Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Nicea325]

Where in scripture does it state that for one to be saved, he must abhor juice and drink only wine in the Eucharist? I understand the details of the Last Supper, but do you insist that even a repentant alcoholic must not substitute juice, but must drink the wine, or he cannot be saved?

Remember, sola scriptura applies to the doctrine of Salvation.

In truth, very few Protestant churches follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It was a fundamental principle of reformers in the 16th century.

In the Episcopal Church of the USA, there are leaders who teach that the Bible is an interesting historical document which details how an ancient people related to God as they understood him. They give it no relevance for today. Others say, “We wrote the Bible, and we can re-write it.” In other words, Scripture has no authority.

If I understand you correctly, you would have the Catholic Church assume authority for correcting mistakes in the written Word of God, rather than being corrected by it. Please tell me this is not what you mean.

And where does Scripture state one can drink anything else other than wine? No where! Your position clears proves how Sola Scriptura is fasle.

Show me one verse stating everything must be taught explicitly from the Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

Simka:

It seems to me that so much of this discussion is taking place without a reasonable understanding of what is – and what is not – contained within the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Which begs the question:

Which denomination out of hundreds upon hundreds has the “official” declaration of what is-and what is not- contained within the doctrine sola scriptura?

BTW: Many denominations do not even consider SS a doctrine,but merely a norm or praxis Who is right and who is wrong?.

The doctrine states that “the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.” It does not mandate how one must extract that knowledge. It does not insist that a man must ignore authoritative teaching or interpretation. It does not say that “scripture is the sole rule and norm”.

First show me where this doctrine of SS was taught from Jesus or the 12 Apostles? Where is it defended by anyone in the first 7 ecumenical councils? Second, where does Scripture teach:

the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Sola scriptura claims that only those doctrines that are found directly within the scriptures – or indirectly by using logical deduction and reasoning from scripture – are required for one’s salvation.

Again…where does Scripture teach this position? Show me where the doctrine of the canon of Scripture is mentioned in the Bible?

Sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. It simply requires that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God

.

Again-where is the Word of God binded to written words alone?

The alternative to sola scriptura is to allow the written word of God to be corrected by some other, higher authority.

Wrong! Christ founded His Church with authority,never stated a compiled Bible containing the Word of God would be the only or the highest authority.

 

[Nicea325]

Why does the requirement for an objective interpretation invalidate sola scriptura? Do you understand what the doctrine means?

And who determined it is a doctrine? God? The Apostles? Who?

 

[EIF5A]

Scripture does not go against the truth. Thus, anything that goes against Scripture cannot be true. No human, doctrine, or tradition can go against the written revelations from God through people.

Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Nicea325]

Scripture does not go against the truth. Thus, anything that goes against Scripture cannot be true. No human, doctrine, or tradition can go against the written revelations from God through people.

Can we at least agree on that?

Yes,but that is not the core of the argument against SS. My first question to SS advocates is simple:

WHO determined it is an ORTHODOX doctrine taught from the get-go? God? 12 Apostles? WHO made the determination?

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture does not go against the truth. Thus, anything that goes against Scripture cannot be true. No human, doctrine, or tradition can go against the written revelations from God through people.

Can we at least agree on that?

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Why does the requirement for an objective interpretation invalidate sola scriptura? Do you understand what the doctrine means?

And who determined it is a doctrine? God? The Apostles? Who?

Interestingly, of late, I have learned that some advocates of SS proclaim that it is not a doctrine, but rather that SS is a "hermeneutic principle’.

Curious, this.

 

[EIF5A]

Interestingly, of late, I have learned that some advocates of SS proclaim that it is not a doctrine, but rather that SS is a "hermeneutic principle’.

Curious, this.

Is that the same as saying “Every doctrine or tradition should be consistent with and conform to Scripture”?

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Where in scripture does it state that for one to be saved, he must abhor juice and drink only wine in the Eucharist? I understand the details of the Last Supper, but do you insist that even a repentant alcoholic must not substitute juice, but must drink the wine, or he cannot be saved?

Where does it say we must drink the blood of Christ? No, the CC has determined that a believer does not need to consume the wine in order to take all of the Eucharist. This has been a contention in the Church, and just like the Church in the Council of Jerusalem determined doctrine in regards to the Mosaic Law, they determined the qualifications of taking the Eucharist. If a person does consume the blood of Christ it WILL NOT BE anything other than wine. It will not be substituted with Welch’s Grape juice.

Also read 1st Corinthians ch 11 in regards to the Holy Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

Is that the same as saying “Every doctrine or tradition should be consistent with and conform to Scripture”?

I don’t know.

If that’s what SS as a “hermeneutic principle” means, then no Catholic ought to object to that.

 

[PRmerger]

Is that the same as saying “Every doctrine or tradition should be consistent with and conform to Scripture”?

I will add that the above is actually backwards. As the Christian faith was whole and entire before a single word was ever put to writ in the NT, it is more correct to say that the Scriptures conform to Christian doctrines. Not that our doctrines conform to Scripture.

 

[ffg]

Very interesting thread.

When I get into these conversations with someone, I ask them for their bible.

Many times a bible has notes and many times those notes are highlighted or underlined.

