Why Bible Alone Christianity is Broken (w/ Don Johnson)

In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by author, filmmaker, and Catholic convert Don Johnson to talk about his experience with Sola Scriptura - "Bible alone" Christianity - and how, he finds, it's not only utterly broken but utterly breaking the larger Christian church, the witness of Christianity, and the ability of Christians to stand up for Christian beliefs with a united front.
Drawing on examples from slavery, the sexual revolution, and more, Don lays out a concrete case for the destructive nature of the principle of Sola Scriptura - and a pathway forward.
For more from Don check out his website where you can stream his films and buy his books at: donjohnsonmedia.com
Send your feedback to [e-mail].
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thecordialcatholic.com
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our KZbin channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordialcatholic
Thank you to those already supporting the show!

[@garycorn5289]

Great episode as usual. Being in a small group bible study provided one of the kicks in the pants for me to look into the Catholic Church. The day someone brought a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread and said, we’re doing communion, was the last straw. I couldn’t get away quicker. This, and the elders of the so called non-denom “church” saying they heard the same message from the Holy Spirit that the pastor should leave. After that day I never darkened that door and began my road to The Church in earnest. So happy to be Catholic since 22 May 2021.

[@ChrisEAdlay]

This is a very interesting story. Have you made a video or shared a blog?

[@fulgentius371]

Excellent discussion - and brilliant expression of the truth...

[@dsonyay]

I never go to group Bible Study- too much kookie stuff breaks out at these meetups. The best bible study can be found at Mass. Go to Mass often- you’ll get plenty of Bible study- plus a homily to tie all the readings together

[@RecoveringLiberal1984]

Awesome job 🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏

[@edelmary1131]

very thought provoking

[@PInk77W1]

St Paul Vl convened a committee to study birth control. 5 cardinals. 4 wrote up a report stating the church should catch up to the times and let anyone use them. 1 cardinal wrote up a report saying sex is a mystery from God and should not be made base and profane. The pope went with the minority report from the one cardinal. Who was he ? Cardinal Karol Wojtyla

[@clm3888]

I usually say this to popular protestants because we understand this already, but I'm going to say it anyway. Jesus gave authority to the twelve to cast out demons, etc. After Pentecost, the twelve laid their hands on new believers to receive the Holy Spirit and to believers to set them for ministry. It's still being done today to all types of believers, to the confirmed and to the consecrated (also to give authority for casting out demons).

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

You don't need hands laid on you to receive the Holy Spirit. You definitely don't need hands laid to give authority to cast out demons. You already have that in Jesus name, and no one has it aside from that. Remember the rogue man in the bible who was casting out demons in Jesus name, and some of the disciples forbid him. Jesus told him not to forbid anyone, for those who are not against you are for you.

[@clm3888]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Yes, as it was for the thief on the cross. Jesus gives grace. Like I said that the Bible is there. The Truth can be had by any reader. Prayer works. During Jesus ministry, he gave grace to those who believed. The Bible though not an active human preaching does its own evangelization. I still believe that Bible Alone is not the fullness of the Truth though. We can see in the Bible also that laying on of hands is the process of imparting the Holy Spirit or setting someone apart for special position in the body of Christ (eg Paul to Timothy). The reason? It goes back to Jewish tradition. This is something that the Jewish Christians have kept. As for the Pentecost? I don't know. There's the laying on of hands. My take on the Pentecostal revival is the wanting to go back to that start because these believers have severed themselves from the fullness of the truth.

