Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Shibboleth]

bamark:

. James conflicted with his idea of Sola Fide - Faith alone - and Revelation, according to him, was not inspired by God. Luther also re-wrote Matthew 3:28 to read that man is justified by Faith alone.Mark

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not **practicing ** homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The word **practicing ** never exists in the original text. But the Catholic Church accepts and uses the NAB. Why is this? The text adds words or Corinthians was rewritten. No – this is not the case. The Catholic individuals involved felt that this was the writer’s intent of the verse. Luther thought the same thing. He was not rewriting he was translating.

The Vatican Uses the NAB on its website.

 

[RNRobert]

MariaG:

But where does that leave me? If my church fathers made mistakes, your church fathers make mistakes, why should I not reject all that and be truly Bible alone? Or how am I to judge IF there is a mistake?

God Bless

THIS is the point I have been trying to make in these posts. If you reject the supernatural teaching authority of the church, you end up with what we have today: subjectivism, rationalism, agnosticism and atheism.

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, and since Christ is the head of the body, it cannot err. Catholics don’t believe the Pope is infallible because he says so, or because he’s a nice guy. We believe it because the Church is a supernatural institution founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Springer]

Greetings everyone!

This is my first post.

I only read some of the posts in this thread. The post are quite interesting. However there are two questions I would like to ask and I hope it’s relevant in this thread:

1. What are those oral traditions which the Bible doesn’t mention?
2. If sola scriptura caused the divisions why is the Church of Rome not united with the tradition-believing Eastern Orthodox Church? (and Mormons for that matter who have extra-biblical authorities).

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not **practicing ** homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The word **practicing ** never exists in the original text. But the Catholic Church accepts and uses the NAB. Why is this? The text adds words or Corinthians was rewritten. No – this is not the case. The Catholic individuals involved felt that this was the writer’s intent of the verse. Luther thought the same thing. He was not rewriting he was translating.

The Vatican Uses the NAB on its website.

Which original text are you quoting from.

I have the NAB, and use it frequently. However, you can open almost any version of the Bible that you want, and find Scripture that is written a little differently. The KJV-only folks will argue that theirs is the correct version, even though it is based on the Douay-Rheims version. It is also minus the 7 deutero-canonical books. My point is, Luther decided to follow his own interpretation of the Scripture, instead of the Magisterium’s teachings. The reforms he wanted would have eventually come, but they did not come fast enough for him. He re-wrote Scripture to fit his own theological interpretation. Almost immediately, the idea of self-interpretation expanded, until Luther himself admitted that he had made a mistake. Once the door opened, it became impossible to close.

Mark

 

[Shibboleth]

bamark:

Which original text are you quoting from.

I have the NAB, and use it frequently. However, you can open almost any version of the Bible that you want, and find Scripture that is written a little differently.

My point exactly.

My point is, Luther decided to follow his own interpretation of the Scripture,

Proven by your own word - interpretation.

The reforms he wanted would have eventually come, but they did not come fast enough for him.

How fast should they have come? How long were these things acceptable? Remember he brought them up not with the intent to separate, it was the Magisterium that excommunicated him.

He re-wrote Scripture to fit his own theological interpretation. Mark

Fine but then the NAB people rewrote scripture also.

He knew that the word did not appear in the original Greek texts and he admitted it, just like if I were to ask the people that composed the NAB if they added words they would say “Yes” also.

The argument is not over whether or not he rewrote the Scripture, the question is whether or not his interpretation of the scripture was correct.

 

[MariaG]

The CATHOLIC CHURCH believes any new revelation ended when the last apostle died. There has be new understanding and new words used to describe that which has already been revealed. Purgatory is a new word to describe Biblical ideas along with Oral Tradition.

Mormans believe they have further New Revelation of Jesus Christ. A quite different thing.

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

My point exactly.

You still did not answer my origianl question. Which original text are you quoting from.

Proven by your own word - interpretation.

No. Not by my own interpretation. By the teaching of the Magisterium.

