Is Sola Scriptura Idolatry?

[Melchior]

“I am not defending your former church but With all do respect your logic is very flawed.”

The Bible contains, not is the Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. (see John first chapter). Are you yourself worshipping the Bible?

“The Bible is the word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit and indeed does contain the very words of God.”

They and you seem to be confusing the words inspire and dictate. Yes the Bible was written by inspired human beings to whom God gave the original thoughts. What this denomination (and seemingly yourself) said and taught was that God dictated the exact words of the Bible to human robots who were prevented by divine intervention from making any mistakes in any way at all(including historic and scientific areas).

“If I say Ronald Reagan said something that he wrote in a book, I am not saying the book is Ronald Reagan. I am merely quoting a record of what Ronald Reagan said in writing”

But God did not directly write the Bible himself. God wrote nothing. God gave inspired ideas to human beings to write down in thier own words, so I find your argument invalid.

You assume to much. If you are right you are basically saying that God does not communicate through HIS sacred scriptures. I know Jesus is the WORD. But when we say that scripture is the inspired word of God we are not saying he dicated them (I never implied that). We are saying that he did inspire exactly what is in there for His church. You simply misunderstand certain terms or pour your own meaning into them. God gave us the Bible. Of course he used people to communicate the message. But you do seem to forget that in many instances the Bible does actually contain direct messages from God through people. The 10 Commandments, every thing the Prophets said. Jesus very words, etc. I suspect those who make such arguments don’t spend much time actually reading scripture.

Mel

 

[RolandJS]

“When people say that the Bible is more important than God himself.” boppysbud

my original reply:
I have read posts of fellow Catholics calling the wisdom and actions of HF-PJPII himself - if HF-PJPII is the Vicar of Christ, and someone believes Their Word is more important than the Word from the Vicar of Christ – is Catholicism and P/S Scriptura to blame?

what I meant to type:
**I have read posts of fellow Catholics calling into question or even denigrating the wisdom and actions of HF-PJPII himself

• if HF-PJPII is the Vicar of Christ, and someone believes Their Word is more important than the Word from the Vicar of Christ
  – is Catholicism and P/S Scriptura to blame?**

Sorry for my error!

Roland

 

[RolandJS]

My fellow Christians of all Groups!

Each and every one of you belong to an Entity [parish or church] within any one of the four Groups [Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant & non-align].

Each Entity carries a Charter of Being [mission statement, purpose and goal statements].

Each Entity also carries the Identity of the Group:
–A Catholic parish grandly and joyfully carries the Flag of the Group of Catholicism - and justly so.
–An Orthodox parish…ditto…the Flag of Orthodoxy.
–And so on with Protestant and non-align

Now, let me ask you faithful and loyal Catholics here a question?

Would you allow an atheist to define a Doctrine you hold?
Would you allow a Protestant to erroneously define a Doctrine you hold? Non-align?

No, you define your Doctrine which is represented by your Flag of Catholicism. Catholicism defines Catholicism, no more, less.

Then, why are the Protestants and us non-aligns not allowed to define our Doctrine of Prima/Sola Scriptura?

Better, yet:
You normal, dedicated, daily-walking, smart/hard working Catholics –
– are you going to allow the extremists within your Group (or within your Entity) to define a Doctrine accepted by the Norm of Catholicism, as approved by HF-PJPII & the Magisterium?

No, then why are a few of you dragging up extremists within either the Protestant or non-align Groups and “forcing” their behavior upon our Norm of Prima/Sola Scriptura?

Roland

 

[Melchior]

stollerusa:

My fellow Christians of all Groups!

Each and every one of you belong to an Entity [parish or church] within any one of the four Groups [Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant & non-align].

Each Entity carries a Charter of Being [mission statement, purpose and goal statements].

Each Entity also carries the Identity of the Group:
–A Catholic parish grandly and joyfully carries the Flag of the Group of Catholicism - and justly so.
–An Orthodox parish…ditto…the Flag of Orthodoxy.
–And so on with Protestant and non-align

Now, let me ask you faithful and loyal Catholics here a question?

