Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[Vile_Servant]

1. This thread is not about hermeneutics. If you want to discuss such principles, start a thread on that. This one is about accountability of doctrines, and WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of such.
2. You seem to have some discomfort with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture. I agree with you, but there’s only ONE that does that you are rebuking: The Catholic Church. It wrote The Catholic Catechism and there it designates one as the exclusive, authoritative interpreter: itself (CCC 85). But be aware that the “Scripture” it alone interprets is not found in any tome that can be objectively read but rather is found only in the heart of The Catholic Church (CCC 113) as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC 85)
3. This thread is not about arbitration. If you want to discuss that issue, start a thread on it. This one is about accountability of doctrines, and WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of such.
4. IMHO, having a rule is far better than Bob the Builder simply declaring that Bob the Building is INCAPABLE of being wrong about this matter and thus is correct, so just forget about accountability and norming (by ANY rule/canon) and do as Bob the Builder alone demands: just accept whatever Bob the Builder exclusively says “with docility” “as God speaking.” IMHO, even in the worse case senario you suggest, that’s more likely to be related to truth. My study of the LDS and of all the cults has rather strongly convinced me of that.

you keep missing the point.

what use is the “rule/canon for norming” if it doesn’t work? the best tape measure in the world is useless if everyone cannot agree on HOW to use it correctly.

i asked you a simple question, what is your belief regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence? you have chosen not to answer the question.

 

[Cristian_B]

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

Depends on what do you understand by Sola Scriptura.

Perhaps this may be the most used arguments agains it: ‘The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.’

So they offer us the following argument:

1. 
   *]Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
   *]Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
   *]Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.
   
   But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
   1. 
      *]Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
      *]Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
      *]Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.
      
      And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection.
      
      So, by the definition I offered I believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning that all truth necessary for salvation or of very big benefit for me are stated in the Holy Scriptures.

 

[seascale]

The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, didn’t seem to think *Sola Scriptura *was such a bad idea:

“We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” (On Truth, 14.10.11)

Also, it seems like hubris to say the Church created the Bible. God created the Bible, and His Holy Spirit guided fallible men toward inclusion of the proper books within the canon. In the words of Bruce Milne: “The church no more created the NT canon by recognizing and defining it than Isaac Newton created the law of gravity.”

Soli Deo Gloria,
Seascale

 

[seascale]

He only founded one church, Josaih, and it is Catholic. He only made those promises to the One Church He founded. He did not found "churches’. Men came along later and did that.

Which brings up a very good point I’ve always wondered about. The Church was founded and began in Jerusalem. Why isn’t the RCC, if it is the one true church, called the Jerusalem Catholic Church? For that matter, since the Church did begin in Jerusalem, wouldn’t it be appropriate to say the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church? They also claim to have an unbroken succession, and you can’t both be right.

 

[seascale]

It is certainly possible to read words that dont; exist. Just check into why Luther added the word “alone” to the Scriptures!

It is common, when arguing from a position of weakness, to mischaracterize (i.e. do not mischaracterize because it makes your position look weak) The implication made here is that Luther read a passage from the Bible and inserted the word “alone” into the text. That is very disingenuous. Everyone knows that is not what happened. As someone said earlier in this thread (I’m paraphrasing) let’s be charitable towards each other and focus on the real disagreements without mischaracterizing each other’s positions.

Also, while it is possible to read words into scripture, the Bible is sufficiently clear on all matters of importance. At least, Irenaeus seemed to think so: “Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe in them…those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such clear demonstrations.” (Against Heresies - Book II Chapter XXVII)

 

[Vile_Servant]

The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, didn’t seem to think *Sola Scriptura *was such a bad idea:

“We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” (On Truth, 14.10.11)

Also, it seems like hubris to say the Church created the Bible. God created the Bible, and His Holy Spirit guided fallible men toward inclusion of the proper books within the canon. In the words of Bruce Milne: “The church no more created the NT canon by recognizing and defining it than Isaac Newton created the law of gravity.”

Soli Deo Gloria,
Seascale

Saint Thomas Aquinas also condemned Sola Scriptura (which denies the infallibility of the teaching of the Church);

He wrote:
“Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”
(Summa Theologica II-II, Q.5, A.3)

 

[inkaneer]

Which brings up a very good point I’ve always wondered about. The Church was founded and began in Jerusalem. Why isn’t the RCC, if it is the one true church, called the Jerusalem Catholic Church? For that matter, since the Church did begin in Jerusalem, wouldn’t it be appropriate to say the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church? They also claim to have an unbroken succession, and you can’t both be right.

