Why Sola Scriptura fails

[KEP1983]

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.

This is a great example of what I mean. You imply that you believe in Sola Scriptura, but clearly Rob must not because he doesn’t agree with you. The reality is that Rob has given biblical support for his beliefs. He just has a different interpretation than you. Unfortunately there is no authority to declare whos interpretation is correct.

I agree that Rob is probably a heretic and his interpretation is probably sinful since he’s promoting sin.

So how do we deal with a person promoting such extreme sin? Matthew 18:15-20 tells us that if a brother is sinning, after talking to him privately about it, take him to the Church. If he still doesn’t repent, then he is to be kicked out of the Church. So, which Church would you take Rob to for intervention? Which Church would he be kicked out of?

Anyone who has read Love Wins should see that Rob is teaching another gospel. Paul said that anyone who taught another gospel is accursed.

I find it funny that you refer to “Love Wins” as an argument against Rob Bell and him presenting “another Gospel.” “Love Wins” is about Universalism. Although Universalism has been officially condemned by the Catholic Church, there was actually a lot of speculation in the early Church about it. Origen proposed it, for instance.

So we have early evidence for belief in Universalism in the early Church (though it was condemned quite quickly). But we see nothing in the early Church about “faith alone” “scripture alone” or denominationalism.

So either Rob or I could very well say that you’re teaching “another gospel,” too. Who decides who’s right?

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.

Though I agree with you, liberals have exegetical arguments of their own. Who determines who’s right?

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.

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that a liberal Catholic is not following his Churches teaching while a liberal Protestant is.

The liberal Catholic is standing in opposition to the Church, his subjective opinion and subjective interpretation is officially proclaimed wrong by an objective source with an objective interpretation.

On the other hand, a liberal Protestant can simply find a liberal Church and follow their liberal teachings or create his own. You’re left with an objective book with subjective interpretations. If I don’t like, say, a Southern Baptist subjective interpretation then I’ll just go find a separate denomination with an interpretation that fits my beliefs better. I can remain liberal on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc and still be true to my Churches teaching. And no one can say I’m wrong. No one can follow Matthew 18:15-20 and kick me out of the Church.

 

[RelativeOfA]

I seems to me, these issues all could be solved by a healthy understanding of Church Government. What is the potent way to Govern our communities, and how do we deal with Heresy in the Church. Potent need to understand, the limitations of roles in our Church commmunity. Let us work together as best we can as Christians with one Baptism, and explore how we might consecrate ourselves to each-other. I prayerfully explore and seek unity with Doctrinally confused and also Sexually confused. Let us have a unity in the love of life and the way that life begins. I hope that on this site it is uncommon the presumptions on other sites. Let us be carefull to not assume too much of the Scriptures, let alone LOVE between one another, as Rob Bells seems to do.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Simka,

If I understand your IF, THEN argument for Sola Scriptura…it goes something like this:

The early Church held scripture as THE authority over Tradition,
then there is solid foundation for Sola Scriptura.

Both the premise and conclusion are in error. For both the premise and conclusion, show in the bible where the bible says scripture has authority over Tradition. It does not. Instead the bible, the Written Word of God says:

2 Thessalonians 2
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Timothy 2:2
and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Sola Scriptura fails Simka because scripture itself doesn’t teach it and the Church never held it to be true. The deposit of faith is the Written Word of God AND Tradition… and the Church knew what was the Written Word of God based on Tradition.

You are following a man-made tradition coming out of the reformation…if the Holy Spirit intended for Scripture to be authoritative over Tradition, then certainly the Holy Spirit would have said so in the bible.

Chapter and Verse Please.

Charity,

Pork

 

[PRmerger]

What I am or am not, can or cannot be, is not the subject.

Of course it is. You are promoting SS yet you do not hold to SS yourself.

This is evident when you make things up, without any basis in Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Heh.

So you are again proclaiming that you are NOT SS. You need someone to explain the Scriptures to you, just like the above Christians did.

That’s exactly the role of the Magisterium.

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!

Huh?

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Simka,

Reading from Presbyterian.ca it says about the bible

We seek to understand the Bible in its original historical setting, recognizing the variety of material it contains. For this, a wise use of historical-critical methods is essential.

The original historical setting is that the bible was written by, for and about the Catholic Church. It’s a Catholic document that came to be around 400ad after a couple of Catholic Church synods (Hippo and Carthage). You implicitly trust that the Catholic Church was infallible in determining which books were inerrant and inspired. Yet, somehow the Holy Spirit, you believe let the Church fall in it’s teachings on faith and morals. The latter is not scripture as the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ to lead his Church to all Truth. If you can’t trust the Catholic Church on faith and morals, then you have to question whether the books you have in your bible are inspired.

