Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Tomster]

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

Yes he is. Why do you think our non-Catholic brothers refer to their ecclessial communions, churches, as invisible. The True Church, the Catholic Church, has always proclaimed we are a visible society, a light upon a hill.

 

[Tomster]

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

Kick back and have a cold root beer. Throw in a little vanilla ice-cream while you’re at it.

:egyptian:

 

[Tomster]

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.

Right you are my man.

Since there’s a break in the action, as they say, I might add there no expiration dates on the Books of the Bible and Papal Encyclicals and Church Council documents.

Sacred Tradition! Ain’t it great?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes he is. Why do you think our non-Catholic brothers refer to their ecclessial communions, churches, as invisible. The True Church, the Catholic Church, has always proclaimed we are a visible society, a light upon a hill.

Hhhm? Invisible? So leads me to wonder why Jesus was not invisible instead of Incarnating in order to be visible amongst tangent creatures?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Wonder why we often hear that “you cannot do that because it is not in Scripture!!!”

Funny thing is, Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture and it doesn’t matter however way you view it.

 

[Nicea325]

Wonder why we often hear that “you cannot do that because it is not in Scripture!!!”

Funny thing is, Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture and it doesn’t matter however way you view it.

What mindless contradictions-eh? SS advocates push and push:

It is not in the Bible,thus it is false.

Yet on the same token, their position of SS is no where to be mentioned? Go figure?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Kick back and have a cold root beer. Throw in a little vanilla ice-cream while you’re at it.

:egyptian:

Really freaky, I normally drink unsweet tea but today I have a cold root beer made with aged vanilla as I am reading this for the first time.

 

[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.

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.)

We both know that is correct.

Trinity because it is a mystery.

SS because it is a man made invention to separate the Body of Christ.

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.”

That is nothing worse than eyes that do not want to see.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken. Why? Because God made the chicken first. Therefore the egg comes from the chicken.

What came first the Church or the Bible?

The Church. Why? Because made the Church first. Therefore the Bible comes from the Church.

From the Church, God gave us the Bible. Not the other way around.

It the easiest way to understand it.

 

[Nicea325]

We both know that is correct.

Trinity because it is a mystery.

SS because it is a man made invention to separate the Body of Christ.

That is nothing worse than eyes that do not want to see.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken. Why? Because God made the chicken first. Therefore the egg comes from the chicken.

What came first the Church or the Bible?

The Church. Why? Because made the Church first. Therefore the Bible comes from the Church.

From the Church, God gave us the Bible. Not the other way around.

It the easiest way to understand it.

The problem I have noticed with many SS advocates is their lack of using LOGIC! I am wondering if Simka will provide what I have been asking for?

 

[ffg]

ffg,
I’m not sure how I should interpret these comments. I have heard many church people insist that it was the church that decided the canon of scripture … but that is not so. To start with, the majority of scripture (the OT) existed in its totality centuries before Jesus came, or there were any Apostles of Christ.

During the Apostolic era, still centuries before there was any codified canon of Scripture, there were the inspired writings … the Word of God. They were recognized as such at a very early stage after their writing. They were Scripture.

Vatican II and even Vatican I both take the stance that it was NOT the church that created, or even decided the NT canon, but that it was God who decided, through His inspiration of the writers, in a similar way to His inspiration of Moses and the Prophets of OT times. The role of the church, in due course, 200 years after the last of the writings, was nothing more than to discover what had been God’s decision in determining what would become known as the NT. But at the outset it did not require an organized church, it only required a gathering of people who were sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and committed to serving God. They preached, and they wrote, and they recognized God’s inspiration in one another.

So I guess what I’m saying is, I’d like to clarify the extent to which you position the church as “authoritative” in creating the NT portion of Scripture. The confidence and the harmony you speak of already existed, irrespective of any subsequent participation in the process by the church.

Thanks for the reply.

All I’m trying to do is cut out the fat. We can talk for hours on he said, she said through the last 2000+ years, or we can look at what happened in world history as we know it through the book(s) in question. We know non-Christian historians confirm the Books are historically accurate.

So my claim that the Church is authoritative derives from this thought process considering your note above…

How can the confidence and harmony exist without a common foundation? Without common ground you get chaos (example: # of Christian denominations, or now from what I’ve learned, muslim’s have the same denomination situation).

I think it’s fair to call that common foundation “Church”. Since Jesus said it was his intention to build one. I think we would agree that a church is a place of common foundation for members.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the NT writers were contributing members of this first Christian Church. I think it’s a stretch to assume they wrote in a bubble outside of said Church and discussion among members therein.

