Why Sola Scriptura fails

[CopticChristian]

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.

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.

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

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.

Got it.

Clear as a bell.:doh2:

With the authority of Scripture

Ecclesiology has been settled? Congregational, Presbutery?

Sacraments or is it Ordinance?

CredoBaptists or is it PedoBaptists?

OSAS if truly Saved or Saved but can lose salvation?

Postmillineal or is it Premillinial or pre-trib, post trib?

Abortion is moral or immoral?

Women can be priests or not?

Homosexuals can be ministers or not?

Yup, I can see how the lost principle of Sola Scripture once rediscovered deformed everything…:bigyikes:

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I find what He has to say … He and His appointed messengers … in the Bible. That’s where it starts and ends.

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Simka. You heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard a (fallible) man say it, but no one ever said that the Scriptures are “where it starts and ends”.

While Scripture is indeed inspired of God and useful, it is absolutely NOT where it starts and ends.

It starts and ends with Jesus, and His Body, the Church.

 

[Simka]

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Simka. You heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard a (fallible) man say it, but no one ever said that the Scriptures are “where it starts and ends”.

No one? Nobody at all? Ever? Wait … I just did! I don’t remember ever hearing it before. Didn’t give it a lot of thought; just made it up seconds before I wrote it. And already it’s a tradition? WOW! I should try this more often!

When Jesus spoke to the two travelers on the Emmaus Road he started with Moses and all the prophets, and he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. When Philip evangelized the Ethiopian court official, he started with the OT Scripture that the official was reading, and preached Jesus to him. Seems like a proven strategy to me.

Still, I marvel at how you can so distort this process as to find in it some abhorrent (man-made) tradition. Doctors have diagnosed OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) with less evidence than that!

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Simka,

I hear you out and and I am eagerly trying to comprehend your position.Trust me…I have the utmost admiration for the Sacred Scriptures because they contain a treasure of treasures to help us grow in faith and so a speak, teach us to grow in our relationship with the Lord. But Simka, the Church Christ founded and our clergy are in no way meant to be obstacles to the Scriptures;but moreover, they are meant to be our guides or beacons in understanding the deep meaning of Scripture.

Think about it for a minute and reflect. You are gravely mistaken if you believe the Church,which is the mystical body of Jesus (Eph 1,22,23) is out to usurp the written Word of God. No! The church is THE defender,advocate and infallible interpreter of the Scriptures because Scripture clearly says the Holy Spirit will guide her into all Truth. The Church Simka…not the Bible. The Church is a living organism,and extension of Christ Incarnation,not merely an institution. The Holy Spirit is what guides the church since Pentecost…not the Bible. The Scriptures without the Church is a like body without a functioning heart-it will die!

The dangers with SS is that there is NO single authoritative body to ensure you have the correct interpretation. It is no different than having a set of written laws,if there is no central authority to tell us what those laws mean and what they are saying to us,then it is up to each citizen to decide. Honestly…is that how laws are distributed in societies?

Simka…no one is denying Scipture it is due honor,but where I do believe you are in error is with the belief it starts with Scripture and ends with Scripture. And why? Simka what about the countless of people throughout the centuries who had no Bible? How where they to get all the neccesary means of salvation,if according you, the Bible contains it all? Remember Jesus words in Matthew: PREACH to all nations and people and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How about St.Paul? Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

No mention by Jesus or Paul of just read your Bible because it contains everything neccessary for salvation.

God Bless

 

[joe371]

Simka

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

What, in your opinion, seeks to usurp the authority – and the power – of Scripture? That’s probably a good starting point.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Simka
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!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m41a8wsSoE1r7z57y.gif

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.

I agree with PR on this one…It’s “huge”. Those Church congegrations were the Catholic Church and scripture was seen as inspired because it was consistent with the oral Tradition that had been taught orally through time.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

The Jews did not have a ratified, universal canon. They disagreed with each other. As Catholics (plus Orthodox) we believe the Deuterocanonical’s are inspired and inerrant as did the Greek speaking Jews outside of Jerusalem. The apostles used the Septuagint which included the Deutero’s.

Simka, which does your Church hold true on the Deuterocanonical’s…inspired or not?

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.

Simka, by your logic then, do you have the seven sacraments in your Church?

 

[Porknpie]

I am currently attending a Protestant church that holds to the same position I espouse.

Simka, I had my coffee this morning and this post came back into my head…interesting it is. Can you share more about this Church you are attending? What is it…do they have a statement of faith?

Tx,

Pork

 

[PRmerger]

Didn’t give it a lot of thought; just made it up seconds before I wrote it.

Really? You just made it up?



This is a prime example of how you cannot be Sola Scriptura. You have just proclaimed that you get beliefs, not from Scripture, but from things you just make up.

I suggest that this is a very, very treacherous paradigm to espouse. Making things up, esp. without any support from Scripture or Tradition, is a very, very bad model to follow.

 

[Simka]

Simka, I had my coffee this morning and this post came back into my head…interesting it is. Can you share more about this Church you are attending? What is it…do they have a statement of faith?

