Sola Scritptura

[Anonymous No.22877593]

What is the Refutation of Sola Scriptura?
What is the most accepted reason for why it is considered heresy by the Catholic Church

[Anonymous No.22877677]

>>22877593
It is self refuting because sola scriptura isn't in the Bible. The Biblical canon, what is included in the Bible, also isn't included in the Bible. The adherents of sola scriptura claim they only use the Bible, not any tradition, but in fact they rely on medieval Jews to tell them which books are in the Bible (deciding against the Christian canon almost a millennia older because it has a few lines that were politically inconvenient for them). It's worth noting that Luther also toyed with axing James and Revelations from the Bible, and did an "interesting" translation of parts of John because of lines that seemed to directly contradict sola fide.

The Bible is almost all stories of people receiving direct revelations from God, not people reading past revelations.

[Anonymous No.22877690]

>>22877677
>The adherents of sola scriptura claim they only use the Bible
What you're describing is solo scriptura not sola scriptura

I feel like this debate would be put to sleep if RCs and EOs first understood what sola scriptura actually means

[Anonymous No.22877701]

>>22877690
>I feel like this debate would be put to sleep if RCs and EOs first understood what sola scriptura actually means
Like that would ever happen

[Anonymous No.22877745]

>>22877690
What is it then?

[Anonymous No.22877755]

>>22877745
Sola scriptura (Latin for 'by scripture alone') is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions,[1] that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice

While the scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of subordinate authority—such as the ordinary teaching offices of a church, the ecumenical creeds, councils of the Catholic Church, or even personal special revelation—sola scriptura in contrast rejects any infallible authority other than the Bible.[1] In this view, all non-scriptural authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures or is independent of the scriptures, and is, therefore, subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.22877768]

>>22877593
The Bible itself can't be separated from extrabiblical tradition because the Bible itself uses extrabiblical tradition. Jude cites Enoch.

And if you're interested sola fide is pretty unequivocally BTFO by the epistle of James, to the point that the Reformers unsuccessfully tried throwing it out like they did other parts of the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.22877804]

>>22877755
So Protestants trade an infallible or Catholic interpretation of scripture for Luther or Calvins interpretations.
I don't understand how the Bible can convey its own meaning beyond what's actually written. If that's the case then how did Luther come up with the idea of faith alone when the only time the words faith alone appear together is to be lambasted by James? There is obviously a problem here with the doctrine of sola scriptura, not to mention the fact that the Bible references things outside of itself and the early Church had no compiled canon up until the 4th century or so.

[Anonymous No.22877827]

>>22877804
If Pope Francis tomorrow in an ex cathedra statement says that homosexuality is consistent with Biblical teaching, are all Roman Catholics going to adhere to him? If not, then welcome to Protestantism.

>If that's the case then how did Luther come up with the idea of faith alone when the only time the words faith alone appear together is to be lambasted by James?
Luther didn't understand that James was addressing antinomianism. That's good because Sola Scriptura keeps him in check. He was right about Sola Fide, and that's what the early church taught.

[Anonymous No.22877850]

>>22877827
>If Pope Francis tomorrow in an ex cathedra statement says that homosexuality is consistent with Biblical teaching, are all Roman Catholics going to adhere to him?
Barring the fact that this is Bergoglio you are talking about, he would be ipso facto deposed by his own mouth. Catholic teaching is that the See of Peter is protected from teaching error.
>That's good because Sola Scriptura keeps him in check. He was right about Sola Fide, and that's what the early church taught.
Okay, I see you belong in a psych ward. I'm closing the thread, bye.

[Anonymous No.22877863]

>>22877850
>>22877850
>Catholic teaching is that the See of Peter is protected from teaching error.
Historically this isn't even true at all lol thus the whole "ex cathedra" thing. You have popes teaching literal heresy like Arianism for decades.
>I'm closing the thread, bye.
See ya

[Anonymous No.22877913]

>>22877827
>I rely only on the Bible and this is why the Bible directly contradicting me (James 2:24) is no big deal
This level of cope is unreal.

[Anonymous No.22878115]

>>22877755
I guess when Jesus said Peter is given the keys to heaven that was a mistake then.

[Anonymous No.22878199]

>>22877755
Ok, by your definition what >>22877677
said is still 100% true. Where is your definition of sola scriptura in the Bible and where is Scripture defined in the Bible?

You seem to completely ignore the main issues in that post so you can move on to the easier ground of nit picking definitions.

[Anonymous No.22878229]

>>22878199
Scripture is defined by tradition and so is open to reform at any time. That's the whole point, and why Protestants felt comfortable removing several books from the Bible. If there is good reason to add or remove more books, that can be done.

This is the context that allowed for Mormonism, which adds new books. This is also why there is an acceptance of paraphrase translations that might add several lines or remove some. E.g., the Passion Translation used by Charismatics will sometimes have a passage be three times as long as a word for word translation.

