Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine

[JonNC]

That’s just rationalist “plaster” that most post-reformation Christians lay over their emotional attachment to their denom.

If universal jurisdiction was your prime objection, you’d be objectively Orthodox rather than Lutheran/Anglican/Episcopal/whatever mainline you claim these days. The objective argument for Orthodoxy’s just better.

So, you know my situation. You must know the location of the nearest EO church to where I live?

Wow! I didn’t think I shared that much information.

 

[MichaelP3]

Mine is about 300 km.

 

[De_Maria]

But come on. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Contraception being wrong is a doctrine and a mortal sin. Does that mean it can be changed?

I’m sorry. For some reason, I assumed you were Catholic.

Did you not know that there are Doctrines and there are doctrines? Traditions and traditions?

At least, that’s the nomenclature we used when I was young. Doctrines with a capital D are Teachings which will not change. Such as the mortal sin of Contraception. That is an absolute Doctrine.

But, the discipline of priestly celibacy can change whenever the Pope decides it is no longer necessary for the good of the Church.

It is not a dogma but still authoritative? What is it then? Or is this a capital d but priestly celibacy is a small d?

Yes. Priestly celibacy is a small d, doctrine.

In fact, there are married Catholic priests right now. In the Eastern Catholic rite. However, some claim, that may be true in the entire Church, soon.

Is the celibacy of Catholic priests coming to an end? | Andrew Brown …
https://www.theguardian.com › Opinion › Catholicism
Nov 7, 2017 - Ending the celibacy of the parish clergy is something any pope could do with a stroke of the pen. It wouldn’t require a change in doctrine. And in some limited cases it has already been ended in the west. Former Anglican priests in Britain and the US have become married Catholic priests; members of the …

But that is hearsay. I won’t believe it til I see it.

 

[po18guy]

Paraphrasing, he said that “Sola Scriptura is a hermeneutical principle.
A practice to determine whether something is a doctrine. But it is
not a doctrine, itself. That is why SS is not in Scripture.”

This argument is not only illogical, but fails on pure practicality, as the complete teachings of Christ are not in the scriptures! How is one to know, love and serve Christ while desiring only a tiny fraction of the body of knowledge surrounding Him?

The term “Christian hermeneutics” is a rather small sub-set of the faith, since it applies only to a fraction of revealed truth - the written tradition. You can see how it has been, of necessity, magnified into something that it is not, since the bible is all that “bible” Christians possess. Hermeneutics has its place, but Christ did not teach anything of the sort. It might be useful for comparing translations, but its scope is limited, and as a methodology, Christ said absolutely nothing about it.

If hermeneutics was accurate and authoritative, would not all bible Christians be on the same page? Rather, they are scattered like a herd of frightened cats. As well, extracting from and imputing to the printed page must be done by them in the absence of the principles or knowledge used by the Apostles both in writing and explaining those scriptures. Consider: where did the word come from and when?

ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from Greek hermēneutikos, from hermēneuein ‘interpret.’

17th centiury - the 1600s. Does this not seem to indicate that it became necessary after the Protestant rebellion and the loss of the Magisterium and Apostolic Tradition?

In short: Epic fail.

 

[De_Maria]

There was a time on CAF where dialogue was based on a mutual respect and acceptance of the other person’s statements about what they believed.

I do respect you. And I accept your statements about what you believe. Do I also have to agree with them?

That time seems to have passed. Now we seem to question what they say we believe and argue against that.

Jon, I fairly paraphrased what you believe. You even recognized it. Why do you keep claiming that I somehow am misrepresenting your belief?

Here’s what you said:

Paraphrasing, he said that “Sola Scriptura is a hermeneutical principle. A practice to determine whether something is a doctrine. But it is not a doctrine, itself. That is why SS is not in Scripture.”

Was this not about me?

If not, is there someone else telling you the same thing?

 

[neophyte]

So you say, and you should say. It doesn’t do a conversation positive to, off the cuff, make the statement that I made, or the statement it was a response to.

I made no statement that was off the cuff or disrespectful.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

So you say, and you should say. It doesn’t do a conversation positive to, off the cuff, make the statement that I made, or the statement it was a response to.

I made no statement that was off the cuff or disrespectful.

To which I reply “it’s an irrational hermeneutical principle, and since you admit it’s not scriptural I can safely discard it as worse than useless.”

Maybe you think it isn’t, but it certainly isn’t an argument.

 

[De_Maria]

To which I reply “it’s an irrational hermeneutical principle, and since you admit it’s not scriptural I can safely discard it as worse than useless.”

Maybe you think it isn’t, but it certainly isn’t an argument.

Well, I vote that it is an argument. Now, you accused him of saying something off the cuff and disrespectful. But you didn’t say, why? You just repeated his words and claimed it wasn’t an argument.

Now, first, he opined about Sola Scriptura that he considers it an irrational hermeneutical principle. Why is his expression of his opinion, off the cuff or disrespectful?

