Why Sola Scriptura fails

[CopticChristian]

Well, here we are, right back to the start, and with the same confusion of the issue. The fundamental problem that arose in the 1500’s was that Reformers were upset because they perceived that the church was indeed, using (small “t”) tradition to overrule Scripture, in precisely the same manner as the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus’ day had given their traditions precedence to overrule the Word of God.

So, specifically on the issue of salvation, they said that Scripture contained all the knowledge that was necessary. The corollary was, on that particular subject, any tradition was only beneficial if it helped to understand Scripture.

By the way, you cannot now or ever know what the Reformer/Deformers felt…“they were upset”…no way you can know this.

Simple question for you. Is it your belief that the Catholic Church, aside from everyone else, believes that there is an Oral Tradition that has been part and parcel of the Church.

 

[Tomster]

aidanbradypop;10754406:

Simka;10754389:

Ask a relevant question and I will try to answer it. There is no “verse and chapter” confirming SS. Explicit content within Scripture has never been a prerequisite for being Scriptural.

There is no “verse and chapter” confirming a number of doctrines … the Trinity, as an example. Both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture.

Well if both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture, as you say, why should I believe in your ability to reason logically. Or are you saying that your ability to reason logically is infallible?

Please clarify.

 

[CopticChristian]

aidanbradypop;10754406:

Simka;10754389:

Ask a relevant question and I will try to answer it. There is no “verse and chapter” confirming SS. Explicit content within Scripture has never been a prerequisite for being Scriptural.

.

There is no “verse and chapter” confirming a number of doctrines … the Trinity, as an example. Both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture

Perfectly clear to anyone with a Bible…but how is it with the Bible alone we get…

Mormons
Jehovah Witness
Oneness Pentacostals
7th Day Adventists

is it not clear as can be to them as well?

Where is the authority that declares this reasonably, logical derivation from Scripture, that if truly clear would leave no room for doubt for anyone?

 

[aidanbradypop]

fix your quoting lol

 

[steido01]

Hi there,

Sorry, Jon - “Sola Scriptura” means “Scripture alone”.

You cant claim Scripture alone, and then say there are room for other things.

No - its Scripture alone.

Since Lutherans coined the phrase, shouldn’t we use the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura? It can be difficult to understand, particularly when non-denominational mega churches have popularly misappropriated the phrase, but Sola Scriptura -in its original, intended sense- does not mean what you think it does.

If, instead of scripture alone, Protestants had scripture, reason and tradition - then they would actually be Catholics!

Thank you! We consider ourselves to be catholic.

CopticChristian:

…Reformer/Deformers…

Peace be with you.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Since Lutherans coined the phrase, shouldn’t we use the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura? It can be difficult to understand, particularly when non-denominational mega churches have popularly misappropriated the phrase, but Sola Scriptura -in its original, intended sense- does not mean what you think it does.

Thank you! We consider ourselves to be catholic.

Peace be with you.

Since Luther coined the Reformation, do we blame him for all the thousands od denomination and their interpretation?

 

[pablope]

Since Lutherans coined the phrase, shouldn’t we use the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura? It can be difficult to understand, particularly when non-denominational mega churches have popularly misappropriated the phrase, but Sola Scriptura -in its original, intended sense- does not mean what you think it does.

Thank you! We consider ourselves to be catholic.

Peace be with you.

I have listened to former protestant, with a doctorate in religion history, say that he could not find a definition of SS from Luther…but what do I know…

So well…then, can you provide the official writing of Luther as to what SS is?

 

[pablope]

*If, instead of scripture alone, Protestants had scripture, reason and tradition - then they would actually be Catholics! *

Thank you! We consider ourselves to be catholic.

Peace be with you.

Well, if you are catholic, and a continuation of the western church, as claimed…then why are you not under the Patriach of the West? Or any patriarch for that matter?

 

[benjohnson]

Hi there,

Sorry, Jon - “Sola Scriptura” means “Scripture alone”.

