Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything) Biblical, logical, and practical?

Do you think the man gets to grant authority to God's words?

Scripture is God-breathed and pristine and holy. But without diminishing that at all, you still need someone with the authority to determine and declare "This is truly Scripture". Because there were literally hundreds of books floating around the Early Church claiming to be Scripture (Eusebius lists dozens in his History).

Here's a troubling thought:

If you don't believe the Canon of 397 was correct, that means we've been using the wrong Bible for the majority of Christianity (400 AD until ~1600 AD, or about 1,200 years).

Please answer my question from my last post:

So who identified the books of "Scripture" correctly?

Was it the Council in the 300s? - If yes, then why did the Protestants change it?

Do you believe the Protestants got it right? If yes, why should we give them more consideration than the first council? How can we be sure they're not wrong too, and a later group will actually get it right? What guarantee is there?

And this one too:

how do you know what is or isn't Scripture?
 
This is directly relevant to Sola Scriptura. We can't talk about "Sola Scriptura" if we don't know even know what is or isn't "Scriptura".
God said "........."
Are the authority of God's words based on their content?
Are the authority of God's words based on your understanding?

Do God-denying atheists diminish the authority of God's words?
 
Scripture is God-breathed and pristine and holy. But without diminishing that at all, you still need someone with the authority to determine and declare "This is truly Scripture". Because there were literally hundreds of books floating around the Early Church claiming to be Scripture (Eusebius lists dozens in his History).

Here's a troubling thought:

If you don't believe the Canon of 397 was correct, that means we've been using the wrong Bible for the majority of Christianity (400 AD until ~1600 AD, or about 1,200 years).

Please answer my question from my last post:



And this one too:
Start a new thread:
the Canon is not an issue about the hierarchy of authority

I am nor here to discuss the Canon:
I am here to refute the starawman of "Is Sola Scriptura (being limited to only the Bible alone for everything)"


God said "........."
Are the authority of God's words based on their content?
Are the authority of God's words based on your understanding?

Do God-denying atheists diminish the authority of God's words?
 
Last edited:
the typical response against Sola Scriptura includes
Strawman arguments
lowering the authority of God's words to that of the Church's
raising the the authority of the Church to that of God's
more strawman arguments

I would love to see some poster actually address if the words of God (spoken or written) are more authoritative than the Church


Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5



This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”
<
The Scriptures being “fully sufficient,” is simply a seed form of sola Scriptura.>

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”


Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”
 
Last edited:
Please answer my question from my last post: how do you know what is or isn't Scripture?
Start a new thread:
the Canon is not an issue about the hierarchy of authority

If you don't want to tell me how you know something is "Scriptura" - and that question is completely relevant to "Sola Scriptura" - then I think I will stop here. I appreciated the discussion, Thess; I did learn a lot. Thanks.
 
If you don't want to tell me how you know something is "Scriptura" - and that question is completely relevant to "Sola Scriptura" - then I think I will stop here. I appreciated the discussion, Thess; I did learn a lot. Thanks.
proving my point in post 84
who ever told you Sola Scriptura is about the Canon: lied to you


God said "........."
Are the authority of God's words based on their content?
Are the authority of God's words based on your understanding?

Do God-denying atheists diminish the authority of God's words?

I would love to see some poster actually address if the words of God (spoken or written) are more authoritative than the Church
 
If you don't want to tell me how you know something is "Scriptura" - and that question is completely relevant to "Sola Scriptura" - then I think I will stop here. I appreciated the discussion, Thess; I did learn a lot. Thanks.
i'll play your along with your game to show you it is irrelevant
you asked how i know something is "Scriptura"
let's say I accept the the ruling of the Catholic Church on their recognition of the Christian Canon
now what?
 
Last edited:
I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura."

Luther and the Lutheran Church who created the Sola Scriptura concept defined it in their writings like the Formula of Concord to mean that the Bible Alone is the Only rule and authority:


Accordingly, one would not also use other sources outside the Bible like early Christian writings or Church Councils to help decide on teachings. It's a nicely convenient idea to imagine that we have a single text alone that addresses all religious questions. It also is a convenient way to avoid being forced into the tons of extrabiblical Catholic teachings of the Magisterium.

But the Lutheran and Reformed dogma of Sola Scriptura appears disprovable in both logic and practice. Following the dogma of Sola Scriptura, one should use the Bible alone to judge whether to use the Bible alone. When we turn to the Bible alone to judge this question, we find passages on tangential topics: It says that all Scripture is inspired and it commends early Christians for following the apostles' "traditions." At one point Paul writes in a Biblical epistle that women should wear head coverings and not have authority over mean, and says that his teaching on the topic, which cover numerous verses, is not inspired. However, the Bible alone never specifically says that the Bible alone is the only rule or authority to decide all teachings.


rakovsky


I think you misunderstand the praxis....


This is what the Lutheran Confessions state: "The Holy Scriptures are the only norm and rule for doctrine."

In Lutheranism, the issue here is very specific: There ARE disagreements among the world's Christians... in both teachings and practice. Sometimes these are in dogmatic and definitive issues. Sometimes they are highly divisive. SO, the issue becomes: Who is correct? Which of the teachings is correct?


In epistemology, addressing this involves three aspects:


1 Accountability.
All the positions are POTENTIALLY wrong, no one gets a "free pass" from accountability. This is often a problem in Christianity since there are those who demand a unique exemption - insisting all OTHERS could be wrong but there is ONE unique, individual exception among all the teachers on the planet, and that ONE just happens to be self ("self" here can be an individual person or church or denomination). The Lutheran position rejects self exempting self uniquely from accountability, and this is why the Catholic Church so rejected Sola Scriptura since it itself insists that it itself cannot be wrong (under certain conditions). Catholicism "opts out" at this point. So do the cults and some Protestants who claim special status as uniquely, individually lead and protected by God. Those who reject this whole process do so for THIS reason, they need to exempt ONE from accountability (and that's always self).