[@noahgaming8833]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 The sacrament of confirmation is found in Bible passages such as Acts 8:14-17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, which speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it is not a narrative account of how confirmation was given and, thus, cannot be dismissed by those who reject the sacrament as something unique to the apostolic age. In fact, the passage refers to confirmation as one of Christianity’s basic teachings, which is to be expected since confirmation, like baptism, is a sacrament of initiation into the Christian life. We read: “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1-2). Notice how in this passage we are walked through the successive stages of the Christian journey-repentance, faith, baptism, confirmation, resurrection, and judgment. This passage encapsulates the Christian’s journey toward heaven and gives what theologians call the order of salvation or the ordo salutis. It well qualifies as “the elementary teachings” of the Christian faith. The laying on of hands mentioned in the passage must be confirmation: The other kinds of the imposition of hands (for ordination and for healing) are not done to each and every Christian and scarcely qualify as part of the order of salvation. As the following passages show, the Church Fathers and early Christian writers also recognized confirmation as a sacrament distinct from baptism, even though it was usually given simultaneously with baptism. Their words speak powerfully about this anointing and imposition of hands for reception of the Holy Spirit and the role it has in Christian initiation. Theophilus of Antioch “Are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this account that we are called Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of God” (To Autolycus 1:12 [A.D. 181]). Tertullian “After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which [those] in the priesthood . . . were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. . . . So also with us, the unction runs on the body and profits us spiritually, in the same way that baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. After this, the hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit” (Baptism 7:1-2, 8:1 [A.D. 203]). “No soul whatever is able to obtain salvation unless it has believed while it was in the flesh. Indeed, the flesh is the hinge of salvation. . . . The flesh, then, is washed [baptism] so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed so that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands [confirmation] so that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8:2-3 [A.D. 210]). Hippolytus “The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an invocation, saying, ‘O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit’s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen.’ Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on the head of the baptized, he shall say, ‘I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.’ Signing them on the forehead, he shall kiss them and say, ‘The Lord be with you.’ He that has been signed shall say, ‘And with your spirit.’ Thus shall he do to each” (The Apostolic Tradition 21-22 [A.D. 215]). Cyprian of Carthage “It is necessary for him that has been baptized also to be anointed, so that by his having received chrism, that is, the anointing, he can be the anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ” (Letters 7:2 [A.D. 253]). “Some say in regard to those who were baptized in Samaria that when the apostles Peter and John came there only hands were imposed on them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit, and that they were not re-baptized. But we see, dearest brother, that this situation in no way pertains to the present case. Those in Samaria who had believed had believed in the true faith, and it was by the deacon Philip, whom those same apostles had sent there, that they had been baptized inside-in the Church. . . . Since, then, they had already received a legitimate and ecclesiastical baptism, it was not necessary to baptize them again. Rather, that only which was lacking was done by Peter and John. The prayer having been made over them and hands having been imposed upon them, the Holy Spirit was invoked and was poured out upon them. This is even now the practice among us, so that those who are baptized in the Church then are brought to the prelates of the Church; through our prayer and the imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Spirit and are perfected with the seal of the Lord” (ibid., 73[72]:9). “[A]re not hands, in the name of the same Christ, laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?” (ibid., 74[73]:5).

[@jenamaza3834]

@@saintejeannedarc9460Acts 8:15-17

[@albertoascari2542]

Excellent chat.. I liked Don in Miami Vice, just a joke.

[@TheCordialCatholic]

LOL.

[@Mkvine]

First!

[@andrewpearson1903]

From what I understand, the Catholic Church's history with slavery went something like this: it practically abolished slavery, on the grounds of the brotherhood of man and especially of Christians, and within a couple generations (certainly by the time of Constantine), freeing one's slaves had become a moral requirement for Christian converts that owned any. Wherever it sent successful society-wide missions in Europe, chattel slavery disappeared within a generation. Slavery was reintroduced into Christendom by the trade with Muslims, with an ugly new racial dimension, after 11-12 centuries of abolition. After the Popes and conscientious observers like Fr. de las Casas made an initial ruckus about it, the Catholic world shamefully looked the other way, with even some Popes and the religious orders owning and selling slaves, until the teaching was forcefully, officially reasserted in the 1840s. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

I just love being a Catholic Christian. You are so jealous you make up stories. I will pray for you that God removes the scales from your eyes like he did for Saul and you convert to the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

