Why Sola Scriptura fails

[PRmerger]

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

They were always inspired and sacred. However, you would not know which of the over 400 ancient Christian texts were inspired and which were not…

except through your submission to the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you which is inspired and which is not.

Thus, each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Mark, you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

This necessarily means that you do not look to Scripture, but rather to Tradition for God’s revelation. Thus, you cannot be a SS advocate.

And, it also means that you acknowledge that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC…

unless you want to proclaim that the CC erred somewhere in discerning the canon of the NT?

 

[CopticChristian]

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?

Ask yourself the question as to what you believe about God…

Jesus is Truly God, truly man
Jesus has Two Wills
The Trinity is God
The Holy Spirit is God

all things believed by any real Christian, declared by the OHCAC long before the Protocanonicals were written and the Real Bible was discarded…

long before Calvin
long before Luther
long before OSAS
long before Dispensationalism

and with Scritpure alone we have the likes of

7th day adventists
Mormons
Jehovah Witness
Oneness Pentacostals

Did they discover something different with Scripture alone…or declare something not to be true…?

 

[Tomster]

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, does Revelation deal with past events or future, did Mary experience labor pains…)

PR,

“In order to know the religion of Protestants neither the doctrine of Luther, nor that of Calvin, or Melanchthon, is to be taken, nor the Confession of Augsburg or Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the Anglican Church, nor even the harmony of all the Protestant Confessions, but that which they all subscribe to as the perfect rule of their Faith and actions, that is to say, the Bible. Yes, the Bible, the Bible Alone, is the Religion of Protestants.” - Chillingworth

This Rule of Faith is false and absolutely inadmissible.

 

[Tomster]

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

An inadequate polity even though it is much more centralized than the non-denoms . . . I see.

Aren’t all of you reading the same Bible Jon?

 

[ffg]

Sola scriptura simply says that the Bible contains all that is necessary for one’s salvation. It doesn’t say that reading it in isolation is the best way to understand its teachings.

Sorry about being extremely late in getting back here…

Thanks for the response.

In the Bible itself there are instructions (teachings) that state quite clearly out of the mouth of Jesus himself, contradictory to this definition you just mentioned of ‘Sola scriptura’. Specifically, “all that is necessary for salvation”.

Namely, the course Jesus took in stating he is building a Church (on Peter).

Obviously, he would not have said this if all that was necessary for salvation was to read and learn what some folks in the future would write about.

Then he would have said something to that effect.

However, it was necessary to build the Church to get to the Bible.

 

[Tomster]

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

So, you trust your leaders to understand and present His will for us, as provided in Scripture even though you find at times that your congregational polity to be inadequate?

Suppossing that you did lose trust in your leaders, what then? Would you, then, be forced to search the Scriptures for a remedy?

Jon, please clarify this for us.

 

[Nicea325]

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

Cyril a believer of SS? What nonsense!

 

[Nicea325]

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

Jon

Blessings Jon!

The issue I have with the bolded words is its out of place in the historical context. The bolded words come late into the greater context of Christianity. How could any developed and formalized doctrine be held accountable to scripture when the church did not have a codified (canonized) set of texts for centuries later? Did Scripture exist? Yes. But were all texts being universally used? No. Some communities held to other texts and held them as sacred.

Again…at what point in time did the orthodox church define and declare all doctrines,dogma, traditions, etc are to be held accountable to scripture?

I am sorry, but historically it is a late belief.

 

[benjohnson]

I am sorry, but historically it is a late belief.

Not to poke my head in too much, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad practice.

One could argue that Papal Infallibility is a late belief as well.

 

[Nicea325]

Not to poke my head in too much, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad practice.

One could argue that Papal Infallibility is a late belief as well.

Not saying it is a bad practice,but it most certainly is not an early church practice or position as SS advocates believe.

One could argue papal infallibility is a late belief,but unfortunately they are wrong.
It is NOT a late belief as so many non-Catholics like to believe. Simply because it was defined and ratified in 1870. Infallibility has guided the church and its bishops to define,defend and ratify orthodox doctrines. Doctrines are defined and ratified when they are challenged.

Would you argue the Incarnation, Trinity, Hypostatic Union are late beliefs as well since all were defined and ratifed more than 300 years after Jesus?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not to poke my head in too much, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad practice.

It is when it’s done outside the Church to promote our own authority and/or ideas.

 

[Nicea325]

It is when it’s done outside the Church to promote our own authority and/or ideas.

Exactly! The belief everything must be held accountable to Scripture is novel. It has no historical validity in the very ancient church.

 

[Simka]

True or false: Cyril appealed to tradition? He sounds like St Paul, holding fast to them.
"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).

Oh how I wish you had included more from Cyril !!! The Catechetical Lectures were an extensive series of lectures given to new believers, expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. The series is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. In fact, in the entirety of the Lectures there is not one appeal to the authority of any oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.

When in his teaching Cyril exhorts believers to hold to certain traditions, he goes on to clarify that these traditions are derived from the Scriptures – the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone. Yes, by all means, hold to the traditions for holy living, because their source is in Scripture, but don’t rely on them for doctrine.

