Why Sola Scriptura fails

[GWright]

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

Jon

Hi there,

Sorry, Jon - “Sola Scriptura” means “Scripture alone”.

You cant claim Scripture alone, and then say there are room for other things.

No - its Scripture alone.

If, instead of scripture alone, Protestants had scripture, reason and tradition - then they would actually be Catholics!

 

[Simka]

This case is considered closed!

Nicea, before you slam the door, can I ask you one last question? It continues to nag at me, so I hope you can help me understand … because on the surface this situation seems so uncharacteristically irrational. Perhaps there is some justification I have overlooked.

In a message I read a few pages ago, a couple of sentences had been quoted from Cyril to show his support for “tradition”. The excerpt was quite brief, but the message writer’s plaudits were plentiful.

Then, I took exactly the same quotation, and enlarged on it by including additional sentences before and after, which had been omitted from the first quotation. I expanded on the very same paragraph in the same lecture, for the specific purpose of showing the broader context. The problem arose when, in that larger context of what Cyril had actually said, it was obvious that tradition, while important, was nonetheless to be grounded in Scripture. Of course, such a conclusion could not be allowed to stand unchallenged. It had to be attacked somehow. But the single criticism voiced in opposition to my broader, contextualized message was “You’re taking it out of context.”

Can somebody explain that to me? What kind of thinking is it, that says a larger, more comprehensive quotation is somehow “out of context”, but the abbreviated text is not? Just curious, ‘cuz I’d hate to think irrational, emotional prejudice was the underlying foundation of the criticism.

Thanx.

 

[Simka]

Hi there,

Sorry, Jon - “Sola Scriptura” means “Scripture alone”.

You cant claim Scripture alone, and then say there are room for other things.

No - its Scripture alone.

It’s easy to draw up a “straw man” then shoot it down; but to hold that Scripture stands alone in authority over tradition does not mean tradition is invalidated, only that it cannot be used to overrule Scripture.

 

[aidanbradypop]

It’s easy to draw up a “straw man” then shoot it down; but to hold that Scripture stands alone in authority over tradition does not mean tradition is invalidated, only that it cannot be used to overrule Scripture.

Verse and Chapter?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s easy to draw up a “straw man” then shoot it down; but to hold that Scripture stands alone in authority over tradition does not mean tradition is invalidated, only that it cannot be used to overrule Scripture.

Well, heh…there is always a great irony when, in an attempt to refute a straw man, the attempted refuter invokes…a straw man.

There is no Sacred Tradition which overrules Scripture.

 

[Simka]

Well, heh…there is always a great irony when, in an attempt to refute a straw man, the attempted refuter invokes…a straw man.

There is no Sacred Tradition which overrules Scripture.

Well, here we are, right back to the start, and with the same confusion of the issue. The fundamental problem that arose in the 1500’s was that Reformers were upset because they perceived that the church was indeed, using (small “t”) tradition to overrule Scripture, in precisely the same manner as the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus’ day had given their traditions precedence to overrule the Word of God.

So, specifically on the issue of salvation, they said that Scripture contained all the knowledge that was necessary. The corollary was, on that particular subject, any tradition was only beneficial if it helped to understand Scripture.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well, here we are, right back to the start, and with the same confusion of the issue. The fundamental problem that arose in the 1500’s was that Reformers were upset because they perceived that the church was indeed, using (small “t”) tradition to overrule Scripture, in precisely the same manner as the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus’ day had given their traditions precedence to overrule the Word of God.

So, specifically on the issue of salvation, they said that Scripture contained all the knowledge that was necessary. The corollary was, on that particular subject, any tradition was only beneficial if it helped to understand Scripture.

Once AGAIN…verse and chapter???

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Simka, if Sola Scriptura is actually true, then how come you cannot determine what books of the Bible are true from it?

 

[Simka]

Simka, if Sola Scriptura is actually true, then how come you cannot determine what books of the Bible are true from it?

SS does not presume on God’s authority.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

So, we have to go directly to God about the actual books in Scripture?

 

[aidanbradypop]

 

[Simka]

Once AGAIN…verse and chapter???

Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?

 

[aidanbradypop]

aidanbradypop;10754327:

Once AGAIN…verse and chapter???

Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?

Answer my question instead of trying to steer attention away from it by asking another question tgat doesn’t even go with the thread please.

I will ask for the third time…where is scripture, verse and chapter, does it proclaim sola scriptura?