[@iggyantioch]

This: Protestant defenders of slavery, using Scripture as their authority, gave the institution a divine stamp of approval, a move that would resonate for centuries. As professors Michael Emerson and Christian Smith point out: In an effort to garner support for Christianizing activities, the clergy not only reaffirmed the appropriateness of slavery as an institution, but gave it cosmic status, solidifying its position in America. Moreover, they unintentionally laid the groundwork for the more advanced nineteenth-century pro-slavery biblically-based doctrines. As theologian Ernst Troeltsch concluded, the “teachings and practice of the church constituted one of the main sanctions for [slavery’s] perpetuation.” In other words, the Protestant Christianity practiced in colonial America not only perpetuated slavery, but made it harder to root out of American culture precisely because those who supported it were convinced that God was on their side. Using Sola Scriptura as their guide So this evil permiated all instutions.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

Happily you are wrong. As the influence of the Catholic Church grew in Europe as the Roman Empire collapsed a freeman actually became Pope Callistus I. By the 6th century slavery was eradicated in Christendom. As it resurged in Europe in the middle ages a from 1435 to 1890, a succession of popes condemned the slave trade and slavery in no uncertain terms. Check out Did the Church Ever Support Slavery? By STEVE WEIDENKOPF 9/18/2017 for starters. And please be more kind towards Catholicism and Catholic Christians.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

Happily you are wrong. Try to use Catholic sources for your information. And to be honest Catholic Christians sin and do things not sanctioned by the Vatican. Hover as the influence of the Catholic Church grew in Europe as the Roman Empire collapsed a freeman actually became Pope Callistus I. By the 6th century slavery was eradicated in Christendom. As it resurged in Europe in the middle ages from 1435 to 1890, a succession of popes condemned the slave trade and slavery in no uncertain terms.

[@iggyantioch]

@@Spiritof76Catholic In colonial America, Protestant defenders of slavery, using Scripture as their authority, gave the institution a divine stamp of approval, a move that would resonate for centuries. As professors Michael Emerson and Christian Smith point out: In an effort to garner support for Christianizing activities, the clergy not only reaffirmed the appropriateness of slavery as an institution, but gave it cosmic status, solidifying its position in America. Moreover, they unintentionally laid the groundwork for the more advanced nineteenth-century pro-slavery biblically-based doctrines. As theologian Ernst Troeltsch concluded, the “teachings and practice of the church constituted one of the main sanctions for [slavery’s] perpetuation.” In other words, the Protestant Christianity practiced in colonial America not only perpetuated slavery, but made it harder to root out of American culture precisely because those who supported it were convinced that God was on their side. Courtesy of CA.

[@mitchellc4]

Hello I think the idea is We measure tradition and teaching against scripture So like when Pharisees teach “corban” you measure it against scripture to show it’s wrong Even if the Pharisees responded “we have unbroken succession back to Moses!” You could still say they’re wrong because of scripture I think the problem is putting “tradition” on the same level as scripture What Catholics seem to do is say they can trace their authority back to Peter, and since they think they are a succession of that authority, then what is taught from that seat of authority is truth The problem is that’s the same thing the Pharisees did They sat on the seat of Moses They were supposed to be successors of Moses so their tradition would be true But what did Jesus say about their tradition?? And why did he say it was wrong and how did he conclude it? Compared it to scripture If you teach tradition on the same authority level as scripture and it’s not founded in scripture and contradicts it then it’s wrong So saying “we are successors of Peter” doesn’t make your tradition true, let alone the same level as scripture Because it’s the same thing the Pharisees did “We are successors of Moses therefore our tradition is true and authoritative” Now insert Peter for Moses and that’s basically the Catholic argument I don’t think it works

[@dguider0351]

How did the early Christian church function and spread without written copies of the Bible? How would Sola Scriptura work without it? Who decided what books should be included in the Canon? What would you compare traditions to before the NT was written? Why do the Apostles reference traditions in their epistles (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2)? What scriptures were those letters measured against? The Old Testament?

