Is this the consensus among sola scriptura folks?

[CopticChristian]

Mathison defines sola scriptura partially by drawing a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, right? That is, the idea that scripture is the only infalliable authority (former), versus scripture is the only authority (latter)? So, he might accept tradition, but only as subordinate to scripture, while a “solo” advocate would reject all but scripture?

Let’s see here…need the code…do you have the code? Nope, how bout you…nope.

Sola Scriptura…well then lets take this infallible authority…got it…open it…OK what’s it say…can’t tell you all of us are fallible…huh?

Solo Scriptura…wel then lets take this only authority…what’s it say…dunno…why not…can’t give you an infallible explanation or interpretation…huh?

Either one gives you an uniterpretable source…because all Protestants say they are fallible with an infallible authority or the only authority…gotta have the code!

 

[joe370]

…but probably not here…

I can only name 3 but yes, you are right; not so much here. I have visited non-Catholic forums as a former non-Catholic, when I was beginning to lean toward the teachings of the CC and sadly I was not well received, and was even given the boot once, but non-Catholics are not always well received here either; I guess it goes with the forum territory. Without a doubt, I have drawn so much more enjoyment from my correspondence with non-catholics, such as yourself, here at CAF.

 

[BrianGular]

Mathison defines sola scriptura partially by drawing a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, right? That is, the idea that scripture is the only infalliable authority (former), versus scripture is the only authority (latter)? So, he might accept tradition, but only as subordinate to scripture, while a “solo” advocate would reject all but scripture?

You are correct with your distinction between sola and solo. The Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.) very clearly did not reject tradition. Thoughtful protestants today understand that they stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before. The Reformers railed not against tradition but against abuses of tradition. One need only consider where the regula fide came from in the first century, before the gospels had been written and widely circulated. That which was handed down from the apostles originated as word of mouth.

 

[BrianGular]

I am often told that I do not understand and therefore do not properly and accurately portray the Protestant position of Sola scriptura.

Joe, I think you are trying to solve the unsolvable. On a relatively open internet forum like this one it will be impossible to come up with a description that pleases everyone. Bravo to you for making the attempt to understand and explain your opponents’ argument.

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition, in my opinion:

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, 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.”

This seems like a fair and balanced definition to me.

 

[joe370]

Hey Brian…

BrianGular;8509051]Joe, I think you are trying to solve the unsolvable. On a relatively open internet forum like this one it will be impossible to come up with a description that pleases everyone. Bravo to you for making the attempt to understand and explain your opponents’ argument.

I guess it was a last ditch effort to find out definitively, the universal definition of sola scriptura, so certain friends of mine (and family) - would stop telling me that I was misrepresenting SS, but I think you are right; I am trying to solve the unsolvable. I suppose my thinking was: if I had the universal understanding of SS, embraced by all SS proponents, SS proponents could no longer accuse me of “misrepresenting SS.”

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition, in my opinion:

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, 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.”

This seems like a fair and balanced definition to me.

That does seem fair and balanced. ILL run it by them.

Thanks Brian.

 

[Izdaari]

Hey Izdaari. Methodist tradition right? If so what are some Methodist traditions? Just curious if they are similar to catholic tradition.

I am not Methodist, but Assemblies of God… which however has a lot of Methodist/Wesleyan history in its origin.

The only particular Methodist tradition I’ve adopted is the one I mentioned, the use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, a form of prima scriptura that John Wesley formulated.

In a nutshell, Scripture is primary, but also compared with Tradition, Reason and Experience. It should all make sense together, and if it doesn’t, something is wrong. But Scripture is the main authority; the others are kind of like helper apps.

Here’s a more complete explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

 

[christosdavid]

tradition is also important, but rather than a source of revelation, it is a source of theology.

The easiest manner of seeing this is in the doctrine of baptism. Reformed churches teach that the Scriptures view it as initiation into the Covenant. This substitutes for circumscision for infants.

Very quickly, however, the systematic theologians return to tradition to demonstrate that it was the universal practise of the church from the first century onwards.

This history is our tradition, it suppliments the Reformed understanding of covenantal baptism with, “its what weve always done…”

 

[CopticChristian]

tradition is also important, but rather than a source of revelation, it is a source of theology.

The easiest manner of seeing this is in the doctrine of baptism. Reformed churches teach that the Scriptures view it as initiation into the Covenant. This substitutes for circumscision for infants.

