Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Convert2013]

From a Logical stand-point, this argument isn’t that compelling. There’s no general condition that says that any Authority must declare itself an Authority in order to be valid.

The quick logical defense to your argument would me - “God holds ultimate authority. . God reveals himself to us in Scripture. Therefore Scripture holds the same authority of God.”

In my opinion the traditional apologetics of saying “SS is wrong!” is probably not effective, but a gentler nudge of “You’ve done so well with the Bible, imagine what you could gain from a Church filled with people such as you who draw from thousands of years of history and study” would be much more effective.

Are you suggesting that God only reveals himself through Scripture? What did the early Christians follow (other than the OT) prior to the Church compiling the documents which we know as the New Testament (Covenant)?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Are you suggesting that God only reveals himself through Scripture?

After the apostolic period? Yes.

What did the early Christians follow (other than the OT) prior to the Church compiling the documents which we know as the New Testament (Covenant)?

What the apostles preached and taught.

 

[marywarfield]

Funny you list Joseph Smith as an example of self interpretation when in fact he based his authority on receiving divine revelation, “Vicar of Christ” if you will. Shouldn’t be part of what you are attempting to refute.

Amy McPherson and L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology is not even close to comparable. They did not try to interpret Christian Scripture nor are they claiming to be Christian.

How bout we stick to comparing fruit in the same bowl. That list does not come close to doing even the Catholic view of Protestantism justice.

Sorry this simply isn’t true. Aimee was a very popular Christian
revivalist from the Four Square Gospel Church. My family sports members
who actually knew Hubbard’s mentor MacPherson, attended AND
assisted with her healings in Amy’s Temple and guess
what? Her authority according to Amy for all of
the water filled balloons she popped in an effort
to convince the audience she was healing cancerous
tumors came from…Sola Scriptura and the Good Lord
Himself. And so yes she remains a valid example
of what Sola Scriptura can do for us all.

And again- Smith was a Methodist whose only
knowledge of Christ came from interpretations
of a Bible that did not in fact at one point contain
the seven disputed books. Many of the English translations
in the 1800’s in America did not contain at all the
seven disputed books. Smith was a sola Scripturist
who believed he was receiving divine revelations
from the Christian God. And he would be the first
to dispute with you he was not Christian. in fact
his own proscription against blacks in the priesthood
comes from his interpretation of the Bible.
So again another valid example as to why Sola
Scriptura almost always ends up with a
vehicle operating on four cylinders rather than six.

And in the case of Waco and Koresh the engine
gives up altogether. - the car throws a rod.

So again- Christian Science. My grandmother
was dying in 1938 of a treatable form of tuberculosis.
In comes the CS practitioner who opened the Bible
to help her find her error in thought that was causing
her demise. Line by line they went self interpreting
what they read making sure to avoid any outside
influence. The woman died before they reached 1 Kings.

There are NO safeguards to nuttiness when it comes
to Sola Scriptura. A person such as Fred Phelps can
wreak havoc and there is no stopping him because
after all he is using only the Bible to create his violence.

What does Scriptura Sola have to do with the Paraclete?
Obviously as little as possible.

 

[Convert2013]

After the apostolic period? Yes.

What the apostles preached and taught.

And then who preached and taught after they died and before the New Testament was compiled? It was a couple of hundred years after they would have died that the New Testament was compiled, right? So this information would have been handed down multiple times without it in writing, at least in one document and mass produced. Do you think they believed in Sola Scriptura? Why is it that the documents of the New Testament were written in the first place? Jesus didn’t say “write this…” He said “Do this…”

 

[benjohnson]

That would be fine, were a divine command given to transfer that Authority.

I certainly understand the Catholic viewpoint - the Lutheran viewpoint is that no transfer of authority took place - only that there was a lamentable split in who was in communion with whom.

That said, you’ll find that some modern American Lutherans view themselves has having split away from the Catholic church - frankly, that standpoint should lead them immediately back to what would be the mother church without delay.

