The issues with Sola Scriptura

[BukiRob]

Those who believe and live in Christ will never die.

I can assure you short of the return of Messiah you WILL undergo a physical death

 

[thecolorsblend]

I can assure you short of the return of Messiah you WILL undergo a physical death

DDDD

 

[DJKWord]

I can assure you short of the return of Messiah you WILL undergo a physical death

Watch your attitude.

 

[DJKWord]

DDDD Alan, are you threatening me?

Will someone please answer him yes or no???

 

[bbbbbbb]

Will someone please answer him yes or no???

What was the question, again?

 

[DJKWord]

Such as?

From an earlier post--I posted this way back, before you joined the discussion--

--Prayers to Mary, saints and angels began in AD 600
--Veneration of relics, AD 1786
--Canonization of dead people as saints, 995
--Mandatory mass attendance, 1000
--The rosary beads prayer, 1090 (invented by Peter the Hermit--I need to look up who he was)
--Indulgences, 1190
--Confession to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III in 1215
--The "Seven Sacraments," 1439
And most of all...
--Tradition declared equally authoritative with Scripture, 1545 by the Council of Trent.

We're only human; we will inevitably add our own ideas to the simple gospel message. (2 Corinthians 11:3 comes to mind.) Our Creator gave us his word in written form, otherwise it would get hopelessly lost & corrupted passing down by word of mouth, plus all the additions, distortions, and traditions. Certainly it's not only the RCC that's done this, and it would be unfair to single them out.

Christ reprimanded the Pharisees for adding traditions, and for putting them before Scripture. He also stuck to Scripture himself. I see this and think, "Then that's what I need to do."

(Interestingly enough, the one command Mary gives in the Bible is "Whatever he (Jesus) says, do it.")

And I see something else, too. Paul warned the Ephesians that after his departure, some of their own members would start in with distortions and heresies. (Acts 20:30) Trying to draw the disciples away after themselves. Paul, Peter and Jude all mention false teachers who'd already arrived on the scene. And there's the aforementioned declaration of Jude's that the message was once for all delivered to us. (I once visited Temple Square in Salt Lake City, and mentioned this to the Mormon missionaries when they kept offering me the Book of Mormon.)

And such men try to convince me that I need them, and can't make it without them. That they alone can correctly interpret the Holy Bible. That the book is so difficult to understand that I can never read it right on my own.

Well if we can never read it right, then how is it that they always read it right?

I think we're agreed that our Creator wants everyone to be saved and to dwell forever with him. This being the case, why would God make his word so cryptic and contradictory that only a select elite few can correctly interpret it for everyone? How convenient for those select few!

We may never meet. But I'll tell you this. No one has the right to act as gatekeeper between you and your Creator. No human can claim any self-appointed spiritual "authority" over you, telling you what you can and can't do, what rites you must perform, what rules you have to keep. The sole mediator between God and man is Christ (1 Timothy 1:25). Not any human, because mankind is fallen, fallible and sinful. And all churches--Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Non-Denominational, etc. etc., and Catholic as well--are made up of humans.

The Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 were ordinary people like ourselves. They had no special authority to interpret the Scriptures. But they are commended because they didn't take Paul's word, they searched the book for themselves to see if what he was telling them, was really so.

I hope you see this as an encouragement.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It so happens I've recently listened to an excellent audio by Norman Geisler on this subject. It's a classroom setting and he's teaching some seminary students. From it I got a timetable of doctrines/traditions:

To draw an analogy, I'd like to ask if you believe you're likely to get a fair and accurate history of the modern State of Israel if you consult only Palestinian sources. If your goal is to understand Catholic doctrines, why do you believe it makes no sense to study Catholic sources?

In any event, I won't answer everything since that would take forever.

--Veneration of relics, AD 1786

"We took up the bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together as we are able, in gladness and joy, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom."
- The Smyrnean Church on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, AD 156

If this practice is in error, it sure didn't take long for the error to creep in.

--Canonization of dead people as saints, 995

What exactly is the problem with that? "So-and-so led a very faithful, spirit-filled life and we honor that person." It's a recognition of someone's faith and points to them as a role model.

--Mandatory mass attendance, 1000

The commandment is to keep the Lord's Day. It is important to set aside time for Mass.

However, this isn't an absolute. I've missed Mass for the past two Sundays because I had a contagious illness and it just wasn't a good idea for me to attend. So I was automatically dispensed from my attendance. From the Catechism...

A day of grace and rest from work
2184 Just as God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,"121 human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.122

2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.123 Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.

2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life.

