Sola Scriptura...

[AbideWithMe]

If this is supposed to be a Latin term, then by using “solo” instead of “sola”, you are departing from the proper use of Latin. There cannot be a “Solo Scriptura”, because it is incorrect grammatically. No matter what the ending is, the “Sola” or “Solo” modifies the Scriptura to mean “only”.

Instead of it being a correct Latin phrase, the mixed term “Solo Scriptura” is instead an attempt to describe a particular view that is not expressed by “Sola Scriptura,” grammar aside. Sola Scriptura does not actually mean “Scripture by itself” when used by a majority of protestants, but that is what is captured by “Solo Scriptura.”

Yes to what Kliska said. I’m not trying to make up terms; I’m just using the terms as they are commonly understood, regardless to grammatical problems. I also recently came across a reference to “Nuda Scriptura” as synonymous to “Solo Scriptura”.

As far as I have found, Solo Scriptura/Bible Alone/Nuda Scriptura users would be the Restorationist churches ( Church of Christ), some Fundamentalists, and perhaps some Anabaptists. The majority of Protestants could be classified as somewhere between Prima Scriptura, Regula Fidei, and Sola Scriptura…at least so it appears from what I can find.

At any rate, trying to debate the majority of Protestants by attacking a belief they do not hold—namely “Bible Alone”—as if they did hold it, doesn’t serve anyone well.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger–

I think that churches which don’t use the Lutheran definition of SS should pick another term to describe their beliefs—and they often do, if they’re knowledgeable.

Then you are essentially invoking an authority over them. You are telling them, “You are incorrect about your definition of SS.”

To which they will respond, “You can’t tell me how to define SS. I have the right to define it as I have been guided to!”

A parallel is the CC telling you, “You are incorrect about your interpretation of John 6.”

To which you respond, “The CC can’t tell me how to interpret John 6. I have the right to interpret it as I have been guided to!”

Do you see the parallel?

You are reserving for yourself what you deny in the CC.

 

[nmgauss]

Then you are essentially invoking an authority over them. You are telling them, “You are incorrect about your definition of SS.”

To which they will respond, “You can’t tell me how to define SS. I have the right to define it as I have been guided to!”

A parallel is the CC telling you, “You are incorrect about your interpretation of John 6.”

To which you respond, “The CC can’t tell me how to interpret John 6. I have the right to interpret it as I have been guided to!”

Do you see the parallel?

You are reserving for yourself what you deny in the CC.

A Christian is a Christian is a Christian. How many definitions do you need?
A Hindu is a Hindu is a Hindu. Again, how many definitions do you need?
There are Sunni Muslims, Shii Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims, Al-Qaeda Muslims, Taliban Muslims and Sufi Muslims. How many definitions of Muslim do you need?

 

[steido01]

Under that logic, PR, are we invoking some sort of authority when we say that ‘green’ refers to this color? Words are symbols; they are only useful insofar as they properly symbolize the meaning they represent. Take the word ‘literally.’ So many people have misused it that it is now considered both an antonym and a synonym for ‘figuratively.’ Does that change the original definition and meaning of the word? Of course not!

One would think this is a simple concept. Yet some accuse Lutherans of having “invented” Sola Scriptura, while simultaneously citing other groups’ misuse of the academic term as “proof” that Sola Scriptura’s definition is somehow linked to personal interpretation. Well, they can’t have it both ways. Which is it?

The Lutheran answer is that Sola Scriptura, as Lutherans understand it, has simply always been the practice of the church catholic. It’s not a question of ‘authority,’ it’s a simple matter of definitions. Make up a word and use that, if it please you. That won’t change the actual meaning of the concept.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Lutheran answer is that Sola Scriptura, as Lutherans understand it, has simply always been the practice of the church catholic.

Which Lutherans?

LOL, you got trolled

 

[PRmerger]

A Christian is a Christian is a Christian. How many definitions do you need?
A Hindu is a Hindu is a Hindu. Again, how many definitions do you need?
There are Sunni Muslims, Shii Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims, Al-Qaeda Muslims, Taliban Muslims and Sufi Muslims. How many definitions of Muslim do you need?

Amen.

I have nothing to add to the above.

