Can we agree that Solo Scriptura is wrong

[vppoole]

So pretty much solo scriptura is an excuse for anyone to ignore a constructive approach to understanding God’s Word?

By its definition, it is bound to de-unify Christianity or any body of people it is applied to because it rejects the potential for people to educate each other on what they have learned or the methods they have used to learn.

If I were trying to divide and conquer Christianity, solo scriptura is the means by which I would seek to do it. Pax!

 

[Lutheranteach]

Can we agree that sola scriptura is wrong? No. We can’t.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:

“The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (Ditto, 9).

“The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the role of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller.
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) embrace private, individual arbitration (This is called “private arbitration.”) SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis and so if often mentioned in relationship to it. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be likely so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

I know nothing of “Solo Scriptura”…

.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

AmericanJosiah wrote:

I know nothing of “Solo Scriptura”…

Really? Well you sure ought to! Solo Scripture is when 6 Billion “Popes” each claim the right to use the “praxis” of Sola Scriptura and its “nomative hermeneutics” to come to their own “divinely inspired” conclusions on “women’s liberation”, “gay marriage”, “contraception”, “abortion” and any other social issue they choose to bring to their own attention (or not). And who the heck are YOU (or me for that matter) to question their own reasoning?

Now, if you’re a conservative Lutheran, we’re very close to each other in theology, doctrine and morality. But that’s only because you’ve bought into Sola Sciptura at the source (Luther). What about the hundreds of millions downstream of you? They each belong to churches which have used Sola Scriptura to come to markedly different conclusions on even the most basic theological and moral issues. Why should Sola Scriptura be the exclusive domain of Martin Luther and everyone else who more-or-less agrees with his conclusions? Waaaay downstream the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) use Sola Scriptura too. I have some terrible news for you brother… it was the likes of Martin Luther that made their “Church” possible! If you’re not standing on the Rock of “Scripture-Sacred Tradition-Magisterium” then you’re going over the falls with them! REPENT (turn back!).

 

[AmateurPianist]

.
I know nothing of “Solo Scriptura”…

Now you do

 

[AmateurPianist]

Can we agree that sola scriptura is wrong? No. We can’t.

Read the title again real carefully.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Waaaay downstream the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) use Sola Scriptura too.

Is that really true?

I plugged the words Jehovah Witness Infallible into google and came across a number of interesting hits. This is one representative site with an interesting quote:

The foundation stone, the sole spiritual authority for all Jehovah’s Witnesses, is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. The claims presented in any Watchtower publication are accepted without question by every Witness. The Bible translation most highly respected is THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, the work of the Watchtower Society. Yet, even this “Bible”, is considered a dark book, not understandable to any Jehovah’s Witnesses, without the divinely provided help of the Watchtower Bible “aids”. For all practical purposes, the Witness follows Watchtower instruction as though it comes directly from heaven. Even without the claim of divine inspiration, the Watchtower has managed to persuade its followers that it is divinely guided; and therefore its teachings are to be accepted as though they are infallible.

It is our contention that the Watchtower organization is a false authority over the lives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Watchtower, like all false religious guides, employs the teachings and traditions of men to control its followers. (Mt. 15:9) The most unfortunate fact is that the Watchtower acts as a substitute mediator between God and the JW. For the Christian, there is only “one mediator also between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5b)

This one is called “Lord”. Each follower of Christ accepts Him as the sole spiritual authority in his life, this identifies one as “saved” (Ro.10:9). Jehovah’s Witnesses can be saved by rejecting the Watchtower mediator for the mediator between God and men. There is great hope!

The biggest threat to Watchtower authority comes when the Witness begins to “Make sure of all things” (I Thess. 5:21a NWT). To combat any questioning of Watchtower teaching, the Society has published numerous articles encouraging JW obedience, especially since internal struggles began in the late 70’s. In the January 15, 1983 Watchtower, under the heading: “Avoid Independent Thinking”, the claim is made that it is Satan who first “called into question God’s way of doing things. He promoted independent thinking.” The rebellion of Adam and Eve against the instruction of God is given as the example for JWs today. The Society counsels, “How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God’s visible organization.”

