Why Sola Scriptura fails

[KEP1983]

Very recently there was an episode of “Unbelievable?” which featured a Conservative Protestant debating a Liberal Protestant about the issue of gay marriage.

See how Sola Scriptura utterly fails as they both try to use Scripture to prove their points.

Particularly fast forward to the exchange that starts at 12:55 and ends at 13:23.

youtube.com/watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI

As Martin Luther said, “every man has a Pope in his own belly.”

 

[Rivii]

Andrew Wilson explicitly puts it in the correct perspective: verses can be variedly interpreted. In the case of these two men, they interpret scripture in their favor – in a way that suits their values and how they wish to express their faith. Not necessarily a bad thing; but it’s still untruthful

 

[JonNC]

Very recently there was an episode of “Unbelievable?” which featured a Conservative Protestant debating a Liberal Protestant about the issue of gay marriage.

See how Sola Scriptura utterly fails as they both try to use Scripture to prove their points.

Particularly fast forward to the exchange that starts at 12:55 and ends at 13:23.

youtube.com/watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI

As Martin Luther said, “every man has a Pope in his own belly.”

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

 

[chero23]

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

JonNC, honestly, you have to get rid of that defense. Look, bc a certain percentage voted for Obama voted for Obama does not mean they agree with everything he stands for.

I’ll throw you the question now. Whoever you vote for, I don’t know how many presidential elections you have been part of. But every time that you cast your ballot, your telling me every time you have agreed with the candidate 100%. I’m not trying to be rude but you would be lying.

Just bc you vote for x candidate does not mean I agree with him completely.

 

[adf417]

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

C’mom Jon, can’t you see the difference? Catholics can, and will, debate and disagree among ourselves forever but in the end there will be a single definitive stance based on a single solid truth. There will always be Catholics who do not practice what this single solid truth teaches but that fact does not change the teaching and BTW, I wish all Catholics realized this.

Peace Brother!!!

 

[GreatergoodGod]

Exactly, sola scriptura fails on account of men’s high subjectivity. That’s why an objective authority is needed to decide the correct interpretation of scripture.

 

[KEP1983]

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

The Magisterium has infallibly defined that homosexual behavior is sinful. If an individual Catholic wants to remain ignorant or live in open rebellion against the teachings of the Church, that’s up to them. We all have freedom. But the theology of the Church has been defined infallibly.

That is, the Magisterium has infallibly defined that the verses that Rob Bell tries to twist and say “well, they’re not really about homosexuality, so homosexuality is ok” are truly talking about homosexuality.

As stated, the question about whether or not individual Catholics follow the teachings of the Church is a different question. The reality is that most Catholics-- specifically the ones you allude to who are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage-- are Cultural Catholics and aren’t following the teachings of the Church.

Also, I’m not discussing Tradition. Tradition is simply the teachings of the apostles that were not written down. It’s irrelevant to my point.

I’m discussing the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church. 1 Tim 3:15 says the CHURCH is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Not the BIBLE, but the CHURCH.

The Bible also doesn’t tell us to pick up the Bible and figure it out for ourselves. The Ethiopian Eunuch showed us that. He needed someone else to help him interpret the passage he was reading.

 

[PRmerger]

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

Jimmy Akin addresses this quite eloquently:

For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”

In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.eboards4all.com/813467/messages/88993.html

 

[bsroufek]

Logical argument.

Premise: ASSUME that sola scriptura is correct.

Argument: In John, we read that Jesus said and did many more things than these, but
[we] have written these so that you might believe.

Conclusion: sola scripture is denied in itself, as more than scripture exists and the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, would remind us of all that Jesus said and did.

So, sola scriptura also denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

The fact is sola scriptura fails for a variety of reasons.

First let us all aknowledge that the sacred scripture is not being diminished by these claims. However, it is important (if not vital) to put scripture into proper perspective.

One, if a protestant (or any Christian for that matter) believes in scripture alone, then you need to believe the Church is the pillar of all truth. It says this in 1st Timothy 3:15.

It actually affirms the role of the church in relation to Gods Law in Acts. It was determined that the NEW authority had the power to change doctrine. If it was “SCRIPTURE ALONE” then the early Church would not have had the AUTHORITY to change the Law of God. Mainly, circumcision. This also goes for a wide variety of the Mosaic Law.

All of the Mosaic Law is SCRIPTURE. Therefore if it was ONLY SCRIPTURE, then the CHURCH would not have had the AUTHORITY to change this. They did, and it was affirmed IN SCRIPTURE. The ironies here are astounding.

The sola scriptura claims cannot be true. The Church is the authority. Is this not true? Then by what authority did the Church change scriptural LAW?

