Sola Scriptura Has Its Moments

Published on by D. G. Hart

Carson Holloway explains why the Roman Catholic Church teaches what it does about marriage and divorce (and in doing so sounds like a Protestant):

It turns out, then, that the Church’s rather rigorous teaching on marriage is based not on the words of some little known celibate old man, but on the words of one very well known and important celibate young man. The teaching is based on the words of Jesus Christ, whom faithful Catholics believe to be God. Perhaps, then, Christians at least, and even all those people who claim to respect Jesus as a moral teacher, could cut the Church some slack and acknowledge that it has good reason to think that it is not just imposing some man-made morality on human beings but in fact preserving what was delivered to her by her divine founder.

And there you have the logic of Protestantism, a form of reasoning that makes sense to most Christians unless they are trying to protect the prerogatives of specific offices. Sometimes the word of God really is a lot more compelling than the word of men (even episcopal ones).

31 thoughts on “Sola Scriptura Has Its Moments”

  2. And this is why I said Protestants and Roman Catholics both derive their respective moral teachings ultimately from Scripture – thus having at least some common religious ground, as well as the ecumenical creeds, in common.

    Like

  3. Darryl,

    And there you have the logic of Protestantism,

    If you are referring to the fallacious inference from “The teaching is based on the words of Jesus Christ” to “sola scriptura is true,” or to “Carson is here following sola scriptura,” then, unfortunately, yes, this is not an atypical example of the “logic of Protestantism.” I think I don’t need to explain why following the words of Jesus does not entail the truth of sola scriptura.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  4. Hey Bryan! Yo yo, wassup!

    Real quick, then back to theology comboxxing. Click here if you are into sports.

    That goes for all Cats(read: Catholics) who put up with OL abuse around here (tater, kenwins, Tvd the closet cat, anyone).

    Time to show everyone what you are really made of.

    Back to theology. From across the pond,

    Andrew

    Like

  5. DGHART,

    Does the OPC take a similar stance to divorce and remarriage as the Church does? From the post it sounds like you agree with the moral conclusions derived from scripture

    Like

  7. Andrew,

    The link you provided does not supply the answer. Thanks for trying though. I dont have the time to read through heretical documents my reading list is oh so backed up as it is 😉 Yes I love sports

    Like

  8. Also, you must know that Darryl does not speak for the OPC.

    Real easy, though, Jesus says things about when divorce is OK and when it isn’t Also, zjesus talks about those situations wherin divorced persons ought not remarry.

    Why do you differentiate between the Church and the OPC?

    You do know the OPC is a branch of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, right?

    Like

  9. Bryan, the words of Christ are the word of God. Tradition is the word of men that they have the word of God in the word of men. Has to be a logical fallacy in there. I know — self-interest.

    Like

  10. Kenloses, Of course the OPC does. Get out of your ghetto, as if Rome has a monopoly on conservative morality. And we’re not holding a synod to see whether we can accommodate what the German bishops think we need to do to make the laity happy.

    Like

  11. Folks, just to make clear, if you want to face off against OLers in a showdown to the death in NCAA bracket-ology, keep clicking through starting here, and the name of the league is “Old Life League,” when the ESPN webpage asks you to join a group (and you search for it, you should be able to find it). You need only open an account (asking for an e-mail address, which if you have a secondary e-mail that you use when signing up for things that might send you spam later) and you’re in. Good Luck!!

    ps you’ll know you’ve found our bracket challenge when you note the motto of our group (thanks to Jed for starting all this last year!)

    Like

  12. Bryan Cross
    Posted March 12, 2014 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    DGH: “And there you have the logic of Protestantism”

    Darryl,

    If you are referring to the fallacious inference from “The teaching is based on the words of Jesus Christ” to “sola scriptura is true”

    A clean rebuttal, Darryl.

    It turns out, then, that the [Catholic] Church’s rather rigorous teaching on marriage is based not on the words of some little known celibate old man, but on the words of one very well known and important celibate young man. The teaching is based on the words of Jesus Christ, whom faithful Catholics believe to be God. Perhaps, then, Christians at least, and even all those people who claim to respect Jesus as a moral teacher, could cut the Church some slack and acknowledge that it has good reason to think that it is not just imposing some man-made morality on human beings but in fact preserving what was delivered to her by her divine founder.

    The Catholic Church’s opposition to divorce is scripturally based. Fundamentalist, you might say.

    Like

  13. DGHART,

    Would your religious community allow a twice divorced woman to receive communion? Or be a member in the OPC? Obviously you have a conservative view on marriage. Im just curious as to how far yall take it

    Like

  14. The Catholic Church’s opposition to divorce is scripturally based. Fundamentalist, you might say.

    Tvd, that was Darryl’s point:

    And there you have the logic of Protestantism,

    But, herein lies the problem, an infallible church infallible because it says it is, is irreformable. Get with it, yo.

    One blogger (read comboxxer) doesn’t change anything. We might as well be golfing.

    Like

  15. Isn’t there someplace in the Bible (Jn.4) where Jesus gives his life-giving elixir to a woman 6X divorced?

    I think there’s something in there also about repentance and the forgiveness of sins…

    Like

  16. Andrew Buckingham
    Posted March 13, 2014 at 12:53 am | Permalink
    The Catholic Church’s opposition to divorce is scripturally based. Fundamentalist, you might say.

    Tvd, that was Darryl’s point:

    And there you have the logic of Protestantism,

    But, herein lies the problem, an infallible church infallible because it says it is, is irreformable. Get with it, yo.

    One blogger (read comboxxer) doesn’t change anything. We might as well be golfing.

    Oh, AB. Let’s not go nuclear just yet, destroy the entire discussion with the infallibiltyism thing. Just stick to the marriage thing for now, which has cost the Catholics much coin, and entire countries like England.