And you did admit that it is not found in Scripture, did you not?

No. I said it can’t be doctrine because it isn’t explicit in scripture.

If it’s not “explicit” in Scripture, how do you know it’s in Scripture, at all?

He probably thought it out the way I did. So, it’s definitely not an irrational thought process, in my opinion.

And, since the obviously thought it out and came to the same conclusion as I did, it sounds like a valid argument, to me.

 

[neophyte]

To which I reply “it’s an irrational hermeneutical principle, and since you admit it’s not scriptural I can safely discard it as worse than useless.”

Maybe you think it isn’t, but it certainly isn’t an argument.

When presented with a manifestly irrational argument, pointing out that it’s irrational is the only argument needed in reply.

 

[JonNC]

I do respect you. And I accept your statements about what you believe. Do I also have to agree with them?

You are welcome to disagree with the principle of sola scriptura. Many Catholics have done that in the past here, just like I can disagree with the teaching of universal jurisdiction if I choose. The point of charity is accepting what the other says. For example, I accept without question the Catholic teaching of universal jurisdiction, even though I don’t agree with it. I will argue against what you say you believe, not what I claim you believe.

Jon, I fairly paraphrased what you believe. You even recognized it. Why do you keep claiming that I somehow am misrepresenting your belief?

Oddly enough, this is the one time you did. Argue against that understanding of SS

 

[JonNC]

When presented with a manifestly irrational argument, pointing out that it’s irrational is the only argument needed in reply.

Be specific. How is it irrational?

 

[JonNC]

Well, I vote that it is an argument. Now, you accused him of saying something off the cuff and disrespectful. But you didn’t say, why? You just repeated his words and claimed it wasn’t an argument.

Be specific. How is it irrational?

 

[JonNC]

He probably thought it out the way I did. So, it’s definitely not an irrational thought process, in my opinion.

And, since the obviously thought it out and came to the same conclusion as I did, it sounds like a valid argument, to me.

No thought process is provided, by either of you.
Provide a thought process, not one against a caricature of SS, but against the provided understanding.

 

[De_Maria]

Oddly enough, this is the one time you did. Argue against that understanding of SS

On the contrary, you’ve never pointed out any occasion when I misrepresented your belief. You keep insinuating that I did, I suppose in an effort to poison the well against me.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JonNC]

On the contrary, you’ve never pointed out any occasion when I misrepresented your belief. You keep insinuating that I did, I suppose in an effort to poison the well against me.

Not insinuating. Point blank. I’ve told you exactly what a Lutheran understanding of SS is. I told you what Lutherans believe about the Eucharist and worship. These are two examples of you disputing not the teaching itself, but what the teaching is.

 

[JonNC]

This argument is not only illogical, but fails on pure practicality, as the complete teachings of Christ are not in the scriptures! How is one to know, love and serve Christ while desiring only a tiny fraction of the body of knowledge surrounding Him?

How does one know with certainty those teachings beyond what is recorded?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

On the contrary, you’ve never pointed out any occasion when I misrepresented your belief. You keep insinuating that I did, I suppose in an effort to poison the well against me.

Not insinuating. Point blank. I’ve told you exactly what a Lutheran understanding of SS is.

Yes. You did. Two things there.

1. You also told me that you’re no longer Lutheran.
2. So, Lutheran beliefs are no longer your beliefs.

Furthermore, I neither said that you shouldn’t belief what you believe about Lutherans. Nor did I say that you were wrong about what you believed when you were a Lutheran.

I said that I had met Lutherans who understood Lutheranism differently than you.

I told you what Lutherans believe about the Eucharist and worship. These are two examples of you disputing not the teaching itself, but what the teaching is.

On the contrary, I simply made a comparison of what you were saying to what other Lutherans and former Lutherans were saying on the very same topic.

I never said that you didn’t believe what you believe. I merely said that other Lutherans and former Lutherans and Lutheran scholars, disagreed with you.

That’s a fact, Jack.

 

[De_Maria]

Be specific. How is it irrational?

The claim that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine is irrational because it is self contradicting.

The word “doctrine” means “teaching”. Sola Scriptura is not something that is instinctively grasped, like fear or love. It is something which a human being must be taught. Anything that is taught, is a doctrine.

Hermeneutical principles, whatever they may be, must all be explained and taught. That includes the ones that you adhere to. Including Sola Scriptura.

 

[De_Maria]

No thought process is provided, by either of you.

Provide a thought process, not one against a caricature of SS, but against the provided understanding.

I guess you haven’t been reading the thread.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. You did. Two things there.

You also told me that you’re no longer Lutheran.
So, Lutheran beliefs are no longer your beliefs.

Irrelevant. My not being Lutheran does not change the FACT that they do not describe SS as Doctrine.

I said that I had met Lutherans who understood Lutheranism differently than you.

That’s not what you’ve said. And you’ve provided no source to dispute what I’ve said. MichaelP3 has asked more than once for a source that describes it as doctrine.