Why Sola Scriptura fails

[JonNC]

Different Lutherans have different interpretations of Sola Scriptura, too.

Source, please. If they are Lutheran they read the Foma of Concord, which I’ve quoted.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Problem with SS advocates is that they do not take the words of Scripture and the church fathers at face value. They want Scripture and the ECF’s to say what they want it to say.

Even for Catholics, the ECFs are not infallible.
Jon

 

[KEP1983]

Source, please. If they are Lutheran they read the Foma of Concord, which I’ve quoted.
Jon

1. The Formula of Concord isn’t infallible
2. The Formula of Concord isn’t in Scripture (or Sacred Tradition)
3. Different people can interpret the Formula of Concord in different ways
4. There is no authority to declare whos interpretation of the Formula of Concord is correct.

For instance, the ELCA is very liberal. I assume (HOPE) that you don’t agree with much of their theology and agree they’re very liberal. Many accept gay marriage, women clergy, low views of Scripture (yet still affirming a twisted view of Sola Scriptura), etc etc. Yet they accept the Formula of Concord.

"This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church. "
elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/ELCA-Confession-of-Faith.aspx

 

[KEP1983]

They sure don’t. BTW, Luther had no particular authority in the early Evangelical churches. The question is, who is His authority?

Well, he had authority for about 2 weeks. Until other Protestants decided “they” had the truth, and not Luther.

I agree, but that was 500 years ago. The question for us today, is what do we do to restore unity in His Church? How do we dialogue with one another? More importantly, how do our leaders dialogue with one another.

We restore unity by getting rid of denominatinoalism and realizing that Christ founded ONE Church. Unity doesn’t come about by “being nice” and “dialogue.” Unity comes about by actually being unified.

When the Eastern Orthodox fell into schism, they were quickly taken over by the Muslims. When Protestants fell into schism, they quickly inspired the Enlightenment and liberalism, which began destroying them starting in the late 18th century.

When you break away from the Church, you fall. As Christ said “A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.”

If we want the Church to stand against the forces of the world, it has to be unified. It can’t exist in 30,000 denominations. Unfortunately I don’t see this happening. So hopefully either a miracle can bring us back together or Christ hopefully returns before the world really truly falls into a completely apostate post-Christian society.

 

[Simka]

The above passage was not written in reference to SS. St.Paul was not holding them to the test of SS.
The above is another verse SS try to use tp prove SS.

No, it was not in reference to SS, Nicea … you’re absolutely right. I don’t think SS was on anyone’s mind at that time. However, in mentioning it as he did, Luke showed that in those days it was considered “best practice” to validate other teaching – even Apostolic teaching – by using the authority of Scripture. This should not be confused with SS. It is merely one of the underlying principles on which SS was based.

 

[JonNC]

1. The Formula of Concord isn’t infallible
2. The Formula of Concord isn’t in Scripture (or Sacred Tradition)
3. Different people can interpret the Formula of Concord in different ways
4. There is no authority to declare whos interpretation of the Formula of Concord is correct.

For instance, the ELCA is very liberal. I assume (HOPE) that you don’t agree with much of their theology and agree they’re very liberal. Many accept gay marriage, women clergy, low views of Scripture (yet still affirming a twisted view of Sola Scriptura), etc etc. Yet they accept the Formula of Concord.

"This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church. "
elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/ELCA-Confession-of-Faith.aspx

Agreed, and no, rest assured I do not. Let me ask you this; do you consider Old Catholics Catholic, even though they are not in communion with the bishop of Rome? I understand they ordain women, or some of them do. Are they Catholic even though they do not follow the Caholic Catechism? Do you see my point?

As it stands now, I could never be ELCA again, but I have relatives and friends that remain there, and I pray for them and the ELCA. Instead, I rely on our leadership to guide us, as you do yours.

Jon

 

[Simka]

Please anwer the following:
Scripture stood as the single authoritative standard
One more time: WHEN,WHERE and BY WHOSE authority was the above ever declared to be the standard?

ONE MORE TIME … I am unaware that there was ever any authoritative declaration.

However, what is known is that the authority of Scripture to decide doctrine was commonly practised as the standard by church leaders and teachers, and if nothing else, the rest of the church gave tacit approval because it never challenged the practice – that is, until the reformers raised the issue of the church having abandoned the practice. The reformers wanted the church to return to this practice, and the church finally had to take a stand.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nicea325;10763348:

Please anwer the following:
Scripture stood as the

single authoritative standard
One more time: WHEN,WHERE and BY WHOSE authority was the above ever declared to be the standard?

ONE MORE TIME … I am unaware that there was ever any authoritative declaration.

and teachers, and if nothing else, because it never challenged the practice -

However, what is known is that the authority of Scripture to decide doctrine was commonly practised as the standard by church leaders

So, would those Church leaders be Catholic Bishops and Priests?

the rest of the church gave tacit approval

So, would that then include the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and all Latin Catholics…or are you speaking of another Church?

