Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Nicea325]

We never make that claim. I understand that other’s do and call it Sola Scriptura. They are misguided and have cast out too many good things.

For papal infallibility:
We would point out that Papal Infallibility as understood in modern times is different than the primacy of Peter as practiced by the early church and documented in the Bible.

I am sorry,but not true. Have you actually taken the time to study and understand the CC declared definition of papal infallibility? Far to many people I have encountered have never read the official definition of papal infallibility;moreover, most simply repeat what others have said or go off misconceived perceptions.

Remember my brother, doctrines are defined and defended when challenged. Many of our core doctrines were defined at different point in time. When it is defined and ratified does not make it null or an invetion or novelty.

 

[ffg]

Well, perhaps you’d rather discuss other early Church teachers. The early Church Fathers taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Consider Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras … there is no appeal in any of their writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

On matters of doctrine, there is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to any Tradition that is not first found in Scripture.

Hi Simka,

Why don’t we just go to the source. As I mentioned earlier, before there was a Bible there was a Church.

In order to have a Bible, you needed a Church, aka, a source of authority in which the writers of the books can have confidence in the inspiration of their writings. Also, to know their writings would be in harmony.

To carry the logic another step further…

If a Church is needed to bring about the coordination of the Bible. The events that occured in time within said Church would one day be known as traditions.

As is the case with any group that exists in time.

So where is the Authority? “Peter, you are rock, upon which, I will build my Church.”

The only way the bible becomes Authority, is when a church is created on the Bible Alone.

Thus Sola Scriptura.

A created term after the first Bible church.

 

[EIF5A]

Sola scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture is higher than the Church. It just means doctrines necessary for salvation must derive from and be supported Scripture.

The Church councils did not write Scripture. Scripture physically existed the moment the book was written. The Church played a permissive role in determining which books are consistent with doctrinal tradition passed down, but it is not the source of Scripture.

 

[joe371]

I’m not arguing that Scripture is greater than Tradition. We arguing that Scripture is greater than what we perceive as being invented traditions - paid-for indulgences and papal infallibility for example.

The argument that Lutherans make is that Scripture is an ineffable final check against the claims of those that say they are following Tradition, when they are perhaps not.

Agreed!

What does paid-for indulgences have to do with scripture or tradition? It was an abuse and it is over…

If you and I defer to scripture as our final authority, ( a sola scriptura idea) and we come away with opposite beliefs regarding the same teaching, who then can settle our differences?

 

[joe371]

Sola scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture is higher than the Church. It just means doctrines necessary for salvation must derive from and be supported Scripture.

The Church councils did not write Scripture. Scripture physically existed the moment the book was written. The Church played a permissive role in determining which books are consistent with doctrinal tradition passed down, but it is not the source of Scripture.

God is the source of Scripture, as you mentioned, and God charged His church, via the ineffable guidance of the Holy Spirit, to preserve and transmit God’s teachings until Jesus’ return - yes, no maybe? By the way, it’s me joe370. I am just waiting for them to issue me a new password.,…

 

[Porknpie]

I regret I wasn’t here then … it would have been good to read something intellectual in that covered ground. But it probably would not have been as entertaining as “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” – unless that was your style then, too.

All I asked for from you was a rational discussion, instead of belligerent bluster. I’m sorry if that’s too much to expect from you.

BTW – you haven’t offered one shred of factual evidence or data to legitimize your insistence that I was wrong … only prejudice.

Simka -

When Cyril speaks of “scripture” … what specifically … what writings is he referring to? Is there a list?? Is Cyril’s definition of scripture the same 73 books that were canonized?

Charity,

Pork

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10745273]Why does it have to be accountable to Scripture when Scripture never states as much? Scripture never states that we should have 3 readings on Sunday. Why not 2 or 4?

And we usually have 4, if you include the Introit, which is ordinarily a reading from Psalms.
But now you are talking about tradition, not Tradition. And the Lutheran confessions make clear that traditions can vary.
So, again, the misreading of sola scriptura. Determining whether there are 2 or 3 or 4 readings during worship is not relevant to sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church (our communion in this case) of holding teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogmas accountable to scripture. It isn’t about the vestments a priest wears, or whether the sanctuary has transepts. It is only about doctrine and dogma, and holding them accountable to the word of God.
While scripture implies this central core of the rule and norm, that being scripture itself, it never claims that there is more to God’s word than what is written down. But in light of what the Reformers saw as contradictions of popes and councils, easily recognized in the events leading up to and following the Great Schism, putting our trust in scripture, and not binding the conscience of the believer to dogmas not found outside of scripture, seems prudent.

As a former Southern Baptist, I love and hold Scripture near to my heart, but I also know that there is more to it than what was written done. Christ and the Apostles even stated as much.

John says as much.

What of the early Church that was around 400 years without Scripture? Were they lost without the Book you say everything should be held accountable to?

Why would you think that the early Christians had no knowledge of the writings of the Gospels, of Paul, of Peter, and the other Apostles, not to mention the OT? These were written, for the most part, in the 1st century.

I would think that if someone is going to claim that Scripture is the final say so, there might be a verse they could back that claim up.

One could say the same regarding papal supremacy, or infallibility, etc. SS is a post apostolic practice, and considering history, the practice seems understandable.

Jon

 

[Simka]

Why don’t we just go to the source. As I mentioned earlier, before there was a Bible there was a Church.

