Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Tomster]

Isaiah, I will give you that, as soon as you show me a similar absolute declaration and proof for the doctrine of the Trinity. (You and I both know that neither one is possible.)

In the meantime, what I can do for you is to show that the broader principles underlying sola Scriptura were the default position of the early church; that they were the common teaching and practice of the early church fathers, in simple recognition of the authority given to the Inspired Word of God … the Scriptures.

The inspiration and authority of Scripture, of course, was established by Jesus and confirmed by the Apostles. Being widely accepted and largely uncontested within the church it didn’t require anything more doctrinal than periodic affirmation that Scripture alone was the standard to which all tenets of the faith were subject.

Such affirmations from the church fathers are available to anyone who cares to read them, recorded for posterity by a number of church historians; but as you also know, there is one who doesn’t want to believe, and insists rather that I am “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” – without being able to point to any factual error in what I posited.

When, over time, the church gradually drifted away from that early standard, the reformers articulated a doctrinal statement, specifically in relation to salvation, which relied on the fundamental principle of the authority of God’s Inspired Word, to draw the church back to its earlier practice. That statement said that Scripture alone contains all the knowledge necessary for salvation and holy living. The Council of Trent contradicted a 1500-year-old practice, and said “Not true.”

“The Reformers articulated a doctrinal statement.”? I am truly laughing at this one. The Reformers couldn’t punch their way and collective opinions out of a paper bag. Tell me where Luther, Calvin and the whole lot across the pond agreed on anything. If they produced anything, it was one roiling mass of contradictions.

But, by attempting to make an infallible, doctrinal statement they showed that their other erroneous doctrine of sola scripture was finished.

Puhleeese

 

[Porknpie]

I think we have received at least four different definitions on this thread alone.

It’s interesting that protestants and Mormons are now going to the early church fathers to try and find a foundation to their beliefs… and similar to pulling the bible out of context of the faith in which is springs forth, select quotes out of context and pick and choose the fathers as they which to support their beliefs while ignoring others.

Example

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Example

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Example

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

It’s important to highlight the one visible Church that was established by Christ himself, that is in the Tradition of the Church and that Sola Scriptural pulls the bible away from the Church that produced it.

That’s a sola problem…with now 42,000 church communities trying to figure out what it is saying.

Pork

 

[Tomster]

No, not exactly, PR … “Sacred Tradition” did not establish this doctrine. Check your resources … Sacred Tradition doesn’t establish anything. It adopts and embraces what has already been established.

I know and proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a doctrine reasonably and logically derived from the written word (Scripture), even though it is not explicitly stated. I am not affected directly by whether or not it has also been adopted into Sacred Tradition.

The practice of recognizing reasonable and logical derivation is entirely consistent with the singular authority of Scripture, and with SS.

Tell that to the JW’s.

 

[Tomster]

It’s interesting that protestants and Mormons are now going to the early church fathers to try and find a foundation to their beliefs… and similar to pulling the bible out of context of the faith in which is springs forth, select quotes out of context and pick and choose the fathers as they which to support their beliefs while ignoring others.

Example

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Example

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Example

“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

It’s important to highlight the one visible Church that was established by Christ himself, that is in the Tradition of the Church and that Sola Scriptural pulls the bible away from the Church that produced it.

That’s a sola problem…with now 42,000 church communities trying to figure out what it is saying.

Pork

One of the major errors of Protestant tradition is replacing the Church with the Bible. They sure love their freedom but they can’t seem to agree on to much of anything except that the Catholic Church is wrong and that Sola Scriptura trumps everything except in the case where there is conflicting opinions regarding the interpretations of said Scriptures in which case a new Synod or some such quasi-authority group is arbitrarily set up to try and straighten the mess out authoritatively only to find that by doing so they have aliented some of the people in the pew who then walk out and set up another ecclessial communion where the process starts all over again until some people just get disgusted with the whole affair and turn into agnostics or even atheists or some just sit under a tree and meditate on the Bible all by themselves and claim some newly discovered doctrine and branch out and start some new cults, etc., etc., etc. :hypno:

Is this clear?

 

[pablope]

Isaiah, I will give you that, as soon as you show me a similar absolute declaration and proof for the doctrine of the Trinity. (You and I both know that neither one is possible.)

The doctrine of the Trinity was settled by a church council, so you are interpreting bible passages based on what the council settled…this is Tradition.

However, can you explain how there are those who read the Bible and say there is no Trinity, like the JWs?

Can you provide a church council which defined SS?

In the meantime, what I can do for you is to show that the broader principles underlying sola Scriptura were the default position of the early church; that they were the common teaching and practice of the early church fathers,

 

[Nicea325]

Simka:

No

, not exactly, PR … “Sacred Tradition” did not establish this doctrine.

Sorry,but wrong again!

Check your resources … Sacred Tradition doesn’t establish anything. It adopts and embraces what has already been established.

Wrong again. What was established? A compiled Bible? I did check my sources and the last time I checked the canon of Scripture was determined by…ding…ding…ding…SACRED TRADITION!

I know and proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a doctrine reasonably and logically derived from the written word (Scripture), even though it is not explicitly stated. I am not affected directly by whether or not it has also been adopted into Sacred Tradition.

Ah no! Tell me what sacred writing Peter used in 35 AD to clearly show us the complexity of Trinitarian doctrine? Simka-care to provide that vital piece of information? No offense, but your logic is seriously flawed. Does one learn to write before they speak? Sacred Scripture was adopted into Sacred Tradtion,not as you wish it would have happened.

The practice of recognizing reasonable and logical derivation is entirely consistent with the singular authority of Scripture, and with SS.

