Why Sola Scriptura fails

[joe371]

Yes, “sola” can be translated as “only” or “alone”. The title “sola Scriptura” stands for and represents a principle, or a practice, or a teaching, or a position, that “only Scripture” or “Scripture alone” is the final authority in refuting or validating a doctrine of the church.

The principle of SS does NOT mean, as you suggest above, that the church should hold to Scripture alone, and nothing else. That it a misrepresentation of SS.

SS has no issue with tradition. The 16th century advocates of SS welcomed church traditions, and acknowledged them as valuable, worth holding to, providing quality instruction in Christian living. The only proviso they wanted the church to retain was that decisions based on tradition should be subject to Scriptural oversight … that Scripture alone was the final arbiter on doctrinal matters.

Surely it would have made more sense to say the following, if sola scriptura was what God intended:

His intent was that now, through the scriptures the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, where scripture can be found, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, defer to sacred scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Luther challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope.

As indulgences deal with remission of the temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven, it is curious how Luther could assess their “effectiveness”. What measure did he use? And how was he able to gauge whether this temporal punishment remained?

It would appear that you are assigning some sort of supernatural charism to Fr. Luther that I doubt he claimed for himself.

Soon afterward, reformers were challenging the entire system from which indulgences derived. Traditions regarding Purgatory, the Treasury of Merits, and the Intercessions of the Saints were brought into question, because they were held to be unsupported by Scripture.

And you can now add: infant baptism, the Real Presence, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the inspiration of the epistles of Paul, the sacrament of marriage between a man and woman , etc etc etc….ad nauseum–all now “brought into question” because they are held to be unsupported by Scripture.

Thanks to the legacy of the Reformers, all sorts of bizarre beliefs are now being proposed as being found in Scripture, and all sorts of fundamental Christian doctrines are now being rejected as being unsupported by Scripture.

See what happens when you interpret the Scriptures outside the lens of the Faith which gave you these Scriptures?

 

[joe371]

Right.
Sacred Tradition = the Word of God.
traditions = customs.

There have been no new doctrines, Simka. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

In acts 15 we see the very first council, with decisions being made, without the aid of scripture…Some have told me that the apostolic age was exempt, which still does not explain why scripture emphasizes the importance of apostolic succession in terms of preserving and transmitting true doctrine. Even if sola scriptura was taught by the apostles and their successors (which of course it was not) the interpretation of scripture alone would be confined to that particular apostolic succession. The following is quite obvious:

“To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.”

 

[benjohnson]

Ben,

You are not trusting Tradition.

1. …you should have 73 books in your bible that are believed to be inspired and inerrant…if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church…ask the Orthodox…there’s 2,000 years of Tradition on the 73 books between us.

Luther’s bible has 74 books, so we have more that you

In all seriousness, the LCMS is coming around to it’s roots and we’ll have a 73 book bible soon enough. We already have a great study bible of the Apocrypha.

1. Same about contraception…even Luther spoke out against it…vehemently…as did the other “reformers”

This tugs at my heart because I deeply respect the Catholic teaching on this. I’m content with the LCMS teaching that non-damaging barriers methods are permissible, though I wish that we we more open to larger families in practice. Frankly, I wish my family had more than three children but medial needs don’t allow for that and LCMS teaching din’t get to us in time.

On faith and morals, the Catholic Church is unchanged for 2,000 years, guided by Holy Spirit to all Truth. That’s what you can trust…Christ’s words…Christ’s Church.

Pork.

I’m very happy for the steadfastness of the Catholic church, and pray that we all maintain what is right and good in these coming secular years.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by pablope
Well…could you tell us what these new doctrines are?

 

[Porknpie]

Luther’s bible has 74 books, so we have more that you

In all seriousness, the LCMS is coming around to it’s roots and we’ll have a 73 book bible soon enough. We already have a great study bible of the Apocrypha.

Ben, but will you believe that all 73 books are inerrant and infallible? The Catholics and Orthodox have believed so for 2,000 years. If not, you are following a man made tradition that you speak out against.

This tugs at my heart because I deeply respect the Catholic teaching on this. I’m content with the LCMS teaching that non-damaging barriers methods are permissible, though I wish that we we more open to larger families in practice. Frankly, I wish my family had more than three children but medial needs don’t allow for that and LCMS teaching din’t get to us in time.

Again you are following a man made tradition, not in the bible and not even supported by Luther or any of the other reformers. I personally could not be content with this…based on what and with who as the authority?

I’m very happy for the steadfastness of the Catholic church, and pray that we all maintain what is right and good in these coming secular years.

Nice. Agree. Just stop saying that Catholics follow man made traditions and imply or say that you do not.

