Why Sola Scriptura fails

[KEP1983]

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

You won’t be convinced because you’ve hardened your heart. Whether the Catholic case is presented humorously or overly nice is irrelevant to your rejection of it. You simply refuse to bend the knee and admit you’re wrong, regardless of how the truth is presented to you.

I already posted all of the original real quotes, which you ignored. So I decided to repaste it, more humorously this time.

If you’d like to see the real quotes you can see them here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10711481&highlight=clement+rome#post10711481 I simply avoided repasting it, because you repeatedly ignore every argument from Scripture and Tradition. Instead of arguing your own case, you just question everyone elses and ignore their responses.

 

[JonNC]

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?

If the list I have provided regarding the disagreements about Tradition are incorrect, please let me know where.
Tomster, the issue often presented about sola scriptura is that various non-Catholic western communions don’t agree. It seems appropriate to point out the same with those who profess an equality of scripture and Tradition.

Perhaps it might be better to talk about the different doctrines of disagreement than about how individual communions come to those doctrines.

Jon

 

[Simka]

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.

I don’t think anyone on this planet wants to consider at one and the same time, all church controversies that have ever arisen. Some are more important to one person, some to another. So at any time, the issues you should be looking for answers to, are those that are important to you.

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.

Isn’t that what most Catholics do … let someone they trust make the decision for them?

 

[rfournier103]

I think I have said this before, but I think that 1 Tim. 3:15: (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.) should be proof enough that SOLA Scriptura isn’t Biblical. Moreover, I can’t think of any place in the Bible that states that Scripture ALONE is the ONLY source of authority.

As ANY Christian should know; the Catholic Church is at least every bit as Biblical as any other Christian community out there. Scripture is VERY authoritative. Catholicism just doesn’t have Scripture as the ONLY authority.

Catholicism (the ORIGINAL Christianity) pre-dates the Holy Bible. By about 360 years, or so. How could a not-as-of-yet existant book be the SOLE authority over all Christians/Catholics for 360 years? And after the compilation of the Holy Bible, how could the Church put ALL authority in a document (however holy)?

My questions for non-Catholics…

When we go to school, we have textbooks. Why do we need teachers/professors when we have textbooks? Do the teachers have authority? Do they teach something different from what’s in the textbook? If they did, what kind of message would that send? What if we don’t understand what’s in the textbook? What then? Do only the textbooks have the “authority” to teach us?

How is this different that a pastor/priest? Do YOU understand EVERYTHING in the Holy Bible?

I understand that 1 Tim. 3:16 is what many call a “prooftext”. Something I despise in the realm of apologetics. BUT, most prooftexts can be easilly refuted if they are untrue, or taken out of context. That being said, I’ve never heard any intelligent refute to 1 Tim. 3:15, or an explanation of where Sola Scriptura may be found in the Bible.

I am very close to a Protestant Minister that I know, and have been in his home many times. He has a bookshelf that is loaded with many books about theology that are NOT the Holy Bible. What does he need those for?

What about the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Calvin, Joeseph Smith, and Martin Luther? What authority did/do they have?

The biggest issue I have with Sola Scriptura (if not the only one) is that almost every Christian on planet earth recognizes an authority in one capacity or another that is not the Holy Bible; and to say that they believe otherwise just gets in the way of real discussion and resolution of our differences.

Maybe if our non-Catholic friends could admit that Scripture is their HIGHEST authority, and not their ONLY authority, we could get somewhere.

 

[KEP1983]

I don’t think anyone on this planet wants to consider at one and the same time, all church controversies that have ever arisen. Some are more important to one person, some to another. So at any time, the issues you should be looking for answers to, are those that are important to you.

Again, the question isn’t about what’s important to me, but what’s objectively true.

For example, the Eucharist is either the body and blood of Christ, or it’s not. The Eucharist should either be worshiped, or it should not.

If it’s not the body and blood of Christ, then Catholics are engaging in idolatry, and all idolaters go to Hell.

This is hardly a small issue of personal preference.

Isn’t that what most Catholics do … let someone they trust make the decision for them?

**Exactly! **The difference is that we believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into heresy, so laity like you and me aren’t wandering around in the dark trying to figure out what’s true.

To refer to my earlier analogy, I know that the Church teaches A, B, and C and not X, Y, and Z because the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from teaching error. I don’t have to “figure it out for myself.”