Because Peter, the rock upon which the Church was established left Jerusalem and the office of bishop of Jerusalem for Antioch then went on to Rome where he died a martyrs death. In Jerusalem John succeeded to the office of bishop pof Jerusalem after Peter left. In Antioch Elvodius was consecrated bishop of Antioch after Peter left. NOTE: Peter is still alive. Neither John nor Elvodius replaced Peter in his office as chief steward of the Church. Peter goes on to Rome and establishes the church there and becomes the Bishop of Rome. He is still chief steward of the kingdom. It is while in that office that Peter is martyred. The next person in the line of succession as bishop of Rome succeeds to the offices that was held by Peter that being the chief steward of the kingdom as well as Bishop of Rome. Just as Matthias succeeded to the office held by Judas on account of Judas’ death so too upon Peter’s death the person who succeeded him succeeded to the same office. When Peter left Jerusalem and Antioch he did not leave the office of chirf steward of the kingdom he only left the officeof bishop of Jerusalem and Antioch. If you want to know more about the concept of chief steward read Mt 16:18-19 in the NT and in the OT read Isaiah 22:21-24 and notice the similarity between binding and loosening and open and shutting and the presence of the keys denoting authority.

As for the orthodox they too have apostolic succession but their succession is from Andrew, Peter’s brother, not Peter. Andrew was never made chief steward of the kingdom.

 

[seascale]

Saint Thomas Aquinas also condemned Sola Scriptura (which denies the infallibility of the teaching of the Church);

He wrote:
“Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”
(Summa Theologica II-II, Q.5, A.3)

So, was Thomas Aquinas contradicting himself? Of course not (I suspect he was more brilliant than the two of us put together .

Actually, I see a very clear consistency in both quotes. He declared the Church infallible, but only in so far as it was consistent with the Bible (to wit: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”).

In these two quotes by Aquinas I see a philosophy of the Church under the Bible. What I hear from a lot of Catholics in this thread is a philosophy of the Bible under the Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

.
No, we don’t read it differently.

The words are what they are. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to read words that don’t exist.

.

Wow. Are you really saying you believe that it is not possible for two people to understand a passage differently?

Of course, but you said nothing about interpretation, you said you READ it differently. Yes, people can INTERPRET things differently, but word can only be READ as they appear on the page. You seem to be confusing Catholic eisegesis with reading. You keep insisting, “Jesus SAID…” but you have yet to show where He said anything of the things The Catholic Church alone claims that He said, and that you keep affirming that He did. And, no, you cannot “read” where He did if there are no words of such to read. You are confusing the interpretation of one based on invisible words only that one can “see” with reading what is real.

. You insist on imposing your interpretation. It’s classic Catholic eisegesis. You insist on “reading” invisible words - and then making THAT the basis of your argument. Friend, it’s only possble to read words that exist, otherwise, it’s not “reading.”

.

Don’t you think that the best way to understand what an author has written is to hear it from the author?

I suppose. Now, where is it substantiated that the Holy Spirit explains all these things exclusively, solely, particularly and perpetually to The Catholic Church and that it and it itself alone infallibly understands all these explanations? ANYONE can claim such (read any of the cult leaders, if not, you REALLY should!), but then what is written by God is moot, what alone matters is what self alone says God whispered in the ear of self alone, which none (including self) can substantiate.

. Then quote Jesus or any Apostle where they said “Catholic” - at all, and especially as the proper noun for a specific denomination. Friend, the word was for centuries only an adjective (and still is such) meaning “whole” “general” “universal” “all embracing.”

.

Yes, the Scriptures use the word Catholic in reference to the Church as a descriptor.

Then quote where Jesus said “Catholic.”

. You keep insisting, “Jesus promises this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly”… Jesus authorized this to The Catholic Church, exclusively, particularly." But you have yet to show that He so much as even MENTIONED it. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. In any regard or for any matter. Friend, it’s all just self making huge claims for self.

.

He only founded one church, Josaih, and it is Catholic.

Friend, READ what you quoted from me.

I just read a list of scriptures you posted from the Scriptures, clearly stating that it is required of us to hold teachers accountable.