• that is, until the reformers raised the issue of the church having abandoned the practice.

and you would agree that the reformers/deformers were all either Catholic priests or Catholics? Having agreed to this what authority did they have to reform anything?

The reformers wanted the church to return to this practice, and the church finally had to take a stand.

and the reformer/deformers having done so immediately decided that there would be Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian doctrines based on one understanding of Scripture having discarded Scripture and invented the Protocanonicals that were never abandoned, since there was no such thing as a Protocanonical until the reformer/deformers invented it. Is that correct?

 

[Nicea325]

Even for Catholics, the ECFs are not infallible.
Jon

Blessings Jon!

Would it also apply when they defined and ratified doctrines at ecumenical councils?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;10763348:

Please anwer the following:
Scripture stood as the

single authoritative standard
One more time: WHEN,WHERE and BY WHOSE authority was the above ever declared to be the standard?

ONE MORE TIME … I am unaware that there was ever any authoritative declaration.

However, what is known is that the authority of Scripture to decide doctrine was commonly practised as the standard by church leaders and teachers, and if nothing else, ***the rest of the church gave tacit approval because it never challenged the practice ***-- that is, until the reformers raised the issue of the church having abandoned the practice. The reformers wanted the church to return to this practice, and the church finally had to take a stand.

It gave approval? Really? Where is such support for this approval? I am sorry,but I have come to the conclusion you really lack a deep understanding of the early church, history of Scripture and doctrines. No offense, but you make wild assumptions and conclusions with nothing to support your statements. Case in point, you just said another:

*the rest of the church gave tacit approval because it never challenged the practice *

It did? When and where was this practice approved? Name the bishops who approved this?

So it is obvious, it is pure conjecture since you lack any authentic support from any primary sources to support your claims:

Scripture was “the” single authoritative standard

So what certitude do you even have that such was “the” standard for the early church? You don’t! Correct? So in essence, you just want to re-write history?

 

[Nicea325]

No, it was not in reference to SS, Nicea … you’re absolutely right. I don’t think SS was on anyone’s mind at that time. However, in mentioning it as he did, Luke showed that in those days it was considered “best practice” to validate other teaching – even Apostolic teaching – by using the authority of Scripture. This should not be confused with SS. It is merely one of the underlying principles on which SS was based.

Simka:

I will be blunt with you. I know you love God and have a deep passion for Scripture as I do. I read Scripture all the time and I thank God and his church for handed it down to us who are capable of reading. Yes Scripture does contain the Word of God and it is authoritative…yes Simka. But here is where your mind set is a bit off-base. Just because Scripture was used whether in reference to teaching or doctrine or in defense of doctrine, that does not equate into Scripture being “THE” authority.

Simka, did Jesus come to build His church and to save us or did he come to hand-out Bibles and proclaim Scripture is “The” authority? Really Simka? Simka, Christianity is NOT a faith of the book,but of the person: Jesus. You cannot separate Scripture from the church or pit it against Tradition and the Church. The issue I have with many SS advocates is their false belief that Christianity revolves around the Bible and that it formed out of the Bible. Sorry,but it is wrong and Jesus never even bothered to mention a word about Scripture being “the” authority, if it was to be “the” authority, such you proclaim so loudly.

God Bless

 

[Simka]

I’m just trying to understand who do you believe had the authority to say what was “Scripture” in the early church…and why?

I don’t know about “authority to say” but let me see if I can address your concerns.
First, I don’t think we can overlook the fact that the vast majority of what we accept as Scripture today was already recognized as the Word of God before Jesus came to earth. We call it the Old Testament. Jesus Himself ratified the Jewish Scriptures.

Later, as his appointed messengers, Jesus’ Apostles recognized in one another the Inspiration of God. Their letters later circulated among the church congregations, and they were recognized by the church as the Inspired Word of God (i.e. Scripture). By whose authority? I suspect the answer you’re looking for is “the Apostles” but that’s not so. It was God’s authority. God determined (by His Inspiration) what would be in Scripture, and in due course the Catholic Church discovered what God had decided. I can’t offer you any more insight than that as to methodology.

Somehow you’ve come to believe that the Catholic Church followed Sola Scriptura…

No, Pork, not so. I’m sorry if I have given you that impression. Let me clarify.

In the early days of the church, the term “sola Scriptura” was unknown. The Catholic Church, nonetheless, recognized Scripture as the final authority in determining doctrinal disputes. If a teaching or a doctrine or a tenet of faith could be found in Scripture, or proved by a reasonable and logical conclusion derived from Scripture, it was acceptable. If it could not be thus validated, it was to be rejected.

This is not SS, but it is an underlying principle on which SS was later based.

As examples, is Irenaeus not referring to Tradition to decide the truth between two competing Scriptures?

