Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[mrS4ntA]

Shibboleth:

Circular Logic,

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

No, this is because Jesus says so: “the gates of hell shall not prevail” and “the spirit of truth shall guide you” and the very fact that the Church is founded by Christ.

On the other hand, Sola Scriptura is circular in its very sense, consider this:

Q: Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
A: Because God says so
Q: And why do you believe in God?
A: Because the Bible says so
Q: And you believe the Bible because…
A: God says so!
Q: And you believe in God because…
A: The Bible says so!

and so on and so on…

 

[Shibboleth]

mrS4ntA:

No, this is because Jesus says so: “the gates of hell shall not prevail” and “the spirit of truth shall guide you” and the very fact that the Church is founded by Christ.

On the other hand, Sola Scriptura is circular in its very sense, consider this:

Q: Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
A: Because God says so
Q: And why do you believe in God?
A: Because the Bible says so
Q: And you believe the Bible because…
A: God says so!
Q: And you believe in God because…
A: The Bible says so!

and so on and so on…

Well we both believe that the words in the Bible are the words of Jesus.

You have not escaped this circular logic…

How do you know that the Magisterium is infallable in its proclamations?
Because the Bible says so…
How do you know that the Bible says this…
Because of the infallible proclamations of the Magisterium.

 

[Shibboleth]

My response to this…

Q>How do you know God exists…
A>Faith
Q>What about the Bible
A>I have faith in that also
Q>What about a logical proof
A>I do not need to prove it, that is why it is faith

 

[II_Paradox_II]

ferdgoodfellow:

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?

I think the primary thing I would disagree with is the notion that without infallible direction one is left “in the subjective realm of the individual”. While it is true that one must interpret and form beliefs on that basis, I would strongly dispute the idea that this leads one to to hold mere opinions of little value (This is not even to argue the point that such a view can only sustain itself from the erosion of it’s own skepticism by prejudiced application of it’s principles).

If you would like, read the first post over here. The author is someone I respect highly who explains this issue in a little more depth than I have.

Needless to say, I think the issue between us is primarily our epistemology, how we know what we know. I think the radical dichotomy evident in many posts on this forum between true knowledge gained from infallible teachers and subjective belief gained from everything else is a system bound to failure.

ken

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

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.

Sorry, off -work 2 days, no net acess.

Anyway, I’ll stand corrected on Luther in regards to “once saved, always saved”

However, I think Luther lead to that erroneous belief in others:

Letter to Melanchthon, August 1,1521 Luther’s Works, vol. 48
"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly… as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin… No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."

Just a short skip from that position, me thinks, to “once saved always saved” And the people who support that, unsurprisingly, are sola scriptora as well

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Shibboleth:

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

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

.

There is a wealth of informationn regarding Luther’s obsessions and exageration of the importance of his "sinfulllness–from Luther himself.- a condition known as “scrupulosity” which even luther scholars admit. It was Luther’s constant dwelling on his sinfullness that made him the bane of his confessors, betraying a lack of trust in God. It;s not surpriosing the luther saught refuge in Sola Fide–for Luther’s state of mind allowed him no peace of mind that any action was pleasing to God. Problem is, Sola Fide was not supported by Scripture or tradition- so Luther’s solution was junk Tradition and any Scripture that conflcted with Sola Fide… It was the ambuted Scripture that was left that Luther supported his sola scriptora position

 

[mrS4ntA]

Shibboleth:

Well we both believe that the words in the Bible are the words of Jesus.

You have not escaped this circular logic…

How do you know that the Magisterium is infallable in its proclamations?
Because the Bible says so…
How do you know that the Bible says this…
Because of the infallible proclamations of the Magisterium.

No… we don’t possess that circular logic, because we don’t belive in Sola Scriptura, not EVERYTHING had to be Bible-based…

We believe in the magisterium moved by the authenticity of the history of succession. The Bible didn’t come until late 4th century (and 'twas the Catholic Church who decided which was God-inspired or not)

Remember that the stories of Jesus is actual historical thing, not somehting conjured from the Bible, so we beileve, moved by the authenticity of historical fact that Jesus left Peter the key of the kingdom of Heaven, that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach truth… This in turn, what produces the Bible, the doctrines etc…

See? it’s not circular…
remember what St Augustine said,

“I would not believe the Gospel myself if the [authority of] Church did not move me to do so”

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

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.