2. Rule. All disciplines tend to embrace some rule.... something objective and knowable that can be used by all disputing parties to determine which view aligns with this. In the Rule of Law, civil disputes are decided according to the words of the law; if a cop says I was speeding and I say I was not, we both agree to look at that big square sign by the side of the road with the big black numerals of "50." In physics, we often use repeatable laborative evidence and mathematics. Let's say Tpm and Jim hire Bob the Builder to construct a 6 foot fense on their property line between their houses. Bob is done and says the fence is 6 feet tall but Jim says it's only 5 feet tall. Perhaps Tom and Jim and Bob all agree to use a Sears Measuring Tape to see if Bob's claim is true. In this case, the Sears Measuring Tape is the Rule, the norm (or as it is called in epistemology, the "norma normans" - literally, the norm that norms. THIS IS THE SINGULAR ISSUE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA - specifically WHAT is the best rule. Yes, it depends on #1 above (all disputing views are accountable) but the issue is only WHAT should serve as the Rule or Norm or Canon ("canon" refers to the measuring stick used in construction by the Greeks - the measuring tape). And in epistemology, the more objective, the more universally accepted, the more "outside" all parties in dispute, the better. Sola Scripture embraces that SCRIPTURE is to so serve.


3. Arbitration.
There then is the issue of determining IF the teaching/claim/view "measures up" to the "measuring stick" (the Rule, the Canon)? Tom and Jim told up that measuring tape.... and it says 72 inches.... SO does the fence "measure up" or not? That's arbitration. In the Rule of Law, a court decides if the behavior "measures up" to the Rule of Law. In physics, scientific journals work to see if the theory or view "measures up" to the observable evidence and the math. Now, admittedly, this remains a problem. Since the demise of Ecumenical Councils (the last of the 7 ended in 800 AD) there simply is no "court" to which all Christianity is bound, there is no "court" at all for the whole of Christianity. Individual denominations often have some means of final arbitration but nothing beyond the denomination and this is perhaps part of the reason why Christianity has spun so many denominations ... even before 800 since not everyone accepted all 7 Ecumenical Councils. When people note that Sola Scriptura doesn't always RESOLVE disputes among the world's 2;.2 billion people, they are correct and this is why. The case can be made..... perhaps very clearly and boldly... but the "jury" tends to be us and the virdict isn't always the same. But does the lack of this third step make the previous 2 meaningless? I don't think so. As limited as this is in practice, any look at the plethora of cults (ALL of which fundamentally reject Sola Scriptura), the absurdities of liberalism (which also rejects Scripture as the Rule), the craziness of what we often see on the internet (all obviously rejecting Sola Scriptura since clearly the words of Scripture are obviously deleted and replaced by the new, wierd "interpretation" of the heretic). The vast majority of Christianity embraces the Councils, the Creeds and an enormous body of teachings precisely because we consider all SUBJECT to the words of Scripture and not above such.... most Christians are "people of the book."




Other things are NOT ignored! They simply are not ABOVE or EQUAL to Scripture as the Rule, Norm, Canon . Indeed, they are often essential in the third step, the arbitration. How has CHRISTIANITY understood the verse(s) we are looking to as the Rule, Norm, Canon, norma normans? TRADITION plays a critical role here.... we will look to the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Three Ecumenical Creeds, the universal/ecumenical faith of Christians over the centuries. Now this MOSTLY has to do with hermaneutics - how to understand/interpret the Scriptures, but it's not limited to such (indeed, what IS Scripture is a matter of Tradition). Again, this is always true in epistemology. In the Rule of Law, the court will look at how this law has been understood and applied in the past. Such CAN be wrong... but which is taken into account.



That's it. That's all. That's the ENTIRELY of "Sola Scriptura." I will admit most ALSO argue that Scripture is not only the sole Rule/Canon BUT ALSO the sole source of doctrine. Actually, Sola Scriptura does not say that, but I will admit it's a natural consequence of it: If a teaching isn't found in Scripture, it cannot be normed as true by such. "Sola Scriptura" technically is not doctrine, it's not a hermeneutical principle.... it is one (and only) one thing: In the practice of resolving disputes in doctrine, the best Rule/Norm/Canon for this is the objective, knowable words of Scripture.




.



 
Luther and Lutheranism officially defined Sola Scriptura to mean that only the Bible alone is the only authority. It sounds like you don't actually believe in Luther's actual Sola Scriptura teaching either.

You don't hold to that particular definition.
So why should we?
You are engaging in a straw-man argument.

What you are presenting is not "sola Scriptura", but "SOLO Scriptura".
"Just me and my Bible at the river."

Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, not the "only authority". Before going further, you are encouraged to read the following, as it corrects your misconceptions:
 
You don't hold to that particular definition.
So why should we?
You are engaging in a straw-man argument.

What you are presenting is not "sola Scriptura", but "SOLO Scriptura".
"Just me and my Bible at the river."

Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, not the "only authority". Before going further, you are encouraged to read the following, as it corrects your misconceptions:
I like this from White:

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

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.
 
I like this from White:

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

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.
Agreed, and yet we also are free to use creeds and confessions and reference works to assist us, as long as understand none of them were inspired!
 
I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence. This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura."

Well, you immediately went off the rails by misrepresenting "sola Scriptura". Sola Scriptura does NOT mean, "me and my Bible alone by the river, and nothing else". Sola Scriptura teaches the need for pastors and teachers (it's taught in Scripture!), and so we recognize and make use of other teachers (eg. ECF's). The only difference is that Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith, and as such, all other authorities are in submission to Scripture.

But having said that, I certainly believe Sola Scriptura is:
1) Biblical (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jesus was CONSTANTLY pointing the Jews to Scripture;)
2) Logical;
3) Practical;

Luther and the Lutheran Church who created the Sola Scriptura concept

You seem ignorant of Church history. Luther didn't "create" Sola Scriptura. It was taught by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basis, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine.

Accordingly, one would not also use other sources outside the Bible like early Christian writings or Church Councils to help decide on teachings. It's a nicely convenient idea to imagine that we have a single text alone that addresses all religious questions.

So it's logical. And practical.

When we turn to the Bible alone to judge this question, we find passages on tangential topics: It says that all Scripture is inspired and it commends early Christians for following the apostles' "traditions."

Are you ASSUMING that this refers to "extra-Biblical traditions"?

At one point Paul writes in a Biblical epistle that women should wear head coverings and not have authority over mean, and says that his teaching on the topic, which cover numerous verses, is not inspired.