I don’t see how, without what we call a Church, those who wrote about Jesus and his instructions would know they are getting inspired words. How do we know they are inspired? Some authority that we trust.

In the case of the NT writers - The Church Jesus built. Why? Because He is the only person to beat death physically, that guy claiming to be God, proved it. They were members of His Church.

How do we find it? look for Peter, he’s the rock. Is there someone standing on that rock today?

The Church is the funnel for the Holy Spirit to do His inspiring. God is good at jiving divine through what we would know as nature. Similarly, this is how he delivers his graces, through sacraments which use nature / physical things to do divine work.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simka
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.)

Not even close. You are trying to place the doctrine of the Trinity in the same category with the false teachings of SS,which is absurd. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined and declared orthodox in the 4th century and not strictly due because of the Bible-only. The Trinitarian doctrine was not an invention or novel like SS;moreover, it was defined and ratified due to the Arian heresy which caused the church to convene the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to end all controversy of Jesus’ relationship to the Eternal Father.

The Apostles and the very early church learned of the Triune God from Jesus but had no written scripture to pin-point it out. More important, the Triune God had been **defended via Sacred Traditions…**not strictly scripture and long before the Bible was compiled. Finally, it is the CHURCH which gave us the deep theological understanding and complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine. NOT solely the Bible. The Trinity is implicitly taught in the Bible never is it explained in-depth as the church provided it to us over the centuries.

Your error Simka lies with your mind set. You believe because it is mentioned in the Bible,all previous generations prior to mass Bible printing had the same seniments and understanding as you and SS advocates. The only reason you have any understanding of the Trinity in its complexity is because the church over the centuries provided it for us…NOT because of the Bible…a FACT of History!

Finally, one of the major errors many SS display is their profound misunderstanding of doctrinal development. And guess what? SS is NEVER ever mentioned as a doctrine or principle anywhere by ANYONE at any council.

Plus, here is where the whole SS argument implodes:

If SS is a doctrine or principle from the early church as you truly believe,then tell me what compiled Bible was being used in 70 AD? Did it have 66 books? 73 perhaps? 78 perhaps? Maybe 100 books? SS never clearly defines as to how many books it contains and that all doctrines are accountable to it. All SS advocates I have ever met raise their 66 book Bible and shout: SS.

Really?

 

[JonNC]

=Porknpie;10747990]
Jon, do I remember correctly that you would become Catholic if the Orthodox and Catholic could solve the primacy issue? Using the same logic, wouldn’t you have to agree then that the deutercanonicals are inspired and inerrant as both Churches believe they are (understanding that the Orthodox even have more but leave that aside for a minute)? So no universal agreement but much agreement on the deutercanonicals. By who’s authority 1,500 years later is to say that they are not inspired and inerrant?

There is hope then for the Deutercanonicals to be added as inspired and inerrant?

If you are asking me, personally, I have no problem with the D-C’s. The early Church certainly did, as did some Catholics all the way up to and including the discussions at Trent.

Historical view: if not the Catholics, if not the Orthodox…where we both have agreement on 73 books for 1,500 years (2,000 actually)…then by who’s authority is it to say 7 books are not inspired and inerrant?

we look at the historical disputes about them, and accept them in that light. As I said, the Lutheran confessions do not state a specific canon.

In the end, it comes down to a question of authority…who determines what the written Word of God is…what did Christ mean when he said “you are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

Of course it comes down to authority, and Tradition. Did you see my exchange with Constantine TG? How then are we to determine whose Tradition is correct?

That could be the subject of a new thread.

Its probably already happened numerous times.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=CatholicKnight3;10708059]The fact is sola scriptura fails for a variety of reasons.

First let us all aknowledge that the sacred scripture is not being diminished by these claims. However, it is important (if not vital) to put scripture into proper perspective.

One, if a protestant (or any Christian for that matter) believes in scripture alone, then you need to believe the Church is the pillar of all truth. It says this in 1st Timothy 3:15.

And that truth, for the most part comes from scripture.

It actually affirms the role of the church in relation to Gods Law in Acts. It was determined that the NEW authority had the power to change doctrine. If it was “SCRIPTURE ALONE” then the early Church would not have had the AUTHORITY to change the Law of God. Mainly, circumcision. This also goes for a wide variety of the Mosaic Law.

I think I’ve already dispelled that rumor that SS excludes the authority of the Church.

The sola scriptura claims cannot be true. The Church is the authority. Is this not true? Then by what authority did the Church change scriptural LAW?

The authority to teach, even to set doctrine.

