Why Sola Scriptura fails

[JonNC]

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.

Agreed. But even after 393AD until Trent and beyond, there has been no universal agreement about what the Church has declared regarding the canon of scripture. So, each communion turns to what they accept. Lutherans, technically, do not have a closed canon. And even within the 66 books universally accepted today, we have a rather conservative approach to the books labeled in the ancient Church and Antilegomena.
So, in our practice of sola scriptura, books are treated with respect to the historic view and disputes about them. Lutherans will, on occasion, use the D-C’s liturgically, and in our hymnody. They are quoted in the Confessions.

Jon

 

[pablope]

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.

Well…BenJ (or Jon)…here is my question: How is Scripture going to accomplish the deed/action of doing the final checking?

Can you offer an example within your communion of how you accomplished something to what you are saying?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Exactly.

And to acknowledge this is huge, EIF5A. HUGE.

This means that you defer not to Scripture but to the authority of the Church, at least as it pertains to the canon of the NT.

And this necessarily also means that you accept that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church. At least as it pertains to the canon of the NT.

 

[JonNC]

Well…BenJ (or Jon)…here is my question: How is Scripture going to accomplish the deed/action of doing the final checking?

Can you offer an example within your communion of how you accomplished something to what you are saying?

We rely on the Church to make that determination.
The Lutheran Confessions regularly and consistently refer to scripture in this way. It also regularly refers to the ECF’s as support for the positions taken. It even refers to the ancient Church and councils.

Jon

 

[pablope]

We rely on the Church to make that determination.
The Lutheran Confessions regularly and consistently refer to scripture in this way. It also regularly refers to the ECF’s as support for the positions taken. It even refers to the ancient Church and councils.

Jon

Sorry Jon…you got me confuse.

Ben (and you) said everything should be accoutantable to Scripture…that is why I asked for a practical example of how the Scripture is able to make the accountability of what you and Ben are speaking of.

 

[EIF5A]

Exactly.

And to acknowledge this is huge, EIF5A. HUGE.

This means that you defer not to Scripture but to the authority of the Church, at least as it pertains to the canon of the NT.

And this necessarily also means that you accept that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church. At least as it pertains to the canon of the NT.

I’ll accept at least the bolded part. Or at least the Holy Spirit guided the council to determine canonicity.

By the same logic, the authority of the Church (and I mean in a physical, tangible sense of the people making up the governing body of the Church) cannot contradict Scripture and all matters of doctrine must comply with Scripture, since the Church has officially declared Scripture to be truthful revelation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ll accept at least the bolded part. Or at least the Holy Spirit guided the council to determine canonicity.

By the same logic, the authority of the Church (and I mean in a physical, tangible sense of the people making up the governing body of the Church) cannot contradict Scripture and all matters of doctrine must comply with Scripture, since the Church has officially declared Scripture to be truthful revelation.

The Church doesn’t contradict Scriptures. A wrong interpretation of Scriptures will make you see as if there is a contradiction.

There were many writings claiming to be of Divine Inspiration. The Church discerned which writings were and which were not. Even more, we don’t know if Paul’s letters are limited to the ones in the New Testament. Do you know why? Because there is no index of contents for the New Testament in any of the letters of the NT. Paul could have written a lot more letters, and Peter, and John, and Luke, and so forth. Not only that, Paul himself says to keep what has been said regarding teachings, traditions and doctrines.

The most ironic thing is that by choosing Sola Scriptura, a believer is choosing a small group of people to deliver him the Word of God using their independent translation guidelines and prejudices, over the Church of the Living God!!!

I’d rather trust a group of 100 translators than the 2,000 year Church and the millions of Priests and Bishops over the centuries to help me interpret the Bible… Seriously…

 

[joe371]

Sorry Jon…you got me confuse.

Ben (and you) said everything should be accoutantable to Scripture…that is why I asked for a practical example of how the Scripture is able to make the accountability of what you and Ben are speaking of.

I’m not sure about Ben but Jon would say that everything is accountable to Scripture, but in the final analysis it’s the Lutheran church (as opposed to individual interpretation) that possesses the authority to make decisions, resolve controversies and settle doctrinal differences within the Lutheran church, if they should occur.

 

[joe371]

EIF5A;10747745]I’ll accept at least the bolded part. Or at least the Holy Spirit guided the council to determine canonicity.

So, you believe that the CC possessed the charism of infallibility, regarding the codification of the NT, but then, at some point after that, the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the CC? Maybe I just misread…

By the same logic, the authority of the Church (and I mean in a physical, tangible sense of the people making up the governing body of the Church) cannot contradict Scripture and all matters of doctrine must comply with Scripture, since the Church has officially declared Scripture to be truthful revelation.

