Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Simka]

Simka, the SS Pastor down the street would disagree with you…as would many others in town…and you are all using the same bible. Why is the Holy Spirit leading you to different Truths?

What about post 160…clear examples of the Church using Tradition to settle competing interpretations of scripture. The deposit of faith is scripture and Tradition.

(1) There are many different truths, Pork … perhaps the problem is, we tend not to get so hung up on the precise details, and to lump together a number of similar teachings under the same banner, when we ought to separate them.

How about, "“SS 1600”, “SS 1700”, “SS 2013”, etc?

I am referring specifically to what I understand to be the original expression of the doctrinal principles underlying SS, as articulated by reformers in the 16th century. I accept that since then, others have wanted to expand the principle. So long as they’re using the Bible as the final authority in determining doctrine, I have no problem with that … whatever catch-phrase they want to use to refer to their position.

(2) Of course, tradition is an excellent tool with which to settle competing interpretations of scripture. As I mentioned in another post, knowing what the church’s interpretation of a particular passage has been over the last 2000 years gives wonderful insight. It doesn’t rule out a modern-day interpretation, applied to current affairs that were unknown 100 years ago. In my understanding, that’s not what the SS controversy is about.

 

[JonNC]

Depending upon which Protestant you ask. Different Protestants have different definitions of SS.

True. I speak as a Lutheran, however.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Doesn’t SOLA mean SOLE, or ONLY?

If Scriptrue were the SUPREME authority, wouldn’t it be called Supremam Scriptura???

Yes. Alone, in this case, as the only final norm.

Jon

 

[Simka]

I have encountered many people (mostly evangelicals) who like to bash the Church for our having authority OTHER than the Bible. As I’ve said before, Sola Scriptura = Scripture ALONE.

By saying that Scripture Alone is the HIGHEST authority, is that an acknoweldgement that there are OTHER authorities?

Absolutely !!!

YOU would limit the scope of SS to the matter of doctrinal teaching on salvation, explicitly??? Is that a commonly held belief? That isn’t how I understand Sola Scriptura.

Well, as I said, the words are a slogan, or a catch-phrase. I derive my understanding of what it means, from the expression of it (though the title is not used) in the 16th century, when it was a rallying cry for the reformers.

“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.”

Jesus did not leave a book to “tend His sheep;” did He? To me, as I understand it, that would put the Church as a higher authority. Jesus being the HighEST Authority…

You might think that, but surely that is dependent upon the Church remaining true to its calling. That there were abuses of church authority in the middle ages suggests perhaps that it was not remaining as true as Jesus wanted. Moreover, when in Jesus’ day religious authorities allowed their traditions to take precedence over the teaching of Scripture, He came down on them pretty hard. So there are many who would say, even if the church once held a parallel authority with Scripture, the church’s abdication of responsibility was also an abdication of authority.

 

[PRmerger]

Moreover, when in Jesus’ day religious authorities allowed their traditions to take precedence over the teaching of Scripture, He came down on them pretty hard.

There is no teaching derived from Sacred Tradition which takes precedence over the teachings of Scripture, Simka.

 

[Nicea325]

pablope;10762635:

Why was it that the Bereans were held in such high esteem?

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

The above passage was not written in reference to SS. St.Paul was not holding them to the test of SS.

The above is another verse SS try to use tp prove SS.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. Alone, in this case, as the only final norm.

Jon

Do you really mean, Jon, that a particular communion’s interpretation of a particular Scripture verse is “the only final norm”?

 

[JonNC]

Do you really mean, Jon, that a particular communion’s interpretation of a particular Scripture verse is “the only final norm”?

No. I mean that a particular communion’s doctrinal teaching must conform to scripture.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No. I mean that a particular communion’s doctrinal teaching must conform to scripture.

Jon

I don’t see how this works in practicality, Jon.