Those of us who don’t hold to the denominalationsit viewpoint are rather immune to this line of reasoning - and in fact view it as a heresy.

 

[benjohnson]

Are you suggesting that God only reveals himself through Scripture? What did the early Christians follow (other than the OT) prior to the Church compiling the documents which we know as the New Testament (Covenant)?

Almost…

"In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. "

We certainly don’t deny other Authorities - it would be almost impossible to have a church without tradition. However Lutherans tend to take a dim view on new-revleation, and expect to find God’s Word in Scripture and find it sufficient.

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;11821957]And again you say Luther this and he that. Just as
the Mormons say Joseph thus and he that. Or the
Christian Science say Mary this and she that.

No. I quoted Luther to correct the error you made about what he said about 1 Macc.

You have 1599 years of tradition determined through
the studies of hundreds of learned men and one
guy comes along and on his own hook decides
differently. Then others decide differently from him
as well.

Luther, in the prefaces to the DC books, references the ancients often, the Fathers often, Jerome in particular often. Now, unless they lived in the last 500 years, you seem to have missed the point. Luther didn’t create the disputes about books out of whole cloth. These were disputes going back to the early Church and the Fathers.

Many people call that a reformer or brave. I call
it the sin of arrogance and pride and not to be trusted.

Call it whatever you want, but get the facts straight.

Which is why I reject Sola Scriptura as valid the same way
I reject private revelations as well. If Scripture itself said trust only Scripture
I could make a case.

I couldn’t, because scripture tells us to trust the Church. I would reject this false notion of sola scriptura, too.

And I’m amazed that the enthusiasm for
promoting ones own views as divine reality and rearranging and
vandalizing the Bible has not caused one of these thousands of reformers
to add a line or two supporting Sola but it is only a matter of time
before someone inserts an extra pronouns or drops an adverb in their
own favor and presto! Sola!

So, Jerome vandalized the scripture? Did Erasmus? Did Cajetan? Did Eusebius? How about the Fathers of the Church who had disputes about these very books? That’s pretty strong charge against the early Church.

Even if the private revelations are from Catholics I reject them.
And the fact that Luther was Catholic means he knew better than
to do what he did.

I would reject any Lutheran that claims private revelation.
Do what? Question the canonicity of the long-disputed books? Then he is in the company of many Catholics over the centuries that should have "known better.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

No. I quoted Luther to correct the error you made about what he said about 1 Macc.

Luther, in the prefaces to the DC books, references the ancients often, the Fathers often, Jerome in particular often. Now, unless they lived in the last 500 years, you seem to have missed the point. Luther didn’t create the disputes about books out of whole cloth. These were disputes going back to the early Church and the Fathers.

Call it whatever you want, but get the facts straight.

I couldn’t, because scripture tells us to trust the Church. I would reject this false notion of sola scriptura, too.

So, Jerome vandalized the scripture? Did Erasmus? Did Cajetan? Did Eusebius? How about the Fathers of the Church who had disputes about these very books? That’s pretty strong charge against the early Church.

I would reject any Lutheran that claims private revelation.
Do what? Question the canonicity of the long-disputed books? Then he is in the company of many Catholics over the centuries that should have "known better.

Jon

Jon- what point are you trying to make? That Luther
dud nothing, caused no problem or division or
what? So far all you’ve done is dispute every Catholic
article and statement on Luther.
So suppose you tell us- why is there a Lutheran Church
and a Catholic Church? Or do you disagree with that as well?

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11822185]So, Christ was able to keep His promise to guide His Church for 1500 years, but finally failed?
Well, it was a good run.

Who said that Christ failed? Where has any Lutheran said that Christ failed? He failed how? To preserve the Church? Has the Church Triumphant fallen to the gates of Hell?
Christ didn’t fail at the Great Schism. He didn’t fail at the Reformation. His Church continues where the faithful, the Baptized receive word and sacrament. When no one anymore can or does receive His word and sacrament, I will be willing to discuss the possibility that Christ failed, as you put it.

