Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[II_Paradox_II]

RNRobert:

I must confess, I don’t claim to know everything about Protestant theology (or Catholic theology, for that matter, I’m just a layman). However 30,000 denominations (and counting) CANNOT be what our Lord intended for his church.

that’s ok, I don’t think anyone does. I would submit however that the form of sola scriptura propagated within many parts of fundamentalism today (and large parts of evangelicalism) is logically untenable and subject to many criticisms that the older form of sola scriptura (that scripture is the sole normative infallible authority with other authorities under it) is not subject to.

ken

 

[Desert_Dweller]

Paradox,

How exactly is the old form of sola scriptura different from the new. I have heard this a few times on another forum, but I couldn’t quite understand the argument. Thanks in advance for your help on the subject.

 

[Shibboleth]

We have thirty thousand or however many denominations for many reasons.

First many do not disagree – they simply have different names because of location, the want to be autonomous, and other factors. Second someone can read the Bible and still be wrong and not realize it. Luther sure thought that some Catholics individuals were wrong and they had all read the Bible. We as people are fallible and need to realize that – that is why when someone thinks that they have a new theological viewpoint that they consult others for guidance and help.

I also want to say that my comment on the books not included in the protestant Bible was a bit vague and misleading. From what I gather is that Luther chose to leave many of the books out because he was not sure if they were 100% inspired or not based on what he learned from the people before him. He was very very careful and conservative in deciding what was absolutely inerrant.

 

[MariaG]

I came to the Catholic Church from one of the “newer” Scripture alone groups. I am not as familiar with the older forms. Please show me where my understanding errs.

The “older” Scripture alone does use “other authorities”, similar to Sacred Tradition. Correct? But only where it doesn’t contradict Scripture?

Now, Scripture says the Church with be held without error, so how can your other authorities better than the Catholic Church? (1 Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living god, the pillar and ground of the truth.)

I do not mean to be disrespectful in anyway, but I truly do not understand your stance. You believe in the Bible along with other authorities in conjunction with the Bible, but it seems to me, you reject the church those promises are made about, the Catholic Church. I do not see how your authorities can be more accurate than the Catholic Church whose promises of truth are right there in the Bible?

Another way to state my understanding of this is you believe the Scripture and other authorities. The other authorities cannot contradict Scripture. But, here is where you lose me, if you feel the Catholic Church is wrong and your authorities are right, doesn’t that contradict Scripture that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth?
If you could enlighten me, so I could at least understand your position, I would deeply appreciate it.

God Bless

 

[MariaG]

Shibboleth,

I do not understand why I should trust Luther 1500 years after the fact instead of the Christians living a mere 400 years later. It does not make any sense to reject the men who were trained “closer to the source”. Why is Luther more right than the Church Fathers?

God Bless

 

[joshua1]

Also in respect to an oral culture, that was up until the last couple of centuries or so because only the wealthy and learned had bibles or any kind of scripture. There is a verse in the bible that confirms without a shadow of a doupt that the bible is not the sole source. It is the gospel of John right before Jesus ascends. (Paraphrasing) There were many other signs and wonders and things that Jesus revealed and taught to his disciples, but it is not possible for the world to hold the books that would be written. (Oral and sacred tradition). I agree with an earlier post, just because they werent written down, that doesnt make it less important. The church created the Bible. The Bible did not create the Church.
Case proven that bible alone is refuted by the Gospel itself?

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Desert Dweller:

How exactly is the old form of sola scriptura different from the new. I have heard this a few times on another forum, but I couldn’t quite understand the argument. Thanks in advance for your help on the subject.

There are typically two forms advanced by various protestants:

1. The scriptures are the sole authority for Christians
2. The scriptures are the sole infallible normative authority for Christians with other fallible authorities that hold sway as well but are subject to scripture.

