SOLO Scriptura

[JonNC]

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.

Well, dave, for Lutherans, a heartfelt practice.

Jon

 

[blazerdave]

Ahh ok.

 

[JonNC]

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

My understanding is that Lutheran theologians, as a rule, use and respect the D-C’s quite a bit (there are some Lutheran clergy types here who could confirm or refute my impression). I wonder, James, if that is the case, whether the canon issue between is not as great as pop-apolegists on both sides might have us think.

On that thought, and out of curiousity, would you what how many and which Catholic doctrines are based strctly on the D-C’s?

Jon

Jon

 

[JRKH]

My understanding is that Lutheran theologians, as a rule, use and respect the D-C’s quite a bit (there are some Lutheran clergy types here who could confirm or refute my impression). I wonder, James, if that is the case, whether the canon issue between is not as great as pop-apolegists on both sides might have us think.

Between Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans you are probably right. However between us and KJV-only-ists and “solo-scripturists” I suspect it is a rather big issue.

On that thought, and out of curiousity, would you what how many and which Catholic doctrines are based strctly on the D-C’s?

Jon

No - don’t know of any docrine that is based soley upon any of the D-C’s. But then I’m not a biblical or canon law Scholar. Of course the issue of “praying for the dead / Purgatory” has a very clear support in 2 Maccabees. Good scriptural support for us Catholics, “fallible” support from the Lutheran and Anglican view and “blatantly unbiblical” for Solo-scripturists.

Peace
James

 

[Joshua27]

First let me say that “The Bible” is not the “Word of God”, but contains “Testimony of the Word of God” who eventually became flesh (not paper); the “Testimony of Christ”.

Christ, the Man and Son of God, said many things to his disciples during his ministry…and (factually proven at Pentecost) those words were enough - for those who consumed his Words - to eventually receive the Holy Spirit, as a result.

Now I understand John concluded (in his record) that “not everything about Christ was recorded…”, which lends itself to the arguent supporting “Tradition”. But we also have Matthew, Mark, and Luke who never make such a statement in their records; they never say, “well, I didn’t record everything there was to record about Christ” in their particular accounts…

So why would we automatically assume that the other Gospel accounts are “incomplete” just because John said his was? Why do we generalize John’s statement (concerning his account) to also apply it to the other Gospel writers’ accounts (especially knowing that no apostle superceded the next)?

So by reason - by not adding conclusions to or taking any away from a Gospel - can we say that the other three Gospels ARE (in fact) complete (since they never say they are incomplete)…and that when added with John’s (admittedly) incomplete account, all create an even more complete testimony of Christ?

…And then there’s the “Acts of the Apostles”…where we have (at least) Peter and James (two more original apostles, who received the Holy Spirit) recorded speaking and acting on Christ’s behalf in matters of faith; another record of Christs testimony that never claims incompleteness…

---

I guess what I don’t understand from those who say the Word(s) of God isn’t enough (that Sacred Tradition is also needed) is:

We all say we are followers of Christ: The Man & Son of God (otherwise we wouldn’t call ourselves Christian)…

So if Christ’s Words were enough for his disciples to reach the ultimate level of oneness with Christ *, why isn’t Christ’s Words enough to achieve the same for us today?

Why is there more Tradition (Doctrines, Canons, Authorities, etc.) needed today to achieve what the original disciples achieved back then without it?*

 

[JRKH]

First let me say that “The Bible” is not the “Word of God”, but contains “Testimony of the Word of God” who eventually became flesh (not paper); the “Testimony of Christ”.

Christ, the Man and Son of God, said many things to his disciples during his ministry…and (factually proven at Pentecost) those words were enough - for those who consumed his Words - to eventually receive the Holy Spirit, as a result.

Now I understand John concluded (in his record) that “not everything about Christ was recorded…”, which lends itself to the arguent supporting “Tradition”. But we also have Matthew, Mark, and Luke who never make such a statement in their records; they never say, “well, I didn’t record everything there was to record about Christ” in their particular accounts…

So why would we automatically assume that the other Gospel accounts are “incomplete” just because John said his was? Why do we generalize John’s statement (concerning his account) to also apply it to the other Gospel writers’ accounts (especially knowing that no apostle superceded the next)?

