Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GladTidings said:
By the way, who did God give the bible to?
Click to expand...
The last council, for the sake of being ecumenical, exhorted that the best attitude is to say thay God gave us ( the church, the world) the bible.

I agree, and to state any more could easily be regarded as sectarian manuvering.
 
The discussion was, and if I remember right you were involved in it; the Upon this Rock I will build My Church passage. I stated the Catholic position plainly and sufficiently that you and the other Protestants stopped replying to it. Thus, I was left holding the field. Silence is concession.

If I’m wrong about your presence in that conversation, I’m sorry.

If you wish to take up where they retreated: Can you please, while maintaining strict adherence to Sola Scriptura; demonstrate to me that the Protestant position regarding this passage is the correct interpretation. Especially in regards to the exact passage in question.

This passage is where Catholics and Protestants are unequivocally opposed. Again, silence is concession.

You conceded to me on the hermeneutics point when you agreed, you used “ exactly “ as the word; that hermeneutical techniques and principles determine the interpretations derived from a text. Then, you quoted the Apology of Augsburg to show how Sola Scriptura arrived at the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Granted it’s acceptance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is one instance of a correct interpretation in a majority erroneous corpus.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Persons live in community, and all of those things associated with personal community (like the writing of scripture) are meaningless outside the community they are written within.
Click to expand...
Truth, and God’s drawing also lie beyond the Christian community, that is, wherever the bible is in this world, there is also the Christian community.

Like saying our light is meaningless in a dark world, or our light is only meaningful within Christian community…so kindly disagree
 
You misrepresent what the Church said; if you’re qouting Vatican II. If you look at it correctly, it states plainly that the Church is the fullness of the Faith and that a Protestant, if ignorant of the the truth of the Church containing the whole and unadulterated Truth; could receive God’s Mercy and His salvation. The problem becomes, for that Protestant; when he becomes aware of the Truth of the Catholic Faith and refuses to convert. Then, he risks the fires of hell.

In essence, the Church states that Protestants have only half the truth, mixed in with errors; but enough to be considered Christians.

Do say otherwise would be sectarian maneuvering.
 
Last edited:
But herein lies the problem: Protestants believed they had the true word of God in their interpretation and thus believed theirs was the true church. That truth didn’t extend beyond the narrow denominational walls of each Protestant community.

To claim ecumenically that truth extends beyond what you and your community believe?
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
GladTidings:
By the way, who did God give the bible to?
Click to expand...
The last council, for the sake of being ecumenical, exhorted that the best attitude is to say thay God gave us ( the church, the world) the bible.

I agree, and to state any more could easily be regarded as sectarian manuvering.
Click to expand...
A lot of truth in this statement, a lot. But to limit God’s fullness of truth to those searching for more clarity is very harmful.

Peace!!!
 
Michael16 said:
The discussion was, and if I remember right you were involved in it; the Upon this Rock I will build My Church passage. I stated the Catholic position plainly and sufficiently that you and the other Protestants stopped replying to it. Thus, I was left holding the field. Silence is concession.
Click to expand...
If you would like to discuss that, too, okay, but I have done so oft so many times.
Michael16 said:
You conceded to me on the hermeneutics point when you agreed, you used “ exactly “ as the word; that hermeneutical techniques and principles determine the interpretations derived from a text.
Click to expand...
I agreed that is what hermeneutics is. Rome does it, too.
Michael16 said:
Then, you quoted the Apology of Augsburg to show how Sola Scriptura arrived at the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Granted it’s acceptance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is one instance of a correct interpretation in a majority erroneous corpus.
Click to expand...
You seem to be changing topics at the drop of a hat. It’s like watching tv while someone is flipping through the channels.
Ignoring the doctrine of the real presence because that wasn’t the topic, you erroneously defined sola scriptura as excluding everything, all tradition, but the Bible.
I used to quote from the Apology to show you are incorrect on that point. I would also point again to Martin Chemnitz:
We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture.
Click to expand...
The claim that sola scriptura excludes Tradition is clearly false.
 
🤔

The problem with Luther and his compatriots using the Early Church Fathers is that they selectively used which parts of their writings that would support their position. If they took all of the Early Church Fathers writings into consideration, they would not have fallen into error.

I wasn’t ignoring the Real Presence. I commented how your tradition holds the correct interpretation.

I’m not changing topics at the drop of a hat. I’m addressing specific points as they come up. I’m the one that has to keep up with you guys’ fluid movements all over the place. Can’t pin you guys down to one spot and resolve it.

It’s like a boxer who keeps moving around his opponent; jabbing here, jabbing there; never staying in one place while trying to find the time and place to go right in for the kill as he’s avoiding the hammer blows that would drop him for good.

I’m up for the Rock discussion if you are.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
You misrepresent what the Church said; if you’re qouting Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I misrepresented the council on what it esteemed the best reply for who gave us the bible…twas a finite point, not bouncing all over the place on council topics.
 
Last edited:
I unfortunately don’t have the specific quote to supply you with. I’d say, if you’re up for it; go ask a priest what the Church’s position is.
 
I’m the one bouncing around? Hold to one spot in a discussion and stop switching points. We’ll get it resolved; no worries.
 
On the vat 2 council points ,yes…i only briefly mentioned one (where we get the bible, or whom was it given to), and you mention several other unrelated council points…but thank you for them just the same
 
Last edited:
I respectfully contend that they’re not unrelated. One of the basic premises of Catholic apologetics is understanding the whole context of a passage under discussion. Not selecting one, divorcing it from the rest and arguing ad nauseam.
 
I’m not sure who you are replying to, but if I have been posting in an uncharitable way, I am sorry. I’ve been trying to be more kind to those who have a different background or understanding than me. I would not like it, for example, if I felt that a straight-laced, private-Catholic-school-all-their-life person was talking down to me, (I converted). Do unto others, I guess.
 
Because, as a Catholic; my apologetics is based on understanding the whole context of an issue in question. Not selecting and isolating specific points within the larger whole; as if you could divorce them from that whole.

Here’s my basic point. From where I sit, it seems that you and the other Protestants selectively quote Catholic sources that support your position. As if by being in agreeance with the Church, that somehow validates the rest of your theology and allows you to retain this body of errors.
 
Last edited:
GladTidings said:
I’m not sure who you are replying to, but if I have been posting in an uncharitable way, I am sorry. I’ve been trying to be more kind to those who have a different background or understanding than me. I would not like it, for example, if I felt that a straight-laced, private-Catholic-school-all-their-life person was talking down to me, (I converted). Do unto others, I guess.
Click to expand...
I was replying to mcq72 and i have not noticed any uncharitable post from you.

Peace!!!
 
Michael16 said:
Because, as a Catholic; my apologetics is based on understanding the whole context of an issue in question. Not selecting and isolating specific points within the larger whole; as if you could divorce them from that whole.
Click to expand...
You are right…perhaps there is a divorce on the bigger level of the whole context…but an amicable divorce I pray, that is to honor where due and eschew where due.

I took the council point about bible as a positive even honorable and gracious position considering the whole context.
 
Last edited:
I agree, in principle; in amicability. I apologize if I’m not.

However: I do believe that any divorces and conflicts between points within the larger issue must be satisfactorily be resolved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top