 

[PRmerger]

The Lutheran answer is that Sola Scriptura, as Lutherans understand it, has simply always been the practice of the church catholic

I don’t have a problem with that.

It’s when I am told that what I am professing to be SS is incorrect that I have a problem.

It’s just not your definition of SS. But it’s a whole lot o’ other Christians’ definitions.

And you have no right to tell anyone else what their definition is.

They need not defer to you.

Just as you claim you do not need to defer to the CC regarding, say, papal infallibility.

 

[benjohnson]

Just as you claim you do not need to defer to the CC regarding, say, papal infallibility.

Lutherans don’t defer to the CC about the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but when we dialog, we defer to the CC definition of Papal Infallibly.

In the same way we ask that others trust our Lutheran definition of Lutheran Sola Scriptura - even if they don’t agree with it.

 

[PRmerger]

Under that logic, PR, are we invoking some sort of authority when we say that ‘green’ refers to this color?

There is no consensus regarding what SS means, steido.

That’s the problem.

When you divorce yourselves from any sort of magisterial authority, you cannot reserve for yourselves what you reject in the CC.

It’s like the CC claiming, “This is how the bread and wine are transformed into His Presence” and you say, “I don’t believe that is how it happens, and you can’t tell me that this is how it occurs.”

We say, “Yes, this is what has been revealed. You cannot make up your own definition.”

And yet you believe you can.

See the parallel between the other SS advocates and the Lutheran church?

 

[PRmerger]

Lutherans don’t defer to the CC about the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but when we dialog, we defer to the CC definition of Papal Infallibly.

In the same way we ask that others trust our Lutheran definition of Lutheran Sola Scriptura - even if they don’t agree with it.

So you want the Church of Christ to defer to the Lutheran definition of SS?

 

[steido01]

I don’t have a problem with that.

It’s when I am told that what I am professing to be SS is incorrect that I have a problem.

It’s just not your definition of SS. But it’s a whole lot o’ other Christians’ definitions.

And you have no right to tell anyone else what their definition is.

They need not defer to you.

Just as you claim you do not need to defer to the CC regarding, say, papal infallibility.

People can call the sky orange; that doesn’t make it so. And you’re right; I can’t stop them. But you haven’t addressed the point I made in the previous post. My point is that you cannot have it both ways. Either the original, Lutheran understanding of SS IS the very definition of SS, or we are talking about separate concepts that unfortunately share a word - in which case you cannot logically use it as a proof against SS!

Papal infallibility doesn’t fit here. We both agree on what papal infallibility IS. It’s just that Roman Catholics differ from the rest of all Christendom in acknowledging whether it exists.

Again, this has nothing at all to do with ‘authority.’ Sometimes, I think people of all stripes become a little too stuck on “comparative religion.” Not everything has a direct equivalent to one’s own religion. There is no Lutheran pope; so when you’re trying to identify an “authority” for every conceivable issue, you ain’t necessarily a-gonna find one. Don’t mean we’re just a roving band, neither. It means that we think about something differently than you do. You can’t always think like an American to understand an Englishman.

 

[steido01]

Which Lutherans?

LOL, you got trolled

All the Lutheran Lutherans.

Jose, can I enlist your help in explaining this concept? Jon, Ben and I don’t seem to be speaking the right language.

 

[steido01]

There is no consensus regarding what SS means, steido.

That’s the problem.

When you divorce yourselves from any sort of magisterial authority, you cannot reserve for yourselves what you reject in the CC.

Nope. Not following you there. This has nothing to do with authority.

It’s like the CC claiming, “This is how the bread and wine are transformed into His Presence” and you say, “I don’t believe that is how it happens, and you can’t tell me that this is how it occurs.”

We say, “Yes, this is what has been revealed. You cannot make up your own definition.”

And yet you believe you can.

No, it’d be like Lutherans using the term Transubstantiation to describe Sacramental Union. It simply would be the wrong definition.

See the parallel between the other SS advocates and the Lutheran church?

‘Literally,’ no.

 

[PRmerger]

People can call the sky orange; that doesn’t make it so.

If you could convince the millions of Protestants (millions of them, steido) who have differing definitions of SS than the Lutheran one, that yours is the correct one, then I say, go for it!

