I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.....

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

Where does scripture teach the written Word of God is the final authority? Where does Jesus or one of the 12 make the same claim?

Nicea,
Understanding that SS is a practice for hermeneutics, one has to ask, in return, where does Jesus or the apostles talk about one Bishop being infallible (ex cathedra), or having universal jurisdiction?
The issue, for me, is how do we know a doctrine is correct. The single thing we have from the apostolic era is scripture. And SS practices using scripture to hold accountable teachers and teachings. This is why Lutherans and Catholics, in fact, agree on so many things - Catholicism and Lutheranism are, by and large, scriptural.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,
Understanding that SS is a practice for hermeneutics, one has to ask, in return, where does Jesus or the apostles talk about one Bishop being infallible (ex cathedra), or having universal jurisdiction?
The issue, for me, is how do we know a doctrine is correct. The single thing we have from the apostolic era is scripture. And SS practices using scripture to hold accountable teachers and teachings. This is why Lutherans and Catholics, in fact, agree on so many things - Catholicism and Lutheranism are, by and large, scriptural.

Jon

Jon,

Blessings! I understand your point,because I too can ask where does Jesus even mention a word about writing anything down and later compiling a Bible? A canon? A doctrine for the Trinity or the Incarnation. No where. That is not my point. The point is that regardless of hermeneutics,which we both as a Catholic & Lutheran understand. However, many Christians,especially Fundamentalist truly believe that the written scripture is THE final authority.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Blessings! I understand your point,because I too can ask where does Jesus even mention a word about writing anything down and later compiling a Bible? A canon? A doctrine for the Trinity or the Incarnation. No where. That is not my point. The point is that regardless of hermeneutics,which we both as a Catholic & Lutheran understand. However, many Christians,especially Fundamentalist truly believe that the written scripture is THE final authority.

I understand you point, as well. My concern, too, is with those who refuse to accept that the writings of others (other than their own, oddly enough), can rightly reflecting scripture.
I believe ecumenical creeds are an excellent example; not in scripture, but authoritatively reflecting the Christian faith, the catholic faith.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think too often some Catholics forget how central the Scriptures were and are for the Catholic Church in deciding upon and declaring doctrines. We hear so much in here about tradition and the Church and anti-sola scriptura but it’s hard to find a time when Augustine didn’t quote Scripture to prove his points or Ambrose or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, and on and on. They always used Scripture to inform their philosophies and theological developments. The councils were no different. It seems like some in here think the Fathers and great saints brought forth doctrines and theological dogmas in a vacuum. Scripture was always front and center. And today in the catechism Scripture is quoted constantly. Tradition is not really just in a vacuum nor is the Church. Scripture is, IMO, the heart and soul of the theology we have and it should be.

 

[Nicea325]

I understand you point, as well. My concern, too, is with those who refuse to accept that the writings of others (other than their own, oddly enough), can rightly reflecting scripture.
I believe ecumenical creeds are an excellent example; not in scripture, but authoritatively reflecting the Christian faith, the catholic faith.

Jon

I agree with you 100%. However,remember that the Nicene Creed is all scriptural…

 

[Nicea325]

I think too often some Catholics forget how central the Scriptures were and are for the Catholic Church in deciding upon and declaring doctrines. We hear so much in here about tradition and the Church and anti-sola scriptura but it’s hard to find a time when Augustine didn’t quote Scripture to prove his points or Ambrose or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, and on and on. They always used Scripture to inform their philosophies and theological developments. The councils were no different. It seems like some in here think the Fathers and great saints brought forth doctrines and theological dogmas in a vacuum. Scripture was always front and center. And today in the catechism Scripture is quoted constantly. Tradition is not really just in a vacuum nor is the Church. Scripture is, IMO, the heart and soul of the theology we have and it should be.

Indeed scripture is sacred and has always been considered sacred.

 

[mark_a]

It is and it isn’t.

Sounds very similar to that list of infallible Catholic teachings Protestants keep asking for.

 

[fbl9]

Sounds very similar to that list of infallible Catholic teachings Protestants keep asking for.

As some mentioned before every one uses their own tradition when interpretating scripture. I will go one step further and say that this ‘tradition’ is the final authority.The best example of this is the real presence in the Eucharist vs a symbolic eucharist. Both sides use the same scripture to foster their point.
So what is the deciding factor?The tradition in which the scripture is interpretated.

 

[joe370]

I think too often some Catholics forget how central the Scriptures were and are for the Catholic Church in deciding upon and declaring doctrines. We hear so much in here about tradition and the Church and anti-sola scriptura but it’s hard to find a time when Augustine didn’t quote Scripture to prove his points or Ambrose or Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, and on and on. They always used Scripture to inform their philosophies and theological developments. The councils were no different. It seems like some in here think the Fathers and great saints brought forth doctrines and theological dogmas in a vacuum. Scripture was always front and center. And today in the catechism Scripture is quoted constantly. Tradition is not really just in a vacuum nor is the Church. Scripture is, IMO, the heart and soul of the theology we have and it should be.

