Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Porknpie]

?..doctrine must accord with scripture.

Does this comment include the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Sacramental Baptism, Baptism of Infants and the other Sacraments as the early Church believed and practiced? Catholic doctrine is always in accord with scripture and Tradition.

And it’s important to know, that the Catholic Chuch when it canonized the books of scripture in 397ad, selected 73 books out of several hundred, selecting the books based on…Tradition! The Gospel of John was selected as Inspired and Inerrant, in part because John 6…the Bread of Life Discourse, which the the Church recognized as his true body and true blood as Tradition had taught. The Church never viewed this teaching as symbolic.

The bible comes from Tradition, not the other way around. More than interesting though that the Catholic Church canonized 73 books… and the Original KJV 1511 Bible had 73 as well.

So Protestants read today, a Bible missing 7 books. (the Deuterocanonical’s are missing which were part of the Septuagint…and we know the apostles used the Septuagint). This is a man-made tradition.

So how can doctrine be accord with scripture … when the scripture used is incomplete?

 

[Simka]

Not according to SS? Whose SS interpretation? You have yet to tell us who has the correct SS formal declaration?

When the SS position was formulated in the 16th century, there was only one, and it was quite simple. The English translation is:
“The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

Since that time, different church bodies have sought to apply it in their own circumstances, and have added to, subtracted from, and otherwise distorted that simple position. Some are more credible than others.

But it seems to me a pointless exercise to search out one version you may have a particular dislike for, then argue against that. Surely the original version, which lies at the heart of all the others, ought to be the main topic of discussion.

 

[Simka]

That they proclaimed a Catholic doctrine to be contrary to Scripture was an erroneous declaration.
Again: there is no doctrine/tradition/practice in the CC that is unbiblical.

This, of course, is where the most fundamental disagreements have arisen. As I cited previously, as just one example among many, the Church of England proclaims in its 39 Articles, “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions”.

What “other authorities” govern non-Catholic Christians?

Inside or outside the CC, SS acknowledges the value of Tradition and the Church, and recognizes them as authoritative, subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

The analogy often made is that of a tricycle. The front wheel is the driver, and determines the path, the direction, the pace, and so on; but there is benefit derived from the stability and support provided by the two back wheels.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.”

Andrew Wilson is an elder at Kings Church in Eastbourne, runs training courses within the Newfrontiers family of churches, and is studying for a PhD in Theology at King’s College London. He has written several books, including most recently If God Then What?, and blogs at whatyouthinkmatters.org.

Rob Bell is a former pastor of a mega-Church…

Both Protestant and when either of them speak of the Church, what Church are they talking about?

Next…

I don’t necessarily see this as a Sola Scriptura problem, although that is part of it. Homosexuals, gay apologists, argue from the perspective of…

Essentialism=Born that way or Social Constructionism…and you will see the SC brand of apologist, discussing…

Homosexuality has been around for all time, culture this and culture that, let’s look at what this means…what does this look like…? When you see this, this is the SC point of view. CAF has proponents of both positions promoting abberrant, deviant behavior.

If you read through this explanation of the SC point of view and relisten to the discussion you will hear the cultural elements, when Bell speaks, as discussed below…

banap.net/spip.php?article85

The philosophical social constructionist view of sexuality is based upon behaviors and attitudes. An individual’s sexual identity, reaching even as far as the preferred object of erotic attraction, is socially created, bestowed, and maintained. One is heterosexual because their sexual attitudes and behaviors are toward members of the opposite sex. For the homosexual, these sexual attitudes and behaviors would be for members of the same sex. Therefore, social constructionists would suggest there is nothing “real” about sexual orientation, except for a society’s construction. “According to this view, sexual roles and behaviors arise out of a culture’s religious, moral, and ethical beliefs, its legal traditions, politics, aesthetics, whatever scientific or traditional views biology and psychology it may have, even factors like geography and climate. The constructionist view holds that sexual roles vary from one civilization to another because there are no innately predetermined scripts for human sexuality.” (Mondimore, A Natural History of Homosexuality, p. 19)
“Homosexuality has everywhere existed, but it is only in some cultures that it has become structured into a sub-culture. Homosexuality in the pre-modern period was frequent, but only in certain closed communities was it ever institutionalized - perhaps in some monasteries and nunneries, as many of the medieval penitentials suggest; in some of the knightly orders (including the Knights Templars), as the great medieval scandals hint; and in the courts of certain monarchs (such as James I of England, William III). Other homosexual contacts, though recurrent, are likely to have been casual, fleeting, and undefined.” (Weeks, Coming Out, p. 35)

