Why Sola Scriptura is so convincing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
photographs are flat and are not graven.
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing the point. But since what you say is technically true, I’ll rephrase it:

If you are potentially convinced that the Bible forbids us from having statues (“graven images”), then the bust of Beethoven on my piano is a serious violation of the Commandments.
That ridiculous conclusion illustrates why sola scriptura isn’t logical.

Your thoughts now, tomdstone?
 
I think a lot of folks in the thread have already answered the question: some version of sola Scriptura seems self-evident to many Christians. The Bible is inspired by God. The Bible therefore has a certain authority, and this authority is the authority of God Himself, Who cannot be trumped.

I have to say, I can’t blame a person for finding that sort of approach to be reasonable. But at some point, many Christians do realize there’s more to it than just that.
 
john_ennis said:
It is a little curious how strong and widespread the assumption of Sola Scriptura became–it’s quite a leap to go from “everything in the Bible is the word of God,” to “the entire word of God must be in the Bible.”

Not sure how Luther backed up his Bible-alone assertions; I’m sure had had some rationale. But it really is (very ironically) not a truth which is found in Scripture.
Click to expand...
In Luther’s time, Christianity was at the center of culture because of the power and social, political position of the Catholic Church; this had been going on for centuries, at least since the Middle Ages. The traditions of the Church saturated everyday life on every level. It could never have occurred to Luther that there would be a society that would not know the Church Fathers, the sacraments, Christian creed, doctrine and teaching.

Luther’s concern, in part, and I think it was legitimate, was the imposition of man-made ritual, practices, philosophy, onto the fundamentals of the faith, more man than God driving the Church. There was a loss of balance, perspective, in much of the Church, corruption, etc; also the laity were quite estranged from the Church ecclesiastical structure, practice. There was an emphasis on practice, obligations, not much about individual or personal exercise of faith. (the laity did not receive communion wine for example, nor could they read Scripture; no one knew the Gospels)

Luther wanted to reform, reorient, simplify the practice of the faith, back to its original roots. The idea of Sola Scriptura reflects this desire, but is in error, I think. It is too radical and ultimately makes no sense, as the Church put the Bible together and interpreted Scripture from the days of the Apostles. But, again, the idea behind Sola Scriptura would have an undeniable appeal in the context of Luther’s time because of how little emphasis there was on the Gospel vs. ritual, practices. It was seen as a way back to truth, to God. This position hardened in the Reformers as the schism unfolded; it became a rallying cry, a way to identify as a Protestant, a reformed Christian. Also I think a Lutheran in the Renaissance with his catechesis and Bible learning to read is quite a different thing from a Southern Baptist on TV, even a Puritan for that matter. I could be wrong there though, no question.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
In Luther’s time, Christianity was at the center of culture because of the power and social, political position of the Catholic Church; this had been going on for centuries, at least since the Middle Ages. The traditions of the Church saturated everyday life on every level. It could never have occurred to Luther that there would be a society that would not know the Church Fathers, the sacraments, Christian creed, doctrine and teaching.

Luther’s concern, in part, and I think it was legitimate, was the imposition of man-made ritual, practices, philosophy, onto the fundamentals of the faith, more man than God driving the Church. There was a loss of balance, perspective, in much of the Church, corruption, etc; also the laity were quite estranged from the Church ecclesiastical structure, practice.

Luther wanted to reform, reorient, simplify the practice of the faith, back to its original roots. The idea of Sola Scriptura reflects this desire, but is in error, I think. It is too radical and ultimately makes no sense, as the Church put the Bible together and interpreted Scripture from the days of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this all makes sense. All that considered, though, it’s hard to grant that Luther was simply mistaken for the right reasons, when he was tinkering with Scripture as he did. Puts the Catholic Church’s authority below that of Scripture, and his own judgment sort of above it. Not only proclaiming which books were biblical without regard to the previous thousand years and adding the word “alone” in the German translation of Romans, but calling James “an epistle of straw,” and saying (as I read in my wife’s Lutheran Concordia Bible) that James “wasn’t up to the task” of what he was trying to convey.
 
surritter said:
I think you’re missing the point. But since what you say is technically true, I’ll rephrase it:

If you are potentially convinced that the Bible forbids us from having statues (“graven images”), then the bust of Beethoven on my piano is a serious violation of the Commandments.
That ridiculous conclusion illustrates why sola scriptura isn’t logical.

Your thoughts now, tomdstone?
Click to expand...
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) Many Greek Orthodox interpret this as permitting {in a religious context} icons which are not graven, but not statues which are graven.
 
Tomdstone said:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) Many Greek Orthodox interpret this as permitting {in a religious context} icons which are not graven, but not statues which are graven.
Click to expand...
Why did God change his mind with the bronze serpent? What does one make of the angelic figures made on the Ark of the Covenant?

Either the Bible contradicts itself on these points or passages needs context given what the passage was trying to convey. It’s unreasonable to think that a statue of Beethoven would be considered against biblical teaching, unless of course that bust of Beethoven is an actual idol that is being worshipped as a deity.
 
The problem with these issues is that we are discussing them in English.

Unhappily for us, the Bible was not written in English.

