Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?


  • Total voters
    42

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,562
6,332
North Carolina
✟283,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No it’s not. Virtually all Protestants dismiss the clear words of John 6 as fable. It was believed by the Church for 1500 years before the reformation then the reformers dropped it
Sexual morality was very important to Christian thought for 1900 years, but then the Protestants virtually all ignored our Lord’s words on marriage and adultery in 1930. They basically said that Jesus didn’t mean that you can’t look on a woman with lust. We have a piece of paper that says we are married, so we can do whatever we want, that’s why we conveniently dropped the book of Tobit from our canon silly. We know marriage and control of libido are too hard, so we will allow divorce and contraception, so what if we abandon 1900 years of Church teaching, we are modern and we took a vote.
Tell me again how Protestantism follows the clear teaching one the Bible
We are saved by grace through faith, not by obedience.
Salvation is based on faith and trust in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin (Eph 2:8-9), which is necessarily followed by submission to God.
No saved person submits perfectly, we all sin.
Salvation is not based on never sinning, it is based on faith by grace.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,633
13,740
72
✟375,760.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No it’s not. Virtually all Protestants dismiss the clear words of John 6 as fable. It was believed by the Church for 1500 years before the reformation then the reformers dropped it
Sexual morality was very important to Christian thought for 1900 years, but then the Protestants virtually all ignored our Lord’s words on marriage and adultery in 1930. They basically said that Jesus didn’t mean that you can’t look on a woman with lust. We have a piece of paper that says we are married, so we can do whatever we want, that’s why we conveniently dropped the book of Tobit from our canon silly. We know marriage and control of libido are too hard, so we will allow divorce and contraception, so what if we abandon 1900 years of Church teaching, we are modern and we took a vote.
Tell me again how Protestantism follows the clear teaching one the Bible
There is a vast difference between fable and metaphor. Admittedly, there are some liberal elements in every denomination, including your own, who dismiss some or most of the Bible as fable, but the vast majority recognize metaphor in the Bible when it is used, e.g. Jesus' statement that He is the door.

The difficulty with John 6 is that it occurs chronologically much before the Last Supper and one can only connect it with the Last Supper by reading that narrative into this passage. Complicating things further is the explanation that Jesus gave to His disciples at the end of the chapter, clearly stating that His words were not meant to be understood literally, but spiritually. Thus, the literalistic interpretation of the passage is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,887
18,692
Orlando, Florida
✟1,277,017.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What matters is who they are believing and trusting in for the remission of their sin and acceptance with God, and if they are in obedience to the NT word of God.
That is the core of all Protestantism.

According to most scholars, the formal cause of Protestantism is justification sola fide.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
303
Ohio
✟35,702.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I stop and consider the alternative. Sola Scriptura is the quest to believe in and affirm all that is affirmed by Scripture. Yes, various manners of interpretation and administration will come of that. However, the alternative is allowing the traditions of men to creep in and choke the word of God with fanciful fables. I remember reading about a tradition wherein Mary was about to die and an Apostle actually "flew", yes "flew", like superman, to be with her before she ascended into Heaven bodily. And allegedly, Thomas missed this one too.

Now, let's be real. That story isn't in Scripture. And one who has been immersed in Scripture for any length of time can tell it is of a different tone than inspired writings. This is mythology. Would we rather have multiple traditions based on interpretations of the Bible? Or would we rather have countless man made stories clouding our view of Scripture and causing more divisions???

It should also be noted that even with all the supplemental human tradition... there are still multiple old world liturgical churches just as there are multiple Protestant churches. Man made traditions don't prevent schisms or multiple churches and traditions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,299
Minnesota
✟221,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Complicating things further is the explanation that Jesus gave to His disciples at the end of the chapter, clearly stating that His words were not meant to be understood literally, but spiritually. Thus, the literalistic interpretation of the passage is incorrect.
Jesus said no such thing in John 6.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