The Society gives us an even more pointed warning in the same magazine,
under the heading:

“Fight Against Independent Thinking”.

Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: “Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.” (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves", "Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?
No, we cannot!

“Really”, no one can “get along” as a Jehovah’s Witness without the Watchtower as a guide for his life.

Exposing the Watchtower is undercutting the very foundation of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When this happens, the sincere truth seeker is forced to seek guidance elsewhere. Oh, that he may listen to the One who teaches all the truth! Jesus said, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes , He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of mine and will disclose it to you.” (John 16:13-14)

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hmmm AmateurPianist seems to be having quite a bit of trouble with this thread. o’s do look a lot like a’s

Based on my understanding of Solo Scritptura I have no problem what so ever with agreeing that it is wrong.

God bless

 

[AngloCatholic1]

AmateurPianist,

Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, YES it is true that individual JW’s are forbidden to engage in independent thinking, and YES they must defer all their answers to the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. So the real question is by what method does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society arrive at their answers to theological, doctrinal and moral questions? And the ONLY answer is SOLA SCRIPTURA. The Watchtower Society does NOT defer to Sacred Traditions, and it does NOT defer to the teachings of the Magisterium and the early Church fathers (in fact they are more in agreement with heretics like Arius than they are with Athanasius).

I have debated with senior JW’s in my home before, and they would ONLY consider Holy Scripture as an authoritative basis for any of my arguments.

Now, your only final objection may be that JW’s don’t really base their teachings on Holy Scripture because they have created their own “New World Translation” of the scriptures. My, oh my… WHERE do you think they got the idea that they could do THAT? Do you think maybe, just MAYBE, that idea comes from their PROTESTANT roots? After all, if Martin Luther can tear out 6 books from the Holy Bible, and STILL call it the “Holy BIble”, who’s to say the JW’s can’t write their OWN translation? I have a copy of an old feature film on Luther which was made by the Lutheran Church in the USA. There’s a scene in the movie when Luther, then still a monk, has an argument with his superiors about the role of “works” in salvation. He turns to a hand-written copy of the book of Romans on a lectern, and reads Romans 1:17 - “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”. His superior nods in the affirmative. “But there is no mention here of statues, relics, and holy pilgrimages!” exclaims Luther. When his superior leaves, Luther turns to the lectern and, placing his quill at the end of the above mentioned verse, writes “Alone!”. Tell me, WHERE did Luther get the authority to do THAT? So, again, if Luther can do THAT, then who’s to say the JW’s can’t write their OWN translation

I’ll tell you WHO. The POPE. That’s WHO!

 

[SemperReformada]

After all, if Martin Luther can tear out 6 books from the Holy Bible, and STILL call it the “Holy BIble”, who’s to say the JW’s can’t write their OWN translation?

Luther lived before Trent and therefore, even from a Catholic point of view, there was certainly nothing wrong with him rejecting the canonical status of the deuterocanonicals. Please remember that the deutero’s were included in the bible Luther translated, just not as canonical scripture.

Please remember the following points:
a.) Trent was the first dogmatic and infallible declaration of the OT canon and Luther lived before Trent. See the article at www.newadvent.org on the OT canon for further verification.

b.) Even the council fathers at Trent had varying opinions as to the canonocity of the deutero’s as evidenced by the Catholic historian Jedin:

“[Seripando was]
Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Please note that Seripando was not alone in his opinion…
Jedin:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

Notice that none of these Tridentine fathers saw the early councils as settling the issus of the OT canon. Why is that? It’s simply because the earlier councils were regional/provincial and did not carry the authority that Trent did. If the council fathers at Trent thought still had doubts as to the canoncity of the dc’s why do you criticize Luther for doing the same?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Ah, to be deep in history often means someone must revisit their argument.