[@mitchellc4]

@@dguider0351 Hello Daniel Thanks for responding I think the question is how are we to judge if a tradition is good or bad? Scripture Would you agree if a tradition contradicts scripture then it shouldn’t be blindly accepted?

[@dguider0351]

@Mitchell C Hey Mitchell, I agree with that statement 100%. Also, sorry to be the guy that post a response months later 😂....

[@mitchellc4]

@@dguider0351 Hello Daniel Thanks for responding! Well we agree on the statement then So the problem is People think a lot of the Catholic traditions either contradict scripture or aren’t based on scripture That is the issue We agree that scripture is the ruler or the measuring stick for tradition So when ideas like intercession of the dead, sacred images, purgatory, etc are taught as doctrine then I take issue because at best I don’t think they are found in scripture At worst I think they contradict it

[@dguider0351]

@Mitchell C Hey Mitchell, I appreciate the dialogue. To your last point I would just say that the catholic church does claim confirmation in scripture for the practices you mention. Of course you do not have to accept it as a non-catholic, but the justification from the Catholic perspective can be found pretty easily online. I have personally found that a lot of onlinr Protestant arguments against Catholicism come from a misguided understanding of what the Church teaches. I hope you have a great weekend and may God bless you!

[@SaintlySaavy]

“ Starship Community Church”

[@GarthDomokos]

"Jonah was swallowed by and in the belly of a great fish, literally"...Someone should have told Jonah that because Jonah makes it completely obvious that he's oblivious to being in the belly of an actual fish.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

If you define Sola Scriptura as Bible Alone, you demonstrate you don't understand Sola Scriptura.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Marcus, Where Does Holy Scripture teach Scripture alone is the only infallible authority? Can one know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@rosiegirl2485]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Hello Matthew! I take it that you were unable to get your question answered in the comment section from the Jimmy Akin/The other Paul debate. Let's try again as simply as we can... To start, nobody can infallible interpret anything from Scripture on their own. If you believe Scripture, it tells you that Jesus built a Church. Matt. 16:18 Thou art Peter, and on this Rock, I will build My Church. With the promise that Hell would never prevail against Her. It's been 2000 years, and still going. It's the longest organization in history. The Magisterium, which is Latin for Teaching Office Which is the successors of the apostles (bishops) are to guard the deposit of faith. They have the authority to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God. The Magisterium is the servant of the Word. It has the Divine Promise, given by Jesus, of Divine assistance. "He who hears you, hears Me" Luke 10:16 (This is the promise of infallibility) The Church "The pillar and bulwark of the truth" 1 Timothy 3:15 Biblical Authority and Church Authority...you can't have one without the other. So, bottom line Matthew.... When Jesus says "This is my Body" He means exactly that! It's a beautiful gift, given to us, by our loving God...and His Church, with all Authority, Infallibly holds that in its "Deposit of Faith" as it's most important Deposit! I really hope that helps to answer your question! I would like to add that the Catholic Church did not put the Bible together until the late 3rd century. The belief in the Eucharist "This is my Body" has been recognized as the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus since the very beginning...and was handed down (Tradition) through the centuries, and did not require the Bible for this belief. The Bible does not teach that it is the only source for the teachings of faith and morals. God bless you my friend! 🌷

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Rosie girl, My question was directed toward Protestants! I already know the answer! My question was worded perfectly! Protestants never answered me because they were petrified! Once again, if Protestants say they CANNOT know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, they would then be admitting that the Catholic Church may indeed be right that is IS THE BODY OF JESUS at the Last Supper, and that Mary may indeed be the Woman in Revelation 12, she who gave birth to the male child born to rule the nations! If Protestant say they CAN KNOW with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", and who the Woman is in Revelation 12, it would then refute the man made tradition of Scripture alone! I kept repeating my question to the Protestants who teach Scripture alone! They were afraid to answer! The question was not directed toward Catholic Christians, as we don't believe in the man made tradition of Scripture alone, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Your posts show ignorance and lack of thought! No worries, it happens! You will learn as time goes on why Protestants don't answer! Because if they took the time to answer, they would see the flaws in their beliefs! Peace to you always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Marcus, Define Scripture ALONE! Plus, are you admitting that you have no clue what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " at the Last Supper, and who the Woman is in Revelation 12? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@voxangeli9205]

So, Marcus Williams, what is Sola Scriptura then?