Wrong.

However, the Bible alone never specifically says that the Bible alone is the only rule or authority to decide all teachings.

It says that the Bible is THE rule of faith.
And it gives no other rules of faith.

In fact, the Bible gives lots of suggestions to use other helpful sources and materials in addition to judge questions. For example, John's Gospel noted that Jesus gave sayings that were not recorded in the Bible,

How does that translate to "suggestions to us other helpful sources and materials"?
Do you have access to those other teachings of Jesus?
Do you even have evidence that those "sayings" address things not found in Scripture?

and the Bible notes that the apostles appointed overseers or bishops over the Christian community.

Yes, as teachers and leaders.
My pastor knows not to invent new teachings not found in the Bible.
You seem to keep coming to the table with TONS of unsubstantiated assumptions.
And that is clearly contrary to "Sola Scriptura".

The early Church responsible for the Bible must not have wanted and intended for the Bible to be the only authority for Christians because they would have said so in it.

Well, no.
Not only are you fallaciously trying to make an argument from silence, but the Bible DOES "say so" in it.

Then there is the practical problem. If Sola Scriptura was correct, a faithful person or community could just read the Bible alone and would reasonably find the Bible's position on every issue from it.

Yes, and that's largely true.
But the part you're ignoring is that the recipients of these teachings aren't "neutral" hearers, They are rebel sinners. They have a vested interested in not accepting what Scripture actually teaches.

But in practice, if sincere individual Christians or their groups go by the Bible Alone, they don't understand what its writers intended on all issues. If you give a Bible to a person or group who were never taught anything about Christianity, whether they are tribal people in Africa or young college educated European or Chinese inquirers, they are de facto not going to choose the right answer to every major religious question from Trinitarianism to the Real Presence to Infant baptism.

Well, again your argumentation is based on a wrong understanding of Sola Scripture.
But even so, any honest person reading the Bible will be required to admit that the Bible teaches the Trinity. They might not accept it (since that is the Holy Spirit's job), but they can't deny that it is taught.

As for "infant baptism", that's not a Biblical teaching.

Second, the Sola Scriptura denominations, from Lutherans to the Amish to Baptists to Calvinists, disagree on what the Bible teaches on such major issues as having bishops, baptizing infants,

Well, let's see.... The Bible clearly and UNDENIABLY teaches "bishops/elders" as church leaders (1 Tim. 3, Tit. 1). The problem here is that the Roman Catholic Church has inserted a huge amount of wrong ideas about "bishops", as being "super-priests". But if you limit yourself to the Bible, then the teaching is clear.

As for "baptizing infants", again that's not a Christian or Biblical teaching.

Each one may believe that they have found the Biblical position by reading the Bible alone and that all other Bible-Only believers are wrong. But objectively and practically speaking, if the Bible Alone were the right, correct approach for faithful Christians, then they would not read it and come to so many opposite conclusions on so many questions so frequently.

Yes, they would.
The problem with all the topics you bring up is that they were taught from extra-Biblical sources, and then the Bible was used to try to support them, once the reader's mind was already "primed" with the idea.
 
Third, if you could realistically use only the Bible alone to judge every question, then you could just strictly quote Bible verses to another open minded Christian with an opposite point of view whenever you want to both decide the Bible's position on any topic.

Again, you largely CAN do that, but you keep forgetting that we are not neutral hearers, but sinners.

So if someone asked whether to baptize infants, you could just quote to them from the Bible and they know what to do. But in practice that doesn't work. A Lutheran can't in practice just go to a sincere Protestant who denies infant baptism and without any explanations only quote the verse where Jesus says, "Let the children come to me,"

Here your argument is fallacious.
You seem to be arguing that infant baptism is Biblical, when it's not.
Jesus said, "let the children come to me."
And children SHOULD be allowed to come to Him.
But what on EARTH does that have to do with "infant baptism"?

1) Children are not infants.
2) Infants cannot "come" to anyone.
3) Priests are not Jesus.
4) There is NO mention of "baptism" anywhere in that verse.

But this is the fallacious argument of suggestion. A person simply reading this passage ("Sola Scriptura") can easily see this has nothing to do with "infant baptism". But if a teacher says, "Let me show you a passage that TEACHES infant baptism", and then plants that suggestion in you, then the idea is now in the reader's mind as they read the verse. But the connection to "infant baptism" doesn't come from Scripture, it comes from a false teacher.

Fourth, in practice Luther, Calvin, and their Churches did not follow Sola Scriptura in practice either.

Well, I'm not sure that's true, since you don't understand what Sola Scriptura is.
But if even if they didn't follow it, that doesn't make it any less true. Whether they followed it or not is irrelevant.

In order to learn, understand, and explain the Bible they and their Churches relied on the writings of the Church fathers, especially Augustine. So De Facto they were treating Augustine and other writers as authorities to understand the Bible's position on questions, as opposed to using only the Bible alone on them. Further, when it came to the practice of Church administration, they along with the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches found that they needed to use church leaders, documents, and institutions as authorities.

And none of this goes against "Sola Scriptura".
SS doesn't deny the existence or proper use of other authorities and teachers.
It simply teaches that Scripture is the ULTIMATE authority, and the only INFALLIBLE authority.

Finally, Sola Scriptura is one answer and reaction against the Catholic idea of the infallible Magisterium, but is not actually the only or best answer to it.

Well, if it was good enough for "Catholics" such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basis, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, then it's good enough for me.... ;)

A more natural answer to the topic is the Orthodox Christian or Anglican or Methodist principle where Scripture is the highest authority, but not the only authority. In Anglicanism and the Methodist Church descended from Anglicanism, this principle is called Prima Scrptura, the idea that Scripture is the First in authority. The Methodists have Scripture as part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that includes Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

You can use whatever "authority" you like.
It's a free country, after all...

To better understand the Sola Scriptura principle, it is best to see how it stands in an opposite tension or "dialectic" with the Catholic Magisterium concept. The Catholic Church developed the idea that if all bishops everywhere agree on a teaching, then it becomes part of an "infallible" Magisterium.

... except for Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basis, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine....