Look, if the Church ever had Authority (and you seem to admit that it had) it was of Divine origin. The only way it could lose that Authority is from a Divine command.

I’m not willing to say the Church lost authority. Certainly, however, that authority is weakened and perhaps dispersed by Schism and division.

Unless you’re claiming that Luther was divine (I know you’re not), then your claims are theologically incorrect.

No Lutheran I know claims Luther had some type of authority in the Church. He was a theologian, not a metropolitan. But authority in the Church has never rested in the hands of one bishop.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Who said that Christ failed? Where has any Lutheran said that Christ failed? He failed how? To preserve the Church? Has the Church Triumphant fallen to the gates of Hell?
Christ didn’t fail at the Great Schism. He didn’t fail at the Reformation. His Church continues where the faithful, the Baptized receive word and sacrament. When no one anymore can or does receive His word and sacrament, I will be willing to discuss the possibility that Christ failed, as you put it.

I’m not willing to say the Church lost authority. Certainly, however, that authority is weakened and perhaps dispersed by Schism and division.

No Lutheran I know claims Luther had some type of authority in the Church. He was a theologian, not a metropolitan. But authority in the Church has never rested in the hands of one bishop.

Jon

What does this mean? That those who remained RC, did not
suffer scruples and simply waited for theChurch to correct
local abuses were not of the faithful group, but those
with scruples who objected to paying too much for
purgatorial masses so split the RC were the faithful remnant?
At some point you have to make a case for the formation
of the church called Lutheran. What is it?

Otherwise- How arrogant- like Luther.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And then who preached and taught after they died and before the New Testament was compiled? It was a couple of hundred years after they would have died that the New Testament was compiled, right?

Well, it depends on what you mean by compiled? The councils that affirmed which writings were canonical were affirming the Scriptures used in the local churches. Do you think the apostles wrote the NT and the letters just sat around gathering dust for centuries, hidden to the Christian community? Early after the apostles, yes, much of the teaching would have been oral, but once those who learned directly from the apostles began to die out, the Scriptures were read in the liturgy for the faithful.

So this information would have been handed down multiple times without it in writing, at least in one document and mass produced. Do you think they believed in Sola Scriptura? Why is it that the documents of the New Testament were written in the first place? Jesus didn’t say “write this…” He said “Do this…”

Sola Scriptura speaks to the practice of the church in the post-apostolic period. It really is simply saying that we hold to apostolic teaching and that alone. Scripture testifies to apostolic teaching. Prove to me that traditions not in Scripture are God-breathed through the apostles and then we can talk.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Otherwise- How arrogant- like Luther.

Do you get time off of purgatory for insulting fellow baptized Christians, or what?

 

[JonNC]

What does this mean? That those who remained RC, did not
suffer scruples and simply waited for theChurch to correct
local abuses were not of the faithful group, but those
with scruples who objected to paying too much for
purgatorial masses so split the RC were the faithful remnant?
At some point you have to make a case for the formation
of the church called Lutheran. What is it?

Otherwise- How arrogant- like Luther.

What does this mean?
There is only one Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That there is division between us doesn’t mean there is more than one Church.

I won’t accuse anyone of arrogant, but the fact is that at the very least the Orthodox have equal claim to the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Do you get time off of purgatory for insulting fellow baptized Christians, or what?

Do you? You find me calling Luther arrogant insulting but not
a kazillion non Catholics coming to argue the Church
not insulting?

I call that arrogance as well.

 

[marywarfield]

What does this mean?
There is only one Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That there is division between us doesn’t mean there is more than one Church.

I won’t accuse anyone of arrogant, but the fact is that at the very least the Orthodox have equal claim to the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

You have a problem also with me calling Luther
arrogant but no problem with you coming to Catholic
forums to argue the wrongness of Catholic faith?
Really?