“Conversely, constructionism interpreted homosexuality as a conceptual category that varied between cultural and historical settings (Troiden 1988). Definitions of same-sex eroticism were viewed as cultural inventions that were specific to particular societies at particular times. It also held that conceptualizations of homosexuality determined the forms same-sex eroticism took within a given society (Greenberg 1988). In other words, the social meaning of homosexuality shaped the domain of emotions, identity, and conduct associated with sex between men.” (Levine, Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone, p. 233-234)

and while this is magnanimous of Rob Bell…here is what he is inviting…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=766675

**Wrongly Dividing the Body of Christ **

His congregation will be facing a division over this issue and many will walk…

 

[Simka]

Addressing the original premise (Message #1) which attempted to identify “Why Sola Scriptura fails” …

I don’t necessarily see this as a Sola Scriptura problem …

You’re absolutely right! Misinterpreting Scripture to prove a point has been a flaw in many arguments, for centuries. But these arguments have little, if anything, to do with the basic principle of SS … that Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. Disagreement over the legitimacy of homosexual conduct within the church is not an SS issue.

Serious disagreements over what Scripture means by what it says could certainly benefit from interpretive counsel. This is quite consistent with SS; but those involved in the debate usually don’t want to hear it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Addressing the original premise (Message #1) which attempted to identify “Why Sola Scriptura fails” …

You’re absolutely right! Misinterpreting Scripture to prove a point has been a flaw in many arguments, for centuries. But these arguments have little, if anything, to do with the basic principle of SS … Serious disagreements over what Scripture means by what it says could certainly benefit from interpretive counsel. This is quite consistent with SS; but those involved in the debate usually don’t want to hear it.

that Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. Disagreement over the legitimacy of homosexual conduct within the church is not an SS issue.

How can you be sure anyone has Scripture?, since there are no original Scripture and what we have then is a translation…you can wade through the discussion here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262
**
Why Christians can’t read Scripture **

and this is an entirely different discussion…that you can review concerning Formal vs Material sufficiency…

calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/is-scripture-sufficient/

On the other hand, for scripture to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all that is needed for salvation, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it (e.g. the church is not needed to interpret scripture.)

When one encounters a Protestant apologist asserting that a father taught the formal sufficiency of scripture it is very important to remember what that father taught about the relation of the church to scripture. It is simply a fact that if we are talking about the sufficiency of scripture for any given church father, not taking into account that father’s teaching on the church is a fatal error because what formal sufficiency claims is that there is no need for the church to interpret scripture.

Absent the Catholic Church there would be no translation to argue about this…

 

[Simka]

… and this is an entirely different discussion…that you can review concerning Formal vs Material sufficiency.

SS does not argue for “Formal sufficiency” as you have defined it.
While claiming that the Scriptures contain all knowledge necessary for salvation, SS does not require or even recommend reading the scriptures in isolation.
It makes no argument against the use of interpretive counsel.
It does not prescribe how the knowledge contained in the Scriptures is to be extracted, or how it is to be put to practical use.
It does not say that there is no place in the process for the Church, or that there is no place for Tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

Simka:

When the SS position was formulated in the 16th century, there was only one, and it was quite simple. The English translation is:
“The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

You are not listening. Again…WHO made such a declaration? Name the church or group responsible for supporting your claim. Who gave them the authority to make such a declaration? Second, where does Scripture ever teach:

The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness

Since that time, different church bodies have sought to apply it in their own circumstances, and have added to, subtracted from, and otherwise distorted that simple position. Some are more credible than others.