jas3

Active Member
Jan 21, 2023
259
150
Southeast
✟27,273.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I remember reading about a tradition wherein Mary was about to die and an Apostle actually "flew", yes "flew", like superman, to be with her before she ascended into Heaven bodily.
I've never heard of this, but how is this any more unbelievable than a chariot and horses made of fire appearing as Elijah flies up into Heaven?
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,139
1,189
Visit site
✟258,342.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
We are saved by grace through faith, not by obedience.
Salvation is based on faith and trust in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin (Eph 2:8-9), which is necessarily followed by submission to God.
No saved person submits perfectly, we all sin.
Salvation is not based on never sinning, it is based on faith by grace.
Indeed it is, but what do we do with that grace once we receive it? Scripture is clear. Not everyone that says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but those that do the will of my Father who sent me. This says that just because you say you believe in Jesus does not mean you get into heaven. You don’t not can you work to be saved. God is not a merchant. There is nothing you can do to make Gos owe you salvation, but once we are saved we have to get to work.
1 Cor 13 cannot be more clear that we are not saved by faith alone. If I have faith to move mountains, yet have not charity I am nothing. Sounds pretty bad. Jesus tells us we are not born again just by mouthing words or an intellectual ascent. He says we are born again of water and the spirt. We are baptized out of obedience to His command and to follow His example, as Our Lord Himself was baptized, and of the spirit, whereby we not only believe in Jesus but actually do what He says. We deny ourselves take up our cross and follow Him. We mortify our flesh and detach our hearts from the things of this world and the esteem of men. That takes work.

When born again it is not by faith alone, but I will grant you that it is by grace alone. A born again soul justified by the grace of God receives three gifts. These come from God alone and can’t be attained by human effort, neither would the natural man be inclined to try and attain them. These gifts are faith, hope and charity.

Faith to know that He is and is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Hope that He will complete His work that he began in us as He promised. We know that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. He says if we lack anything, ask in prayer believing you will receive and it will be given to you. Should we not ask for greater virtue that we are to weak at present to perform?
Should we not humble ourselves and conform our bodies to righteousness through repetitive practice that is spiritual exercise? Lastly we are Given Charity which many misinterpret as love of neighbor, but that is only half true. Charity consists of two commandments, the first is to love God with your whole heart, whole mind and whole soul. Love of God is reading His commandments and if we think they are burdensome due to our weakness, charity gives us the love of God to pray for the grace to obey and to put into practice Gods commands as His grace enables.
Charity gives us the grace to know Jesus’ voice and we will not listen to any other. Jesus says the Eucharist is His body and blood. Some dude in the fifteenth century said it is symbolic. Jesus says not to look at a woman with lust and since my wife is a woman that includes her too. I do not listen to some conference from 1930 that thinks they can override the clear teaching of
Our Lord.

Our Lord said to deny ourselves and strive to enter by the straight gate and walk the narrow way . I do not listen to a sixteenth century monk that rebelled against church teaching.

The difference is so subtle, and if it were possible would deceive the very elect. We are saved by grace alone, but that grace is not impotent. God is not mocked. His grace is not impotent nor a joke. The grace He bestows completes the work He wants it to do. His elect are the salt of the earth. They are not slothful scoffers who say we are not saved by works so we are not doing any.

The works of righteousness are what the elect will be doing. They take discipline and discipline comes from the gift of Charity to have the will to mortify our flesh and give glory to God in obedience.

Multiple Protestant assemblies that I have participated in actively discourage pursuit of holiness, calling it legalism. They would say we are not saved by works, do you think you are better than us? You are judging us. There would be no revival as no one thought penance was necessary. There would be little talk of God, but politics, prosperity, and unless one had a lot of recruits for the assembly, there was no place found for them. If one thought something was not right about that and wanted to know more about God, they were told they were obsessed and over thought things and made others uncomfortable. There may be Bible verses being quoted but I can’t see how that is what Christianity is supposed to be about.

In the first century the pagans hated Christians because the pagans were put to shame by the Christian’s righteous works. We do not pursue the pleasure of the world, but seek the joy of serving the Lord. That includes the work of mortifying our flesh and training for virtue, not implying or actually living like good works are a waste of time. The elect are saved unto good works and we all need to pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. If we want people to call us good when we don’t deserve it, are not ashamed of our lack of virtue and desire to improve, can we really say we love Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,633
13,740
72
✟375,760.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Jesus said no such thing in John 6.
John 6:60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,633
13,740
72
✟375,760.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I've never heard of this, but how is this any more unbelievable than a chariot and horses made of fire appearing as Elijah flies up into Heaven?
It is no more bizarre than the statement in the Q'ran that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, was the (physical) sister of Moses.

I particularly like the Loreto story. Basilica della Santa Casa - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,617
10,765
Georgia
✟928,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

And the "sola scriptura" testing method is being used successfully even by non-Christians.
Not the way you define it.

on the contrary we have proof of non-Christians using the text in Acts 17:11 where non-christians confronted with the gospel teaching of Paul "search the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken by Paul -- were so" even though their own magisterium had condemned it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,481
5,843
49
The Wild West
✟492,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
BobRyan said:

And the "sola scriptura" testing method is being used successfully even by non-Christians.


on the contrary we have proof of non-Christians using the text in Acts 17:11 where non-christians confronted with the gospel teaching of Paul "search the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken by Paul -- were so" even though their own magisterium had condemned it.

