Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[jas3]

In the case of the RCC there is no defined body of dogmas whereas in Protestantism there is a clearly defined canon of scripture.

That's a category error. The Protestant canon of scripture is what defines where Protestant dogmas are to be found. Just like there's no single list of "every Catholic dogma," even though Catholics can say that dogma comes from sacred tradition (including scripture), there is no single list of "every Protestant dogma," even though Protestants can say that dogma comes from scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's a category error. The Protestant canon of scripture is what defines where Protestant dogmas are to be found. Just like there's no single list of "every Catholic dogma," even though Catholics can say that dogma comes from sacred tradition (including scripture), there is no single list of "every Protestant dogma," even though Protestants can say that dogma comes from scripture.

I think the primary difference is in the understanding of dogma. In Catholicism dogma is an open-ended discussion. It is derived from Tradition, including, but not limited to, the Bible, but Tradition is not at all a finite entity. By contrast, the Bible is a finite entity such that any dogma which cannot be traced reasonably to the Bible is extra-biblical, at best, and heretical, at worst. A classic example would be the doctrine of Purgatory which many Catholic apologists have attempted to read into various passages of the Bible. Because it is, in fact, extra-biblical in nature, Purgatory today has a wide variety of understandings within the Church which promotes it. If that Church had some form of written description of this dogma there would be no opportunity to misconstrue it.

 

[jas3]

If that Church had some form of written description of this dogma there would be no opportunity to misconstrue it.

Protestants insist on their dogma ultimately referencing a written text, but come to diametrically opposed conclusions about what that text means on a variety of subjects. As Peter writes, "There are some things in [Paul's letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Protestants insist on their dogma ultimately referencing a written text, but come to diametrically opposed conclusions about what that text means on a variety of subjects. As Peter writes, "There are some things in [Paul's letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

Quite true. Intelligence and sense are not meted out equally to all people and even spiritual understanding varies widely among people. It would be really lovely if some chap could assemble a list of infallible dogmas which everyone could assent to but, human nature being what it is, seems to prevent that from happening.

 

[jas3]

Quite true. Intelligence and sense are not meted out equally to all people and even spiritual understanding varies widely among people.

So why would you say the following if divinely inspired written texts can be misconstrued?

If that Church had some form of written description of this dogma there would be no opportunity to misconstrue it.

 

[Christopher0121]

I've never heard of this, but how is this any more unbelievable than a chariot and horses made of fire appearing as Elijah flies up into Heaven?

Well, first the story isn't in the Scriptures. Second, it rings of legend, not sacred writ embodying a moral message or teaching.

 

[Christopher0121]

The problem that I have with your interpretation is that for approximately 1500 years, the Church taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. Paul even strongly warns against consuming Him unworthily.
It was not until Zwingli began teaching symbolism that your interpretation was taught. Luther even argued against it, but Calvin changed the Christian religion to his own way of thinking and agreed with Zwingli. I do not wish to argue their points. Being that Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, I reject novel interpretations that alter clear Church teaching.
What are the consequences? Well Jesus said that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, I will have no life in me. Sounds serious. Hmmm? I am not listening to Zwingli.

Brother, do you really want to gamble and wait until the judgement seat of Christ to see whose interpretation is right? My view is that I am a new Christian in the grand scheme of things, a Johnny come lately. What right would I have to correct Church teaching by my own understanding. Should I not rather submit and obey those that have come before me, or did Jesus tell us to reinvent the wheel every generation?
I agree with Bob that we do not place tradition above scripture, but when there is no contradiction from scripture, tradition should not be discarded simply because it is tradition. That would cause unnecessary conflict and strife

I look at tradition and why we do it. Why the Eucharist? We want to honor the words of Jesus. This IS my body. This IS the cup of the New Covenant poured out in my blood. It does not reverence his words in the same way to use tiny cups of grape juice, that was not available until Dr Welch invented the process of making sterile wine in the 19th century, and eating matza crackers that are consumed merely as a symbol. That does not reverence Our Lord’s words at all. It is only an opinion that crept up 1500 years after the last supper and Our Lord’s sacrificial death.

I think it was obvious that the bread and wine being the body and the blood was meant to be understood as being symbolic... because when Jesus said this He was standing alive right in front of them, body not yet broken and blood not yet shed. Since Jesus spoke in the present tense, they clearly represented what would become His broken body and shed blood. And today we clearly observe the ordinance looking back at the broken body and shed blood, the focus being Christ's work upon the cross... not some magical presence in a wafer and wine.