The first variety is perhaps best described as a corruption of the second. Historically, the reformation churches held to the second variety, not the first. The primary difference is in the acknowledgement of the secondary validity of tradition. We wouldn’t argue that tradition is infallible, but nor would we argue that it is wholly useless and the scripture is the only authority.

ken

 

[Desert_Dweller]

II Paradox II:

1. The scriptures are the sole authority for Christians
2. The scriptures are the sole infallible normative authority for Christians with other fallible authorities that hold sway as well but are subject to scripture.

Would saying the following be accurate?

1. teaches that scripture contains the fullness of faith
2. teaches that truth can be found in other sources but that scripture is the final authority.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

I came to the Catholic Church from one of the “newer” Scripture alone groups. I am not as familiar with the older forms. Please show me where my understanding errs.

Hi maria, I think you are talking to me here, though I’m not sure. But I’ll answer anyways… =)

The “older” Scripture alone does use “other authorities”, similar to Sacred Tradition. Correct? But only where it doesn’t contradict Scripture?

In general, yes. Not just that, however, for there are plenty of traditions that don’t contradict scripture which are nonetheless suspect (the assumption of mary for instance). As luther stated, scripture is the standard that regulates every other standard.

It can be applied in other ways as well. I think, for instance, that we would be insistent that non-scriptural traditions should not generally be held as binding over the conscience of believers. So, a doctrine like the assumption, though someone may want to believe it, should not be articulated as a part of the faith that must be believed lest fellowship be broken.

Now, Scripture says the Church with be held without error, so how can your other authorities better than the Catholic Church? (1 Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living god, the pillar and ground of the truth.)

You realize of course that we would dispute whether you are interpreting those passages correctly? If we believed that this and other passages taught the infallibility of the church we would of course abandon our position.

I do not mean to be disrespectful in anyway, but I truly do not understand your stance. You believe in the Bible along with other authorities in conjunction with the Bible, but it seems to me, you reject the church those promises are made about, the Catholic Church. I do not see how your authorities can be more accurate than the Catholic Church whose promises of truth are right there in the Bible?

The same answer as up above would apply here.

Another way to state my understanding of this is you believe the Scripture and other authorities. The other authorities cannot contradict Scripture. But, here is where you lose me, if you feel the Catholic Church is wrong and your authorities are right, doesn’t that contradict Scripture that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth?

Like I said, there is only a contradition insofar as one accepts the premise you laid out. I don’t believe some of Rome’s claims because I don’t believe history or scripture supports them. As a quick aside, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the passage you quoted isn’t really abuot authority at all, but the moral witness of the church in the world and the effect that has on the proclamation of the Gospel.

ken

 

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

There are typically two forms advanced by various protestants:

1. The scriptures are the sole authority for Christians
2. The scriptures are the sole infallible normative authority for Christians with other fallible authorities that hold sway as well but are subject to scripture.

The first variety is perhaps best described as a corruption of the second. Historically, the reformation churches held to the second variety, not the first. The primary difference is in the acknowledgement of the secondary validity of tradition. We wouldn’t argue that tradition is infallible, but nor would we argue that it is wholly useless and the scripture is the only authority.

ken

With regard to 2) above, which fallible authority is one to believe? The Jehovah’s Witness says that Jesus is only man, while the Baptist says he is God incarnate. If the JW is right, then the Baptist is an idolater. If the Baptist is correct, then the JW is guilty of blasphemy. Logic says they can’t both be right. What it comes down to is, whose tradition do you believe? The most important thing in this world is saving your soul. The writers of the New Testament warned constantly against false teachers. These warnings are useless unless one has a standard of what is true and what isn’t.

I have an old book (first published in 1936-I have a 1960 reprint) by a Rev. John O’Brien entitled The Faith of Millions. A passage from this book illustrates this point I think:

“A non-Catholic bishop in a sermon against papal infallibility recently said: For my part I have an infallible Bible and this is the only infallibility that I require.” While plausible at first view, such a statement cannot stand the test of scrutiny. Let me address myself in the following kindly manner to this bishop as the representative of all who share such a view: “Either my dear friend, you are infallibly certain that your particular interpretation of the Bible is the correct one or you are not. If you maintain you are infallibly certain, then you claim for yourself -and you cannot very well deny the same for every other reader od the Bible- a personal infalliblity which you deny only to the pope and which you claim only for him. According to this view each of the hundreds of millions of readers of the Bible is a pope, while the only one who is not a pope is the poe himself. You avoid admitting the infallibility of the pope by multiplying infallibility by the number of readers of the Bible. If you do not claim to be infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case your statement crumbles. The plain fact is that *an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter is futile *(italics author). Infalliblity never gets from the printed pages to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader. The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer amble evidence fo the truth of this statement.”