 

[Simka]

As indulgences deal with remission of the temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven, it is curious how Luther could assess their “effectiveness”. What measure did he use? And how was he able to gauge whether this temporal punishment remained?

It would appear that you are assigning some sort of supernatural charism to Fr. Luther that I doubt he claimed for himself.

No, not I, PR … I’m not assigning anything to anyone. You asked, and I answered from the info available to me. That he challenged their effectiveness is a matter of history. What measure he used, I do not know.

 

[Simka]

I am overwhelmed…honestly, I do not even know where to start…you have been fed so much misunderstanding here…may more misinformation…I mean…I would not even venture to guess where you got your information.

It’s readily available in any number of history books, Catholic and otherwise, in most libraries. It’s what many encyclopedias report. I can’t pass judgment one way or the other on the validity of Luther’s position 500 years ago. I’m just telling you what that position was.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[JonNC]

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?

What Fr. Martin said is irrelevant. But in post 601 I posted what the c
Lutheran confessions say. He was dead by the time the Formula of Concord was written, but I suspect he would have affirmed it.
Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

As indulgences deal with remission of the temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven, it is curious how Luther could assess their “effectiveness”. What measure did he use? And how was he able to gauge whether this temporal punishment remained?

It would appear that you are assigning some sort of supernatural charism to Fr. Luther that I doubt he claimed for himself.

And you can now add: infant baptism, the Real Presence, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the inspiration of the epistles of Paul, the sacrament of marriage between a man and woman , etc etc etc….ad nauseum–all now “brought into question” because they are held to be unsupported by Scripture.

Thanks to the legacy of the Reformers, all sorts of bizarre beliefs are now being proposed as being found in Scripture, and all sorts of fundamental Christian doctrines are now being rejected as being unsupported by Scripture.

See what happens when you interpret the Scriptures outside the lens of the Faith which gave you these Scriptures?

I love you lol

Ben, but will you believe that all 73 books are inerrant and infallible? The Catholics and Orthodox have believed so for 2,000 years. If not, you are following a man made tradition that you speak out against.

Again you are following a man made tradition, not in the bible and not even supported by Luther or any of the other reformers. I personally could not be content with this…based on what and with who as the authority?

Nice. Agree. Just stop saying that Catholics follow man made traditions and imply or say that you do not.

What always gets me is that how can people decide what is considered inspired Scripture after the Church established by Christ already made a ruling on the matter. Wait…wait…I know…just throw out or place on a lower level the books that do not agree with your theology. :banghead:

 

[PRmerger]

No, not I, PR … I’m not assigning anything to anyone. You asked, and I answered from the info available to me. That he challenged their effectiveness is a matter of history. What measure he used, I do not know.

I think you misspoke. It’s common knowledge that Fr. Luther challenged the Scriptural basis for indulgences. However, that he challenged their “effectiveness” is incorrect.

 

[PRmerger]

I love you lol

:curtsey:

Right back at 'cha!

 

[Simka]

I think you misspoke. It’s common knowledge that Fr. Luther challenged the Scriptural basis for indulgences. However, that he challenged their “effectiveness” is incorrect.

If that’s true, you may want to correct the Online Journal of Lutheran Theology, which states:

“For instance, in the 95 Theses of 1517, Martin Luther famously challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope. Soon afterward, Luther and other reformers were not merely challenging the effectiveness of indulgences, but the entire system from which indulgences derived.”

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s true, you may want to correct the Online Journal of Lutheran Theology, which states:

“For instance, in the 95 Theses of 1517, Martin Luther famously challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope. Soon afterward, Luther and other reformers were not merely challenging the effectiveness of indulgences, but the entire system from which indulgences derived.”

Primary sources are, of course, the solution to our disagreement.

Clearly, I could say, “Martin Luther believed that he was the Queen of England” but unless I produce a source, everyone ought to scoff at that statement.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, Simka, when you wrote this:

Luther challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope. Soon afterward, reformers were challenging the entire system from which indulgences derived.

And it looks* exactly like* that which is written here, from the Online Journal of Lutheran Theology:

“For instance, in the 95 Theses of 1517, Martin Luther famously challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope. Soon afterward, Luther and other reformers were not merely challenging the effectiveness of indulgences, but the entire system from which indulgences derived.”

it made it appear as if your first post was your own thoughts.

It turns out you merely plagiarized that which you took from another source.

In the interest of intellectual honesty you ought to have clearly said, “I did not write this myself but took another’s words and made it appear as if it was something I wrote.”

 

[benjohnson]

Nice. Agree. Just stop saying that Catholics follow man made traditions and imply or say that you do not.

I’m not here to pick apart your faith. But to say that Catholics never have swayed from perfect morals and gospel isn’t accurate from our vantage point - the reformation didn’t start for nothing. The Catholic arguments seems to be that “that wasn’t the Church” but our viewpoint differed - as the messenger was excommunicated by none-other than the Pope.