 

[SemperReformada]

There’s a scene in the movie when Luther, then still a monk, has an argument with his superiors about the role of “works” in salvation. He turns to a hand-written copy of the book of Romans on a lectern, and reads Romans 1:17 - “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”. His superior nods in the affirmative. “But there is no mention here of statues, relics, and holy pilgrimages!” exclaims Luther. When his superior leaves, Luther turns to the lectern and, placing his quill at the end of the above mentioned verse, writes “Alone!”. Tell me, WHERE did Luther get the authority to do THAT? So, again, if Luther can do THAT, then who’s to say the JW’s can’t write their OWN translation

I’ll tell you WHO. The POPE. That’s WHO!

I’m not familiar with Luther and Romans 1:17. Usually Luther gets unjustly criticized for ading alone to Romans 3:28.

The following is a summary and can be found at www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

1. Luther’s actual reasoning for using “alone” in Romans 3:28
   This is the sad part about those who use Luther’s Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

See my next post for previous translations with the word “alone”.

 

[SemperReformada]

There’s a scene in the movie when Luther, then still a monk, has an argument with his superiors about the role of “works” in salvation. He turns to a hand-written copy of the book of Romans on a lectern, and reads Romans 1:17 - “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”. His superior nods in the affirmative. “But there is no mention here of statues, relics, and holy pilgrimages!” exclaims Luther. When his superior leaves, Luther turns to the lectern and, placing his quill at the end of the above mentioned verse, writes “Alone!”. Tell me, WHERE did Luther get the authority to do THAT? So, again, if Luther can do THAT, then who’s to say the JW’s can’t write their OWN translation

Continued from my previous post

1. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28
   Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Anglo, are you as quick to criticize the Catholics listed above as you are Luther? If not, why not?

 

[JonNC]

=AngloCatholic1;6010621]
Really? Well you sure ought to! Solo Scripture is when 6 Billion “Popes” each claim the right to use the “praxis” of Sola Scriptura and its “nomative hermeneutics” to come to their own “divinely inspired” conclusions on “women’s liberation”, “gay marriage”, “contraception”, “abortion” and any other social issue they choose to bring to their own attention (or not). And who the heck are YOU (or me for that matter) to question their own reasoning?

Folks can claim whatever they want. Nothing of what you state here has anything to do with sola scriptura.

What about the hundreds of millions downstream of you?

They are more likely downstream of the Catholic Church, as virtually none splintered off of Lutheranism.

They each belong to churches which have used Sola Scriptura to come to markedly different conclusions on even the most basic theological and moral issues. Why should Sola Scriptura be the exclusive domain of Martin Luther and everyone else who more-or-less agrees with his conclusions?

This is not the first time I have heard this. But it just sounds to me like some people think Luther was some sort of pied piper who held magical power over Calvin and others, which also makes those others sound like lemmings who couldn’t make a decision for themselves. What leaders of other faith communions have done or do are based on their own choices.

Waaaay downstream the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) use Sola Scriptura too. I have some terrible news for you brother… it was the likes of Martin Luther that made their “Church” possible! If you’re not standing on the Rock of “Scripture-Sacred Tradition-Magisterium” then you’re going over the falls with them! REPENT (turn back!).

Interesting. One could also say that what made their churches possible was the corruption within the Church prior to and during Luther’s time. Or, one could say that what made their churches possible was the Bishop of Rome splintering off from the other patriarchs in 1054.

I would contend that these types of causitive theories are based more in bias than reality.

Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Doctrine of SS is NOT Taught anywhere in the Bible.
The Bible tell us in addition written word we we are to accept Oral Tradition
Christ tell us we must submit to the authority of the Cathloic
The first Christian did not have a complete Bible

And the big one The Church produced the Bible and not Vice…Versa
The Church was here before the Bible and not the other way around
The Canon of the bible was not settled until the 4th century
And the doctrine of SS did not exist proir to the 14 rh century
Its time for dinner…see you later

 

[Bill_Pick]

To backtrack, Solo Scriptura is a phrase coined by Keith Matthison in his book the “Shape of Sola Scriptura”.

