Why Sola Scriptura fails

[PRmerger]

Perhaps? Don’t you know?

No. And neither do you. What we can know is that every word that the Apostle preached ought to be revered and adhered to.

Sacred Tradition allows for this.

Sola Scriptura would have you rejecting all of his oral preaching that he did not put on parchment.

What was Paul’s contribution to “Sacred Tradition”?

That which we have proclaimed by his successors, the Catholic bishops, today.

All apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice of the church, and for “the wisdom that leads to salvation”, was preserved in sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

No not all.

Otherwise, you would not have a canon of the NT.

That was given to you by Sacred Tradition.

You cannot explain it any other way, Simka.

You, if you are intellectually honest, must give acknowledgement to the Catholic Church for discerning for you under the guidance of the HS the canon of the NT,

[SIGN]You cannot know the canon any other way except through submission to the authority of the CC.[/SIGN]

It is a reasonable and logical inference that God would preserve what He inspired.

Amen. This is very Catholic.

But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired”, except for what was recorded as Scripture.

Yes. This, too, is very Catholic, Simka.

The CC proclaims the Bible alone is* theonpeustos*, refering to the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the inspired writers. Thus, the HS inspired the authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way he wanted it written.

Sacred Tradition,while also the word of God, does not come to us as theopneustos.

We view ST as being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit But only Sacred Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired.

Scripture is clear that, from the very beginning, God’s standard was that His revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations.

Certainly. Just not ONLY written down.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
You contradict yourself. At one point who said it is a principle and here you claim it is a doctrine?

Yes, Simka. What gives? Could you please address this question posed to you way back, pages ago?

Is SS a hermeneutic principle, a doctrine or what? And which one is the one the Reformers proclaimed–teaching or principle?

Simka has yet to answer me from pages many pages ago. Who ratified it as a doctrine,principle, or whatever?

 

[PRmerger]

When you have the Scriptures, I see no need or purpose for tradition (sacred or otherwise).

Really?

Then you are okay with the tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each accessing their doctrines from the very same Bible you use, and coming to different (even contrary) understandings?

Is baptism a Sacrament, Simka? Or an ordinance? Should it be done by sprinkling, immersion, in a pool of water, in a river? Should it be done in infancy, at the age of reason, at the moment of one’s regeneration, or at the age of Jesus, 33? Does it change us ontologically, or is it only an outward sign of an inner disposition?

All of those questions can be answered in a multitude of differing, and often contrary, ways. Each person will cite the Scriptures for their apologia.

You’re ok with this doctrinal chaos and confusion?

It seems to me to be just what the devil ordered: *let’s give these folks a book with no one to authoritatively interpret it. Then see what fun ensues! *

 

[pablope]

I

Not exactly. When you have the Scriptures, I see no need or purpose for tradition (sacred or otherwise).

But you are contradicting yourself here…no purpose for tradition?

But you started a tradition…a protestant tradition…a tradition based on Sola Scriptura…each one a tradition of each own based on each understanding of SS…and it is tradition of confusion.

Your tradition is now based on this:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[joe370]

Simka;10742414]I mean the one Church, the one Body of Christ, into which all believers are baptized by the one Spirit (I Cor. 12:13,27).

Again, which church is being guided into all truth John 16:13? There are literally hundreds of isolated, self-governing churches…The Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist and Presbyterian, just to name a few, do not all teach truth, regarding things such as the Eucharist. That would make the truth regarding the Eucharist relative. I am really trying to follow you…

Not exactly. When you have the Scriptures, I see no need or purpose for tradition (sacred or otherwise).

You were the one that said tradition was necessary.

You said:

“I insist that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church … the body of Christ, comprised of all believers…Through prayer, and tradition, and the teaching of the church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may interpret Scripture.”

---

 

[EIF5A]

Again, which church is being guided into all truth John 16:13? There are literally hundreds of isolated, self-governing churches…The Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist and Presbyterian, just to name a few, do not all teach truth, regarding things such as the Eucharist. That would make the truth regarding the Eucharist relative. I am really trying to follow you…

You were the one that said tradition was necessary.