Which begs the question-once again:

WHO decides what is the legit definition and applications? Evidently 500 years later and no formal declaration as been ratified.

But it seems to me a pointless exercise to search out one version you may have a particular dislike for, then argue against that.

Ah no! First show me WHO determined and declared the original version? Again…back it up with primary sources demonstrating ONLY one version existed?

Surely the original version, which lies at the heart of all the others, ought to be the main topic of discussion.

After you clearly support with legit documentation only ONE original version existed and again…WHO made such a declaration.

 

[Simka]

You are not listening. Again…WHO made such a declaration? Name the church or group responsible for supporting your claim. Who gave them the authority to make such a declaration? Second, where does Scripture ever teach:

The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness

Which begs the question-once again: WHO decides … show me WHO determined and declared the original version … and again…WHO made such a declaration.

If you want to be as argumentative as your previous posts have shown, and yet don’t know any of these things about Sola Scriptura, why are you here? I’m not your school teacher.

 

[CopticChristian]

SS does not argue for “Formal sufficiency” as you have defined it.
While claiming that the Scriptures contain all knowledge necessary for salvation, SS does not require or even recommend reading the scriptures in isolation.
It makes no argument against the use of interpretive counsel.
It does not prescribe how the knowledge contained in the Scriptures is to be extracted, or how it is to be put to practical use.
or that there is no place for Tradition.

It does not say that there is no place in the process for the Church,

What Church?

One that started 500 years ago?

The Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages, the Bride of Christ and if the Bride, that same Bride married to the Lamb must be the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow…or did Christ divorce, leave and marry another?

 

[Porknpie]

What Church?

One that started 500 years ago?

The Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages, the Bride of Christ and if the Bride, that same Bride married to the Lamb must be the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow…or did Christ divorce, leave and marry another?

Ok Coptic, you and I are thinking the same.

Simka:
The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness

Of course this conflicts with the words of the bible which says the Church holds the Truth…and we know that the bible comes from…was written, by for and from, the Catholic Church.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

And we know Christ himself said he would send the Paraclete, to lead the Church to all truth on faith and morals. Nowhere does Christ say that this Truth would only be contained on the bible, some 360 years after he died.

Sola scriptura fails because scripture never says anywhere what books should be in the bible, which are inspired and infallible and that these books contain all knowledge for salvation and holiness. That statement is a tradition made from man 500 years ago, not from God.

 

[CopticChristian]

If you want to be as argumentative as your previous posts have shown, and yet don’t know any of these things about Sola Scriptura, why are you here? I’m not your school teacher.

**
why are you here? **

Do me a favor…read this line slowly and as you do look down to the right of the page…see where it says…

Contact Us, Home, etc…that is the bottom right portion of the page.

Now look up to the right top…as you pass by the Catholic Answers online shop your eyes will be drawn to the middle…Defending the Faith Cruise…pretty, is it not…or you may see Not Peace but a Sword…I guess it changes from time to time…

More importantly.,…top left you will see this…

Catholic Answers
To explain and Defend the Faith…

You heard…ask not what your country can do for you, rather ask what you can do for your country…

Now rather than ask any Catholic on the CAF…"why are you here?..rather imagine that you ask yourself “why am I here?”…then let all of us know…Ok…

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course this conflicts with the words of the bible which says the Church holds the Truth…and we know that the bible comes from…was written, by for and from, the Catholic Church.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

And we know Christ himself said he would send the Paraclete, to lead the Church to all truth on faith and morals. Nowhere does Christ say that this Truth would only be contained on the bible, some 360 years after he died.

Sola scriptura fails because scripture never says anywhere what books should be in the bible, which are inspired and infallible and that these books contain all knowledge for salvation and holiness. That statement is a tradition made from man 500 years ago, not from God.

