Why Sola Scriptura fails

[PRmerger]

Could there be a fourth definition in our future?

Oh, there’s a multitude of them that have been proclaimed here, to be sure, Tomster. :sad_yes:

Here’s a Christian who says that Sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the bible: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6997390&postcount=342

Here’s a Christian who says that Sola Scriptura “doesn’t mean that everything is found in Scripture.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=154017&postcount=53

Here’s a Christian who says that SS “is a practice rather than a belief”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8333669&postcount=110

That’s the problem when there is no one who is able to speak with authority on a particular docrine/hermeneutic principle/practice/belief.

And if so, who decides which one is correct?
:compcoff:

'zactly.

Now, when there is disagreements among Catholics, all we need to do is look to our authority, the Church, which is, of course, the pillar and foundation of truth, and we can have our definitive answer. Where the Catholic Church has not proclaimed a teaching, then we are certainly free to believe both/and are correct. (For example: communion in the hand vs the tongue, confession face to face vs behind the screen, does Revelation deal with past events or future, did Mary experience labor pains…)

 

[JonNC]

=CompSciGuy;10743257]There is a profound difference here. The “Catholics” who are pro-choice are against the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore they are Catholic in name only but not in practice.

A point I make about Missouri Synod Lutherans, as well.

The point being made is that the magesterium (teaching authority of the Church) is necessary and authoritative, not just scripture. In the case of the Great Schism, the same thing applies: they deny the authority of the pope (which has been affirmed since the days of the early church fathers) and thus they have many divisions among themselves as well.

You affirm well here the Catholic position. Tradition, however, seems to tell them something different. Which version of Sacred Tradition is true.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Which version of Sacred Tradition is true.

They both are. Save for the Primacy of Peter there is nothing different in either Tradition which has been proclaimed.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, there’s a multitude of them that have been proclaimed here, to be sure, Tomster. :sad_yes:

Here’s a Christian who says that Sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the bible: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6997390&postcount=342

Here’s a Christian who says that Sola Scriptura “doesn’t mean that everything is found in Scripture.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=154017&postcount=53

Here’s a Christian who says that SS “is a practice rather than a belief”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8333669&postcount=110

That’s the problem when there is no one who is able to speak with authority on a particular docrine/hermeneutic principle/practice/belief.

'zactly.

Now, when there is disagreements among Catholics, all we need to do is look to our authority, the Church, which is, of course, the pillar and foundation of truth, and we can have our definitive answer. Where the Catholic Church has not proclaimed a teaching, then we are certainly free to believe both/and are correct. (For example: communion in the hand vs the tongue, confession face to face vs behind the screen, when did the patristic era end, does Revelation deal with past events or future, did Mary experience labor pains…)

“When there is disagreement among Catholics,…”
When there is disagreement among non-denominationals,…
When there is disagreement among Reformed Baptists,…
When there is disagreement among classical Anglicans,…

Why would you expect something different, PR? The three you site are of different communions? This is the problem with the perception that protestantism is, or was, a single monolith that has splintered. It isn’t, and never was. The roots of Baptists and Anglicans, for example, are the same only in the sense that the roots are Catholic.

Jon

 

[321billybob]

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?

interesting reflection of questioning-- personally i just go by what the jewesrelum counsal said in acts

Acts 15 - The Jerusalem Council - Enduring Word Media
www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4415.htm‎

These Jewish Christians (often called “Judaizers”) came to the congregation in … may become Christians, but only after first becoming Jews, and submitting to all … be the greatest threat to the work of the gospel yet seen in the Book of Acts. 2.

and besides if you don’t have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you-- as saint paul said in acts-- ch19–then you are not part of the body of Christ-

so this is just like beating a dead horse-- cheers

 

[PRmerger]

“When there is disagreement among Catholics,…”
When there is disagreement among non-denominationals,…
When there is disagreement among Reformed Baptists,…
When there is disagreement among classical Anglicans,…

Why would you expect something different, PR? The three you site are of different communions? This is the problem with the perception that protestantism is, or was, a single monolith that has splintered. It isn’t, and never was. The roots of Baptists and Anglicans, for example, are the same only in the sense that the roots are Catholic.

Jon

Fair enough, Jon.

How do you answer the question, “When there is disagreement among non-denominationals, to whom do they appeal?”

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough, Jon.

How do you answer the question, “When there is disagreement among non-denominationals, to whom do they appeal?”

lol. Honestly, it is a question for them to answer, since I’ve never been among them. It would be, however, a critique of mine that non-denominationals tend not to have well-established doctrines, much less hierarchy. From a Missouri Synod perspective, I at times find our congregational polity inadequate, and our polity is much more centralized than theirs… obviously.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

lol. Honestly, it is a question for them to answer, since I’ve never been among them. It would be, however, a critique of mine that non-denominationals tend not to have well-established doctrines, much less hierarchy. From a Missouri Synod perspective, I at times find our congregational polity inadequate, and our polity is much more centralized than theirs… obviously.

Jon

Blessings Jon. As someone who majored in History, I have yet to find a single shred of evidence of SS ever being mentioned or let alone being taught as a principle in the early church. Scripture was used but to confine the Deposit of Faith strictly to Holy writ is just plain false and with no warranted historical support to back it up.

 

[PRmerger]

lol. Honestly, it is a question for them to answer, since I’ve never been among them.

Well, I’ve never been among them either but I can pretty much answer that question: they appeal to their own fallible selves as the final authority.

From a Missouri Synod perspective, I at times find our congregational polity inadequate, and our polity is much more centralized than theirs… obviously.

Jon

When there is disagreement among Lutherans, you seek succor in your Missouri Synod, yes? And they have final authority to proclaim that this is the will of God for His Church?

