Why Sola Scriptura fails

[pablope]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture

is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Since you are speaking of tradition…here is a traditioj of men…from protestants…a common protestant tradition…omit verse 14 and 15:

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Which speaks of oral instructions…so it is not Bible alone…

Since Catholic tradition when reading this passage includes from v14…which tradition do you think gives a more fuller understanding…the catholic tradition to start at v 14 or the protestant tradition to omit v14 and 15?

We recieve God’s Word through the Bible. I prefer to put my faith in something that I know is from God, than traditions of men, most of which were started years after the writings in the Bible.

 

[joe371]

A common protestant tradition…omit verse 14 and 15:

 

[benjohnson]

So either the Holy Spirit purposely leads people into heretical Churches, or the LCMS isn’t the true Church.

The logical fallacy of such thinking is that the truth is not a popularity contest. Using your logic, it would indicate that we should convert to Islam based on it’s increases in recent years.

The LCMS certainly makes a claim to the be a valid continuation of the western church. And yet no matter how strident and unyielding we are, I don’t think we have ever judged the hearts of others that seek Christ on the cross.

Frankly, that any Church would make a pronouncement of others indicates to me a severe deficiency in the understanding of the Gospel - we are to to proscribe a narrow path for ourselves, but never limit the love that God has for all of us. For it’s that infinite love that is the only source of our salvation.

 

[Porknpie]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

James 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.

1 Peter 2:1-2 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2. like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation.

All these verses are 100% Catholic! :clapping:

We recieve God’s Word through the Bible.

And the bible…the Written Word of God…says to follow the traditions handed on through the Church…which Catholics would agree are not man made traditions…curious though, do you follow the Saturday Sabbath? If not, why not?

2 Thessalonians 2
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
6 Now we command you, beloved,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are** living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they[c] received from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

I prefer to put my faith in something that I know is from God, than traditions of men, most of which were started years after the writings in the Bible.

And of course one must ask, how do you know that the bible you are holding is the inspired and inerrant Word of God?

**

 

[aidanbradypop]

So here is my issue. If you were Bible Alone and everything is held accountable to Scripture, then shouldn’t that be stated in Scripture? Shouldn’t we clearly see that written down? If non Catholics would just state that Bible Alone is a tradition of Protestantism then I could respect that, but I am finding it hard for those who believe in Bible Alone to state asmuch. I can believe in Grace Alone and Christ Alone, but Bible Alone just falls short when we see that the opposite is stated clearly in Scripture.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

There are many more verses I could post. The Bible declares Bible Alone as being false. As it was stated above, many denominations view Bible Alone in many different ways. I do not believe the reformers would approve of the way Bible Alone is being taken.

SOOOOO will any Bible Alone believer please state that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant tradition???

 

[benjohnson]

So here is my issue. If you were Bible Alone and everything is held accountable to Scripture, then shouldn’t that be stated in Scripture? Shouldn’t we clearly see that written down? If non Catholics would just state that Bible Alone is a tradition of Protestantism then I could respect that, but I am finding it hard for those who believe in Bible Alone to state asmuch. I can believe in Grace Alone and Christ Alone, but Bible Alone just falls short when we see that the opposite is stated clearly in Scripture.

Perhaps this is one of those weird cases where the phrase needs to be understood in Latin. As I understand it - ‘Sola’ in used in the ablative of separation - meaning that the bible is moving ‘away’ form others, and is not by itself in a vacuum.

You can see it in the other 'solae" - Christ alone - but with the church. Grace alone - but with the sacraments. Faith alone - but with sanctification.

So if you mean “Bible by itself and nothing else” then you’d need to see that in the bible. If you mean Bible as a final check of tradition and the source of doctrine then perhaps you may not need to see that for it’s not asking you to give up anything.

SOOOOO will any Bible Alone believer please state that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant tradition???

I have no problem with saying “Sola Scriptura” It’s a modern practice of the church for curtailing modern abuses and modern doctrines by applying His word.