Saints Jerome and Augustine and Ambrose and others were experts in Greek and Hebrew and Latin. But English was not even invented yet.

AND, over the centuries, the meaning of English words has changed.

So, what to do?

Two recent books are excellent:

“Bearing False Witness … Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History” by Rodney Stark

“Hard Sayings … A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties” by Trent Horn.

Both authors have done a lot of other biblical writing, as well. Super guys!

Mr. Horn has a long association with Catholic Answers, so I would call the 800 number for Catholic Answers and open a channel with him through that approach.
 
In addition to Horn and Stark, Father John Trigilio and Father Kenneth Brighenti have written extensively on these issues.

For example, on pages 208 & 209 [Question 161] of “The Cathlicism Answer Book … The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions”, they discuss graven images as part of a section on idolatry.

And that is part of their Chapter 16 … on Honoring God.

Do these fathers still have their EWTN call-in program?

Might be useful to contact them through that venue.
 
Tomdstone said:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) Many Greek Orthodox interpret this as permitting {in a religious context} icons which are not graven, but not statues which are graven.
Click to expand...
The King James Version [KJV] translation is kind of dated and is not Catholic.

Consider studying the Navarre Bible which is fairly new and is Catholic.

Check also with one or more “concordances”.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Why did God change his mind with the bronze serpent? What does one make of the angelic figures made on the Ark of the Covenant?

Either the Bible contradicts itself on these points or passages needs context given what the passage was trying to convey. It’s unreasonable to think that a statue of Beethoven would be considered against biblical teaching, unless of course that bust of Beethoven is an actual idol that is being worshipped as a deity.
Click to expand...
IMHO, it would be wrong to bow down and serve bronze serpents or a bust of Beethoven.
 
souldiver said:
Many Protestants are converting Catholics by indicating that they’re unbiblical, then it will work wonders in conversion.

When a Catholic give a reasoning with a Sola Scriptura adherent, they would commonly say “where is that in the Bible?” and the latter would seem like he feels that the Catholic is checkmated.

I’m not being pursued by Protestants in my youth but I became anti-Catholic after I read the part where God forbid statues. But I hear out apologetics in CA and I find them feasible and since then liked Catholicism, it’s pretty relaxed compare to other Christians. I haven’t found any church older than the CC, so it must be really the apostolic church founded before the New Testament writings so it’s clergy must have known Christian stuff not in the Bible and given authority originating from Jesus and the apostles. I know the verse where Jesus says to the apostles, “if they listen to you, they listen to me”
Click to expand...
The Church Jesus founded is that through which our Lord gave us the complete text of the Bible…

And the Church has kept it intact in its entirety, and will continue to do so, until the end of time as we know it. (Matthew 28) That unauthorized versions of the Bible have been available for almost 500 years is apparent, and has helped to keep people from receiving our Lord’s Body and Blood worthily, as He said we must do to have life in us. (John 6; 1 Corinthians 11)

Some people are apparently unaware of the fact that the Bible is read from EVERY DAY during the DAILY Mass, wherein our Lord is present to us as our DAILY Bread of Life. And that it is our LORD that His Holy Church - which includes His Holy Book - serves FIRST, last, and always.

Too, using creation to honor our Lord is its proper use, which is exactly what the Magi did. So if art and candles and incense and music - among other things - are used to honor our Lord…

Big duh…that’s what we SHOULD be using these things to do! 👍
 
I think two reasons are because the Bible is translated into the vernacular and we have high literacy rates. Sola Scriptura is much more believable if the individual can actually read Holy Scripture himself. It wouldn’t have as much appeal if you had to more explicitly trust the authority of another man for interpretation.

I think another reason is because the Canon was decided and in use for centuries. It’s sort of the same as with modern paper currency. If you went back to the time of Jesus and tried to buy food with US paper dollars no one would be willing to exchange food for what they think is just an artistic piece of paper. To get to the point where a paper dollar has value you had to start with precious metals. These where then formed into coins. Eventually arose the concept of deposit notes whereby a note represented an amount of precious metal you received. Finally they did away with the redeeming those notes for metal. But people still consider them money because of its past association with money. We collectively agree to treat it as such.

This is like the Bible because first we had to have an authority which told us what is Sacred Scripture. Once that was well established people tended to forget there was a process which first gave these texts authority. Once this collection of texts had been so imbued with authority people tended to see them as being sufficient. They could ignore the process (the Church) which was able to provide this collection with authority. But if you take away the Church’s authority you take away the authority of Holy Scripture. Honest Protestants will recognize the problem. One well known Protestant authority, R.C. Sproul, wisely said the Canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. This would seem to render Sola Scriptura useless but for a non cognizant recognition of the Church’s authority.
 
Tomdstone said:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) Many Greek Orthodox interpret this as permitting {in a religious context} icons which are not graven, but not statues which are graven.
Click to expand...
If the passage you’ve quoted were to mean what you seem to imply, then that would conflict with Exodus chapter 25, where God commanded images for religious use.

The prohibition is against worshipping images (flat or “graven”), not in the images themselves.

Also keep in mind that when Jesus came along, He was “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). So we now have an image of God and it is acceptable to recreate the image of Jesus in artwork (ever see a Christmas manger scene?).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top