In order to have a Bible, you needed a Church, aka, a source of authority in which the writers of the books can have confidence in the inspiration of their writings. Also, to know their writings would be in harmony.

ffg,
I’m not sure how I should interpret these comments. I have heard many church people insist that it was the church that decided the canon of scripture … but that is not so. To start with, the majority of scripture (the OT) existed in its totality centuries before Jesus came, or there were any Apostles of Christ.

During the Apostolic era, still centuries before there was any codified canon of Scripture, there were the inspired writings … the Word of God. They were recognized as such at a very early stage after their writing. They were Scripture.

Vatican II and even Vatican I both take the stance that it was NOT the church that created, or even decided the NT canon, but that it was God who decided, through His inspiration of the writers, in a similar way to His inspiration of Moses and the Prophets of OT times. The role of the church, in due course, 200 years after the last of the writings, was nothing more than to discover what had been God’s decision in determining what would become known as the NT. But at the outset it did not require an organized church, it only required a gathering of people who were sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and committed to serving God. They preached, and they wrote, and they recognized God’s inspiration in one another.

So I guess what I’m saying is, I’d like to clarify the extent to which you position the church as “authoritative” in creating the NT portion of Scripture. The confidence and the harmony you speak of already existed, irrespective of any subsequent participation in the process by the church.

 

[JonNC]

You can’t place Scripture above Tradition because if not for Tradition, we won’t have Scripture. Also, they are never at odds with one another. If a belief you have is at odds with Scripture or the greater non-scriptural Tradition, then it is your belief that has the problem, not Scripture or Tradition.

So, the Tradition that states that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction is ok?
How does one know which non-scriptural Tradition is the right one?

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They’re only acting illogical if they view the Catholic or Orthodox as being the only valid continuations of the Church. We Lutherans make a claim for validity. I would hazard to guess that Anglicans make a similar claim.

And yet, both Lutherans and Anglicans separated from Catholicism. It is through Catholicism that you are able to make a claim for continuity. But sadly it is a separation and not a continuation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Peter also never said he was a Pope or that he was ever a bishop.

Can I get a high five?

:hey_bud:

 

[JonNC]

And yet, both Lutherans and Anglicans separated from Catholicism. It is through Catholicism that you are able to make a claim for continuity. But sadly it is a separation and not a continuation.

Is the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy (or the other way) a separation and not a continuation? In all cases, that we are separated is sad, indeed, and not of Christ’s call.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

By the way, it’s me joe370. I am just waiting for them to issue me a new password.,…

LOL

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy (or the other way) a separation and not a continuation? In all cases, that we are separated is sad, indeed, and not of Christ’s call.

Jon

Well, I’m Catholic Jon… Come’on

 

[JonNC]

Simka -

When Cyril speaks of “scripture” … what specifically … what writings is he referring to? Is there a list?? Is Cyril’s definition of scripture the same 73 books that were canonized?

Charity,

Pork

Do you think St. Cyril, being Patriarch of Alexandria, would have limited scripture to 73 books?

Jon

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, the Tradition that states that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction is ok?

Tradition has to be consistent from the earliest of days. That is why we Orthodox reject the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as defined by Pastor Aeternus. We can’t find any conclusive tradition that dates back to the early Church that supports the RC belief.

How does one know which non-scriptural Tradition is the right one?

By the life of the Church. Today we are spoiled by the wealth of writings that has come from Church Fathers, monastics, saints, clergy, etc. We can always look back and see what the Church has always believed from the beginning. It was much tougher in the earlier days when they didn’t have as much literature. But through living traditions we see and compare and argue and debate and eventually figure it out. We shouldn’t look for quick fixes, either from just quoting scripture or from listening to what the Pope has to say. The Church Fathers certainly did not do it the easy way. It worked for them, why wouldn’t it work for us?

 

[Porknpie]

ffg,
I’m not sure how I should interpret these comments. I have heard many church people insist that it was the church that decided the canon of scripture … but that is not so. To start with, the majority of scripture (the OT) existed in its totality centuries before Jesus came, or there were any Apostles of Christ.

Simka,

I am interested in your view…

Did all Jews agree to what scripture consisted of centuries before Jesus?

And when Christ came and he and the apostles used the Septuagint…and the Deutercanonicals are included in the Septuagint…and the Catholic Church created the canon in 393ad with the Septuagint…who then had the authority to remove those 7 books from Protestant bibles and declare them not the Written Word of God?

Charity,

Pork

 

[JonNC]

=ConstantineTG;10747571]Tradition has to be consistent from the earliest of days.

Exactly the Lutheran Reformers’ point. Luther claimed inconsistency - councils and popes contradicting, etc. The Reformers turned to scripture.

That is why we Orthodox reject the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as defined by Pastor Aeternus. We can’t find any conclusive tradition that dates back to the early Church that supports the RC belief.

But Catholics say they can. Who should we

By the life of the Church. Today we are spoiled by the wealth of writings that has come from Church Fathers, monastics, saints, clergy, etc. We can always look back and see what the Church has always believed from the beginning. It was much tougher in the earlier days when they didn’t have as much literature. But through living traditions we see and compare and argue and debate and eventually figure it out. We shouldn’t look for quick fixes, either from just quoting scripture or from listening to what the Pope has to say. The Church Fathers certainly did not do it the easy way. It worked for them, why wouldn’t it work for us?

I agree.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well, I’m Catholic Jon… Come’on

lol. Yes you are, and may you be blest by it.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Do you think St. Cyril, being Patriarch of Alexandria, would have limited scripture to 73 books?

Jon

I don’t make any assumptions here…but until one understands how the word “scripture” is being used…and what “scripture” consists of prior to 393ad without a Church to declare it so…I am a bit curious how this can be…assuming that scripture = inspired.