Why Sola Scriptura fails

[JonNC]

So when Luther and Calvin both interpreted the same Scripture and came to different conclusions, which interpretation was inspired by the Holy Spirit and which was not?

Let me put this into a slightly more philosophical question:

Let’s assume that A, B, and C are true interpretations of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit, and that X, Y, and Z are the converse false interpretations of Scripture not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If one Protestant Theologian such as Luther teaches A, B, and Z; and another theologian such as Calvin teaches X, Y, and C; and both theologians provide Scriptural support, exegesis, and hermeneutics to prove their interpretation; how do we as laity know which interpretation is the correct one and which is not? How do we discern which is A, B, and C, and which is X, Y, and Z?

Great question, and the same one I ask often about the interpretation of Sacred Tradition between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, PNCC, etc.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

I am fully satisfied that the Holy Spirit will lead me to an interpretation of any part of Scripture He wants me to understand. And I am convinced that He is as infallible as any other Interpreter you might propose.

Yes, there are difficult passages; but if the Holy Spirit was the inspiration behind their writing, who better to interpret for me?

Who better to interpet for you you ask. Try an infallible interpreter.

You still haven’t explained how, in the example given above by KEP 1983, Luther and Calvin came up with different interpretations while both were convinced, as you say, that the Holy Spirit led them as individuals into all truth.

Can’t you see the contradiction here?

 

[Tomster]

So, just to be clear: you are saying that these 20,000 people had the authority/ability to read a text that talked of religious matters and discern whether it was theopneustos or not?

BTW: this question is very, very much on topic so it’s not appropriate to duck out of this question by appealing to “this is not on topic”.

‘zactly’

 

[Tomster]

Great question, and the same one I ask often about the interpretation of Sacred Tradition between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, PNCC, etc.

Jon

The answer to your question has already been answered in the past 10 or 15 posts Jon.

 

[Porknpie]

I am fully satisfied that the Holy Spirit will lead me to an interpretation of any part of Scripture He wants me to understand. And I am convinced that He is as infallible as any other Interpreter you might propose.

Yes, there are difficult passages; but if the Holy Spirit was the inspiration behind their writing, who better to interpret for me?

One more Simka. John 16

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Jesus was not speaking to the crowds at this point. He was speaking to his apostles…the first Bishops of the Catholic Church. The Spirit of Truth came to the Church, guiding it to all truth on faith and morals…and Christ said he would protect the Church until the end of time.

As you self interpret the bible separated from the Church & one faith that gave it to you, you twist scripture as you are not infallible. The authority, given by Christ to interpret scripture was given to the the Church (Magisterium). 42,000 Churches, many with their own pastors think the same as you do … and each interpret the Written of Word of God differently.

That’s a reason why “Sola Scriptura Fails”

Charity,

Pork

(PS …back to post 610…it took me a while to write this…please respond…see how the Church appealed to both Tradition and Scripture…both)

 

[Simka]

So when Luther and Calvin both interpreted the same Scripture and came to different conclusions, which interpretation was inspired by the Holy Spirit and which was not?

I don’t know. Again, I wasn’t there, and I don’t know which particular “different conclusion” you refer to.

Let me put this into a slightly more philosophical question …
… how do we as laity know which interpretation is the correct one and which is not? How do we discern which is A, B, and C, and which is X, Y, and Z?

If the issue is important to you, and you need to make a decision, I suppose you have two choices: (1) seek the counsel of your church leaders and any other resources you think appropriate; and pray about it; or (2) let someone else you trust make the decision for you.

 

[Tomster]

Simka, this is something for your consideration. See if you can find the reasonableness of what I am about to say.

From the Catholic perspective, we ask ourselves what must we believe? The answer is disarmingly simple: By divine and catholic faith everything must believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object or belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.

But there is more to this answer than meets the eye. So many things are said that it will be worth numbering them in sequence.

1. Besides being divine, faith is also to be catholic (lower case), in that a believer is to accept everything that God has revealed. Hence faith should be universal (catholica) and not a selective of what a person chooses to believe.
2. Through what channels has divine revelation been communicated? Literally “in the written or handed-down word of God.”
3. There is nothing ambiguous about how a Catholic knows what to believe: whatever the Church proposes as having been revealed. Christ, therefore, not only committed to the Church the fullness of his word, but through the Church he continues to transmit the Gospel of salvation. He promised He would not leave us orphans.
4. Then, to remove every shade of ambiguity, Catholics are informed how the Church offers her adherents the word of God. The transmission occurseither by way of occasional, solemn teaching, as in the case of an ecumenical council (the Council of Jerusalem as stated in the Scriptures is the prototype); or by means of the perennial exercise of the Church’s official teaching authority. It is especially this second form of transmission, found in the ordinary and universal teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, that has come under assault by those who want nothing less than solemn definitions as an index of obligation to believe.

What abouth the duty of a Catholic to remain steadfast in the faith that he professes? The question revolves around the nature of certainty in faith. The Lateran Council stated the uniform tradition of the Church, “that faith cannot admit any error.”

