Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Chesterton]

My apologies i thought i was speaking at chestertonrules (a catholic)

That happens a lot. One of these days I should change my name.

 

[tadoflamb]

I came across this article a while ago:

The Practical Problems With Sola Scriptura

Protestant apologists, please read and counter the above criticism against sola scriptura.

Thanks!

Major props for reading Catholic apologists!


It's a good article. It points out how SS, for how good as it sounds on paper, is impossible to practice.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Martin Luther is a saint?

Yes, as am I.

 

[tadoflamb]

4. Not necessary with the proper translations

That assumes that there is an authoritive translator of the Sacred Scriptures. Who could that be?

 

[SummaScriptura]

As much as I like Akin, his problem with this article is that he boils Sola Scriptura down to private interpretation.<snip>

And therein you have hit upon the one critical mistake which invalidates the underlying premise of the article. But alas, Anoetos, you can post this all day and the deniars of SS will never respond; beating a straw dog is better than no dog apparently.

 

[SummaScriptura]

BTW, what's the deal with catholics sporting the

icon in these fora? Is this the catholic version of Protestants who call their churches non-denominational?

 

[tadoflamb]

I read the first sentence in the link. Lets begin there. The article claims that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine. It is not. It is a praxis.

Some protestants call it a doctrine. I've also heard it called an idealogy and a method. And therein lies the problem with SS, there isn't any consensus on what it is. This could be alleviated if their was a central definition of SS to which all adherents of SS agreed but there isn't one of those either. The problem is further illuminated by the fact that the most in depth treatises on such an important doctrine/praxis/ideology/method of Christianity have been written in the last 100 years.

 

[file13]

As much as I like Akin, his problem with this article is that he boils Sola Scriptura down to private interpretation.

Of course, this whole article does not apply to sola scriptura, but solo or nuda scriptura. This also means that his entire article and argument is nothing but a useless strawman in regards to the reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Oh yes, I suppose it could be quite devastating to solo scriptura ("the Bible and the Bible only!") folks (though I doubt they'd be convinced), but it's useless against the reformation doctrine that is still alive and well.

In reality, the vast majority of Protestants read and interpret scripture within a confessional context, giving full appreciation to the importance of all the historical figures who have gone before us in understanding and interpreting it. The difference is that we do not accord them any level of necessary infallibility.

Well said. Sola scriptura requires the church, tradition, and a brain. You don't pick up a Bible and "do theology" all by yourself, nor did the reformers. You also don't pick up a Bible and completely ignore 2000 years of tradition, nor did the reformers, who constantly quoted from the Fathers.

So yup, the entire article simply does not apply to the reformation doctrine. At best, it's a pretty weak attack on solo scriptura. At worst, it's a strawman. Not much else to say....

 

[SummaScriptura]

{deleted}

 

[Hentenza]

Strange, this verse didn't give me that impression at all.

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

"The Pharisees believed that in addition to the written Torah recognized by both the Sadducees and Pharisees and believed to have been written by Moses, there exists another Torah, consisting of the corpus of oral laws and traditions transmitted by God to Moses orally, and then memorized and passed down by Moses and his successors over the generations. The Oral Torah functioned to elaborate and explicate what was written, and the Pharisees asserted that the sacred scriptures were not complete on their own terms and could therefore not be understood."

Pharisees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, this sounds very much like apostolic succession and the handing down of Christian Tradition to me.

Wikipedia? Mmmm.....give me about 30 minutes and I'll write a different wiki article.

No apostolic succession in Matt. 23 unless you are suggesting that I do as your church say but not according to what your church does. :o

 

[Rick Otto]

Some protestants call it a doctrine. I've also heard it called an idealogy and a method. And therein lies the problem with SS, there isn't any consensus on what it is. This could be alleviated if their was a central definition of SS to which all adherents of SS agreed but there isn't one of those either. The problem is further illuminated by the fact that the most in depth treatises on such an important doctrine/praxis/ideology/method of Christianity have been written in the last 100 years.

Not having consensus only prevents labeling, it doesn't prevent you from being able to deal with the issues of either or any case.
In fact, doctrine requires a consensus even if limited, & you say "some protestants" as if it does matter.
It isn't a "deep" or difficult to understand practice, being illustrated in just a few sentences in Acts 17.
In depth treatises are completely unnecessary for such a simple thing as solan scriptura whether you call it doctrine, practice. or some anti-Protestant term.

 

[tadoflamb]

.

 

[Hentenza]

The strongest arguments against Sola Scriptura are:

A) It is completely and utterly at odds with how the canon was formed.

Well, God used men to 'finalize" what He had already decreed.

B) There is no historical basis for it.

Sure there is. I can show you where the majority of the first and second century ECFs used scripture alone. Heck, if the bible was ever lost we could rewrite it just from the writings of the early ECFs.

