that Satan would teach (lies). The Church can only teach Truth because if Jesus said the Church would be free from Satan’s influence (as a whole, individual members are still fallible), then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for it to not teach Truth. Make sense?

You’re kind of right with your second point. The Church, as a Divine Institution, is always right on matters of Faith and morals. The Pope, is 100% guaranteed free from error only when speaking ex cathedra, which means “from the chair” literally translated. It means that he is speaking with the authority God gave him as the Vicar of Christ. Now, if you asked the Pope who won the World Series of Baseball in 1957, he would not have this Divine Protection, because that is not a matter of Faith and Morals.

 

[teak421]

I have no infallible way of knowing whether or not the canon I accept is 100% correct. Then again, you have no infallible way to know that the claims the RCC makes are true.

Ok… If we were to survey all of the Christian sects out there, which is the oldest, has the greatest number of doctrinal issues not only backed up with the Bible, but with early Church Fathers as well. (Eucharist comes to mind). So, by default, I strongly believe that anyone who is truly looking at the landscape of all Christian sects will have no other option using Faith and Reason other than the Catholic Church.

• Michael

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

ok… If we were to survey all of the christian sects out there, which is the oldest, has the greatest number of doctrinal issues not only backed up with the bible, but with early church fathers as well. (eucharist comes to mind). So, by default, i strongly believe that anyone who is truly looking at the landscape of all christian sects will have no other option using faith and reason other than the catholic church.

• michael

[sign] right on[/sign]

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well it makes sense. If the Church were to teach error (which it doesn’t) all other doctrine as defined by the Church (all Christian doctrine) would fall into doubt. So the Church is left with this choice: A) Teach Truth and preserve the Faith B) Teach error and cast all Christian doctrine into doubt.
And besides, it’s the only practical area of our lives where we can apply this standard.

Jesus promised it in Matthew 16:18. Unfortunately your pastor(s) do not have this protection.

Well, The Gates of Hades are synonymous with the Forces of Satan. So saying that Satan will never overcome the Church means that the Church will never teach something that Satan would teach (lies). The Church can only teach Truth because if Jesus said the Church would be free from Satan’s influence (as a whole, individual members are still fallible), then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for it to not teach Truth. Make sense?

You’re kind of right with your second point. The Church, as a Divine Institution, is always right on matters of Faith and morals. The Pope, is 100% guaranteed free from error only when speaking ex cathedra, which means “from the chair” literally translated. It means that he is speaking with the authority God gave him as the Vicar of Christ. Now, if you asked the Pope who won the World Series of Baseball in 1957, he would not have this Divine Protection, because that is not a matter of Faith and Morals.

Excellent explanation. It’s clear and to the point.