Now the problem was more subtle. Would a Catholic ever be justified, because of difficulties against his faith, to doubt or renounce his beliefs? The Council replied by comparing two classes of people, namely Catholics and others. Their respective situations are not the same: “Those who have accepted the faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just reason for changing that faithor calling into doubt.” Why not? Because God is never wanting with His grace, and because the evidence for accepting this faith is such that a Catholic does not have objectively valid grounds for doubting or denying what, perhaps subjectively, he finds trouble in believing.

This is very reasonable, clear-cut and understandable if you think about it.

Jon,

I welcome your response.

 

[PRmerger]

If the issue is important to you, and you need to make a decision, I suppose you have two choices: (1) seek the counsel of your church leaders and any other resources you think appropriate; and pray about it; or (2) let someone else you trust make the decision for you.

So if the church leader advises his parishioner, after reading the Scripture, to conclude: Jesus did not literally rise from the dead…

are you ok with this interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t pretend to offer a methodology by which the early church identified what God had inspired. I wasn’t there. But it happened. And when the institution of the church met in a 4th century council, they affirmed that these early Christians were right.

Yep, Simka. This is an example of Sacred Tradition in action.

As such, you are giving a testimony to Sacred Tradition each and every time you claim that the early Christians “recognized” Scripture.

And you are also giving testimony to your acknowledgement that you believe that the charism of infallibility was given to the Catholic Church, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

(Unless you want to proclaim that the Church erred somehow in declaring the 27 books of the NT canon to be inspired?)

 

[KEP1983]

I don’t know. Again, I wasn’t there, and I don’t know which particular “different conclusion” you refer to.

If the issue is important to you, and you need to make a decision, I suppose you have two choices: (1) seek the counsel of your church leaders and any other resources you think appropriate; and pray about it; or (2) let someone else you trust make the decision for you.

Good job avoiding the question.

**The question isn’t about “what’s important to me.” It’s about what’s objectively true.
**
We’re not post-modern relativists here.

If the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ, then it’s absolutely essential and even deserves worship. If it’s NOT the body and blood of Christ, then Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians are engaging in idolatry, and all idolaters go to Hell.

But your response “let someone else you trust make the decision for you” is quite telling. Why should we trust anyone else with discerning truth from falsehood unless God protects their interpretation? Otherwise we’re all just shooting in the dark, hoping to hit the target.

By your own admittance we have NO CLUE which interpretation is correct. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

The answer to your question has already been answered in the past 10 or 15 posts Jon.

Who answered it? Did an Orthodox Christian concur? That’s what I’m waiting for.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Who answered it? Did an Orthodox Christian concur? That’s what I’m waiting for.

Jon

There is no Catholic teaching derived from ST that the Orthodox disagree with, Jon, save, perhaps, for the primacy of Peter

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Tomster.

=Tomster;10762207]Simka, this is something for your consideration. See if you can find the reasonableness of what I am about to say.

From the Catholic perspective, we ask ourselves what must we believe? The answer is disarmingly simple: By divine and catholic faith everything must believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object or belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.

Agreed, that this is the Catholic perspective. And I would hold that many good Catholics here do this, and deserve the respect and admiration of their non-Catholic brothers and sister in Christ.

But there is more to this answer than meets the eye. So many things are said that it will be worth numbering them in sequence.

1. Besides being divine, faith is also to be catholic (lower case), in that a believer is to accept everything that God has revealed. Hence faith should be universal (catholica) and not a selective of what a person chooses to believe.

agreed.

1. Through what channels has divine revelation been communicated? Literally “in the written or handed-down word of God.”

The question is always handed down how and to whom.

1. There is nothing ambiguous about how a Catholic knows what to believe: whatever the Church proposes as having been revealed. Christ, therefore, not only committed to the Church the fullness of his word, but through the Church he continues to transmit the Gospel of salvation. He promised He would not leave us orphans.

No argument.

1. Then, to remove every shade of ambiguity, Catholics are informed how the Church offers her adherents the word of God. The transmission occurseither by way of occasional, solemn teaching, as in the case of an ecumenical council (the Council of Jerusalem as stated in the Scriptures is the prototype); or by means of the perennial exercise of the Church’s official teaching authority. It is especially this second form of transmission, found in the ordinary and universal teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, that has come under assault by those who want nothing less than solemn definitions as an index of obligation to believe.

I expect a Catholic should believe this. Would you say that all Catholics adhere to this?

What abouth the duty of a Catholic to remain steadfast in the faith that he professes? The question revolves around the nature of certainty in faith. The Lateran Council stated the uniform tradition of the Church, “that faith cannot admit any error.”

Now the problem was more subtle. Would a Catholic ever be justified, because of difficulties against his faith, to doubt or renounce his beliefs? The Council replied by comparing two classes of people, namely Catholics and others. Their respective situations are not the same: “Those who have accepted the faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just reason for changing that faithor calling into doubt.” Why not? Because God is never wanting with His grace, and because the evidence for accepting this faith is such that a Catholic does not have objectively valid grounds for doubting or denying what, perhaps subjectively, he finds trouble in believing.

This seems rather Catholic, though I expect an Orthodox Christian would say something similar. In fact, Lutherans should follow the same practice, though admittedly, some, maybe many, do not.