So by reason - by not adding conclusions to or taking any away from a Gospel - can we say that the other three Gospels ARE (in fact) complete (since they never say they are incomplete)…and that when added with John’s (admittedly) incomplete account, all create an even more complete testimony of Christ?

…And then there’s the “Acts of the Apostles”…where we have (at least) Peter and James (two more original apostles, who received the Holy Spirit) recorded speaking and acting on Christ’s behalf in matters of faith; another record of Christs testimony that never claims incompleteness…

---

I guess what I don’t understand from those who say the Word(s) of God isn’t enough (that Sacred Tradition is also needed) is:

We all say we are followers of Christ: The Man & Son of God (otherwise we wouldn’t call ourselves Christian)…

So if Christ’s Words were enough for his disciples to reach the ultimate level of oneness with Christ *, why isn’t Christ’s Words enough to achieve the same for us today?

Why is there more (Traditions, Doctrines, Canons, Authorities, etc.) needed today to achieve what the original disciples achieved back then?*

These are interesting points. But one must also consider that, for the first 100 to 200 years of the Christian era most people heard the Gospel Preached, and not read. The majority of what was learned and believed came by way of those men who were trained either by Christ Himself, or by the Apostles themselves. Tradition not only applies to things that might have been said or taught but not written down, but also how things that WERE written were understood, i.e. interpreted. Ancient texts did not contain the kind of punctuation that we have today, and so tone, emphasis and other things were received “Orally” or not at all.

As for Christ’s Words being enough to achieve the same level as the Apostles at Pentacost, certainly they are not. For it is not only the Words but the actions, the surrender, the “Doing the Will of The Father” that is key. The Apostles believed Christ, not just because of His Words, but also by His actions. As they waited, in accordance with Christ’s instruction, they prayed and meditated- They put into Action that which Christ Had Preached.

When the Holy spirit then Came, He did not immediately send Apostles to their pens to record the events of the NT. He sent them out to Preach - to teach Orally. It is not recoreded anywhere in the bible that the JHoly Spirit assigned anyone the task of specifically recording “all that is necessary” to Know for salvation.
The Holy Spirit called upon them, and their followers to build up The Church, with authority to “bind and Loose”.

The Word of God, as compiled and canonized by The Church, is indeed critical to our Salvic needs; To build us up to strengthen us and to provide guidance. The Church and Tradition is also critical in that same strengthening and guidance.

If “Bible alone” were absolutely correct, then NO Church community of any kind would be necessary. Just sit down in your quiet place, read the Bible and by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the same truth would be revealed to everyone. I think you will agree that this would not work. Thus, some kind of interaction, and authortative interpretation and guidance is required.

Peace
James

 

[AmateurPianist]

Interesting thread.

This sort of raises a related question for me. How do I obey the Scripture in my signature…how do I verify that something that is put forward to me as Spiritual Truth is in fact true…except through that which I absolutely know as truth…that being Scripture.

In other words there is a difference between claiming that something is Spiritually false because it is not in the Bible and not accepting something as Spiritual truth because it is not in the Bible.

 

[blazerdave]

No one has said anything about my quote from Hezekiah 2:17

 

[SSTeacher]

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!

My son had an illuminating encounter with some SOLO Scriptura religionists not long after he followed me into Evangelical Christianity. He’d gone to visit somebody in hospital one chilly winter’s evening when he encountered a trio of granite–faced females who were stealthily prowling the hospital corridors with catlike tread indulging in the sort of intrusive and gratuitous condemnation that gives religion a very bad name in the mind of the general public but which is affectionately known to insiders as evangelism. One of them stood squarely in my son’s path and fired the opening SOLO Scriptura salvo:

“If you were to die tonight do you know that you would go to heaven?”