The notion that the church has stopped growing, or that there were no issues to be ruled on, or that the church no longer had authority to determine doctrine upon the deaths of the 12 apostles is beyond ridiculous. That would have to be the claim. It is almost as though the Holy Spirit no longer inspired anyone for close to 2000 years.

Not to mention that fact that we know for a fact that Christians did not carry around pocket bibles. Most Christians were illiterate for close to 1600+ years. We know the canon was not really put together until 382AD. What did the early Christians go by for the first 300 or 400 years? SHoulder shrugs are not answers. Cause the answer is they went by the oral traditions. Paul IN SCRIPTURE says to hold fast to the traditions as we have passed them on to you.

There are so many other points to show that God or the Church will not be limited to JUST the writings of Paul.Why? Cause the same Holy Spirit that guided Paul is the same Holy Spirit that guides the Church today.

Do we think Peter only wrote 2 letters? Is it wrong for me to presume Peter wrote a lot more than 2? Is it wrong for me to presume that the Holy Spirit guided him in those letters too?

The notion of sola scriptura is another claim that does not hold up to scrutiny. At best, it shows how narcissistic humans can still be. Like when we thought the entire universe revolved around us. Imagine that.

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEP1983

Very recently there was an episode of “Unbelievable?” which featured a Conservative Protestant debating a Liberal Protestant about the issue of gay marriage.

See how Sola Scriptura utterly fails as they both try to use Scripture to prove their points.

Particularly fast forward to the exchange that starts at 12:55 and ends at 13:23.

youtube.com/watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI

As Martin Luther said, “every man has a Pope in his own belly.”

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

Jon…you are missing the point. Individual Catholics (lay or religious) may accept abortion but the Church will not. These catholic may even dissent and start their own religion…haha. And why does Tradition need to solve the great schism? In a large way…Tradition was part of the reason…

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sola Scriptura is not a religious doctrine.

It is a philosophical doctrine that removes any body of authority over the individual person.

What Sola Scriptura accomplishes is the emancipation of the believer from Church authority. It keeps a door open to walk away from a religious governmental body and look for another one that is more in line with the individual’s beliefs.

It uses the Word of God to justify personal ideas and opinions of what the Word of God means and/or doesn’t mean. In other words, me and my bible don’t need anyone else to tell me what I can or cannot do.

In its essence, Sola Scriptura divides persons or groups of persons.

It destroys religious authority on the excuse that God did not leave others (Apostles and their Disciples) in charge of His flock. That God intended for all time to leave a book of instructions without an interpreting authority. That because there is no interpretive authority, each believer is his/her own authority. That the Holy Spirit is revealing different truths about God’s Word to every individual and that it is acceptable to preach a different Gospel as long as it has Jesus’ Holy Name in it, but not what He truly meant.

In essence, Sola Scriptura destroys communion because it separates the believers from One Body and turns them into many different bodies.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, honestly, you have to get rid of that defense. Look, bc a certain percentage voted for Obama voted for Obama does not mean they agree with everything he stands for.

I’ll throw you the question now. Whoever you vote for, I don’t know how many presidential elections you have been part of. But every time that you cast your ballot, your telling me every time you have agreed with the candidate 100%. I’m not trying to be rude but you would be lying.

Just bc you vote for x candidate does not mean I agree with him completely.

The defining policy of the Obama administration is the ACA (Affordable Care Act). Via the HHS mandate which mandates abortion be paid for by those of us who oppose it by faith, it is a direct attack on the Catholic Church (and the LCMS), and our religious liberty. Despite this fact, well know at election time, Catholics by about half chose to vote for a man who has determined to undermine Catholic religious liberty. ISTM that ought to be a central issue for Catholics. Catholics here often complain about “anti-Catholics”. This president is the “antiCatholic-in-Chief”

I have never voted for a candidate that was in the act of attempting to restrict the religious liberty of the communion I am a member of, or any other communion for that matter.

Then please respond to the second.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

C’mom Jon, can’t you see the difference? Catholics can, and will, debate and disagree among ourselves forever but in the end there will be a single definitive stance based on a single solid truth. There will always be Catholics who do not practice what this single solid truth teaches but that fact does not change the teaching and BTW, I wish all Catholics realized this.

Peace Brother!!!

And also with you, my friend.

Same with the LCMS, when it comes to doctrine. And yes, I recognize the difference. What I don’t recognize is that this is a result of sola scriptura, when we same the same kinds of divisions between those who profess Tradition & Scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon…you are missing the point. Individual Catholics (lay or religious) may accept abortion but the Church will not. These catholic may even dissent and start their own religion…haha. And why does Tradition need to solve the great schism? In a large way…Tradition was part of the reason…

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

The premise of the OP is the reason protestants disagree is because of sola scriptura. I reject the claim, based on the fact that there are also divisions among those who claim scripture and Tradition.
Instead, the reason for division is human sin, not the hermeneutical practice of various different communions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Isaiah45_9;10708220]Sola Scriptura is not a religious doctrine.

