A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy

[JimG]

If anyone really believes in sola scriptura—scripture alone—then they should not argue about religion at all. They should only hand out bibles, because that’s all that is needed. Anything they speak or write or argue on their own is not scripture, so it can’t be relied on. Just hand out bibles. No more argument.

 

[JonNC]

So, in the CA, Catholic Teaching is considered heterodox?

Can you give an example?

What CA does is lay out Lutheran teaching, and mentions some areas of disagreement.

Then why is it called “sola” Scriptura?

The sola refers to scripture being the sole final norm.

I’m sure you’re also aware that Luther denied the inspiration of 7 of those books.

That’s Luther’s personal opinion. I was speaking of the confessions

 

[JonNC]

Ishould have probably split that into pretext with 2 sentences. Eventually books were removed. I see how that could look very misleading the way I typed it. I should have said now a few books have been removed. Atleast in the LCMS several books are gone completely.

CPH published a phenomenal “apocrypha” book which includes not only the DCs, but also others.
To say they are "gone completely " isn’t accurate.

 

[lanman87]

Just hand out bibles. No more argument.

You mean like these folks

Let's spread the good news

The Gideons International is an Association of Christian business and professional men and their wives dedicated to telling people about Jesus through sharing personally and by providing Bibles and New Testaments. While we are known worldwide for our work with hotels, we predominantly share...

www.gideons.org

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, in the CA, Catholic Teaching is considered heterodox?

Can you give an example?

What CA does is lay out Lutheran teaching, and mentions some areas of disagreement.

But you used the term “heterodox” with regards to Catholic Teaching, did you not?

Then why is it called “sola” Scriptura?

The sola refers to scripture being the sole final norm.

So, it’s not the only (i.e. sola) norm, but the Ultimate or Last (i.e. final) norm?

That makes a difference, don’t you think?

With regards to the “ultimate” norm, where is that taught in Scripture?

I’m sure you’re also aware that Luther denied the inspiration of 7 of those books.

That’s Luther’s personal opinion. I was speaking of the confessions

Do the Confessions teach that the 74 books are inspired of the Holy Spirit?
Do Lutherans teach that those 74 books are inspired of the Holy Spirit?

 

[JimG]

Handing out bibles would reflect a belief in sola scriptura; personal sharing does not. It’s all in the book.

 

[De_Maria]

AdherentToRome:

Ishould have probably split that into pretext with 2 sentences. Eventually books were removed. I see how that could look very misleading the way I typed it. I should have said now a few books have been removed. Atleast in the LCMS several books are gone completely.

CPH published a phenomenal “apocrypha” book which includes not only the DCs, but also others.
To say they are "gone completely " isn’t accurate.

But do they consider the “apocrypha” to be the inspired word of God? Yes or no?

 

[MichaelP3]

My Grandma does that!. She uses her small monthly pension to acquire Bibles in all South African Languages in order to hand them out to people. Now she cannot speak any of those languages but she is at least attempting to do a boat load more than any Catholic affiliated person/organisation here. Not sure it would be right bashing her for being a Protestant!

 

[MichaelP3]

But do they consider the “apocrypha” to be the inspired word of God? Yes or no?

I always saw the Apochrypha as an admin (yet still problematic when "infallibly’ declared) issue! What does it reaĺly change. I am aware of the most popular part in Macc. but that doesn’t really do it.

Regards

 

[MT1926]

I suppose if I put it bluntly…is laziness, irresponsible, and dangerous…

I would tell him you are tired of having this statement thrown at you.

I would say Nope, that statement is a straight up lie. It is a dishonest attempt to justify your position. You are stating that Catholics do not study the scriptures daily and that we Catholics are incapable of understanding a word on our own and that we are blindly following and doing what we are told.

Tell him you actually agree with him, throwing around that number is meaningless (that’s why I never do it). But the door swings both ways, his bluntness is meaningless as well. In essence he just called you lazy, irresponsible and dangerous. He basically, said you as a Catholic are incapable of learning on your own. He is saying there is absolutely no way you could read scripture, on your own, and come to the same conclusion that the Catholic Church has come to.

The way I see it he has two options here.

He can deny what he said and say he does not believe this. Which in essence means he just admited that Catholics are capable of interpreting scripture and that their interpretation can be just as correct as his. Which now makes those differences in theology , he claimed is minimal, pretty huge.

His second option is to admit that he believes all Catholics are incapable of interpreting scripture. Which is absolute arrogance and nonsense. If he admits that, then you are basically talking to an illogical person.
Think about it the Catholic Church has some of the smartest theologians on the planet, still alive in our generation, who have read their way into the Catholic Church.

Just to name a few of the many anti-Catholic sola scriptura converts…

Dr. Scott Hahn
Dr. David Anders
Jimmy Akin
Tim Staples
Trent Horn
Steve Ray

And the list goes on.

here again we see the church meeting for why? Not because …… they came there to solidify teachings on the trinity.

Ask him what point he is really trying to make here?

He says…

My point here is that “dispute”, even as history has shown, has encouraged reform or clarification/solidification of already held doctrine

If this is really his point. Tell him you are disputing his claim of sola scriptura and you would like him to call a Church council to settle the dispute between the two of you.

Don’t ever give these guys an inch and let them pick and choose from the Church councils or the Church fathers. If they want to pull one quote from a council or a father, outright ask them if they are picking and choosing what they want or if they believe everything taught in that Church council or by that Church father.

