1. Jennifer said:

    This is an excellent examination of the shortcomings of “Sola scriptura”. I just wanted to point out that I think you made an error in your conclusion to part 3. You wrote: “One who denies the Eucharistic presence of Jesus, like one who denies sola scriptura, is at odds with the entire body of early Church Fathers. As for a merely symbolic Eucharist or the doctrine of sola scriptura in the early Church writings, they’re just not there.” I believe you meant to say “like one who accepts sola scriptura.”

    April 29, 2015
  2. Matt Nelson said:

    Got it! Thanks Jennifer 🙂

    April 29, 2015
  3. Freezing said:

    “That infallible Scriptures that lack an infallible authority are destined for misinterpretation and heresy. This is why I could never adopt the sola sciptura position. It just comes with too many difficulties—biblical, historical and logical.”

    Personally, I don’t consider the Catholic position to be much better at the end of the day – who judges the infallible authority of the alleged infallible authority? Who interprets the interpreter? In ancient Israel, which infallible teaching authority determined and interpreted the Jewish canon of Scripture?

    Look, I like you Matt, but I find arguments from Protestant division to be fundamentally dishonest, as there is a veritable smorgasbord of varied belief in the modern Roman Catholic Church – most notably over universalism, human sexuality, divorce and contraception. The same argument which is often made against Sola Scriptura (that it is insufficient to prevent heresy and a quadrillion opinions) can be rightly aimed at the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church. But I think we both recognize that the problem is not, in fact, that the final authority is insufficient, but rather it is not being adhered or listened to as the final authority which it is. The same can be said of Sola Scriptura; which is quite capable of conveying the fundamentals of the Christian faith to those who do not suffer from projection syndrome.

    Secondly, on a rather picky note: “His divine, glorified flesh is to be consumed in the form of bread, and His saving blood, in the form of wine (making it thereby substantially different from cannibalism).”

    Actually, no. It may retain the accidents of bread, but substantially-speaking, one is eating human flesh and blood. Aside from the mere appearance of bread and wine, one cannot see how this is anything other than cannibalism; since the substantial form of the flesh is more is more fundamental than the accidents of the bread. If one were to change the substantial form of my wife into another woman, whilst retaining all the accidents of my wife, I think we would both say that I was committing adultery when we go to bed – if the substantial form of bread changes into human flesh, whilst retaining the accidents of bread, one is engaging in cannibalism. :\

    Speaking of which, since the early church lacked the Aristotelian-Thomistic categories with which to speak of transubstantiation, it does appear to be rather anachronistic to project the real presence (as understood by modern Catholicism) back onto select and contextless quotes from early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, for example (in which his comments are clearly in the context of docetism).

    Anyhow, always enjoy your writing – always lots of good interaction.

    July 1, 2015
    • Matt Nelson said:

      Such a though-provoking reply to the post, Freezing – thank you so much. This is why I write: to stimulate intelligent discussion. Would you mind if I replied to your comments in the form of a blog post sometime in the future?

      July 6, 2015
  4. search said:

    I like the valuable information you provide in your articles.

    I will bookmark your blog and take a look at again here regularly.
    I am reasonably certain I’ll be told lots
    of new stuff proper right here! Best of luck for the following!

    July 10, 2015
  5. Eddie Lago said:

    Non-catholic are not holier than you are! Non of us ca be considered holier than one another. You really should studdy some Bible if you love God. Start with the commandments, then see what you are missing. You contradict your self too much. If the Bible is the Word of God, the it is suficient. We dont bow to popes, or immages. We only get on our knees befor the One and Only God. No one else can save us, no one else can forgive us, no one else can intercede for us except for Jesus. The Bible teaches us these things. The catholics teach that Marry can give grace, that she intercedes, that she listens, but we know she cant because we read our Bibles, we know that we love Him because He loved us first. It is writen. We knot there is only One God and ONE mediator between God and men, because it is in the Word of God 1 Tim 2:5. The Bible is infallable, in errant, ‘Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘infallible’ means there can be no error.”
    we see infallibility implied in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and has the effect of producing servants of God who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The fact that God “breathed” Scripture insures that the Bible is infallible, for God cannot breathe out error.

    How then you dare you ad other teachings that take the glory away from God?

    September 29, 2017

Leave a Reply