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Desert Dweller:

Would saying the following be accurate?

1. teaches that scripture contains the fullness of faith
2. teaches that truth can be found in other sources but that scripture is the final authority.

for the most part this would be accurate. I think it could be further defined by saying position 2 would entail that all doctrine binding on the believer is explicitly in or inferred by scripture.

To give it a little context, position 2 was developed in opposition to the idea that tradition and scripture formed two separate streams of revelation that could contain different, though complementary truths. The refomers argued that the church of Rome was betraying the patristic heritage by appealing to a “living tradition” that both went beyond legitimate tradition and scripture.

ken

 

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

Like I said, there is only a contradition insofar as one accepts the premise you laid out. I don’t believe some of Rome’s claims because I don’t believe history or scripture supports them. As a quick aside, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the passage you quoted isn’t really abuot authority at all, but the moral witness of the church in the world and the effect that has on the proclamation of the Gospel.

ken

If Christianity speaks with a divided voice, how does that affect the proclamation of the Gospel? I’m sure many heathens would say “first decide among yourselves what is true, then come preach to us.”
As far as being a moral witness, I can’t see how churches who approve of homosexuality, birth control and abortion can be much of a moral witness.

 

[MariaG]

Thanks Paradox,

I now understand your position, but coming from a Bible only church, I I think by rejecting the interpretation of the Catholic Church, it brings us down the slippery slope to truly Bible only churches, which I think both of us would agree are mistaken.
Thanks for your time and your Christian Spirit.

 

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

for the most part this would be accurate. I think it could be further defined by saying position 2 would entail that all doctrine binding on the believer is explicitly in or inferred by scripture.

To give it a little context, position 2 was developed in opposition to the idea that tradition and scripture formed two separate streams of revelation that could contain different, though complementary truths. The refomers argued that the church of Rome was betraying the patristic heritage by appealing to a “living tradition” that both went beyond legitimate tradition and scripture.

ken

What’s wrong with a ‘living tradition?’ That’s like disliking an oak tree because it no longer resembles an acorn. It took three centuries before the doctrine of the Trinity was defined. You see the same thing in the Jewish religion. The belief in an afterlife really wasn’t developed until a couple of centuries before Christ.

 

[bernied]

RNRobert:

Since joining this forum a couple weeks ago, I’ve noticed that when non-Catholics criticize a Catholic doctrine, they do so by saying “It’s not in the Bible.” Catholic members try to explain the importance of Sacred Tradition, but to no avail. So, I’ve decided to start this thread explaining why I in my quest for authentic Christian truth rejected Sola Scriptura and embraced the Catholic Faith.

I’m into Sola Scriptura, but I’m not against tradition. Evangelicals have lots of different traditions also (like “altar calls” or talking about a “personal Savior” or even using the term “trinity”). The problem with Catholicism is not tradition, but tradition that is against sound doctrine, which actually makes it an enemy to the true faith.

For example, is it really a mortal sin to miss Mass? You would really go to hell for that? It’s very unfortunate how these “doctrines” get formulated, which are just man’s rules passed off as God’s rules, and misrepresent the Gospel. Someone will say what I just said about a mortal sin is not “doctrine.” Look, if it’s serious enough to make you go to hell, call it what you want, but realize it’s importance and impact. The truth is, rules such as that are just religious “legalisms” working against the Gospel of Grace.