[@barry.anderberg]

That guy has you fooled. Have you even seen Miami Vice?

[@PInk77W1]

Ouch

[@Catholiclady3]

😂😂

[@WordWiseMinistry]

@ 13:39 - 14:17 "If this is the case that the scripture can be twisted to support what I now see is as grave evils, how much more has it done that and now have we really been accounting for all the evil that has been done in the name of God and is it something like at its root an issue with Sola Scriptura? I decided in fact that, that it was. That it is a problem with Sola Scriptura that it's not just that it doesn't provide you a foundation. It also provides a backing, a Divine mandate to support evil. So, doing evil in the name of God..." So, if someone misinterprets scripture, their wrong conclusion makes scripture fallible? Sola Scriptura is scripture being the sole infallible rule of faith. A person, being fallible, can misinterpret scripture. You don't blame Christ, if a Christian does evil. But what you just said there, is the same logic for an Atheist to reject Christ, because there have been Christians who have done evil. It's evil to mischaracterize a people to your audience, then say they are evil, based off your mischaracterization, not based off truth. The Cordial Catholic and Don Johnson have just proved they are UNWORTHY of having an audience.

[@PInk77W1]

Catholics DONT believe the Bible is fallible. We believe it has to be interpreted. That is why we have a church. Protestants reject the church. I know many Protestant who refuse to go to church. They just read their Bible at home

[@BobBoldt-sp1gr]

This post is incoherent and itself demonstrates why there needs to be an authority (the one and only Church Christ founded - the Catholic Church).

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@BobBoldt-sp1gr There's no one and only church. The Catholic church wasn't even a whisper when Chrsit lived. It really didn't evolve for a few hundred years.

[@noahgaming8833]

“So, if someone misinterprets scripture, their wrong conclusion makes scripture, their wrong conclusion makes scripture fallible?” No, WWM, it just shows that without THE church that bound and loosed what was in heaven and earth, people can use the scriptures to justify whatever they want. People try and use the scriptures all the time to justify their arguments, from abortion, all the way down to eternal security. To make a dogma that makes it so a person can justify whatever they want without an infallible magisterium/teacher and not looking at the tradition of the church, you only have one leg that needs two other legs for that chair to stand.

[@aGoyforJesus]

Would you mind having me on? You keep making these arguments which we’ve responded to over & over again. The arguments aren’t good. And then you move on like we haven’t responded.

[@silveriorebelo8045]

I believe you think you have responded over and over again - like the 'correct' interpretations of the Bible with which the protestant crowd has been propagandizing the world in order to make people leave the Church of Christ - I guess you are very very convinced that those heresies are really in the Bible...

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@silveriorebelo8045 it’s in dialogue where we can demonstrate the errors of these arguments

[@simplydanny]

@@aGoyforJesus I saw your name and was intrigued, as someone who came to Catholicism through studying Judaism. Decided to watch your video on Mark 7, even using the Mishnah. I have to say I cringed a bit, to read back Sola Scriptura into that verse without looking at the different levels of traditions that Jews held, and that a Torah only or a scripture only approach was so foreign to that culture, even to Jesus Christ Himself. Talk about weak errors and assumptions.

