Why Sola Scriptura fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter KEP1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=KEP1983;10707905]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.
Your preaching to the choir, here, as our synod holds essentially the same view as the CC. The OP’s point is that this is because of ss. If anything, Bell’s position is that scripture can’t be right about the topic.
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.
When you put in the title Why SS fails, it begs the question of comparison between differing methods of determining doctrine. So, teaching authority, and the what role Tradition plays, must be part of the subject.
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.
I absolutely agree. As Martin Chemnitz, second generation Lutheran reformer states, “This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of scripture, not even in the clear passages…”

Jon
 
40.png
JonNC:
Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

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

Would you agree that pride is sin? If so, then we agree this is not about sola scriptura.

Jon
that is not what you said…you said sin…I am glad you agree with me.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
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
Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Sola scriptura denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, as the Holy Spirit, for example, taught the Catholic Church that Mary was conceived without sin. Scripture comes from the Church which, in union with Christ, is supreme. The Church did not, as earlier quoted, write down everything God said and did. So, here too Sola Scriptura is in error.
 
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,
Brother, if it truly held all believers to a sole rule and norm then why so many different denomination with each one saying they hold Scriptures as the sole rule and norm.

What is the universal norm of Baptism and its meaning?
Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Metodist, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, Bible Churches, etc will give me a different opinion of what the Bible truly teaches about Baptism.

What is the universal norm for the Lord’s Supper and its meaning?
Again, I’ll get various opinions and each one will say they have the true meaning of Scriptures.

This is not something I have read only. This is something I have experienced by visiting and participating in several of these denominations, about 8 years of searching. By meeting with their Pastors and talking to them about these things.

Without exception, each and every one of them claimed to be following Scriptures…

What is the point of saying that Scriptures are the norm and rule for all Christians and yet, all Christians are scattered and separated by the interpretation of these same Scriptures?

Seriously, How are we supposed to present a united front to the world when we can’t even agree on that which so many hold to be the ultimate authority? Especially when we don’t even have the originals. And the only witnesses in the world for these Scriptures are Catholics and Orthodox! You take Catholics and Orthodox away and you lose your chain of custody, that’s it. There is no case.
and it is the Church that determines doctrine and dogma, not individuals. It is the Church that teaches, not individuals.
There has been a Teaching Church since Pentecost, anyone not in that Church is learning something new and different and according to an individual.
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
Brother, God blessed the Church with His Word. It is the inheritance of the children of His Church. Anyone not in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, who holds to Scriptures, is a Prodigal son, who took their part of the inheritance and left their Father’s house.

Please keep in mind that I am attacking the problem, not the person(s).

In my view, Sola Scriptura is an Anti-Christ as it is completely against what Jesus prayed in John 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 **that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. **24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. 26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

Sorry Jon, but I can’t help but see Sola Scriptura as something that separates the body of Christ.

Further, if I ask a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Methodist, a Bible Only, and a Non-Denominational what Sola Scriptura means… Will I get the same answer or what each individual denomination thinks it means?

YBiC,

Jose
 
=bsroufek;10709267]Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Sola scriptura denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, as the Holy Spirit, for example, taught the Catholic Church that Mary was conceived without sin.
What was the source of this revelation? How did the Spirit provide this information? Why was it not provided during the Apostolic era?
There are a whole lot of questions regarding this. Which of the 7 ecumenical councils teaches this?
Scripture comes from the Church which, in union with Christ, is supreme. The Church did not, as earlier quoted, write down everything God said and did. So, here too Sola Scriptura is in error.
Missed that. Who wrote that? I said quite the opposite.

Jon
 
The Council of Trent answered all Protestant assertions. There is much to say about how Sola Scriptura fails, but we can only pray for you that you will come to grace and leave your error on this.

The Council’s documents can be found online here: thecounciloftrent.com/

Why keep rehashing dead arguments that have failed Church scrutiny?
Here are 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
Trent is not ecumenical, and only applies to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Jon
 
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
I think the difference is those catholics who supposebly support such things don’t have a leg to stand on biblically or in the tradition of the church. These men are relying solely on the bible with no one to correct them, any catholic if found out can be corrected although it needs enforcement.
 
