Sola Scriptura - A response to Eric Holmberg

My Article: www.forerunner...
Amazing Grace with Eric Holmberg: • Amazing Grace: The His...
"The Church Fathers describe virtually every heretic in the ancient Church doing the exact same thing Luther did: quoting Scripture, and claiming it taught their novel doctrines. Even the Devil does it, after all." ~ Joshua Charles
Absolutely false. Luther and Calvin used the Church Fathers constantly to bolster Reformation doctrine. Open Calvin's Institutes to any page read until l you find where he relies on the witness of a Church Father. See how many lines it took.
Martin Luther is saying that if someone teaches something that is not in Scripture, then we are not bound by it. He is not saying that Luther alone has the correct doctrine even if no one taught it before. The thesis here is a lazy straw man.
In fact, there is NO doctrine taught by any of the magisterial Reformers that doesn't have an antecedent in the Church Fathers. They wanted to RE-form or purify the Church to a form that relied on the Bible's doctrines alone.
For example, if you tell me that Jesus was born of a virgin and that on this truth hangs the doctrine of the Incarnation, I must agree and would even say that if you don't accept the Incarnation, you are not a Christian. Jesus was Lord and God at His conception and both fully God and fully man. Therefore, if someone divides believers over the Virgin birth they are a heretic. We agree on that.
But you then say that someone is a heretic because they don't accept the Catholic Church's teaching one the perpetual Virginity and sinlessness of Mary, the Ascension of Mary (Assumption) bodily into heaven; and that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" seated next to the King as the "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix." If you say they are a heretic on that, you are teaching something NOT IN THE BIBLE and that has no historical record for credence.
That is EXTRA Scriptura.
That is one example where Protestants stay grounded in orthodoxy and sola Scriptura and Catholics veer into heresy. The problem with your position isn't even your false doctrine, but it is the insistence that Christians submit to doctrines found nowhere in the Bible. We can argue about sola fide and have a different opinion (many Protestants are inconsistent on sola fide) but at least there is the Scripture we look to as the sole authority to determine who is right.
You are saying Protestants believe in SOLO Scriptura, not sola Scriptura, while you yourself use a false definition to teach EXTRA Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is the only REASONABLE doctrine for someone who sees the Word of God as the supreme authority.
A heretic is one who divides over doctrine -- not simply who has a false doctrine. No Protestant would say Luther didn't have some false doctrines. Thank God he's not your pope who is perfect in everything.
Sola Scriptura says that Scripture alone is the SOLE AUTHORITY on matters of faith, doctrine and practice. It does not say that it is the ONLY authority we should listen to, but the highest one, the final stop gap measure. Otherwise, there could be no theology or teaching of Scripture -- ONLY Scripture reading -- or what is the false SOLO Scripture teaching (your go-to straw man argument). With Scripture ONLY, then we'd still have each individual's understanding of what they read. So we must have doctrines based on what is explicitly said in Scripture. However, if someone says something that is not in Scripture, we are not bound to it.
That is sola Scriptura.
**************
The Catholic Church teaches that:
"But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."
So Catholics agree that the Bible is ABOVE the Church in its authority (which is consistent with sola Scriptura -- Scripture ALONE is the final authority) The difference here is that Protestants see that the Catholic Church did NOT hand on ONLY what is in Scripture, but has added to it doctrines that are either antithetical to truth or cannot bind the consciences of believers.

[@DanielOrfield]

Just wanted to give my appreciation for your messages, the religious ones are profitable and edifying, and I’ve found the Russia-Ukraine ones a cut above any media outlet, many thanks sir….

[@jcr4runner]

Thank you.

[@RUHDD4HVN]

I'm shocked.....Eric a converted catholic...? Didn't know........ wow!

[@transatlanticwhirlwind7589]

On the playlist for sola scriptura seems the first part is on there twice.

[@darrelbolen5908]

Just watched this it was good

[@sacredandthepropane]

Liberty The Model of Christian Freedom and Hells Bells were and are magnificent. Tremendous shame that he's gone off the deep end and seemingly jacked the doctrines of grace.

[@darrelbolen5908]

When did convert

[@LeoRegum]

As you say, the claim that you have to pick between church fathers and reformers is pure rhetoric. It just makes converts to Rome look like they never actually read Luther or Calvin (or the many other Reformation era teachers!). As for the term solo scriptura, now might be a good time to do away with it. solo is the same word as sola, just grammatically nonsensical, so as a technical term it is confusing or meaningless. The historic term used by Calvin and others was scriptura nuda. The only benefit to the solo term is it makes the advocates of that position sound like buffoons not just for their silly belief but also for a lack of conscientiousness displayed in making up bad Latin. But in reality no one advocates for it under that banner: it is their opponents who made it up (and repeat it)!

[@jcr4runner]

I first learned it from Ligonier Ministries and RC Sproul. So I assume they know what they are talking about. But you're right, it describes not a real position, but a misinterpretation of sola Scriptura. Almost no one teaches it in reality.

[@jcr4runner]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuda_scriptura#:~:text=Nuda%20scriptura%2C%20also%20called%20solo,is%20infallible%2C%20without%20excluding%20church