Yes. Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? Ergo…

BUT The Catholic Church makes one stunning, remarkable, absolute and exclusive exception: itself

. IT, it alone insists, is accountable only to God.

.

The doctrines of the Church come from Christ. He does not create any errors.

READ what you quoted from me.

Did you know that The LDS Church as well as virtually every single one of the cults claims EXACTLY the same thing? Do you regard such to be sound epistemology, the best way to determine if the LDS and all those cults are correct? You are going to GREAT lengths to defend that epistemology, you must think it the most sound.

. “Jesus said!” But when the relevant and mandated question is asked, namely, “where?” you have nothing. Absolutely nothing whatsoever

.

.

What are you working so hard to accomplish?

I don’t understand how that is a response to what you quoted from me.

. Yes, GOD is an inerrant Teacher and Leader.
Yes, you’ve made the point that **He **

promised to teach and lead.
Which makes GOD the Teacher and Leader.
You claim (and as yet with NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support it, nothing) that God ONLY teaches and leads The Catholic Church (particularly, specifically, exclusively, solely, perpetually), making it the student and follower.
But you seem to continue to confuse Teacher with students, Leader with followers.

.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

No, we don’t.

You are simply removing words and replacing them with others, confusing teaching with learning, leading with following. You are imposing “The Catholic Church” into texts where such doesn’t exist. You are inserting “infallible” and “unaccountable” where those words don’t exist. You seem to not know what is real and what is not, what is there and what isn’t. And inserting invisable INTO the text so that you can claim to “read” them is not reading; deleting words that are there and inserting words that are not there so you can claim to “read” the unreal is not reading.

. YOU are making the irrational and entirely unbiblical premise that since God teaches, ergo it is the only possibility that The Catholic Chruch exclusively and infallibly LEARNS, because God leads, ergo it The Catholic Church is INCAPABLE of not infallibly following.

Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible! If you’ve read just the first 3 chapters, you’d realize how wholly unbiblical this is! Not even in a PERFECT world has your premise of any validity whatsoever. You are confusing Teacher with students, Leader with followers.

.

No, Josiah. the Catholic Church does not have to “learn” anything.

Ah, the ego of it all…

Then your whole point about Jesus promising to teach all things and to lead us is entirely moot, isn’t it? It all comes down to one thing: The claim of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone. What Jesus said/promised/authorized is all moot, isn’t it? Seems so.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

what use is the “rule/canon for norming” if it doesn’t work? the best tape measure in the world is useless if everyone cannot agree on HOW to use it correctly.

Do you know the difference between a rule and arbitration?

My study of the LDS and also the cults, as well as attending school for some years, has impressed upon me that having a rule/canon is of much greater use that all defendants simply declaring self alone to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability and form norming by any rule/canon, each simply declaring each alone to be correct so each is.

i asked you a simple question, what is your belief regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence? you have chosen not to answer the question.

1. There is no such doctrine.
2. One cannot “believe” in what done, actions are generally not objects of faith.
3. I embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable. I embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine. Ergo, that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches. This is the basis of our disagreement.
4. I embrace that the most sound norma normans is above, beyond and outside all parties, objective in that it is knowable by all and alterable by none, and embraced as reliable for this purpose by all parties. Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture in norming (“Sola Scriptura”) embrace Scripture as the norma normans. Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so NOT because they have a better alternative (none of them does) but because each of them rejects accountability (but solely and exclusively for self alone - all insist that all OTHERS are fully and wholly accountable right here and now), thus, rejecting accountability for self alone, each also rejects any norming for the teachings of self alone, circumventing the whole issue and replacing it with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone teaches just be accepted “with docility” and often “as God speaking.” Read your Catechism # 87. Read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie.

.

 

[seascale]

Because Peter, the rock upon which the Church was established left Jerusalem and the office of bishop of Jerusalem for Antioch then went on to Rome where he died a martyrs death. In Jerusalem John succeeded to the office of bishop pof Jerusalem after Peter left. In Antioch Elvodius was consecrated bishop of Antioch after Peter left. NOTE: Peter is still alive. Neither John nor Elvodius replaced Peter in his office as chief steward of the Church. Peter goes on to Rome and establishes the church there and becomes the Bishop of Rome. He is still chief steward of the kingdom. It is while in that office that Peter is martyred. The next person in the line of succession as bishop of Rome succeeds to the offices that was held by Peter that being the chief steward of the kingdom as well as Bishop of Rome.

