Why Sola Scriptura is wrong?

[Gorgias]

On the subject of Sola Scriptura, the thought I’m always driven back to is, how could SS exist before the invention of the printing press?

Good point! I’d never thought of it like that before!

Heck… let’s take it a step further: was God OK with making it necessary to read and interpret Scripture personally for oneself in times when the majority of people were illiterate ???

 

[annad347]

On the subject of Sola Scriptura, the thought I’m always driven back to is, how could SS exist before the invention of the printing press

There was written Scripture before Jesus. The 10 Commandments were written down on stone tablets.

Twice according to the movie.

The only thing the printing press did was make Scripture available for everyone who can read the ability to read the Word of God.

I believe God’s will for us to have scripture available to us was done at a specific time for a specific reason.

 

[VeryBlessed]

The reformers may or may not have had an agenda in coming up with Sola Scriptura, but I think that most people today, when they support Sola Scriptura, are mainly expressing their great love of scripture. And that’s a beautiful thing. The Scriptures are invaluable to me personally , and I’m so glad I live in a time where I have such easy access to the Scriptures.

I’ve heard somebody say that every heresy is a truth taken too far. The truth at the core of SS, is that it is so incredibly good for our personal faith when we read and study the scriptures for ourselves. But SS elevates personal interpretation to the highest place, above the consensus of the church as it is shepherded by God through history. This has led to the scandalous disunity in the body of Christ, which is the opposite of what Jesus begged God for in his high priestly prayer in John 17. SS also subtly appeals to human pride in elevating “my” interpretation above all others.

 

[Fati]

He said that the apostles never prayed to Mary. He

This is probably correct. The apostles didn’t pray to Philip after he was killed.
Ask the question of when was Mary being prayed to started. Depends of when she died is a mystery.

 

[commenter]

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes way too much. Writers start with the 27 books already authoritatively chosen for all time. Then they argue backwards to prove that, using several criteria they found somewhere outside scripture, that these 27 books obviously meet, or met, the standard for Scripture that all can see, so no magisterium necessary.

The problem is even by their criteria pulled out of thin air, there is controversy over some that were included, and excluded.

The deeper problem is how do you know a written New Testament should exist at all?

Sola Scriptura writers, who use active Voice normally, describing how the canon happened invariably fall into passive voice. “It was agreed that…It was decided…it developed that…There was a growing consensus that…”

They are jumping through hoops to avoid the need for the Magisterium.

 

[fredystairs]

They are jumping through hoops to avoid the need for the Magisterium.

I think you hit the main point right there. If you claim SS then you do not need the Church and it’s authority. Of course, that begs the question about what authority came up with the Canon of Scripture to begin with…

Pax

 

[commenter]

The dilemma for Sola Scriptura is demonstrated when they seek to refute Mormonism. If they argue" Your doctrines are unscriptural" Mormons quote the KJV to support them.

If it is claimed "that’s not the correct (that is, traditional, interpretation) Mormons can respond, first, why bring tradition in, and second, they have maintained these beliefs for well over a century.

Sola Scriptura supporters denounce Mormons for “adding Scriptures”. But why not? The whole New Testament was added to Scripture. You can’t say the canon was “closed” unless you posit an authoritative closer, visible to human eyes.

If you argue the NT was opened, selected, and closed by consensus, I’m sure the consensus in rural Utah today supports the Mormon canon.

 

[Gorgias]

This is probably correct. The apostles didn’t pray to Philip after he was killed.
Ask the question of when was Mary being prayed to started.

I disagree. The notion of “praying to a saint” really just means “asking someone to pray for you, on your behalf.” We see that this begins from the very inception of the Church! St Paul exhorts the recipients of his epistles to pray for him – that’s exactly what intercessory prayer is!

So, I’d expect that folks were asking Philip and Mary to pray for them from the beginning!

If you claim SS then you do not need the Church and it’s authority. Of course, that begs the question about what authority came up with the Canon of Scripture to begin with…

Yep. Exactly.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

We see that this begins from the very inception of the Church! St Paul exhorts the recipients of his epistles to pray for him – that’s exactly what intercessory prayer is!

The issue is asking for people BEYOND this world to pray for you.

 

[Gorgias]

The issue is asking for people BEYOND this world to pray for you.

Why is that an issue? It’s Scriptural, for crying out loud!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Asking people beyond this world and in the grave?

Yeah, I haven’t seen that.

 

[Gorgias]

Asking people beyond this world and in the grave?

Yeah, I haven’t seen that.

Take a look at Revelation 5 and Revelation 8. The prayers of the saints are offered to God in His presence.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Prayers of the saints meaning people on earth.

 

[Gorgias]

Prayers of the saints meaning people on earth.

Isn’t that the whole point? We on earth ask the saints in heaven to pray for us, and all our prayers ascend to God?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

We on earth ask the saints in heaven to pray for us,

Which isn’t documented in the relevant passage.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tell your friend the Bible refers to itself as “tradition” (2nd Thessalonians 2:15).