Absolutely… The idea that each individual has the final authority to interpret scripture as he/she is guided by God, is certainly not a teaching found in the bible, and yet so many embrace this notion e.g. my sister and father? Not that I am suggesting that you embrace that notion…

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll accept at least the bolded part. Or at least the Holy Spirit guided the council to determine canonicity.

EXCELLENT!!



This means that you are NOT Sola Scriptura.

And you do see that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC, yes?

By the same logic, the authority of the Church (and I mean in a physical, tangible sense of the people making up the governing body of the Church) cannot contradict Scripture

YES!!

and all matters of doctrine must comply with Scripture, since the Church has officially declared Scripture to be truthful revelation.

Well, all Scripture complies with Catholic doctrine, since the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to papyrus.

 

[joe371]

LOL…Funny pic…

EXCELLENT!!

This means that you are NOT Sola Scriptura.

And you do see that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC, yes?

YES!!

Well, all Scripture complies with Catholic doctrine, since the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to papyrus.

 

[Porknpie]

Agreed. But even after 393AD until Trent and beyond, there has been no universal agreement about what the Church has declared regarding the canon of scripture.

Jon, do I remember correctly that you would become Catholic if the Orthodox and Catholic could solve the primacy issue? Using the same logic, wouldn’t you have to agree then that the deutercanonicals are inspired and inerrant as both Churches believe they are (understanding that the Orthodox even have more but leave that aside for a minute)? So no universal agreement but much agreement on the deutercanonicals. By who’s authority 1,500 years later is to say that they are not inspired and inerrant?

So, each communion turns to what they accept. Lutherans, technically, do not have a closed canon.

There is hope then for the Deutercanonicals to be added as inspired and inerrant?

So, in our practice of sola scriptura, books are treated with respect to the historic view and disputes about them.

Historical view: if not the Catholics, if not the Orthodox…where we both have agreement on 73 books for 1,500 years (2,000 actually)…then by who’s authority is it to say 7 books are not inspired and inerrant?

In the end, it comes down to a question of authority…who determines what the written Word of God is…what did Christ mean when he said “you are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

That could be the subject of a new thread.

 

[pablope]

I’ll accept at least the bolded part. Or at least the Holy Spirit guided the council to determine canonicity.

By the same logic, the authority of the Church (and I mean in a physical, tangible sense of the people making up the governing body of the Church) cannot contradict Scripture and all matters of doctrine must comply with Scripture, since the Church has officially declared Scripture to be truthful revelation.

Well…Eif…here is something to ponder…since as you said the HS guided the Council to determine the canon…why should the Catholic church contradict what it canonized and included in the Bible…via council?

 

[pablope]

I’m not sure about Ben but Jon would say that everything is accountable to Scripture, but in the final analysis it’s the Lutheran church (as opposed to individual interpretation) that possesses the authority to make decisions, resolve controversies and settle doctrinal differences within the Lutheran church, if they should occur.

We rely on the Church to make that determination.
The Lutheran Confessions regularly and consistently refer to scripture in this way. It also regularly refers to the ECF’s as support for the positions taken. It even refers to the ancient Church and councils.

Jon

Sorry, Jon…I reread your post…I was in a hurry a while ago…so it is not the scripture but the church…so in reality, the authority of the scripture would be reliant on the Church?

But then…which church? it cannot all be different churches. right?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

Jon

Thank you, Jon.

Blessings for you as well my friend.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Simka
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.

Nicea325:
With all due respect, I did offer intellectual insight, whether you care to read it or acknowledge it or flat out ignore it makes no difference to me. I do not need to provide a shred of evidence because countless of ECF have said enough and again…NOT ONE ever promotes,advocates, defends, or writes exhaustively on the bogus belief called SS. More important, SS never ever was ecumenically declared a doctrine or principle to be practiced…PERIOD! Equally important, where are the attacks by heretical sects attacking SS as unorthodox belief and yet being defended HEAVILY by ONE ECF as being an orthodox doctrine? NO WHERE-PERIOD!

The mother of all doctrines/principles yet is virtually ignored at ALL ecumenical councils? Open your eyes.

 

[EIF5A]

Absolutely… The idea that each individual has the final authority to interpret scripture as he/she is guided by God, is certainly not a teaching found in the bible, and yet so many embrace this notion e.g. my sister and father? Not that I am suggesting that you embrace that notion…

That’s not sola scriptura. Or at least the practical application of it.

 

[joe371]

That’s not sola scriptura. Or at least the practical application of it.

I attempted long ago to pin down what sola scriptura was, and every time I did, someone would say: that’s not sola scriptura, so I gave up…

 

[aidanbradypop]

I attempted long ago to pin down what sola scriptura was, and every time I did, someone would say: that’s not sola scriptura, so I gave up…

I do not believe anyone knows exactly what it means.

 

[joe371]

I do not believe anyone knows exactly what it means.

I think it means something different to every sola-scriptura advocate, essentially depending on one’s tradition…