How fast should they have come? How long were these things acceptable? Remember he brought them up not with the intent to separate, it was the Magisterium that excommunicated him.

Luther’s statements were in direct conflict with Church teaching. He declared that Ecumenical Councils had always erred in matters of faith, and as a result was branded a heretic.

Luther separated himself from the authority of the Church, and as a result, could no longer claim any of the traditions of the Church. Those traditions were also contrary to his idea of Sola Scriptura. He had to condemn those traditions as un-biblical, contrary to 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Fine but then the NAB people rewrote scripture also.

How so.

He knew that the word did not appear in the original Greek texts and he admitted it, just like if I were to ask the people that composed the NAB if they added words they would say “Yes” also.

Luther went further than that. On his ‘own’ authority, he modified Scripture. He also removed the 7 books from the Old Testament and removed 4 books from the New Testament.

The argument is not over whether or not he rewrote the Scripture, the question is whether or not his interpretation of the scripture was correct.

Actually the argument directly relates to the re-writing and modifying of Scripture that the Catholic Church had protected for 1500 years. By modifying and re-writing Scripture, Luther had now rejected all authority of the Church and it’s teaching body, and declared that the Bible was the Sole Authority . Nowhere in Scripture is it written that Scripture itself is the ‘Sole Authority’, nor does it say it is ‘self-sufficient’.

Mark

 

[Shibboleth]

bamark:

You still did not answer my origianl question. Which original text are you quoting from.

Here you go…

Greek NT - Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 6:9 h ouk oidate oti adikoi basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin mh planasqe oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moicoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai

Sorry but the system does not allow for greek lettering.

If you can tell me where the word practicing exists in this text then I will be glad to concede on this issue. I am not trying to start a debate on whether or not Luther should or should not have removed the books that he did – I am just trying to point out that he did not add words to the scripture.

It is the same thing that everyone does when making a translation. He was putting in a Vernacular different than Greek what he thought the verse was trying to convey.

The NAB does this also with 1 Cor 6:9 by adding the word “practicing.” It is not in the original Greek.

The other things that you bring up I do not wish to argue against.

The point of the matter is again both texts Luther’s and the NAB add words not in the orriginal Greek. If the Magisterium disagrees with the his translation so be it…

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

.

If you can tell me where the word practicing exists in this text then I will be glad to concede on this issue. I am not trying to start a debate on whether or not Luther should or should not have removed the books that he did – I am just trying to point out that he did not add words to the scripture.

Can you show me where “solely by Scripture” exists?
Or “solely by Faith”? Or “solely by Grace”?
By removing books, Luther did, in effect, remove words from the Scripture. By modifying Scripture to fit his own theology, Luther did, in effect, add words to Scripture.

It is the same thing that everyone does when making a translation. He was putting in a Vernacular different than Greek what he thought the verse was trying to convey.

By his own interpretation?
Private interpretation of the Scripture is forbidden (2 Pet1:20 and 2 Pet 3:16).

The other things that you bring up I do not wish to argue against.

Why not?

The other things that I bring up are all related to this entire thread.
Luther invented the false doctrine of sola scriptura, or bible only or bible sufficiency; whatever you wish to call it. He separated himself from the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and in doing so, lost all authority regarding Church matters. He then turned to the bible, a book, as the Sole source of Authority . Can a book ever be a sole source of authority?

The point of the matter is again both texts Luther’s and the NAB add words not in the orriginal Greek. If the Magisterium disagrees with the his translation so be it…

I think you have the last sentence of this statement backwards.

 

[Shibboleth]

Bamark,

Thank you for sharing. The other issues that you bring up have been talked about extensively on other threads. You can look there if you like. I do not wish to argue about the other issues because it will not affect your faith nor will it affect mine.

I think that there are better ways for me to serve God. I have at times defended Luther on this web site but not as many times as I have defended Catholics on other sites.

I rarely if ever attack Catholicism and other religions; I do defend my own which sometimes leads to confrontation about differing theologies but this is not my original intent. When explanation turns to polemic I find that sometimes one must simply say “thank you” and walk away.

