This is at the request of a commenter, Elena.
Elena (for reference, Elena is a member of the Roman Church) posted an article with “problems” with the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. Quite frankly, I am on vacation and I have no desire to continue a senseless argument with somebody who has no desire to listen, only to argue. I’m going to close comments on the original post, so as to keep this on track.
Because I have no desire to drag this out into senseless and meaningless debate (again), I am placing limits on the debate. Each person entering into the debate will have a limit of 5 posts in which to put forth their arguments/rebuttals. This includes me (but not posts regarding administrative stuff). There is a limit of 40 posts in this thread, at which point comments will be turned off. (I don’t expect to have that many, since this is a new blog and I don’t think I have that many visitors, but it seems like enough time for whoever might pass by to get their word in). You may defend the doctrine, the problems, the reasons, the reasons for suppressing. As long as it pertains to “sola Scriptura”, it is not off topic in this thread.
Here is the doctrine: Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.
That’s it. That’s the doctrine that seems to be the most hated by Rome.
As far as I know, these “problems” have never been considered problems by the officers of the Roman church or the bishop of Rome. The article was written by James Akin, a Roman Catholic, but I could not find where it was endorsed in any way by the Vatican. The teachers of the Roman church have always read Scripture out loud and have still considered it “Scripture”.
- Requires ability to [print!)
This “problem” says that in order for a person to have complete faith in the Bible for infallible rule, a person cannot have it read to them, they must be able to read it for themselves. This is silly. The Bible (God’s Word set down in writing) is God’s Word, whether it is read by the person receiving it, or read out loud. It is infallible, whereas man and tradition are not.
From the time Scripture was written on sheepskin, it was infallible and it remains infallible, and the method by which it is received is not relevant – it is still Scripture, just as Shakespeare is Shakespeare, whether silently read, or acted out on stage.
2. Requires mass distribution of bibles!
This “problem” says that in order for a person to be able to say, “that’s what the Bible says and that’s my final authority”, that person has to have his or her own personal copy. From the time that Scripture was written on sheepskin, nobody ever said that it wasn’t infallible because it was read out loud.
Scripture needs to be distributed, but not everybody has to have their own copy – even the Jews read the Torah and still considered it Torah.
3. Requires Christians be able to read! (this one I will address one of the comments)
…but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times
I trust that God’s Word will not return unto Him void. Where the Spirit moves, there will be understanding. Besides, anywhere there is somebody who can read, there is probably somebody who can be asked, “what about…?”
4. Must have scholarly materials available.This “problem” is saying that if you want to depend fully on God’s Word, you have to also depend on the works of man.
Why? If the Bible is the final authority, why depend on the works of man? That’s the whole point.
5.Need time to study! ..."If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate.
I recently watched “The Magdalene Sisters” – these imprisoned young women didn’t have time to recreate and barely had time to eat and sleep. But there was somebody reading the Bible while they ate. Possibly the only thing that was right.
In Old Testament times very few families could afford their own scrolls, yet even when all that was written was the law, Scripture exhorted them to that “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.” Jews were to “Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.”
These were people who were under the working conditions described above. Thus, since the Bible expected it, I believe it is possible.
6.Sola scriptura pre supposes universal adequate nutrition
What this “problem” is saying is that God in not powerful enough to work without the hearer having proper nutrition, but Rome is.
Personally, I have more faith in the power of God than that. In other parts of the world, people are starving and Christianity is flourishing – it’s because of the power of God, not the power of food.
7.Must be skilled in evaluating arguments
What this “problem” appears to be saying is that accepting only Scripture as your authority is not enough, you have to be able to think for yourself. While thinking is helpful in arguing, I know many people with a simple faith that need not turn to arguments. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” means just that. They can (and do) fall on Scripture (God said it and I believe it).
The question that popped up in my mind: What do people who cannot think embrace, if not Scripture? Is that why people follow those who think for them?
Part 2
The hatred of “sola Scriptura” by Roman Catholics begs the question, “why?”
Why is “Scripture alone” so heavily condemned by the Roman church?
(History lesson) By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Around that time Rome decided that only Latin was a suitable language for the Bible (and how many people knew Latin?) and that anybody found in possession of a Bible not in Latin would be executed.