You said:

“I insist that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church … the body of Christ, comprised of all believers…Through prayer, and tradition, and the teaching of the church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may interpret Scripture.”

---

Perhaps the meaning was tradition not contained in Scripture…

 

[joe370]

pablope;10742757]But you are contradicting yourself here…no purpose for tradition?

But you started a tradition…a protestant tradition…a tradition based on Sola Scriptura…each one a tradition of each own based on each understanding of SS…and it is tradition of confusion.

I thought the same thing…

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler.

I would imagine that Simka does not believe that any one church can assemble as an ecumenical council to declare anything. Correct me if I am wrong brother Simka?

What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Exactly…

 

[joe370]

Perhaps the meaning was tradition not contained in Scripture…

So, “Through prayer, and tradition not contained in Scripture, and the teaching of the church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may interpret Scripture”???

I don’t think that Simka will agree. And, who is WE?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
WHO determined Sola Scriptura is a dcotrine,praxis, principle,etc,etc. and under whose authority? Which church or group made such a declaration?

Simka:
Quick answer: the early Church fathers.

Before the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus said about the Apostles,** “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” **

Ah no! You have taken Irenaeus words way out-of-context and I have seen this done repeatedly by SS advocates. And I can bet all my retirement savings those very SS advocates do not bother to show how Irenaeus also defends Traditions as well.

I’ll show how easy it is to refute your quote by Irenaeus. First of all, tell me why he wrote those words and to whom and WHY? Second, did he write those very words in defense of SS and if so…to whom did he write this letter to? Third, how strange he and countless of other church fathers never ONCE advocate SS as a DOCTRINE or principle. Last but not least, please provide the name of the council in the before the 2nd century which formally defined and ratified it?

The Bible was the ultimate authority for the early Church .

Prove it! What council decided it is the ultimate authority?

It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth.

When used against heretics,because many heretics only used the Bible,thus the ECF used the Bible too as their means,but it was not the only authority used. Read the church fathers without your SS shades.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century, held to sola Scriptura. He expounded the principle doctrines of the faith. He wrote a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. He never appeals to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.

Not in a MILLION YEARS! You have been taken for a ride by SS advocates who merely take the ECF’s words out-of-context. Cyril appeals to Traditions and that I know is a fact I know you are dead wrong!

Rather, he states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching which could not be validated from Scripture, it was to be rejected. His authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures.

WRONG! He is an orthodox/catholic bishop not a Protestant who submits to his own will. His ultimate authority was the CHURCH because they submit their wills to the church-read your history again.

 

[joe370]

Quote:

Nope you are in error. The CC has NEVER once taught that is was NOT God. What you like so many believers of a false belief called Sola Scriptura realize that it is not a question of WHO;morever, HOW did God gives us the canon? Through his mystical body (Eph 1) the church and via the Holy Spirit through its bishops. A FACT OF LIFE!

The only logical way, in terms of how God chose to preserve and transmit doctrinal truth to the world, was to do so (and continues…) within the confines of His church, established on Pentecost, via apostolic succession. Of course God could have done it another way, but God clearly did not for the simple fact that doctrinal truth was not (and is not) preserved within the confines of Christendom (e.g. catholic and non-Catholic churches)

For example when the reformers removed themselves from that apostolic succession e.g. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, doctrinal division e.g. the understanding of the Eucharist, ensued almost immediately. This is a historical fact. This does not seem like it has to be that complicated. Each Christian should strive to find the church founded by Jesus, circa 33 A.D. on Pentecost, to which the apostles and their successors e.g. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement etc., belonged, and then join. If one believes that to be one of the Eastern/Oriental or Protestant churches so be it. For me, without a doubt, it is the Catholic church.

 

[joe370]

Prove it! What council decided it is the ultimate authority?