Again, Simka…WHEN,WHERE, and under WHOSE AUTHORITY was this declared?

 

[Nicea325]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

James 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.

1 Peter 2:1-2 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2. like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation.

We recieve God’s Word through the Bible. I prefer to put my faith in something that I know is from God, than traditions of men, most of which were started years after the writings in the Bible.

Care to tell me which of the above was written in defense of Sola Scriptura and where do any of the above verses explicitly say God’s Word is confined to writing alone?

 

[Tomster]

Simka:

No

Sorry,but wrong again!

Wrong again. What was established? A compiled Bible? I did check my sources and the last time I checked the canon of Scripture was determined by…ding…ding…ding…SACRED TRADITION!

Ah no! Tell me what sacred writing Peter used in 35 AD to clearly show us the complexity of Trinitarian doctrine? Simka-care to provide that vital piece of information? No offense, but your logic is seriously flawed. Does one learn to write before they speak? Sacred Scripture was adopted into Sacred Tradtion,not as you wish it would have happened.

Again, Simka…WHEN,WHERE, and under WHOSE AUTHORITY was this declared?

Why, Simka’s, of course.

 

[Nicea325]

[Disclaimer: the examples I give below are not meant to start a separate debate on those topics; I simply bring them up to ILLUSTRATE my point.]

Sola Scriptura means Scripture has the last word, that’s all. It doesn’t mean what so many people here misinterpret it to mean. If I’m told, for example, that I can’t eat meat on Friday, I can confidently say, nowhere in Scripture (O.T. or N.T.) does it teach that, even by implication (on the contrary, there are verses teaching just the opposite, viz. 1 Tim. 4:3 & Rom. 14:1-3) . If I’m told that priests have to be celibate, on the contrary (issue of non-existence of priests in the N.T. aside), the Scriptures ASSUME that the shepherds of the flock will be married and, what’s more, have children!! (1 Tim.3:2 & 4; Titus 1:6).

So, the ultimate test of what is binding on the believer is always God’s Holy Bible. As Jesus said, Scripture can not be broken (Jn. 10:35).

Really? Where does Jesus support or teach your highlighted words?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Simka:

No

Sorry,but wrong again!

Wrong again. What was established? A compiled Bible? I did check my sources and the last time I checked the canon of Scripture was determined by…ding…ding…ding…SACRED TRADITION!

Ah no! Tell me what sacred writing Peter used in 35 AD to clearly show us the complexity of Trinitarian doctrine? Simka-care to provide that vital piece of information? No offense, but your logic is seriously flawed. Does one learn to write before they speak? Sacred Scripture was adopted into Sacred Tradtion,not as you wish it would have happened.

Again, Simka…WHEN,WHERE, and under WHOSE AUTHORITY was this declared?

Why, Simka’s, of course.

Yep! Denial can be a difficult matter to overcome.

 

[Tomster]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Yep! Denial can be a difficult matter to overcome.

Yep, and in this case, de-nile ain’t a river in Egypt.

 

[Nicea325]

And who determined what the last word is? And how?

Simka,

Like Nicaea, I am eagerly waiting for this clear and absolute declaration and proof from the Early Church that Sola Scriptura was established by Jesus and the Apostles.

Isaiah45:

I have yet to read a single shred of evidence from Simka clearly showing us the early church declared SS as an orthodox teaching from Jesus or the Apostles.

 

[Nicea325]

Yep, and in this case, de-nile ain’t a river in Egypt.

No kidding! Simka simply cannot provide what does not exist.

 

[Tomster]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Yep! Denial can be a difficult matter to overcome.

I just posted on another thread a definition for Gnosticism. When you really think about it, Gnosticism really is the invariable element in every major Christian heresy by its disclaimer that Christ established in the Church a teaching authority to intepret decisively the meaning of the revealed word of God.

If only our non-Catholic friends could see who their real spiritual fathers are.

 

[Nicea325]

I just posted on another thread a definition for Gnosticism. When you really think about it, Gnosticism really is the invariable element in every major Christian heresy by its disclaimer that Christ established in the Church a teaching authority to intepret decisively the meaning of the revealed word of God.

If only our non-Catholic friends could see who their real spiritual fathers are.

Oh dear! They will take offense to it and claim they have no such link or connection with Gnosticism. The old cliche:

Without any authority all hell breaks loose

Ask the Devil “the” witness of witnesses to this problem.

 

[Tomster]

Oh dear! They will take offense to it and claim they have no such link or connection with Gnosticism. The old cliche:

Without any authority all hell breaks loose

Ask the Devil “the” witness of witnesses to this problem.

Satan’s greatest deception is to convince people he doesn’t exist.

 

[Tomster]

And who determined what the last word is? And how?

Simka,

Like Nicaea, I am eagerly waiting for this clear and absolute declaration and proof from the Early Church that Sola Scriptura was established by Jesus and the Apostles.

Me too!

:compcoff:

Ain’t holding my breath for a cogent reply though.

 

[Nicea325]

Satan’s greatest deception is to convince people he doesn’t exist.

And he is doing a wonderful job today-isn’t he?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9
And who determined what the last word is? And how?

Simka,

Like Nicaea, I am eagerly waiting for this clear and absolute declaration and proof from the Early Church that Sola Scriptura was established by Jesus and the Apostles.

Me too!

:compcoff:

:coolinoff: I am starting to get exhausted due to all the waiting.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

A very interesting thing about Sola Scriptura: None of the books of the Bible have a little ending paragraph, which tells us “Hey! Put me in the Bible, okay?” We have to rely on Tradition and the Church for the actual books that should be included in the Bible.