Why Sola Scriptura fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter KEP1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why curious?

Jon
Well, to be frank, I think it is a case of “special pleading”. It appears to be an innovation.

Some have claimed that Fr. Luther declared SS to be a hermeneutic principle, but I have not seen the sources that verify this.
 
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?
As a catholic, this would not be a problem…No wine would have to touch an alcoholics lips…👍
 
Well, to be frank, I think it is a case of “special pleading”. It appears to be an innovation.

Some have claimed that Fr. Luther declared SS to be a hermeneutic principle, but I have not seen the sources that verify this.
But based on what the Lutheran Confessions say, how does one discern it differently?

Jon
 
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.
Why not? SS does not speak to the issue of the canon of scripture. If, by looking at the history of the debates regarding the NT canon in the early Church, it seems appropriate to accept the canon of the undivided Church, we should do so. Same with the creeds and councils.

Jon
 
What do you mean by “recognize”?
I mean, acknowledge, accept and give honour to …
… 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?
When Paul expressed to Timothy the value of “all scripture”, he was referring to the Old Testament. At that time there was no other. Today there are Old and New Testaments. Both make up the “scripture” referred to by SS.

When I was on a committee to select a new priest for our church, I wanted someone who would satisfy two criteria: (1) he or she would recognize Jesus as the Christ of the creeds and the scriptures; and (2) he or she would attribute to the scriptures the same authority that Jesus did. Sadly, this meant that no one in our diocese was an eligible candidate.
Perhaps you could proffer some Catholic traditions that meet your criteria?
I am reluctant to do that because any disagreement will then become the “cause célebre”.
SS was the rallying cry of the 16th century reformers. I suggest it is possible to agree with them in principle, but to disagree over their specific application of that principle.
 
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.
Explain how written words = Sola Scriptura.

The fact Jesus quotes Scripture does not prove or support SS.
 
I mean, acknowledge, accept and give honour to …
Ah, yes. This is true.

But the point remains: you cannot know what is Scripture without an outside authority discerning this for you.
When Paul expressed to Timothy the value of “all scripture”, he was referring to the Old Testament. At that time there was no other. Today there are Old and New Testaments. Both make up the “scripture” referred to by SS.
I see, then.

So how does this exclude Sacred Tradition? If the NT could be added to the Word of God, why not Sacred Tradition?
When I was on a committee to select a new priest for our church, I wanted someone who would satisfy two criteria: (1) he or she would recognize Jesus as the Christ of the creeds and the scriptures; and (2) he or she would attribute to the scriptures the same authority that Jesus did. Sadly, this meant that no one in our diocese was an eligible candidate.
I am not sure to which comment of mine you are responding here.
I am reluctant to do that because any disagreement will then become the “cause célebre”.
SS was the rallying cry of the 16th century reformers. I suggest it is possible to agree with them in principle, but to disagree over their specific application of that principle.
Then it’s difficult to discuss these traditions that allegedly contradict Scripture if you cannot identify any. 🤷
 
But based on what the Lutheran Confessions say, how does one discern it differently?

Jon
Well, it would then be a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, and therefore self-refuting.
 
Well, it would then be a doctrine that is not supported by Scripture, and therefore self-refuting.
Not a doctrine, though, a practice.

James Kiefer, and Anglican, says the following about (what he calls) the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.
In the Anglican Communion (the American branch of which is known as the Episcopal Church), it has for several centuries been standard practice to ask a candidate for ordination to the priesthood several questions, of which I reproduce the second:
BISHOP: Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?
ANSWER: I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.
This position (not restricted to Anglican circles) is known as Sola Scriptura. Some objections have been raised against it, as follows:
OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.
REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:
(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.
But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.
And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.
Now, I dispute the use of the term “doctrine” in regards sola scriptura precisely because of what Kiefer then says: “Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.” The following will link to the entire article, found on the Lutheran Theology Website.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

Jon
 
I beg to differ. The Presbyterian congregation of which I am currently a member adheres to the teaching (i.e. “doctrine”) that “the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
Simka,

PR answered perfectly…you are following a tradition that was not in the early church…and it is not in the bible.

Find the chapter and verse in the bible that states “the bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.” For it to be true, it must state it…otherwise, all you have is someone’s opinion.

