D
De_Maria
Guest
On an anti-Catholic board, I’m having a discussion about what one of our member 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.”
That sounds totally illogical to me. I say, “Don’t you practice what you preach (i.e. doctrine)?” We do. We preach that a doctrine is valid if it is found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium. This is what we preach and this is what we practice and this practice is taught in Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium.
It sounds to me as though some Sola Scripturists are making an excuse for the fact that Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.
What do you think?
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.”
That sounds totally illogical to me. I say, “Don’t you practice what you preach (i.e. doctrine)?” We do. We preach that a doctrine is valid if it is found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium. This is what we preach and this is what we practice and this practice is taught in Tradition and Scripture in accordance with the Magisterium.
It sounds to me as though some Sola Scripturists are making an excuse for the fact that Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.
What do you think?