Further, Luther's premise that Christian institutions or writings outside the Bible have no authority is not actually correct or practical, as Luther's own practice as a church leader showed.

I'm not understanding your point.
The Bible TEACHES "church leaders".

And he actually obeyed Scripture, by being married, unlike Catholic popes.

Luther's theory may have missed the fact that just because something like a Christian council, declaration, commentary, or assembly might be mistaken or "fallible" does not actually mean that it has no authority or should have no role in rule-making.

Well, if a "council" or "declaration" contradicts God's word, it's pretty worthless.

His theory may have also overlooked that even if one considers the Bible as the highest possible written source to decide on any issue, it doesn't follow that it is the only source. Nor does it follow that it is best or realistic to use the Bible as the only source. This is because while the Bible has general positions, like Jesus using wine at the Last Supper, Paul recommending alcohol as being healthy, and to avoid drunkenness, it doesn't have clear on-point directly relevant positions on every issue, like whether one can unconditionally only ever use fermented red wine for Communion.

Yeah... The Bible is silent on Jesus' eye-colour as well, so I guess we have to throw it away as a valid authority.

Who ever told you that the Bible is an imaginary EXHAUSTIVE source of human knowledge?!
Your criticism seems incredibly fallacious.

"Let's see... The Bible doesn't tell us whether we're allowed to sing Psalms on the third Thursday after a full moon, after 9:00 pm. Eastern Daylight Time. Whatever shall we do?!?!"
 
Theo,

I dreamed that I was reading a thread on this kind of topic from you (Theo) last night, specifically one where you were replying to me.
Sola Scriptura is an interesting topic for me because I have a warm spot for Lutheranism (personal background), and it's one of the foundational Lutheran ideas. I don't know if Luther came up with Sola Scriptura before he came up with Sola Fide, but Sola Scriptura would seem to be a foundation that he used for arguing Sola Fide, ie. he used Sola Scriptura as his authority or basis for arguing for Sola Fide.

I was on an island connecting by two bridges with checkpoints when COVID hit the US in 2020 and it was a slightly lockdown situation (no home quarantines though). There was a Lutheran church nearby, and the proximity gave me a respite to visit it, and talk with the pastor. They had online services where the pastor did Easter/Holy Week liturgies. It was nice to have something at least. Also, I did prayer in the church building during the week once or twice as a way to connect with the Divine during a time when so much craziness was going on.

Who knows if we really connect to the Divine when we pray in church like that? We can feel as if we may have God's presence, but is He really there? God would know. Since you are coming from a Calvinist POV, should I mention that Calvin locked the churches because he did not want people praying there when the services ended, considering it a Catholic practice? My understanding is that the Catholic and Lutheran churches had the idea that the physical space of the church was holy, in agreement with their idea of the bread directly having or being Christ's actual body.

In the book "Poetic Theology: God and the Poetics of Everyday Life", William A. Dyrness writes on page 192 that this explains why Presbyterian churches are locked during the week.
Calvin gave these instructions so that "no one outside the hours may enter for superstitious reasons." He went on, "If anyone be found making any particular devotion inside or nearby, he is to be admonished; if it appears to be a superstition which he will not amend, he is to be chastised."
Since Calvin had political power in Geneva, I take it that Calvin was referring to punishment for people praying in church. I guess by "superstition", he would include ideas that the space in the church is somehow "holy".

To bring that back to the thread issue, Calvinism seems perhaps a more radical version of Protestantism than Lutheranism. I don't know that Luther would agree that Calvinism was a more radical version of what he was preaching, because he didn't agree with Calvin on his more "radical" positions. He did seem to complain that the Sola Scriptura doctrine was leading to plenty of sects and preachers with wrong ideas. I don't think he named Calvin specifically in that. But Luther would have seen that Calvin was making "Sola Scriptura" a major part of his (Calvin's) teaching and using it to justify his (Calvin's) more "radical" ideas.

This raises one of the practical problems of Sola Scriptura- in real life, it's led to opposing, conflicting positions on a mass of issues, praying in church when services are over being a simple one. Both sides may say, "I'm just going by the Bible alone" on this issue, when the Bible may not have a simple answer on many issues. Luther might point to times in the Bible when early Christians were praying in synagogues and the Temple. Calvin might theorize that services were going on whenever the early Christians were praying, or he might theorize that it was a holdover from the Old Testament period.

It's hard to imagine Calvin saying, "Yes, I see that in the Bible the early Christians were praying, so I was wrong to advocate punishing Christians today for doing this." He comes across as very self-assured about his dogmas and also seemed to have a thing for punishment (Penal Atonement theology and the Servetus incident among other examples). But theoretically that could happen. Certainly there are times when Protestants who thought they knew what the Bible taught on a specific issue changed their mind about it. The logical lessons from this include that
  1. the Bible alone is unclear as to what it actually teaches on some (many?) issues,
  2. in some (many?) cases, Protestants are certain that they know what the Bible teaches, even though they are wrong
  3. Protestants adhering to the Sola Scriptura doctrine have gone in divergent, conflicting directions instead of cohering to the One True position (whatever that position may be)
Some counterarguments I've heard to those three conclusions include that:
  1. The Bible is actually clear on the issues, and it's just the wrong sects and preachers who don't get it for whatever reason.
    1. Calvin said that people who deny infant baptism are from the Devil, so I guess there's that answer, but it seems too harsh. I mean, are you really going to say that they messed up on that one because they are demonic? Anabaptists seem like sincerely-Christian, nice people to me, at least as good as the ones in Calvin's camp. Of course, Calvin could argue that Anabaptists have just the illusion/evanescence of grace, but they seem about as sincere about their Christianity. I guess you can say that anything that is heresy is from Satan somehow, but this answer still feels simplistic. Even if the Anabaptists are following Satan by denying infant baptism, it seems that if the Bible was actually clear (like if it was explicit and specific) on infant baptism, then the Anabaptists wouldn't get it wrong.
  2. It's not the case that it's just me and another preacher (eg. a Lutheran and a Calvinist) having opposite views of what the Bible teaches and needing some authority (eg. Commentaries or church gatherings etc.) deciding who is right; it's a simple issue of what the Bible says vs. the other person's interpretation being wrong.
    1. Okay, well, that is not an objective way to establish Truth. Both sides think that the Bible says that they are right and the other person is wrong. You both hold to Sola Scriptura and at least one of you is in the wrong. De Facto you are going to be giving each other Bible verses + your own comments/commentaries (albeit without perhaps having the Fathers to go to for authority) in order to persuade the other one who is right. So even if one of you is interpreting the Bible correctly, you are still using interpretations. Okay, the Bible takes position X, and position Y is wrong, but in order to reach that conclusion, you are still going to require interpreting. So your interpreting is still part of the issue.
  3. The Catholic Church teaches Infallibility of the Magisterium, so it's better to going in divergent directions so we can get to the Truth on the issue even though the other sects get it wrong. Plus, there are churches who don't hold to the Magisterium's infallibility and just hold to Bible + extrabiblical Tradition, but they still get the issues wrong.
    1. OK, well you don't have to believe that the Magisterium is infallible like the Catholic Church does in order to use it as an authority. Plus, even if a sect uses Tradition and goes down the wrong path, it doesn't disprove that Tradition per se is wrong as an authority. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the Tradition could be wrong on some issue doesn't mean that overall it's useless or harmful as a guide or authority. So for instance, the Tradition says that Infant Baptism is correct. From Luther's and Calvin's POV, the Tradition on the topic is correct. Is the Tradition right on the most important issues, or on most issues? If so, then certainly Tradition is helpful as a guide or authority, even if it's at times mistaken, since we will get the main, most important issues correct by it, and in the few (or fewer?) cases where it's wrong, we can still be able to recognize that it's fallible and be allowed to disagree.
 
