Why Sola Scriptura fails

[joe371]

Simka
No, it was not SS that went on for centuries (although the teaching of the early church leaders was a forerunner of SS). And it’s a bit more than mere guesswork. The teaching by church leaders that doctrine was to be accepted or rejected on the basis of whether it was supported by Scripture … was common practice by the middle of the 2nd century, and it continued for centuries.

Just sacred scripture, as opposed to sacred scripture + sacred tradition? If just sacred scripture, then, is it safe to say that those church leaders (regarding doctrine being accepted or rejected on the basis of whether it was supported by Scripture) were catholic leaders, belonging to the Catholic Church, guided by the holy spirit?

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie;10761213:

A writing can be inspired and inerrant, and when, as early as the 1st and 2nd century, church leaders and the Apostles themselves recognized and declared certain writings to be inspired, those writings were widely accepted … as Scripture, as the Word of God. The Word of God was acknowledged to have its own authority in all matters pertaining to doctrine.

Simka,

First, let me say…good for you in participating on CAF. We do really appreciate your being here. Truly truly truly I say this with sincerity.

On post 610…I don’t think you commented on this posting. I highlighted with writings from the ECF how the Church appealed to Tradition to settle disputes, not scripture alone. In fact, there was an appeal to Tradition as there was misinterpretation of scripture. We can see this in the bible itself.

Acts 8 (Philip instructs the Eunuch…scripture alone? I don’t think so)
30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.

2 Peter 3 (Even immediately in the early Church, we can see people not understanding scripture…in fact they are already twisting it…it takes the Church authority, the first Pope, to highlight and correct this. Scripture & Tradition are in place)
14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

Scripture can only be inspired and inerrant. The Church is the outside authority that not only determines what scripture is…but interprets scripture infallibly. It’s not scripture OR Tradition…it’s both. Take a look at 610 and tell me your thoughts. Those ECF’s that were referring to “scripture” were the early members of the Catholic Church…there was only one Church…One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic…which raises another interesting point…

Just as the early Church was proclaiming what was “scripture”, those same people were referring using the word Catholic Church to distinguish those following the one apostolic faith from those that were not. By 110 ad, it wasn’t simply and only “Universal” in meaning, it was calling out the true followers of Christ.

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).

Simka, does your Church have a proper Eucharist and Bishops with Apostolic succession? Curious I am…what does your Church believe about the Eucharist…the True Body and Blood of Christ or Symbolic?

Pork

 

[Simka]

In your opinion, was the practice of sola scriptura practised and endorsed by the apostles, and ultimately passed on to their successors? Kind of just a yes-or-no answer brother.

Also, did the apostles belong to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, one of the Protestant Churches, or all of them i.e. the invisible church? No sarcasm, I promise. These were just questions I asked myself long ago.

(1) In my opinion, no. SS was an unknown slogan back then.

(2) The Apostles were Christian. If they gave their church a name, apart from the Body of Christ, I have no idea. Before it was an institution, it was a movement. Originally, in Scripture, it was called “The Way”. Some while later (also recorded in Scripture), believers became known as Christian.

I do not know when the church first became known as “catholic” – that is, universal – much less when the moniker was attached as part of its name.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you really unaware that the church recognized inspired Scripture, even during Apostolic times?

Could you please answer my question posed earlier: how did the church recognize Scripture?

And by “church” do you mean the every day folks who met in people’s homes and prayed together?

Or do you mean the bishops?

 

[Simka]

First, let me say…good for you in participating on CAF. We do really appreciate your being here. Truly truly truly I say this with sincerity.

Thank you, Pork … I receive your comments gratefully, and I accept your sincerity; but I’m not sure many agree with you.

I have just read your reference to Post 610. I’ll have a look and get back to you in separate post.

The Church is the outside authority that not only determines what scripture is…but interprets scripture infallibly.

Well, see, this is where our differences start. Your statement here disagrees with the Vatican statements which declare that it is God who determines what Scripture is, and that the role of the Church is limited to discovering the decisions God made. I’m not persuaded that the Catholic Church is the only entity ever to make that discovery.

Just as the early Church was proclaiming what was “scripture”, those same people were referring using the word Catholic Church to distinguish those following the one apostolic faith from those that were not. By 110 ad, it wasn’t simply and only “Universal” in meaning, it was calling out the true followers of Christ.

So, did the adjective “Catholic” take a different definition than “universal”, or were the terms synonymous in their reference to the “world wide Body of Christ”?

… does your Church have a proper Eucharist and Bishops with Apostolic succession? Curious I am…what does your Church believe about the Eucharist…the True Body and Blood of Christ or Symbolic?

