Why Sola Scriptura fails

[PRmerger]

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?

Yes, of course the Church teaches that everything she proclaims is essential for salvation.

 

[JohnPB]

Yes, of course the Church teaches that everything she proclaims is essential for salvation.

Strange; I have never encountered that teaching before. Are you sure?
Where can I find that in official church doctrine?

 

[joe371]

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.

Where does scripture say that scripture contains everything necessary for Salvation? Please don’t use 2 Timothy, for it does not suggest that scripture contains everything necessary for Salvation.

Everyone who reads the bible knows that - “All (not only) Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching…”

One could say that all he/she needs is perseverance, for scripture reminds us that with it, we lack nothing, but that’s not true:

James 1 - Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

Do you consider the church necessary for salvation? Scripture reminds us that Jesus is the head and Savior of His church. Or, is it just each Christian and their bible, something I believed long ago, at least until I discovered the early church fathers?

Surely the church is important in terms of truth, and the very reason why scripture call the church the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[joe371]

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?

In your opinion does the Anglican church (regarding Anglican Christians) possess the God-given authority in terms of doctrinal truth?

 

[joe371]

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?

In your opinion does the Anglican church (regarding Anglican Christians) possess the God-given authority in terms of doctrinal truth i.e. does the Anglican church have the unique authority to make final determinations regarding the meaning of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Strange; I have never encountered that teaching before.

Are you of the opinion that you are familiar with the Catholic faith in its entirety?

If so, can you answer this question: where is Scripture in the Mass? And where is the Mass in Scripture?

Are you sure?

Yes, I am sure.

Where can I find that in official church doctrine?

Everything in the Catechism is essential to the faith**, and you can find that in the Apostolic Constitution given by Pope JPII

**The Catechism contains the essential and fundamental content of the Catholic faith in a complete and summary way. It presents what Catholics throughout the world believe in common. It presents these truths in a way that facilitates their understanding.

 

[joe371]

If so, can you answer this question: where is Scripture in the Mass? And where is the Mass in Scripture?

Heck, the Mass was a part of the Christian life long before the Bible was codified by the Catholic Church. it’s greatest form of prayer…

 

[CopticChristian]

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.)
*

Read what you like, believe as you wish, however if it is interpreted outside the bosom of the Church…the Church reserves the right to judge…right here…

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

 

[Porknpie]

. I have a simple question that I hope will have a simple answer.

“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.”

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?

John,

Simple answer: Catholics believe that scripture is materially sufficient for salvation but not formally sufficient

Here is a very good article that explains the difference.

The Church from the beginning turned to Tradition to interpret the Written Word of God. The Church was answering your question nearly 1,600 years ago and 42,000 protestant denominations each believing differently using the same bible is proof that scripture is materially, not formally sufficient. There needs to be a an authoritative and infallible teacher…and there is.

**“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? **As a matter of fact, we must answer Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.” – Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 2 (A.D. 434).

John, it’s also hard to argue for sola scriptura when one doesn’t even have all the books in the bible…how were 7 books removed from your bible and by who’s authority? Even the Original KJV 1511 had 73 books…

 

[CopticChristian]

John,

Simple answer: Catholics believe that scripture is materially sufficient for salvation but not formally sufficient

Here is a very good article that explains the difference.

The Church from the beginning turned to Tradition to interpret the Written Word of God. The Church was answering your question nearly 1,600 years ago and 42,000 protestant denominations each believing differently using the same bible is proof that scripture is materially, not formally sufficient. There needs to be a an authoritative and infallible teacher…and there is.

**“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? **As a matter of fact, we must answer Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.” – Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 2 (A.D. 434).

John, it’s also hard to argue for sola scriptura when one doesn’t even have all the books in the bible…how were 7 books removed from your bible and by who’s authority? Even the Original KJV 1511 had 73 books…

and this was cemented in the teachings of the Church, found in the Catechism and answers the question that our Anglican friend asked for…that is the answer…no further discussion, since anyone outside the bosom of the Church, including all Protestants are not commissioned to judge the interpretation of Scripture…

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting **Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church **which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

Answer provided, when does our friend start RCIA?

 

[teeboy]

Scripture alone doesn’t answer all of our questions.

For instance, was Jesus on the census?

He was named on the eighth day.

 

[ffg]

Strange; I have never encountered that teaching before. Are you sure?
Where can I find that in official church doctrine?

Hi John,

In response to an earlier question, I think I saw -

A great example of someone finding the mass in scripture is Scott Hahn’s story. Lighthouse media sells talks / presentations, etc. for cheap, if interested.

I’m not a good verse person, and you should listen or read his story to get the full picture, but revelation is the book in the bible.

He walked himself through a section of revelation while sitting in the back of mass, realizing the connection of the priests in robes, the lamb once slain, etc…

I’ll see if I can listen to the story again today and see if he mentions the section.

Take care,

Hi John, I have one of Scott's books here, in "A Father Who Keeps His Promises" Chapter 13 has great information for your earlier question.

 

[Tomster]

Strange; I have never encountered that teaching before. Are you sure?
Where can I find that in official church doctrine?

In opposing the Protestant claim that Scripture is the sole source of revelation, one should not get the impression that the Bible and Tradition are separate and independent of each other. There is an expression of Catholic thought which says that the Bible is God’s revelation, understanding of course that there are some dogmas which are not explicitly contained in Scriptures but are closely derivable from it.

The Bible and Tradition would not then be two distinct though parallel sources of dogma, but two inseparable components of revelation, the body of which is the written word, and Tradition the soul. Revelation is fully evolved from the operation of the Spirit upon Tradition and Scripture. The Spirit acts upon the living Tradition until it crystallizes into Scripture. When revelation gets written down, the Spirit interprets it and makes it live by Tradition. Hence, acccording to this expression, Tradition is the divinely guided and living interpretation of Scripture by the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body.