Theo,



...
The logical lessons from this include that
  1. the Bible alone is unclear as to what it actually teaches on some (many?) issues,
  2. in some (many?) cases, Protestants are certain that they know what the Bible teaches, even though they are wrong
  3. Protestants adhering to the Sola Scriptura doctrine have gone in divergent, conflicting directions instead of cohering to the One True position (whatever that position may be)
Some counterarguments I've heard to those three conclusions include that...

Then there is a certain portion of Protestants, especially ones who might be considered more mainstream, ecumenical, liberal, reasonable, moderate, or "pro-Catholic" who accept a lot of the arguments or points that I just made, and then respond that Luther's Sola Scriptura doesn't really mean using only the Bible alone as the only authority. They can point to times where Luther actually pointed to church fathers and treated them as authorities. For example, Luther asked rhetorically (my paraphrase from memory), "What Church father ever said that the Eucharist bread is NOT Christ's body?" One of the foundational Lutheran documents brings up the common position of both the Roman and Greek Churches on the issue. The implication is that since the Fathers weren't denying Christ's objective presence in the bread, then their position serves as evidence in favor of Luther's position. In one lecture about the Sola Scriptura debate on Ancient Faith Radio (an Eastern Orthodox podcast), I heard in a survey that many or most Protestants say that we should not use the Bible as the only authority.

But a careful review of Luther's positions and statements, and the foundational Lutheran statements on the issue do say specifically that only the Bible alone is the only authority, not "only infallible authority" or "highest authority." Probably he meant authority on religious questions, not eg. science questions. But Luther said once that since the Bible says that there's water over the heavens, then we must believe it. He also repeatedly said that we must take the Bible on its own. He read commentaries but his position on Sola Scriptura was that the commentaries are not authorities.

If you are using commentaries to help prove your point and understand the Bible, then the reality is that you are not interpreting the Bible "alone" "on its own" like Luther said that Sola Scriptura meant. But using commentaries by Church fathers like Augustine is exactly what Luther did in practice when he cited them to explain verses or prove a point. The logical conclusion is that Luther's own practice conflicted with Sola Scriptura and many or most Protestants don't actually believe in Sola Scriptura as Luther and the founding Lutheran statements defined it to mean.

Someone from a more "radical" Protestant position can respond that although Luther may have violated Sola Scriptura by using commentaries like Augustine's, it does not disprove Sola Scriptura. But in reality more radical Protestants make the same kind of violation because they also use writings outside of the Bible as a guide to understand the Bible and to prove to others what the correct theological position is. Otherwise, they would ONLY be reading the Bible to understand it, and just quoting Bible verses at each other whenever they debate positions.

Someone from a more moderate or "pro-Catholic" position could say that even if Luther misdefined it to mean using only the Bible alone, this does not disprove Sola Scriptura. I kind of remember a Methodist on this forum taking that position. But Luther was the founder of the Sola Scriptura teaching, and it's a formal tenet of Lutheranism, whereas Wesley and the Methodist Church don't have their own specific definition or doctrine of Sola Scriptura, even though there are individual non-famous Methodist individuals (I know of one pastor) who interpret Methodism's teaching that the Bible is the highest authority (Prima Scriptura, literally: Bible First) to be the same as Sola Scriptura, even though Sola Scriptura means "Only Bible."

And so I can go on and on with arguments going against Sola Scriptura, but it would be a lot of work (an understatement) to get very many Protestants to say, "Yes, Sola Scriptura is false," because in practice Sola Scriptura is practically a "dogma" of Protestantism. I think the fact that the Bible doesn't specifically teach Sola Scriptura is one disproof. But this disproof will not persuade many of them because Sola Scriptura apologists will come back with verses that sound to them like the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura but don't actually do so. For example, one of the verses I've seen used this way is John 10:35. John quotes a scripture about making people gods and then says that the scripture/writing cannot be released/unsealed.

If you just go by the Bible Alone, I guess John 10 could be saying that the specific scripture/verse about making people gods can't be released. But even if it means that the Scripture BIBLE can't be released, the verse still doesn't mean that the Bible is the ONLY authority, because you can have an unsealable Bible and ALSO have Traditions that are authorities about the Bible.