Regarding Communion it says

Communion, the breaking of bread and drinking of wine or grape juice, reminds us of Jesus. In Communion we are united with Jesus and with each other; we are strengthened to go out into the world as a “symbol of hope for a troubled age.” Communion is thanksgiving and a memorial of Christ’s life and death.

Simka, this is in error all around. Christ gave us, just as the bible says, his actual body and blood in the Eucharist. If you don’t believe the Catholics, ask the Orthodox. If you want to look at the early Church writings, which you like to do…see below:

St Ignatius was a disciple of St John…who was taught by Christ
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, **because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, **which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Notice Justin Martyr says that they have been “taught” about the Eucharist…taught through the faith handed down by the apostles…
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

So Simka, if you want to look at the early church writings on thinking there is the beginning of Sola Scriptura, then be consistent and read what the early church wrote about the Eucharist.

You have to be consistent…or you are not Being Logical. Either both are true or neither are true.

• We know the books of the bible are inerrant and inspired because the Catholic Church is infallible
• We know the teachings on faith and morals are True because the Catholic Church is infallible (and SS fails and the Catholic / Orthodox have been right for 2000 years on the Real Presence)

Pork

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
You are gravely mistaken if you believe the Church … is out to usurp the written Word of God

.

Simka:

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.

And I am not out to know your experiences Simka. Precisely w Jesus founded His Church and gave us the sacraments Simka. No word about handing out Bibles for us to determine what really is Truth. What on earth made you believe the church does not have it share of issues and mistakes? I should know, because I work for the CC. What you confuse are impeccability and infallibility,which was granted to the church in matters of doctrinal Truth. Scripture is very clear who Jesus granted the guidance of the Holy Spirit-the Church. No word about “all salvation” is found in the pages of your Bible.

In practice I have found it to be a very different thing.

This a general swip at the entire church and it is not fair. That is like saying every German during WWII was a Nazi and was out to kill Jews. Honestly? All Germans shared Hitler’s views?

You may be surprised to discover how little unanimity or uniformity of belief exists, and yet is promoted as “the position of the Church”.

This sounds like a mere opinion and personal observation, hence lacking any creditable evidence. Simka does not matter what individual is at odds with the church, dissentments do not alter or change doctrinal Truth-period! Ever heard of Arius of Alexandria?

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.

Yes…isn’t that why God Incarnated in order to save humanity? Do not recall Jesus having animals or insects as His disciples? And you for a fact know the Church today is not what the Holy Spirit intended? Exactly what did he intend Simka? See…here is one prime example of SS at its worst: Faulty interpretations lead to faulty conclusions. It is like the blind leading the blind.

God Bless

 

[CopticChristian]

.

Simka:

And I am not out to know your experiences Simka. Precisely w Jesus founded His Church and gave us the sacraments Simka. No word about handing out Bibles for us to determine what really is Truth. What on earth made you believe the church does not have it share of issues and mistakes? I should know, because I work for the CC. What you confuse are impeccability and infallibility,which was granted to the church in matters of doctrinal Truth. Scripture is very clear who Jesus granted the guidance of the Holy Spirit-the Church. No word about “all salvation” is found in the pages of your Bible.

This a general swip at the entire church and it is not fair. That is like saying every German during WWII was a Nazi and was out to kill Jews. Honestly? All Germans shared Hitler’s views?

This sounds like a mere opinion and personal observation, hence lacking any creditable evidence. Simka does not matter what individual is at odds with the church, dissentments do not alter or change doctrinal Truth-period! Ever heard of Arius of Alexandria?

Yes…isn’t that why God Incarnated in order to save humanity? Do not recall Jesus having animals or insects as His disciples? And you for a fact know the Church today is not what the Holy Spirit intended? Exactly what did he intend Simka? See…here is one prime example of SS at its worst: Faulty interpretations lead to faulty conclusions. It is like the blind leading the blind.

God Bless

Simka, having sat, like Timothy, at his mothers knee, learned the OT…based on his analogy, because that is what Timothy learned…and Simka has left the building…

 

[steido01]

…deformers/reformers…

Can this please stop?

 

[ForeverGrace]

This is a great example of what I mean. You imply that you believe in Sola Scriptura, but clearly Rob must not because he doesn’t agree with you. The reality is that Rob has given biblical support for his beliefs. He just has a different interpretation than you. Unfortunately there is no authority to declare whos interpretation is correct.

I agree that Rob is probably a heretic and his interpretation is probably sinful since he’s promoting sin.

So how do we deal with a person promoting such extreme sin? Matthew 18:15-20 tells us that if a brother is sinning, after talking to him privately about it, take him to the Church. If he still doesn’t repent, then he is to be kicked out of the Church. So, which Church would you take Rob to for intervention? Which Church would he be kicked out of?