Employment is another consideration. I used to have to work on Sundays. Because I was a rookie Catholic, it never occurred to me to ask for dispensation in exchange for attending Daily Mass on my day off... which my pastor said he would have granted had I asked for it. So my bad there. Still, I forced myself to attend Mass on either Saturday or Sunday as I thought I was supposed to and I don't regret doing that... even though it was a real slog attending Mass after a full day of work.

--The rosary beads prayer, 1090

Not sure I see the significance of this, tbh. Also, I didn't know it went back that far. I'd never claim to be an expert on the Rosary but I thought it was a 13th century thing.

--Indulgences, 1190

What specifically is your objection?

--Confession to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III in 1215

Actually it was done by Our Lord Himself in the Gospel of St. John 20.

--Tradition declared equally authoritative with Scripture, 1545 by the Council of Trent.

That is one place that view was codified. That may have been a reiteration of an earlier councils statement. I honestly am not sure about that. Either way, that had been their practice for centuries.

About that last one--it's strange to me that they would do so in light of Matthew 15 and Mark 7, where Christ reprimands the Pharisees for this very thing, adding traditions.

Our Lord affirmed the concept of the Seat of Moses in the Gospel of St. Matthew 23 and counseled His followers to obey the Pharisees' commands and authority. The reason that's a bit of a challenge for those who hold to Sola Scriptura is because the concept of the Seat of Moses comes from non-scriptural tradition. If Our Lord believed in Sola Scriptura, surely He would've made a point of saying His disciples were free to ignore the Pharisees. And yet He didn't do that.

The bit from St. Matthew 15 is especially problematic because Our Lord was speaking to the Pharisees habit of dedicating their goods and possessions to the temple. This may seem pious at first blush but the reason they did it was so they wouldn't have to use their possessions to care for their aging parents... in direct defiance of the commandment to honor their father and mother.

He wasn't condemning tradition, per se; He was condemning the use of tradition to make void God's word... which is precisely what the Pharisees were doing. That same cannot be credibly said of the Catholic Church.

But I've read that Trent was called in response to the Reformation and all its emphasis on "Bible only." That would explain it (as well as all of Trent's anathemas!).

The Council of Trent was a reaction to Protestantism point blank. Yes, they discussed Sola Scriptura but frankly everybody agrees Protestantism was founded upon more than that. Indulgences, for example, were also discussed by the council.

Further, the Council of Trent did not wholesale reject everything, for example, Martin Luther said. The council determined Luther was flat out wrong on some things. But on other things, well, he had a point. He wasn't all wrong and he wasn't all right.

I (and others) regard the Council of Trent as a shot in the arm which the Church needed, and from which it certainly benefited.

Christ reprimanded the Pharisees for adding traditions, and for putting them before Scripture. He also stuck to Scripture himself. I see this and think, "Then that's what I need to do."

See above, re: Sacred Tradition.

And such men try to convince me that I need them, and can't make it without them. That they alone can correctly interpret the Holy Bible. That the book is so difficult to understand that I can never read it right on my own.

To be fair, look at it from a Catholic's point of view. "It took over 2,000 years but now that I'm here, the scriptures are FINALLY being understood properly!"

Well if we can never read it right, then how is it that they always read it right?

That same question is what I'd ask a Protestant, actually. The Catholic Church has been studying, translating and debating the meaning of Sacred Scripture for 2,000 years. It happens to this very day. Frankly, though with respect. they have more credibility with me than Pastor Bob from Second Non-Denominational Assembly who graduated from "Bible college" extemporizing every Sunday morning.

I think we're agreed that our Creator wants everyone to be saved and to dwell forever with him. This being the case, why would God make his word so cryptic and contradictory that only a select elite few can correctly interpret it for everyone? How convenient for those select few!

It's not understandable only to a select few. Rather, it's a select few who are given teaching authority within the Church. The Church leaders are, at certain times and under certain conditions, supernaturally protected from error. I, as a layman, am not. I have no such guarantee as I am not (and do not want to be) part of the Church hierarchy.

Again, I turn this question around to you. How is it, if we're all meant to study and interpret the scriptures for ourselves, that Protestants are not doctrinally and/or corporately unified? Individual/private interpretation has not resulted in unity among Protestants. A casual glance at the Controversial Theology forum readily indicates that individual interpretation is certainly no guarantee even of orthodoxy.

How is it possible that if the scriptures are as self-evident as Protestants would like for Catholics to believe that they can't agree on any single point of doctrine between each other?

