Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[II_Paradox_II]

Lion of Narnia:

Luther had compeling psychological (some say pathological) reasons that drove him to sola fide, and “once saved-always saved” L

Just so you know, Luther rejected what we know as “once saved always saved”. He thought that one could lose salvation by apostasy.

ken

 

[Shibboleth]

Luther is not once saved always saved - he believed that one can loose their salvation by rejecting God. Sola Fide

If you are saved all glory to God, if you are damned its your own damn fault.

 

[Shibboleth]

Missed it by that much… sorry about the repeat

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Shibboleth:

Missed it by that much… sorry about the repeat

heh… I can type really fast…

ken

 

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

Building a theory of knowledge on the necessity of infallible certainty is a one way ticket to either a chagrined skepticism or a know-nothing dogmatism. Our knowledge is proximate, yet certain.

This seems to describe most of Protestantism: chagrined skepticism (Liberal Protestants) and know-nothing dogmatism (Fundamentalism).

I believe in the infallibility of the Pope and Magisterium not because of anything I “know” but because of faith: Jesus is Truth incarnate, the Head of His Body which is the Church, and as such I believe He prevents it from teaching error. To suggest otherwise is to say that the Body of Christ has been decapitated.

As St. Peter told Jesus in John 6:68, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” If there is no church that can claim to teach infallibly the words of Christ, where shall we go for truth? Luther? Calvin? The Jesus Seminar? The New York Times?

The problem with your position is that it seems to be a sort of Christianized agnosticism, basically saying, “Who can know?” I think this is the fault of the Reformation when it threw away the divinely established teaching authority of the Church. It is no wonder that skepticism and atheism exploded in it’s aftermath. As Frank Schaeffer (son of famed Evangelical Francis Schaeffer; he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy) said, “*Sola Scriptura *simply became Sola!”

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Shibboleth:

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. … So although LSD has its downside and so does Levy – very good things have come about because of the discovery.

It’s L-E-A-R-Y, as in Dr. Timothy Leary, PhD (1920-1996) --and btw, he did not create Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, that was a Swiss Chemist whose name escapes me at the present

Yes, the example of Leary is a good parallel to Luther. Luther had an idea (theory/hypothoses) That idea conflicted with a certain amont of data (James, Revelation, Deutercannonicals, etc…) Luther rejected that data solely becuase it conficted with his idea

Parallel: Leary had an idea (LSD therapy could reduce criminal recidivism) The idea conflicted with the ugly data that the therapy was ineffective–the recidivism of LSD dosed criminals was no different than those not treated. Leary said that those failures never met the test criteria in the first place.

More on Luther and his condition tommorow

 

[II_Paradox_II]

RNRobert:

This seems to describe most of Protestantism: chagrined skepticism (Liberal Protestants) and know-nothing dogmatism (Fundamentalism).

I would argue it represents quite a bit of Christianity and human nature across the board.

I believe in the infallibility of the Pope and Magisterium not because of anything I “know” but because of faith: Jesus is Truth incarnate, the Head of His Body which is the Church, and as such I believe He prevents it from teaching error. To suggest otherwise is to say that the Body of Christ has been decapitated.

Well, I would assume that you “know” the faith is true otherwise you wouldn’t believe it. The position that the Pope and magesterium are infallible is a position that many Christians have disputed without thinking it “decapitates Christ”. Your position might demand that conclusion but I don’t hold to your assumptions.

As St. Peter told Jesus in John 6:68, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” If there is no church that can claim to teach infallibly the words of Christ, where shall we go for truth? Luther? Calvin? The Jesus Seminar? The New York Times?

To God’s Word? Lest you forget, Sola Scriptura does claim that the revelation of God is the highest authority. My position is that the church is authoritative, not infallible (Though to be honest, I’m not sure about infallibility of the body as a whole, along Eastern Orthodox lines of thought).

The problem with your position is that it seems to be a sort of Christianized agnosticism, basically saying, “Who can know?”

No, you only see it as such because you assume that there is no certain knowledge without infallibility, the very point I was making in the words you quoted from me.

I think this is the fault of the Reformation when it threw away the divinely established teaching authority of the Church. It is no wonder that skepticism and atheism exploded in it’s aftermath.

well, that may be a bit of a stretch. Certainly there was some of that, but the roots of skepticism go a lot further back than that. How about the ascendency of Aristotle’s empiricism over Platonism in the medieval church? That set the stage for the loss of faith in universals that govern our interpretation of particulars and putting it the other way around, thus leading to the dominance of natural science and the triumph of induction (reasoning from particular facts to universal truths) over deduction (reasoning from absolute universals to particular facts).