So I believe that I have a disproof of Sola Scriptura: the Bible doesn't actually state that the Bible alone is the only authority. But just because I have a disproof doesn't mean that I will actually dissuade very many Protestants about it, because it's a foundational dogma of Protestantism. There are plenty of reasonable, moderate, ecumenical Protestants. But for them to say, "Sola Scriptura is false" would be rejecting a foundation of their ideology. I don't even know if it is more conceivable for a Lutheran to give up Sola Scriptura and stay Lutheran theologically than for a Roman Catholic to accept the 5 Solas and stay "Roman Catholic." I say this because whereas Sola Scriptura is foundational for Lutheranism, the debates over the 5 Solas and for that matter debates over the infallibility of Scripture and Tradition were not foundational issues for the Church in the first 4 centuries AD. Even if someone found Augustine teaching Magisterial Infallibility or Sola Scriptura, Augustine's position would not be something foundational like the Nicene Creed or Lord's Prayer.
 
Sola Scriptura is an interesting topic for me because I have a warm spot for Lutheranism (personal background), and it's one of the foundational Lutheran ideas. I don't know if Luther came up with Sola Scriptura before he came up with Sola Fide,

It was the early Christian Church that "came up with Sola Scriptura" (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, etc.)

but Sola Scriptura would seem to be a foundation that he used for arguing Sola Fide, ie. he used Sola Scriptura as his authority or basis for arguing for Sola Fide.

Again, it was the early Christian Church that "came up with Sola Fide" (Clement, Marius Victorinus, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Jerome, Bede, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, etc.)

Since you are coming from a Calvinist POV, should I mention that Calvin locked the churches because he did not want people praying there when the services ended, considering it a Catholic practice?

You can "mention" whatever you like, I couldn't care less.
I'm not here to defend Calvin or anyone else.
If all you're going to do is look at the sins of others, then that's your problem.

My understanding is that the Catholic and Lutheran churches had the idea that the physical space of the church was holy, in agreement with their idea of the bread directly having or being Christ's actual body.

That's nice...

Since Calvin had political power in Geneva, I take it that Calvin was referring to punishment for people praying in church. I guess by "superstition", he would include ideas that the space in the church is somehow "holy".

That's nice...

To bring that back to the thread issue, Calvinism seems perhaps a more radical version of Protestantism than Lutheranism.

Well, if you want to call it "radical", that's your prerogative.
I'm not exactly sure what that accomplishes, but whatever....

I don't think he named Calvin specifically in that. But Luther would have seen that Calvin was making "Sola Scriptura" a major part of his (Calvin's) teaching and using it to justify his (Calvin's) more "radical" ideas.

Well, since the Bible clearly teaches Calvinism, I can't say as I'm surprised.

This raises one of the practical problems of Sola Scriptura- in real life, it's led to opposing, conflicting positions on a mass of issues,

I don't see it as a "problem".
It forces people to look at the issues.
If someone holds to a wrong position, that doesn't make Sola Scriptura a "problem".

You're probably one of those guys who blames the drunk driver for the accident, but then blames the gun for the killing.

praying in church when services are over being a simple one. Both sides may say, "I'm just going by the Bible alone" on this issue, when the Bible may not have a simple answer on many issues.

You seem to think that to be a "problem".
I don't.

It's hard to imagine Calvin saying, "Yes, I see that in the Bible the early Christians were praying, so I was wrong to advocate punishing Christians today for doing this." He comes across as very self-assured about his dogmas and also seemed to have a thing for punishment (Penal Atonement theology and the Servetus incident among other examples).

Again, I'm not here to defend Calvinism.
I couldn't really care less about the man.
But if you want to keep bringing him up, that's your prerogative, I guess.

But theoretically that could happen. Certainly there are times when Protestants who thought they knew what the Bible taught on a specific issue changed their mind about it.

Yes, it's called maturity and learning.

The logical lessons from this include that
  1. the Bible alone is unclear as to what it actually teaches on some (many?) issues,
  2. in some (many?) cases, Protestants are certain that they know what the Bible teaches, even though they are wrong

I disagree.
I understand that you wish to attack Sola Scriptura.
But you're simply not convincing.
 
Then there is a certain portion of Protestants, especially ones who might be considered more mainstream, ecumenical, liberal, reasonable, moderate, or "pro-Catholic" who accept a lot of the arguments or points that I just made,

So people who agree with you are "moderate" and "reasonable"?
And so those (like me) who disagree with you, are unreasonable?

Well, if your participation is going to devolve into insult, I may choose not to continue this.

and then respond that Luther's Sola Scriptura doesn't really mean using only the Bible alone as the only authority.

We don't get our definition from "Luther".
If you're going to continue this straw-man, then further discussion is pointless.

They can point to times where Luther actually pointed to church fathers and treated them as authorities. For example, Luther asked rhetorically (my paraphrase from memory), "What Church father ever said that the Eucharist bread is NOT Christ's body?"

Luther was raised a Catholic, and I can't imagine it can be easy at all to convert to 100% Protestant in one generation.

Like Calvin, Luther is pretty much irrelevant to my faith.

One of the foundational Lutheran documents brings up the common position of both the Roman and Greek Churches on the issue. The implication is that since the Fathers weren't denying Christ's objective presence in the bread, then their position serves as evidence in favor of Luther's position.

And that is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence".

In one lecture about the Sola Scriptura debate on Ancient Faith Radio (an Eastern Orthodox podcast), I heard in a survey that many or most Protestants say that we should not use the Bible as the only authority.

Also irrelevant.

But a careful review of Luther's positions and statements, and the foundational Lutheran statements on the issue do say specifically that only the Bible alone is the only authority, not "only infallible authority" or "highest authority."

Irrelevant.

Probably he meant authority on religious questions, not eg. science questions. But Luther said once that since the Bible says that there's water over the heavens, then we must believe it. He also repeatedly said that we must take the Bible on its own. He read commentaries but his position on Sola Scriptura was that the commentaries are not authorities.

Irrelevant.

If you are using commentaries to help prove your point and understand the Bible, then the reality is that you are not interpreting the Bible "alone" "on its own" like Luther said that Sola Scriptura meant.

I really don't care what you think Luther thought "Sola Scriptura" meant.
You may be interpreting him correctly.
You may be interpreting him incorrectly.
Either way, it's irrelevant.

Luther didn't "invent" Sola Scriptura, and our use of it is not dependent on Luther's "approval".