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@simplydanny it was foreign to the Pharisees which is why Jesus had to rebuke them

[@simplydanny]

@@aGoyforJesus it was foreign to all Jews, but this is just ignorance of the levels of traditions within Judaism, and how this level of tradition was of the lowest kind. You can’t say it was foreign to the Pharisees and then in Matthew 23 Jesus tells his fellow Jews to listen to the Pharisees in their interpretation of the Torah because they sit in the seat of Moses. Not only that we know what Jesus was critiquing because of Matthew 23 where the Pharisees were elevating minor things over major things, it wasn’t that those traditions were wrong but they were misapplied. Just for clarity this tradition was a fence against violating the Torah, it was meant to remove them further from violating the Torah. This is on the same level of small “t” tradition in the Catholic world, meaning it can change but Jews also had big “T” traditions as well, which they claimed straight from Moses this Jesus wouldn’t violate thus his statement in Matthew 23 to obey the Pharisees and the Scribes on this matter.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

The most fundamental concern [is] whether the Roman Catholic model, in some sense, makes the Scripture subordinate to the church. The answer to that question is revealed when we ask another question: How does the Roman Catholic Church establish its own infallible authority? If the Roman Catholic church believes that infallible authorities (like the Scriptures) require external authentication, then to what authority does the church turn to establish the grounds for its own infallible authority? Here is where the Roman Catholic model runs into some difficulties. There are three options for how to answer this question.” “(1) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by (and derived from) the Scriptures. But this proves to be rather vicious circular reasoning. If the Scriptures cannot be known and authenticated without the authority of the church, then you cannot establish the authority of the church on the basis of the Scriptures. You cannot have it both ways. Moreover, on an exegetical level, one would be hard-pressed to find much scriptural support for an infallible church….” “(2) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by external evidence from the history of the church: the origins of the church, the character of the church, the progress of the church, and so forth. However, these are not infallible grounds by which the church’s infallibility could be established. In addition, the history of the Roman Church is not a pure one - the abuses, corruption, documented papal errors, and the like do not naturally lead one to conclude that the church is infallible regarding ‘faith and morals.’” “(3) It seems that the only option left to the Catholic model is to declare that the church’s authority is self-authenticating and needs no external authority to validate it. Or, more bluntly put, we ought to believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church because it says so.” “The Roman Catholic Church, then, finds itself in the awkward place of having chided the Reformers for having a self-authenticating authority (sola scriptura), while all the while it has engaged in that very same activity by setting itself up as a self-authenticating authority (sola ecclesia). On the Catholic model, the Scripture’s own claims should be received on their own authority. The Roman Catholic Church, functionally speaking, is committed to sola ecclesia.” Here’s Kruger’s helpful critique of Rome’s view of the church over the Word. “…This presents challenges for the Catholic model. Most pertinent is the question of how there can be a canon at all - at least one that can genuinely challenge, correct, and transform the church - if the validation structure for the canon, in effect, already presupposes that the church bears an authority that is even higher? On the Catholic system, then, the canon’s authority is substantially diminished. What authority it does have must be construed as purely derivative - less a rule over the church and more of an arm of the church, not something that determines the church’s identity but something that merely expresses it.”

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Paul, Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@N1IA-4]

You are presupposing that there can't be more than one infallible authority, though. RCs do not assume that premise. Scripture doesn't forbid it either...nor does it even call itself the final authority.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@N1IA-4 Interesting. My first reaction to that is to ask why would you need more than one infallible authority? I am trying to envision how two competing infallible authorities would work.

[@N1IA-4]

@@paulsmallwood1484 because the infallible Scriptures need an interpreter. As you know, everyone’s take on scripture is different and requires an authoritative infallible reading of its content. This also applies to tradition