The notion that the church has stopped growing, or that there were no issues to be ruled on, or that the church no longer had authority to determine doctrine upon the deaths of the 12 apostles is beyond ridiculous. That would have to be the claim. It is almost as though the Holy Spirit no longer inspired anyone for close to 2000 years.

Who has claimed this?

Not to mention that fact that we know for a fact that Christians did not carry around pocket bibles. Most Christians were illiterate for close to 1600+ years. We know the canon was not really put together until 382AD. What did the early Christians go by for the first 300 or 400 years? SHoulder shrugs are not answers. Cause the answer is they went by the oral traditions. Paul IN SCRIPTURE says to hold fast to the traditions as we have passed them on to you.

Of course they did, oral traditions based on what they were told by the Apostles, which was also written down, if not in its entirety, enough for us to know the Gospel.

There are so many other points to show that God or the Church will not be limited to JUST the writings of Paul.Why? Cause the same Holy Spirit that guided Paul is the same Holy Spirit that guides the Church today.

the question is who is to determine what that which was not written down actually said, and how do we know.

Do we think Peter only wrote 2 letters? Is it wrong for me to presume Peter wrote a lot more than 2? Is it wrong for me to presume that the Holy Spirit guided him in those letters too?

Clearly so!! so, what did Peter say in those unknown but obviously written letters, and how do we know?

The notion of sola scriptura is another claim that does not hold up to scrutiny. At best, it shows how narcissistic humans can still be. Like when we thought the entire universe revolved around us. Imagine that.

Should we discuss, then how the Catholic Church of old handled some discoveries of those times, which were not believed by the Church?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod responses are very interesting.

Basically they believe “The Catholics are wrong, all the other Protestants are wrong… we alone are right.”

So after 2,000 years, God has only protected 2.3 million people from error-- even though LCMS admit the Holy Spirit doesn’t protect them from error.

So if the LCMS believe they’re the only truly correct denomination, but deny that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error (i.e. infallibility), how does an individual LCMS believer really know that the LCMS is true?

In your condescension, please be specific. The method of hermeneutics is of far less importance than the doctrines that come out of it. There is far, far more that we agree upon than we disagree on. As a benchmark, it is often the case that we disagree on setting doctrine by something other than scripture.

Regarding your post, I’d like you to point out one LCMS poster who has resorted to ridicule as you have done here, using as a point of dialogue.

Finally, please identify a post where any of us have stated that we deny that the Holy Spirit protect His Church. There have been a couple of other instances where you have accused of stating something we have not. For example, you accused me of believing that the Catholic Church came out of the “imperial church”, and that Constantine ruined Christianity. Nonsense. The belief is nonsense, and the claim that I hold or stated such a belief is nonsense.
I don’t expect you to agree with me. That’s a given. OTOH, I would have the expectation that you would accept my belief as I’ve stated it, just as I do you and yours.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not even close. You are trying to place the doctrine of the Trinity in the same category with the false teachings of SS,which is absurd. The doctrine of the Trinity was defined and declared orthodox in the 4th century and not strictly due because of the Bible-only. The Trinitarian doctrine was not an invention or novel like SS;moreover, it was defined and ratified due to the Arian heresy which caused the church to convene the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to end all controversy of Jesus’ relationship to the Eternal Father.

The Apostles and the very early church learned of the Triune God from Jesus but had no written scripture to pin-point it out. More important, the Triune God had been **defended via Sacred Traditions…**not strictly scripture and long before the Bible was compiled. Finally, it is the CHURCH which gave us the deep theological understanding and complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine. NOT solely the Bible. The Trinity is implicitly taught in the Bible never is it explained in-depth as the church provided it to us over the centuries.

Your error Simka lies with your mind set. You believe because it is mentioned in the Bible,all previous generations prior to mass Bible printing had the same seniments and understanding as you and SS advocates. The only reason you have any understanding of the Trinity in its complexity is because the church over the centuries provided it for us…NOT because of the Bible…a FACT of History!

Finally, one of the major errors many SS display is their profound misunderstanding of doctrinal development. And guess what? SS is NEVER ever mentioned as a doctrine or principle anywhere by ANYONE at any council.

Plus, here is where the whole SS argument implodes:

If SS is a doctrine or principle from the early church as you truly believe,then tell me what compiled Bible was being used in 70 AD? Did it have 66 books? 73 perhaps? 78 perhaps? Maybe 100 books? SS never clearly defines as to how many books it contains and that all doctrines are accountable to it. All SS advocates I have ever met raise their 66 book Bible and shout: SS.

Really?

Correct!

And we should never interpret an implicit passage of Scriptures with another implicit passage.