If Scripture is the final norm, how does it arbitrate between 2 different communion’s differing (and even contrary) interpretations of Scripture? How can an inanimate object, without a will and intellect, be an arbiter?

 

[JonNC]

I don’t see how this works in practicality, Jon.

If Scripture is the final norm, how does it arbitrate between 2 different communion’s differing (and even contrary) interpretations of Scripture? How can an inanimate object, without a will and intellect, be an arbiter?

If your asking about hermeneutics, sure, it is the Church that has the role to teach.

Jon

 

[rfournier103]

Well, as I said, the words are a slogan, or a catch-phrase. I derive my understanding of what it means, from the expression of it (though the title is not used) in the 16th century, when it was a rallying cry for the reformers.

You might think that, **but surely that is dependent upon the Church remaining true to its calling. **

Bold is mine. Says who?

That there were abuses of church authority in the middle ages suggests perhaps that it was not remaining as true as Jesus wanted. Moreover, when in Jesus’ day religious authorities allowed their traditions to take precedence over the teaching of Scripture, He came down on them pretty hard. So there are many who would say, even if the church once held a parallel authority with Scripture, the church’s abdication of responsibility was also an abdication of authority.

Who has the authority to take away the authority that Jesus imparted to the Church? Martin Luther? Hanry VIII? I don’t think they outrank Jesus and HIS authority.

I freely acknowledge there were abuses in the middle ages, but if reform was needed (and it was), then reform the Church. Don’t abandon it. I don’t see how that solves anything…

And 1 Tim. 3:15 hasn’t changed. Regardless of what any “reformer” says. The Church is STILL the pillar and ground of truth. Abuses can happen. That’s because MEN are involved. Jesus selected Judas knowing full well that he was a traitorous snake. Corruption has been around since ye olde biblical times. That didn’t lessen Jesus’s authority, did it?

Christ’s Church is perfect. Men… not so much.

 

[PRmerger]

If your asking about hermeneutics, sure, it is the Church that has the role to teach.

Jon

I’m not sure.

Isn’t it your position that hermeneutics is essentially what SS is?

SS = a “hermeneutic principle”?

 

[JonNC]

=rfournier103;10763225]
Who has the authority to take away the authority that Jesus imparted to the Church? Martin Luther? Hanry VIII? I don’t think they outrank Jesus and HIS authority.

They sure don’t. BTW, Luther had no particular authority in the early Evangelical churches. The question is, who is His authority?

I freely acknowledge there were abuses in the middle ages, but if reform was needed (and it was), then reform the Church. Don’t abandon it. I don’t see how that solves anything…

I agree, but that was 500 years ago. The question for us today, is what do we do to restore unity in His Church? How do we dialogue with one another? More importantly, how do our leaders dialogue with one another.

And 1 Tim. 3:15 hasn’t changed. Regardless of what any “reformer” says. The Church is STILL the pillar and ground of truth.

agreed!

Abuses can happen. That’s because MEN are involved. Jesus selected Judas knowing full well that he was a traitorous snake. Corruption has been around since ye olde biblical times. That didn’t lessen Jesus’s authority, did it?

Not at all.

Christ’s Church is perfect. Men… not so much.

I notice the second part of this every day - in the mirror.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Simka;10761086:

Well…so far you have made statements…so where is the proof of your statemetn…where is the proof asked of you by Nicea?

Simka has provided information,but unfortunately it does not support his statements.

 

[Nicea325]

What authority would you accept, to make the declaration I gave, above? If I cite Cyril, for example, who in his lectures to new believers instructed them,
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

This excerpt appears in *A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church *(Oxford: Parker, 1845), “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril” Lecture 4.17. How would you paraphrase the last two lines, say the same thing in other words?

Or, as J. N. D. Kelly reports *Early Christian Doctrines *(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46,]
“The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis”.

I doubt your sincerity, Nicea, because as you will recall, I tried this once … gave you a significant list of quoted writings, the content of which you obviously didn’t like. Your response was to accuse me of taking each one “out of context”, and eventually to insist that I stop!