Protestants can’t claim this, because each individual interprets scripture for himself, and I have just as much possibility of teaching the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit as Martin Luther or John Calvin. Yet we all contradict each other. So we have no way of knowing which interpretation is true and which is not.

Fr Robert Barron explains it well here:
youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

 

[JonNC]

I think I have said this before, but I think that 1 Tim. 3:15: (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.) should be proof enough that SOLA Scriptura isn’t Biblical. Moreover, I can’t think of any place in the Bible that states that Scripture ALONE is the ONLY source of authority.

As ANY Christian should know; the Catholic Church is at least every bit as Biblical as any other Christian community out there. Scripture is VERY authoritative. Catholicism just doesn’t have Scripture as the ONLY authority.

Catholicism (the ORIGINAL Christianity) pre-dates the Holy Bible. By about 360 years, or so. How could a not-as-of-yet existant book be the SOLE authority over all Christians/Catholics for 360 years? And after the compilation of the Holy Bible, how could the Church put ALL authority in a document (however holy)?

My questions for non-Catholics…

When we go to school, we have textbooks. Why do we need teachers/professors when we have textbooks? Do the teachers have authority? Do they teach something different from what’s in the textbook? If they did, what kind of message would that send? What if we don’t understand what’s in the textbook? What then? Do only the textbooks have the “authority” to teach us?

How is this different that a pastor/priest? Do YOU understand EVERYTHING in the Holy Bible?

I understand that 1 Tim. 3:16 is what many call a “prooftext”. Something I despise in the realm of apologetics. BUT, most prooftexts can be easilly refuted if they are untrue, or taken out of context. That being said, I’ve never heard any intelligent refute to 1 Tim. 3:15, or an explanation of where Sola Scriptura may be found in the Bible.

I am very close to a Protestant Minister that I know, and have been in his home many times. He has a bookshelf that is loaded with many books about theology that are NOT the Holy Bible. What does he need those for?

What about the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Calvin, Joeseph Smith, and Martin Luther? What authority did/do they have?

The biggest issue I have with Sola Scriptura (if not the only one) is that almost every Christian on planet earth recognizes an authority in one capacity or another that is not the Holy Bible; and to say that they believe otherwise just gets in the way of real discussion and resolution of our differences.

Maybe if our non-Catholic friends could admit that Scripture is their HIGHEST authority, and not their ONLY authority, we could get somewhere.

That is exactly what sola scriptura is!!!

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

That is exactly what sola scriptura is!!!

Jon

Depending upon which Protestant you ask. Different Protestants have different definitions of SS.

 

[rfournier103]

I don’t think anyone on this planet wants to consider at one and the same time, all church controversies that have ever arisen. Some are more important to one person, some to another. So at any time, the issues you should be looking for answers to, are those that are important to you.

I will agree that there are some doctrines/issues that are easier to accept than others. I personalLy rely on the Church’s Teaching Authority, but I have a responsiblity to my God and my famity be as well educated as possible. I have studied on my own, with the guidence of a good and holy priest, so I may understand God and Christ better. This actually brings me closer to God, and Jesus Christ. The priest’s guidance has been worth more than all the gold in Fort Knox.

Isn’t that what most Catholics do … let someone they trust make the decision for them?

I don’t know if decision-making is what you should call it. We trust our clergy to be our shepherds and our teachers. There are no decisions to be made, only truth to be taught. God’s Truth.

Again, the question isn’t about what’s important to me, but what’s objectively true.

For example, the Eucharist is either the body and blood of Christ, or it’s not. The Eucharist should either be worshiped, or it should not.

If it’s not the body and blood of Christ, then Catholics are engaging in idolatry, and all idolaters go to Hell.

This is hardly a small issue of personal preference.

I agree. If you are a recent convert, KEP, you have studied and learned for yourself, because any clergyman could tell you anything he wanted, but YOUR mind and heart had to see for themselves, and you freely and willingly accepted these doctrines. I was born a Catholic, but I never would have stayed a Catholic if I had not learned my Faith.

**Exactly! **The difference is that we believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into heresy, so laity like you and me aren’t wandering around in the dark trying to figure out what’s true.

To refer to my earlier analogy, I know that the Church teaches A, B, and C and not X, Y, and Z because the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from teaching error. I don’t have to “figure it out for myself.”