Thank you inkaneer, but I’m afraid this unfortunately just spawns another question: Does the Western Schism within the Catholic Church, then, represent a break in the apostolic succession? If not why?

 

[Vile_Servant]

So, was Thomas Aquinas contradicting himself? Of course not (I suspect he was more brilliant than the two of us put together .

Actually, I see a very clear consistency in both quotes. He declared the Church infallible, but only in so far as it was consistent with the Bible (to wit: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”).

In these two quotes by Aquinas I see a philosophy of the Church under the Bible. What I hear from a lot of Catholics in this thread is a philosophy of the Bible under the Church.

The teaching of the Church is infallible, period. It is your opinion, not Saint Thomas’, that the teaching of the Church is infallible “only as far as it was consistent with the Bible”.

Saint Thomas was very clear on this point. Read again what he wrote in Summa:
“Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth.” No ifs or buts.

Notice that he also wrote:
“Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”

Not

“Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, only as far as it proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”

 

[Vile_Servant]

i asked you a simple question, what is your belief regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence? you have chosen not to answer the question.

Lutherans believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants eat and drink the Holy Body and Blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10) in this Sacrament.

The Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence is more accurately and formally known as “the Sacramental Union.”

Are you really a Lutheran as you claim to be?

 

[seascale]

The teaching of the Church is infallible, period. It is your opinion, not Saint Thomas’, that the teaching of the Church is infallible “only as far as it was consistent with the Bible”.

Dear Vile Servant, I have caught you in a lie!!! Sigh, I will sacrifice redundancy for the sake of clarity, and by way of reminder quote for you, again, the quote to which you first responded, from St. Thomas Aquinas:

“We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…And **we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” **(On Truth, 14.10.11)

 

[Vile_Servant]

Dear Vile Servant, I have caught you in a lie!!! Sigh, I will sacrifice redundancy for the sake of clarity, and by way of reminder quote for you, again, the quote to which you first responded, from St. Thomas Aquinas:

“We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…And **we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” **(On Truth, 14.10.11)

Dear seascale,

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing in the quote that invalidates the infallibility of the teaching of the Church.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was infallibly taught by the Church, and is believed not only by Catholics, but the vast majority of Christians too (including yourself, I imagine).
Yet, the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible, which you seem to make reference to regarding “those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings”.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

1. There is no such doctrine as “Sola Scriptura”
2. One cannot “believe” in what is done, actions are generally not objects of faith.
3. I embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable. I embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine. Ergo, that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches. This is the basis of our disagreement.
4. I embrace that the most sound norma normans is above, beyond and outside all parties, objective in that it is knowable by all and alterable by none, and embraced as reliable for this purpose by all parties. Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture in norming (“Sola Scriptura”) embrace Scripture as the norma normans. Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so NOT because they have a better alternative (none of them does) but because each of them rejects accountability (but solely and exclusively for self alone - all insist that all OTHERS are fully and wholly accountable right here and now), thus, rejecting accountability for self alone, each also rejects any norming for the teachings of self alone, circumventing the whole issue and replacing it with the demand of self alone that whatever self alone teaches just be accepted “with docility” and often “as God speaking.” Read your Catechism # 87. Read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie.

.

Are you really a Lutheran as you claim to be?

Yes.

The rest of your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or what you quoted from me and I believe would be a rule violation for me to address.

.

 

[seascale]

Dear seascale,

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing in the quote that invalidates the infallibility of the teaching of the Church.

My friend, you told me point-blank, that Thomas Aquinas didn’t say something that in fact he did say. That is my point.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Wow. Are you really saying you believe that it is not possible for two people to understand a passage differently?

I have always loved the prophetic words of St. Vincent of Lerins writing in his Commonitory ca 434 A.D.But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, - because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…And **we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” **(On Truth, 14.10.11)

Would you provide a link to this work of Thomas Aquinas?

 

[Vile_Servant]

My friend, you told me point-blank, that Thomas Aquinas didn’t say something that in fact he did say. That is my point.

My friend, I told you what St Thomas Aquinas said did not invalidate the infallible teaching of the Church, not that he did not say what he said.