In regards to Scriptures, the implicit can only be interpreted through the explicit. And there is so much implicit in Scriptures that it is obvious why God, in His perfect plan, gave us a Church. So that the Holy Spirit can guide Her to help us interpret what Scriptures mean (not what we think it means), just like the Spirit of Truth guided St. Phillip to the eunuch to understand. And just like this same Spirit of Truth guided St. Peter to warn us in his letter:

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Nowhere does it say, take the Scriptures and by yourself with the Holy Spirit you will know everything that Scriptures mean, that we can be our own authority.

A book without someone having written it, someone having read it, and someone having interpreted it, just sits there and can do nothing as it is an inanimate object. It requires a writer, it requires a reader, and it requires an interpreter. In the case of the Bible that interpreter is the Holy Spirit through the Church! With One Truth, not many

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10749701]So here is my issue. If you were Bible Alone and everything is held accountable to Scripture, then shouldn’t that be stated in Scripture? Shouldn’t we clearly see that written down?

Why should it?

If non Catholics would just state that Bible Alone is a tradition of Protestantism then I could respect that, but I am finding it hard for those who believe in Bible Alone to state asmuch. I can believe in Grace Alone and Christ Alone, but Bible Alone just falls short when we see that the opposite is stated clearly in Scripture.

I don’t know about Protestantism, but it is a practice of Lutheranism. In that sense, it is a tradition.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

No doubt. Please tell me where these things can be proved. By what source are they to be documented.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

Interesting. Maybe that was one of the things the apostles didn’t write down. :ehh:

There are many more verses I could post. The Bible declares Bible Alone as being false. As it was stated above, many denominations view Bible Alone in many different ways.** I do not believe the reformers would approve of the way Bible Alone is being taken**.

Oh, absolutely!!! Please see the rule and norm article in the Formula of Concord (Epitome). THAT is what the Reformers believed.

SOOOOO will any Bible Alone believer please state that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant tradition???

I did.

Jon

 

[joe371]

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.

The CC council assembled and defined the Trinitarian dogma in the 4th century, when the Godhead was being attacked by many e.g. Arianism. If you do not agree with this then please specify who in fact did convoke and settle the matter? This was something I studied a lot as a former non-Catholic, but of course I am still opened to other possibilities, if they are believable, and most importantly, historical.

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.

 

[Nicea325]

Correct!

And we should never interpret an implicit passage of Scriptures with another implicit passage.

In regards to Scriptures, the implicit can only be interpreted through the explicit. And there is so much implicit in Scriptures that it is obvious why God, in His perfect plan, gave us a Church. So that the Holy Spirit can guide Her to help us interpret what Scriptures mean (not what we think it means), just like the Spirit of Truth guided St. Phillip to the eunuch to understand. And just like this same Spirit of Truth guided St. Peter to warn us in his letter:

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Nowhere does it say, take the Scriptures and by yourself with the Holy Spirit you will know everything that Scriptures mean, that we can be our own authority.

A book without someone having written it, someone having read it, and someone having interpreted it, just sits there and can do nothing as it is an inanimate object. It requires a writer, it requires a reader, and it requires an interpreter. In the case of the Bible that interpreter is the Holy Spirit through the Church! With One Truth, not many

Unfortunately many people like Simka are blinded by all the bogus written sources trying to prove SS existed in the early church, which is a total distortion of the truth. SS advocates are so desperate trying to prove SS they will take ANY ECF quote and twist it as a smoking gun trying to prove SS. Truly sad how they take the ECF’s works so out-of-context and what they fail to realize that it is so easy to rebuke their nonsense.

 

[joe371]

Unfortunately many people like Simka are blinded by all the bogus written sources trying to prove SS existed in the early church, which is a total distortion of the truth. SS advocates are so desperate trying to SS they will take ANY ECF quote and twist it as a smoking gun trying to prove SS. Truly sad how they take the ECF’s works so out-of-context and what they fail to realize that it is so easy to rebuke their nonsense.

Every ECF that defers to sacred scripture also defers to sacred tradition. I have actually compiled a list so that when SS advocates claim the first one, they will also have to admit the latter. So far, in my search, not one has ever rejected sacred tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

Every ECF that defers to sacred scripture also defers to sacred tradition. I have actually compiled a list so that when SS advocates claim the first one, they will also have to admit the latter. So far, in my search, not one has ever rejected sacred tradition.

Yeah and even better, why is it people like Simka do not bother to provide countless quotes from ECF clearly supporting other beliefs such as:

The Real Presence
Purgatory
Prayer for the Dead
Adoration for the Blessed Sacrament
etc
etc
etc

I thought the ECF were SS believers and adovcates of it?