Why was it so important to Rome that the church control Scripture, that they were willing to kill those who wanted to read it?
Why were Bibles not in Latin burned?
There were many abuses and persecutions – I am speaking strictly of the attempts by the Roman church to so subdue the population as to keep them from the Scripture.
Why? What was the Roman church so afraid of?
Anonymous
For the love of God, please don't judge all Catholics by Jimmy Akin!
I'm not sure the person who wrote those points fully understands the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Also, if a person is truly concerned about those points, why are they limited to the reading of the Bible? Wouldn't a person who equated other written material with the Bible also, by this person's logic, have to have access to every document, know how to read, need even more materials to help interpret all those additional writings, etc.?
By the same logic, would deaf or blind people, and especially deaf and blind people even be capable of being Christians by anyone's standards?
Does every Catholic have a personal copy of every document that makes up Sacred Tradition in their home? Can they all read it? Can they all understand it completely and fully on their own?
We should all make more time for study and prayer, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? And wouldn't a Catholic need even more time because they'd have to study both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. When would they sleep??
Nutrition? Huh? By whose standards? American (*snerk*), or Japanese (much healthier diet)? Again, what does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? Of course everyone should have adequate nutrition - Jesus told us to make sure everyone did - it's in the Bible. 😉 Anyway, does this mean that overweight people can't understand the Bible or Tradition? People with high cholesterol? Diabetes? What was this person smoking?? Oh - can smokers be Catholics or Christians, or is it just food that impacts our ability to understand the Word? Are vegetarians better Christians than meat-eaters?
Skilled in evaluating arguments? And who is the judge of who is skilled enough or not? Why is everything necessarily an argument? The Word speaks for itself - arguments only crop up when people create other works adding on to it or limiting it. But even so, wouldn't you need these same skills to evaluate arguments cropping up from Tradition - which seem to be infinitely greater in number, anyway?
What was Rome so afraid of - you hit the nail on the head when you used the word 'control'.
Anyway, I don't think those points have anything to do with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Whoever wrote them doesn't understand what Sola Scriptura means.
Debra
Ellen
For the love of God, please don't judge all Catholics by Jimmy Akin!
Oh, I'm not - but I did read his piece on Calvinism/TULIP and it's one of the most balanced pieces done by a non-Reformed person that I've seen lately.
But this list - it's been posted here twice and on Elena's blog once, so I thought I'd just post it (again) right up front.
😉
Anonymous
I'm a little leary of the whole Catholic Answers crowd. Just Akin's or Keating's name sets off warning signals in my brain. They can be downright cruel at times. I once saw Karl Keating tear into a girl who'd just been raped (I mean, like, within the week) and virtually destroy her by berating her for her claim that she is still innocent in her heart for her future husband. What a total creep. Guy oughta be horsewhipped, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, if you ask me.
Anyway, it's a weird little list of arguments against Sola Scriptura, and, as you've mentioned, none of them are the usual arguments the Church profers. But then Catholics who have place Tradition above Scripture (as I believe the Catholic Answers crowd has) probably have a subconscious sense of guilt when they run up against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even the Catechism states that all doctrine and teaching must be based in and upheld by Scripture, and that nothing trumps Scripture. Of course, once you've opened the door for Tradition (in the Catholic sense), you then have to run rings around yourself justifying what you've allowed in - which, actually, is just people interpreting Scripture on their own authority and another group of people deciding which interpretations work for them, and which not.
Personally, even as a Catholic, I look to the Bible first, and I don't believe the Bible requires as much special interpretation as those who would control it think.
Also, theology, at the end of the day, is merely an intellectual exercise people enter into in order to enhance their understanding of doctrine. Theology never trumps faith and grace.
Debra
Elena
For the love of God, please don't judge all Catholics by Jimmy Akin!
As a Catholic I wonder what the heck that's supposed to mean? Mr. Akin is an educated, well-spoken, gracious Catholic apologist. What's more, he converted to Catholicism from a Protestant tradition, so he certainly understands "sola scriptura" from the Protestant tradition.
The logical fallacies abound in this posting and in the subsequent comments, so I'll pass on further comments.
Ellen
As a Catholic I wonder what the heck that's supposed to mean?