Just my opinion…

…Bernie
www.FreeGoodNews.com

 

[bernied]

RNRobert:

If Christianity speaks with a divided voice, how does that affect the proclamation of the Gospel? I’m sure many heathens would say “first decide among yourselves what is true, then come preach to us.”
As far as being a moral witness, I can’t see how churches who approve of homosexuality, birth control and abortion can be much of a moral witness.

What about a Church (called the Catholic church) that does Inquisitions and crusades, killing in the name of God, contrary to Jesus’ teachings? That can’t look good…

…Bernie (former catholic)
www.FreeGoodNews.com

 

[II_Paradox_II]

With regard to 2) above, which fallible authority is one to believe? …These warnings are useless unless one has a standard of what is true and what isn’t.

a few thoughts:

1. The early church enshrined the primary “traditions” of the faith in it’s creeds, it’s regula fidei. There is a core of dogmatic tradition that the great majority of professed christians accept that accords with this (witness the fact that many groups, not just catholics, recite and agree with the elementary creeds of the church).
2. it seems to me that your question itself is far too dependent on an overly eager desire for absolute certainty. We can know with relative, though assured certainty that JW’s are incorrect because we lie in the stream of trinitarian tradition that we would argue is biblically most likely. I’m not going to go out an accept what a JW says becuase his position is not likely to be true based on the evidence we have. If you wish to apply such strict standards for knowledge then you should be ready to show how you can sustain your own knowledge claims from someone applying the same standards to what you believe.

I have an old book (first published in 1936-I have a 1960 reprint) by a Rev. John O’Brien entitled The Faith of Millions. A passage from this book illustrates this point I think:

The first part argument is is based on one claiming that they have an infallible charism to recognize scripture, something I do not claim. The second part of the argument asserts that if one does not claim infallible understanding then his understanding is futile. I would assert contrary to this that his argument will eventually sink his own understanding by making certain knowledge contingent on infallible understanding, creating a chain which will be broken at some point by the neccessary fact that we all interpret our world and the information in it. What good is an infallible interpreter without an infallible understanding of what he says? As he himself says, “Infalliblity never gets from the printed pages [or the spoken word] to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader.” I would argue that his understanding should be extended just a little further than he takes it.

You may go on to argue a much different evidential claim that having an infallible interpreter does produce more unity, but the purely logical claim he makes earlier is illegitimate unless you can justify why an infallible interpreter is needed to understand one piece of language and not another.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

RNRobert:

If Christianity speaks with a divided voice, how does that affect the proclamation of the Gospel? I’m sure many heathens would say “first decide among yourselves what is true, then come preach to us.”
As far as being a moral witness, I can’t see how churches who approve of homosexuality, birth control and abortion can be much of a moral witness.

Just so you know, I agree that Christianity is weakened when it speaks from a divided position. I have no love for our divided state. However, history has placed us here and we have to deal with it the best we can. Unity does not require the acknowledged presence of an infallible interpreter nor is it always helped by that presence.

Our argument is over whether such claims are true, but we both acknowledge the importance of knowing and submitting to the truth when it is certain.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

MariaG:

I now understand your position, but coming from a Bible only church, I I think by rejecting the interpretation of the Catholic Church, it brings us down the slippery slope to truly Bible only churches, which I think both of us would agree are mistaken.
Thanks for your time and your Christian Spirit.

thanks, nice talking to you too.

have a good day…

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

RNRobert:

What’s wrong with a ‘living tradition?’ That’s like disliking an oak tree because it no longer resembles an acorn. It took three centuries before the doctrine of the Trinity was defined. You see the same thing in the Jewish religion. The belief in an afterlife really wasn’t developed until a couple of centuries before Christ.

it’s not a rejection of “living tradition” in the sense of development. I think it is clear that the faith has developed over time.

The “living tradition” being objected to is that spoken of by Irenaeus, a purely oral tradion that bypasses the scriptures entirely and even perhaps the earliest centuries of recorded church doctrine and practice. A “living tradition” that is not accepted by many branches of the church, say for example, the issue of papal infallibility being rejected by everyone except Rome.

ken