 

[pablope]

lol. Honestly, it is a question for them to answer, since I’ve never been among them. It would be, however, a critique of mine that non-denominationals tend not to have well-established doctrines, much less hierarchy

From a Missouri Synod perspective, I at times find our congregational polity inadequate, and our polity is much more centralized than theirs… obviously.

Jon

Hmmm…well, I wonder…what brought about that? Lack of magisterial authority? throwing out apostolic succession as not important? I wonder where they got that…to begin with…

 

[Porknpie]

Not in a MILLION YEARS! You have been taken for a ride by SS advocates who merely take the ECF’s words out-of-context. Cyril appeals to Traditions and that I know is a fact I know you are dead wrong!

Nicea,

True or false: Cyril appealed to tradition? He sounds like St Paul, holding fast to them. Notice the faith delivered by the Church!

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

And certainly, Athanasius believed in SS…not.

But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

And certainly John Chrysostom believed in SS…not.

" ‘So then, **brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, **whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

Most interest is…Chrysostom writes in 404ad…7 years after the canon of the bible and he exhorts the brethren to hold fast to traditions including the spoken word. Sola Scriptura…?

Nah

Pork

 

[JonNC]

Well, I’ve never been among them either but I can pretty much answer that question: they appeal to their own fallible selves as the final authority.

When there is disagreement among Lutherans, you seek succor in your Missouri Synod, yes? And they have final authority to proclaim that this is the will of God for His Church?

I trust our leaders to understand and present His will for us, as provided in scripture, yes. If I didn’t, it would make no sense for me to remain.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think you would need to ask them, frankly. The evey thrust of my response is that we do have an authority in our synod.

Jon

 

[GWright]

Ive always thought that Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) fails because it gives absolute primacy to what it says in the Bible - leaving no room for reason / tradition.

This is approach is flawed because…the Bible itself doesnt make this assertion. Meaning the “Scripture alone” argument contradicts itself, because the idea that Scriputre is the ‘be-all-and-end-all’ is man-made.

Additionally, by now science has wholly discredited any approach to religion based on a wholly factual interpretation of the Bible (this shows there is indeed more to life than simply what is contained in the Bible).

 

[JonNC]

Ive always thought that Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) fails because it gives absolute primacy to what it says in the Bible - leaving no room for reason / tradition.

This is approach is flawed because…the Bible itself doesnt make this assertion. Meaning the “Scripture alone” argument contradicts itself, because the idea that Scriputre is the ‘be-all-and-end-all’ is man-made.

Additionally, by now science has wholly discredited any approach to religion based on a wholly factual interpretation of the Bible (this shows there is indeed more to life than simply what is contained in the Bible).

Again, our understanding of sola Scriptura does not " leave no room for tradition and reason. It just makes these accountable to scripture.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Again, our understanding of sola Scriptura does not " leave no room for tradition and reason. It just makes these accountable to scripture.

Jon

Jon,

I had my morning coffee which i dearly love. :coffeeread:

Do we agree that scripture comes from tradition…that the books of the bible were selected as inspired & inerrant based on tradition…? If so, how can tradition be accountable to scripture when scripture itself comes from tradition?? As Catholics we would say that tradition is never in conflict with scripture for sure. The bible itself and the ECF’s do not hold to a tradition is accountable to the bible theology, rather we see in both a holding fast to what is written and spoken as St. Paul says…

I read that there are 42,000 denominations and they are all following in some manner or another a sola scriptura theology. IMHO, tradition and reason are missing for this to have happened and proof enough that the thought is in error, especially when we look at the Church at 1,000ad and see only one Church and only a couple prior to year 1,500.

Thoughts?

Pork

 

[aidanbradypop]

Again, our understanding of sola Scriptura does not " leave no room for tradition and reason. It just makes these accountable to scripture.

Jon

Why does it have to be accountable to Scripture when Scripture never states as much? Scripture never states that we should have 3 readings on Sunday. Why not 2 or 4?

As a former Southern Baptist, I love and hold Scripture near to my heart, but I also know that there is more to it than what was written done. Christ and the Apostles even stated as much.

What of the early Church that was around 400 years without Scripture? Were they lost without the Book you say everything should be held accountable to?

I would think that if someone is going to claim that Scripture is the final say so, there might be a verse they could back that claim up.

 

[EIF5A]

It seems we’re conflating two things: Scripture (the written revelations from God) and the putting together of the New Testament/canonization.

Were the individual books of the New Testament not Scripture before canonization? Were they not sacred until assembled together?

When did the books become sacred? The moment they were written or the moment of canonization?

 

[aidanbradypop]

It seems we’re conflating two things: Scripture (the written revelations from God) and the putting together of the New Testament/canonization.

Were the individual books of the New Testament not Scripture before canonization? Were they not sacred until assembled together?

When did the books become sacred? The moment they were written or the moment of canonization?

Eif…there were and are MANY books that are considered Scripture. Gospel of Thomas? Some still consider that writing to be sacred and Scripture. It seems many confuse where they Holy Bible came from. Did it drop out of the sky one day on the desk of a Protestant pastor? Of course not. It was put together by Catholic Bishops. By the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Church put together writings that were deemed Sacred and you read those writings today.

Are the writings that didn’t make the cut also sacred? What about the Gospel of Judas that paints Judas as a saint. Is that writing sacred and holy?

 

[aidanbradypop]

“There Assumption and Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary are not in Scripture and therefore they cannot be true.”

Ever hear or say that one?

Can I play that game? Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture and cannot be true!

You cannot use Scripture to downplay a doctrine of the Church and then ignore the same reasoning when it comes to the Protestant tradition of the "Sinner’s prayer"or “Sola Scriptura.” You either stick to your guns 100% or not.

Ok I am done lol