He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. Many of his statements from these lectures on the final and ultimate authority of Scripture alone are publicly available, but here I will cite but one:
“For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

This is sola Scriptura in a nutshell.

It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. For Cyril, the entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone. Of course, holding to traditions is helpful for new believers seeking to practice Christian living. Taking Cyril seriously, today we might advocate, “Go to church every Sunday, remember your prayers every day, give to the poor” etc. But we cannot ignore Cyril’s insistence that when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, Scripture alone is to be trusted.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh how I wish you had included more from Cyril !!! The Catechetical Lectures were an extensive series of lectures given to new believers, expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. The series is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. In fact, in the entirety of the Lectures there is not one appeal to the authority of any oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.

When in his teaching Cyril exhorts believers to hold to certain traditions, he goes on to clarify that these traditions are derived from the Scriptures – the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone. Yes, by all means, hold to the traditions for holy living, because their source is in Scripture, but don’t rely on them for doctrine.

He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. Many of his statements from these lectures on the final and ultimate authority of Scripture alone are publicly available, but here I will cite but one:
“For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

This is sola Scriptura in a nutshell.

It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. For Cyril, the entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone. Of course, holding to traditions is helpful for new believers seeking to practice Christian living. Taking Cyril seriously, today we might advocate, “Go to church every Sunday, remember your prayers every day, give to the poor” etc. But we cannot ignore Cyril’s insistence that when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, Scripture alone is to be trusted.

Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong and totally taken his works out of context,sorry but you are.

 

[Simka]

Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong and totally taken his works out of context,sorry but you are.

Oh, don’t be sorry, Nicea … the Catechetical Lectures are readily available. All I did was present you with the facts as they are available to us today. I’m just the messenger. If you don’t like what you read, take it up with the historians that have so thoroughly documented Cyril’s teaching.

I understand that it’s hard for you to let facts get in the way of a deeply rooted prejudice, but belligerent bluster carries no weight (except perhaps with those who share your prejudice). On the other hand, if you’d care to engage in rational discussion instead … well, I’m willing if you are.

Historians report Cyril teaching his catechumens to insist upon the authority of Scripture, and to reject any other source unless it was based on Scripture. Do you have any facts to offer, that show Cyril relied for doctrine on tradition apart from Scripture?

 

[Simka]

Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong and totally taken his works out of context,sorry but you are.

Well, OK, if you don’t like what historians document concerning Cyril, let’s consider Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa in the 4th century. He enunciated this principle: “we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

 

[Simka]

Sorry,but you are absolutely wrong and totally taken his works out of context,sorry but you are.

Well, perhaps you’d rather discuss other early Church teachers. The early Church Fathers taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Consider Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras … there is no appeal in any of their writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

It is not until the mid to late 2nd century that the concept of oral Apostolic Tradition first appears. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian give the actual doctrinal content of this Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. Both men state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is nothing more than the expository presentation of Scriptural truth. Irenaeus emphasized that, while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the faith of the Church. His exact statement is:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

On matters of doctrine, there is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to any Tradition that is not first found in Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, perhaps you’d rather discuss other early Church teachers. The early Church Fathers taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Consider Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras … there is no appeal in any of their writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

It is not until the mid to late 2nd century that the concept of oral Apostolic Tradition first appears. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian give the actual doctrinal content of this Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. Both men state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is nothing more than the expository presentation of Scriptural truth. Irenaeus emphasized that, while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the faith of the Church. His exact statement is:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

On matters of doctrine, there is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to any Tradition that is not first found in Scripture.

Again, you are wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong. You totally distort their works and your understanding of Tradition is profoundly in error. The church is the pillar of Truth-read your Bible again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As a business analyst in real life, I know that Sola Scriptura fails. If we write a requirement and it results in a two-hour meeting just debating what it means and whether it captures everything we intend to capture, then then another hour-long or so meeting later on to explain to the developers what the requirement means, and then much later on explain to the testers again how the requirements should be tested, you know that a piece of text can always be misinterpreted.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh, don’t be sorry, Nicea … the Catechetical Lectures are readily available. All I did was present you with the facts as they are available to us today. I’m just the messenger. If you don’t like what you read, take it up with the historians that have so thoroughly documented Cyril’s teaching.

I understand that it’s hard for you to let facts get in the way of a deeply rooted prejudice, but belligerent bluster carries no weight (except perhaps with those who share your prejudice). On the other hand, if you’d care to engage in rational discussion instead … well, I’m willing if you are.

Historians report Cyril teaching his catechumens to insist upon the authority of Scripture, and to reject any other source unless it was based on Scripture. Do you have any facts to offer, that show Cyril relied for doctrine on tradition apart from Scripture?

LOL! Facts? What facts? Facts that wishful believers of SS twist and pervert history to support their deeped biased prejudices against authentic history? I do-trust me, I have dealt with revisonist as yourself but their ignorance of understanding history in its proper context is far to much for them to comprehend. I’ll pray for you to get your mind out of the novel Protestant beliefs.