Even in simple things - my Catholic friends tend to get teary eyed at first seeing our kneelers around the alter rail.

When I say we follow Tradition, I’m saying that we’re doing our best in these troubled times . We often fail.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m not here to pick apart your faith. But to say that Catholics never have swayed from perfect morals and gospel isn’t accurate from our vantage point - the reformation didn’t start for nothing. The Catholic arguments seems to be that “that wasn’t the Church” but our viewpoint differed - as the messenger was excommunicated by none-other than the Pope.

Even in simple things - my Catholic friends tend to get teary eyed at first seeing our kneelers around the alter rail.

When I say we follow Tradition, I’m saying that we’re doing our best in these troubled times . We often fail.

You failure lol…Join the club! lol

I love altar rails. It is nice to seem them when I attend an Anglican Use parish.

 

[steido01]

Luther could have followed the example of Catherine.

I think it’s clear from the quotes I have already provided that Luther did. He tried, at the threat of his life, to avoid schism. Let’s keep in mind how different the world was at the time - most European politicians were seeking autonomy (and any excuse for it) from a political system that had essentially mutated the papacy into a political office. There were hundreds of kingdoms in Europe (dozens in Germany), and each with its own interests. The Reformation and the resulting schism is not the work of one man - that’s giving far to much credit to a German monk!

On a related note, I’ve noticed that your responses have not acknowledged Leo to be responsible for any portion of the blame. Is this intentional? Were men of both sides to blame, or do you earnestly see no fault at all in Rome’s handling of these affairs?

Right…Lutherans claime their definition should hold…but where is the statement from Luther himself as to what SS is?

Others have answered this question in this thread. But to reiterate, the Lutheran definition IS the original understanding of this concept. To deny this would be ignoring historical fact; it would be similar to saying that the “Goddess Rosary” (an heretical parody of the Rosary used by liberal ‘Christians’) is an acceptable form of the Rosary. In scholarly discussion, the Lutheran definition really ought to hold. We object to the subsequent perversions of SS as much as you.

What I find puzzling is…why does the co-opting the phrase not make you guys mad or upset…and make efforts to correct the malpractice?

It does. Immensely. I suspect poor catechesis of the laity is largely to blame, coupled with/caused by centuries of misunderstanding and cultural influence by non-Lutherans (particularly in America). A simple Google search will find plenty of Confessional Lutherans who are upset by the misuse of SS.

We will be going so far off topic…so I will reserve responses for another day or appropriate thread…

:tiphat:

By the way, doesn’t the passage from 1 Samuel also demonstrate how God deals with figures of authority who abandon their post in search of earthly power? What happened to Saul when he did not feed his sheep, but instead tried to kill David?

It is a pleasure discussing with you, pablope. God bless you!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

steido01;10758422]

In scholarly discussion, the Lutheran definition really ought to hold. We object to the subsequent perversions of SS as much as you.

A simple Google search will find plenty of Confessional Lutherans who are upset by the misuse of SS.

Hi steido01, enjoying the posts here; I have one question? Was Martin Luther’s main purpose to introduce his doctrine of SS to refute “Works”? And then sola fide with out works? He justified this by trying to relable or remove the book of James calling it the book of straw.

James teaches faith and works; James 2:17 “Faith (Alone) of itself, if it does not have works, is dead”. paranthesis mine.

If your Lutheran definition of SS is to include some biblical Traditions which the Catholic church has always maintained. These biblical Traditions include the Works by faith that is “working out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

Would not your SS doctrine today contradict Luther’s SS doctrine who rejected works? and exclaimed Sola Fide and SS is all one needs for salvation?

If you have a search for this answer can be helpful;

Thanks
peace be with you

 

[pablope]

I think it’s clear from the quotes I have already provided that Luther did. He tried, at the threat of his life, to avoid schism. Let’s keep in mind how different the world was at the time - most European politicians were seeking autonomy (and any excuse for it) from a political system that had essentially mutated the papacy into a political office. There were hundreds of kingdoms in Europe (dozens in Germany), and each with its own interests. The Reformation and the resulting schism is not the work of one man - that’s giving far to much credit to a German monk!

Hi, Steid…I understand what you are saying, and let me clarify…Luther could have used and learned from Catherine…in how he dealt with those he dealt with…with wisdom and love…ewtn.com/library/mary/catsiena.htm

To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies…One of the important women of Europe, Catherine’s gifts of heart and mind were used in the furtherance of the Christian ideal.
.]

On a related note, I’ve noticed that your responses have not acknowledged Leo to be responsible for any portion of the blame. Is this intentional? Were men of both sides to blame, or do you earnestly see no fault at all in Rome’s handling of these affairs?