The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Truth Lover]

On the other hand, the Reformers also taught certain things that WERE taught and believed in the Early Church but then discarded or changed in later years by the Roman Catholic Church. When the Reformers called for a return to the Apostolic standards, that surely was right of them to do.

I would like to know what things you are thinking were changed?

 

[Uber Genius]

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

A veritable calcareous of straw men riding by disguised as logical arguments.

Sola Scriptura

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

It was neither grounded in scripture or in the church tradition ironically.

Here is a quick definitional statement of sola scriptura as held by the Church until Trent.

"The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby." Dr. James White

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16-17‬ ESV)

Paul didn't add anything else to his list as rules of faith other than God-breathed scripture. Paul doesn't suggest you can be almost complete. He doesn't suggest that the man of God is partially equipped given the right penance, and sacramental means of grace.

Further, The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." (Cyril of Jerusalem mid-4th century)

The very foundation of the canon was a call by God to write. We see the church father and popes argue from scripture as their primary source not rest on tradition.Luther's attempt to reform the horrible corrupt Catholic Church was based on bring it back to its former foundations. The Council of Trent was the death knell for the Catholic Church. They instantiated their corrupting methods and paint a gospel unrecognizable to the early popes and church fathers.

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

 

[thecolorsblend]

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

It was neither grounded in scripture or in the church tradition ironically.

???

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
- St. Irenaeus (AD 189)

Irenaeus never even referred to Sacred Scripture there. He simply pointed to the authority of the Church as the ultimate guarantor of the faith.

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."
- Origen (AD 225)

Origen seems to agree. He points to the teaching of the Church and to apostolic succession.

But there's more.

The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way.
- Cyprian of Carthage (AD 253)

And then comes something a bit more explicit...

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals."
- Basil the Great (AD 375)

Broadly, I can either put my trust in man-made rules like Sola Scriptura (the definition of which nobody seems to agree upon anyway) or I can join with the ancients and trust the authority of the Church. It was an easy choice for me.

 

[Uber Genius]

Irenaeus

Irenaeous does not refer to the scriptures???

What do you take, "Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles," to mean?

How do we have Peter and Paul's teachings?

Announced to men by the Apostles?


With Your comments about Origin we see the confusion.

What is "succession" modifying?

"Teaching" is the subject.

Who's teaching? "From the Apostles"

How did we get it?

"Handed down through an order of succession"

Where is this teaching now (Origin's time)? It remains in the Church.

The subject is not ecclesiastical succession.


Both are making the point about the origin (no pun intended) of their traditions being rooted in the teaching the apostles. Their is no room to read in or equivocate here. The apostles tradition refers to the things recorded in the scriptures.

As to you later quotes I already granted that both sides could marshall evidence of Early Church Fathers support. So these aren't meaningful in that they are making my point that there are a wide variety of ancient opinions supporting both sides of the sola scriptura argument. So you are making my point. Thx

 

[ToBeLoved]

Sola Scriptura

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

It was neither grounded in scripture or in the church tradition ironically.

Guess some of us do not care what the Council of Trent thinks.

 

[Uber Genius]

Guess some of us do not care what the Council of Trent thinks.

Did you not understand why I made that comment?

Do you think it was in support of Catholic doctrine somehow?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Did you not understand why I made that comment?

Do you think it was in support of Catholic doctrine somehow?

I guess I did.

I like Dr. James White's commentary. He is very good, watched a few of his shows on Youtube. Don't agree with one of his stances, but he is very knowledgeable of scripture and even if you disagree you learn something.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Irenaeous does not refer to the scriptures???

What do you take, "Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles," to mean?

How do we have Peter and Paul's teachings?

Announced to men by the Apostles?


With Your comments about Origin we see the confusion.

What is "succession" modifying?

"Teaching" is the subject.

Who's teaching? "From the Apostles"

How did we get it?

"Handed down through an order of succession"

Where is this teaching now (Origin's time)? It remains in the Church.

The subject is not ecclesiastical succession.

Correct. My point in citing those quotations was to establish the notion that the Church Fathers had an understanding of the concept of authority quite different from how a lot of Protestants would view the matter.

How many quotations are enough? How often must well known Church figures advocate something akin to Sacred Tradition before the idea is accepted by non-traditional Christians?

 

[Uber Genius]

Correct. My point in citing those quotations was to establish the notion that the Church Fathers had an understanding of the concept of authority quite different from how a lot of Protestants would view the matter.

How many quotations are enough? How often must well known Church figures advocate something akin to Sacred Tradition before the idea is accepted by non-traditional Christians?

Opps,

Think you missed the whole point. You misrepresented (by accident) the quotes to represent something their context doesn't represent. You misunderstand my point that I have popes and church fathers galore contradicting the various doctrines handed down by other popes and magisterium all claiming infallibility.

Finally, my main point is that there are good reasons to believe RCC has it right, including quotes from scripture and especially post-nicene creed church fathers. There are also good reasons to believe scripture, not tradition, was the foundation. Scriptural data, the very process of canonization, and quotes from ante-nicene fathers especially support the sola scriptura inference.

So how much evidence do Catholics need, or your version, "How many quotations are enough, for ideas to be accepted for non-traditional Christians," is

THE WRONG QUESTION.

It assumes a clear picture from the data, which is not in evidence.

It relies on ignorance by the investigator, namely they won't look into the massive amount of material (100s of thousands of pages.) written over a thousand years.