I think the difference is those catholics who supposebly support such things don’t have a leg to stand on biblically or in the tradition of the church. These men are relying solely on the bible with no one to correct them, any catholic if found out can be corrected although it needs enforcement.
I understand that. And I contend the same for any LCMS member. The issue is the notion that ss means individual judgement/interpretation, and that is not correct.

Jon
 
Trent is not ecumenical, and only applies to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Jon
According to your argument, the arguments of Martin Luther only apply to Lutherans. You are using relativistic truth, “My truth is not your truth” and vice versa. If you won’t look at Church Doctrine but want to criticize it, you err.
 
What was the source of this revelation? How did the Spirit provide this information? Why was it not provided during the Apostolic era?
There are a whole lot of questions regarding this. Which of the 7 ecumenical councils teaches this?

Jon
From Wikipedia: Immaculate Conception

Although the belief was widely held since at least Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not formally proclaimed until December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus

Now, you don’t recognize papal bulls, I understand, but I want you to know that God is infinite and, therefore, revelation is a continual and progressive act of the Holy Spirit.

Why do you call the Council of Trent “not ecumenical”?
 
According to your argument, the arguments of Martin Luther only apply to Lutherans. You are using relativistic truth, “My truth is not your truth” and vice versa. If you won’t look at Church Doctrine but want to criticize it, you err.
Not at all, Martin Luther was but a man. Lutherans use the Book of Concord. We also accept the 7 ecumenical councils, and the 3 creeds. I could also contend that Trent is relativist, as it lacks ecumenical approval.

Jon
 
From Wikipedia: Immaculate Conception

Although the belief was widely held since at least Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not formally proclaimed until December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus

Now, you don’t recognize papal bulls, I understand, but I want you to know that God is infinite and, therefore, revelation is a continual and progressive act of the Holy Spirit.

Why do you call the Council of Trent “not ecumenical”?
Pope Pius lacked an ecumenical council to make the declaration, and this is from someone who doesn’t necessarily think the IC is wrong, just that it isn’t extant in scripture.

It isn’t ecumenical because there hasn’t been one since the Schism.

Jon
 
Pope Pius lacked an ecumenical council to make the declaration, and this is from someone who doesn’t necessarily think the IC is wrong, just that it isn’t extant in scripture.

It isn’t ecumenical because there hasn’t been one since the Schism.

Jon
OK. The Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils, while the Lutherans apparently accept only the first 7. For us, the Pope doesn’t need a council to define Church Dogma or Truths. It’s called Motu Proprio (on his own authority).

Basically, Lutherans believe that Divine Revelation has ended while we believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide and teach the Church. Therefore, we have the Pope and Magisterium to fulfill Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit “guides us into all truth”.

This recognition about Divine Revelation is central to our differences.
 
OK. The Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils, while the Lutherans apparently accept only the first 7. For us, the Pope doesn’t need a council to define Church Dogma or Truths. It’s called Motu Proprio (on his own authority).

Basically, Lutherans believe that Divine Revelation has ended while we believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide and teach the Church. Therefore, we have the Pope and Magisterium to fulfill Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit “guides us into all truth”.

This recognition about Divine Revelation is central to our differences.
Where do you get the idea that we believe the Holy Spirit no longer guides us? That would be contrary to Christ’s promise.

Can you point me to a document (Tradition) from the early Church that grants the pope this power, Motu Proprio?

Jon
 
Where do you get the idea that we believe the Holy Spirit no longer guides us? That would be contrary to Christ’s promise.

Can you point me to a document (Tradition) from the early Church that grants the pope this power, Motu Proprio?

Jon
The whole history, popes and documents from early on documenting Papal Authority
can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Authority
Look from Council of Constantinople onward.

Regarding the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit, I was not correct: I misunderstood a statement in my research at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon. Shooo! I’m happy you corrected me on this.
 
=bsroufek;10709708]The whole history, popes and documents from early on documenting Papal Authority
can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Authority
Look from Council of Constantinople onward.
I understand the Papal claim. I actually respect it. But I’m not convinced it squares with the early Church.
Regarding the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit, I was not correct: I misunderstood a statement in my research at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon. Shooo! I’m happy you corrected me on this.
Thank you, kindly.

Jon
 
40.png
JonNC:
Pope Pius lacked an ecumenical council to make the declaration

Jon
Where in scripture does it define the necessity of a council in order for the Pope to make dogmatic statements?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top