Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

[Michael16]

I appreciate your stance on the Bible point.

 

[adf417]

I hope I’ve reformed my uncharitableness.

:+1:t3: i see much improvement!!!

 

[Michael16]

Awesome!!!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You could say that – or you could say it’s an assumption since the scriptures don’t actually instruct you to practice it.

 

[JonNC]

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.

So do Catholics. I’ve been here long enough to know that the ECFs are not considered infallible when it comes to doctrine.

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

I was, since it was used as a representation of SS, which was the topic.

I’m not changing topics at the drop of a hat. I’m addressing specific points as they come up.

Typically here at CAF, we try to stay on topic. You didn’t address the point, which was the practice of sola scriptura.

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.

I’m up for the Rock discussion if you are.

Start a thread.

 

[Michael16]

As for the Early Church Fathers:

You counter my point with a “ you guys do it too “ counterpoint? How does that justify anything?

To answer: No. We don’t. We read all of the ECFs and draw our conclusions honestly.

Again I see that once a position has been refuted; an apologist falls back, discards the refuted point and says something else while not addressing the Sola Scriptura point which is at the real heart of this thread. Dancing around the point in other words.

As for the Real Presence point; I didn’t ignore it. I addressed it and commented how it was the correct interpretation. How is that ignoring it?

As for me not staying in topic: I have been. The problem is like with your retreat on the ECFs: Position refuted, you fall back and go somewhere else; while not addressing the issue: Sola Scriptura itself.

As for your emoji: Laugh all you want. Truth is truth.

 

[Michael16]

Check out my reply and yes: I started a thread. Enter the lists.

 

[JonNC]

You could say that – or you could say it’s an assumption since the scriptures don’t actually instruct you to practice it.

Since it is a post apostolic era practice, essentially yes. There are inferences in scripture, but it is not explicit, and therefore not a doctrine.
James Kiefer, an Anglican, makes the following comment:

OBJECTION: 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.
REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

1. Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
2. Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
3. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.
   But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
4. Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
   2)Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
5. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.
   And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith.

Sola scriptura is not a doctrine as it is not an article of faith that binds the faith of the believer. One doesn’t have to believe in it as it is not explicit in scripture.

 

[Michael16]

This man’s argument is self contradictory. How can one hold to a doctrine that says only what’s explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture is valid and yet hold that it’s not explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture? And yet he says that we have errors?

 

[Michael16]

I noticed you evaded my reply, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

This man’s argument is self contradictory. How can one hold to a doctrine that says only what’s explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture is valid and yet hold that it’s not explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture? And yet he says that we have errors?

You’re really struggling to understand what is written. There’s no contradiction at all in what he says.
Sola scriptura is a principle of hermeneutics. It is a practice, a praxis. Since it is not explicit in scripture, it is not an article of faith. That is in keeping with the principle itself.

 

[JonNC]

As for the Early Church Fathers:

You counter my point with a “ you guys do it too “ counterpoint? How does that justify anything?

To answer: No. We don’t. We read all of the ECFs and draw our conclusions honestly.

And so do we. There are some groups that reject entirely the ECFs, the sacred creeds, etc. Lutherans do not. To say they do is a false accusation.

Again I see that once a position has been refuted; an apologist falls back, discards the refuted point and says something else while not addressing the Sola Scriptura point which is at the real heart of this thread. Dancing around the point in other words.

If you want to have a reasonable dialogue, you have to provide the quote of mine you’re referring to. As it stands here, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

As for me not staying in topic: I have been. The problem is like with your retreat on the ECFs: Position refuted, you fall back and go somewhere else; while not addressing the issue: Sola Scriptura itself.

No, you haven’t. You’ve bounced around in such a way that it is hard to respond.

Please, use the quote feature so I can keep track.

 

[mcq72]

But to limit God’s fullness of truth to those searching for more clarity is very harmful.

and don’t Catholics limit fullness according to Orthodox and P’s, and P’s limit O’s and C’s , and O’s limit P’s and C’s…lol…but true

 

[adf417]

adf417:

But to limit God’s fullness of truth to those searching for more clarity is very harmful.

and don’t Catholics limit fullness according to Orthodox and P’s, and P’s limit O’s and C’s , and O’s limit P’s and C’s…lol…but true

Disputing what the fullness is and limiting the fullness is 2 entirely different things.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

Scripture is of utmost importance in the Church. But it, like the constitution, need a valid interpretation. So you simply cant separate one from another.

Well, like Jon points out , it is doctrine that is interpreted, just as laws and executive actions are to be interpreted by scripture and the constitution respectively.

As to the analogy to constitution, it helps a little just that there is a difference in inspiration. Otherwise, yes the supreme court has great authority, and yet they can be overwritten with amendments, that is adding/detracting to the constitution…all this by interpreting an original document…

I would think Christ would have been hard pressed to ever infer there was ever anything wrong with original document/scripture, but most certainly alluded to possibility of error on interpretation, even adding, detracting. So Scripture and the Spirit strive perfectly for us but "getting it’’ is conditional. Hard for me to see that those that are supposed to “get it” are equal to an unconditionally perfect document.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think Christ knew that documents are just pieces of paper --they come to life when a human reads and interprets them.

This is why he told folks to listen to those Jews with teaching authority, even though they may have been scoundrels over all, they were official interpreters :

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.

Notice he does not say, hey guys, the Jews are rotten so even though they are the official interpreters, go ahead and make your own conclusions about what this stuff actually means.

This correlates with Peter warning us that the scriptures can be twisted to our own destruction.

 

[mcq72]

This correlates with Peter warning us that the scriptures can be twisted to our own destruction.

Yes as those in Moses seat did.

Jesus said listen to them, but beware when they are wrong, as if we have a responsibility to be interpreters also, not indifferent followers.

Jesus never said those in Moses seat would be different in NT, as infallible…the Words of God must be correctly interpreted by God by all, since the garden…it is not left to just a corporate entity.

 

[mcq72]

I think Christ knew that documents are just pieces of paper --they come to life when a human reads and interprets them.

Disagree to such a view, like philosophers who wonder if a tree falling in a forest makes a noise if no one is there to hear it.

Or like saying water is meaningless until I thirst or am dirty, as if I were the center of the universe

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Totally disagree.

The Jews who taught from the chair didn’t have a interpretation issue. Clearly not, as Jesus is still telling them to listen to them on instruction about the scriptures. Their issue was placing their own man made tradition above the law.

And actually, Matthew 16 is a rock solid promise that the Church will not err on doctrine.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Excellent, so you already knew the scriptures before reading them then?