Very quickly, however, the systematic theologians return to tradition to demonstrate that it was the universal practise of the church from the first century onwards.

This history is our tradition, it suppliments the Reformed understanding of covenantal baptism with, “its what weve always done…”

So, then you address only the Reformed position. These people in the world represent a minority in the world.

Explain your position as to Baptists, Amish, Menonites. Are they Christian in your eyes?
Do they not have a bible?

They reject infant Baptism using the same book you use and have a totally different understanding of what Baptism is as was taught by Calvin/Reformers…with one authority we have two different understandings.,…either there are two truths and that cannot be or there is inability to discern the truth from a source…

 

[JHow]

…One need only consider where the regula fide came from in the first century, before the gospels had been written and widely circulated. That which was handed down from the apostles originated as word of mouth.

But aren’t you saying here that tradition precedes scripture? How can the thing that comes after be the ultimate or only authority?

 

[CopticChristian]

tradition is also important, but rather than a source of revelation, it is a source of theology.The easiest manner of seeing this is in the doctrine of baptism. Reformed churches teach that the Scriptures view it as initiation into the Covenant. This substitutes for circumscision for infants.

Very quickly, however, the systematic theologians return to tradition to demonstrate that it was the universal practise of the church from the first century onwards.

This history is our tradition, it suppliments the Reformed understanding of covenantal baptism with, “its what weve always done…”

This is very Catholic. My experience with the Reformed is that they do not know how Catholic they are. Words create distinct problems in the mind. I ask you is Theology static or dynamic? In other words is theology something that is and never changes or is and becomes clearer in time. If something is a source then the source creates something out of something else. Food is the source of a meal.

Theology isn’t something we keep to ourselves. Theology is something we learn and teach and believe. Therefore tradition is a source of learning, teaching and believing.

Ponder your thoughts.

 

[christosdavid]

So, then you address only the Reformed position. These people in the world represent a minority in the world.

Explain your position as to Baptists, Amish, Menonites. Are they Christian in your eyes?
Do they not have a bible?

They reject infant Baptism using the same book you use and have a totally different understanding of what Baptism is as was taught by Calvin/Reformers…with one authority we have two different understandings.,…either there are two truths and that cannot be or there is inability to discern the truth from a source…

I used the Reformed position because a previous quote had used the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Baptists, Amish and Mennonites all come from the Anabaptist tradition or the Radical Reformation. The argument is that the Biblical evidence of baptising families and the promise being open to children (Acts 2:39) was insufficient to warrant paedobaptism.

The radical reformation, whilst Baptists may have a Bible belt in the South, is not the major numerical denomination you may think, further, Amish and Mennonites have significantly less numbers and appear to have a strong grasp of tradition.

Other mainstream churches such as the episcopalian, is content to use tradition in infant baptism, Methodists as well, Lutherans also never stopped, “doing what weve always done…”

 

[CopticChristian]

I used the Reformed position because a previous quote had used the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Baptists, Amish and Mennonites all come from the Anabaptist tradition or the Radical Reformation. The argument is that the Biblical evidence of baptising families and the promise being open to children (Acts 2:39) was insufficient to warrant paedobaptism.

The radical reformation, whilst Baptists may have a Bible belt in the South, is not the major numerical denomination you may think, further, Amish and Mennonites have significantly less numbers and appear to have a strong grasp of tradition.

Other mainstream churches such as the episcopalian, is content to use tradition in infant baptism, Methodists as well, Lutherans also never stopped, “doing what weve always done…”

You provided information I did not ask for. I do not need to know how anyone came to the position they came to. Read again. Answer the question as I asked. The first is yes/no.

The second requires you to tell me that there is not one but two understandings as I see it with the same source. Is this true or not true?

Explain your position as to Baptists, Amish, Menonites. Are they Christian in your eyes?
SIZE]

They reject infant Baptism using the same book you use and have a totally different understanding of what Baptism is as was taught by Calvin/Reformers…with one authority we have two different understandings.,…either there are two truths and that cannot be or there is inability to discern the truth from a source…

So let me make it easy.

Are Baptists/Anabaptists Christians?

Are there two understandings coming from the same source concerning Baptism?

 

[JonNC]

They reject infant Baptism using the same book you use and have a totally different understanding of what Baptism is as was taught by Calvin/Reformers…with one authority we have two different understandings.,…either there are two truths and that cannot be or there is inability to discern the truth from a source…

Hey Coptic,
Would it be a fair comparison to to say that Catholics reject the Orthodox practice of Baptism/Chrismation/ first Holy Communion using the same Tradition you they use?