So once again…

Thank you for sharing.

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

Bamark,

Thank you for sharing. The other issues that you bring up have been talked about extensively on other threads. You can look there if you like. I do not wish to argue about the other issues because it will not affect your faith nor will it affect mine.

I think that there are better ways for me to serve God. I have at times defended Luther on this web site but not as many times as I have defended Catholics on other sites.

I rarely if ever attack Catholicism and other religions; I do defend my own which sometimes leads to confrontation about differing theologies but this is not my original intent. When explanation turns to polemic I find that sometimes one must simply say “thank you” and walk away.

So once again…

Thank you for sharing.

My apologies if I come off as aggressive in my answers. Please understand that after having been on evangelical and fundy forums where the “debating” can get fairly intense, my polemic attitude sometimes carries over. My intent was not to attack, but “vigorously defend” my own Faith. It is hard for me to simply walk away from some things.

Mark

 

[DenRat]

Shibboleth:

If you can tell me where the word practicing exists in this text then I will be glad to concede on this issue. I am not trying to start a debate on whether or not Luther should or should not have removed the books that he did – I am just trying to point out that he did not add words to the scripture.

It is the same thing that everyone does when making a translation. He was putting in a Vernacular different than Greek what he thought the verse was trying to convey.

Luther himself admits to adding the word “alone” and he did so defiantly.

"In order to substantiate his claims that man was justified by faith alone, Luther deliberately added the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28. In reality, the only time “alone” appears with the word “faith” in the Greek text is in James 2:24 where it says we are “not saved by faith alone.” Luther defended his novel addition bragging, “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate…It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out.” Cited by John Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, (Rockford, IL: TAN Books), 136-137.[emphasis mine]

God Bless,
Denise

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ All,

I jumping in here without having read all posts, but I did get as far as #27 where Ken (Paradox) said:

"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."

To me, #2 or the classical formulation of SS is the most defensible one. I’ve noticed, though, that it still requires at least one other principle to work, namely some version of the concept of the clarity of Scripture. IOW, if the Bible is going to be the final measure, its basic truths necessary for salvation must be discernible by your average or even less than average guy. Throw in a little Holy Spirit to fill in the gaps too.

I would be interested in knowing in more detail how SS works. IOW, what are the specific rules? e.g. If some other authority (Church Father, tradition, etc.) clearly contradicts Scripture, Scripture prevails. If some other authority teaches something (X) but Scripture is silent, you may in good conscience believe X but you may not make it binding on others… Anyway, you get the idea. Can anyone develop this better for me? Thanks.

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[luckyirishguy14]

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

 

[bamark]

luckyirishguy14:

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

John 20:30-31 - “Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

John 21:25 - There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written. " Even John says that his writings were not the whole story.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "Hold fast to the traditions that have come to you, either by letter or by word of mouth. " Taken in context, Jesus was referring to the numerous practices which the Pharisees established, which had nothing to do with Sacred Tradition.

Mark

 

[II_Paradox_II]

ferdgoodfellow:

To me, #2 or the classical formulation of SS is the most defensible one. I’ve noticed, though, that it still requires at least one other principle to work, namely some version of the concept of the clarity of Scripture. IOW, if the Bible is going to be the final measure, its basic truths necessary for salvation must be discernible by your average or even less than average guy. Throw in a little Holy Spirit to fill in the gaps too.

1. Yes, it does require some theory of perspicuity (clarity). Depending on how sophisticated you want to be about it, this can be as simple as saying that the God manages to somehow get his saving point across to people though we don’t know exactly how to much more esoteric ideas about hermeneutics and the functions of language in human society. As an aside, if you wish to deal with the idea in depth the following two books, here and here give two different approaches to the problem.
2. I think part of the issue for me at least is that any system of verbal or written authority needs some doctrine of perspicuity to accompany it. As you may have read earlier in this thread, there was a long quote by the Rev. O’Brien that tried to argue for the neccessity of infallible interpretation. However, his point is blunted by the fact that all language, whether spoken or written, needs to be interpreted and thus we tacitly acknowledge their perspicuity every time we think we know what someone really said. Anytime you interpret things coming in through your 5 senses you implicitly claim some kind of perspicuity.
3. One quick note on a philosophical level as well is that it is far easier to be a skeptic than to make a positive claim of knowledge. It is very difficult to justify why language is meaningful and understandable not just in religious circles, but secular philosophy circles as well. As such, arguments for the clarity of scripture are often fighting an uphill battle just as the broader Christian philosophical need to justify meaning for language in general is also an uphill struggle.