Hey Gurney, the ECF’s did not embrace scripture alone though. I believe that catholics understand the unique centrality of the word of God, and how often the word of God was used to inerrantly define doctrines, but focus on the tradition of the CC for the simple fact that it was the tradition of the CC that was the yardstick for determining sacred scripture, and the fact that many non-catholics (not all) - reject this notion and reject sacred tradition. If I had a dime for every time someone said: Scripture alone…no church tradition… I would have a whole bunch of dimes. LOL…

For the ECF’s, it was always, scripture + tradition - right? If someone would have told the ECF’s that the tradition of the church was unnecessary, can you imagine what they would have said?

But I digress. I still can’t get a definitive consensus on what the practice of sola scripture is, here at CAF, but I am still trying.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment?

Joe:
There is not one gold standard definition of sola scriptura. The definitions as practiced by various organizations range from very nuanced to very brute force (if it ain’t in the Bible it shouldn’t be practiced - Church of Christ).

I would suggest that if you or any Catholic wants to talk to any of us about Sola Scriptura that your first question be “how do you define it?” and go from there.

 

[Nicea325]

Joe:
There is not one gold standard definition of sola scriptura. The definitions as practiced by various organizations range from very nuanced to very brute force (if it ain’t in the Bible it shouldn’t be practiced - Church of Christ).

I would suggest that if you or any Catholic wants to talk to any of us about Sola Scriptura that your first question be “how do you define it?” and go from there.

And there lies the issue: Who defines it and who has the correct definition/explanation?

 

[Rightlydivide]

And there lies the issue: Who defines it and who has the correct definition/explanation?

You already know the answer to that. Groups have nuanced defintions of words. The groups are only placed together has a general way of categorizing.
No one would expect unlike groups to possess an agreed upon understanding of something that is practiced differently.
Take for example the word religion. Multiple groups do not agree exactly what that constitutes and no one would really expect them to.

 

[Nicea325]

You already know the answer to that. Groups have nuanced defintions of words. The groups are only placed together has a general way of categorizing.
No one would expect unlike groups to possess an agreed upon understanding of something that is practiced differently.
Take for example the word religion. Multiple groups do not agree exactly what that constitutes and no one would really expect them to.

So in other words,there exist no such thing as a correct definition to any set of words? Since groups have nuanced definition of words? Sorry,I do not accept that position for all words.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So in other words,there exist no such thing as a correct definition to any set of words? Since groups have nuanced definition of words? Sorry,I do not accept that position for all words.

No of course not. But many words have multiple meanings. I know better than to modify “words” with an adjective like “all”. Thats just basic stuff.
Sola Scriptura is highly nuanced; particularly in practice as another person pointed out.

 

[Nicea325]

No of course not. But many words have multiple meanings. I know better than to modify “words” with an adjective like “all”. Thats just basic stuff.
Sola Scriptura is highly nuanced; particularly in practice as another person pointed out.

Yes I understand your point and I agree with your latter statment.

God Bless!

 

[JonNC]

And there lies the issue: Who defines it and who has the correct definition/explanation?

Since Luther gets the blame/credit for it, it seems the Lutheran view would be default definition.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Since Luther gets the blame/credit for it, it seems the Lutheran view would be default definition.

Jon

Not a bad idea or belief.

 

[joe370]

Since Luther gets the blame/credit for it, it seems the Lutheran view would be default definition.

Jon

I totally agree with you Jon. :thumbsup:Sola scriptura started with ML so his definition of SS should prevail.

ML said, and I am paraphrasing: sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God, as taught by the Catholic church, but not at the exclusion of sacred tradition.

Jon, ML seems to reject tradition, and your church does not. Why?

It is quite evident that the NT furnishes no argument whatsoever that sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; quite the contrary; sacred Scripture is profitable, but still, it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle Paul required the aid of Tradition. (2 Thess. 2:15) Moreover, Paul was referring to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

Your thoughts friend?

 

[joe370]

You already know the answer to that. Groups have nuanced defintions of words. The groups are only placed together has a general way of categorizing.
No one would expect unlike groups to possess an agreed upon understanding of something that is practiced differently.
Take for example the word religion. Multiple groups do not agree exactly what that constitutes and no one would really expect them to.

RD, you have already admitted that we have an inerrant bible without any means to in-errantly interpret the inerrant word of God, so I am not sure there is anything more to discuss regarding this OP, friend.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7285373]

I totally agree with you Jon. :thumbsup:Sola scriptura started with ML so his definition of SS should prevail.

ML said, and I am paraphrasing: sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God, as taught by the Catholic church, but not at the exclusion of sacred tradition.

Jon, ML seems to reject tradition, and your church does not. Why?

Joe, by your own reasonable rendition of SS, I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that ML rejects Sacred Tradition, unless you are saying he rejects it equal to scripture. If that’s the case, this is what Lutherans believe. Tradition is subject to scripture, at least in our practice of SS for hermeneutics.

It is quite evident that the NT furnishes no argument whatsoever that sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; quite the contrary; sacred Scripture is profitable, but still, it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle Paul required the aid of Tradition. (2 Thess. 2:15) Moreover, Paul was referring to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

I think you hit the nail on the head; Tradition - teachers and teachings, councils and creeds, are an important and necessary aid in understanding the message of the Gospel. These things should never be rejected lightly, particularly those accepted by both east and west, in my opinion. But they are all subject to scripture, when one practices SS.

Jon