I think a lot of the older churches view the Scripture with a bit of wide eyed superstition and miss the point entirely.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I think it was obvious that the bread and wine being the body and the blood was meant to be understood as being symbolic... because when Jesus said this He was standing alive right in front of them, body not yet broken and blood not yet shed. Since Jesus spoke in the present tense, they clearly represented what would become His broken body and shed blood. And today we clearly observe the ordinance looking back at the broken body and shed blood, the focus being Christ's work upon the cross... not some magical presence in a wafer and wine.

I think a lot of the older churches view the Scripture with a bit of wide eyed superstition and miss the point entirely.

That is as not the view of Paul or the Church for about the first 1500 years of Christianity. Symbolism was not taught until Zwingli.
Is it your contention that God made a mistake with His Church until Zwingli came along to set it straight?

 

[jas3]

Well, first the story isn't in the Scriptures.

That was never in question, what was in question was whether "one who has been immersed in Scripture for any length of time can tell it is of a different tone than inspired writings."

Second, it rings of legend, not sacred writ embodying a moral message or teaching.

So you can tell it's a different tone than inspired writings because it "rings of legend"? That sounds like circular reasoning.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

We are saved by grace through faith, not by obedience.
Salvation is based on faith and trust in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin (Eph 2:8-9), which is necessarily followed by submission to God.
No saved person submits perfectly, we all sin.
Salvation is not based on never sinning, it is based on faith by grace.

I just have a question in what you say here. Is it your contention that if we believe in Jesus, we don’t have to obey Him? We can be as disobedient as we want as long as we say we believe? Where did Jesus teach this?

 

[Christopher0121]

That was never in question, what was in question was whether "one who has been immersed in Scripture for any length of time can tell it is of a different tone than inspired writings."

So you can tell it's a different tone than inspired writings because it "rings of legend"? That sounds like circular reasoning.

C'mon... we have the "Assumption of Mary" and the "Dormition of Mary". Two very different traditions that stand contradictory to one another with no reference in Scripture to the event. It's legend, human tradition, human invention. A tradition of man being taught as a dogma. At least, that's all I can gather as I study it. Even with these traditions we see various liturgical churches ranging from the big ones Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox, and then there are the Copts, the Syriac Orthodox Church, etc. The liturgical churches, even with all their traditions, are not unified.

At least the Sola Scriptura churches are only divided upon the Bible... without also facing division about the countless little human traditions that have been invented along the way.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

C'mon... we have the "Assumption of Mary" and the "Dormition of Mary". Two very different traditions that stand contradictory to one another with no reference in Scripture to the event. It's legend, human tradition, human invention. A tradition of man being taught as a dogma. At least, that's all I can gather as I study it. Even with these traditions we see various liturgical churches ranging from the big ones Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox, and then there are the Copts, the Syriac Orthodox Church, etc. The liturgical churches, even with all their traditions, are not unified.

At least the Sola Scriptura churches are only divided upon the Bible... without also facing division about the countless little human traditions that have been invented along the way.

You do know that John and Mary were contemporaries, right? Mary actually lived with John. She almost certainly helped him write his Gospel, as where would John get the intimate details of a conversation between mother and Son at a wedding feast? How would John know that Satan entered Judas when he had no idea about it at the time?

The scriptures never say that they are complete and the sole sources of truth. In fact it says the opposite. If all the works that Christ had done were written down they could not be contained in a book. Christ founded a Church and He gave His Apostles authority over that Church. The Book was not the only thing, nor was it independent of the Church.

You mock Mary, yet she had the creator of the universe grow inside her, God suckled at her breast, she raised Him from a child to a man. Do you think He discarded her just because she is not extensively covered in the Book? She has perfect Christian virtue and the first Christian virtue is humility. She helped John write his gospel yet asked for no credit. But you think God does not care about her nor honor His mother because he has to wait for a 21st chap to tell Him what He really meant. Is that your position?

 

[JSRG]

C'mon... we have the "Assumption of Mary" and the "Dormition of Mary". Two very different traditions that stand contradictory to one another with no reference in Scripture to the event.

As far as I can understand it, the Dormition of Mary (Orthodox) teaches that Mary died a natural death, was resurrected after three days, and then was assumed body and soul into heaven. The Assumption of Mary (Catholic) is an affirmation that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, but does not get into the specifics, such as whether this occurred before or after her death.

It is true that the Orthodox view is more specific than the Catholic view, in offering details that the Catholic one does not. However, anyone who accepts the Dormition would inherently accept the Assumption, and anyone who accepts the Assumption can accept the Dormition. Heck, some use the two terms interchangeably.

Thus I do not see how these are "very different" and I especially do not see how they are in any way contradictory.

 

[jas3]

C'mon... we have the "Assumption of Mary" and the "Dormition of Mary". Two very different traditions that stand contradictory to one another with no reference in Scripture to the event. It's legend, human tradition, human invention.