I find it funny that you refer to “Love Wins” as an argument against Rob Bell and him presenting “another Gospel.” “Love Wins” is about Universalism. Although Universalism has been officially condemned by the Catholic Church, there was actually a lot of speculation in the early Church about it. Origen proposed it, for instance.

So we have early evidence for belief in Universalism in the early Church (though it was condemned quite quickly). But we see nothing in the early Church about “faith alone” “scripture alone” or denominationalism.

So either Rob or I could very well say that you’re teaching “another gospel,” too. Who decides who’s right?

Though I agree with you, liberals have exegetical arguments of their own. Who determines who’s right?

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that a liberal Catholic is not following his Churches teaching while a liberal Protestant is.

The liberal Catholic is standing in opposition to the Church, his subjective opinion and subjective interpretation is officially proclaimed wrong by an objective source with an objective interpretation.

On the other hand, a liberal Protestant can simply find a liberal Church and follow their liberal teachings or create his own. You’re left with an objective book with subjective interpretations. If I don’t like, say, a Southern Baptist subjective interpretation then I’ll just go find a separate denomination with an interpretation that fits my beliefs better. I can remain liberal on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc and still be true to my Churches teaching. And no one can say I’m wrong. No one can follow Matthew 18:15-20 and kick me out of the Church.

Nope, not true. My church would deal with me quite quickly if I started spouting heretical beliefs. Why? We follow the admonition of scripture. You are correct that protestants can be all over the place, but let’s be 100% honest, so are a good many Catholics. Those are just the facts. I know many Catholics who think the church is wrong on many issues. And… I know that Catholics fight with each other all the time. A good example is Father Andrew Greely who held Father Marcial Maciel is absolute disdain. Then somehow the Catholic lawyers in Colorado made the mistake of saying a child born dead due to a problem with the mother, determined the child was not human, thus the hospital was not financially responsible. These things are against church teachings but it doesn’t seem to matter. I could make long lists of what some would consider Catholic failures, but Protestants are just as guilty because humans are sinners. Bottom line Catholics choose scripture and tradition, protestants choose scripture only. But both don’t seem to follow either very well.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, not true. My church would deal with me quite quickly if I started spouting heretical beliefs. Why? We follow the admonition of scripture. You are correct that protestants can be all over the place, but let’s be 100% honest, so are a good many Catholics.

But when Catholics are “all over the place” they have divorced themselves from the model which the Church espouses: there is an authentic interpreter of Scripture and that is the Magisterium.

When non-Catholic Christians are “all over the place” all they need to do is say, “Well, I am simply following the model that you are proposing. I am reading the Scriptures and coming to my own personal interpretation.”

 

[PRmerger]

Bottom line Catholics choose scripture and tradition, protestants choose scripture only.

Al has already been demonstrated, FG, Protestants can not “choose Scripture only”. They needed *the Church *to tell them what was Scripture, and, as such, follow the Church’s direction in that. So not Scripture only.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Al has already been demonstrated, FG, Protestants can not “choose Scripture only”. They needed *the Church *to tell them what was Scripture, and, as such, follow the Church’s direction in that. So not Scripture only.

I am remodeling my bathroom but I will add my two cents for a second. Many of those that proclaim Scripture Alone state that all doctrines should be backed up by Scripture. Funny thing is, however, that doctrine of Scripture Alone cannot be “backed up” by Scripture. Sola Scripture is a Protestant tradition. So is Lordship Salvation, Adult baptism…etc.

Back to the bathroom.

 

[pablope]

Nope,
Bottom line Catholics choose scripture and tradition, protestants choose scripture only. But both don’t seem to follow either very well.

The only difference is…when protestants say they choose scripture only…that is a tradition in itself, without realizing or recognizing it as a tradition…ableit, a protestant tradition.

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… 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.

 

[Nicea325]

ForeverGrace:

Nope, not true. My church would deal with me quite quickly if I started spouting heretical beliefs. Why? We follow the admonition of scripture. You are correct that protestants can be all over the place, but let’s be 100% honest, so are a good many Catholics.

Elaborate on what you mean “all over the place” in better detail. Please.

Those are just the facts. I know many Catholics who think the church is wrong on many issues.

Issues or doctrines? There is a big difference there.

And… I know that Catholics fight with each other all the time. A good example is Father Andrew Greely who held Father Marcial Maciel is absolute disdain. Then somehow the Catholic lawyers in Colorado made the mistake of saying a child born dead due to a problem with the mother, determined the child was not human, thus the hospital was not financially responsible. These things are against church teachings but it doesn’t seem to matter.