Knox Church is part of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. The PCC holds to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Confession. You can find it online.

For teaching purposes (that is, to understand what the Scriptures teach about “the faith once delivered”), it also encourages familiarity with the Heidelberg Catechism.

 

[CopticChristian]

No one? Nobody at all? Ever? Wait … I just did! I don’t remember ever hearing it before. Didn’t give it a lot of thought; just made it up seconds before I wrote it. And already it’s a tradition? WOW! I should try this more often!

When Jesus spoke to the two travelers on the Emmaus Road he started with Moses and all the prophets, and he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. When Philip evangelized the Ethiopian court official, he started with the OT Scripture that the official was reading, and preached Jesus to him. Seems like a proven strategy to me.

!

Still, I marvel at how you can so distort this process as to find in it some abhorrent (man-made) tradition. Doctors have diagnosed OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) with less evidence than that

Good metaphor. Some Psychiatrists have voted to remove Homosexuality out of the DSM. Some voted to keep it in. What it is remains what it is, is not related to the vote. So, then the question is Sola Scriptura was voted on by the deformers/reformers and that does not make anything less than what it is, a man made tradition, similar to believing that because the DSM no longer maintains homosexuality as a disorder that it is normal. Acting as if, believing as if, does not equate to truth.

Good insight.

 

[Simka]

Really? You just made it up? This is a prime example of how you cannot be Sola Scriptura. You have just proclaimed that you get beliefs, not from Scripture, but from things you just make up.

I suggest that this is a very, very treacherous paradigm to espouse. Making things up, esp. without any support from Scripture or Tradition, is a very, very bad model to follow.

Beliefs? What “beliefs”? Give it a rest, PR … take your medication.

What I am or am not, can or cannot be, is not the subject. You never even asked what I was referring to when I said “IT begins and ends …” Very uncharacteristic; but … how can you so blatantly vilify a position you still do not understand?

Actually, I probably know how you can … it’s because what I said is not expressed as credal doctrine, it’s not included as part of anything you have already been taught, and it’s not something your church could possibly explain to you. It’s “outside the box” thinking … so the automatic assumption is, I must be wrong.

 

[Simka]

This is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Simka. You heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard a (fallible) man say it …

Tell me more about this tradition, PR … I’m fascinated! You make it sound as though it has been passed down from generation to generation … how long ago did it start?

And … Oh yeah, I almost forgot … by what authority do you make the above claim? Can you cite examples?

What was the issue within the church that drove people to pursue it?

 

[CopticChristian]

Tell me more about this tradition, PR … I’m fascinated! You make it sound as though it has been passed down from generation to generation … how long ago did it start?

And … Oh yeah, I almost forgot … by what authority do you make the above claim? Can you cite examples?

What was the issue within the church that drove people to pursue it ?

Sin.

and

Those that forgot to take their medication.

 

[PRmerger]

Beliefs? What “beliefs”? Give it a rest, PR … take your medication.

This is uncharitable. I will give you a moment to retract this before I report you. Or before others report you.

 

[RelativeOfA]

Solo Scriptura fails partly[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB] in teaching the virtues of Marriage in that Bibles, Books and Letters do not Marry. I will ask my wife what her favorite book is, mine is Utopia, wonder of the relationships between Marriage and procreation. Let us keep it together as best we can. I vote of using ropes, in Marriage Celebrations around the Bride and Groom, I have only seen that it the Roman Catholic Church. What do others practice, in the ways of theatrical displays in the Ceremonies in your congragations? I will vote also for the teaching of the Scriptures more if Tobits is counted in. Who will change the accounting, of the books and add to the reading lists?

Also Fictional Favorite, is the Lord of the Flies.

Happy Sunday from a new POSTER, my name is Mark

 

[CopticChristian]

Knox Church is part of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. The PCC holds to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Confession. You can find it online.

For teaching purposes (that is, to understand what the Scriptures teach about “the faith once delivered”), it also encourages familiarity with the Heidelberg Catechism.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

The Westminster Confession says that the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha=hidden, are not part of the Canon…and this is based not on any man, Church but wholly upon God…

When, where and to whom did God declare this to be true?

Of the Church
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

On whose authority can this be believed to be true, since no man, no Church can declare anything…and only God can…when did God declare any of this to be true?

The Pope is the anti-Christ…well even John Hagee admits today this is not true…so if one element is no longer true, how much more is not true…

and concerning Justification

Of Justification
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]

III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10]

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[17]

How do you get this Faith?

 

[Simka]

Simka, the Church Christ founded and our clergy are in no way meant to be obstacles to the Scriptures;but moreover, they are meant to be our guides or beacons in understanding the deep meaning of Scripture.

Nicea, I have no misconceptions about what the Church Christ founded is MEANT to be. (I learned that from Scripture, at an early age, at my mother’s knee … kinda like Timothy.)

You are gravely mistaken if you believe the Church … is out to usurp the written Word of God.