This is very reasonable, clear-cut and understandable if you think about it.

Indeed, and you are to be complimented for your reasoned and well stated post.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

There is no Catholic teaching derived from ST that the Orthodox disagree with, Jon, save, perhaps, for the primacy of Peter

And the Filioque, and indulgences, and the IC, and Purgatory, I think. One could even say that their view of Original Sin differs from ours in the western Church.

Jon

EDIT: I think, from what I’ve read, they have no problem with primacy, but instead supremacy, and of course, infallibility ex cathedra.

 

[KEP1983]

Great question, and the same one I ask often about the interpretation of Sacred Tradition between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, PNCC, etc.

Jon

You know Jon, I think you may have convinced me that the LCMS really is the one true Church. Since you gave so many strong arguments from Scripture and Tradition, I decided to look back to into both sources myself.

Matthew 16:17-19 “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Martin Luther, for sola fide and sola scriptura was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Luther, and on this rock I will build the Missouri Synod, because the gates of Hades overcome the Catholics and other Protestant denominations. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.””

**
Clement of the **Missouri Synod

“**Accept our counsel **and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to Calvin and the other Protestant heretics 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).”

St Irenaeus

"Luther and C. F. W. Walther, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (**Against Catholics and Protestants **3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]he Lord said to C. F. W. Walther, “On this rock I will build my Church, **I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what **they **shall have bound or **they **shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretic Protestants and Catholics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of C. F. W. Walther and to the principal church in Missouri, in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Missouri] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Cyprian

The Lord says to Luther: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Luther, and upon this Missouri Synod I will build my Church” . . . On **him **he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which **Luther **was , but a primacy is given to Luther, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Luther, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Luther upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Missouri Synod 4 [A.D. 251]).

Or you could read the real originals that all point TO ROME, which you conveniently ignored when I posted them earlier:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10711481&highlight=clement+rome#post10711481**

 

[benjohnson]

The answer to your question has already been answered in the past 10 or 15 posts Jon.

It very well could be that God has given all Lutherans thick brains and deaf ears, as I speak from my own assessment of myself.

But the fact that the PNCC, Orthodox, and even many Catholics don’t follow in the Catholic interpretation of sacred tradition indicates that the problem is hard, and that we probably have’t solved it in the last few posts.

It’s not that I don’t want a solution, and I’ll be overjoyed to see if the tail end of this thread somehow beings the world together at the same alter. But my gut reaction is that it isn’t the case.

 

[Tomster]

Great question, and the same one I ask often about the interpretation of Sacred Tradition between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, PNCC, etc.

Jon

Jon,

You keep insisting on presenting this red herring from time to time.

Do you honestly expect us to believe you are unaware of the ecclesiastical history regarding Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the PNCC?

 

[Simka]

So if the church leader advises his parishioner, after reading the Scripture, to conclude: Jesus did not literally rise from the dead…

are you ok with this interpretation?

Of course not. How many individuals would this hypothetical parishioner consult, before deciding whether to overturn a fundamental doctrine? How much time would he spend in personal prayer?

Interesting question, that … as it happens, I am currently involved in just such a dialogue, with an old friend who has concluded he no longer depends on Scripture alone for doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

You know Jon, I think you may have convinced me that the LCMS really is the one true Church. Since you gave so many strong arguments from Scripture and Tradition, I decided to look back to into both sources myself.

Matthew 16:17-19 “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Martin Luther, for sola fide and sola scriptura was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Luther, and on this rock I will build the Missouri Synod, because the gates of Hades overcome the Catholics and other Protestant denominations. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.””

**
Clement of the **Missouri Synod

“**Accept our counsel **and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to Calvin and the other Protestant heretics 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).”

St Irenaeus

"Luther and C. F. W. Walther, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (**Against Catholics and Protestants **3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]he Lord said to C. F. W. Walther, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what **they **shall have bound or **they **shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretic Protestants and Catholics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of C. F. W. Walther and to the principal church in Missouri, in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Missouri] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Cyprian

The Lord says to Luther: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Luther, and upon this Missouri Synod I will build my Church” . . . On **him **he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which **Luther **was , but a primacy is given to Luther, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Luther, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Luther upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Missouri Synod 4 [A.D. 251]).

Or you could read the real originals that all point TO ROME, which you conveniently ignored when I posted them earlier:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10711481&highlight=clement+rome#post10711481

Your penchant for sarcasm and condescension is, well, unconvincing. Perhaps you could observe the style of dialogue exemplified by some of your more experienced Catholic colleagues here at CAF. They are much more convincing. Just a thought.

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

Of course not. How many individuals would this hypothetical parishioner consult, before deciding whether to overturn a fundamental doctrine?

Who gets to decide what’s a fundamental doctrine and what’s not?

How much time would he spend in personal prayer?

Why does this matter? If he spent 30 years in a monastery praying, and believed in a heretical belief (such as Jesus not physically rising from the dead), then the amount of time he prayed is irrelevant.

Interesting question, that … as it happens, I am currently involved in just such a dialogue, with an old friend who has concluded he no longer depends on Scripture alone for doctrine.

Hopefully it makes you think some more about this.