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@N1IA-4 if we believed that an infallible interpreter is absolutely necessary for us to correctly understand Scripture, we, as fallible human beings, could never be assured that we have chosen that infallible interpreter! We could never be confident that our fallible judgment and logic led us to make the right decision. Unfortunately, there is no solution to this dilemma if we assume that we need some type of infallible interpreter. The idea of an infallible interpreter does not work in the real world. Seemingly, those particular groups (ie Roman Catholic, Mormon) which do have an infallible interpreter to tell them what to believe should have a visible unity. They should be completely united in their belief system. However, this is not the case. As one closely examines the various organizations which proclaim they have an infallible interpreter, we do not find the unity that is expected. Indeed, there is as much disunity, if not more, among these groups as there is among those who look to the Bible alone as the infallible standard of divine truth. These groups argue among themselves about every conceivable issue! There is no visible unity which is present. Therefore, those people who advocate the need for some type of infallible interpreter cannot point to visible unity among their own particular group. To sum up: an infallible interpreter does not bring about a unified belief system. The Apostle Paul did not attempt to solve the divisions in the church at Corinth by appealing to some infallible interpreter who would once and for all settle the divisions. Instead, he emphasized the unity which we have in Jesus Christ; a unity which is based upon the gospel message. This is what unites all believers. Therefore, it is not necessary for each Christian to have an infallible interpreter of Scripture to know what he or she should believe. Indeed, the idea of an infallible interpreter is neither biblical nor is it workable.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

In what shape do we find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura today? Many modern Evangelicals see it as a license to ignore history and the creeds in favor of a more individualistic approach to biblical interpretation. In the past two decades, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have strongly tried to undermine Sola Scriptura as unbiblical, unhistorical, and impractical. But these groups rest their cases on a recent, false take on Sola Scriptura. The ancient, medieval, and classical Protestant view of Sola Scriptura actually has quite a different shape than most opponents and defenders maintain. Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.” Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone,” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.” This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately. The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.” The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition “Tradition 2” (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred. When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed “Tradition 3,” in which the “Magisterium of the moment” is understood to be the one true source of revelation. Another way to describe the “Magisterium of the moment” is use of the term Sola Ecclesia which is basically “it’s true because the Roman Catholic Church says it’s true”.

[@andrewpearson1903]

Finally, someone with a brain. But assuming that the Fathers really did hold "Tradition 1" as you describe it (and I know that the perennial Catholic teaching about the authority of tradition is different from the current popular conception, though I haven't studied exactly how), what proof have you got that the Reformers intended to perpetuate it in principled opposition to "Tradition 2"? As far as I know Luther and Calvin were hawking new soteriologies, not an old hermeneutic. At first glance this seems to me like the 19c. Anglican "discovery" of the Rule of St. Vincent -- Church history deployed long after the fact, by the traditionalist wing of a Protestant group. PS "Tradition 3" is a real problem, but only practically, not intellectually. It's a minority-within-a-minority position that belongs mostly to liberal bloggers and theologians, and is popular with poorly catechized laypeople. I've never seen it stand up to a traditionalist attack. God willing, it will be discarded in a few decades.

[@dav__71]

No Protestant church is actually about the bible alone because they have a theology and church teachings church goers align themselves to. This idea Protestantism amounts to infinite division isn't entirely true, it's an uncharitable Catholic simplification, because they all have an authoritive structure and first principles they align themselves to. The major difference is they allow for the ability to split, the Catholics simply don't allow this. Catholics thus have an administrative and culteral advantage here regarding integrity of belief, but this doesn't equate to an advantage on what is true. It's truth by fiat.

[@matthewoburke7202]

The problem though is that Sola scriptura facilitates the development of hundreds if not thousands of different structures and traditions to align to.