The model for Sola Scriptura should be that established by the Magisterial Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer), in which scripture is interpreted with the aid of logic and tradition, and a new Magisterium is formed on the basis of this interpretation, with the eventual result looking not dissimiliar to the Western Church before the meddling of Charlemagne, or in many respects the Eastern churches (particularly in the case of Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Methodism).

This differs from the Roman Catholic system in which the Magisterium interprets Scripture, but it is not altogether dramatically different, which is why Lutheranism, Anglicanism and to a lesser extent Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not substantially different from Roman Catholic churches.

Different from Sola Scriptura is Nuda Scriptura, which rejects any other sources of authority to help guide interpretation. It is an extremist interpretation of the concept of Sufficiency of Scripture (which is different from Sola Scriptura, in that Roman Catholics believe in the one but not the other).

What you describe is a classically Adventist definition to Sola Scriptura, one which adapts the account of the Bereans to justify the Adventist use of scripture to verify the writings of Ellen G White as inspired prophecy, which once verified, then influence the interpretation of the rest of scripture in an example of circular reading. It ostensibly presupposes perspicuity of Scripture so that the validation of Ellen G White’s writing becomes obvious, but then in effect negates that because inevitably, the laity, having been told that the writings of EGW are scriptural and having been shown examples of proof texts that appear to confirm this, will then readily rely on her writings to interpret the rest. At any rate, the Adventist interpretation has the effect of disproving Perspicuity of Scripture considering that most other Protestants who believe in the Perspicuity of Scripture or in Sola Scriptura more broadly agree with the Adventist interpretation of Scripture, for example, the Investigative Judgement.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,481
5,843
49
The Wild West
✟492,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
John 6:60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

Alas that does not say what you claimed it says vis a vis a non literal interpretation, in your reply to @Valletta .

There is a reason why most Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox and traditional Methodists, and many Reformed Christians interpret John 6 in the context of the Eucharist.
 
Upvote 0

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,642
977
United States
✟402,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Virtually every Christian thinks their beliefs are following Jesus, for Sola-Scriptura Christians there are so many differences because of so many interpretations of the Bible. There are differences in major beliefs and minor beliefs and thus so many Protestant denominations.

In all fairness - the Catholic Church has come to have one of largest variances within any denomination these days. You have ultra-Latins that stick to No Salvation Outside the Roman Catholic Church - to a pope and bishops doing same sex blessings. It's one of the least uniform denominations around these days.

The argument that a pope or traditions fixes things is pretty much out the window.

I'll take Scripture as my guide, and I'll have to stand before the Lord based on how I did.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,481
5,843
49
The Wild West
✟492,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
In all fairness - the Catholic Church has come to have one of largest variances within any denomination these days. You have ultra-Latins that stick to No Salvation Outside the Roman Catholic Church - to a pope and bishops doing same sex blessings. It's one of the least uniform denominations around these days.

The argument that a pope or traditions fixes things is pretty much out the window.

I'll take Scripture as my guide, and I'll have to stand before the Lord based on how I did.

Well this is mainly a problem with Pope Francis, and also with the doctrine of Papal Supremacy giving too much power to problematic popes like Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X, and especially Pope Francis. Fiducia Supplicans has been an unmitigated disaster and is causing genuine anguish among traditional Catholics who were already reeling from Traditiones Custodes.
 
Upvote 0

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,642
977
United States
✟402,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That opens the can of worms. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility is not Apostolic, nor historic. Even today there is no list of official Infallible statements because nobody can agree on what they were. Unam Sanctam fits the bill - but nobody wants to claim that one today.

The problem goes back way before Francis.

I still find it ironic that it was the Utra Trads that pushed for Papal Supremacy, and now that power is used against them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,481
5,843
49
The Wild West
✟492,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I still find it ironic that it was the Utra Trads that pushed for Papal Supremacy, and now that power is used against them.

That is a common misconception. Papal supremacy was adopted by the Roman Church around the hear 1,000, and led directly to the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054. The concept of Papal Supremacy was later codified around 1100 if memory serves.