And if there is only ONE why do you call it Lutheran
rather than Catholic? Why not just drop the Lutheran
and go with OC, RC or EC? There must be something
different then between Lutheran and these OC, RC,
and EC?

 

[marywarfield]

Well, it depends on what you mean by compiled? The councils that affirmed which writings were canonical were affirming the Scriptures used in the local churches. Do you think the apostles wrote the NT and the letters just sat around gathering dust for centuries, hidden to the Christian community? Early after the apostles, yes, much of the teaching would have been oral, but once those who learned directly from the apostles began to die out, the Scriptures were read in the liturgy for the faithful.

Sola Scriptura speaks to the practice of the church in the post-apostolic period. It really is simply saying that we hold to apostolic teaching and that alone. Scripture testifies to apostolic teaching. Prove to me that traditions not in Scripture are God-breathed through the apostles and then we can talk.

Really? You mean like baptism by immersion only- favorite
claim by many Sola Scripturists? Where is the Apostolic
claim to that? Which Apostle, which Scripture?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Do you? You find me calling Luther arrogant insulting but not
a kazillion non Catholics coming to argue the Church
not insulting?

I call that arrogance as well.

I wasn’t talking about Luther. I was talking about you saying that to Jon.

 

[marywarfield]

I wasn’t talking about Luther. I was talking about you saying that to Jon.

Sorry. And I apologized on the other threads like EC in which
you wander in to take offense.

I’m just blown away at the number of people coming to
CA to correct Catholics who can’t explicitly state
what they have going for them?
I mean if OC and Lutheran (Jon) can’t explain how
their faith is truer, more historical more faith filled
than shouldn’t they be trying to fix theirs rather than
mine?
I’m Catholic- both RC and EC. Therefore I’m on a
Catholic forum.
One does get bored with negative nellies who only
disagree but offer nothing better.
I believe CA is the only forum that allows this.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Sorry. And I apologized on the other threads like EC in which
you wander in to take offense.

It’s Jon you owe the apology to. You’ll find he’s one of the least arrogant posters here on CAF.

I’m just blown away at the number of people coming to
CA to correct Catholics who can’t explicitly state
what they have going for them?
I mean if OC and Lutheran (Jon) can’t explain how
their faith is truer, more historical more faith filled
than shouldn’t they be trying to fix theirs rather than
mine?
I’m Catholic- both RC and EC. Therefore I’m on a
Catholic forum.
One does get bored with negative nellies who only
disagree but offer nothing better.
I believe CA is the only forum that allows this.

First, no one said anything about the Catholic faith or attacking it on this thread. Certainly not Jon, Ben, or I. The question about sola scriptura was asked to us. That is, for us to explain our belief in it. I don’t see how you construe this as attacking Catholicism. Secondly, yes, this is CAF…but it happens to be the non-Catholic section of CAF. Which means things are going to be stated that don’t jive with Catholic teaching. If you’re just looking to debate, why not go to the apologetics section, which is what that is for?

 

[marywarfield]

It’s Jon you owe the apology to. You’ll find he’s one of the least arrogant posters here on CAF.

First, no one said anything about the Catholic faith or attacking it on this thread. Certainly not Jon, Ben, or I. The question about sola scriptura was asked to us. That is, for us to explain our belief in it. I don’t see how you construe this as attacking Catholicism. Secondly, yes, this is CAF…but it happens to be the non-Catholic section of CAF. Which means things are going to be stated that don’t jive with Catholic teaching. If you’re just looking to debate, why not go to the apologetics section, which is what that is for?

What I would like to know is why you, per crucem and Jon
are unable to answer direct questions on the SUBJECT?
It’s very easy to get into insults and hurt feelings with
you three but you all three have failed at directly answering
questions put to you on the subject?
Why?
I’m still waiting for answers on the TOPIC in posts
530 and 531 after giving up asking YOU the same
questions two pages ago and not getting an answer.
I don’t understand why it is so easy for you to take
personal umbrage and so difficult to answer questions
on the TOPIC.