Guess What? Does not matter who is at odds with church teachings, whether be a clergy member or the faithful, church teachings are not altered to please popular opinions.

I could make long lists of what some would consider Catholic failures, but Protestants are just as guilty because humans are sinners.

Precisely why Jesus left His Church guided by the Holy Spirit. No word of lay individuals making doctrinal decisions or matters based on faith and morals.

Bottom line Catholics choose scripture and tradition, protestants choose scripture only. But both don’t seem to follow either very well.

Not exactly. Catholics from the beginning were not ask to pick and choose by choice. On the contrary, we follow the Deposit of Faith handed by the Apostles and early church which include Scripture, Tradition and the Church. Protestants on the other hand follow a much later tradition called Sola Scriptura no where to be seen in the early church.

 

[benjohnson]

Issues or doctrines? There is a big difference there.

Sadly, here in Seattle, Catholic layperson viewpoints on abortion and marriage tend to deliberately not follow Catholic church teaching.

Frankly, the idea the Protestants are a hot-mess of conflicting doctrine is true. Sadly, Catholics are not immune from this problem.

As JonNC rightly said - it come from sin. We’re either sinning against doctrine, or sinning against interpretation of doctrine. Different poison, same results.

 

[pablope]

Sadly, here in Seattle, Catholic layperson viewpoints on abortion and marriage tend to deliberately not follow Catholic church teaching.

Frankly, the idea the Protestants are a hot-mess of conflicting doctrine is true. Sadly, Catholics are not immune from this problem.

.

Ben…there is no conflicting doctrine in the CC. I think you are referring as to whether catholics follow faithfully the doctrine or not…which of course is not 100%.

When a catholic does not follow the catholic teaching, does that mean the teaching is not true?

The difference is also, a catholic would not create his/her own house church.

 

[Nicea325]

Sadly, here in Seattle, Catholic layperson viewpoints on abortion and marriage tend to deliberately not follow Catholic church teaching.

Frankly, the idea the Protestants are a hot-mess of conflicting doctrine is true. Sadly, Catholics are not immune from this problem.

As JonNC rightly said - it come from sin. We’re either sinning against doctrine, or sinning against interpretation of doctrine. Different poison, same results.

But as I said, does not matter if any Catholic disagrees,because personal disagreements do not alter or change teachings.The CC does not give a hoot of about relativism or cater to it. Sorry,but the CC does not have any conflicting doctrines. People may invent their own doctrines which are in direct conflict with doctrines of the church. Sorry,but all doctrines have been ratified and made official-end of story.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sadly, here in Seattle, Catholic layperson viewpoints on abortion and marriage tend to deliberately not follow Catholic church teaching.

Frankly, the idea the Protestants are a hot-mess of conflicting doctrine is true. Sadly, Catholics are not immune from this problem.

As JonNC rightly said - it come from sin. We’re either sinning against doctrine, or sinning against interpretation of doctrine. Different poison, same results.

Brother, pointing to individuals doesn’t really show the real problem.

The problem lies in the ocean of confusion from all the different and conflicting Bible Churches, Bible Only Churches, Sola Scriptura Churches, et. al.

In the same manner, pointing to the East/West schism as a pre-existing problem doesn’t really show the real problem. And it doesn’t justify the existing denominations that completely ignore (willfully or non-willfully) the fact that both the East and the West were united, until the Schism, since Pentecost.

Showing one Catholic, one Priest or more doesn’t justify the Existence and Authority of the Catholic Church, it just shows that not all follow the teachings of the Church, which is not what anyone of us (Catholics) are saying.

And a separated Catholic is in much greater danger than someone who was born a Protestant, as the separated Catholic is in much greater danger of being an apostate than the Protestant in this example… I was there but not anymore

 

[JonNC]

=KEP1983;10763779]Well, he had authority for about 2 weeks. Until other Protestants decided “they” had the truth, and not Luther.

They can decide whatever they choose, its kind of irrelevant to me.

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.

To a degree,not being nice, and not dialoguing is a contributing factor for division lasting this long. Let’s remember, and give credit to, the Catholic Church for starting closer dialogue between our communions. Lutherans would agree with getting rid of denominationalism, as we recognize Christ formed one Church.
Unit won’t come without two things: 1) charitable dialogue, and more importantly, 2) the Holy Spirit. At least that’s what Pope Benedict said when he visited the Lutheran Church in Rome. And guess what? They were nice to each other.

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.

Schism is a two way street, Kep, as is the division we have between us.

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

Correct, divided means separated from each other, and blame belongs to both camps.

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.

I agree. We, together, have enemies who seek to destroy us. I don’t know about miracles, but dialogue and seeing the Holy Spirit in each other is a good start.
So, I will do my best to be nice to you, and all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jon