I do not know how anyone can claim that it was not a catholic council. Some will simply insist that no one church in the world today, determined the holy canon; only God via some unknown earthly entity I suppose, but never the catholic church. To do so is to admit that the CC preserved, transmitted and eventually codified doctrinal truth e.g. sacred scripture. For some those implications are too much to handle. For me it meant becoming catholic, well, that and several other reasons…

 

[Simka]

What gives? Could you please address this question … Is SS a hermeneutic principle, a doctrine or what? And which one is the one the Reformers proclaimed–teaching or principle?

Hey, PR, you’re kidding, right? Are you really that concerned about the semantics? Is that what really troubles you? Or do you really not understand what I have been saying?

OK, let me try to summarize. A doctrine or teaching will have one or more underlying principles. Some of the principles underlying the SS doctrine are the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture, its authoritative nature, its inspiration by God, its reach back into ancient times, the recognition of Apostolic writings as Scripture as early as the 1st century, and so on.

There was a common practice by the early church fathers of applying this standard: that any doctrinal teaching had to be based on Scripture, or it was to be rejected. (This I have previously documented.) Of course, where there was the potential for misunderstanding, tradition could be used to assist in the interpretation of scripture, to be confident of what the Scripture meant by what it said. But tradition was never used as a substitute for Scripture. In those early years it was never used to amend accepted Scriptural teaching. But as that changed through the ages, the 16th-century Reformers had had enough of the corruption of Scriptural teaching using arguments from tradition.

Relying on the legitimacy and widespread acceptance of those early principles, a doctrine was formulated, which the Reformers proclaimed, to the effect that Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. The wording of the doctrine was merely an articulation of the broader ancient principles and practices of Scriptural authority, applied specifically to the matter of salvation, and intended to address the distortions of the 16th century church.

 

[Nicea325]

Simka:

Hey, PR, you’re kidding, right? Are you really that concerned about the semantics? Is that what really troubles you? Or do you really not understand what I have been saying?

Actually we are not kidding. You made a point at one time it is a principle and then later state the early church held it as a doctrine (which is absurd and a lie). Well-what exactly is it? I thought it was held by the early church;hence where is the original version and where was it ratified?

OK, let me try to summarize. A doctrine or teaching will have one or more underlying principles. Some of the principles underlying the SS doctrine are the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture, its authoritative nature, its inspiration by God, its reach back into ancient times, the recognition of Apostolic writings as Scripture as early as the 1st century, and so on.

Yes,but what you fail to ether accept, acknowledge or refuse is the fact many writings were accepted and considered Apostolic in nature. More important, it was the CHURCH via Sacred Tradition declaring what was Scripture, not Scripture make a self-authentic determination.

There was a common practice by the early church fathers of applying this standard: that any doctrinal teaching had to be based on Scripture, or it was to be rejected. (This I have previously documented.)

Wrong! You are error here gravely. You take the church fathers out-of-context and a common trait by SS advocates and a bogus one. Tell me…what OT or NT Scripture did James use in 40 AD to gives us the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine?

Of course, where there was the potential for misunderstanding, tradition could be used to assist in the interpretation of scripture, to be confident of what the Scripture meant by what it said. But tradition was **never used **as a substitute for Scripture. In those early years it was never used to amend accepted Scriptural teaching.

Really? Apparently you have never about the Arian heresy because Tradition was also used.

But as that changed through the ages, the 16th-century Reformers had had enough of the corruption of Scriptural teaching using arguments from tradition.

LOL! No offense but that is the punchline. And what has resulted from the notorious SS-man-made tradition? Thousands of sects and conflicting teachings,yet you claim they had enough of Scriptural corruption? That is like asking if an insane person knows he or she is insane?

Relying on the legitimacy and widespread acceptance of those early principles, a doctrine was formulated, which the Reformers proclaimed, to the effect that Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

A doctrine or principle-which one is it? And no where does Scripture support your notion:

Scripture alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

The wording of the doctrine was merely an articulation of the broader ancient principles and practices of Scriptural authority, applied specifically to the matter of salvation, and intended to address the distortions of the 16th century church.