I just checked with someone who’s Latin is much better than mine - Sola Scriptura is constructed in ablative of separation. A more-correct English translation is “[God’s] word above”

I’m going to use that from now on, as it reflects how Lutherans treat this practice of the Church…

 

[Simka]

Glad we agree that there is not one verse or chapter that affirms the theology of SS.

Oh, not again! That’s not what I said, not what I meant. Do you take special pleasure in misquoting and misinterpretation, or is misunderstanding just your default style?

 

[pablope]

aidanbradypop;10754474:

Glad we agree that there is not one verse or chapter that affirms the theology of SS.

Oh, not again! That’s not what I said, not what I meant. Do you take special pleasure in misquoting and misinterpretation, or is misunderstanding just your default style?

But let me give you a chance to defend your position. Let’s talk about some of those that “kind of shoot it down”.

Based on what…your interpretation? But how can you be sure you interpretation is correct, is the truth?

 

[benjohnson]

There is not even a verse or chapter that even hints to the theology of SS.

This is where I have to disagree. In my church life, I’ve learned to trust God. So frankly, if the God says something, I’m going to believe it.

Sola Scriptura is basically this, but instead of me trusting God as an individual, it’s the Church trusting God and His Word. Absolutely.

Sola Scriptura is an indication of how much the Church trusts God’s word and promises. Frankly, of all the modern practices of our church, Sola Scriptura is the one I would not abandon.

In my opinion, that it took us creatures this long to place into words the absolute trust in God’s Word is a shame.

 

[CopticChristian]

aidanbradypop;10754474:

Glad we agree that there is not one verse or chapter that affirms the theology of SS.

Oh, not again! That’s not what I said, not what I meant. Do you take special pleasure in misquoting and misinterpretation, or is misunderstanding just your default style?

Contrary to your contention, I maintain there are Scripture verses that confirm the underlying principles on which SS is based.

It appears you are proposing Material and not Formal Sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simka
Well, here we are, right back to the start, and with the same confusion of the issue. The fundamental problem that arose in the 1500’s was that Reformers were upset because they perceived that the church was indeed, using (small “t”) tradition to overrule Scripture, in precisely the same manner as the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus’ day had given their traditions precedence to overrule the Word of God.

So, specifically on the issue of salvation, they said that** Scripture contained all the knowledge that was necessary**. The corollary was, on that particular subject, any tradition was only beneficial if it helped to understand Scripture.

Simka:

You continue to dodge the same inquired question:

Chapter and verse where the Reformers believed Scripture contained all the knowledge that was necessary?

WHERE is it Simka?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, before you slam the door, can I ask you one last question? It continues to nag at me, so I hope you can help me understand … because on the surface this situation seems so uncharacteristically irrational. Perhaps there is some justification I have overlooked.

In a message I read a few pages ago, a couple of sentences had been quoted from Cyril to show his support for “tradition”. The excerpt was quite brief, but the message writer’s plaudits were plentiful.

Then, I took exactly the same quotation, and enlarged on it by including additional sentences before and after, which had been omitted from the first quotation. I expanded on the very same paragraph in the same lecture, for the specific purpose of showing the broader context. The problem arose when, in that larger context of what Cyril had actually said, it was obvious that tradition, while important, was nonetheless to be grounded in Scripture. Of course, such a conclusion could not be allowed to stand unchallenged. It had to be attacked somehow. But the single criticism voiced in opposition to my broader, contextualized message was “You’re taking it out of context.”

Can somebody explain that to me? What kind of thinking is it, that says a larger, more comprehensive quotation is somehow “out of context”, but the abbreviated text is not? Just curious, ‘cuz I’d hate to think irrational, emotional prejudice was the underlying foundation of the criticism.

Thanx.

Simka:

I have read books on SS by authors who merely isolate specific ECF’s quotes in order to present a “smoking” gun in order to prove SS existed and it was believed by the ECF. Simka, I am not a fool to know it is VERY disingenuous on the author’s part. I am an educated person and know when sources are being presented dishonestly. He or she is NOT being honest with their presentation of the ECF’s words or works.

