The “Five Solas” of denominationalism. Are They Scriptural?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

You agree with Sola scriptura and say the canon was established in 100AD. Where is your evidence of God divinely inspiring a 66 book canon at or before this date?

also what Catholic and Protestant works have read to reach the conclusion that both only base their views on a few snippets of scripture and do not read the entirety of it? There are more books than could fit in my house from each side alone that shows it's dedication to learning the scripture. It can be hard to accept but the fact is each side exhaustively reads the scripture and yet they reach different conclusions. You say neither reads the bible alone but then again no one truly reads the bible alone as their sole source and ultimate authority, since we are all influenced by ideas outside of the scripture that inform our reading of it.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

That post is completely false premise.

Sola scriptura is totally false and easily provable so. All the rest of the solas emanate from that false premise - so I will not bother addressing the rest.

Sola scriptura is Logically false.

You can define sola scriptura how you like and whatever definition ( or modification you use) is demonstrable as a falsehood by simple logic.

If the prime truth you hold is that "all that is (necessary) truth is in scripture", then for that statement to be logically true, scripture must actually say so, and contain that truth to contain all truth and it does not! Nowhere! So it omits what you regard the prime truth!
In fact scripture refutes it completely where it says " the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" ie not scripture at all.

Sola scriptura is historically false.

Because there was no new testament canon for several hundred years, indeed the first canons were deemed heretical (eg marcions)

Apart from which, it is only in recent times that most could read, and only in the last century that most could afford to own a bible.

Jesus did not give us a book. He gave us apostles to hand on the truth. Thats why Paul says "hold true to tradition we taughtyou by word of mouth and letter". Tradition was the means of passage of faith.

And we see it in early fathers writings.
For example in Ignatiurs' writings he and Polycarp taught by John the apostle we see a liturgical sacramental church of the real presence only if performed by succession bishops or appointees. So tradition shows the meaning to scripture.

Sola scriptura is a denial of the (scripturallly provable )authority of the church

The power to "bind and loose" on doctrine by the successors of apostles - the early fathers acting in councils. Indeed the same power given to successors of Peter but very rarely used.

Without that authority, those councils or fathers acting infallibly you would have no canon or creed. You would have no new testament. Study their writings to find out what it means!

The catholic church is not a denomination. It is the only church for a milennium, till reformationists started to create their man manmade traditions of the five solas, confessionas and so on.

And allowing the priesthoodof believers to decide their own interpretation has been an unmitigated disaster. Even luther said it - and regretted having opened pandoras box!
"There are as many doctrines as heads."
"It is the greatest scandal - every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

On every aspect of doctrine protestants disgagree with each other holding mutually exclusive beliefs...100000 permutations and counting!

All The result of all divorcing tradition and authority (ie meaning) from scripture.
And the prime falsehood of sola scriptura

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

You seemingly don't understand christian history, or indeed the meaning of "tradition", ie the word "paradosis". It is not the same as in colloquial use today.

Tradition is the process by which the faith was handed down, not an individual doctrine, so your use of the phrase "one tradition" is wrong. Tradition by "word of mouth and letter" was the way the faith was passed, by the apostles and later their appointed successor. Only later was it supplemented by new testament.

For example: We read in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans (he and polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of John the apostle and taught by him) - we read of the eucharist of the real presence "the flesh of Jesus Christ" valid ONLY if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee. So that defines how to perform the eucharist referred in scripture.

It clearly is important for salvation since Jesus says: "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.…"
Who are you to disagree with our Lord, and say it is not important?

That is the meaning of the scripture, where it refers to the eucharist - That meaning handed by tradition from the very first Christians, long before there was a new testament.

Tradition clearly defines meaning to scripture. You cannot divorce it from scripture.
Or you end up as the protestants have with at least five mutually exclusive versions of baptism, eucharist, salvation, etc. You name it protestants disagree on it, precisely BECAUSE of the falsehood of sola scriptura.
Scripture is not enough by itself. And even scripture says so!

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

I replied in the last post. Read it. Try to understand tradition. QED

Click to expand...

Soyeong said:

Again, it is important to keep in mind that the Five Solas are summary statements that should be correctly understood in light of everything else that was said on the topic, so I recommend this link for a few quotes:

Is Luther really the originator of "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone"?

Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also example of obedience to God's commands, so likewise baptism, belief, confession, and repentance are all acts of faith. It is not the actions themselves that save us, but rather we are saved by the faith that requires us to take those actions.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

That post is completely false premise.

Sola scriptura is totally false and easily provable so. All the rest of the solas emanate from that false premise - so I will not bother addressing the rest.

Sola scriptura is Logically false.