Amen and alleluia brother!

---

For those who may be interested, send for your free tape on this very subject. Go to BibleChristianSociety.com and click on “free tapes”. The one you want is called “One Church”. VERY enlightening!!

---

 

[Little_Mary]

I just have to say that Catholic4areason is RIGHT ON!:clapping:

www.biblechristiansociety.com has tapes that cover One Church as well as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Get all three. All are supported by Scripture.

 

[MariaG]

And before someone brings up the number thing again, even if there are only 8,000 protestant denominations, that is 7,999 too many.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ Ken,

“I think the primary thing I would disagree with is the notion that without infallible direction one is left “in the subjective realm of the individual”. While it is true that one must interpret and form beliefs on that basis, I would strongly dispute the idea that this leads one to to hold mere opinions of little value (This is not even to argue the point that such a view can only sustain itself from the erosion of it’s own skepticism by prejudiced application of it’s principles).”

I don’t think I was trying to say that exactly. Let me take another run at it.

Both Prots and Cats try to operate by a ROF or form their beliefs by some external rule. One rule that Cats have that Prots don’t is this: When the Church definitively rules that something is true and binding, then the individual has no freedom to deviate (and remain a Cat). He is not free to form his own beliefs contrary to dogma. If he thinks he or another authority has a better idea, that’s just tough turkey. It doesn’t matter if his belief is well-formed and reasonable, based on good scholarship or whatever.

OTOH, if his Church sets forth some binding teaching, and if the SS-practicing Prot believes it to be contrary to or not sufficiently supported by Scripture, then he is free and even obliged to disagree. I don’t mean to say that Prots, just because they subordinate church authority to other authorities, just resort to “mere opinions of little value.” Prots, just like anyone else, can act according to well-formed beliefs. However, the dissenting Prot, whether acting on flimsy personal opinion or well-reasoned and supported belief, will make up his own mind and be in good conscience about it.

The brute fact is that any Prot is prepared to reject any human or living authority if he feels it contradicts the dogma of Sola Fide or his understanding of Scripture (however formed). The right-thinking Cat will be submissive to Church authority regardless of personal feelings or belief.

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Ken, you also said:

“Needless to say, I think the issue between us is primarily our epistemology, how we know what we know. I think the radical dichotomy evident in many posts on this forum between true knowledge gained from infallible teachers and subjective belief gained from everything else is a system bound to failure.”

I agree. The faithful Cat does not form and conform all his beliefs to Church teaching. There are many areas not definitively taught where freedom is permitted. The faithful Prot does not feel free to challenge every thing taught by his church. There are some non-negotiable beliefs within any religious tradition.

With regard to the latter, however, Prots by definition will not dawgmatize strictly based on Church authority like Cat’s do. Anytime something is taught as a non-negotiable belief, it is mandated for belief, not because the Church teaches it, but because ultimately it is believed to be scriptural.

Regards,

ferd

 

[Shibboleth]

It has become readily apparent that philosophy and logic are not an area in which you have had formal study.

Many people much wiser and more intelligent that you and I have attempted to prove the existence of God. As far as I know no one has successfully been able to do so without logically failing on one level or another. The reason for this is that it always comes down to God is because he is or God is because he says he is.

One of the most famous attempts was in Rene Descartes meditation in which he came up with the famous quote, “Cogito Ergo Sum” or “I think therefore I am.” In this argument he had to prove that we were not being deceived by our senses. One of the aspects of the logical argument was his attempt to prove the existence of God.

He did this by saying that we cannot have knowledge of something without prior experience of that something (the beginnings of British Empiricism.) Since we have knowledge of the infinite we must have witnessed the infinite. Since the only truly infinite thing is God we must have been witness to God - therefore he exists.