When I was attending an Anglican congregation, I would have answered “Yes, it does”. The Anglican Church maintains its Catholic stance, but as English Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Its belief concerning this aspect of the Eucharist is specified in Article XXVIII (that is, #28) of its 39 Articles:
“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”

Incidentally, bearing more on the matter of SS, Article VI says,
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

This is how the C of E articulated the SS principle as a doctrinal statement hundreds of years ago.

 

[Tomster]

Simka…after the Jerusalem council…the church could not hold a council because Christians were on the run from persecution…no bible, gathering of writings in one place…there was no printing press yet, few could read and write…copying was by hand.

 

[Tomster]

Guesswork? What am I guessing at? Sorry, Tomster, I don’t understand the meaning of your criticism.

The OT was recognized as Inspired long before Christ and His Apostles walked the earth. The interpretations were accomplished by religious leaders through the ages. No doubt some of them were “Inspired” but not every passage in Scripture was considered so mysterious as to defy understanding without an “infallible” interpreter.

God’s inspiration of the Scriptures that emerged during the Apostolic era were similarly recognized. And today you and I can read Paul’s letters, for example (well, the translations, anyway), and interpret the vast majority of what he says, without putting ourselves at risk. (Some of it is more mysterious than the rest.)

I’m not infallible. I can make mistakes … but that shouldn’t preclude my prayerful reading, study, and learning. And I always welcome the insight and correction of an inspired teacher in helping me to better understand what Scripture means by what it says.
Teaching … what a gift that is!

We all appreciate your admission that you are not infallible and the admission that you do make mistakes. Thank you. And, no one is denying you the right to prayerfully reading, studying and learning. The Catholic Church encourages, and strongly I might add, all of her children to do the same. However, it should be easy for you to understand that conflicting interpretations of biblical passages, say John 6 for example, require a court of last resort. You should be able to see this since you admit that you are open to reading, studying and learning.

So, since the Bible is in fact the infallible word of God, as I am sure we all believe, why is it so hard for you accept the fact that an infallible interpreter is needed to settle the conflicting interpretations of Scriptures that circulate throughout all of the non-Catholic, Christian world?

 

[Simka]

Could you please answer my question posed earlier: how did the church recognize Scripture? And by “church” do you mean the every day folks who met in people’s homes and prayed together? Or do you mean the bishops?

(1) I don’t know.
(2) I mean the body of believers who had been baptized into Christ. By the time the seven deacons were appointed (Acts 6), this group may have numbered 20,000 people.
(3) Not exclusively

 

[PRmerger]

(1) I don’t know.

I appreciate your honesty.

You do realize that you are then providing an argument supporting SS with “I don’t know”.
You are proposing that people just knew what Scripture was, which is…

a ridiculous assertion.

The Catholic answer is: they knew what was Scripture because the Church told them what was Scripture.

Which is, incidentally, the ONLY way you know what’s Scripture as well.

 

[Simka]

We all appreciate your admission that you are not infallible and the admission that you do make mistakes. Thank you. And, no one is denying you the right to prayerfully reading, studying and learning. The Catholic Church encourages, and strongly I might add, all of her children to do the same. However, it should be easy for you to understand that conflicting interpretations of biblical passages, say John 6 for example, require a court of last resort. You should be able to see this since you admit that you are open to reading, studying and learning.

So, since the Bible is in fact the infallible word of God, as I am sure we all believe, why is it so hard for you accept the fact that an infallible interpreter is needed to settle the conflicting interpretations of Scriptures that circulate throughout all of the non-Catholic, Christian world?

I am fully satisfied that the Holy Spirit will lead me to an interpretation of any part of Scripture He wants me to understand. And I am convinced that He is as infallible as any other Interpreter you might propose.

Yes, there are difficult passages; but if the Holy Spirit was the inspiration behind their writing, who better to interpret for me?

 

[KEP1983]

As the original poster, I came back to the thread to check out any new replies. And it turned into another 20 or so pages! haha. wow.

I find the Protestants trying to defend SS to be funny. I can’t believe I used to defend that position vigorously.

Satan was very clever when he inspired the Protestant Revolt. (And no, I’m not saying Luther, Calvin, et al are in Hell, I’m simply saying that such a huge division in the Church is likely first inspired by Satan). Luther couldn’t have seen this far into the future to realize the beast he was unleashing. But Satan knew that Christ’s following words were infallible, " A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand" (Mark 3:24). Rather than trying to send another world empire to crush and eliminate God’s people (which never worked), he decided to divide Christendom instead. And then the Kingdom of Christ, once divided, “cannot stand.”