Protestants can’t claim this, because each individual interprets scripture for himself, and I have just as much possibility of teaching the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit as Martin Luther or John Calvin. Yet we all contradict each other. So we have no way of knowing which interpretation is true and which is not.

Fr Robert Barron explains it well here:
youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

KEP, I urge you to keep learning our faith, and visiting CAF. Ours is not to follow blindly, but reflect on the teachings of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit under the guidance of Christ’s Church. (that is NOT personal interpretation!) We have also had some wonderful Holy Fathers in our lifetime that have protected, reinforced, and promoted the teachings of Christ. vatican.va/archive/index.htm is an amazing resource of excellent material for personal study (again, not personal interpretation) that will help you in understanding our faith. It has been invaluable to me, and if you have not already discovered it, I pray you will find it at least as helpful as I have.

No man can ‘learn our faith’ on one lifetime…

 

[rfournier103]

I think I have said this before, but I think that 1 Tim. 3:15: (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.) should be proof enough that SOLA Scriptura isn’t Biblical. Moreover, I can’t think of any place in the Bible that states that Scripture ALONE is the ONLY source of authority.

As ANY Christian should know; the Catholic Church is at least every bit as Biblical as any other Christian community out there. Scripture is VERY authoritative. Catholicism just doesn’t have Scripture as the ONLY authority.

Catholicism (the ORIGINAL Christianity) pre-dates the Holy Bible. By about 360 years, or so. How could a not-as-of-yet existant book be the SOLE authority over all Christians/Catholics for 360 years? And after the compilation of the Holy Bible, how could the Church put ALL authority in a document (however holy)?

My questions for non-Catholics…

When we go to school, we have textbooks. Why do we need teachers/professors when we have textbooks? Do the teachers have authority? Do they teach something different from what’s in the textbook? If they did, what kind of message would that send? What if we don’t understand what’s in the textbook? What then? Do only the textbooks have the “authority” to teach us?

How is this different that a pastor/priest? Do YOU understand EVERYTHING in the Holy Bible?

I understand that 1 Tim. 3:16 is what many call a “prooftext”. Something I despise in the realm of apologetics. BUT, most prooftexts can be easilly refuted if they are untrue, or taken out of context. That being said, I’ve never heard any intelligent refute to 1 Tim. 3:15, or an explanation of where Sola Scriptura may be found in the Bible.

I am very close to a Protestant Minister that I know, and have been in his home many times. He has a bookshelf that is loaded with many books about theology that are NOT the Holy Bible. What does he need those for?

What about the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Calvin, Joeseph Smith, and Martin Luther? What authority did/do they have?

The biggest issue I have with Sola Scriptura (if not the only one) is that almost every Christian on planet earth recognizes an authority in one capacity or another that is not the Holy Bible; and to say that they believe otherwise just gets in the way of real discussion and resolution of our differences.

Maybe if our non-Catholic friends could admit that Scripture is their HIGHEST authority, and not their ONLY authority, we could get somewhere.

That is exactly what sola scriptura is!!!

Jon

Doesn’t SOLA mean SOLE, or ONLY?

If Scriptrue were the SUPREME authority, wouldn’t it be called Supremam Scriptura???

 

[pablope]

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./

 

[pablope]

I

Originally Posted by KEP1983
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.

Isn’t that what most Catholics do … let someone they trust make the decision for them?

The Church, with the promise of the HS guiding…makes the teaching known…and we adhere to that teaching.

Let me ask you…Simka…for the nth time…which is more logical to you:

a). The HS guides the individual to the truth

or

b). The HS guides a church (whichever that it)…and the church makes that teaching known and the individual follows and adheres and conforms himself to that teaching?

Which one, a or b…follows would fulfill Christ’s prayer in the gospel of John about us being one…or in Ephesians which says one faith, one baptism?

Which one, a or b…causes confusion and the splitting of the body of Christ?

 

[pablope]

I think I have said this before, but I think that 1 Tim. 3:15: (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.) should be proof enough that SOLA Scriptura isn’t Biblical. Moreover, I can’t think of any place in the Bible that states that Scripture ALONE is the ONLY source of authority.

Maybe if our non-Catholic friends could admit that Scripture is their HIGHEST authority, and not their ONLY authority, we could get somewhere.