In the 19th century, the most traditional members of the Catholic Church were estranged by Papal Infallibility, which arguably resulted from the Savoyard conquest of all of Italy and the unification thereof, including the Papal States. These estranged members became the Old Catholics. Later, many of the Old Catholic churches of the Union of Utrecht were taken over by liberals, but as of now, thanks to Fiducia Supplicans and to a lesser extent, Traditiones Custodes,, the Polish National Catholic Church and the Norwegian Catholic Church are arguably more traditional than the mainstream Roman Catholic Church.

However, the most “trad” group in the RCC, or some would say outside of it, since its canonical status is irregular and was for a time regarded as schismatic, is the SSPX, which entirely rejects Fiducia Supplicans and Traditiones Custodes and operates outside of Papal control.

At any rate insofar as there were traditionalists in the RCC who held an Ultramontanist view, the trauma inflicted by Pope Francis now has many looking for ways of canonically removing him from office.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,139
1,189
Visit site
✟258,342.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
There is a vast difference between fable and metaphor. Admittedly, there are some liberal elements in every denomination, including your own, who dismiss some or most of the Bible as fable, but the vast majority recognize metaphor in the Bible when it is used, e.g. Jesus' statement that He is the door.

The difficulty with John 6 is that it occurs chronologically much before the Last Supper and one can only connect it with the Last Supper by reading that narrative into this passage. Complicating things further is the explanation that Jesus gave to His disciples at the end of the chapter, clearly stating that His words were not meant to be understood literally, but spiritually. Thus, the literalistic interpretation of the passage is incorrect.
The problem that I have with your interpretation is that for approximately 1500 years, the Church taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. Paul even strongly warns against consuming Him unworthily.
It was not until Zwingli began teaching symbolism that your interpretation was taught. Luther even argued against it, but Calvin changed the Christian religion to his own way of thinking and agreed with Zwingli. I do not wish to argue their points. Being that Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, I reject novel interpretations that alter clear Church teaching.
What are the consequences? Well Jesus said that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, I will have no life in me. Sounds serious. Hmmm? I am not listening to Zwingli.

Brother, do you really want to gamble and wait until the judgement seat of Christ to see whose interpretation is right? My view is that I am a new Christian in the grand scheme of things, a Johnny come lately. What right would I have to correct Church teaching by my own understanding. Should I not rather submit and obey those that have come before me, or did Jesus tell us to reinvent the wheel every generation?
I agree with Bob that we do not place tradition above scripture, but when there is no contradiction from scripture, tradition should not be discarded simply because it is tradition. That would cause unnecessary conflict and strife

I look at tradition and why we do it. Why the Eucharist? We want to honor the words of Jesus. This IS my body. This IS the cup of the New Covenant poured out in my blood. It does not reverence his words in the same way to use tiny cups of grape juice, that was not available until Dr Welch invented the process of making sterile wine in the 19th century, and eating matza crackers that are consumed merely as a symbol. That does not reverence Our Lord’s words at all. It is only an opinion that crept up 1500 years after the last supper and Our Lord’s sacrificial death.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,299
Minnesota
✟221,335.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
John 6:60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
You claimed:

. . . clearly stating that His words were not meant to be understood literally, but spiritually.
That's far different than saying his words are "spirit and life." It's quite a leap to say that a person who says his words "are spirit and life" means you are not to take that person literally. Would you go so far as to claim that nothing that Jesus ever said was to be taken literally? In no way is Jesus "clearly" saying don't take my words literally, that's a reinvention, a changing of His words. In the Holy Eucharist Jesus shares His flesh, His life, and His spirit with us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,562
6,332
North Carolina
✟283,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Indeed it is, but what do we do with that grace once we receive it? Scripture is clear. Not everyone that says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but those that do the will of my Father who sent me. This says that just because you say you believe in Jesus does not mean you get into heaven.
This says that true faith is always followed by obedience and that, if you are not in obedience, your faith is not true and you are not saved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,633
13,740
72
✟375,760.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You claimed:


That's far different than saying his words are "spirit and life." It's quite a leap to say that a person who says his words "are spirit and life" means you are not to take that person literally. Would you go so far as to claim that nothing that Jesus ever said was to be taken literally? In no way is Jesus "clearly" saying don't take my words literally, that's a reinvention, a changing of His words. In the Holy Eucharist Jesus shares His flesh, His life, and His spirit with us.
Thank you for your refutation. I do understand your position and, although I do not agree with it, I hope you understand my position that John 6 is not considered to be fable by the vast majority of Christians, but is taken metaphorically by many, if not most, Protestants such as myself. I hope you agree that metaphor is used frequently in scripture.
 
Upvote 0