You do not know my experiences, Nicea, and you obviously refer to some theoretical, published, doctrinal standard, but your view DOES NOT represent the whole Catholic Church. In practice I have found it to be a very different thing. You may be surprised to discover how little unanimity or uniformity of belief exists, and yet is promoted as “the position of the Church”. The Church consists of human beings; and I have no reason on earth to believe that what we see of the Church today is what the Holy Spirit intended it to be.

The church is THE defender,advocate and infallible interpreter of the Scriptures because Scripture clearly says the Holy Spirit will guide her into all Truth.

Again, I understand the intention, but what happens if the guiding of the Holy Spirit is ignored by those God is trying to lead? God help us if the Church today is our last line of defense.

I am reminded of a situation that developed where my wife works with deaf people who need social assistance. One client, who is both deaf and blind, is entirely dependent upon her caregivers, for everything. Would you like to guess who turned out to be her worst abusers?

The Scriptures without the Church is a like body without a functioning heart-it will die!

Based on personal observation, I tend rather to think of “Scripture without the Church” as a body that has had a cancer removed. It may yet have a chance to live.

Just by way of immediate example, Nicea, I must confess that the recent change of attitude you have shown toward me in this forum has come as something of a surprise. When I first posted here, I was under no illusions about what to expect. Because I was adopting the “underdog” position, I expected to be verbally abused and insulted. There was no hint that anyone regarded dignity and respect as the norm. I was not disappointed.

Every word I had to say was disputed, disparaged and dismissed. Folk on this forum generally lived up to my expectations. Do you understand how impossible it is to accept your claims about what the Catholic Church is supposed to be, when I see such examples of what the Catholic Church actually is?

But I’m a big boy now. I got what I expected, and I took it in stride. I persisted. I actually derived a certain amount of satisfaction (forgive me!) when my persistence actually caused someone to blurt out,
“Simka, stop!”
“No matter what you say I won’t believe you!”
“I’m done!”

And I think, at last, I’m done (I may even have been blunt enough this time to get myself suspended.). Thank you, folk, for your participation with me. May the Lord be with you.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nicea, I have no misconceptions about what the Church Christ founded is MEANT to be. (I learned that from Scripture, at an early age, at my mother’s knee … kinda like Timothy.)

You do not know my experiences, Nicea, and you obviously refer to some theoretical, published, doctrinal standard, but your view DOES NOT represent the whole Catholic Church. In practice I have found it to be a very different thing. You may be surprised to discover how little unanimity or uniformity of belief exists, and yet is promoted as “the position of the Church”. The Church consists of human beings; and I have no reason on earth to believe that what we see of the Church today is what the Holy Spirit intended it to be.

Again, I understand the intention, but what happens if the guiding of the Holy Spirit is ignored by those God is trying to lead? God help us if the Church today is our last line of defense.

I am reminded of a situation that developed where my wife works with deaf people who need social assistance. One client, who is both deaf and blind, is entirely dependent upon her caregivers, for everything. Would you like to guess who turned out to be her worst abusers?

Based on personal observation, I tend rather to think of “Scripture without the Church” as a body that has had a cancer removed. It may yet have a chance to live.

Just by way of immediate example, Nicea, I must confess that the recent change of attitude you have shown toward me in this forum has come as something of a surprise. When I first posted here, I was under no illusions about what to expect. Because I was adopting the “underdog” position, I expected to be verbally abused and insulted. There was no hint that anyone regarded dignity and respect as the norm. I was not disappointed.

Every word I had to say was disputed, disparaged and dismissed. Folk on this forum generally lived up to my expectations. Do you understand how impossible it is to accept your claims about what the Catholic Church is supposed to be, when I see such examples of what the Catholic Church actually is?

But I’m a big boy now. I got what I expected, and I took it in stride. I persisted. I actually derived a certain amount of satisfaction (forgive me!) when my persistence actually caused someone to blurt out,
“Simka, stop!”
“No matter what you say I won’t believe you!”
“I’m done!”

And I think, at last, I’m done (I may even have been blunt enough this time to get myself suspended.). Thank you, folk, for your participation with me. May the Lord be with you.

CAF

To Explain and Defend the Faith…

If you believe in the hereafter…then you came here after what we are here for…

 

[ForeverGrace]

Wow… long thread.

Rob Bell does not rely on sola scriptura. If anything, he seems reading challenged and needs reading recovery. Rob believes in Rob. He is a master at avoiding questions. He simply makes up his own doctrine as he goes along. Anyone who has read Love Wins should see that Rob is teaching another gospel. Paul said that anyone who taught another gospel is accursed.

There is simply no way to determine that homosexual acts aren’t sinful. Jesus never speaks of marriage as a same sex couple. To the contrary, Jesus describes marriage in Matthew 19.

There is no way to honestly and completely say that the Catholic church has defined all things according to the teachings of scripture. Cyprians exegesis of scripture is at odds with Catholic teaching from time-to-time. Catholic teaching is also sometimes at odds with Catholics. It’s the nature of people to define things according to their own agenda. I’m quite sure that ‘Catholic for Choice’ isn’t orthodox. But it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.