Huge problems arise from this because one can think that we have witnessed something and our imagination will do the rest.

mrS4ntA:

No… we don’t possess that circular logic, because we don’t belive in Sola Scriptura, not EVERYTHING had to be Bible-based…

We believe in the magisterium moved by the authenticity of the history of succession. The Bible didn’t come until late 4th century (and 'twas the Catholic Church who decided which was God-inspired or not)

Remember that the stories of Jesus is actual historical thing, not somehting conjured from the Bible, so we beileve, moved by the authenticity of historical fact that Jesus left Peter the key of the kingdom of Heaven, that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach truth… This in turn, what produces the Bible, the doctrines etc…

See? it’s not circular…
remember what St Augustine said,

Yes it is… You have not played out your statements to the end, and that end will be tautological – it is inevitable. God cannot be logically proven because he transcends our simple minds.

The first sample I gave of Catholic tautology did not include the Bible at which point you used words in the Bible to refute that so I included it in the second illogical proof.

It still comes down to this.

God exists because the Magisterium states that he exists.
This is true because the Magisterium is infallible in its proclamations.
It is infallible because Jesus gave them this power.
Jesus could give them this power because he is God.
We know Jesus is God because the Magisterium stated that he is God.

If you think that you can prove the existence of God without ultimately being tautological I would love to hear it. I have seen two things when people try to do this – it becomes an endless list of conjunctives and disjunctives or they make a fatal error in the equation.

“I would not believe the Gospel myself if the [authority of] Church did not move me to do so”

This statement in and of itself is circular if you includee that which is implied.

 

[Tanais]

First, It violates the principle of casuality. How can a fallible Church make an inerrant list of books? It has been said that they are a “fallible list of infallible books” but that doesn’t make any sense. How do we know Mark is inerrant? How do we know the Gospel of Thomas shouldn’t be in there? You simply cannot give something you do not have.
Secondly, the concept seems to be totally alien to what the early Church believed. Many talk of returning to the simplicity of the early Church, the problem being is that the early Church had no conecpt of “scripture alone”. The canon wasn’t fimrly in place until later on.
Thirdly, The Bible points to authorities outside itself, i.e. the Church (1Tim 3:15) and Tradition.
Next, I find it far too unstable. No one produces a document without an authority to interpret it. The Constitution has the Supreme Court, how much wiser is God than the founding fathers? Would he not preserve his Church so he has a strong witness throughout the ages? Sola Scriptura has led to more schism and destruction than almost any other doctrine. It produces a Jesus and me attitude, exclusion of others.
I hope that was sufficient.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

ferdgoodfellow:

Both Prots and Cats try to operate by a ROF or form their beliefs by some external rule. One rule that Cats have that Prots don’t is this: When the Church definitively rules that something is true and binding, then the individual has no freedom to deviate (and remain a Cat). He is not free to form his own beliefs contrary to dogma. If he thinks he or another authority has a better idea, that’s just tough turkey. It doesn’t matter if his belief is well-formed and reasonable, based on good scholarship or whatever.

well sure, but we would argue that when God through the scriptures sets forth a teaching, one is not free to form his own beliefs to the contrary. I fail to see where the difference is in what you are proposing as compared to me. All you offer is another layer of authority, a quantative difference, not a qualitative one. I would argue that the primary issue between us is that we both argue for the perspicuity of different sources of authority.

Perhaps one thing that will help here is that with regard to language itself, I do not make a qualitative distinction between written and verbal words, but a quantative one. Spoken words can carry more meaning than written as a cable modem carries more information than a 56k modem, yet the informationm they convey is identical and the computer on the end of the channel must be able to interpret the data from both the same way. So whether someone speaks or writes, their speech act the moment it leaves their person is a dead collection of signs which must be interpreted by the receiving agent. When someone speaks, you receive meaning on several additional levels beyond just the words, but this additional “bandwidth” still needs to be interpreted the same as if the same info came in through written channels.

However, the dissenting Prot, whether acting on flimsy personal opinion or well-reasoned and supported belief, will make up his own mind and be in good conscience about it.

But this in contrary only to the church which he does not regard as infallible, but never the scriptures which he does. Essentially, your argument is just a reaffirmation of what separates us, what we consider an infallible authority.

The brute fact is that any Prot is prepared to reject any human or living authority if he feels it contradicts the dogma of Sola Fide or his understanding of Scripture (however formed). The right-thinking Cat will be submissive to Church authority regardless of personal feelings or belief.