We may never meet. But I'll tell you this. No one has the right to act as gatekeeper between you and your Creator. No human can claim any self-appointed spiritual "authority" over you, telling you what you can and can't do, what rites you must perform, what rules you have to keep. The sole mediator between God and man is Christ (1 Timothy 1:25).

This, to me, suggests a bit of confusion on your part. Having spiritual authority over another person is hardly the same as serving as mediator between God and that person the way Our Lord does. No Catholic who understands what he's talking about would say otherwise.

St. Paul's letter to Philemon implies much about just how far his authority over Philemon truly goes. But the saying of it doesn't somehow void Our Lord's mediation between God and, in this case, Philemon. But not for nothing does St. Paul say that Philemon owes him his soul.

The Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 were ordinary people like ourselves. They had no special authority to interpret the Scriptures. But they are commended because they didn't take Paul's word, they searched the book for themselves to see if what he was telling them, was really so.

I hope you see this as an encouragement.

Unfortunately, though with respect, I see it as a mangling of St. Luke's words. St. Luke calls the Bereans "more noble-minded". But more noble-minded than whom? That would be the jews whom St. Paul met in Thessalonica earlier in Acts. These were the ones who stirred up a crowd and ran him out of town.

As Acts 17 records, when he arrived in Berea St. Paul began teaching again in the synagogue and the jews there were more receptive the gospel.

This is significant because ancient judaism had an at best murky scriptural canon. No two groups of jewish teachers necessarily used the same canon of books. Some texts considered inspired by some might be rejected by others as not inspired. Ancient judaism was not a Sola Scriptura religion. They had an active and authoritative oral tradition as I mentioned earlier regarding the Seat of Moses.

Pointing to the Berean jews as a scriptural example of adhering only to scriptural sources is wrongheaded (A) because they were jews for whom such a thing would've been an utterly foreign concept and (B) the nobility for which St. Luke commends them is based on their warm reception of the gospel message as compared to the violent jews in Thessalonica and the near riot that ensued.

If anybody can credibly be called adherents of Sola Scriptura in that episode from Acts, it's actually the jews in Thessalonica who rejected the gospel. Their reasoning behind rejecting the gospel came from their understanding of the scriptures alone and so based on that they chased St. Paul out of the city.

 

[DJKWord]

First I'd like to pause and say I appreciate your attitude of fairness. Some people unfortunately stoop to personal attacks, name-calling etc.

The audio, in fact, comes from the Catholic site BiblicalCatholic.com. I've also checked out the pronouncements from Vatican II and Trent. (Actually I kind of wish at times they wouldn't wax so poetic and talk a bit plainer.)

You don't have to worry about Dr. Geisler, he's not a raving fanatic or anything like that. He's fair, he's educated and has Catholic friends who he mentions in the audio. He also talks about the agreements between Catholics & Protestants, as well as the differences.

And to be perfectly frank, how objective would my info be if, say, I only learned about Islam from Muslim sources?

In any event, I won't answer everything since that would take forever.

My sentiments exactly. But I would like to address some of the verses you mentioned.

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

The Pharisees taught out of the Scriptures, which Christ affirmed. Taught them, but didn't follow them themselves--hence Matthew 15. The fact that Christ rejected their traditions and criticized them for it, makes a sharp distinction between the Scriptures of God and the added-on teachings of men.

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. 5 But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

I don't see the angry Jews as SS types. From verse 2, it appears Paul was the one who practiced it ("reasoned from the Scriptures").

You have a tendency to complicate things. There's no need. That analysis on the Bereans, for example, doesn't change the fact that they were commended for searching the Scriptures for themselves, to verify Paul's claims.

Here's something else I posted a while back:

I'd like to know, where did this presupposition come from that different sects/groups/denominations happen because of differing interpretations of God's book?

In my experience, fringe groups start when people get certain ideas and then try to shoehorn them into Scripture. The Church of Christ's ban on all musical instruments is a perfect example of this. What verse did they misinterpret to get this idea? No, rather they got the idea first--from where, I'd like to know--and tried to wrench Colossians 3:16 out of shape in order to support it. A verse which makes not a mention of said instruments.

Speaking of Colossians, Paul says this in chapter 2 of that book:

Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...

This reminds me of things like the Jehovah's Witnesses claiming that only a select 144,000 are going (all right, have gone) to heaven. They cite Revelation 7 as proof. It doesn't mention it--and how, reading it, would a person ever get that idea?

Catholics arguing against SS seem to be pushing the idea that the Bible is like a Rorschach test, that if ten people read it for themselves, they'll come away with ten different interpretations. That hasn't been my experience reading it over the years. Peter mentions some of Paul's letters that are hard to understand, and the book of Revelation is a fireworks display of symbolism; but those are the exceptions, not the rule. The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.