But using commentaries by Church fathers like Augustine is exactly what Luther did in practice when he cited them to explain verses or prove a point. The logical conclusion is that Luther's own practice conflicted with Sola Scriptura

No, it merely conflicts with your MISINTERPRETATION of "Sola Scriptura".
If you are going to continue with this worthless straw-man, then further discussion is pointless.

and many or most Protestants don't actually believe in Sola Scriptura as Luther and the founding Lutheran statements defined it to mean.

Irrelevant.

And so I can go on and on

Yes.... You don't seem to know the meaning of the term, "succinct".

with arguments going against Sola Scriptura, but it would be a lot of work (an understatement) to get very many Protestants to say, "Yes, Sola Scriptura is false,"

Yes, because Protestants are bound not to lie.
Why should we say, "Sola Scriptura is false", when we KNOW it is true?

I'm sorry, but "Some random anonymous guy on the Internet claimed it's false, so we have to bindly believe whatever he says" is frankly not a good argument.

because in practice Sola Scriptura is practically a "dogma" of Protestantism. I think the fact that the Bible doesn't specifically teach Sola Scriptura is one disproof.

Since it DOES teach it, your "disproof" is non-existent.

Why did so many ECF's teach it, do you think?
Were they all seers, who saw in the future that Luther would one day teach it?

So I believe that I have a disproof of Sola Scriptura:

And I believe you haven't even made a scratch in the doctrine.

You seem to have the attitude that I should shut off my brain, have a frontal lobotomy, throw away my Bible, and blindly accept anything you say.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
 
"Third, if you could realistically use only the Bible alone to judge every question, then you could just strictly quote Bible verses to another open minded Christian with an opposite point of view whenever you want to both decide the Bible's position on any topic."

Again, you largely CAN do that, but you keep forgetting that we are not neutral hearers, but sinners.
Theo,
You seem to be saying that it's possible to convince a person with the opposite view by only quoting Bible verses, but then you are suggesting that in real-life practice this doesn't happen because we are sinners. You seem to be suggesting that if the person was not sinful, then you could just quote Bible verses at them and they would get it on any issue. This is asking for a hypothetical where a person was born sinless and never sinned. Would just quoting Bible verses work? I don't think so if the Bible is not talking about the specific issue, and there are major issues where the Bible doesn't.

First, you can respond to me, "But you don't know it won't work because there are no sinless people." OK, everyone is sinless, but I still have a good basis to think it won't work, because if the Bible is not talking about a specific issue, then how can it be the ONLY guide on that specific issue? You would be stuck using GENERAL, NONSPECIFIC statements in the Bible to address SPECIFIC issues. Your handicap in this case does not seem just being sinful or sinless, but in not being omniscient, or alternatively in having Divine Wisdom. Some issues that may be judged may not be moral ones. If theoretically a person never sinned and was born before Adam's sin and lacked omniscience or Divine Wisdom, he might not know what the Mourning of Hadad Rimmon meant in Zechariah 12 or which of the multiple possible meanings there are for major symbols in the Book of Revelation. In other words, there are probably theological issues that would be obscure in a Only-Bible-Alone paradigm even for a hypothetical sinless person if God did not give that person Divine Revelation.

Second, even supposing that any sinless person would understand what the Bible said on any issue, it still does not mean that this is the reality. When Luther said to go by only the Bible alone, he was not saying that he was giving a rule for only sinless people. He was giving a rule for the real world people of the real world Church. The rule that he gave was meant to apply to them being at the level of sin that Christians have. His formula of Sola Scriptura was not premised on the Bible reader being sinless.

Luther included Catholics in his audience, but even if you limit his audience to only Protestants, the same problem applies. "The only authority must be the Bible, but since even faithful Protestants are sinful, you can't actually use the Bible as the only authority" doesn't sound very good and for that matter very Lutheran. That is because when Luther was making his Sola Scriptura statement, he wasn't couching it as a hypothetical about the Bible's authority (like if people were sinless), but making a statement about its actual authority. And if a Sola Scriptura adherent is supposed to treat the Bible as the ONLY authority and ONLY read the Bible on its own, then he would try to do that whether he was sinless or sinful. In fact, a person who believes that Sola Scriptura is "good" and wants to act rightly would then follow Sola Scriptura and ONLY use Bible verses, NOT using commentaries outside the Bible like Luther was complaining about yet doing himself.

...

I feel that the Sola Scriptura issue is important, and I'm not hostile to Lutherans or something like that. I feel I can go through and argue (successfully in my own POV) these issues like I did above. And I expect that you will have some counterargument. I don't know how productive it is for me to keep debating each thing. I guess there's a related issue of how to burn steam like a machine on an internet forum.

I like CARM and Matt Slick because of their apologetics. They do an extensive job with arguments and counterarguments on issues. It's nice that they at least allow debating these issues. They have a whole forum section dedicated to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Maybe that one is even harder to solve than the Sola Scriptura debate. IMO the Sola Scriptura debate is simple as a matter of pure reason.

Step 1. Look at how Luther defined it. He said to go by the Bible alone and use it as the only authority.
Step 2. Use this teaching to decide whether Sola Scriptura is correct. Go by the Bible alone to see whether Sola Scriptura (only Bible alone) is correct.​
Application:​
The Bible does not actually anywhere say specifically to use the Bible alone. The Bible says other specific things like when John 10 says that the Scripture (about making men into gods?) cannot be loosed, but it doesn't make a specific statement on that. The Bible does have suggestions that you should use things outside the Bible as authority. The apostles appointed overseers/bishops over churches. The implication is that those bishops will be authorities for the churches under them.​
To say that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, you would have to bring together verses like John 10 that don't specifically say that the Bible alone is the only authority and then conclude that Sola Scriptura is the Bible's general sense even though the Bible in no specific place actually teaches it, or else you have to make logic jumps that IMO aren't there. This kind of logic jumping reminds me of how Catholics point to Jesus calling Peter "The Rock" and telling Peter to "feed My sheep" and then conclude that Peter is therefore the only Supreme Head Bishop over the whole Church and therefore specifically Peter's successors in Rome (and nowhere else Peter was a bishop like Antioch) are also the Supreme Pontiffs. In both cases we are dealing with logic jumps that aren't actually made in the Bible itself. The Bible does not actually specifically say that Peter's successors are the sole head bishops over all Christians. It's just the logic jump that is made from some Bible verses.​
With the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, we are dealing with an issue of free will vs. fate. It seems abstract and hard to resolve. Calvin presented his theory about fate in a very categorical, rigid absolutist way. He did say that people can do good deeds, but not in some kind of moral way like "being good." His theory has to do IMO with his monergistic (I'm not sure of the spelling) view of God's salvation (whereby only God does the saving and the person doesn't cooperate), which was shared with Luther. One modern commentor (EO or Lutheran) said that whereas Luther accepted the Predestination and Monergism ideas, he did not really make a big emphasis on the Predestination ideas like Calvin did. It seems common for ecumenical/moderate/liberal Lutherans to go along with the Orthodox or Methodist ideas about cooperative salvation instead of following strictly Luther's monergistic idea, so I'm not sure if Luther gave Monergism as much emphasis as his did with Sola Scriptura, but it's still an underpinning of his system because of the salvation by Grace Alone idea.