Perhaps so … but that does not contest the Authority of Scripture in doctrinal matters. In sorting out non-doctrinal issues, tradition provided valuable insight and assistance in determining what Scripture meant by what it said. Even today, when there is difficulty or disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture, one of the tools for resolving the issue is an understanding of what the church has believed over the past 2000 years. This is fully consistent with the authority of Scripture and the later doctrine of SS.

Tertullian again using Tradition to disprove the heretics.

That’s not the way I read it, but let’s look at Tertullian in a subsequent post.

 

[PRmerger]

First, I don’t think we can overlook the fact that the vast majority of what we accept as Scripture today was already recognized as the Word of God before Jesus came to earth.

No, Simka. There was no established canon of the OT prior to the Church.

A multitude of Jewish sects had a multitude of Jewish canons.

We call it the Old Testament. Jesus Himself ratified the Jewish Scriptures.

Could you show us where he did this? Which books did he declare inspired and which ones did he reject?

 

[PRmerger]

Later, as his appointed messengers, Jesus’ Apostles recognized in one another the Inspiration of God. Their letters later circulated among the church congregations, and they were recognized by the church as the Inspired Word of God (i.e. Scripture). By whose authority? I suspect the answer you’re looking for is “the Apostles” but that’s not so. It was God’s authority. God determined (by His Inspiration) what would be in Scripture, and in due course the Catholic Church discovered what God had decided. I can’t offer you any more insight than that as to methodology.

YESS!!! This is huge, Simka!



So what you are proclaiming is that you base your understanding of God’s Word not on Scripture, but on the authority of the Church.

And it necessarily means that you accept that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of the NT.

 

[joe371]

YESS!!! This is huge, Simka!

So what you are proclaiming is that you base your understanding of God’s Word not on Scripture, but on the authority of the Church.

And it necessarily means that you accept that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church, at least as it applies to discerning the canon of the NT.

That is what it sounds like…

 

[joe371]

Could you show us where he did this? Which books did he declare inspired and which ones did he reject?

Perhaps he is talking about ratifying it via His church?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps he is talking about ratifying it via His church?

There is no other way to know, is there?

 

[pablope]

pablope;10762635:

Why was it that the Bereans were held in such high esteem?

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness

and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

Ah…another misreading and misinterpretation…Simka.

Read the passage properly:

Look at the bolded part…their character was termed as being more noble compared to others…because they were more open, and were eager to receive the message from Paul, not because they read the Bible.

Besides…if you are going to copy the Bereans…you should just read the OT…which scripture is referred here…not the whole Bible or the NT.

And when they searched scriptures…they were given the interpration key by Paul…and did not read it on their own interpretation.

 

[Simka]

Just because Scripture was used whether in reference to teaching or doctrine or in defense of doctrine, that does not equate into Scripture being “THE” authority …

Thanx, Nicea … I appreciate your candor. It’s too bad we can’t have a face-to-face chat. I think we’d resolve a lot of misunderstandings. It’s hard – for me, at least – to get across what I really mean through back-and-forth texting; and it’s easy to create misunderstandings. Let me try to clarify more fully where I stand.

Jesus came to save us. He came to die, to give His life as a ransom. Through His teaching and that of His messengers He gave us a pretty clear understanding of how that would happen in each human life.

I have never been sympathetic to any of the arguments that say you have to be Catholic, or that you have to follow certain traditions, or protocols, or teachings, or any of the other notions or doctrines related to requirements for salvation … apart from Scripture.

My SS position, as you have undoubtedly read, is related specifically to the doctrine of salvation, and to the simple principle that Scripture contains all the knowledge necessary for salvation. In that specific context, there is nothing else I have to know, nothing else I have to believe, no other relationship I have to have, nothing else I have to do, beyond what is presented to me in Scripture. In that sense, there is no other authority that stands alongside Scripture as also containing necessary supplementary doctrine.

Over my lifetime I may need help discerning what Scripture means by what it says. In my lifelong journey towards glorification, there is plenty of room for other elements of the faith (such as Tradition and the Church) so long as they serve to assist in my understanding of the Scriptural basis of my salvation. But I don’t want to hear that I can forego certain difficult aspects of Scriptural teaching if instead I pay attention closely and follow a certain “tradition”. I don’t want to hear that I can ignore certain difficult-to-follow Scriptural tenets if I will simply pay attention to what a certain Priest has to teach me about how to reduce the burden of Scripture.

Any of these things that seek to usurp the authority – and the power – of Scripture in my life, are just so much rubbish.

I am a Christian today for only one reason: I am absolutely convinced by the evidence that on that first Easter Sunday, Jesus literally, bodily, rose from death to life. That fact gives Him a unique authority to talk about such things as life, and death, and life after death, and God … and I’m prepared to listen to what He has to say. Of course I find what He has to say … He and His appointed messengers … in the Bible. That’s where it starts and ends.

 

[pablope]

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.

Really…both? So several thousand denoms, with different and varied interpretations is the work of the Holy Spirit?

And where did God say both?