** Ok Coptic, you and I are thinking the same.**

Can you imagine all of those that believe that my beliefs are rather contrary, how they might feel about this statement. Can you imagine that there is a possibility that Christianity can be percieved similarly by two people that never met each other. Do you believe perhaps that there may be a common element, reading, listening…Do ya think…???Others might take your suggestion??? Wadda ya think bout that?

Recommend:
US Catholic Catechism for Adults Audiobook

 

[PRmerger]

When the SS position was formulated in the 16th century, there was only one, and it was quite simple. The English translation is:
“The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

Was it the position in the 16th century that SS was a doctrine, or was it a “hermeneutic principle”?

 

[PRmerger]

This, of course, is where the most fundamental disagreements have arisen. As I cited previously, as just one example among many, the Church of England proclaims in its 39 Articles, “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions”.

Just to be clear: are you arguing that a Catholic teaching “cannot be proved by” Scripture, or that a Catholic teaching is contrary to Scripture?

For those are, of course, 2 separate objections to Catholicism.

Inside or outside the CC, SS acknowledges the value of Tradition and the Church, and recognizes them as authoritative, subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

This is logical nonsense. Scripture cannot be the author of (that is, subject to, or authoritative over) Sacred Tradition since it proceeds from Sacred Tradition.

The analogy often made is that of a tricycle. The front wheel is the driver, and determines the path, the direction, the pace, and so on; but there is benefit derived from the stability and support provided by the two back wheels.

I don’t have a problem with that, provided that we see the Church as sitting on the tricycle as the driver, with the Holy Spirit whispering directions to the driver.

 

[Nicea325]

If you want to be as argumentative as your previous posts have shown, and yet don’t know any of these things about Sola Scriptura, why are you here? I’m not your school teacher.

I beg your pardon? Argumentative? How convenient and an absoltue DODGE! With all due respect, let me remind you, this is a Catholic website. Second, Sola Scriptura is not black and white as you dearly believe,thus the massive errors it has produced-a fact! Third, the fact you REFUSE to answer simply proves I am right about the man-made tradition called Sola Scriptura.

 

[Nicea325]

Was it the position in the 16th century that SS was a doctrine, or was it a “hermeneutic principle”?

And I am still waiting to read WHO determined Sola Scriptura is a dcotrine,praxis, principle,etc,etc. and under whose authority? Which church or group made such a declaration?

 

[PRmerger]

And I am still waiting to read WHO determined Sola Scriptura is a dcotrine,praxis, principle,etc,etc. and under whose authority?

 

[harry_harpo]

I find personally, that scripture is fine and never fails me, but I do see a built in contradiction between my Catholic Catechism and my Catholic bible?

The Soul?

In my Catechism it says that the soul is a spirit and is immortal and can never die?

I find that in my Catholic bible (and other bibles) it says the opposite!

For Example:

However people interpret the soul to be, the bible says that the soul can die, eat, sweat, is in the blood, be saved, be destroyed, can eat meat, thirst, be grieved to the point of death, fall to the ground, be pierced by the sword and so on!

Now, these are definitely not expressions one would use of an immortal, invisible soul, but the same Catholic church that produces the Catechism, also produces the Catholic bible, one based on tradition, the other sola scriptura and as all scripture is inspired of God and God cannot lie, which is correct, which do we accept, the word of men (catechism) or the word of God (bible)?

How does the Church explain the contradiction, as there can only be one truth and one cannot contradict the law of contradiction!

So, who or which is correct?

 

[PRmerger]

which do we accept, the word of men (catechism) or the word of God (bible)?

You do realize, harry, that you are accepting the “word of men” when you accept that, say, the Gospel of Mark is inspired, right?

You would not know it any other way except that you are submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church to discern for you that the Gospel of Mark is God-breathed but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

Unless you can tell us some other way you knew that the Gospel of Mark is inspired???