You can define sola scriptura how you like and whatever definition ( or modification you use) is demonstrable as a falsehood by simple logic.

If the prime truth you hold is that "all that is (necessary) truth is in scripture", then for that statement to be logically true, scripture must actually say so, and contain that truth to contain all truth and it does not! Nowhere! So it omits what you regard the prime truth!
In fact scripture refutes it completely where it says " the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" ie not scripture at all.

Sola scriptura is historically false.

Because there was no new testament canon for several hundred years, indeed the first canons were deemed heretical (eg marcions)

Apart from which, it is only in recent times that most could read, and only in the last century that most could afford to own a bible.

Jesus did not give us a book. He gave us apostles to hand on the truth. Thats why Paul says "hold true to tradition we taughtyou by word of mouth and letter". Tradition was the means of passage of faith.

And we see it in early fathers writings.
For example in Ignatiurs' writings he and Polycarp taught by John the apostle we see a liturgical sacramental church of the real presence only if performed by succession bishops or appointees. So tradition shows the meaning to scripture.

Sola scriptura is a denial of the (scripturallly provable )authority of the church

The power to "bind and loose" on doctrine by the successors of apostles - the early fathers acting in councils. Indeed the same power given to successors of Peter but very rarely used.

Without that authority, those councils or fathers acting infallibly you would have no canon or creed. You would have no new testament. Study their writings to find out what it means!

The catholic church is not a denomination. It is the only church for a milennium, till reformationists started to create their man manmade traditions of the five solas, confessionas and so on.

And allowing the priesthoodof believers to decide their own interpretation has been an unmitigated disaster. Even luther said it - and regretted having opened pandoras box!
"There are as many doctrines as heads."
"It is the greatest scandal - every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

On every aspect of doctrine protestants disgagree with each other holding mutually exclusive beliefs...100000 permutations and counting!

All The result of all divorcing tradition and authority (ie meaning) from scripture.
And the prime falsehood of sola scriptura

Click to expand...

Monk Brendan said:

When did you graduate from a Jesuit Seminary (not that I did)--or were you even educated in a Catholic School (which I was)?

There are parts of your faith that you use and believe because it is YOUR tradition. The Reformers were ALL educated in the Catholic Church, so they MIGHT have had an inkling of what they were talking about. You belong to a non-denominational church, which is a smooth way of getting around saying a denomination of ONE congregation. And I'll bet you that your church started (because the "pastor" always starts it--with one or two members in a core group) a "Bible Believing Church" where someone can really hear the word of God. If you grew up non-denominational or some Protestant denomination, then you don't know a lot about the what the Catholic Church even teaches. If you did grow up Catholic, then what seduced you from the True faith?

Now that we have gotten the polemics out of the way, you accuse me of holding to Traditions that are not in the Bible. True, there are more things to Christianity than what is in the Bible. But you accept them too.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, in Western Europe (which is where all of the Reformers lived) the Roman Catholic Churches gave you the Bible. What I mean by that is that ALL of the Word of God was oral history at one time. Moses wrote down the Torah, and passed it on. From there, ALL of the Histories, Psalms, Wisdom, Prophecies, were ALL oral tradition until such time as Baruch wrote them down. In the New Testament, the Gospels were written down, yes. but most were not promulgated until the 2nd Century. The Letters were written, true, but they were passed around, copied, recopied, and so on.

There was a lot of false stuff that was being passed around as well, some edifying, and some not. It wasn't until almost the end of the 3rd Century that the Canon that WE prize so highly was determined, and that was done by a council that, while not a full ecumenical council (which means that the Emperor of Rome called it, not something Roman Catholic or something like that), still had the authority to decide what would be in the Canon.

From the end of the 3rd Century until the 15th Century, ALL of the Bibles were hand written on parchment or vellum by pious monks (somewhat more pious than myself) using a quill. Almost all were commissioned by the aristocracy, as they were the only ones that had the money to pay for the work.

It wasn't until Gutenberg invented printing using movable type that a printed Bible could even be produced, and he didn't give any of them away, either. But it was from THAT time forward that Bibles could be made in a relatively inexpensive manner. The Reformation had to WAIT until such time as Bibles could be accessible to the regular working man.

So, from the 1st Century--the Apostles, etc.--it was only by the grace of God that Bibles in European languages--German, French, Spanish, Italian, English and so on were available at all, except for the Roman Catholic Church. So the next time you even THINK about saying anything less than complimentary about Catholics, first of all, get down on your knees and thank GOD that He provided you the ability to read at all, much less read a Bible, because if it hadn't been for those ****** Roman Catholics, you would not HAVE a Bible to read!

And BTW, without a Bible, YOU would lost in your sins, election or no.

Click to expand...