He defines Solo Scriptura as an autonomous reading of the Word of God outside of an authoritative tradition, which he calls the Rule of Faith, concerning what Scripture teaches and how it is to be interpreted.

Although, I am a little unclear as to exactly what he means here, I am wondering if we can all agree with the following statement which I am thinking is a logical outgrowth of what Matthison states.

Any interpretation of the Bible that can be shown to be a recent, creative, interpretation of Scripture which is outside of any authoritative tradition (be it Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox) can be summarily rejected as wrong. This includes but is not limited to the following:

• Any branch of Christianity that can be called restorationalist (Mormons, JW, and the like).
• Prosperity gospel teaching
• New moral teaching like pro abortion and pro gay marriage.
• Emergent church and openness theology
• Insert your own new idea here. If I want to be controversial I could put down “Left behind rapture theology”. or (this could be debated I’m sure) contraception.

If this assumption is correct, then to me it is liberating. If I encounter a nice new idea that I have never heard of, I don’t even have to open to my Bible and give the proponent of this nice new idea a chance of convincing me using the written Word of God. Instead I can summarily reject it as outside of the historical tradition of the church, and therefore…just wrong.

Thoughts welcomed from both Catholics and Protestants here.

A few reason why SS is wrong

The Doctrine of SS is not taught anywhere in in the bible.

The Church call the Church the pillar of truth and not the bible

The first Christians did not have a complete Bible

The Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa

The bible was not available to individual believes until the 15th century

T he doctrine of SS did not exist prior the the14th century

The Protestant bible is missing 7books

The Canon of the bible was not setted until the 4th century

Hope you enjoy

 

[agent_grey]

each religious body needs to be looked at in its own frame under its own terms. Only the true religion will be cohesively consistent within its own tradition and its own scripture. If a tradition is new it is not traditon but either inovation or revelation.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Bill Pick wrote:

The Doctrine of SS is not taught anywhere in in the bible.

The Church call the Church the pillar of truth and not the bible

The first Christians did not have a complete Bible

The Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa

The bible was not available to individual believes until the 15th century

T he doctrine of SS did not exist prior the the14th century

The Protestant bible is missing 7books

The Canon of the bible was not setted until the 4th century

Hope you enjoy

Amen, brother! You know, the problem we Catholics often make is debating Protestants on their own (erroneous) terms.

Salvation is NOT dependant upon literacy! The fact is, Jesus gave us a CHURCH, not a book. He gave us ONE Church. He founded it upon Peter, and gave him the Keys to the kingdom the SAME way the Israeli kings of old gave the Keys to their Stewards until they returned. The Stewards passed on the Keys to their designated successors… until the King returned.

The Bible is just a PART of the Church. And NO, it’s NOT an Owner’s Manual. For instance, it doesn’t even give detailed instructions on something as important as “How to administer Baptism”. Why? Because the compilers of the Book presuppose that you are going to Mass every Lord’s Day and you see the sacrament of Baptism with YOUR OWN EYES every few weeks. And it’s also no surprise that Trent reaffirmed the SAME OT canon that the earliest Christian communities used (the Septuagint) and that Origen (185-254) compiled. It’s also no surprise that all those who broke with the ONE Church (before or after Trent) would feel free to CHANGE the canon… as they have everything else. Now they’re all scattered in every different direction, with each claiming that “Sola Scriptura” brought them there! And now we have the new gremlin of Solo Scriptura to consider! Are they SERIOUS?

Brothers and Sisters in Christ… consider this very carefully. Pray about it. I hope you’ll all COME HOME to the ONE Church that Jesus established. If you want to change it for the better, be the BEST Christian you can WITHIN it!