My guess (and it's only a guess) that "birds of feather" is an old saying for a reason. If one of the "Catholic Answers" crowd publically berated a rape victim and others stood by and watched - that says something.
I don't know enough about either man to say anything and "Anonymous" is a Roman Catholic. I did note that Akin's piece on TULIP was well done. I'm only addressing this list of "problems".
The logical fallacies abound in this posting and in the subsequent comments,
That does seem to be a common answer when there is no other answer. Your multiple complaints that I didn't address the list of problems should be address. Any logic problems belong to the list.
so I'll pass on further comments.
okey dokey
Elena
Well Ellen, as I only have 3 comments less, I'll use them to point out further logical fallacies.
My guess (and it's only a guess) that "birds of feather" is an old saying for a reason. If one of the "Catholic Answers" crowd publically berated a rape victim and others stood by and watched - that says something.
That is simply a variation of the poisoning the well fallacy, as well as heresay. However, even if this did occur (heresay), or even if Mr. Akin himself was guilty of such, that still does not make his points invalid or wrong. Likewise your ad hominems.
Ellen
Elena, I'm the one that said, "I don't know enough about either man to say anything and "Anonymous" is a Roman Catholic. I did note that Akin's piece on TULIP was well done. I'm only addressing this list of "problems"."
but, it should be acceptable to study a source to be sure if he or she is credible.
At any rate, I believe that all my points toward "sola Scriptura" in this post have been on point.
Likewise your ad hominems.
Throwing accusations around as though accusations will get you out of logic or accountability isn't a very good way to win a debate.
In the end, I'm not the one that has to win - people will look at both sides and see which is more credible - and more Biblical.
(I don't intend to count either of your posts toward your limit, since you were not debating toward "sola Scriptura")
Elena
Throwing accusations around as though accuastions will get you out of logic or accountability isn't a very good way to win a debate.
Insulting your opponant isn't a very good way to start a debate either.
Ellen
We can keep score if you want to - all I'm saying is that I answered your list.
I've been accused in this post's comments of "logical fallacies" and "ad hominns" and "poisoning the well" without a specific example of how what I said was either of those fallacies. Well, okay, Akin.
As far as Akin, I understand Debra's looking at associates when gauging credibility. There is an entire denomination I have no trust in, because their leader has a particular stand that I disagree with (and I'm not talking about the Roman church). Who you hang out with does affect your credibility - if Debra (Anonymous) saw one of Akin's partners in ministry do this, it will affect his credibility in her eyes.
I specifically said that I didn't know enough about it, but explained that would explain why his credibility suffered in Debra's eyes. Yet you continue to attack.
Do you have any points to make?
Elena
Yes I have two.
Credibility in Debra's eyes is neither here nor there. Charles Manson could have made these points and it would not make them any more or less true. It is not the character of the author that's up for discussion but rather the logic and merit of the points in question.
Secondly opening your argument like this: "Quite frankly, I am on vacation and I have no desire to continue a senseless argument with somebody who has no desire to listen, only to argue," after specifically naming me is not only a blatant ad hominem attack, but it immediately poisons anyone else's view of my comments. That tactic too does not mean that my arguments are really "senseless" or that they lack validity and that's why this form of discussion is a logical fallacy.
Ellen
Elena, this is indeed a senseless debate for both of us -
Senseless -> meaningless -> having no purpose.
If this debate between you and me were to have a purpose, the purpose would be one or the other of us changing our minds -
Do you intend to be open to changing your mind?
I'm not.
That makes debate senseless.
*YOUR* points do not lack validity - they are certainly arguable.
This *DEBATE* is sensless. There is a difference.
Ellen
Now, Elena - would you like to be interviewed?
Ellen
"Quite frankly, I am on vacation and I have no desire to continue a senseless argument with somebody who has no desire to listen, only to argue,"
Elena, I wrote those words and meant them.
Personally - I have no desire to listen on this topic - I've been round and round enough times that I'm quite weary of it, at least this time around. I'm only posting the topic because you poked at me about "not responding".
I have no desire to listen and I have studied enough that I don't believe my faith in Scripture as the only final and infallable guide to salvation and righteousness will be swayed.
Are you open to being swayed, Elena?
Because if you're not, that opening paragraph describes both of us - and very accurately.