It assumes that cherry-picked data will suffice.

It ignores the hundreds of places where Church Fathers and Popes disagree despite all claiming certainty.

It assumes infallibility when no such promise has been documents!

For those reasons I maintain that the data can be argue with two, or more inferences. One pro-RCC another Pro-Sola.

And here the point is

"Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptized, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbor, and are blamelessly ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the one true Religion (which is called being in good faith), are excluded from Heaven, provided they believe that there is one God in three Divine Persons; *that God will duly reward the good and punish the wicked; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who redeemed us, and in whom we must trust for our salvation; and provided they thoroughly repent of having ever, by their sins, offended God."

Quote from "Some Things That Catholics Do Not Believe,"
Very Rev. Joseph Di Bruno, D.D.

EWTN.COM (A RCC apologetic site)

So no one's eternal salvation is on the line it seems. Although on scripture the "leads a good life," quote seems not only suspect but impossible as scripture repeatedly affirms there is no one who is good" , and things like "your righteous deeds are like filthy rags" but that is more a discussion for sola gratia than sola scriptura.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Broadly, I can either put my trust in man-made rules like Sola Scriptura (the definition of which nobody seems to agree upon anyway) or I can join with the ancients and trust the authority of the Church. It was an easy choice for me.

Interesting enough, everyone who says that seems to be Catholic. lol.

Nice excuse with the problem that no one agree's upon a word's definition. lol. Rock On!

 

[DJKWord]

I can either put my trust in man-made rules like Sola Scriptura (the definition of which nobody seems to agree upon anyway) or I can join with the ancients and trust the authority of the Church. It was an easy choice for me.

Well, I can tell you why I heed the Bible alone; it's because Christ did. All though the four Gospels he quotes the OT, refers people to it, corrects people from it. And he reprimanded the Pharisees for adding their own traditions.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Interesting enough, everyone who says that seems to be Catholic. lol.

Nice excuse with the problem that no one agree's upon a word's definition. lol. Rock On!

The counterpoint would possibly be Sola Ecclesia (which you and I would struggle with).

 

[Albion]

Interesting enough, everyone who says that seems to be Catholic. lol.

Nice excuse with the problem that no one agree's upon a word's definition. lol. Rock On!

It's only been explained here about 50 times, but all the usual opponents insist that they haven't any idea what it means and that no one else does either. However, they tell us what it's supposed to mean every time they take to the keyboard to tell us what's wrong with it!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Nice excuse with the problem that no one agree's upon a word's definition.

Do you disagree with that assertion? Not naming names but many on this board have very different ideas about what the term means.

Well, I can tell you why I heed the Bible alone; it's because Christ did. All though the four Gospels he quotes the OT, refers people to it, corrects people from it. And he reprimanded the Pharisees for adding their own traditions.

He castigated their legalism. He also criticized their scrupulosity in following the exact letter of the Law but not adhering to the intended spirit and purpose of the Law.

Beyond that though, the Pharisees and others blithely invented new practices and expected others to live up to them (again, legalism). This is something quite apart from what traditional Christians do. From the Catechism...

One common source...

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

... two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

More broadly though, and speaking of some level of tradition (eg, not necessarily Sacred Tradition), I've never been able to find a specific reference to the Star of Bethlehem in the Old Testament. And yet, the magi from St. Matthew's gospel speak to Herod as though the star's relation to Our Lord is common knowledge. What's up with that, do you think?

It's only been explained here about 50 times, but all the usual opponents insist that they haven't any idea what it means and that no one else does either. However, they tell us what it's supposed to mean every time they take to the keyboard to tell us what's wrong with it!

I usually make it a point to ignore your posts. But this comment intrigues me since it implies only Protestants are welcome to invent their own definitions of "Sola Scriptura". Catholics, it seems, are expected to abide by... well, someone's definition other than their own.

 

[Albion]

I usually make it a point to ignore your posts.

Yes, and I do appreciate that.

But this comment intrigues me since it implies only Protestants are welcome to invent their own definitions of "Sola Scriptura".

No, it doesn't.

That's your contention, but Sola Scriptura is no more difficult to understand than a hundred other theological terms we all use. It's certainly more clear cut than Purgatory, Tradition, and Worship, and yet we've all discussed these at length here even though Catholics have all sorts of different ideas about what these words mean them.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Nothing to see here. Really. Honest! Move along.

 

[Albion]

Ah yes, I knew we'd get there in the end. You enter the thread, write as though you're the only one in recorded history to truly understand what Sola Scriptura means

Why don't we just drop the act and face the fact that Sola Scriptura has a meaning and we can discuss it just like all the other discussions we have here? You can look it up. It's not some mystery or anything of the sort.

But of course doing that would spoil the "Protestants are just soooo divided on everything tsk tsk" game, wouldn't it?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I guess I did.

I like Dr. James White's commentary. He is very good, watched a few of his shows on Youtube. Don't agree with one of his stances, but he is very knowledgeable of scripture and even if you disagree you learn something.

I've certainly enjoyed a lot of Dr James White's ministry also.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Why

Let's just forget the whole thing. I shouldn't have taken my bad day out on you like that.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Do you disagree with that assertion? Not naming names but many on this board have very different ideas about what the term means.

It's really not a complicated thing. You either beleive all of the Bible literally, being God-breathed or you do not.
Simplification is not bad. Some make something out to be so complicated what is so simple.