[@dav__71]

@@matthewoburke7202 of course. Pragmatically, it's weaker than Catholicism. However, regarding what is true, Catholics have unity by fiat. So neither seems great to me, unless the Catholics have the truth moreso.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@dav__71 I converted to Catholicism from protestantism. The reason I chose to do this is that I discovered through reading the Church Fathers that the teachings of the Church go back to the earliest days of Christianity. And not only that, there was this universal consensus on major topics of the Christian faith. And what I mean when I say this is that EVERYONE believed in baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the eucharist, apostolic succession etc. This is something that you simply cannot say about Protestantism! There are literally thousands of different viewpoints on issues of great significance such as, "what does baptism do for us if anything?" Or "is Christ present in the eucharist or is it merely a symbol?" Or "Can someone forfeit grace through grave sin or is it impossible to lose salvation?" I can go on and on and on. And on top of that, many of the doctrines that are currently held by protestants are novel beliefs that originate from the 16th century or later. Examples include double predestination, forensic justification, once saved always saved, believers baptism, and so on. None of the early fathers interpreted the scriptures in such ways.

[@dav__71]

@@matthewoburke7202 Luther would agree with this, and yet, he departed from this in his way or perhaps reformed this in his way Catholic doctrine. None of the early church fathers interpreted exactly how Aquinas did either, through his Aristotlean informed theology, and yet his views formed the Church. I'm not sure I buy the claim just yet that Catholics have this nice neat line of correct tradition and theology from Peter onwards. It seems they added a lot of theory to the doctrine, a lot of abstractions apon abstractions that expands outwards from the core elements of the early church.

[@jenna2431]

Christianity is broken, period. No, it's even worse than that actually.

[@barry.anderberg]

Elaborate.

[@KO_WI88]

That's aggrevating that you're connecting unbiblical practices/beliefs with sola scriptura. If a protestant denomination is condoning actions that are clearly defined as sin in the Bible, then they aren't Sola scriptura anymore. I hate bring grouped together with ELCA as a "fellow protestant". No way there's fellowship there.

[@TheCordialCatholic]

But here’s the problem: who decides a practice is “unbiblical”? Don provided plenty of examples of how the Bible was used to justify practices like slavery.

[@Pedro-rd7xm]

No True Scotsman? 🤔

[@HannahClapham]

There’s absolutely nothing “cordial” about denigrating other believers. This particular episode is disgusting. You ought to take this down….

[@marcuswilliams7448]

As I listen to this I continue to wonder: "Have these two Roman Catholics read *anything* about the history of the Western Church?" Why, for example, does Bernard of Cluny write De contemptu mundi? This is a stream that essentially points the finger in one direction and says, "All problems have their genesis in Protestantism," which only raises the question, "What was the genesis of such grievous things throughout other periods of Church History?" 🥱

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Marcus, which came first, the Church or the new testament? Why the need for fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@matthewbroderick6287 The Word of God, which is Eternal, came before the Church and, indeed, gave birth to it. Your questions only reveal further that the average Roman Catholic doesn't possess even a basic understanding of Sola Scriptura.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@marcuswilliams7448Yes, God the Eternal Son, existed way before the old and new testament, was ever written! Yet, Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock and sole key, Way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down, which is also the Word of God. Indeed, the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Can one know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@marcuswilliams7448 Indeed, Scripture alone is a man made tradition, as is faith alone, not found in Holy Scripture, or the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@cchronis8864]

@@matthewbroderick6287 all one has to do is read history to see that Jesus gave us a Church first. The problem is that so many never go deep enough into history. If Marcus and others were to go to the early church fathers, these debates would end. I was a Protestant who did just that! I listened to Catholic scholars, looked at the Bible from the Catholic perspective, read the Catechism and listened and read books from people like Scott Hahn, Dr Brant Petri, GK Chesterton, Peter Kreaft, etc. All my questions were answered and I no longer had any objections. While I love philosophy, doctrine, theology and history, there was one thing I did on my journey that left me bare before the Lord. I prayed for humility as I asked God to lead me to the Church Jesus Christ established. We can argue and debate from now until eternity but only when we ask God to show us the truth concerning the Catholic Church do we open our hearts to receive the truth. That doesn't mean there won't be a struggle but it's only through humility that God will bring us to his truth. This is meant for those who through circumstances have been made aware of the Catholic Church who are faced with asking the question and might I add, the responsibility of asking, is the Catholic Church the one true Church the Jesus gave us.