You see these guys know they have the upper hand. They know we have to mind our words and come across as good Catholics all the while they take these indirect jabs at the Catholic Church. Stand firm. Be nice but call him out on it. Make him admit what he is saying under his breath.

God Bless

 

[upant]

this is not a proper use of Sola Scriptura.

AdherentToRome:

please define the proper use of ss. thanks

 

[MaryT777]

I thought Lutherans LCMS did not believe the Canon is “closed.” Jon, let me know.

 

[Reuben_J]

DM_P:

I suppose if I put it bluntly…is laziness, irresponsible, and dangerous…

I would tell him you are tired of having this statement thrown at you.

I would say Nope, that statement is a straight up lie. It is a dishonest attempt to justify your position. You are stating that Catholics do not study the scriptures daily and that we Catholics are incapable of understanding a word on our own and that we are blindly following and doing what we are told.

Tell him you actually agree with him, throwing around that number is meaningless (that’s why I never do it). But the door swings both ways, his bluntness is meaningless as well. In essence he just called you lazy, irresponsible and dangerous. He basically, said you as a Catholic are incapable of learning on your own. He is saying there is absolutely no way you could read scripture, on your own, and come to the same conclusion that the Catholic Church has come to.

The way I see it he has two options here.

He can deny what he said and say he does not believe this. Which in essence means he just admited that Catholics are capable of interpreting scripture and that their interpretation can be just as correct as his. Which now makes those differences in theology , he claimed is minimal, pretty huge.

His second option is to admit that he believes all Catholics are incapable of interpreting scripture. Which is absolute arrogance and nonsense. If he admits that, then you are basically talking to an illogical person.
Think about it the Catholic Church has some of the smartest theologians on the planet, still alive in our generation, who have read their way into the Catholic Church.

Just to name a few of the many anti-Catholic sola scriptura converts…

Dr. Scott Hahn
Dr. David Anders
Jimmy Akin
Tim Staples
Trent Horn
Steve Ray

Well said. I have no real life experience discussing or arguing with Protestants except online or CAF where I read some of those excganges. But what you said seems to be spot on.

Discussing scripture with sola scripturists is often a total wreck, sometimes up to a point where all common sense are thrown down the drain in trying to cling to a personal belief or refusing to see Catholic’s point of view.

This is where their weaknesses are exposed when they base their argument only on Biblical exegesis without any references to earlier understanding of the Church and tradition, which they rejected.

I noticed it is difficult for them to agree with Catholics even on the most obvious issue. I guess it probably has to do with what you said here, that Catholics are not capable of understanding scripture as compared to them. And it is so pathetic to see, when a Catholic poster would be making more reasonable explanation of the scripture.

 

[JonNC]

But you used the term “heterodox” with regards to Catholic Teaching, did you not?

Yes. As opposed to heretical.

So, it’s not the only (i.e. sola) norm, but the Ultimate or Last (i.e. final) norm?

That makes a difference, don’t you think?

Yes. And yes. The only final norm, in this case.

Do the Confessions teach that the 74 books are inspired of the Holy Spirit?

Do Lutherans teach that those 74 books are inspired of the Holy Spirit?

No. And they consider them disputed such that they cannot be used as a primary source for doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

But do they consider the “apocrypha” to be the inspired word of God? Yes or no?

The confessions don’t say, though the confessions actually refer to them as they do scripture. Example from the Apology regarding invocation of the saints:
Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9] Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15:14.

I think, in general, most Lutherans would deny or at least be skeptical of them. I would also suspect that most Lutherans in the pews would not be able to say why.

 

[JonNC]

I thought Lutherans LCMS did not believe the Canon is “closed.” Jon, let me know.

Correct. The Lutheran confessions do not doctrinally close the canon. That is consistent with their view that respect for the differing opinions in the historic Church should be considered.

 

[JonNC]

please define the proper use of ss. thanks

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church of using scripture as the final norm for holding doctrine and teachers and teachings accountable.

 

[Reuben_J]

upant:

please define the proper use of ss. thanks

Sola scriptura is the practice of the Church of using scripture as the final norm for holding doctrine and teachers and teachings accountable.

Hi Jon. You probably one of those valuable posters who gives us informative (name removed by moderator)ut on some aspect of Protestantism.

AS I see it, scripture as the final norm is problematic, simply because it is not conclusive. You still need an abritrator to decide what the scripture says.

 

[JonNC]

De_Maria:

But do they consider the “apocrypha” to be the inspired word of God? Yes or no?

I always saw the Apochrypha as an admin (yet still problematic when "infallibly’ declared) issue! What does it reaĺly change. I am aware of the most popular part in Macc. but that doesn’t really do it.

Regards

I differentiate between “apocrypha” and deuterocanon for two reasons: 1) discussion with others , 2) reflects my own view.

I think it backwards to determine whether or not a book is canonical based on whether or not it produces a doctrine. If I understand what you mean

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon. You probably one of those valuable posters who gives us informative (name removed by moderator)ut on some aspect of Protestantism.

AS I see it, scripture as the final norm is problematic, simply because it is not conclusive. You still need an abritrator to decide what the scripture says.

Thank you.

Notice what I said, though, it is a practice of the Church. There is no doubt that the Church practices hermeneutics.