SOLO Scriptura

[blazerdave]

We’ve all been there. There’s that one opponent who refuses to be reasonable. They will not hear you out, because you are “unbiblical.” Why? Because you quoted an Early Church Father. Or an Ecumenical Council. Or a purported theologian. You have gone outside the Bible. You are not SOLO Scriptura. Let anathemas fall like rain upon you, your theological arguments, and your extrabiblical idolatries.

Sometimes it’s as simple as “Where in the Bible does it say [Trinity, Catholic, Original Sin, etc.].” Perhaps it is aimed more at a person: “I don’t care what St. [name] says that the Bible says; I just care about the Bible!” Then we have the self-interpreters - those who reject any priest, monk, scribe, bishop, or other textual or theological authority on the grounds that they’re “too Catholic,” and who reject the concept of a Church or a Tradition that can aid in interpretation. Instead, they follow the ***SOLO Scriptura ***doctrine which clearly states that “there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by clergy, for each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith” (Hez. 2:17).

So, this is the place to share your stories about those who refused to listen to you when you quoted an Authority!

 

[shondrea]

Oh yes, been there. I once had a girl in high school ask why I accepted the Bible as the Pope dictates, and how I could follow the Bible as one man saw it and still be Christian.

So I asked her why she accepted the Bible as Martin Luther dictated.

(Rhetorical question is rhetorical)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s all a complicated jungle to chop through. The Catholic ideas of purgatory and satisfaction for sins and that confession only forgives the eternal consequences, Catholic guilt, transubstantiation and other ideas are not necessarily shared by the Orthodox. The way sins are categorized is not the same either. I’ve come to see from being in CAF for some time now that just because an ECF is quoted doesn’t mean everyone gleans Roman Catholic theology from them. The East quotes ECF’s all the time and sees so many things differently. I’ve read a lot of Reformers in the Reformation quoting Augustine and the gang a lot, too. And Anglicans when trying to show a Royal Rumble against the papacy tend to quote Cyprian a lot in his knock-down drag out with Stephen. ECF’s are regularly quoted here as much as Scripture and I still think no common ground is settled and different paths are travelled…

 

[blazerdave]

Yes it is haha. At least, it is difficult for people like us. But for the SOLO Scriptura-ist, there is no such difficulty. All that must be said is “Where is that in the Bible?” Once you can’t find Purgatory or the Deuterocanonicals there (in their Bible), the case is closed!

A good example came up yesterday with a friend of mine who has become a SOLO Scriptura-ist. He told me that he had “decided” that Original Sin was a “heresy” and that all who believed that we aren’t born perfect are heretics (OK, Pelagius). He asked me how I could believe in something that wasn’t in the Bible. No Scripture could satisfy him, and no St. Augustine was allowed since my friend told me that St. Augustine “wasn’t saved” for believing in things that are not in the Bible.

I fired back that being born in perfection isn’t in there either. He got mad and shot off 10 lame emails at me, but at least I got it out there

 

[blazerdave]

I had another good one about a week ago. A SOLO Scriptura-ist woman asked me why I believed in Purgatory since it’s not biblical. I told her truthfully that I didn’t know what to believe about it. She replied, “Well C.S. Lewis believed in it, and he’s the only biblical Anglican! So why don’t you after he said you did?”

How does one even respond LOL

 

[shondrea]

Yes it is haha. At least, it is difficult for people like us. But for the SOLO Scriptura-ist, there is no such difficulty. All that must be said is “Where is that in the Bible?” Once you can’t find Purgatory or the Deuterocanonicals there (in their Bible), the case is closed!

A good example came up yesterday with a friend of mine who has become a SOLO Scriptura-ist. He told me that he had “decided” that Original Sin was a “heresy” and that all who believed that we aren’t born perfect are heretics (OK, Pelagius). He asked me how I could believe in something that wasn’t in the Bible. No Scripture could satisfy him, and no St. Augustine was allowed since my friend told me that St. Augustine “wasn’t saved” for believing in things that are not in the Bible.

I fired back that being born in perfection isn’t in there either. He got mad and shot off 10 lame emails at me, but at least I got it out there

…
…
…
The things some people believe leaves me speechless

 

[Melquita]

It’s sola scriptura. You can’t get the Latin wrong on a Catholic website! In any case, there’s a huge difference between serious Protestants who believe in sola scriptura, and people who use sola scriptura as an excuse to believe whatever they want. Across the board though, they all seem to think that CS Lewis’s books are canonical.