 

[Tomster]

I’ll look for it. The fact is that the Lutheran Church uses the 66 books. And even within that we keep in mind the historic disputes regarding some of them. But that does not diminish the fact that we have a high regard for the DC’s as evidenced by the LCMS having a study guide addition of them. The intent is for Lutherans to be knowledgeable of them as they are part of the history of the written word within the Church. Luther and his translation team translated and included them. The reformers saw fit not to establish a specific canon in the confessions.
Pr. Will Weedon, LCMS director of worship is astrong proponent of use and reading of the Apocrypha.
Jon

Even though Pr. Will Weedon might be a strong proponent of use and reading of the Apocrypha, it would still be a take it or leave it proposition for the aveage Lutheran in the pew.

You have to wonder why the reformers saw fit not to establish a specific canon in the confessions too. Perhaps more revelation was on the way?

 

[Tomster]

Simka;10754389:

aidanbradypop;10754327:

Once AGAIN…verse and chapter???

Answer my question instead of trying to steer attention away from it by asking another question tgat doesn’t even go with the thread please.

I will ask for the third time…where is scripture, verse and chapter, does it proclaim sola scriptura?

C’mon, Simka, that should be a piece of cake for you.

 

[Simka]

Simka;10754389:

aidanbradypop;10754327:

Once AGAIN…verse and chapter???

Answer my question … I will ask for the third time…

Ask a relevant question and I will try to answer it. There is no “verse and chapter” confirming SS. Explicit content within Scripture has never been a prerequisite for being Scriptural.

There is no “verse and chapter” confirming a number of doctrines … the Trinity, as an example. Both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture.

 

[aidanbradypop]

aidanbradypop;10754406:

Simka;10754389:

Ask a relevant question and I will try to answer it. There is no “verse and chapter” confirming SS. Explicit content within Scripture has never been a prerequisite for being Scriptural.

There is no “verse and chapter” confirming a number of doctrines … the Trinity, as an example. Both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture.

Exactly!! Glad we agree that there is not one verse or chapter that affirms the theology of SS. There is not even a verse or chapter that even hints to the theology of SS.
Glad we cleared that up. The question was relevant because this thread is about SS. If I asked you why do we drink red wine, then you would have an argument. Just because you cannot answer it does not mean it is not relevant.

The Trinity is a Catholic doctrine. Glad we both agree and believe in it.

May I ask for chapter and verses of Scripture that you can logically derive SS theology? I have ones that kind of shoot it down if you want them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It’s easy to draw up a “straw man” then shoot it down; but to hold that Scripture stands alone in authority over tradition does not mean tradition is invalidated, only that it cannot be used to overrule Scripture.

Sacred Scripture records Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradtion came first, holy writ records what is already taught and believed, and is already taught by Oral Tradtion, becomes the faith expressed in practice which is handed down by Sacred Tradition, then the letters are sent out to church’s of what is taught and practiced.

One does not over-rule the other. You need both sacred Tradtion, Sacred Scripture and the apostle (magesterium) to hand these down in every age. These are the Pillar and foundation of Truth which is the Church, not scripture alone.

Peace be with you

 

[pablope]

aidanbradypop;10754406:

Simka;10754389:

Ask a relevant question and I will try to answer it. There is no “verse and chapter” confirming SS. Explicit content within Scripture has never been a prerequisite for being Scriptural.

There is no “verse and chapter” confirming a number of doctrines … the Trinity, as an example. Both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture.

Some correction…The Trinity was defined by a council, by authority of that council and the bishops who were in that Council…and the whole church accepted it, and the laity knew what to believe regarding the Trinity.

SS is a mental exercise to try to justify using Scripture, no church council defines it, it does not unify the church but instead causes splitting due to private interpetations…me and my Bible…and there is not one protestant understanding of SS. Can you provide a Reformer who definitely gave a definition of SS?

 

[Tomster]

Simka;10754440:

aidanbradypop;10754406:

Some correction…The Trinity was defined by a council, by authority of that council and the bishops who were in that Council…and the whole church accepted it, and the laity knew what to believe regarding the Trinity.

SS is a mental exercise to try to justify using Scripture, no church council defines it, it does not unify the church but instead causes splitting due to private interpetations…me and my Bible…and there is not one protestant understanding of SS. Can you provide a Reformer who definitely gave a definition of SS?

:compcoff: