Sola Scriptura...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Thanks, PR.

I got a chuckle out of the New Advent piece, where it says, “St. Irenæus and Tertullian (in his Catholic days) cite the “Shepherd” as Scripture.”

:rotfl:

Jon
Click to expand...
I think that’s why he is not known as St. Tertullian. 🙂
 
pocohombre said:
The context was that I was a dead horse,out of gas, on this subject ,hibernating, temporary burn out-as you said elsewhere , me a mere finite human, and I would say flawed in all ways. You all deserve my best, and when physically or mentally or spiritually weak,i must repose for awhile. Certainly SS is not a dead horse,as the thread marches easily on.
Click to expand...
My friend, SS is a dead horse because it was never mentioned at any ecumenical council.

BTW: I was curious to know if you can present at least one female lay person who performed the Lord’s Supper in the NT or any historical writing? Since you believe the ministerial priesthood is no longer required.

Thanks
 
Nicea325 said:
My friend, SS is a dead horse because it was never mentioned at any ecumenical council.

BTW: I was curious to know if you can present at least one female lay person who performed the Lord’s Supper in the NT or any historical writing? Since you believe the ministerial priesthood is no longer required.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that something can’t be held as Christian doctrine until defined as such by an oecumenical council?
 
Novocastrian said:
Are you suggesting that something can’t be held as Christian doctrine until defined as such by an oecumenical council?
Click to expand...
Well don’t you believe that if SS were taught from the get-go as many teach and believe it would have been mentioned at least one ecumenical council? SS advocates claim it was taught in the early church,yet surprisingly it was never discussed at any council.
 
Nicea325 said:
Well don’t you believe that if SS were taught from the get-go as a doctrine such as the Incarnation,Trinity,Hypostatic Union,etc would have been mentioned at least one ecumenical council? SS advocates claim it was taught in the early church,yet surprisingly it was never discussed at any council.
Click to expand...
Two possible responses:

(1) It’s not so much a doctrine as a theological method.

(2) It might have been universally adhered to, such that it didn’t need to be defined, in much the same way that the early councils do not, to my knowledge, feel the need to define the real presence.
 
Novocastrian:
Two possible responses:
Click to expand...
(1) It’s not so much a doctrine as a theological method.
Click to expand...
And when did this theological method come into the mix? When did it become the “final authority” as so many teach and believe? Who decided SS is the final authority in all matters of faith and morality? Again…where are the early church sources supporting such a position?
(2) It might have been universally adhered to, such that it didn’t need to be defined, in much the same way that the early councils do not, to my knowledge, feel the need to define the real presence
Click to expand...
So universal it goes totally unheard or discussed by any early church father as an orthodox doctrine or method? Sorry,but to compare SS to the Real Presence is like comparing a Ford Mustang to a Ferrari. Nothing to compare.
 
To lend a sense of reality, Martin Luther did not have a complete Bible until the Gutenberg bible was printed. He was astounded by the fact that it had so many books. This illustrates that only fragments of the Bible were likely available to individual bishops, and that the Apostolic Creed and Nicaean Creed had to be taught without having the entire Bible as a source. Nobody knew the Bible in its entirety. This made it easy to introduce practices without having any scriptural basis. Tradition as it was established trumped the Bible as the overriding modus operandi even though there was nothing that could be easily dug up in the scriptures to support it.

So, the fact that it was now possible to follow Sola Scriptura made it more compelling than in earlier days.
 
PRmerger said:
That is an innovation that has come about once it became clear that the doctrine of SS is untenable.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is how the Reformers - both Lutheran and Reformed - have understood SS from the beginning.
PRmerger said:
So now it becomes a “theological method”, or a “hermeneutic principle”.
Click to expand...
I think I said this a few pages back, though it might have been in a separate thread. This is why Lutherans do not “reject” tradition, as so many like to say.
PRmerger said:
But if you do a google search, you will find thousands of sites that describe SS as a doctrine.

search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=%22doctrine+of+sola+scriptura%22
Click to expand...
We can’t just seize on the word ‘doctrine’ and take it to means one thing. Do your google search again, this time substituting “doctrine” for “hermeneutics.” One of the responses you’ll find is this article (Note: I can’t defend everything the author states, as he’s not Lutheran, but he’s mostly correct on Sola Scriptura): modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19
 
PRmerger said:
That is an innovation that has come about once it became clear that the doctrine of SS is untenable.

So now it becomes a “theological method”, or a “hermeneutic principle”.

But if you do a google search, you will find thousands of sites that describe SS as a doctrine.

search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=%22doctrine+of+sola+scriptura%22
Click to expand...
What nonsense. What would the point of a doctrine of sola scriptura - or its alternative - be if it were not a theological method of an hermeneutical principle? It is, by definition, a theological method!
 
steido01 said:
Nope. This is how the Reformers - both Lutheran and Reformed - have understood SS from the beginning.

I think I said this a few pages back, though it might have been in a separate thread. This is why Lutherans do not “reject” tradition, as so many like to say.

We can’t just seize on the word ‘doctrine’ and take it to means one thing. Do your google search again, this time substituting “doctrine” for “hermeneutics.” One of the responses you’ll find is this article (Note: I can’t defend everything the author states, as he’s not Lutheran, but he’s mostly correct on Sola Scriptura): modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19
Click to expand...
While I understand that it’s possible for the sheep to not understand what your shepherd (Fr. Luther) has said, (lots of Catholics who do this!) here’s a long list of site of your Lutheran brethren who refer to SS as a doctrine:

search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=%22doctrine+of+sola+scriptura%22
 
steido01 said:
I think I said this a few pages back, though it might have been in a separate thread. This is why Lutherans do not “reject” tradition, as so many like to say.
Click to expand...
Yet other SS advocates do reject Tradition.

From Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Solas
Main article: Sola scriptura
It means “only scripture” and it excludes church tradition and church interpretation as elements to define doctrine. Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. “Scripture interprets scripture” is a governing principle of many Protestant denominations.

And with no magisterium to speak for the definition of SS, no one can say, “That is NOT what SS means! You can’t reject Tradition!” for the author of that proclamation simply has no authority to tell another what his definition of SS is. :eek:
 
PRmerger said:
Yet other SS advocates do reject Tradition.

From Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Solas
Main article: Sola scriptura
It means “only scripture” and it excludes church tradition and church interpretation as elements to define doctrine. Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. “Scripture interprets scripture” is a governing principle of many Protestant denominations.

And with no magisterium to speak for the definition of SS, no one can say, “That is NOT what SS means! You can’t reject Tradition!” for the author of that proclamation simply has no authority to tell another what his definition of SS is. :eek:
Click to expand...
So a functioning magisterium can and does guarantee actual doctrinal and methodological unity?
 
Sola Scriptura cannot be a doctrine for Episcopalians because scripture alone cannot be found in Scripture.

For those Episcopalians that follow this belief, usually the low church crowd, it is more of a practice than anything.

We believe Scripture to be our foundation but we must never forget tradition either.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Sola Scriptura cannot be a doctrine for Episcopalians because scripture alone cannot be found in Scripture.

For those Episcopalians that follow this belief, usually the low church crowd, it is more of a practice than anything.

We believe Scripture to be our foundation but we must never forget tradition either.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Novocastrian said:
So a functioning magisterium can and does guarantee actual doctrinal and methodological unity?
Click to expand...
It guarantees the authority to speak definitively for the flock.

Just like having a mom and dad guarantees authority to lead the family.

Whether the children submit to this authority is irrelevant, as far as this context goes.
 
PRmerger said:
It guarantees the authority to speak definitively for the flock.

Just like having a mom and dad guarantees authority to lead the family.

Whether the children submit to this authority is irrelevant, as far as this context goes.
Click to expand...
Right. So what’s the problem with my reply being something along the lines of: the bishops of the Church of England sitting in Convocation or Synod exercise a magisterial authority, proper to their legitimate episcopate in the provinces of Canterbury and York, and have consistently taught in their own words, and those of the Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles, that Scripture is materially sufficient, “so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or thought to be requisite or necessary to salvation” whilst still condemning any who “through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority”?

Because it seems to me that we can say that sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of tradition, and (like you have argued) that whether the children of the English Reformation submit to this authority is irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top