Scripture is infallible but what Scripture is can change. This is why you have the whole King James only movement in Protestantism and claims about KJV being divinely inspired. It's a way to solidify Scripture.

[Anonymous No.22878235]

>>22877827
>He was right about Sola Fide, and that's what the early church taught

This is just historically false. The early church was incredibly diverse so it had no one specific teaching. But I'd like to see one (1) example of a church father embracing something like Sola Fide before Saint Augustine (who wasn't even consistent on something like that).

[Anonymous No.22878318]

>>22878229
No, breaking tradition with 90% of the church fathers is not a good faith growth in doctrine. One cannot turn against what a majority of the fathers agreed on, one cannot turn on what was revealed in Christ and His apostles as the protestants do.

[Anonymous No.22879463]

>>22878318
As much as I respect the church fathers, last time I checked they weren't in the bible

[Anonymous No.22879569]

>>22879463
The church fathers majority opinion is what Jesus teaches in the deposit of faith. You say the fathers aren’t in the bible, well they are in essence. They espouse what Christ taught. The only difference between Augustine and Peter is rank and time in history.

[Anonymous No.22879649]

>>22877593
Fucking brilliant album

[Anonymous No.22879733]

>>22877827
>Luther didn't understand that James was addressing antinomianism. That's good because Sola Scriptura keeps him in check.
bruh moment

[Anonymous No.22879774]

>>22878115
A key makes you a custodian.
One can always just knock and be let in. But first you'd have to be born of the spirit and of water. But you aren't really ready for that.

[Anonymous No.22879831]

>>22879649
I'm glad someone noticed

[Anonymous No.22879985]

>>22879463
They are implicit in the Bible as to what is included in it. How do you think we got the canon? There is like 10 times as much New Testament lit as is included in the Bible and a good deal of Old Testament era lit that isn't included in the Bible. There is scant evidence that the Jews had a consistent canon by the first century. So how do you say what the Bible is without the Church Fathers? Plenty of early Christians, even pillars of orthodoxy, accepted the Shepard of Hermas and Barnabus. On what grounds do you set the canon without them?

[Anonymous No.22880005]

>>22878318
I wasn't agreeing with it, just explaining how Sola Scriptura doesn't preclude the Protestant changes to the Bible we've seen, both removing books and adding some in some cases. There are even small sets of Protestants using the Cipher Bible who add even more books, like Jubilees and Jasher. The canon isn't in Scripture so it can't be derived from Sola Scriptura. This was fine for the early Reformation thinkers because they were looking for grounds to reject Maccabees, which has versus used as grounds for the doctrine of Purgatory. It's not like they initially said "actually, Medieval Jews are the gold standard of authority on Scripture." It was a goal looking for an explanation, which is why you still tended to have the Apocrypha included in Protestant Bibles for centuries and Protestants would still quote from Wisdom or use Judith, etc. quite often. Sirach was the other target, as some lines suggest judgement by works (as do parts of Ezekiel, John, etc., but these were harder to justify removing.)

This is most obvious in Luther, who considered removing some New Testament books. His translation is pretty loose at times, and there are some parts that are difficult for Sola Fide that he essentially just rewrote in German.

Sola Fide is king. Sola Scriptura supports Sola Fide, particularly since what is considered Scripture isn't under either doctrine. This means Scripture can be adjusted to meet the needs of the denomination.

[Anonymous No.22880503]

>>22878115
Indeed, the authority of the apostles and the Holy See is there for a reason.
>Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

[Anonymous No.22880702]

>>22880503
>>22880005
>>22879985
>>22879463
Jesus prays that the church will be one, the anoints Peter as the head. Paul and many fathers warn against schism. Yet protestants follow a man who broke his vow to God outside of the church, return to the sheepfold

[Anonymous No.22881015]

>>22880702
Say what you want, this guy is not the word of God

[Anonymous No.22881317]

sola scriptura is unbelievably ironic when you consider every single one of its adherents is a pauline christian
you cant say god doesnt have a sense of humour

[Anonymous No.22881360]

>>22881015
Correct, Jesus is. That man is the vicar of Christ. He holds a seat dedicated towards the unity of the church, and sometimes a bad man fills the seat and sometimes a good man. When the church was just Jesus and the apostles Jesus filled it. After His death He asked Peter to fill it. And then in acts it is said to continually fill these positions for the guidance of men. The church is one, you make it many.

[Anonymous No.22881623]

>>22879569
Not him but there are examples:
St. Hilary of Poitiers
>This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies (In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, Caput VIII).
St. Basil
>For this is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and has been justified solely by faith in Christ. (Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate (§3, PG 31:529)
St. Clement of Rome
>And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (1 Clement)

[Anonymous No.22881631]

>>22881623
meant for >>22878235

[Anonymous No.22881793]

>>22881623
The Rules of Saint Basil is very far from Protestant Sola Fide.

1 Clement is literally primarily concerned with Apostolic succession and not throwing off appointed church authorities because you feel like it.

That same letter discussed judgment based on deeds.

Then again, I suppose one should expect cherry picking defense for a doctrine founded on cherry picking.