I’m not comparing the issue of importance here, but simply the apologetics you’ve employed.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Hey Coptic,
Would it be a fair comparison to to say that Catholics reject the Orthodox practice of Baptism/Chrismation/ first Holy Communion using the same Tradition you they use?

I’m not comparing the issue of importance here, but simply the apologetics you’ve employed.

Jon

This is apples and oranges, 999, since the One Holy Catholic Church is East/West. The Eastern rites perform Baptism/Chrismation/Holy Communion for babies. Since the Eastern rite is part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church your example will not wash. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic acknowedges West and East. This is apples and oranges, 999.

Apples acknowedge 7 sacraments and effects of those Sacraments in children and adults. The oranges, well that is another story.

 

[joe370]

I am not Methodist, but Assemblies of God… which however has a lot of Methodist/Wesleyan history in its origin.

The only particular Methodist tradition I’ve adopted is the one I mentioned, the use of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, a form of prima scriptura that John Wesley formulated.

In a nutshell, Scripture is primary, but also compared with Tradition, Reason and Experience. It should all make sense together, and if it doesn’t, something is wrong. But Scripture is the main authority; the others are kind of like helper apps.

Here’s a more complete explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

 

[JonNC]

This is apples and oranges, 999, since the One Holy Catholic Church is East/West. The Eastern rites perform Baptism/Chrismation/Holy Communion for babies. Since the Eastern rite is part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church your example will not wash. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic acknowedges West and East. This is apples and oranges, 999.

Apples acknowedge 7 sacraments and effects of those Sacraments in children and adults. The oranges, well that is another story.

The question wasn’t about apples, oranges. My question is would it be a fair comparison to to say that Catholics reject the Orthodox practice of Baptism/Chrismation/ first Holy Communion using the same Tradition you they use?
Maybe its best to leave it a rhetorical question.

Jon

 

[BrianGular]

But aren’t you saying here that tradition precedes scripture? How can the thing that comes after be the ultimate or only authority?

Tradition precedes scripture in chronology. That doesn’t necessarily mean it precedes in importance. If it were true that nothing that comes after can have authority then John the Baptist would have authority over Jesus Christ, and I think that vast majority of us agree that this is not the case.

It’s a very practical matter. While the Apostles were still alive they were the ultimate source of authority. At the very beginning, they were all we had–and all we needed. Once they passed, however, all we had to guide us was their teaching. Much of their teaching was in the form of the documents they left behind. Much was in the form of the common practices (i.e. traditions) of the churches of that day.

The sola scriptura folks do not accept the claim of an unbroken line of apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession, the church does not have ultimate authority over the inspired documents the Apostles left for us. Instead, they believe, the inspired word of God has authority over the church–and all other aspects of faith and practice.

If we read the Reformers carefully, we see that they supported tradition as important and valuable. In fact, Zwingli and Calvin, to name two, faced significant opposition from groups who believed that the reformers hadn’t gone far enough in rejecting the teaching and practices of the Roman church. The reformers understood and taught that we stand on the shoulders of the Christians who have gone before. We aren’t to think we’re the first (or even best) to struggle with theological issues.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

The question wasn’t about apples, oranges. My question is would it be a fair comparison to to say that Catholics reject the Orthodox practice of Baptism/Chrismation/ first Holy Communion using the same Tradition they use?
Maybe its best to leave it a rhetorical question.

Jon

I think it’s fair to say that when they parted ways in the 11th century, tradition, regarding these practices, began to develop differently as these 2 churches traversed the centuries.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…
I think it’s fair to say that when they parted ways in the 11th century, tradition, regarding these practices, began to develop differently as these 2 churches traversed the centuries.

What was the practice prior to? And, which is correct?

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

The question wasn’t about apples, oranges. My question is would it be a fair comparison to to say that Catholics reject the Orthodox practice of Baptism/Chrismation/ first Holy Communion using the same Tradition you they use?
Maybe its best to leave it a rhetorical question.

Jon

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church does not reject Baptism/Chrism/Communiot for babies. It is practiced in the Eastern Rite not in the Western Rite.

This is a practice. The OHCAC, Eastern Rites, Orthodox believe in 7 sacraments, believe that they deliver grace and agree on the elements of those Sacraments. These are apples.

The Baptists, Anabaptists, Reformed, etc …these are oranges.