Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Exporter]

If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it.

Quote:

From another Thread
“Let’s all calm down about the 'ol Jesus and the Apostles didn’t practice sola Scriptura so therefore SS is false argument. This is not a valid argument, and those who understand SS properly don’t use the argument. Why? Did the Apostles or Jesus recognize Papal Infallibility? Using the same logic you undermine your own position. One shouldn’t use arguments that refute your own position.”

Jesus did recognize Papal infallibility, he instituted it. When Jesus stated in Matt 16:18-19, that Peter would be given the “keys to the Kingdom,” He was pulling from the text of Isaiah 22:20-24 almost verbatum."And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias

 

[RNRobert]

peacemaker:

Even the thought of rejecting solo scriptura feels like hearasy to a Protestant. Just beginning the dialogue is refreshing however. Can a Catholic consider rejecting the dogma of the church? ie Mary’s sinless life? Her continual virginity? Can tradition ever be wrong? What if there really is no apostolic succession and this deposit was wrong from the beginning? Could Paul have replaced Matthias as chosen by the Holy Spirit and not by men? Could Paul have ascendancy in New Testament theology? Just questions not answers - Praise God for discussion and search for truth.

Hello peacemaker!

I’ll try to answer some of the questions as best I can.

Rejecting the dogma of the church: Jesus told the Apostles in Luke 10:16 that those who listened to them listened to Him, and those who rejected them rejected Him and the One who sent Him. We Catholics believe that the Apostles passed their authority to the bishops, so that rejecting the teaching of the Church is tantamount to rejecting Christ Himself.

Apostolic succession and the deposit of faith: If there was no Apostolic succession and the deposit of faith was wrong, then we are in BIG trouble, as that would mean our New Testament is also wrong. Remember, the Apostles taught for years before pen was ever set to paper. All the early Christians had to go on was the oral preaching of the Apostles. The books we now have were written over several years to churches scattered over the Mediterranean. There was no attempt to make a compilation of New Testament scripture until the middle of the second century, and even then there was disagreement on what to include. The canon wasn’t considered closed until the end of the 4th century. If the deposit of faith is wrong, then we have no way of knowing whether the books in the NT actually belong there.

continued…

 

[RNRobert]

conclusion…

Also, even assuming the NT is correct, the deposit of faith is necessary to ensure that we understand it properly (witness the thousands of non-catholic denominations who claim to follow the Bible, but have contradicting teachings. Frank Sheed explains this quite nicely in his book, Theology for Beginners:

It seems strange so many Christians think the Apostles fulfilled their commission by writing the New Testament, leaving behind them no successors, nor any need for successors, with the authority Our Lord had given themselves. It seems strange, for one reason, that it would mean only five of the Twelve had obeyed their Master…

It would seem strange for another reason- that the Church Christ founded would have been a teaching church only for a half-century or so, in all the centuries since merely a library.

Circumstances change and someone must have the authority to apply the teachings to the new circumstances; otherwise they end up as frustrations rather than teachings. Even in the doctrines themselves there are depths which the believing mind can explore, with all the danger of error but all the rich possibilities of development. With every operation of the unstagnant mind of man upon the truth, the question must arise, “What did Christ mean?”

So it has proved. There is not a word uttered by Christ which has not met a number of diverse interpretations, some of them intelligent, some immensely attractive, but contradicting each other. How are we to know? It is not enough to have Our Lord’s words; the words themselves can only be a kind of talisman without the meaning. Without a teacher- to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various meanings is Christ’s- we should have no revelation but only an everlasting pile of conundrums.

I don’t believe the Holy Spirit chose Paul to ‘replace’ Matthias. Matthias was chosen shortly after the Ascension, so he received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. According to tradition, he preached the Gospel in Asia Minor (now Turkey), and received a martyr’s crown there.
Rather, I believe the Holy Spirit chose Paul for the special mission of bringing Christ to the Gentiles. With his background and education, he was probably better suited to the task than the other apostles, and so was able to transform Christianity from what was mainly a Jewish sect into a universal (or ‘catholic’) faith.

 

[Randell]

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.

I would trust 2000 years of interpretation through saints, profits, popes and the alike over Luther. After all peter was given the church and is our first pope. I would rather have a team of people like that then Luther.

 

[Randell]

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?

Great point. The bible was not even mentioned as the sole source of guidance in the bible. Where does it say that the bible is the sole source of information? Dont!

 

[Randell]

II Paradox II:

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

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.

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.

The same answer as up above would apply here.

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

There is not ONE claim that RC church professes that is not backed in the bible. There is not one scripture that the RC church does not back. PERIOD

 

[Randell]

luckyirishguy14:

This is indeed a neat post. But are there verses that may deny sola scriptura?

There are no verses that say sola scriptura is the only way. NONE. No where is the bible mentioned as the sole resource of information regarding Christ and his teachings.

 

[RBushlow]

stollerusa:

Hi! Since I’m in two Sola Scriptura threads, I’m going to combine my (name removed by moderator)ut into one new thread, Friendship Table

Then, I can better keep up with you all!

Roland
AmbassadorMan

Can we get a link? Thanks.