How is this different from the right thinking protestant who is submissive to the scriptural teaching regardless of personal feelings or belief? Right thinking people of either persuasion must interpret their ROF and be submissive to it. How is a catholic any different in this respect? If your priest teaches you a liberal interpretation of the doctrine of EENS and you are conservative, you will reject him and any other living authority that attempts to teach you what interpret to be falsehood from your reading of the infallible teachings of the church. Unless you argue for the total or at least very complete perspicuity of church teachings, this is what you are left with.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Tanais:

First, It violates the principle of casuality. How can a fallible Church make an inerrant list of books? It has been said that they are a “fallible list of infallible books” but that doesn’t make any sense.

Why would a fallible church producing an inerrant list be a problem? I am fallible and I have produced many inerrant statements in my life as you have. Everytime you say something true you have uttered an innerrant statement even though you are probably not infallible.

The infallibility lies with the person (God) who produces an inerrant book and we recognize this fallibly, though with certainty through historical processes, reason and the aid of the Spirit.

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

Essentially, your argument is just a reaffirmation of what separates us, what we consider an infallible authority.

I think you are 100% correct here. The only question then becomes which source has the better argument as to holding that authority, church or scripture? The evidence points overwhelmingly to the Church. From the historical continuity of the church, to scripture itself, to the internal testimony of the church, we are pointed to the Church as such. Scripture says it more clearly than any source by stating unequivocally that ‘…the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15).

We need not even resort to faith claims to resolve the dispute. If someone non-religous were to look at the coherence of the arguments (i.e. Sola Scriptura’s self refutation), and the evidence of Scripture, the early church fathers, etc., they need not even believe to see that clearly the vast preponderonce of the evidence weighs in on the side of the Church as authority. Without making claims of infallibility, if based solely on the historical evidence (including the evidence of the NT itself), one were to ask which system Christ intended, which system makes sense, which system is at least internally coherent, there is no question that the Church wins hands down.

I have often seen the ‘But your only adding a layer of authority’ argument, and it has some validity, but…that’s not the end of the story. Once the incoherence of the arguemnt for Sola Sriptura is exposed, it seems that it would be encumbant to then evealuate whether the church’s ‘next level’ claim has any merits. Does the evidence support it? Is it at least internally coherent? Does the historical evidence support it? This evaluation can be done without regards to claims of infallability.
II Paradox II:

Unless you argue for the total or at least very complete perspicuity of church teachings, this is what you are left with.

It is actually quite clear in nearly all cases. The stubborness, and miseducation of some individual members (including priests & bishops) not-withstanding. One need only look to the Pope and the Magesterium for clarification if there is doubt about what is being taught.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

SteveG:

I think you are 100% correct here. The only question then becomes which source has the better argument as to holding that authority, church or scripture? … Without making claims of infallibility, if based solely on the historical evidence (including the evidence of the NT itself), one were to ask which system Christ intended, which system makes sense, which system is at least internally coherent, there is no question that the Church wins hands down.

Our disagrement about the weight of the evidence aside, I do think the arguments you are making are more valid. Ultimately, the case will be decided not primarily on philosophical grounds, for there is little difference between us there, but evidential ground.

I have often seen the ‘But your only adding a layer of authority’ argument, and it has some validity, but…that’s not the end of the story.

I would agree, I just use it because people insist on arguing the point that there is a profound difference when there isn’t one.

Once the incoherence of the arguemnt for Sola Sriptura is exposed, it seems that it would be encumbant to then evealuate whether the church’s ‘next level’ claim has any merits. Does the evidence support it? Is it at least internally coherent? Does the historical evidence support it? This evaluation can be done without regards to claims of infallability.

I agree is can be done without reference to claims of infallibility, though I would argue that the claims to infallibility themselves form a context in which to evaluate the strength of Rome’s position. To the extent she dclares things about her nature, she is bound to defend them.

It is actually quite clear in nearly all cases. The stubborness, and miseducation of some individual members (including priests & bishops) not-withstanding.

well, as you can probably expect, I will challenge you on just how perspicuous the teaching really is both in theory and practice and whether your position is consistent. To be honest, I have yet to really flesh out the issue of general perspicuity in my own mind. Even the best books I have read on the subject seem only to touch parts of the issue and none have articulated a clear way of judging clarity and understanding.