What constitutes a tradition the Church can learn by examing the organs of tradition. Foremost among these are the Fathers of the Church, the ecclesiastical writers of the first eight centuries who have been approved by the Church for their holiness and orthodox doctrine. The practically unanimous agreement of the Fathers, that a doctrine must be believed by the faithful, is a sure argument for its divinely revealed character.

Another prominent organ is the theologians. If we have the morally unanimous testimony of the theologians that a doctrine is not only true but revealed, their agreement is a certain argument for its dogmatic status.

Third, the sacred liturgy is to be considered; for the prayers of the Church are a norm of its beliefs. Another norm is the practice of the Church over a long period. Thus, if Roman Pontiffs have dissolved certain types of marriages for several centuries, one must believe that they have legitimate power to act in that way.

Finally we have the universal beliefs of the faithful. For the Spirit dwells in the whole Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, not only assisting the magistery to teach, but also the faithful to believe. Hence it is impossible for the entire body of the faithful to believe what is false.

But even if all monuments of past teachings and witnessing to the faith were lost, the Church could still teach by looking within and consulting her living understanding of the doctrine entrusted to her.

Therefore, as there is one object of belief and that is the revelation of God, deposited in Scripture and Tradition, so there is one proximate rule of faith and that is the living voice of the Church Teaching.

 

[JohnPB]

… anyone outside the bosom of the Church, including all Protestants are not commissioned to judge the interpretation of Scripture…

Interpretation of Holy Scripture is a non-issue. “Sola Scriptura” allows for seeking counsel from clergy, teachers, etc. So, are you OK with this doctrine, so long as the right interpreters are used?

 

[JohnPB]

John, it’s also hard to argue for sola scriptura when one doesn’t even have all the books in the bible…how were 7 books removed from your bible and by who’s authority? Even the Original KJV 1511 had 73 books…

Thank you, Porknpie. But that leads to the question, are you OK with “Sola Scriptura” so long as the right Scriptures are used?

 

[JohnPB]

Are you of the opinion that you are familiar with the Catholic faith in its entirety?

Not by a long shot!

Everything in the Catechism is essential to the faith**, and you can find that in the Apostolic Constitution given by Pope JPII

And is it your contention, then, that everything that is deemed “essential to the faith” is held by the Church to be essential for salvation?

 

[ForeverGrace]

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.

So called to Regnum Christi and the Legionaires? Nope, none of that for me or for anyone else I love. But I respect your right to believe whatever you choose.

 

[JohnPB]

Where does scripture say that scripture contains everything necessary for Salvation? Please don’t use 2 Timothy, for it does not suggest that scripture contains everything necessary for Salvation.

It doesn’t. It also does not say that I am a 50-yr-old man. Certain facts in life are verifiable or refutable without the aid of Scripture.

My question is, does the Catholic Church refute the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” because it holds some additional doctrine, not included in Scripture, as also necessary for one’s salvation (contrary to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura)?

If so, what is that “necessary belief” that everyone must also have, in order to be saved? And where is the necessity of this particular additional belief taught by the Church?

Do you consider the church necessary for salvation? …
Surely the church is important in terms of truth, and the very reason why scripture call the church the pillar and foundation of truth?

If you mean the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, that premise does not refute or conflict with Sola Scriptura.

 

[ForeverGrace]

ForeverGrace:

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

Issues or doctrines? There is a big difference there.

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.

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.

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.

No difference on doctrine or issues with the Catholic church in a good many areas. Does the church have a doctrine that calls abortion sinful? I believe they do. Yet, certain Catholic lawyers think it’s okay to deny the personhood of a full term baby who died prior to natural birth due to alleged malpractice. Their reasoning: only people born, can be on the receiving end of malpractice. That looks like a problem with doctrine and issues to me. But you can believe whatever you choose, and I’m happy to respect that.

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you, Porknpie. But that leads to the question, are you OK with “Sola Scriptura” so long as the right Scriptures are used?

Hi John,

My answer…

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation:

Already said that materially yes. But an underlying assumption here is that you have the complete Holy Scripture. The Catholics and Orthodox would say that you do not. So if you don’t have the complete Written Word of God, that alone is “a” cause of error. Then there is a the question of authority to interpret what is a Catholic Book

so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man

Clearly do not agree. If this is true…show me where in the bible the bible states this…this statement excludes Tradition which the bible states we should hold fast to… along with the Written Word. In fact, this statement states the complete opposite of what the bible says we should do. Additionally, Jesus says that he will send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to all Truth. He makes no reference to doing so only through only the Written Word Of God.

that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

There are 42,000 protestant churches all believing in sola scriptura…all of them believing something different about what the Word of God is saying in 66 books. So is it:

• Faith alone saves?
• Once Saved, Always Saved?
• Sacramental Baptism required for Salvation?
• Do I have to forgive another to be saved?
• Do I have to keep the commandments to be saved?
• Do I have to receive the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist?
• Do I have to repent to be saved?

So no, I can’t say anything positive about Sola Scriptura. It’s not what Christ taught, it’s not what the apostles taught, it’s not what the bible itself teaches and its in complete opposite of what the bible teaches…and…it’s not Being Logical that Christ would only give us a book…some 370 years after his death…and the book and the Church that wrote the book…both contradict the theology of Sola Scriptura.

If Sola Scriptura were true…then why doesn’t the bible itself say so? Why didn’t the Catholic Church say so in 397ad when the Synod of Carthage confirmed the canon of scripture?

Wish it were Friday.

Pork