The Catholic Church, founded by Christ, which is the foundation & pillar of Truth…disagrees as we hold fast as St. Paul says to both what is written and spoken.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The bible was written by, for and about the Catholic Church…for instruction…yes…but also to have a universal set of books to be read at Mass. The Deposit of Faith is both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Simka, answer me this…pinky please…how do you know that the bible you are holding is the Inerrant and Inspired Word of God?

Pork
 
Forgot to come back to this, Pork. Good point. I think it is the position of Orthodoxy that sacraments aren’t particularly numbered, but I may be wrong.
=Porknpie;10725222]If the EO and CC split is an issue, then lets go back to 1,000 ad and look at the one faith, One Church before the split. The One Church before the split believed in:
Baptism…is a sacrament
Confirmation…is a sacrament
The Eucharist…is a sacrament
Marraige…is a sacrament
Penance…is a sacrament
Annointing of the sick…is a sacrament
Holy Orders … Is a sacrament
Called a sacrament or not, Lutheranism has all of these. We might disagree on how they are performed or done, but Lutherans have them.
What is a sacrament:
The traditional definition of a sacrament is this: “A sacrament is a visible sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.” Within this definition there are three important statements:

A visible sign
An action is performed by a minister (usually a priest).
For example, when a baby is baptized in the church the priest pours
water over its head and at the same time says the words “I baptize
you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That is a visible sign.

Instituted by Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ instructed His church to offer the seven
sacraments to His followers. For example, His directive to His
disciples in Matthew’s Gospel (28/19), “Go then, to all peoples
everywhere and make them my disciples; baptize them in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teach them to obey
everything I have commanded you.”

To give grace
Grace is God’s free gift of Himself as the controlling influence in
our life and the decisions we make once we have committed ourselves
to Him in faith.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Article XIII. (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments.

1] In the Thirteenth Article the adversaries approve our statement that the Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as some imagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us, through which God moves 2] hearts to believe [are not mere signs whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war, livery, etc., but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc.]. But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary.]

3]** If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added,** it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. 4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us 5] for Christ’s sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.
It’s clear that the One Faith, passed on through the ages believed in the 7 sacraments. Why would one attend a Church today that did not believe in the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ?
I don’t think the numbering of sacraments is necessarily Church-dividing for most Lutherans.

Jon
 
Not a doctrine, though, a practice.

James Kiefer, and Anglican, says the following about (what he calls) the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.

Now, I dispute the use of the term “doctrine” in regards sola scriptura precisely because of what Kiefer then says: “Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.” The following will link to the entire article, found on the Lutheran Theology Website.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

Jon
Man, there are many interpretations of the practise of sola scripture. I finally just gave up…LOL…Some, unlike you, even insist that the apostles supported their version of the practice… 🤷
 
Man, there are many interpretations of the practise of sola scripture. I finally just gave up…LOL…Some, unlike you, even insist that the apostles supported their version of the practice… 🤷
I have yet to find any legit source or evidence of the Apostles even hinting the practice (aka Sola Scriptura) in the early church.
 
… it’s difficult to discuss these traditions that allegedly contradict Scripture if you cannot identify any. 🤷
You misunderstand me. I didn’t say “cannot”, but rather I chose not to, because the issue under discussion is not whether we agree about a particular practice or tradition, or whether SS applies to a particular doctrine.

However, as an example of how SS applies … to quote from the 39 Articles of the Church of England, “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.”

Because the C of E holds that Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Scripture, SS says that it is not a doctrine on which one’s salvation rests. Those who go even further and say that Transubstantiation contradicts scripture would use SS further to say that contradicting scripture makes it a false doctrine.

Whether or not we agree about this doctrine in particular is not the issue. Substitute any other practice or tradition you wish. The point of SS is simply that, if it cannot be proven from scripture (or logically derived therefrom) then it is not a doctrine necessary to salvation. And further, if such a doctrine or practice or teaching is contrary to scripture, then it is a false doctrine which ought not to be taught.
 
You misunderstand me. I didn’t say “cannot”, but rather I chose not to, because the issue under discussion is not whether we agree about a particular practice or tradition, or whether SS applies to a particular doctrine.
Well, then, friend, I will simply say that there is no such Sacred Tradition which contradicts Sacred Scripture.

You are discussing a hypothetical which does not exist.

As such, it is as otiose as discussing whether men who get pregnant can suffer post-partum depression. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top