[Anonymous No.22881818]

>>22881793
>>22878235 wanted examples of a church father embracing something that could be seen as sola fide. I posted three examples. I disagree with protestantism but an argument can be made about some things protestants go on about just by going to the church fathers

[Anonymous No.22882064]

>>22881360
Don't play semantics, you know what I mean, that man is not peter

[Anonymous No.22882207]

>>22882064
He fulfills the same office, which the apostles bound with the keys of heaven, to be filled

[Anonymous No.22882603]

>>22877593
>why it is considered heresy by the Catholic Church
I think this is partly because of a rejection of Scripture over superstition, and partly it is driven by a motivated attempt to straw man or misrepresent those who do not follow them in that rejection of Scripture.

The archetypal example of a group of people rejecting the divinely revealed word of God in exchange for keeping manmade oral traditions is in the Gospels with the following rebuke toward the Pharisees, who maintained their own private oral tradition, which is revealed however to be manmade:

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."
- Mark 7:7-13

[Anonymous No.22882629]

>>22877768
>Jude cites Enoch.
In that specific example, do you suppose that Jude was saying something false, or did Enoch, the same Enoch who is mentioned in Genesis 5, personally say those words? If Jude is correct to say Enoch actually said that, it proves that he made that prophecy before the apocryphal book was written, which could have simply plagiarized or copied the authentic saying.

In general, Paul quotes from several extrabiblical sources, such as his sermon or speech on Mars hill in Acts 17, and he does this in a separate place in Titus 1 as well. That isn't to say that Paul or the apostles endorsed the sources of these quotations nor that those sources were inspired.

>And if you're interested sola fide is pretty unequivocally BTFO by the epistle of James
Salvation being by grace through faith (i.e. Ephesians 2:8-9) isn't contradicted by the epistle of James.

[Anonymous No.22882661]

>>22880503
>Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
Yes, there are a multitude of people rejecting the New Testament, which is part of the Bible and was given by the apostles. They reject the Bible in favor of their manmade traditions. Consider for example what Paul said about the apostles' word in 2 Thessalonians.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
- 2 Thessalonians 3:6

[Anonymous No.22882738]

>>22882661
You literally depend on extra-biblical christian tradition to know what the bible is. You need to understand that the problem with Sola Scriptura is epistemic in nature: all knowledge one can have about the canon is by its very nature external to it.

You can't just quote the Bible: It doesnt solve anything, and it is pre-supposing the very thing it tries to prove.

[Anonymous No.22882969]

>>22877593
Sola scriptura depends on extra-biblical tradition to determine canonicity etc.

With that said, Tradition (tm) also lead to the Pope okaying blessings of gay weddings and anyone who bothers to look can see that Tradition isn't even consistent with itself, so it's not like we can take Tradition (tm) to be reliable by default either.

[Anonymous No.22883135]

>>22882738
>all knowledge one can have about the canon is by its very nature external to it.
If you're talking about what is inspired or not inspired, then there is a very clear way to know, it's self-evident to those who are of God. And if you're talking about knowledge given by Scripture being external to it, that isn't of necessity true either. Consider the following infallible statements:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
- 1 Peter 1:23-25

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."
- 1 John 5:9-10

>You can't just quote the Bible
I just did.
>It doesnt solve anything,
It does solve things for those that are of God. It doesn't solve things for those who are not of God. That's why Paul said that the word "effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thess. 2). Because it is effectual if you are a believer. Paul also said in 1 Corinthians 2 that the natural man cannot and will not receive the things of the Spirit of God, because as it says in that verse, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

That would be those to whom the word of the Lord is not effectual. And this is due to their rejection of it. Thus, if it is not effectual to you, that must be because you are rejecting it. But it may be effectual for others, hence why I am quoting it. For as Paul said, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17).

[Anonymous No.22884152]

>>22878235
And yet even the Catholic church has adopted Sola Fide in all but name thanks to the theological development of "Initial Justification" which isn't strictly in accordance with how Trent was intended to be understood.

Not saying that that's a bad thing. I think it's good

[Anonymous No.22884205]

After reading a bunch about theology, I think I agree with Martin Luther the most

[Anonymous No.22884302]

>>22883135
Your understanding of it seems borderline ad-hoc and solipsistic. Forgive me but what is stopping a muslim from saying that the Quran is simply self-evident, and no one without salvation would even think otherwhise? What is stopping a Mormon to just posit that for anyone born in the spirit, the heresies of their founder and the "books" he added to the Scriptures are self-evident?

Worse even: I will venture that it doesn't even give you personal security about it. We all know that people can be sincerily decieved even by their own hearts, and that the faith of suicidal bombers is probably not less than the faith of a church-going just man, so, is logical to ask, how do you know you are not being decieved? It seems that your knowledge relies purely on a personal, subjective experience that can't be actually argued in favor to or proven to anyone outside of yourself.

[Anonymous No.22884540]

i always thought it was because it makes an idol out of the bible and that's le bad