ferdgoodfellow:

I would be interested in knowing in more detail how SS works. IOW, what are the specific rules? e.g. If some other authority (Church Father, tradition, etc.) clearly contradicts Scripture, Scripture prevails. If some other authority teaches something (X) but Scripture is silent, you may in good conscience believe X but you may not make it binding on others… Anyway, you get the idea. Can anyone develop this better for me? Thanks.

1. Actually what you said what pretty much on target. I think one thing that helps, perspective-wise (and I may have already said this), is to keep in mind why the doctrine of sola scriptura came about and what it was in response to. That being said, it’s primary competitor at the time of the reformation was the two-source theory of tradition and scripture. That saw scripture and tradition as two lines of revelation , sometimes with the same content, sometimes different. If anything, sola scriptura was the opposite of this, an attempt to argue that scripture was the sole remediary of revelation that God gave to regulate his church throughout the ages. The things that other authorities teach may be believed but God put his central truths in the scriptures themselves and it is there we look for the center of our faith. As such, there may be truths outside the scripture but theor value is secondary and shouldn’t be used as something to divide or command allegiance to different sects.

ken

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Shibboleth:

…All that sola scriptura means is that as the inerrant teachings of Christ all things should be measured against it and nothing is at par or supercedes it - that they are enough within themselves that one need not have other writings – but you should not ignore other writings also if they are available. There are many things outside of the scripture that we recognize as important works that should be heeded and studied.

That is why some of the books that the Catholic Church uses are not considered scriptural by Lutherans. Some Catholics say that we threw them out, this is not true. The Lutheran Church believes that these books are very important and should be read and studied, but when they contradict scripture they are in the wrong. Now don’t go arguing that the books do not contradict the others or that how do you know which scriptures are correct. That is for another thread,…

"That is why some of the books that the Catholic Church uses are not considered scriptural by Lutherans. Some Catholics say that we threw them out, this is not true. "— This is the “does not fit the criteria” exclusion–Luther had already decided on “sola fide” (faith alone) and there fore, excluded from scripture anything that contradicted that position.

In scientific or historic investigation, selecting criteria is important–it means that one can try to determine causes by limiting the variables. However, one can go WAY too far in excluding what does not fit a pre-existing agenda. That is what Luther did, and his writings coroberate it. For reasons that had NOTHING to do the the canonicity of the scriptures, he excluded the Deuterocannoicals and several NT books. Luther was in no position to exclude those books because they did not fit his agenda–but he did so. At least his sucessors (and other Protestants) put the NT books Luther had as an appendix back in as “scripture” (though they had no authority to do that either)

False exclusion for not fitting “criteria” is a prime method of bogus science. Example, late drug guru Timothy Leary’s infamous study where LSD dosed and “counseled” felons supposedly had a very low recidivism rate compared to the non-dosed controls. Guess what, in the 1990’s a Leary associate revealed TL had rejected almost ever single LSD recidivist from the study because he didn’t fit the “criteria”.

 

[Shibboleth]

"That is why some of the books that the Catholic Church uses are not considered scriptural by Lutherans. Some Catholics say that we threw them out, this is not true. "— This is the “does not fit the criteria” exclusion–Luther had already decided on “sola fide” (faith alone) and there fore, excluded from scripture anything that contradicted that position.

