A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy

[JonNC]

Which proves that the bodies or communions are the final arbiters. Not Scripture.

Again, I don’t see a conflict here. The Church in its teaching role using scripture as the sole final norm.

 

[upant]

Then they are adding something to it that isn’t there.

you explain it away because you, me and maybe the majority don’t believe their version

but some of them believe their meaning is inspired and by the bible alone they say they can prove their interpretation.

you can just say they are wrong and they can say you are wrong

there is no authority in the protestant world to arbitrate the difference.

now this is a controversial topic but you can’t say it is not sola scriptura if they believe it is

what about topics that can be viewed in different ways in the bible like in what name to perform baptism or the role of baptism in salvation.

 

[JonNC]

Then they are adding something to it that isn’t there.

you explain it away because you, me and maybe the majority don’t believe their version

but some of them believe their meaning is inspired and by the bible alone they say they can prove their interpretation.

you can just say they are wrong and they can say you are wrong

The problem is, even the way you put their argument, it isn’t an argument from scripture. It is an argument taking the place of scripture:

“they say the words in Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10, do not include today’s ssm relationships. they say if it was meant to be taken as we understand it paul would have used different wording?” - Upant

their is no authority in the protestant world to arbitrate the difference.

That’s because there is no such thing as a Protestant world. There are Methodists. There are Baptist. There are Calvinists. But there is no Protestant world. Each communion makes its determination.

what about topics that can be viewed in different ways in the bible like in what name to perform baptism or the role of baptism in salvation.

Scripture is the sole final norm, but it can and should be read through the lens of Tradition. One can read the creeds, the Didache , the ECFs and recognize how these reflect the truth found in scripture. One ignores these at their peril.

 

[upant]

SS is not a personal act. It is a practice of the Church, under the scriptural role given the Vhurch to teach

depends on your definition

from bible.org

the doctrine of sola Scriptura means not only that there is a Bible in every man’s hands, but also a struggle in every man’s mind—a struggle to find the truth for themselves.

the problem as i see it is what happens when men reach different conclusions. there is no authority to decide who is right

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

SS is not a personal act. It is a practice of the Church, under the scriptural role given the Vhurch to teach

depends on your definition

from bible.org

the doctrine of sola Scriptura means not only that there is a Bible in every man’s hands, but also a struggle in every man’s mind—a struggle to find the truth for themselves.

the problem as i see it is what happens when men reach different conclusions. there is no authority to decide who is right

Regarding Bible.org, I don’t know which communion they are linked to, so other than to say that they do not provide a classical definition, it is their opinion.

There wasn’t an authority prior to the Reformation, else there would not have been the Great Schism.
I agree that the problem is related to people holding different conclusions.

 

[ratio1]

So are you saying the Church has the authority to determine what constitutes this “sole authority”?
So a sole authority is contingent upon another authority?

 

[upant]

The problem is, even the way you put their argument, it isn’t an argument from scripture. It is an argument taking the place of scripture:

my error in explaining it.

That’s because there is no such thing as a Protestant world. There are Methodists. There are Baptist. There are Calvinists. But there is no Protestant world. Each communion makes its determination.

but there is one bible and one Holy Spirit guiding these sects. they all can’t be right.

Scripture is the sole final norm, but it can and should be read through the lens of Tradition

this just allows more false interpretations not less

, it is their opinion.

and this is why sola scriptura doesn’t hold water to me. it is all individual opinion with no one to say someone else is wrong.

 

[JonNC]

So are you saying the Church has the authority to determine what constitutes this “sole authority”?
So a sole authority is contingent upon another authority?

Not sure where you got that. Please explain

 

[De_Maria]

Which is why SS is not a doctrine.

1. Doctrine merely means teaching. Some people say that it is a practice, but people need to be indoctrinated in practices. So, SS is a doctrine.
2. The fact that it is a doctrine which is not found in Scripture, proves that Scripture does not command this practice. Thus, it is a practice which is imposed upon the Church against the teaching of Scripture. Therefore, the practice of this doctrine is in direct violation of the Doctrine which is revealed in Scripture.

Sure, but a Christian can have significant knowledge of the faith without being able to read. Think of your lectionary that covers virtually all of the Bible over, what, three years? Faith comes by hearing, and receiving the sacraments. The teaching role belongs to the Church.

Which is another proof against SS, which is defined in the BC as:

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

I don’t think this reflects Catholic teaching. I have been here long enough to hear numerous Catholics speak of the “three-legged stool”, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterium.
Claiming that the Church has no obligation to scripture is a remarkable admission if true. I’m happy to be corrected by Catholics, however.

See the above comment by Tarsier

And remember that the Catholic Church existed for three centuries without the Bible.

Well, for Lutherans, yes. Perhaps we have a different idea of what norm means. I see no conflict with saying, on the one hand, the Church in its teaching role determines doctrine, while on the other hand saying that the sole final norm for that process is scripture.

Your ideas differ from that of other Lutherans. Again, the BC says:

And Luther says: “The Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel” (SA, II, ii, 15). In contrast to all other writings and human authorities, God’s Word carries with it God’s authority.

Notice how Scripture is put above “human” authorities. Thus, over councils and governments. Thus, over the Church.