Anyway, the Predestination debate feels more confusing or unclear for me as the Sola Scriptura one. I don't know how you can easily prove either free will or fate. People have a sense that they have free will, but a fatalist could respond that it's an illusion. Likewise, people could foresee fates in dreams in accordance with having fates or theorize (correctly IMO) that the past and future currently exist and we haven't experienced the future yet. But someone could still hypothesize back that the fates and futures are illusions. A Calvinist might easily respond that Calvin did not "free will" in terms of mundane decisionmaking like picking a TV station to watch, but in terms of salvation. But even if we are talking about salvation decisions or someone's will to be saved, it seems to bring up the same general kinds of arguments.

Thanks for anything positive from our discussions.

Peace.
 
Theo,
You seem to be saying that it's possible to convince a person with the opposite view by only quoting Bible verses,

Nope.
I NEVER made any such claim.
The only way to convince a person of a Spiritual truth is by the Holy Spirit.

Why do you feel the need to MISREPRESENT me?

You seem to be suggesting that if the person was not sinful, then you could just quote Bible verses at them and they would get it on any issue. This is asking for a hypothetical where a person was born sinless and never sinned. Would just quoting Bible verses work?

I believe it's a valid and reasonable hypothesis.

I don't think so if the Bible is not talking about the specific issue, and there are major issues where the Bible doesn't.

With all due respect, I don't really care what you think.
I'm not here to convince you of anything.
And I'm only in this interchange reluctantly, since I'm getting tired of your insults and misrepresentations.

First, you can respond to me, "But you don't know it won't work because there are no sinless people." OK, everyone is sinless, but I still have a good basis to think it won't work, because if the Bible is not talking about a specific issue, then how can it be the ONLY guide on that specific issue? You would be stuck using GENERAL, NONSPECIFIC statements in the Bible to address SPECIFIC issues. Your handicap in this case does not seem just being sinful or sinless, but in not being omniscient, or alternatively in having Divine Wisdom. Some issues that may be judged may not be moral ones. If theoretically a person never sinned and was born before Adam's sin and lacked omniscience or Divine Wisdom, he might not know what the Mourning of Hadad Rimmon meant in Zechariah 12 or which of the multiple possible meanings there are for major symbols in the Book of Revelation. In other words, there are probably theological issues that would be obscure in a Only-Bible-Alone paradigm even for a hypothetical sinless person if God did not give that person Divine Revelation.

<Chuckle>
I'm really not interested in arguing about a hypothetical that requires 100% speculation.
You asked for my opinion.
I gave it.
If you don't agree, then don't accept it.
I'm not here to argue with you.

Second, even supposing that any sinless person would understand ....

<sigh>
Still not interested in arguing a hypothetical.
I deleted the rest of this paragraph with out even bothering to read it.

Luther included Catholics in his audience,

<sigh>
I deleted the rest of this paragraph as well.
I couldn't care less about Luther.
He is irrelevant to my faith.

IMO the Sola Scriptura debate is simple as a matter of pure reason.

Step 1. Look at how Luther defined it. He said to go by the Bible alone and use it as the only authority.​
Step 2. Use this teaching to decide whether Sola Scriptura is correct. Go by the Bible alone to see whether Sola Scriptura (only Bible alone) is correct.​

"Luther" is 100% IRRELEVANT to the Sola Scriptura debate.

So every time you bring up "Luther", I'm simply going to delete it as irrelevant.
I'm not interested in you wasting my time.

To say that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, you would have to bring together verses like John 10 that don't specifically say that the Bible alone is the only authority and then conclude that Sola Scriptura is the Bible's general sense​

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You clearly don't believe in Sola Scriptura.
So do you know what the solution is?
Don't ACCEPT it, if you don't believe it.

Isn't that simple?!

(But you don't get the evil pleasure of debating people and insulting them and misrepresenting their view...)

With the Arminianism/Calvinism debate, we are dealing with an issue of free will vs. fate.

At this point, I'm not the least bit interested in "debating" you about anything.
The signal-to-noise ratio is simply far too low to be productive.

Believe what you want.
I. DON'T. CARE.
I'm not interested in trying to change your view about ANYTHING.

So take the chip off your shoulder, and get rid of it.
You'll live longer, and have a happier life.
 
I have a major soft spot for Lutheranism because I was baptized Lutheran and its positions so frequently match early patristic ones, like on the Real Presence.
Apparently, that soft spot isn't major enough to avoid posting a mutilated, out of context, and misleading presentation of the Evangelical faith.
This draws me to consider and evaluate one of its foundational dogmas or axioms, "Sola Scriptura."

Luther and the Lutheran Church who created the Sola Scriptura concept defined it in their writings like the Formula of Concord to mean that the Bible Alone is the Only rule and authority:
For example, in your OP you, "quoted," without attribution, what is not an in context quote from the Formula of Concord, namely, “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3)."

So what is the source of that misleading mutilated pretext for the rest of the OP?

For the record, the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, [FC, SD], composed decades after the death of Luther for the concord of the churches of the Augsburg Confession begins:

Comprehension Summary, Foundation, Rule, and Norm
Whereby All Dogmas should be Judged according to God’s Word, and the Controversies that have Occurred should be Explained and Decided in a Christian Manner.

1 Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God’s Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols;

2 moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."
 
Back
Top