The ECF were blessed to have His word still ringing in their ears being only a few generations away from Calvary. We’re not so fortunate - and after over 1500 years of ‘telephone’ going back to what was received from God seemed wise.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Perhaps this is one of those weird cases where the phrase needs to be understood in Latin. As I understand it - ‘Sola’ in used in the ablative of separation - meaning that the bible is moving ‘away’ form others, and is not by itself in a vacuum.

You can see it in the other 'solae" - Christ alone - but with the church. Grace alone - but with the sacraments. Faith alone - but with sanctification.

So if you mean “Bible by itself and nothing else” then you’d need to see that in the bible. If you mean Bible as a final check of tradition and the source of doctrine then perhaps you may not need to see that for it’s not asking you to give up anything.

I have no problem with saying “Sola Scriptura” It’s a modern practice of the church for curtailing modern abuses and modern doctrines by applying His word.

Right on with the bolded part. If one is to believe, then it should be stated in the bible.

Another issue…why is Scripture the final check of Tradition? Why not allow the two to work together equally and compliment one another? So would you admit that Scripture being the final check is a Lutheran/Protestant tradition?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sola Scriptura means Scripture has the last word, that’s all.

Layman, as a general principle I agree with you that Scripture is the ultimate authority … has the last word.

And who determined what the last word is? And how?

Simka,

Like Nicaea, I am eagerly waiting for this clear and absolute declaration and proof from the Early Church that Sola Scriptura was established by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy -two] others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit. 2 He said to them, “The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest. 3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves. 4 Carry no money bag, no sack, no sandals; and greet no one along the way. 5 Into whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this household.’ 6 If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay in the same house and eat and drink what is offered to you, for the laborer deserves his payment. Do not move about from one house to another. 8 Whatever town you enter and they welcome you, eat what is set before you, 9 cure the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God is at hand for you.’ 10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, 11 ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. 12 I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town. (Luke 10:1-12)

16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

Notice how our Lord did not give the 72 a handbook or and of the old scrolls. Further, he clearly says the word:“listen”.

Then,

Matthew 28:16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. 18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

No Bible to take along

If you only knew that the reason for the Bible was to fight all the heretical and false books that were claiming to be the Word of God. I mean if you base you premise that the Bible is the Word of God because it says so itself… What would you have done with all the other books and letters that were claiming the same thing at the time? No archaeology, no Universities, nothing… Except for one thing: (wait for it, wait for it, wait for it)

The Catholic Church!!!

15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

God’s people united in communion with each other with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, One God, One Body, One Faith, Amen.

 

[Simka]

I am eagerly waiting for this clear and absolute declaration and proof from the Early Church that Sola Scriptura was established by Jesus and the Apostles.

Isaiah, I will give you that, as soon as you show me a similar absolute declaration and proof for the doctrine of the Trinity. (You and I both know that neither one is possible.)

In the meantime, what I can do for you is to show that the broader principles underlying sola Scriptura were the default position of the early church; that they were the common teaching and practice of the early church fathers, in simple recognition of the authority given to the Inspired Word of God … the Scriptures.

The inspiration and authority of Scripture, of course, was established by Jesus and confirmed by the Apostles. Being widely accepted and largely uncontested within the church it didn’t require anything more doctrinal than periodic affirmation that Scripture alone was the standard to which all tenets of the faith were subject.

Such affirmations from the church fathers are available to anyone who cares to read them, recorded for posterity by a number of church historians; but as you also know, there is one who doesn’t want to believe, and insists rather that I am “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” – without being able to point to any factual error in what I posited.

When, over time, the church gradually drifted away from that early standard, the reformers articulated a doctrinal statement, specifically in relation to salvation, which relied on the fundamental principle of the authority of God’s Inspired Word, to draw the church back to its earlier practice. That statement said that Scripture alone contains all the knowledge necessary for salvation and holy living. The Council of Trent contradicted a 1500-year-old practice, and said “Not true.”

 

[PRmerger]

Isaiah, I will give you that, as soon as you show me a similar absolute declaration and proof for the doctrine of the Trinity. (You and I both know that neither one is possible.)

This is wonderful apologia for the need for Sacred Tradition.