And this is the problem. Lutherans and all Protestants mistake and confuse their interpretation of Scripture for Scripture. When they speak, they call on the authority of Scripture. And when no one agrees, they break away and start a new religion.

 

[JonNC]

but there is one bible and one Holy Spirit guiding these sects. they all can’t be right.

Of course not. Many are wrong on sacraments, for example. That doesn’t mean the Spirit has failed , just that all of us sometimes fail.

this just allows more false interpretations not less

I thought that was part of the Catholic model - scripture, tradition, Magisterium. Is it just magisterium?

and this is why sola scriptura doesn’t hold water to me. it is all individual opinion with no one to say someone else is wrong.

It seems Tradition and the Magisterium failed, too, or these groups would not exist.

 

[JonNC]

Doctrine merely means teaching. Some people say that it is a practice, but people need to be indoctrinated in practices. So, SS is a doctrine.

Okay, we’ve had a very good conversation. I promise I will not tell you what you believe. Lutherans deserve that same respect. SSisnt doctrinal in the Lutheran understanding.

The fact that it is a doctrine which is not found in Scripture, proves that Scripture does not command this practice. Thus, it is a practice which is imposed upon the Church against the teaching of Scripture. Therefore, the practice of this doctrine is in direct violation of the Doctrine which is revealed in Scripture.

This is a straw man. You’ve intentionally set up a premise to be able to knock it down.

Which is another proof against SS, which is defined in the BC as:

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

Except that laity don’t determine doctrine, so the Rule and Norm accurately defends their position.

 

[JonNC]

See the above comment by Tarsier

And remember that the Catholic Church existed for three centuries without the Bible.

Inaccurate. The OT existed long before Pentecost, and the writings that make up the NT were around and used since they were written.

Your ideas differ from that of other Lutherans. Again, the BC says:

You keep quoting things that actually defend their position. Scripture is the sole final norm, not personal interpretation.

And this is the problem. Lutherans and all Protestants mistake and confuse their interpretation of Scripture for Scripture. When they speak, they call on the authority of Scripture. And when no one agrees, they break away and start a new religion

The same could be said of Catholics when they created universal jurisdiction, or the Filioque. It just depends on where you stand.
That said, i think it important that, when discussing this, we don’t tell the other what they believe

 

[ratio1]

So can the Catholic bible with the deuterocanon be the sole final form in your view?

 

[JonNC]

So can the Catholic bible with the deuterocanon be the sole final form in your view?

Of course…

 

[ratio1]

So there can be multiple different sole final forms?

 

[JonNC]

There already is. There are numerous canons.
Do I think that’s good? No, but it is reality.

 

[ratio1]

Your view is interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I must admit none of the people I meet who believe in sola scriptura would agree that the Catholic bible can be the sole final form.
Hence you have an interesting viewpoint which I have not thought of. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

Your view is interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I must admit none of the people I meet who believe in sola scriptura would agree that the Catholic bible can be the sole final form.
Hence you have an interesting viewpoint which I have not thought of. Thank you.

You’re welcome. I would venture to guess that most of those you speak to have never read them. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are wonderful, and Judah’s Maccabaeus is such a heroic character in 1Macc.
And if any Christian has not read Prayer of Manasseh, they should.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Doctrine merely means teaching. Some people say that it is a practice, but people need to be indoctrinated in practices. So, SS is a doctrine.

Okay, we’ve had a very good conversation. I promise I will not tell you what you believe.

But you’re not a Lutheran. So, I’m not telling you what you believe. I’m telling you what Lutheran’s believe. I think some other ex-Lutherans have been telling you the same thing I’m telling you.

De_Maria:

Doctrine merely means teaching. Some people say that it is a practice, but people need to be indoctrinated in practices. So, SS is a doctrine.

Okay, we’ve had a very good conversation. I promise I will not tell you what you believe. Lutherans deserve that same respect. SSisnt doctrinal in the Lutheran understanding.

That’s not a matter of Lutheran understanding. All you need to do is pick up a dictionary. Doctrine means teaching. You have to teach people about SS. It isn’t something that anyone picks up by osmosis and begins to do.

And anything you need to teach, whether it be a practice or a belief or a ritual, anything you need to teach, is a doctrine.

This is a straw man. You’ve intentionally set up a premise to be able to knock it down.

Neh. I’ve knocked the faulty logic which some use to prop up the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Except that laity don’t determine doctrine, so the Rule and Norm accurately defends their position.

The Book of Concord was not written by laity and it proudly quotes the likes of Martin Luther.

 

[upant]

I thought that was part of the Catholic model - scripture, tradition, Magisterium. Is it just magisterium?

It seems Tradition and the Magisterium failed, too, or these groups would not exist.

the magisterium has authority, the individual or church in protestantism doesn’t.

SSisnt doctrinal in the Lutheran understanding.

does each protestant church have its own meaning of sola scriptura? are they all right?

and the writings that make up the NT were around and used since they were written.

did every church have every writing? were writings used that didn’t make it into the bible? were they even considered inspired when written? does each book tell us it is inspired? was the bible just an invention of man to use to control the growing church?

Scripture is the sole final norm, not personal interpretation.

per your definition. others believe it is personal