And we see that the Enlightenment quickly sprang forth from the fertile soil left by the Protestant Revolt. And the Enlightenment inevitably led to Secular Humanism and Atheism, which destroys the Church not through force, but through appealing to peoples concupiscence and hedonistic pleasures.

 

[Simka]

I appreciate your honesty.

You do realize that you are then providing an argument supporting SS with “I don’t know”.
You are proposing that people just knew what Scripture was …

The Catholic answer is: they knew what was Scripture because the Church told them what was Scripture.

Which is, incidentally, the ONLY way you know what’s Scripture as well.

It’s unfortunate that we have come so far afield from the topic of SS; because that’s not really the issue you’re now contesting.

I can’t pretend to offer a methodology by which the early church identified what God had inspired. I wasn’t there. But it happened. And when the institution of the church met in a 4th century council, they affirmed that these early Christians were right.

 

[KEP1983]

I am fully satisfied that the Holy Spirit will lead me to an interpretation of any part of Scripture He wants me to understand. And I am convinced that He is as infallible as any other Interpreter you might propose.

Yes, there are difficult passages; but if the Holy Spirit was the inspiration behind their writing, who better to interpret for me?

So when Luther and Calvin both interpreted the same Scripture and came to different conclusions, which interpretation was inspired by the Holy Spirit and which was not?

Let me put this into a slightly more philosophical question:

Let’s assume that A, B, and C are true interpretations of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit, and that X, Y, and Z are the converse false interpretations of Scripture not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If one Protestant Theologian such as Luther teaches A, B, and Z; and another theologian such as Calvin teaches X, Y, and C; and both theologians provide Scriptural support, exegesis, and hermeneutics to prove their interpretation; how do we as laity know which interpretation is the correct one and which is not? How do we discern which is A, B, and C, and which is X, Y, and Z?

 

[KEP1983]

It’s unfortunate that we have come so far afield from the topic of SS; because that’s not really the issue you’re now contesting.

I can’t pretend to offer a methodology by which the early church identified what God had inspired. I wasn’t there. But it happened. And when the institution of the church met in a 4th century council, they affirmed that these early Christians were right.

An admission that you don’t know your Early Church history. Neither did I as a Protestant. That’s ok.

You can’t just say that a 4th century Council simply affirmed that the early Christians were right. There were numerous books accepted by many Christians that didn’t make it into the Canon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Earliest_Christian_communities

 

[Tomster]

Simka, this is something for your consideration. See if you can find the reasonableness of what I am about to say.

From the Catholic perspective, we ask ourselves what must we believe? The answer is disarmingly simple: By divine and catholic faith everything must believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object or belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.

But there is more to this answer than meets the eye. So many things are said that it will be worth numbering them in sequence.

1. Besides being divine, faith is also to be catholic (lower case), in that a believer is to accept everything that God has revealed. Hence faith should be universal (catholica) and not a selective of what a person chooses to believe.
2. Through what channels has divine revelation been communicated? Literally “in the written or handed-down word of God.”
3. There is nothing ambiguous about how a Catholic knows what to believe: whatever the Church proposes as having been revealed. Christ, therefore, not only committed to the Church the fullness of his word, but through the Church he continues to transmit the Gospel of salvation. He promised He would not leave us orphans.
4. Then, to remove every shade of ambiguity, Catholics are informed how the Church offers her adherents the word of God. The transmission occurseither by way of occasional, solemn teaching, as in the case of an ecumenical council (the Council of Jerusalem as stated in the Scriptures is the prototype); or by means of the perennial exercise of the Church’s official teaching authority. It is especially this second form of transmission, found in the ordinary and universal teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, that has come under assault by those who want nothing less than solemn definitions as an index of obligation to believe.

What abouth the duty of a Catholic to remain steadfast in the faith that he professes? The question revolves around the nature of certainty in faith. The Lateran Council stated the uniform tradition of the Church, “that faith cannot admit any error.”

Now the problem was more subtle. Would a Catholic ever be justified, because of difficulties against his faith, to doubt or renounce his beliefs? The Council replied by comparing two classes of people, namely Catholics and others. Their respective situations are not the same: “Those who have accepted the faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just reason for changing that faithor calling into doubt.” Why not? Because God is never wanting with His grace, and because the evidence for accepting this faith is such that a Catholic does not have objectively valid grounds for doubting or denying what, perhaps subjectively, he finds trouble in believing.

This is very reasonable, clear-cut and understandable if you think about it.

 

[Tomster]

So when Luther and Calvin both interpreted the same Scripture and came to different conclusions, which interpretation was inspired by the Holy Spirit and which was not?