Remind him we have no New Testament Canon apart from Tradition.

(We have no Old Testament Canon either, but since he agrees with you on what comprises the New Testament, stick to that for this argument. You can talk about the Old Testament too, but if he wants to go down the deuterocanonical OT books, that will lead you away from the topic of “Tradition” tradition with these people often times, so beware. That is, if you want to maintain the topic of “Tradition” ONLY in your discussion).

To rhetorically drive home that point
(the point that that you NEED oral protected Sacred Tradition even to have Sacred Scripture),
ask 'em where the verse is, which states . . .

“In the Bible we have the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, . . . etc. etc. . . Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, . . . etc. etc. . . Jude, and Revelation.”

Or . . .

“In the New Testament, we have the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, . . . etc. etc. . . Jude, and Revelation.”

WHERE is THAT verse??

.

ALSO . . . .

Point out that the Ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament was a consonantal language and there is no Bible (at least Old Testament) without oral tradition.

Ancient Hebrew was a consonantal language.

It was all consonants and no vowels.

That means the written words in a consonantal language needed to be filled in via oral tradition.

To give you kind of a quasi-example, let me give you one consonantal word.

MN

What word is it? What word is mn?

Is it man?
Is it men?
Is it Amen?
Is it Many?
Is it money?
Is it Mini?
Is it Mono?
Is it Mane?
Is it Moon?
Is it Omen ?
Is it Omni?
Is it Mona?
Is it muni?

.

You can’t know without orally filling in the gap.

If that is true for one word (“mn”), how much more true is that
for a whole set of Sacred documents – the Old Testament . . .

Appeal to Tradition? Sacred Scripture

Davis_tylerj. Welcome to the Church! Tell your friend the Bible refers to itself as “tradition” (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). Remind him we have no New Testament Canon apart from Tradition. (We have no Old Testament Canon either, but since he agrees with you on what comprises the New Testament, stick to that for this argument). Point out that the Ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament was a consonantal language and there is no Bible (at least Old Testament) without oral tradition. Ancient Hebrew…

 

[commenter]

Gorgias:
Which isn’t documented in the relevant passage.

Sola Scriptura supporters constantly disagree with Catholics and with each other over which is the “relevant passage” for a given topic.

People try to look at the context. But the context for a passage might be what came before, or what came after, or in a totally different book of the Bible, which looks forward or backward to this.

If you have a certain view of salvation, you will argue that this verse in James is not the relevant passage, you have to go over to Romans. So you are not letting Scripture lead you, you are leading Scripture.

Sometimes preachers refer to “rightly dividing” the Word. But this really comes down to one Sola Scriptura tradition over another Sola Scriptura tradition.

This is not all bad. Much more than mainline liberal Protestants, evangelicals implicitly hold on to Tradition, and in effect, the Magisterium, though they explicitly don’t recognize them. Yet.

 

[goout]

VeryBlessed:

On the subject of Sola Scriptura, the thought I’m always driven back to is, how could SS exist before the invention of the printing press

There was written Scripture before Jesus. The 10 Commandments were written down on stone tablets.

Twice according to the movie.

The only thing the printing press did was make Scripture available for everyone who can read the ability to read the Word of God.

I believe God’s will for us to have scripture available to us was done at a specific time for a specific reason.

Where was God’s will for us in the year AD 34? How about the year AD 40? How would you know what God’s will was? How did Paul know what God’s will was? Mark? All without benefit of any written New Testament…what did they have as the revelation of God’s will?

Answer: Christ the person, who gave the Good News by his spoken words and his life, to The Church.
Who then committed the Gospel to actual writing. First Paul, then the Gospel writers, all out of the authority of The Church. Jesus is not a book, Jesus is a person living among other persons, all forming the One Body called The Church (or The Way, or The Ecclesia).

The Gospel was not in the form you carry in your bible until The Church said “those writings are part of the Gospel”…the bible did not canonize itself, the authority of The Church did that. Paul assumed that his writings to The Church were legitimate due to the authority of Christ and The Church, not because he wrote them down on paper.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

We on earth ask the saints in heaven to pray for us,

Which isn’t documented in the relevant passage.

I would disagree. The passage talks about the “prayers of the holy ones”. This term is used to refer both to saints on earth and the saints in heaven.

However, even more relevantly, what’s “documented” in that passage is that the prayers of the holy ones are offered by the 24 elders. In a papal audience, John Paul II offered the thesis that these represent the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel as well as the 12 apostles.

In other words, the prayers of the people of God – whether on earth or in heaven – are presented by the interceding action of human saints to God. Which is, as it turns out, precisely what you claim isn’t happening there.

 

[Marcus_Aurelius1]

in that passage is that the prayers of the holy ones are offered by the 24 elders

There is no record in that passage of Scripture of saints being asked for intercession. And who’s to say the 24 elders aren’t angels?