Why, the Corinthians church was splitting every which way before the NT was even all written down. "I am of Christ, I am of Cephas, I am of Paul," etc. etc.

Going back to the Bereans: If they were praised for checking a teacher (St. Paul no less!) against the Bible...then surely our Creator is in favor of us doing so as well.

Especially if it's what Christ did.

 

[DJKWord]

We've all gone back & forth about Catholicism for quite a while. Time to expand the picture.

What happens when "Sola Scriptura" is abandoned!
(Just a few examples off the top of my head)

--Lucifer is someone's brother. That someone is Christ. (Mormons)
--God started out as a man and worked his way up to Godhood, and we can do the same. (How's that for infallibility?) (Mormons)
--No musical instruments. Period. (Church of Christ)
--God basically hates everything and everyone. (Westboro Baptist Church)
--Christ didn't die on the cross, didn't atone for our sins, and his second coming is actually the advent of Christian Science. (Christian Science, or the "Mary Eddy Bakers" as one Catholic speaker called them)
--It seems you need to pronounce God's name right to be saved. (Assemblies of Yahweh)
--We're saved by faith plus witnessing. (Too many Protestants I've known)

I've also associated with people who believed:
--If you read a horoscope, watch the wrong kind of movie, read science fiction--the list goes on and on--it gives demons a "legal spiritual right" to enter you. Whether or not you act like you're possessed, they're there. I can see myself going crazy with paranoia, wondering if some demon's inside my head. The only way to get rid of it is to figure out what you did wrong and "renounce" it. Best go through an exorcism, too.

Now on the positive side: I read once about George Müller, a 19th-century pastor who built and maintained orphanages for decades without ever asking for donations, except from God. (The whole point, he said, was in proving God still intervenes in our lives and still hears prayer.)

He recommended reading and meditating on the Scriptures daily because that will keep us grounded in the faith, and keeps us from coming up with our own doctrines. Good advice that I strive to follow every day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We've all gone back & forth about Catholicism for quite a while. Time to expand the picture.

What happens when "Sola Scriptura" is abandoned!
(Just a few examples off the top of my head)

--Lucifer is someone's brother. That someone is Christ. (Mormons)
--God started out as a man and worked his way up to Godhood, and we can do the same. (How's that for infallibility?) (Mormons)
--No musical instruments. Period. (Church of Christ)
--God basically hates everything and everyone. (Westboro Baptist Church)
--Christ didn't die on the cross, didn't atone for our sins, and his second coming is actually the advent of Christian Science. (Christian Science, or the "Mary Eddy Bakers" as one Catholic speaker called them)
--It seems you need to pronounce God's name right to be saved. (Assemblies of Yahweh)
--We're saved by faith plus witnessing. (Too many Protestants I've known)

I've also associated with people who believed:
--If you read a horoscope, watch the wrong kind of movie, read science fiction--the list goes on and on--it gives demons a "legal spiritual right" to enter you. Whether or not you act like you're possessed, they're there. I can see myself going crazy with paranoia, wondering if some demon's inside my head. The only way to get rid of it is to figure out what you did wrong and "renounce" it. Best go through an exorcism, too.

Now on the positive side: I read once about George Müller, a 19th-century pastor who built and maintained orphanages for decades without ever asking for donations, except from God. (The whole point, he said, was in proving God still intervenes in our lives and still hears prayer.)

He recommended reading and meditating on the Scriptures daily because that will keep us grounded in the faith, and keeps us from coming up with our own doctrines. Good advice that I strive to follow every day.

I was also inspired by George Muller's life. For the past 34 years I have depended solely on God to bring in work for me and He has done so without fail, meeting my every need. I also read and meditate on the Scriptures daily - a practice I recommend for every Christian.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Reading the scriptures also helps us because the Holy Spirit teaches through God's Word. One can correct themselves much faster and easier. If we change ourselves, then we do not need to take the long route of God's correction, per se (very simplistic)

 

[BukiRob]

Watch your attitude.

HUH???? What attitude? Everyone experience a physical death scripture is clear on that... how on earth you decided to project is beyond me

 

[BukiRob]

IMO one also needs to have some basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew or at least a really good lexicon and concordance because there is clearly some bias in the translations

 

[ToBeLoved]

IMO one also needs to have some basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew or at least a really good lexicon and concordance because there is clearly some bias in the translations

And these resources are free on the internet in multiple places.