In scientific or historic investigation, selecting criteria is important–it means that one can try to determine causes by limiting the variables. However, one can go WAY too far in excluding what does not fit a pre-existing agenda. That is what Luther did, and his writings coroberate it. For reasons that had NOTHING to do the the canonicity of the scriptures, he excluded the Deuterocannoicals and several NT books. Luther was in no position to exclude those books because they did not fit his agenda–but he did so. At least his sucessors (and other Protestants) put the NT books Luther had as an appendix back in as “scripture” (though they had no authority to do that either)

False exclusion for not fitting “criteria” is a prime method of bogus science. Example, late drug guru Timothy Leary’s infamous study where LSD dosed and “counseled” felons supposedly had a very low recidivism rate compared to the non-dosed controls. Guess what, in the 1990’s a Leary associate revealed TL had rejected almost ever single LSD recidivist from the study because he didn’t fit the “criteria”.

Even though we cannot really pin down the advent of scientific method most scholars agree that it happened in the early 1600’s with the works of Bacon and Descartes. Since Luther existed before this time he did not attempt to use or even know about scientific processes.

Luther utilized logical analysis.

Even if Luther did have science at his fingertips he could not have employed it in his study. This is due to the fact that he could not manipulate a variable while holding constants in order to prove or disprove an initial hypothesis.

He did most definitely have a hypothesis that he needed to support with relevant data – which he tried to do but this was not science. One could argue that he was biased in his data selection but he did not ignore variables because all things were constant.

Timothy Levy did not throw out variables per say unless he did it after the fact. He was guilty of selecting a biased testing group. He was also guilty of being a complete fool. Of course my signature has something to say about that – he definitely had ingenuity.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Shibboleth:

Even though we cannot really pin down the advent of scientific method most scholars agree that it happened in the early 1600’s with the works of Bacon and Descartes. Since Luther existed before this time he did not attempt to use or even know about scientific processes.

Luther utilized logical analysis.

He did most definitely have a hypothesis that he needed to support with relevant data – which he tried to do but this was not science. One could argue that he was biased in his data selection but he did not ignore variables because all things were constant.

Timothy Levy did not throw out variables per say unless he did it after the fact. He was guilty of selecting a biased testing group. He was also guilty of being a complete fool. Of course my signature has something to say about that – he definitely had ingenuity.

Yep, TL threw out the recidivists AFTER the fact–because they did not fit his hypothosis that LSD psycho-therapy worked.

Luther had compeling psychological (some say pathological) reasons that drove him to sola fide, and “once saved-always saved” Luther was convinced that his interpretation was THE gospel-and threw out whatever contradicted that. Similar (but not quite identical) to what Marcion did in the 2nd Century.

One should not decide what the Gospel is on one man’s psychological needs, especialy desperate needs --Luther was able to make his “gospel” stick because of the political situation of the time–the rise of the secular state–and Luther’s revolt coincided with princes own greed for more power

 

[Shibboleth]

Lion of Narnia:

Yep, TL threw out the recidivists AFTER the fact–because they did not fit his hypothosis that LSD psycho-therapy worked.

Luther had compeling psychological (some say pathological) reasons that drove him to sola fide, and “once saved-always saved” Luther was convinced that his interpretation was THE gospel-and threw out whatever contradicted that. Similar (but not quite identical) to what Marcion did in the 2nd Century.

One should not decide what the Gospel is on one man’s psychological needs, especialy desperate needs --Luther was able to make his “gospel” stick because of the political situation of the time–the rise of the secular state–and Luther’s revolt coincided with princes own greed for more power

Please describe what you mean by psychological or pathological needs. I am not sure what you mean by this.

He did suffer from signs of organic brain disorder and subsequent dementia in his later years but the instances in question were not at this time in his life.

Please describe what you mean by Luther’s revolt while you are at it also.

Levy had his problems to be sure but he is not related to Luther in any way. I am not one to defend a fool but he did come up with the chemical of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide , which was a major discovery even if he did not understand what it was he discovered.

LSD has helped in the research of the Seratonin (5HT) and dopaminergic receptors and their pathways. Our better understanding of these neurotransmitters has lead to the creation of drugs that assist with depression, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, and other psychotropic medications. So although LSD has its downside and so does Levy – very good things have come about because of the discovery.