As Frank Schaeffer (son of famed Evangelical Francis Schaeffer; he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy) said, “*Sola Scriptura *simply became Sola!”

He may be right in some aspects, I don’t deny that some people have radically abused the concept. However, misuse of a truth does not mean that the truth does not still apply.

ken

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ Ken,

Thanks for yer thots on SS.

“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.”

Re the rules of SS, let’s try and get a little more specific. Here are some possibilities.

1. If a teaching definitely contradicts Scripture, reject it.
2. If a teaching probably (more likely than not) contradicts Scripture, reject it.
3. If a teaching has absolutely no Scriptural support, but it doesn’t contradict it, you may believe it yuo can’t make it binding on the rest of us.
4. If a teaching has weak Scriptural support and doesn’t contradict the rest of Scripture, you may believe it, but you can’t make it binding on the rest of us.
5. If a teaching probably (more likely than not) has a Scriptural basis, but other positions are not definitely ruled out, you can believe it and make it binding on others.
6. if a teaching has a strong Scriptural basis and all competing views have some merit but on balance are doubtful, then this must be believed.

I guess what I am trying to do is make the rules of SS (i.e. what sensible and right-thinking Protestants would use) explicit.

Gotta run

ferd

 

[Shibboleth]

Lion of Narnia:

It’s L-E-A-R-Y, as in Dr. Timothy Leary, PhD (1920-1996) --and btw, he did not create Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, that was a Swiss Chemist whose name escapes me at the present

Yes, the example of Leary is a good parallel to Luther. Luther had an idea (theory/hypothoses) That idea conflicted with a certain amont of data (James, Revelation, Deutercannonicals, etc…) Luther rejected that data solely becuase it conficted with his idea

Parallel: Leary had an idea (LSD therapy could reduce criminal recidivism) The idea conflicted with the ugly data that the therapy was ineffective–the recidivism of LSD dosed criminals was no different than those not treated. Leary said that those failures never met the test criteria in the first place.

More on Luther and his condition tommorow

Thank you for clearing that up and sorry about the name confusion. I was typing up a comment on homosexuality and I was referencing a work by LeVey that had me thinking of an HIV study in brain sizes and calcium deposits by Levy.

In all honesty though for some odd reason I thought that Leary did come up with LSD. For some reason I remember a story about whoever made it accidentally spilled it on himself and while riding home on a bike it took effect and the man thought he was going crazy.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

ferdgoodfellow:

1. If a teaching definitely contradicts Scripture, reject it.
2. If a teaching probably (more likely than not) contradicts Scripture, reject it.
3. If a teaching has absolutely no Scriptural support, but it doesn’t contradict it, you may believe it yuo can’t make it binding on the rest of us.
4. If a teaching has weak Scriptural support and doesn’t contradict the rest of Scripture, you may believe it, but you can’t make it binding on the rest of us.
5. If a teaching probably (more likely than not) has a Scriptural basis, but other positions are not definitely ruled out, you can believe it and make it binding on others.
6. if a teaching has a strong Scriptural basis and all competing views have some merit but on balance are doubtful, then this must be believed.

Perhaps the best way to think of it is just to parallel the Catholic system. Essentially, a belief that has better roots in the accepted rule of faith has more of a chance of commanding wide acceptance than one that doesn’t.

Ergo, if one interprets the churches pronouncements on EENS in a very liberal or ultra-conservative fashion, we can usually tell that their views are on the outside of the bell curve and should therefore recieve less approval as proper representations of the public faith of the church. The same way with scripture or any other bit of language that large groups of people interpret.

Ultimately all rules of faith work the same in this respect and the way we determine which beliefs are more or less correct based upon them is the same.

ken

 

[Robert_in_SD]

ferdgoodfellow:

Mornin’ Ken,

Thanks for yer thots on SS.

“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.”

Re the rules of SS, let’s try and get a little more specific. Here are some possibilities.

1. If a teaching definitely contradicts Scripture, reject it.
2. If a teaching probably (more likely than not) contradicts Scripture, reject it.
3. If a teaching has absolutely no Scriptural support, but it doesn’t contradict it, you may believe it yuo can’t make it binding on the rest of us.
4. If a teaching has weak Scriptural support and doesn’t contradict the rest of Scripture, you may believe it, but you can’t make it binding on the rest of us.
5. If a teaching probably (more likely than not) has a Scriptural basis, but other positions are not definitely ruled out, you can believe it and make it binding on others.
6. if a teaching has a strong Scriptural basis and all competing views have some merit but on balance are doubtful, then this must be believed.