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

I do think the arguments you are making are more valid. Ultimately, the case will be decided not primarily on philosophical grounds, for there is little difference between us there, but evidential ground.

I would agree, I just use it because people insist on arguing the point that there is a profound difference when there isn’t one.

I agree is can be done without reference to claims of infallibility,

Not sure how to feel about all this agreement. I am not use to it…
II Paradox II:

though I would argue that the claims to infallibility themselves form a context in which to evaluate the strength of Rome’s position. To the extent she dclares things about her nature, she is bound to defend them.

I am not 100% sure I understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

If I AM understanding, I think the issue I’d have is again that this is an issue of faith which doesn’t really belong yet. That comes later. Putting the claim of infallability aside, I’d ask someone to eveluate the evidence of what Christ intended, and what existed in earliest Christian times, etc. It seems to me this can be done totally without reference to infallability. IF (and I acknowledge that is a big if for you) the church can stand the scrutiny and convince in that regard, then one can discuss the extent of that authority and it’s protection later. But in my mind anyway, it’s putting the cart before the horse to address it if you aren’t convinced of the underlying argument/evidence.
II Paradox II:

well, as you can probably expect, I will challenge you on just how perspicuous the teaching really is both in theory and practice and whether your position is consistent. To be honest, I have yet to really flesh out the issue of general perspicuity in my own mind. Even the best books I have read on the subject seem only to touch parts of the issue and none have articulated a clear way of judging clarity and understanding.

I don’t really want to argue perspecuity at this point, but rather only mention a practical issue. Certainly the majority of people are not of the intellectual bent, and aren’t thinking or discussing these things in the detail most folks even on this forum are. You and I are in the minority as far as that goes, and that’s not a good or bad thing. It just is what it is. Most folks are just struggling to get by and make it from day to day. Does it seem reasonable that for the average Christianit the idea that they are supposed to pick up the bible and figure out doctrine for themselves is sensible in that light? In practice, even those who profess Sola Scriptura don’t really practice it. Most folks trust someone to help them understand. This is the nature of humanity. We trust people to help us understand, to teach, and guide us. Does it make sense that Jesus, knowing human nature, would have not left us some sure guide? This is not evidentiary, but seems rather common sense in my eyes.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Not sure how to feel about all this agreement. I am not use to it…

don’t worry, it probably won’t last for long

I am not 100% sure I understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

All I meant was that the claims of Rome cannot be determined outside the totality of her doctrines, including infallibility. In other words, I don’t think evaluating the claims of Rome is a linear process, with some things evaluated first, then other things when the first are accepted. It is a worldview and as such the truth or falsity of one claim is often tied up with numerous others. Essentially, I’m not sure individual ideas can be isolated for consideration because every idea is so connected to every other idea. To consider the history of the church is to interact with her claims to infallibility on some level.

IF (and I acknowledge that is a big if for you) the church can stand the scrutiny and convince in that regard, then one can discuss the extent of that authority and it’s protection later. But in my mind anyway, it’s putting the cart before the horse to address it if you aren’t convinced of the underlying argument/evidence.

I’m not sure these things can be separated. We are dealing with specific doctrines and claims that extend back into history. The incarnation of the church in the real world produces real historical events which form the basis of our knowledge about the church. The worldview presented by the CC needs to be evaluated as a whole, not in pieces, IMO…

I don’t really want to argue perspecuity at this point, but rather only mention a practical issue.

works for me.

Most folks are just struggling to get by and make it from day to day. Does it seem reasonable that for the average Christianit the idea that they are supposed to pick up the bible and figure out doctrine for themselves is sensible in that light?

This all depends on a few things:

1. I don’t think anyone is arguing that this is the practical effect. From my confessional position, we clearly advocate the neccessity of teachers to draw meaning from scripture. Even for those from a much more free tradition, the necessity of teachers is rarely spoken against. My position is simply that the scriptures contain all that one need know to achieve salvation using the normal factulties of man. This position is I think identical to the general theory of perspicuity you propose for magesterial teachings. Many things are implied that your average person may not get, but God has given us teachers to help us find those things.