Would you allow an atheist to define a Doctrine you hold?
Would you allow a Protestant to erroneously define a Doctrine you hold? Non-align?

No, you define your Doctrine which is represented by your Flag of Catholicism. Catholicism defines Catholicism, no more, less.

Then, why are the Protestants and us non-aligns not allowed to define our Doctrine of Prima/Sola Scriptura?

Better, yet:
You normal, dedicated, daily-walking, smart/hard working Catholics –
– are you going to allow the extremists within your Group (or within your Entity) to define a Doctrine accepted by the Norm of Catholicism, as approved by HF-PJPII & the Magisterium?

No, then why are a few of you dragging up extremists within either the Protestant or non-align Groups and “forcing” their behavior upon our Norm of Prima/Sola Scriptura?

Roland

Excellent post, Roland.

Hear him all ye people!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Melchior:

I am not defending your former church but With all do respect your logic is very flawed. The Bible is the word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit and indeed does contain the very words of God. Who was Jesus after all? If I say Ronald Reagan said something that he wrote in a book, I am not saying the book is Ronald Reagan. I am merely quoting a record of what Ronald Reagan said in writing.

Mel

Mel;

Your comment brings up another thought along the lines of my original question, “Is sola scriptura idolatry?” Using your Ronald Reagan analogy, sola scriptura would look to the Ronald Reagan book to define Ronald Reagan. If the answer to any question about Ronald Reagan did not reside within the covers of the book, according to sola scriptura, there could be no way to definitively answer the question. Isn’t that a form of exhalting the Ronald Reagan book over the person of Ronald Reagan?

That was my point in asking my quetion on sola scriptura. Does it exhalt the word of God over the full being of God Himself? Doesn’t it remove from one’s religious field of view the fuller picture of God based upon other sources of His time among us, and restrict one’s view to what one can glean from the pages of the Bible alone? And isn’t it true that exalting a thing over God is Idolatry?

 

[Shibboleth]

Sola Scriptura has taken on a few meanings since the time of Luther.

Just to explain the Lutheran point of view.

We do not worship or even put our faith in the Scriptures. We put our faith in Jesus and the Gospel first and foremost – our trust and belief in the inerrancy and all that goes with sola scriptura comes out of that faith in Jesus and the Gospel.

 

[RolandJS]

Shibboleth:

Sola Scriptura has taken on a few meanings since the time of Luther. Just to explain the Lutheran point of view:
We do not worship or even put our faith in the Scriptures. We put our faith in Jesus and the Gospel first and foremost – our trust and belief in the inerrancy and all that goes with sola scriptura comes out of that faith in Jesus and the Gospel.

Thanks Shibboleth! That was a very fine reminder for us to ensure Prima/Sola Scriptura is within proper context – PSS is an action item under Goals, all of which are under a Purpose - which you just gave (Purpose and Goals).

Merchior - thanks for your attaboy! I appreciate knowing when I do something correct now and then

Roland

 

[boppysbud]

“Sola Scriptura has taken on a few meanings since the time of Luther.”

“Just to explain the Lutheran point of view.”

“We do not worship or even put our faith in the Scriptures. We put our faith in Jesus and the Gospel first and foremost”

Shibboleth I have the utmost in respect for the original meaning of sola scriptura as taught by Martin Luther. But you must realise that modern fundamentalists have taken Luther’s definition and expanded upon it to a great degree.

For example as to the things not commanded to be done in the scriptures (candles, vestments, organ and piano music) Luther declared that those things are optional, for us to decide about ourselves. Luther had a special word besides “optional” to describe this but I cannot recall it right now, it’s on the tip of my tounge very frustrating.

On the other hand John Calvin said that anything not commanded to be done in the scriptures was automatically forebidden, and a lot of conservative contemporary Presbyterians and Reformed still teach this, they call it the “Regulative Principle”.

I personally was raised in the so-called “churches of Christ” which teaches the same thing. a lot of them won’t even have kitchens and social halls in the churches, becuase these things are not “commanded” in the scriptures, and of course candles, vestments, and organs are all forbidden under this principle.