I just ask if the scripture is all that is needed, why so much study on the notes?

 

[PRmerger]

Very interesting thread.

When I get into these conversations with someone, I ask them for their bible.

Many times a bible has notes and many times those notes are highlighted or underlined.

I just ask if the scripture is all that is needed, why so much study on the notes?

Right. And why attend Bible studies?

And why send pastors to Bible college?

And why not let any person preach at your Protestant church, as long as he assures you that he “preaches from the Bible”?

 

[Simka]

And who determined it is a doctrine? God? The Apostles? Who?

Most Christians recognize the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. The Bible does not mention the catch phrase sola scriptura explicitly, but it certainly supports the principle implicitly. For example, during his temptation in the wilderness, Jesus confronted Satan on every point with, “It is written … “. The written Word of God (Scripture) was the authority on which Jesus based his arguments. In contrast, he had plenty to say against many of the traditions of the religious elite of his day, which he termed “traditions of men” which contradicted the Word of God.

Sola scriptura is not an argument against “tradition”. It is an argument against unbiblical traditions – teachings and practices that contradict the Biblical message. We know that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of all traditions.

Sola scriptura does not invalidate the concept of church traditions. Rather, it gives a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. Today there are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions, which play an important role in ordering Christian practice. But for these traditions to be valid, they must not contradict God’s Word. If they do, the Word of God must prevail.

 

[Simka]

Many times a bible has notes and many times those notes are highlighted or underlined. I just ask if the scripture is all that is needed, why so much study on the notes?

Sola scriptura simply says that the Bible contains all that is necessary for one’s salvation. It doesn’t say that reading it in isolation is the best way to understand its teachings.

 

[Simka]

… you are not following your own doctrine by giving submission to the Sacred Tradition which gave you the canon of the NT

You misunderstand the doctrine. Sola scriptura does not deny the value of tradition.

 

[JonNC]

=Simka;10726633]Where in scripture does it state that for one to be saved, he must abhor juice and drink only wine in the Eucharist? I understand the details of the Last Supper, but do you insist that even a repentant alcoholic must not substitute juice, but must drink the wine, or he cannot be saved?

It isn’t a matter of abhorrence. It is a matter of the fact that Christ used wine, not grape juice. We heed His instruction in this way. Lutherans are not fans of concomitance because it was used as a reason to withhold the chalice from the laity. But if this Lutheran could not partake of the cup for health or recovery reasons, I would receive only the body before I would grape juice.

Remember, sola scriptura applies to the doctrine of Salvation.

I disagree. It is more a practice of hermeneutics used by the Church to hold teachers and doctrines accountable to scripture. Catholics are not in danger of losing their salvation simply because their Church uses a different method.

In truth, very few Protestant churches follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It was a fundamental principle of reformers in the 16th century.

Probably true, though Lutherans do, at least confessional Lutherans.

In the Episcopal Church of the USA, there are leaders who teach that the Bible is an interesting historical document which details how an ancient people related to God as they understood him. They give it no relevance for today. Others say, “We wrote the Bible, and we can re-write it.” In other words, Scripture has no authority.

Sad, isn’t it?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Interestingly, of late, I have learned that some advocates of SS proclaim that it is not a doctrine, but rather that SS is a "hermeneutic principle’.

Curious, this.

Why curious?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Most Christians recognize the Bible as the Word of God.

What do you mean by “recognize”?

Do you mean that most Christians can read a text and know that it is inspired?

The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative.

Declaring itself to be God-breathed, inerrant and authoritative does not make it so. The Koran declares itself to be God breathed as well.

(NB: Of course, we are all agreed that the Scriptures are indeed all of the above. But it’s not because the text declares it to be.)

The Bible does not mention the catch phrase sola scriptura explicitly, but it certainly supports the principle implicitly. For example, during his temptation in the wilderness, Jesus confronted Satan on every point with, “It is written … “. The written Word of God (Scripture) was the authority on which Jesus based his arguments

If anything, this argues too little. For what Jesus was referring to was the OT. What you would be arguing here is for Sola Old Testament.

I am certain that this is not your position, yes?

In contrast, he had plenty to say against many of the traditions of the religious elite of his day, which he termed “traditions of men” which contradicted the Word of God

Yes. The CC also condemns traditions of men which contradict the Word of God.

Sola scriptura is not an argument against “tradition”. It is an argument against unbiblical traditions – teachings and practices that contradict the Biblical message. We know that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of all traditions.

Perhaps you could proffer some Catholic traditions that meet your criteria?

Sola scriptura does not invalidate the concept of church traditions. Rather, it gives a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. Today there are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions, which play an important role in ordering Christian practice. But for these traditions to be valid, they must not contradict God’s Word. If they do, the Word of God must prevail.

You seem to be confusing traditions (or customs) with Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God orally proclaimed by the apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

You misunderstand the doctrine. Sola scriptura does not deny the value of tradition.

I think you misunderstand my position.

If the Bible is your sole authority, yet you defer to the authority of the CC to discern for you the canon of the NT, then you are not following your own paradigm.

You cannot be a SS advocate yet also submit to authenticity of the canon of the NT, which was given to you by the CC.