Why Sola Scriptura fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter KEP1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
But as I said, does not matter if any Catholic disagrees,because personal disagreements do not alter or change teachings … all doctrines have been ratified and made official-end of story.
Click to expand...
I cannot help but notice that this has been a long and sometimes rancorous confrontation.

I have a simple question that I hope will have a simple answer. By way of introduction, I want to clarify that I am Anglican and I am referring specifically to the understanding of “Sola Scriptura” as it was written in the doctrinal statement of the Church of England in 1571, still official doctrine today:
“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.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith from the 17th century presents a similar position, but goes further, to make it clear that “due use of the ordinary means”, such as appeals to clergy and teachers, for proper interpretation of the Scriptures, is allowable within the doctrinal principle.

Modern wording replacing Elizabethan English makes up this simple paraphrase:
“The Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

What is needed to refute a doctrine is not simply to disagree with it, but to produce credible contradictory evidence. While the Apostles were proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection, if someone had produced His still-dead body, the doctrine would have been irrefutably disproved.

In order to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, my question is this: What, in addition to the Holy Scriptures – not contained in the Catholic Church Canon of Holy Scriptures, and not reasonably derived from them – what precious gem has been declared by the Catholic Church to be an additional, extrabiblical article of Faith necessary to be believed in order to be saved?

*(If there is such a tenet of Catholic Faith additionally required, it constitutes official opposition to ‘Sola Scriptura’. Why has no one previously mentioned this requirement? But if there is nothing else that can be identified as necessary for salvation, then Catholic Church doctrine does not disagree with ‘Sola Scriptura’ … whatever individuals might think.)
*
 
JohnPB said:
I cannot help but notice that this has been a long and sometimes rancorous confrontation.

In order to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, my question is this: What, in addition to the Holy Scriptures – not contained in the Catholic Church Canon of Holy Scriptures, and not reasonably derived from them – what precious gem has been declared by the Catholic Church to be an additional, extrabiblical article of Faith necessary to be believed in order to be saved?

*(If there is such a tenet of Catholic Faith additionally required, it constitutes official opposition to ‘Sola Scriptura’. Why has no one previously mentioned this requirement? But if there is nothing else that can be identified as necessary for salvation, then Catholic Church doctrine does not disagree with ‘Sola Scriptura’ … whatever individuals might think.)
*
Click to expand...
mark-shea.com/tradition.html

What’s the difference between material and formal sufficiency? It is the difference between having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house and having a house of bricks. Catholic teaching says written Sacred Tradition (known as Scripture) is materially sufficient: all the bricks necessary to build its doctrines are there in Scripture. But because some things in Scripture are implicit rather than explicit, other stuff besides Scripture has been handed down from the apostles. This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of.html

The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always
been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah’s Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the “tradition of Arianism” was
non-existent.
 
pablope said:
The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always
been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah’s Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the “tradition of Arianism” was
non-existent.
Click to expand...
This is why I have always seen the trajectory that Protestantism took from the Catholic Church leads directly to that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today.:rolleyes:
 
cannot help but notice that this has been a long and sometimes rancorous confrontation.

I have a simple question that I hope will have a simple answer. By way of introduction, I want to clarify that I am Anglican and I am referring specifically to the understanding of “Sola Scriptura” as it was written in the doctrinal statement of the Church of England in 1571, still official doctrine today:

“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.”

Chapter and verse that support the bolded words?
In order to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, my question is this: What, in addition to the Holy Scriptures – not contained in the Catholic Church Canon of Holy Scriptures, and not reasonably derived from them – what precious gem has been declared by the Catholic Church to be an additional, extrabiblical article of Faith necessary to be believed in order to be saved?
Click to expand...
(If there is such a tenet of Catholic Faith additionally required, it constitutes official opposition to ‘Sola Scriptura’. Why has no one previously mentioned this requirement? But if there is nothing else that can be identified as necessary for salvation, then Catholic Church doctrine does not disagree with ‘Sola Scriptura’ … whatever individuals might think.)
Click to expand...
For starters, the lack of understanding of Tradition.
 
JonNC said:
They sure don’t. BTW, Luther had no particular authority in the early Evangelical churches. The question is, who is His authority?

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.

Jon
Click to expand...
Unity will prove elusive until and unless our leaders can come to terms on certain
theological issues. (Let’s leave out Papal supremacy for the moment for discussion’s sake…)

Is Baptism symbolic or does it play a role in the forgiveness of sins? (Acts 2:38)

Is the Holy Eucharist the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, or symbolic? (John 6:22-69)

What about the Sacrament of Confession? Will there ever be agreement on the meaning of John 20:23?

What about the ordination of women, the Canon of the Holy Bible, abortion, Apostolic Succession, contraception, and gay people pretending to be married? Some “Christian” communities recognize these “unions”…

As you said Jon, it’s been 500 years. So much time, so much diviation from God’s Word. So much hostility… 😦

For ALL Christians to come under one umbrella, someone will have to change their doctrine… someone will have to admit they “got it wrong”.

For all of us to come together, Christ Himself will have to get involved. Only God in His infinite wisdom has the solution. I pray He reveals it to us before Christ returns.

Discussion here and on other respectful forums isn’t a bad start, though…
 
pablope said:
What’s the difference between material and formal sufficiency?
… If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the “tradition of Arianism” was non-existent.
Click to expand...
And so, to summarize … the additional, extrabiblical article of faith required for salvation is … ???
 
Nicea325 said:
“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.”

Chapter and verse that support the bolded words?
Click to expand...
None. If the Catholic Church disagrees with the statement, what additional, extrabiblical article of Faith does the Church teach must also be believed for Salvation?

So far, no one has an answer to that single, very simple question. Is there one?
 
pablope said:
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 . 😉
Click to expand...
Unless you are Mel Gibson. 😃
 
JohnPB said:
So far, no one has an answer to that single, very simple question. Is there one?
Click to expand...
Sheesh! You posted your question at 8:19pm. It was answered at 8:28.

Do you stand in front of your microwave and pace because it’s taking too long to heat your lunch?
 
PRmerger said:
The canon of Scripture is closed.
Click to expand...
You’re quite right. So, does the Church agree that the closed canon of Scripture contains everything necessary for Salvation, or does it teach that some specific, extrabiblical doctrine is also required to be believed, in order to be saved?

So far, no one has an answer to this question.
 
JohnPB said:
You’re quite right. So, does the Church agree that the closed canon of Scripture contains everything necessary for Salvation, or does it teach that some specific, extrabiblical doctrine is also required to be believed, in order to be saved?
Click to expand...
She teaches that you cannot know the Word of God in its entirety without the Church, and thus, without the Church, you cannot be saved.

No one is saved by a book, no matter how holy.
 
JohnPB said:
So this is the doctrine which the Church declares must also be believed, for salvation … ??? Where does the Church make that connection?
Click to expand...
It’s one of the doctrines that you believe, too.

But you believe it because of Tradition, not because you read it in the Scriptures.
 
JohnPB said:
“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.”
Click to expand...
Simka?

If Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, then anyone single person need only readeth in order to be saved regardless of its interpretation.

If you do not agreeth with this statement you must then proveth.
JohnPB said:
what precious gem has been declared by the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
The New Testament and the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth.
 
PRmerger said:
It’s one of the doctrines that you believe, too.

But you believe it because of Tradition, not because you read it in the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do believe it. But the question is, does the Church teach that a person’s salvation depends on believing this teaching? If so, where can I find this connection?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top