“our trust and belief in the inerrancy”

Inerrancy is a different matter, and of course one I dissagree with you about. Infallible yes, a dictated “inerrant” Bible inerrant in matters of history and science no.

I have never heard of Lutherans teachings inerrancy, at least not ELCA Lutherans. Are you a member of WELS or LCMS?

 

[boppysbud]

Shibboleth if you can think of the special theological word used by Luther to describe what I have called “optional” , I would very much apreciate it if you clued me in.

 

[boppysbud]

Never mind Shibboleth, I fianlly remebered the word I was searching for, it is (drum roll please).

ADIAPHORA

 

[RolandJS]

I eagerly await your response to my latest response to your latest response to my earlier response to your early response to my original response to the original thread starter.

Boppysbud - remember, although we will discuss, debate and argue muchly back and forth, I consider us brothers in Christ!

Roland
AmbassadorMan

 

[Robert_in_SD]

stollerusa:

Boppysbud - remember, although we will discuss, debate and argue muchly back and forth, I consider us brothers in Christ!

Amen to that sentiment. Have a wonderful weekend y’all.

 

[csr]

Sola Scriptura is at least an erroneous understanding of Scripture, given the fact that in Scripture the Church is founded on a person (St. Peter) and that in Scripture we see clear references to Tradition. And in its purest form, the Protestant heresy may advocate the understanding that God is behind the “Good Book”. But, I think on a practical level, idolatry is about taking something for an end in itself, denying to God His role, and there is a clear extent to which Sola Scriptura does this. “Bible Alone” denies God the right to determine what kind of Church He establishes, and it also takes the Bible to be more of an end than it really is.

To the extent that Sola Scriptura does not worship the Bible, then it is not idolatry, but idolatry is a bit more complicated than that, I think:

*dolatry does fraud to God, by refusing to Him, and conferring on others, His honours; so that to fraud it also conjoins contumely. (Tertullian*Protestantism may also be considered a kind of idolatry, as Sola Scriptura is the thinking of those who wish to take God’s decisions out of God’s hands, and invent an alternate rule-set; this defrauds God and confers (on Luther et alia) His honors.

Most men simply regard idolatry as to be interpreted in these senses alone, viz.: if one burn incense, or immolate a victim, or give a sacrificial banquet, or be bound to some sacred functions or priesthoods; just as if one were to regard adultery as to be accounted in kisses, and in embraces, and in actual fleshly contact; or murder as to be reckoned only in the shedding forth of blood, and in the actual taking away of life. But how far wider an extent the Lord assigns to those crimes we are sure: when He defines adultery to consist even in concupiscence…(Tertullian, ibid.)

Astrology is a kind of idolatry. To the extent that Protestants misunderstand what the Bible is and how it is situated within the Church, they would seem to have a misunderstanding akin to how astrologers misunderstand the stars.

A Protestant typically thinks that every individual is equipped to read the Holy Scriptures (except the Pope, of course) and come up with a right conclusion. In this relationship that they imagine existing between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Scriptures, I detect idolatry: they imagine something holy happening there which is not. The Church interprets Scripture, not individuals.

 

[RolandJS]

I have which might be either a novel or naval Idea!

How about we listen to Catholics describe Catholicism? And
How about we listen to X-Protestants describe X-Protestantism?
—and accept at face value the definitions and terms set forth by the adherents of whatever bit and piece of Ism’s Belief Set?

Laying aside momentarily the Truth of the Law of Non-Contradiction,
I see not a whole lot of evidence that either side is accurately or fairly describing one another. The cartooning by Y of X and expecting X to “apologia” from said cartooning, by either Group – just may well be pretty much a waste of time and energy by both Groups.

Roland

 

[csr]

Roland, I am content to learn that I fail properly to understand a concept (such as idolatry) or how group X regards itself, but

How about we listen to Catholics describe Catholicism? And
How about we listen to X-Protestants describe X-Protestantism?

I’m not sure I’m ready for dual truths. I’m also not about to assume that Protestants understand their own beliefs. If the adherents of a heresy understood the heresy, they would cease to be adherents. It is the role of the Church to shine the light. That doesn’t mean that *my *understanding is correct, however.