That would put you in the same position, ironically and peculiarly, (and amusingly I would add) as the CC in trying to convince the millions of Protestants that they have left home and must return to Rome.

My point is that you cannot have it both ways. Either the original, Lutheran understanding of SS IS the very definition of SS, or we are talking about separate concepts that unfortunately share a word - in which case you cannot logically use it as a proof against SS!

Can you please tell me what you think my argument is against SS?

Papal infallibility doesn’t fit here. We both agree on what papal infallibility IS. It’s just that Roman Catholics differ from the rest of all Christendom in acknowledging whether it exists

Actually, we don’t even agree with that. We Catholics here keep proclaiming here on the CAFs that papal infallibility means that the pope (and magisterium) cannot err. And therefore, each and every time you quote from the NT you are giving tacit acknowledgement to this inability of the magisterium to err…

and yet you are all bristling at that thought and declaring, “That is not what infallibility means!!”

 

[PRmerger]

Again, this has nothing at all to do with ‘authority.’

Even if you deny its use, you are invoking it each and every time you tell another SS advocate, “Your definition of SS is wrong.”

Sometimes, I think people of all stripes become a little too stuck on “comparative religion.” Not everything has a direct equivalent to one’s own religion. There is no Lutheran pope; so when you’re trying to identify an “authority” for every conceivable issue, you ain’t necessarily a-gonna find one.

Ok.

Don’t mean we’re just a roving band, neither. It means that we think about something differently than you do. You can’t always think like an American to understand an Englishman.

I agree with you here!

 

[PRmerger]

‘Literally,’ no.

 

[benjohnson]

So you want the Church of Christ to defer to the Lutheran definition of SS?

Leaving aside the Lutheran claim to be a valid continuation of the western church, when speaking to Lutherans, it would probably be beneficial.

Just as I don’t get the re-define Papal Infallibility when speaking about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Leaving aside the Lutheran claim to be a valid continuation of the western church, when speaking to Lutherans, it would probably be beneficial.

As I told steido, go for it!

That would put you in the same position as the CC in attempting to bring you back home.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;11671378]There is no consensus regarding what SS means, steido.
That’s the problem.

There is no consensus on what papal primacy means, either, but you know what the CC teaches that it means. Correct?
and do you believe the CC understanding is correct? In fact, the only correct definition?

When you divorce yourselves from any sort of magisterial authority, you cannot reserve for yourselves what you reject in the CC.

It has nothing to do with magisterial authority. It has to do with historical precedent. While we believe that, in a manner of speaking, the historic Church has always used scripture as** the** norm, the importance of that norm was elevated by the Lutheran Reformers because Tradition had been fractured by schism. Hence, it is the Lutheran Reformers who hold a level of blame/credit for the understanding of the practice, and term “sola scriptura”.
From that point, it is true that others have taken the term, but not the practice, for themselves. We can’t stop them from doing so, though we insist the way the define and practice it is outside the historical usage.

It’s like the CC claiming, “This is how the bread and wine are transformed into His Presence” and you say, “I don’t believe that is how it happens, and you can’t tell me that this is how it occurs.”

We say, “Yes, this is what has been revealed. You cannot make up your own definition.”

And yet you believe you can.

The problem with this analogy is it is referring to doctrine, while sola scriptura is not doctrine. No Lutheran I know of believes someone is in jeopardy of losing their salvation because they hold a different view, or no view at all, about sola scriptura.
Further, what you say here is “revealed”, is not even accepted by other churches that hold to Scripture and Tradition.

See the parallel between the other SS advocates and the Lutheran church?

And there is the parallel between SS communions and S&T communions.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

There is no consensus on what papal primacy means, either, but you know what the CC teaches that it means. Correct?
and do you believe the CC understanding is correct? In fact, the only correct definition?

Can you tell me what some other defs of “papal primacy” are?

It has nothing to do with magisterial authority. It has to do with historical precedent.

What is authority except invoking “author’s rights”, no?

While we believe that, in a manner of speaking, the historic Church has always used scripture as** the** norm

Except when the NT did not exist and the Church had to use Tradition as the norm to discern what was theopneustos and what was not.