C) In order to rationalize it as being historical, one must pile on assumption after assumption about the nature of divine revelation and the nature of the Church. All of these assumptions themselves are also unsupported.

Nah. We can get into what you call "assumptions" if you wish.

 

[Hentenza]

Let's stay on topic please...the defense of sola scriptura

No need to defend the sole authority of scripture. No other revelation is God breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.

 

[tadoflamb]

Not having consensus only prevents labeling, it doesn't prevent you from being able to deal with the issues of either or any case.

Exactly, and we can't label the doctrine, praxis, ideology, method of SS

In fact, doctrine requires a consensus even if limited, & you say "some protestants" as if it does matter.

Truth does matter, and with the doctrine/praxis/ideology/method of SS, when practically applied it's impossible to discern what exactly is the truth. As the article stated, the first fruit of SS is private judgement, known in common parlance as 'the teachings of men'.

It isn't a "deep" or difficult to understand practice, being illustrated in just a few sentences in Acts 17.

The Bereans accepted oral tradition as taught by St. Paul and therefore can not be consider practicioners of SS.

In depth treatises are completely unnecessary for such a simple thing as solan scriptura whether you call it doctrine, practice. or some anti-Protestant term.

I call SS what the professers of SS call it; a doctrine/praxis/ideology/method.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=tadoflamb;Exactly, and we can't label the doctrine, praxis, ideology, method of SS

Says who? Pick one & deal with it or ignore the irrelevance of all of them & just deal with what it is: using scripture to verify God's truth.

Truth does matter, and with the doctrine/praxis/ideology/method of SS, when practically applied it's impossible to discern what exactly is the truth.

That simply isn't true.

As the article stated, the first fruit of SS is private judgement, known in common parlance as 'the teachings of men'.

Every person is responsible to develope enough critical thinking skills to be able to "study to show yourself approved" & 'have ready an answer for the hope that is in you'. "Common parlance" it seems, is a euophemism for "anti-Protestant jargon". The "teachings of men" always start out with the authority of the teachings of the men attempting to teach us.

The Bereans accepted oral tradition as taught by St. Paul and therefore can not be consider practicioners of SS.

Even the most casual reader can see the the reason they accepted the "oral teachings" of Paul was because what he said agreed with scripture; oila! Sola Scriptura. Call it whatever you want, it is just checking the most reliable source to get an idea of what is realy true.

I call SS what the professers of SS call it; a doctrine/praxis/ideology/method.

Call it standard bible study procedure: Check Scripture.
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

No need to defend the sole authority of scripture. No other revelation is God breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.

Amen brother!

 

[sunlover1]

Says who? Pick one & deal with it or ignore the irrelevance of all of them & just deal with what it is: using scripture to verify God's truth.

And I would go a step further to say that if using Scripture to verify
facts is 'bothersome" in some way, you might want to think about
why that might be. Because something is causing this GOOD thing
to seem like a BAD thing.
Would likely be either hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in the end ...
Both of which are in need of remedy.

Well that arrogant Chesterton guy seems to say otherwise, lol. Is that what goes on in Eastern Orthodox. I don't see what the big fuss is about Sola Scriptura,

You truly don't see it?

would some of these people just reccomend what Pentecostals do? lol

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean hearing directly from God?
I get labeled charismatic, am not pentecostal, but regardless of what
i might be called, i do enjoy a laugh too. But didnt get your joke.
Would you mind explaining?
Thanks

 

[SummaScriptura]

That's an admonishment from one of my bishops to me.

I apologize if you take offense.

And I apologize for over-reacting. I'm deleting the original...

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well, God used men to 'finalize" what He had already decreed.

That's the rationalization I'm talking about. It requires a radical reinterpretation of early Christian ecclesiology and a major redefinition of the nature of divine revelation. There is no logical reason to assume that the authority of the Councils ended with the declaration of the canon. By the way, the Councils that solidified the canon weren't even ecumenical. Furthermore, there is no historical evidence for protoprotestantism either. Various attempts to create lineage of such by revisionist historians have all failed miserably.

The only thing one is left with is to postulate such things without any actual evidence, saying that's how it "must have been." Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But there's a problem when there is tons of evidence to the contrary.

Sure there is. I can show you where the majority of the first and second century ECFs used scripture alone. Heck, if the bible was ever lost we could rewrite it just from the writings of the early ECFs.

There is no evidence of Sola Scriptura in the ECFs, just as there is no evidence of it in the Bible. The best you will get are quotes that reference a non-existent canon. It is historical fact, not opinion or conjecture, but fact that the Christian canon was not solid for the first four centuries of Christianity. For Sola Scriptura to work, the canon must be infallibly defined. The canon lists before the 4th century all disagreed with each other. Not good for Sola Scriptura.