 

[RolandJS]

I think I may have used too many words and clouded the issue

Let me repeat the following:
“Laying aside momentarily the Truth of the Law of Non-Contradiction,
I see not a whole lot of evidence that either side is accurately or fairly describing one another. The cartooning by Y of X and expecting X to “apologia” from said cartooning, by either Group – just may well be pretty much a waste of time and energy by both Groups.”

In short, Y cartooning X is neither accurate or fair.
X cartooning Y is neither accurate or fair.

Neither X or Y can be expected or forced to debate and argue from an adverse platform handed to them by the other.
X and Y should apologia from their platform, as defined by them.

For example, over in DCF, once in awhile, some YahooProttie roars in, rat-tat-a-tats a post claiming “Catholics worship Mary.”

Well, the Catholic Faithful, rightly so, immediately attempt to first accurately and fairly define their giving special service to Mary.

The ProttieRoar needs to object to the truth, not a cartooning, of the matter In short, if I ever desire to comment about Catholicism’s Marian Theology, I should do so from the aspect of giving special service to Mary rather than “Catholics worship Mary.”

I hope this helps!

Roland
AmbassadorMan

 

[csr]

I guess the ‘truth’ of Sola Scriptura is what we are attempting to discuss. Is it idolatry or not, that is the question. Any ideas? I think there may be a nexus on several levels. Ultimately it may not be a necessary avenue for discussion in any case, because the error of Sola Scriptura is evident on other grounds.

 

[RolandJS]

…at least to me, is:

Within the confides of the average American discussion board…

Very seldom has a Protestant or non-align accurately and fairly read back to the Catholic Faithful what the Catholic Faithful believe and practice concerning Marian Theology.

Very seldom has a Catholic accurately and fairly read back to the Protestant Faithful what the Protestant Faithful believe and practice concerning Prima and Sola Scriptura theology.

So often the average member of X Group, of X Entity (parish or church) makes assertion(s) concerning Y Group, of Y Entity (parish or church) that are simply not part of Y’s Reality.
Then, to compound the problem, X tries to “force” Y to apologia the unReal, rather than truly taking Y’s real belief or practice and beginning with that.

Maybe we can borrow from Ceven Stovey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Nuns (those beloved sisters who daily teach the faithful in the great private schools):
seek first to understand before you seek to be understood ??

Maybe not

Youse guys carry on, there would be no fun in discussion boards if we were all forced to be accurate

God bless, and I’ll see you later in the CA funny papers!

Roland
AmbassadorMan

 

[oat_soda]

Of course not. Sola Scriptura, whether you agree with it or not, merely means the belief that Scripture, as understood to be the direct teaching od Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets and the record of Salvation History, is the final rule of faith and pracitce for the Church.

it doesn’t merely mean anything. i think every protestant has a different definition for sola scriptura. for one, they will define sola scruptura as meaning that the bible alone is sufficent for the means to salvation. when it comes to interpretation and explicit vs. implict doctrine, they believe that the main things are the plain things so that no one ought to differ substatially when interpreting the bible. only those things which aren’t important may be unclear. we know that this is totally false as every protestant splitter can’t agree on the necessity
of the sacraments, justification, or predestination. their distinction between explicit and implicit is totally arbitrary. also, they unknowingly accept much catholic tradition.

sola scriptura says very little. the only thing it really says is we do not accept the authority of the catholic church.

 

[madavis]

As a former Fundamentalist Baptist, I can tell you Sola Scriptura is not idolatry in any way, shape, or form. Actually, this is an amusing question to me. They do believe that scripture is the final authority on all matters… kind of like a Baptist Catechism, but that is far from Idolatry. For it to be idolatry, there would have to be some form of worship of the scripture involved in leiu of God. And in this area, there is no difference between Catholics and Baptists in respect to their reverence for the scripture. If a Baptist (sola scriptura and all) is guilty of “worshiping” the Bible, then so are Catholics. And the truth is that neither worship the Bible in place of God.