    Darryl can answer for himself. [Or as his custom, not, as perhaps he doesn’t read his own blog.]

    That’s not to say we can’t go golfing together, bro. Well, “golfing” as in the greatest Par3 on earth, 2 min from my house:

    http://www.verdugohillsgolfcourse.com/

    As always, yr call.

    It IS byooful, dude. If hell is playing it for eternity with you, Hart and Charter, hell wouldn’t be all that bad. [I believe God is merciful, not sadistic. What do you think?]

    Like

  17. My thoughts? My blog:

    At the very heart of the Christian religion, at any rate,
    despite what is being said today, is the hope of heaven.
    That hope is not selfish, but it is the highest and noblest
    thought, perhaps, that has ever been placed in the mind
    of man; it is the highest and noblest thought because
    it involves not mere selfish enjoyment but the glory of
    God. For the glory of God, realized through the
    creatures that He has made, eternity will not be too
    long. Man’s chief end is not merely to glorify God and
    enjoy Him, but it is “to glorify God and to enjoy Him
    forever.”

    Fore..

    Like

  18. Or:

    The Divine demand is absolute. They are not relative demands, which bring more or less blessedness, but they are the absolute demand: joyfully accept the will of God. And there is only one punishment – not the different degrees between the ecclesiastical satisfactions, between the punishment in purgatory, and its many degrees, and finally Hell. There is nothing like this. There is only one punishment, namely the despair of being separated from God. And consequently there is only one grace, namely, reunion with God.

    You?

    Like

  19. which has cost the Catholics much coin, and entire countries like England.

    No kidding. And without Scotland, without which, there’d be no golf.

    We presbys do realize leaving Rome meant leaving these guys, pretty gutsy of my forebears. I hear it all started over good bratwurst. Don’t get between a man and his stomach, I suppose. I hear it’s also a fundie attribute (jello salad someone? buffet line CW?)

    I’m out.

    Like

  22. Kenloses, membership involves communion. If the woman was at fault, but has repented, she’s in and dining. But she can’t marry again (if she was at fault).

    Like

  23. Hart as “splitter not a lumper”. I like it

    If people cannot be honest with themselves and patient with each other about how they differ from each other, they need somebody to point to the reality.

    Like

  25. Don’t forget! If you want to play in an NCAA March Madness Bracket, Oldlife style, clikc on that link and find the “Old Life League.”

    Oh, and if you know the Pope’s picks, let me know. I’ll do the opposite, and we’ll see wassup with his charism vs. mine.

    If Francis is too busy running his church for a Brackett, I’ll copy the president’s picks. Shhhh don’t tell the republicans around here (emoticon).

    Like

  26. From the are the CTCer’s paying attention file comes Rod Dreher, whose actually forthright about Rome:

    “Refugees fleeing to Rome from the chaos and liberalism of mainline Protestant churches see in Rome a doctrinal rock in which to shelter against the storm and stress of modernity. In theory, this is true. What many new converts find surprising, even shocking, is that despite the theoretical orthodoxy in the Roman church, the orthopraxy, including the teaching of orthodox Catholic doctrine, is extremely hit or miss, varying from parish to parish, diocese to diocese. You will rarely if ever find a bishop speaking out against Catholic orthodoxy — but this is often a matter of keeping up appearances. In practice, many bishops allow all kinds of heterodoxy in their dioceses. You really can parish-shop and find a priest, and a confessor, who will tell you what you want to hear. There should be doctrinal unity in Catholicism, but in practice, this is fairly nominal. I argued in the confessional once, in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, with a priest who told me that my wife and I should start using contraception. I wouldn’t say something like that is normative, but that kind of laxity is far, far more common in American Catholicism in practice (versus in theory) than outsiders believe.”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/christianity-east-west-catholicism-orthodoxy/?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=christianity-east-west-catholicism-orthodoxy

    Like

  27. Robt,

    If you’ve learned anything of the Cletus van D creature, I’d be interested to know. I think you talk with him in other blogs.

    I’m suspicious he is Jason Stellman.

    Like

  28. Thomas Aquinas on the primacy of Scripture:

    Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.

    Thanks to E. J. Hutchinson who adds:

    This distinction is of absolutely fundamental importance, for it means that there is, for Thomas, a principled difference between the canon and its interpretation, howsoever lofty the interpreter. Here there is no blurring of the line between the Word of God and the word of man, such that we can only know what the former says from its reception in the latter. The difference between certain and probable authority points, then, to an essential difference between Scripture itself and the activity of reading, interpreting, or expounding Scripture.

    The authority of Scripture as incontrovertible proof over against the probable authority of ecclesiastical doctors therefore necessitates, in the nature of the case, a critical relation to tradition, the Fathers, and so on: since their authority is only “probable,” 1 there is a principled space–again, in the nature of the case–for judgment of and dissent from it.

    Like

  29. sayeth TVD:

    If hell is playing it for eternity with you, Hart and Charter, hell wouldn’t be all that bad.

    Not sure I can make the cut with Hart, Charter, and TVD. But for sure the cat in the hat will be making par!

    thanks for the memories, dgh. next up to the tee is..

    Like

  30. D.G., it’s good to read Thomas. Be careful, though. He might lead you back to the Catholic Church. It happens.

    …then there’s the little matter of what Aquinas – and Jesus, for that matter, as well as the Apostles and Church fathers – accepted as the canon of Scripture.

    Take care, brother

    Like

  31. Mrs. Webfoot, why don’t you tell the rest of your communion to read Thomas? Does it really validate your switch to keep insisting on Roman Catholicism’s superiority even while the magisterium says that you need to be merciful and treat me like a brother? Whom are you going to believe?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.