It is a philosophical doctrine that removes any body of authority over the individual person.

What Sola Scriptura accomplishes is the emancipation of the believer from Church authority. It keeps a door open to walk away from a religious governmental body and look for another one that is more in line with the individual’s beliefs.

It uses the Word of God to justify personal ideas and opinions of what the Word of God means and/or doesn’t mean. In other words, me and my bible don’t need anyone else to tell me what I can or cannot do.

In its essence, Sola Scriptura divides persons or groups of persons.

Jose, my friend,
I respectfully disagree. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It actually holds all believers to scripture as a the sole rule and norm. It holds all teachers, teachings, doctrines and dogmas accountable to scripture, and it is the Church that determines doctrine and dogma, not individuals. It is the Church that teaches, not individuals.

It destroys religious authority on the excuse that God did not leave others (Apostles and their Disciples) in charge of His flock. That God intended for all time to leave a book of instructions without an interpreting authority. That because there is no interpretive authority, each believer is his/her own authority. That the Holy Spirit is revealing different truths about God’s Word to every individual and that it is acceptable to preach a different Gospel as long as it has Jesus’ Holy Name in it, but not what He truly meant.

In essence, Sola Scriptura destroys communion because it separates the believers from One Body and turns them into many different bodies.

Again, the opposite. The interpreting authority is the Church. I have no more say in Lutheran doctrine than you do in Catholic doctrine.
The only difference is our Church holds scripture as the final norm, above Tradition, while yours holds Tradition equal to scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Logical argument.

Premise: ASSUME that sola scriptura is correct.

Argument: In John, we read that Jesus said and did many more things than these, but
[we] have written these so that you might believe.

Conclusion: sola scripture is denied in itself, as more than scripture exists and the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, would remind us of all that Jesus said and did.

So, sola scriptura also denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, baloney!

Sola scriptura does not deny that more exists than scripture. That limits the power of God. What sola scriptura says is that the conscience of the believer should not be held to things (doctrine) that are not clear in scripture, since as you quote above, scripture was written that we might believe. Believing comes by hearing.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Exactly, sola scriptura fails on account of men’s high subjectivity. That’s why an objective authority is needed to decide the correct interpretation of scripture.

So, which objective authority? The one patriarch who stands by himself? Or the other patriarchates that stand in unity?

Jon

 

[CatholicKnight3]

So, which objective authority? The one patriarch who stands by himself? Or the other patriarchates that stand in unity?

Jon

What did the early Christians go by if there was no set canon? How did most Christians rely on the scripture considering that so many Christians were totally illiterate for so long?

What is the lesson in Acts with regard to Gods Law, and the new role the Church played in setting doctrine, and having the authority to do so?

Again, with in the confines of SOLA SCRIPTURA, then the Church should not have had the AUTHORITY to even alter the Mosaic Law. Since, the Mosaic Law IS SCRIPTURE.

Remember the debate here is whether or not the Church is the authority, or is it SCRIPTURE. Sola Scriptura states that scripture is the final authority. Well, considering the Church is the one that set the doctrine at the first Council of Jerusalem means the Church is the new authority, and not the Mosaic Law (scripture.)

Again, there was no canon for centuries after the resurrection. 1st Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the pillar of all truth.

The notion that the Church is only subjected to what was gathered in Pauls writings and does not have the authority to set doctrine upon the deaths of the 12 apostles is a bit absurd isnt it?

Think about that. That means that a canon itself could not have been put together. Since the canon was not put together for centuries after the deaths of the apostles.

I am just confused by Sola Scriptura. If the scripture says the Church is the pillar of truth, and that is affirmed through the actions at the Council of Jerusalem, is it not logical to make the Church as one of the pillars?

Is it one of the pillars?

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Jon…you are missing the point. Individual Catholics (lay or religious) may accept abortion but the Church will not. These catholic may even dissent and start their own religion…haha. And why does Tradition need to solve the great schism? In a large way…Tradition was part of the reason…

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

The premise of the OP is the reason protestants disagree is because of sola scriptura. I reject the claim, based on the fact that there are also divisions among those who claim scripture and Tradition.
Instead, the reason for division is human sin, not the hermeneutical practice of various different communions.

Jon

Jon, you brought up abortion… .I did not. And the divisions are because of pride…pride to follow one’s own reason rather than Christ.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android