You know and proclaim the dogma of the Trinity because Sacred Tradition established this for you, Simka.

 

[benjohnson]

Another issue…why is Scripture the final check of Tradition? Why not allow the two to work together equally and compliment one another? So would you admit that Scripture being the final check is a Lutheran/Protestant tradition?

Scripture would never contradict true God-given tradition, so they do complement each other. I would think Scripture would be more normative as it is less prone to being changed without obvious evidence of being changed.

 

[Peebo]

So…here we have the Catholic Church which takes the words of Jesus literaly…“you are Peter…and upon this rock I will build my church…and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”…and so for 2000 years the Catholic Church has stood on the aurthority given it by Jesus Christ…one Holy and Apostolic Church… on the other hand…here we have Protestants who don’t believe Jesus meant what he in fact literaly said…and so…for 500 years since the Reformation there are now somewhere like 30,000 different Protestant churches…and growing daily…mostly because they can’t agree with one verse of scripture from another…so much for Sola Scriptura…interesting.

 

[Tomster]

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.

You got that right.

 

[Simka]

This is wonderful apologia for the need for Sacred Tradition.
You know and proclaim the dogma of the Trinity because Sacred Tradition established this for you, Simka.

No, not exactly, PR … “Sacred Tradition” did not establish this doctrine. Check your resources … Sacred Tradition doesn’t establish anything. It adopts and embraces what has already been established.

I know and proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a doctrine reasonably and logically derived from the written word (Scripture), even though it is not explicitly stated. I am not affected directly by whether or not it has also been adopted into Sacred Tradition.

The practice of recognizing reasonable and logical derivation is entirely consistent with the singular authority of Scripture, and with SS.

 

[Tomster]

I do not believe anyone knows exactly what it means.

I think we have received at least four different definitions on this thread alone.

 

[Tomster]

holy moly! 27 pages?! I’m the OP, but I don’t think I could keep up with all this. I haven’t looked at it since page 5 I think. haha.

Scanning the thread, I find it funny to hear Protestants debating Sola Scriptura. Some say they believe in tradition, some don’t. Some say they believe in councils, some don’t.

They pray about it and believe the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to them, but they just can’t figure it out! I guess the Holy Spirit tells one Protestant one thing, and a different Protestant another.

The Holy Spirit of Protestantism must be schizophrenic!

There is some divergence of opinions from their side of the aisle.

 

[Tomster]

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod responses are very interesting.

Basically they believe “The Catholics are wrong, all the other Protestants are wrong… we alone are right.”

So after 2,000 years, God has only protected 2.3 million people from error-- even though LCMS admit the Holy Spirit doesn’t protect them from error.

So if the LCMS believe they’re the only truly correct denomination, but deny that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error (i.e. infallibility), how does an individual LCMS believer really know that the LCMS is true?

I don’t think you’ll get an answer on this one. (psst, they haven’t figured this one out yet)

 

[PRmerger]

No, not exactly, PR … “Sacred Tradition” did not establish this doctrine. Check your resources … Sacred Tradition doesn’t establish anything. It adopts and embraces what has already been established.

ST “established” the dogma in that it proclaimed that which the Holy Spirit assisted it in proclaiming.

But you would not have the dogma of the Trinity by reading the Scripture alone. The testament of millions of unitarians, JWs, Christadelphians, etc etc etc is proof of that.

JWs love to ask, “If you were raised on a desert island and a bible were dropped in your lap, would you conclude that God is a Triune God from its pages?”

And I of course give them 100% agreement on this. They are 100% correct: we could not surmise the dogma of the Trinity from the pages of the Bible.

Fortunately, I understand that we do not extract our dogmas and doctrines from the pages of a book, no matter how holy.

If we did, we would be like the JWs and conclude lots of weird things.

 

[PRmerger]

I know and proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a doctrine reasonably and logically derived from the written word (Scripture),

The practice of recognizing reasonable and logical derivation is entirely consistent with the singular authority of Scripture, and with SS.

If this were true then were would not be Bible Alone advocates who deny the Trinity.