I guess what I am trying to do is make the rules of SS (i.e. what sensible and right-thinking Protestants would use) explicit.

Gotta run

ferd

Interesting summary, and I think it’s well stated. However, it also explains why there are so many different protestant denominations with so many divergent doctrinal views.

I’m trying to develop an analogy between the Catholic understanding of Scripture’s importance by comparison to the U.S. Constitution, as part of a critique of SS. Consider this…

The Catholic view of the importance of Scripture is similar to the importance of the Constitution on the rule of law in the United States. Even though the Constitution is a concise document, it is still open to many different interpretations. The Supreme Court - through its use of judicial review - ensures that the laws passed by Congress and the many states comport with the Constitution. While we citizens all may have divergent opinions about how the Constitution may be interpreted in a given situation, ultimately, we all agree to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the result is a stable society - more or less.

In the Catholic faith, the Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church acts with respect to Scripture as does the Supreme Court upon the Constitution. It remains silent where there is no disharmony, and generally only pronounces doctrine where there is a split of opinion or serious questions of the faith. However, in the context of the Magesterium, Catholics believe that the teaching authority is guided by the Holy Spirit, so the decisions on doctrine are never subject to being overruled. And, like the Supreme Court’s decisions, they are binding on the rest of us.

And in the same way that Constitutional doctrines develop slowly over the years, so to does Church doctrine develop as new facts and new situations are seen in the light of Scripture.

Comparatively, sola scriptura - if applied in a Constitutional sense - leads to anarchy. Where citizens disagree over the interpretation of the Constitution, there would be no ultimate authority to appeal to - i.e. there is no Supreme Court. And you can’t say that the ultimate authority is the Constitution itself, because the document - like Scripture - is not self-interpretive.

I’d like to hear any thoughts on this analogy.

 

[DennisE]

The biggest problem though arises when something does not fit with the Bible but someone takes a hammer and smashes it in anyways.

The thing to remember is though is that those things that definitely belong to the Bible will always fit just as the blocks that belong to the toy will always go through the holes.
Your comparison seems just a bit forced as it doesn’t seem to explain all the various Teaching Authorities. May I gracefully say that these ‘blocks’ of different teachings can easily fit into the hole as long as each block is not a perfect fit and thus smaller than the full hole ~ In other words (if you’ll permit me this), they don’t represent what we Catholics call The Fullness of Truth.

Scripture plus the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church versus Scripture plus the Teaching Authority of Martin Luther versus Scripture plus the Teaching Authority of John Calvin, etc etc etc

Let’s try this, tho ~ Scripture plus the Teaching Authority of Finis Jennings Dakes Dakes??? Who’s he, you say?

Three of my new brothers-in-law (married Jan 2003) are ministers in the Pentecostal Church of God denomination. A favorite commentary Bible of theirs is The Dakes Bible. My mother-in-law showed it to me. At first sight, it looks really impressive. It appears that no one single-volume Bible has as many commentary notes in it as this Bible.

Yet Mr. Dakes claims as part of his Teaching Authority the following ~

“Gr. Christos, ‘Anointed.’ - Used in N.T. 577 times. Like the name “Jesus” it has no reference to deity, but to the humanity of the Son of God, who became the Christ or the “Anointed One” 30 years after He was born of Mary. God “made” Him both Lord and Christ. The Heb. Is ‘Messiah’.” (Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)

pawcreek.org/articles/endtimes/DakesBible.htm

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ Ken,
II Paradox II:

Perhaps the best way to think of it is just to parallel the Catholic system. Essentially, a belief that has better roots in the accepted rule of faith has more of a chance of commanding wide acceptance than one that doesn’t.

Ergo, if one interprets the churches pronouncements on EENS in a very liberal or ultra-conservative fashion, we can usually tell that their views are on the outside of the bell curve and should therefore recieve less approval as proper representations of the public faith of the church. The same way with scripture or any other bit of language that large groups of people interpret.

Ultimately all rules of faith work the same in this respect and the way we determine which beliefs are more or less correct based upon them is the same.

ken

Let’s develop this rule of faith (ROF) idea:

ROF= some external standard by which we measure.

We all agree that God’s Revelation is our ultimate ROF. We also agree, I think, that God’s Revelation, except in cases of special revelation, is mediated. So while God is our ultimate ROF, we necessarily rely on various proximate R’s OF.