What those SS advocates fail to tell their readers as to why the ECF said what he said and what where the reasons the ECF said those specific words. SS advocates simply look for words by the ECF mentioning Scripture and automatically it is assumed that specific ECF practiced SS,which is a flat out lie! That is taking their words out-of-context and NOT reading their works in its ENTIRETY to understand it in the larger context of the matter in which the ECF wrote the work.

Simka, I am going to ask you one more time, so please stop dodging me:

If **SS is a doctrine **as you stated and believed it was practiced in the early church, then kindly tell me WHY it was totally ignored at every ecumenical council? Not the usage of Scripture,but the doctrine who claim already existed. Why wasn’t it defined and ratified with all other orthodox doctrines? Something you claim was practiced yet 2,000 years later and it still goes wayward?

 

[pablope]

Contrary to your contention, I maintain there are Scripture verses that confirm the underlying principles on which SS is based.

But let me give you a chance to defend your position. Let’s talk about some of those that “kind of shoot it down”.

Simka…just another follow up question:

Based on what you stated above…are you the authority to declare what Scripture verses mean?

Does this authority rest in you (or the individual) or the Church?

Is the pillar and foundation of truth you (or the individual) or the Church?

Which do you think makes more sense…that the Holy Spirit will guide the individual to the truth?

Or that the HS will guide the church to the truth, teach that truth…and we, the believer, conform our beliefs to the teachings of the church guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[steido01]

"aidanbradypop:

Since Luther coined the Reformation, do we blame him for all the thousands od denomination and their interpretation?

No, that blame would belong to the Enemy and the sin in man. Schism is a terrible thing, and we lament its necessity.

“To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.” - Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 1537.

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity… It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.” - Martin Luther, Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519.

I have listened to former protestant, with a doctorate in religion history, say that he could not find a definition of SS from Luther…but what do I know…
So well…then, can you provide the official writing of Luther as to what SS is?

“1. We believe, teach, and confess that the SOLE rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.” - Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

Pretty straightforward, really. Continued: bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

Well, if you are catholic, and a continuation of the western church, as claimed…then why are you not under the Patriach of the West? Or any patriarch for that matter?

We pray, in earnest, that one day we may be again. But submission to any patriarch who does not confess the gospel in its wonderful clarity is, from our view, wrong.

 

[aidanbradypop]

**There is no “verse and chapter” confirming SS. Explicit content within Scripture has never been a prerequisite for being Scriptural.

There is no “verse and chapter” confirming a number of doctrines … the Trinity, as an example. Both positions are reasonably and logically derived from Scripture**.

I stated

Glad we agree that there is not one verse or chapter that affirms the theology of SS.

Oh, not again! That’s not what I said, not what I meant. Do you take special pleasure in misquoting and misinterpretation, or is misunderstanding just your default style?

Look above Simka. I even quoted it for you so you will not say that I am misquoting you again. I would have to misquote or misinterpret you as you do with Cyril.

Contrary to your contention, I maintain there are Scripture verses that confirm the underlying principles on which SS is based.

Would you be so kind as to show me? I have, afterall, been asking you all day now. Thanks

 

[aidanbradypop]

This is where I have to disagree. In my church life, I’ve learned to trust God. So frankly, if the God says something, I’m going to believe it.

Sola Scriptura is basically this, but instead of me trusting God as an individual, it’s the Church trusting God and His Word. Absolutely.

Sola Scriptura is an indication of how much the Church trusts God’s word and promises. Frankly, of all the modern practices of our church, Sola Scriptura is the one I would not abandon.

In my opinion, that it took us creatures this long to place into words the absolute trust in God’s Word is a shame.

It is a shame that you miss out on so much without completely trusting in Sacred Tradition as well. You are allowed to disagree. SS is a man-made tradition I am glad you find peace and serenity in it.

 

[pablope]

No, that blame would belong to the Enemy and the sin in man. Schism is a terrible thing, and we lament its necessity.

“To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.” - Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 1537.