Sorry, but as a person who has a Masters in History and an MBA nothing of the sort existed or supported SS in the ancient church.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, PR, you’re kidding, right? Are you really that concerned about the semantics? Is that what really troubles you? Or do you really not understand what I have been saying?

Actually, what I’m trying to understand is what your definition is of SS. There seems to be so many defs.

One says it’s **not **a doctrine but a hermeneutic principle.

Another says he prefers to use a term called Prima Scriptura

This poster states that SS is a doctrine.

You seem to be unsure whether it’s a doctrine or not a doctrine. I just want you to try to figure out exactly what you’re arguing here. It will make it easier for the rest of us to discuss with you.

 

[PRmerger]

There was a common practice by the early church fathers of applying this standard: that any doctrinal teaching had to be based on Scripture, or it was to be rejected.

Really.

One has to wonder how the ECFs, who lived **before **the 4th century, cited Scripture when there was no codifed NT until after the 4th century.

Did they cite the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in extracting their doctrines?

If so, why don’t you?

 

[CompSciGuy]

So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?

Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.

Jon

There is a profound difference here. The “Catholics” who are pro-choice are against the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore they are Catholic in name only but not in practice. The point being made is that the magesterium (teaching authority of the Church) is necessary and authoritative, not just scripture. In the case of the Great Schism, the same thing applies: they deny the authority of the pope (which has been affirmed since the days of the early church fathers) and thus they have many divisions among themselves as well.

 

[Tomster]

Actually, what I’m trying to understand is what your definition is of SS. There seems to be so many defs.

One says it’s **not **a doctrine but a hermeneutic principle.

Another says he prefers to use a term called Prima Scriptura

This poster states that SS is a doctrine.

You seem to be unsure whether it’s a doctrine or not a doctrine. I just want you to try to figure out exactly what you’re arguing here. It will make it easier for the rest of us to discuss with you.

Could there be a fourth definition in our future?

And if so, who decides which one is correct?
:compcoff:

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, what I’m trying to understand is what your definition is of SS. There seems to be so many defs.

One says it’s **not **a doctrine but a hermeneutic principle.

Another says he prefers to use a term called Prima Scriptura

This poster states that SS is a doctrine.

You seem to be unsure whether it’s a doctrine or not a doctrine. I just want you to try to figure out exactly what you’re arguing here. It will make it easier for the rest of us to discuss with you.

Indeed. And yet Simka is so confident it was taught from the vey beginning of the church? Simka has yet to provide when and where such a doctrine,principle,etc was ratified by the early church?

 

[Nicea325]

OK, let’s try this and see if we can remain civil toward one another.

I maintain that the principle of sola Scriptura was accepted and operational within the Church from the very beginning of post-apostolic times. The Reformers in the 16th century did not invent it; they were simply responsible for attempting to restore this principle to the Church.

Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today – the written Scriptures, the Bible.

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures, but was partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures alone were not materially sufficient.

But the view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the early Church, which held to the principle of sola Scriptura. In the 2nd century, the Church believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

The early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. Their sole appeal for authority was Scripture – both Old and New Testaments. In the writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found.

**There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation. **

There is one argument I have seen repeated here, that SS is “self-refuting”, invalid because it relies on the Canon which was determined by the Church. This position has one major flaw. It is based on a false assumption. According to Vatican I and Vatican II, it was God that determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon.

Sorry…but you are DEAD wrong in reference to Tradition. Tell me…what NT letter did Peter use in 37 AD to defend Christ’ Hypostatic Union or Incarnation?

 

[Tomster]

There is a profound difference here. The “Catholics” who are pro-choice are against the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore they are Catholic in name only but not in practice. The point being made is that the magesterium (teaching authority of the Church) is necessary and authoritative, not just scripture. In the case of the Great Schism, the same thing applies: they deny the authority of the pope (which has been affirmed since the days of the early church fathers) and thus they have many divisions among themselves as well.

Careful. Jon knows very well what the Church teaches. He likes to throw some bait out there from time to time.

Jon even considerd himself a catholic, no kiddin’.

Don’t you Jon?