I have no idea how I can provide excerpts from statements made by Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Irenaeus, and Tertullian, without exposing myself all over again to that same accusation. I can, as above, give you the names and the authors of the history books in which these works have been compiled, Catholic writers who, based on their analysis, come to the same conclusions I do … but if you don’t like what they say, you have shown repeatedly that you will use any means at your disposal to dismiss them out of hand … or, as you said of yourself, “I will not believe”. So, apart from your personal amusement, what purpose do I have in continuing to play your silly games?

Please anwer the following:

Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard

One more time: WHEN,WHERE and BY WHOSE authority was the above ever declared to be the standard?

Likewise…

BTW: In regards to Gregory of Nyssa, you posted:

Taken in context, their views are consistent with Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote:* “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”)/I]

1.Did Nyssa say those words because he was advocating or defending SS?
2 Tell me what did he mean by:…harmonize with the intention of those writings. What writings?
3. Why did Nyssa say those words and to whom were they directed at?
4. What was going on at the time,which compellled him to convey such words?
5.What reasons did he have to defend Scripture in such a fashion in his above statement?
6. Kindly show me where Nyssa or any ECF ever say or teach: Scripture over everything else?
7., Please present one ECF who exhaustively writes on defending,promoting or justifies ONLY-Scripture and nothing else to defend the faith?*

 

[KEP1983]

pablope;10762635:

Why was it that the Bereans were held in such high esteem?

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

First off, Acts 17 doesn’t say “they appealed to scripture alone.” So the Bereans still don’t provide a positive prooftext for sola scriptura.

Second, the Bereans were Jews, not Christians. If I were evangelizing Jews (which I have), I would also use the OT first. It would make no sense to appeal to apostolic authority which a Jew doesn’t believe in.

Third, the process of evangelizing Jews says nothing about how or what Christians should believe. It says nothing about what the Jews believed AFTER becoming Christians. It certainly doesn’t say they still remained reading only the Scriptures. In fact, they followed the Apostles and the Elders.

Jimmy Akin covered the Bereans from a different angle here, too:

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rWkIr-A3xa8
jimmyakin.com/2012/09/sola-scriptura-the-bereans.html

 

[KEP1983]

True. I speak as a Lutheran, however.
Jon

Different Lutherans have different interpretations of Sola Scriptura, too.

 

[Nicea325]

Simka;10762705:

First off, Acts 17 doesn’t say “they appealed to scripture alone.” So the Bereans still don’t provide a positive prooftext for sola scriptura.

Second, the Bereans were Jews, not Christians. If I were evangelizing Jews (which I have), I would also use the OT first. It would make no sense to appeal to apostolic authority which a Jew doesn’t believe in.

Third, the process of evangelizing Jews says nothing about how or what Christians should believe. It says nothing about what the Jews believed AFTER becoming Christians. It certainly doesn’t say they still remained reading only the Scriptures. In fact, they followed the Apostles and the Elders.

Jimmy Akin covered the Bereans from a different angle here, too:

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rWkIr-A3xa8

jimmyakin.com/2012/09/sola-scriptura-the-bereans.html

Problem with SS advocates is that they do not take the words of Scripture and the church fathers at face value. They want Scripture and the ECF’s to say what they want it to say.

 

[KEP1983]

Yeah, I know … this is a distinctly Protestant state of mind … sorry about that.

It’s understandable. It took me 3 or 4 years to finally admit I was wrong and become a Catholic. It’s hard to accept that the “Whore of Babylon” is actually the Church founded by Christ, I know.

 

[benjohnson]

KEP1983;10763397:

Problem with SS advocates is that they do not take the words of Scripture and the church fathers at face value. They want Scripture and the ECF’s to say what they want it to say.

I never would have though that this would be limited to SS advocates. If so, then I congratulate you on your unique abilities.