Let me put this into a slightly more philosophical question:

Let’s assume that A, B, and C are true interpretations of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit, and that X, Y, and Z are the converse false interpretations of Scripture not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If one Protestant Theologian such as Luther teaches A, B, and Z; and another theologian such as Calvin teaches X, Y, and C; and both theologians provide Scriptural support, exegesis, and hermeneutics to prove their interpretation; how do we as laity know which interpretation is the correct one and which is not? How do we discern which is A, B, and C, and which is X, Y, and Z?

This really needs to be explained by Simka.

 

[Simka]

Just sacred scripture, as opposed to sacred scripture + sacred tradition? If just sacred scripture, then, is it safe to say that those church leaders (regarding doctrine being accepted or rejected on the basis of whether it was supported by Scripture) were catholic leaders, belonging to the Catholic Church, guided by the holy spirit?

Joe, I need you to clarify for me how you differentiate between “tradition” and “sacred tradition”. As a non-Catholic, I am unclear about the distinction.

I do not challenge the idea of holding to church traditions. Many are still taught today in Christian churches around the world today (and not only by the Catholic Church). But these traditions - as important as they were and are - ought never to be allowed to replace the authority of Scripture in determining doctrine.

Traditions may be used to assist in understanding Scripture … all the better. How the church has understood a particular passage for the last 2000 years can be quite helpful today. BUT… although the Church is a “witness and a keeper of Holy Writ” it ought not to decree anything contrary to, or in addition to, Scripture, that is necessary to be believed for salvation.

 

[Tomster]

It’s unfortunate that we have come so far afield from the topic of SS; because that’s not really the issue you’re now contesting.

I can’t pretend to offer a methodology by which the early church identified what God had inspired. I wasn’t there. But it happened. And when the institution of the church met in a 4th century council, they affirmed that these early Christians were right.

We have not “come so far afield from the topic of SS”. We are right at the heart of the matter.

Thanks for not pretending. Many non-Catholics on these message boards do just that.

And, yes, it “did happen”. In fact, it infallibly happened.

 

[PRmerger]

(2) I mean the body of believers who had been baptized into Christ. By the time the seven deacons were appointed (Acts 6), this group may have numbered 20,000 people.

So, just to be clear: you are saying that these 20,000 people had the authority/ability to read a text that talked of religious matters and discern whether it was theopneustos or not?

BTW: this question is very, very much on topic so it’s not appropriate to duck out of this question by appealing to “this is not on topic”.

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you, Pork … I receive your comments gratefully, and I accept your sincerity; but I’m not sure many agree with you.

I’ll let others speak for themselves individually but my sense is everyone responding to you feels the same I do…they are here to share the faith you…even when there is disagreement, there should be charity…and at times we fail to do so.

Well, see, this is where our differences start. Your statement here disagrees with the Vatican statements which declare that it is God who determines what Scripture is, and that the role of the Church is limited to discovering the decisions God made. I’m not persuaded that the Catholic Church is the only entity ever to make that discovery.

To clarify … God reveals what we need to know for our salvation…and he has done so progressively through time beginning with Adam. The Catechism teaches that:

81 Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

and

81 “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

So, did the adjective “Catholic” take a different definition than “universal”, or were the terms synonymous in their reference to the “world wide Body of Christ”?

Simka, great question. Read the page here from the catechism The word certainly means universal but was used by the early 2nd century to distinguish the those holding to the apostolic faith and that could show apostolic succession.

We can see this in the early church writings (see previous post from St Ignatius in 110ad)

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).

This quote here seems appropriate to mention given our discussion. Catholic does not just mean universal but as the Church, holding true to the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ…is True.

“You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word’s signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations.” Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403).

When I was attending an Anglican congregation, I would have answered “Yes, it does”. The Anglican Church maintains its Catholic stance, but as English Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Its belief concerning this aspect of the Eucharist is specified in Article XXVIII (that is, #28) of its 39 Articles:
**Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, **overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

Christ said he would lead his Church (Catholic) to all Truth…and he did not say he would do it by scripture alone…although scripture plainly says the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Nothing repugnant…Christ can not lead his Church to error on faith and morals.

Incidentally, bearing more on the matter of SS, Article VI says,
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

The bible says scripture is profitable for teaching and instruction… it does not say “it containeth all things necessary to salvation” (materially sufficient - yes we would agree, but not formally sufficient.) See the short article by Jimmy Akin

Have a nice weekend. Off to read “Being Logical” by DQ McInerny (have to do so for my Philosophy class) before a Dr Who party tonight! What fun.