I don't see what this has to do with you claiming to be able to determine that the assumption of Mary has a "different tone" than scripture.

 

[Clare73]

I just have a question in what you say here. Is it your contention that if we believe in Jesus, we don’t have to obey Him? We can be as disobedient as we want as long as we say we believe? Where did Jesus teach this?

True faith always results in obedience--no obedience means no true faith, but it is not the obedience which saves, only the faith saves (Eph 2:8-9).

 

[Markie Boy]

True faith always results in obedience--no obedience means no true faith, but it is not the obedience which saves, only the faith saves (Eph 2:8-9).

Very well put! Faith without works is dead - so one needs a living faith that is producing works, to give life.

We need to have faith, and it needs to stay alive.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

True faith alwMays

N BBB

results in obedience--no obedience means no true faith, but it is not the obedience which saves, only the faith saves (Eph 2:8-9).

The faith cannot save without obedience. Even the demons have that faith. They know God exists, but they do not believe His commands are good and true, so they rebel.
It is not faith that saves us, rather grace. God gives us grace at the moment we believe what He says is true and good. That grace comes with the gifts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, not Faith alone. Grace does not come by human effort, rather by the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Once we are born again and have God’s gift, we work to bring our minds and bodies into compliance with His will. We follow God, we do not demand He follow us. We pray Thy will be done, not my will be done. Thy kingdom come, not our kingdom come and expect God to bless it.
The Christian walk is one of humble submission to God’s will. We know His will because He has given us His Church, we do not build it on our own by human effort

 

[Clare73]

It is not faith that saves us, rather grace.

Saving grace operates only through saving faith. . .no saving faith = no effect of grace.

God gives us grace at the moment we believe what He says is true and good.

Saving faith is not about the nature of God. . .Christ-rejecting Jews believe that what God says is true and good.
Saving faith is about the nature and effect of Jesus and his atoning work,
and trusting in that atonement for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God; i.e., justified (forensic righteousness, imputed).

 

[dogs4thewin]

Mod Hat on

This thread has undergone a small clean up if you disagree with someone address the post not the poster

Mod at off

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Saving grace operates only through saving faith. . .no saving faith = no effect of grace.

Saving faith is not about the nature of God. . .Christ-rejecting Jews believe that what God says is true and good.
Saving faith is about the nature and effect of Jesus and his atoning work,
and trusting in that atonement for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God; i.e., justified (forensic righteousness, imputed).

That is your Protestant definition and the error of Luther

Jesus is God and as such is of the nature of God

The Jews had an incomplete view of the nature of God, as John 3:17 says he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believed on the only Son of God


It’s so ironic that those that say that salvation is not or works are relying on a remote work during their lives. “I said the sinner’s prayer so I am saved”. I said “Jesus is Lord” and I believe that He rose from the dead, so I am saved. All that you say that is not of works is a work. Speaking, believing, confessing are all things we do and are works.

The Bible says over and over that it is by grace we are saved and not of ourselves, and the test to see if we have grace for salvation is good works. God does not owe us salvation by what we do.

He rewards obedience. He says we need to be born of water and the spirit, so all obedient souls are baptized by His command and example

He says that we are to deny ourselves take up our cross and follow Him. Obedient souls do that
We are told to mortify the deeds of the flesh, which includes pride, greed, sloth, gluttony, wrath, envy and lust. Obedient souls deny themselves and mortify the flesh

The sinners prayer is found no where in scripture, God saves us by grace and scripture tells us we follow Him by our works

2Peter2:10

10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.

The Church teaches us to pray fast and give alms to train our bodies for virtue. We do not take a defeatist attitude and say oh our righteousness is as filthy rags so we can’t do anything boo hoo. That is an insult to God who said if you lack anything ask for it in prayer believing you will receive and you will get it. That includes righteous good works. If you don’t ask for them, you will not get them. If you listen to people that say you don’t need them, then you are as the foolish virgins with no oil, or the man that tried to get into the wedding feast with no wedding garment. You risk being shut out.

He says if you love me you will keep my commandments. We are supposed to be the salt of the earth, that means actually doing what Jesus taught us, not just muttering a few words and then telling God, see what I said? Now you have to save me.
No, scripture says that if we sin willfully after having learned the truth, we crucify Jesus afresh and bring Him to open shame, and there remains no sacrifice for sin. Penance is to be pursued and complacency to be avoided. We need to study His commands more and more so as to bring our minds and bodies under subjection to the truth.

Rev 3:20 teaches against imputed righteousness
Behold I stand at the door and knock, and if any man open the door I will come into him and sup with him and he with me.

Not imputed, rather infused