 

[tinybamboo8x11]

hey,
Bible,Church,religion…all these are so complicated for me!

---

Watch Death at a Funeral Movie Online Free

 

[ThePKCatholic]

It is quiet simple -

Just ask the person to show you in the Bible where the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is. And as soon as you show this, we shall all flood away from the Catholic “Whore” at that instant.

I mean, its not like the Bible says anything about being a PILLAR or FOUNDATION of truth or anything…(1 Timothy 3:14-15).
Ooops…

Ok, sarcasm over. Sorry, I had to get it out of my system.
I am actually a recent convert to Catholocism, and this is one of the first things that made my mouth drop. That fact that there is not one verse to uphold “Scripture Alone” and actually more scriptures referring to “tradition” and “church truth.” One would think that the other guys would have their world crash around them from such an obvious unbiblical principle. But, people will latch onto the things that push other “facts” over to cover the most blatantly obvious false-hood, that of “Only Scripture.” It is one that will get people steaming, but it is the brute fact that keeps me knowing that there is a visible Church, which GOD himself founded that is still striving today. Pretty humbling if you ask me, (Which is my opinion for the whole protesting of the church; not wanting authority over oneself, wanting to HOLD all authority. I won’t get off on that rant.)

Have a Blessed day!

PKC

 

[Zooey]

I had another good one about a week ago. A SOLO Scriptura-ist woman asked me why I believed in Purgatory since it’s not biblical. I told her truthfully that I didn’t know what to believe about it. She replied, “Well C.S. Lewis believed in it, and he’s the only biblical Anglican! So why don’t you after he said you did?”

How does one even respond LOL

Oy.
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/2.gif
There’s a piece of “logic” for you…

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/7.gif

 

[shondrea]

BOY is it something when both a Catholic and a protestant can agree that something makes just NO sense!

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Blazerdave, what’s the difference between a solo scripturist and a sola scripturist? Both sola and solo are from the Latin word solus, meaning “alone.” From what I’ve learned, confessional Protestant don’t necessarily use Scripture as the sole (or alone) rule of faith and believe they can benefit from creeds and readings of ECFs but all are seen as explaining Scripture or drawing truths from Scripture.

Even if you aren’t a Solo Scriptura or a Sola Scriptura Christian, then the other source materials are drawn from Scripture: the sole rule faith explains the other rules of faith. In some way, it seems academic in the difference.

If you don’t believe in Scripture as the sole rule of faith, then doesn’t Martin Luther and the other Reformers’ beliefs have the same weight as the ECFs?

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread…

 

[JonNC]

Blazerdave, what’s the difference between a solo scripturist and a sola scripturist? Both sola and solo are from the Latin word solus, meaning “alone.” From what I’ve learned, confessional Protestant don’t necessarily use Scripture as the sole (or alone) rule of faith and believe they can benefit from creeds and readings of ECFs but all are seen as explaining Scripture or drawing truths from Scripture.

Even if you aren’t a Solo Scriptura or a Sola Scriptura Christian, then the other source materials are drawn from Scripture: the sole rule faith explains the other rules of faith. In some way, it seems academic in the difference.

If you don’t believe in Scripture as the sole rule of faith, then doesn’t Martin Luther and the other Reformers’ beliefs have the same weight as the ECFs?

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread…

Hi dance,
The link is for an article which, I think, explains pretty well the difference between solo and sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

It’s sola scriptura. You can’t get the Latin wrong on a Catholic website! In any case, there’s a huge difference between serious Protestants who believe in sola scriptura, and people who use sola scriptura as an excuse to believe whatever they want. Across the board though, they all seem to think that CS Lewis’s books are canonical.

The difference or point here is that there are people who use “Sola Scriptura” but are willing to accept other people’s writings, interpretations, confessions, catachisms so long as they do not contradict Scripture. A **“Solo”**accepts nothing that cannotbe directly found in Scripture. Scripture is the “be all and end all” of their recorded faith.

To the OP - If I got that wrong please feel free to correct me.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

While I haven’t been in any big debates with anyone outside of htis forum for some time, when I dis run into one of these “Solo-Scriptura” “Me and Thee(Jesus) and the KJV” types, my response to “where is this or that in the Bible”, or The bible is the innerrant Word of God, was a simple - Which Bible?
That usually draws them up Short.
“THE Bible” is the usual response.
“But which one” - I persist.
“WELL the King James Version of course”
“OOHHH”, I respond, “The one missing seven books and parts of others”.