I have come to the conclusion that Cats and most Prots all work with the same basic kinds of sources: Scripture, tradition, church magisterium, history, philosophy, theology, logic etc. However, the relations and interactions between these different elements (the totality of the same being our ROF)differ.

Cats put Scripture and Tradition on the same pedestal. But being “inanimate” authorities (that is, they sources of knowledge that aren’t thinking personalities that interact with us), they necessarily require a living ROF or authority. So Cats posit a tripartite ROF: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

TBC

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Prots structure things pretty much this way:

1. On top is Sola Fide. We are saved by faith alone. Even Scripture is subordinated to this dawgma.
2. Then comes Scripture.
3. Then comes tradition, church and everything else in one order or another.

Cats will object to this arrangement and point out that Prots are relying on “inanimate” R’s OF and this is not adequate. Prots will respond and posit these additional points:

1. We are saved by faith alone. The salvation message is really quite simply and easily grasped by everyone.
2. Clarity or perspicuity. Scripture is clear enough so that all can get the gospel message from it.
3. Even though the Bible is not a thinking personality, it does possess qualities unlike any other writing, namely inherent divine authority, which suffices.
4. The action of Holy Spirit enables us to get the gospel in any event.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

At this point Cats will observe that, even though we all profess to work with the same elements within our respective R’sOF, we are profoundly different in at least one respect. In the situation where there has been debate over issue X (say, did Mary get assumed into heaven), if the magisterium definitively rules and makes dawgma, right thinking Cats will say “Rome has spoken, that’s the end of the argument.” By definition, any time a church teaches something, the individual Prot will take it under advisement, apply the ROF to the teaching according to his bet ability, and then decide. The individual, guided by the ROF, will decide.

 

[Shibboleth]

ferdgoodfellow:

Prots structure things pretty much this way:
5. Clarity or perspicuity. Scripture is clear enough so that all can get the gospel message from it.
7. The action of Holy Spirit enables us to get the gospel in any event.

No and No…

Protestants do not believe this…

The Bible is sufficient just as some directions are sufficient to do a certain task – but this does not mean that everyone can pick up a set of directions and understand.

A mentally challenged individual cannot find the message in the written scripture – the same with the illiterate.

We are limited by our abilities. Some people fail to realize their limitations.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

So, going back to our definition of ROF as an external rule, it does seem fair to say that Prots rely on external rules, but to a lesser degree than Cats. Because Prots subordinate the teaching authority of the Church to the dogma of sola fide and scripture, the Prot assessment of any given teaching will end up in the subjective realm of the individual. In the end the individual decides. Not so?

 

[mrS4ntA]

How do Protestants answer the circular logic and self-destructiveness of Sola Scriptura? I mean, seriously!

 

[Shibboleth]

Well to clarify and to put it in a sort of definition. We are saved by God’s Grace Alone – faith and works are a product of this Grace and not because of any merits on our part. Where Sola Fida comes in is this – if we sin we do not have to do any sort of act to restore God’s Grace outside of simply ceasing to reject God.

Sola Scriptura –

The Bible is sufficient in that it has everything within it for one to understand what needs to be understood. Yes Jesus did things and said things outside of the Scriptures but as stated one could not possibly put all things down in writing. It would take all the trees in the word and them some to do such a task. The Bible sort of highlights those things that are necessary for us to understand – the other things are important but not as important as those things included in the scriptures.

People have limitations – some have fewer limitations, some have more – so although the Bible has in it all the information one needs our limitations make it impossible to understand everything in the Bible infallibly. In addition, because of our limitations we cannot compose anything that is equal to or at par with the Scriptures. We can get things correct, so external writings are still important but we must understand that they can be wrong.

Because of our limitations we must diligently study and pray for assistance by the Holy Spirit. Also we should not ignore the other people that God created that also are gifted and can help provide us with clarity.

In the end the individual must decide what is meant by something but this is not much different that listening to the Pope on an issue. Although he is definitely blessed one must still within themselves make a decision on what the Pope is actually trying to say.

If you look on this web site you will see that people misunderstand the writings of the Magisterium just as much as the writings of the Bible. In the end it still comes down to the decision of the person.

 

[Shibboleth]

mrS4ntA:

How do Protestants answer the circular logic and self-destructiveness of Sola Scriptura? I mean, seriously!

Circular Logic,

The Magisterium can make infallible proclamations because the proclamations and writings of the Magisterium tell us that this is so.