Yes, but in the process, without realizing it…they have made the Bible…their pope…and themselves, a mini pope…or a sub-pope perhaps…deciding for themselves what to believe and not what to believe…

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[Simka]

From rfournier103 …

“Maybe if our non-Catholic friends could admit that Scripture is their HIGHEST authority, and not their ONLY authority, we could get somewhere.”

That is exactly what sola scriptura is!!!

While acknowledging that there are some other newer definitions, JonNC and I agree with the position that SS requires Scripture be recognized as the highest, “stand-alone-on-the-mountaintop” authority in matters of doctrine. That’s not to say it’s the only authority. Further, I would also limit the scope of SS to the matter of doctrinal teaching on salvation, explicitly.

As I recently posted, in the 16th century, the Church of England put it this way:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. "

There is no suggestion that tradition is not to be considered; it just cannot overrule the authority of Scripture.

On that basis, where is the “somewhere” you think we might get?

 

[Simka]

Let me ask you…Simka…for the nth time…which is more logical to you:

a). The HS guides the individual to the truth; or
b). The HS guides a church (whichever that it)…and the church makes that teaching known and the individual follows and adheres and conforms himself to that teaching?

Both … and neither, if you insist that it has to be one or the other exclusively, and all the time. God has not limited His options.

 

[Simka]

Ah…at least we get to something…I will show you the Biblical example…via St. Paul.

 

[Simka]

You won’t be convinced because you’ve hardened your heart. Whether the Catholic case is presented humorously or overly nice is irrelevant to your rejection of it. You simply refuse to bend the knee and admit you’re wrong, regardless of how the truth is presented to you.

Yeah, I know … this is a distinctly Protestant state of mind … sorry about that.

 

[rfournier103]

While acknowledging that there are some other newer definitions, JonNC and I agree with the position that SS requires Scripture be recognized as the highest, “stand-alone-on-the-mountaintop” authority in matters of doctrine. That’s not to say it’s the only authority. Further, I would also limit the scope of SS to the matter of doctrinal teaching on salvation, explicitly.

As I recently posted, in the 16th century, the Church of England put it this way:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. "

There is no suggestion that tradition is not to be considered; it just cannot overrule the authority of Scripture.

On that basis, where is the “somewhere” you think we might get?

I have encountered many people (mostly evangelicals) who like to bash the Church for our having authority OTHER than the Bible. As I’ve said before, Sola Scriptura = Scripture ALONE.

By saying that Scripture Alone is the HIGHEST authority, is that an acknoweldgement that there are OTHER authorities?

Also, isn’t the Church the “pillar and ground of truth”, not the Bible? (1 Tim. 3:15)

YOU would limit the scope of SS to the matter of doctrinal teaching on salvation, explicitly??? Is that a commonly held belief? That isn’t how I understand Sola Scriptura.

Catholics believe that Jesus commissioned Peter (and by Apostolic Succession his successors) to feed and tend His sheep (John 21:15-17). Jesus did not leave a book to “tend His sheep;” did He? To me, as I understand it, that would put the Church as a higher authority. Jesus being the HighEST Authority…

As for where I would like to get… I would like us all to have a better understanding of each other, and put an end to much of the animosity between so many Christians. There isn’t a ton of it here at CAF (though some, from time to time), but the internet is a cesspool of hatred among Christians, and I would like to see that go away.

 

[benjohnson]

Doesn’t SOLA mean SOLE, or ONLY?

Latin is weird. In this case, as I understand it as my Latin is horrid (really horrid) , Sola Scriptural is ablative of separation. A better translation that is succinct and more-correct would be “[God’s] word above”

 

[Porknpie]

Further, I would also limit the scope of SS to the matter of doctrinal teaching on salvation, explicitly.

Simka, the SS Pastor down the street would disagree with you…as would many others in town…and you are all using the same bible. Why is the Holy Spirit leading you to different Truths?

What about post 160…clear examples of the Church using Tradition to settle competing interpretations of scripture. The deposit of faith is scripture and Tradition.

 

[Simka]

Doesn’t SOLA mean SOLE, or ONLY?
If Scriptrue were the SUPREME authority, wouldn’t it be called Supremam Scriptura???

The words “Sola Scriptura” constitute a nickname, a slogan, a 16th-century rallying cry.
Surely what we’re actually assessing are the teachings and principles that the words represent … ???