Then we can talk (if they want to) about why two books - both with “Holy Bible” written on their covers can have different numbers of books in them and proceed from there.

If such a person wishes to convince me that I should listen to their arguments based soley on biblical passages and to Trust that the book they hold contains The Truth, The whole Truth and Nothing but The Truth, they have to be able to convince me of the book first.

Naturally I don’t convince them - but I plant seeds.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

While I haven’t been in any big debates with anyone outside of htis forum for some time, when I dis run into one of these “Solo-Scriptura” “Me and Thee(Jesus) and the KJV” types, my response to “where is this or that in the Bible”, or The bible is the innerrant Word of God, was a simple - Which Bible?
That usually draws them up Short.
“THE Bible” is the usual response.
“But which one” - I persist.
“WELL the King James Version of course”
“OOHHH”, I respond, “The one missing seven books and parts of others”.

Then we can talk (if they want to) about why two books - both with “Holy Bible” written on their covers can have different numbers of books in them and proceed from there.

If such a person wishes to convince me that I should listen to their arguments based soley on biblical passages and to Trust that the book they hold contains The Truth, The whole Truth and Nothing but The Truth, they have to be able to convince me of the book first.

Naturally I don’t convince them - but I plant seeds.

Peace
James

Then we have Orthodox Bibles…

Jon

 

[blazerdave]

It’s sola scriptura. You can’t get the Latin wrong on a Catholic website! In any case, there’s a huge difference between serious Protestants who believe in sola scriptura, and people who use sola scriptura as an excuse to believe whatever they want. Across the board though, they all seem to think that CS Lewis’s books are canonical.

Haha this is a spillover from another thread that was discussing the differences between sola scriptura and the bogus SOLO Scriptura…no worries, I’m not that bad at Latin LOL!

St. C.S. Lewis, ora pro nobis!

 

[blazerdave]

The difference or point here is that there are people who use “Sola Scriptura” but are willing to accept other people’s writings, interpretations, confessions, catachisms so long as they do not contradict Scripture. A **“Solo”**accepts nothing that cannotbe directly found in Scripture. Scripture is the “be all and end all” of their recorded faith.

To the OP - If I got that wrong please feel free to correct me.

Peace
James

Oh you’re absolutely right. Those who adhere to Sola are free (and often encouraged) to use ECFs, Councils, and great theologians - and even traditional interpretations - as a way to understand Scripture. So, for instance, I might believe that Daniel and Revelation refer to Antiochus Epiphanes and Nero, because there’s a good body of work to help me arrive at that conclusion. For a Sola individual, that body of work is not infallible and is subject to correction or change, but if it’s the best we have, we use it (and don’t condemn others who don’t).

Those who use SOLO don’t care what anybody says unless it agrees with their preconceived notions which are “biblical.” To disagree with them, or to even consult an extrabiblical source, is to become “unbiblical.” Sometimes you just can’t win.

 

[blazerdave]

Blazerdave, what’s the difference between a solo scripturist and a sola scripturist? Both sola and solo are from the Latin word solus, meaning “alone.” From what I’ve learned, confessional Protestant don’t necessarily use Scripture as the sole (or alone) rule of faith and believe they can benefit from creeds and readings of ECFs but all are seen as explaining Scripture or drawing truths from Scripture.

Even if you aren’t a Solo Scriptura or a Sola Scriptura Christian, then the other source materials are drawn from Scripture: the sole rule faith explains the other rules of faith. In some way, it seems academic in the difference.

If you don’t believe in Scripture as the sole rule of faith, then doesn’t Martin Luther and the other Reformers’ beliefs have the same weight as the ECFs?

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread…

I’m assuming that Jon covered it so I won’t add much. I’ll just say that while sola and SOLO seem similar on the surface, sola is a heartfelt doctrine while SOLO is basically a bad attitude.

 

[JRKH]

Then we have Orthodox Bibles…

Jon

Very true.

I really don’t think that we as Catholics have as much trouble with more inclusive canons as the SS types do.
After giving careful consideration to the matter I think St Paul, who spent much time spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles said it best in 2 Tim 3:16 ALL Scripture is God breathed and useful…
Given who he preached to at the time and the fact that he was writing to a bishop of a gentile community, it seems Paul would have no problem with the septuigent the widely accepted “scripture” in the Greek speaking communites of Jews. Otherwise He would have needed to put some sort of “caveat” on his statemnt to Timothy.

Peace
James