My son answered in the affirmative with the one–three letter word apparently required for life to continue as normal but listening wasn’t on her agenda and she just launched into her memorized tirade of sundry threats and hostility, along the lines of, “the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Liberals so turn or burn, then, thou wretched nasty piece of work for the end is undoubtedly nearly almost nigh for low–life like thee and even if it’s not quite here yet it definitely approacheth, just thou wait and see, spawn of demons that thou art, and in the meantime (breaking into song ) gimmee some of that old–time religion plus a steel–plated King James Bible that I can shove down the throat of the heathens so they don’t none of ‘em get left behind, nay, not even one, nay, not even one, tra–la, tra–la, ohdee, ohdee, oh dough, doo, wah, diddy, diddy, dum, diddy–doo.”

It was something like that, anyway. My son tends to exagerate, sometimes, but I’ve done my best to provide the dynamic equivalence.

Hypothetically,
Mick

 

[shondrea]

No one has said anything about my quote from Hezekiah 2:17

Hezekiah…?

 

[blazerdave]

Hezekiah…?

Just a bad joke haha

 

[Nicea325]

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!

All I can say about Solo Scriptura/Sola Scriptura is this: :yawn::ehh:

It is BOGUS and does not matter what advocates of SS present or believe. When I am asked by believers of SS to show them were Purgatory in the Bible, I respond:

Show me where Jesus taught the Bible-Alone and everything must be explicit and we will proceed from there.

There reaction: The Bible is the Word of God.

Yep! But God is NOT binded to written words alone…

 

[Joshua27]

These are interesting points. But one must also consider that, for the first 100 to 200 years of the Christian era most people heard the Gospel Preached, and not read. The majority of what was learned and believed came by way of those men who were trained either by Christ Himself, or by the Apostles themselves. Tradition not only applies to things that might have been said or taught but not written down, but also how things that WERE written were understood, i.e. interpreted. Ancient texts did not contain the kind of punctuation that we have today, and so tone, emphasis and other things were received “Orally” or not at all.

As for Christ’s Words being enough to achieve the same level as the Apostles at Pentacost, certainly they are not. For it is not only the Words but the actions, the surrender, the “Doing the Will of The Father” that is key. The Apostles believed Christ, not just because of His Words, but also by His actions. As they waited, in accordance with Christ’s instruction, they prayed and meditated- They put into Action that which Christ Had Preached.

When the Holy spirit then Came, He did not immediately send Apostles to their pens to record the events of the NT. He sent them out to Preach - to teach Orally. It is not recoreded anywhere in the bible that the JHoly Spirit assigned anyone the task of specifically recording “all that is necessary” to Know for salvation.
The Holy Spirit called upon them, and their followers to build up The Church, with authority to “bind and Loose”.

The Word of God, as compiled and canonized by The Church, is indeed critical to our Salvic needs; To build us up to strengthen us and to provide guidance. The Church and Tradition is also critical in that same strengthening and guidance.

If “Bible alone” were absolutely correct, then NO Church community of any kind would be necessary. Just sit down in your quiet place, read the Bible and by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the same truth would be revealed to everyone. I think you will agree that this would not work. Thus, some kind of interaction, and authortative interpretation and guidance is required.

Peace
James

Good argument. What seems apparent in much of the dichotomy between both parties is the definition of “word” when defining the Word of God:

It would seem that many of us assume “Word of God” means “text on paper quoted”, thus we equate “the Bible” (written words) with “the Word” (spoken words). So maybe from now on we should redefine the argument between: “Christ’s Spoken Words” (avoiding the terms “Scripture” and “Bible”) and “Man’s Spoken Words” (avoiding the term “Tradition” and “Cannon”), since there are both oral traditions and written documents that shares (both) Christ’s and man’s spoken words (respectively) as they pertain to the faith.

In other words, there are traditions Christ established and then there are traditions added by man; there are words Christ spoke and then there are words added by man.

Concerning whether Christ’s (Spoken) Words are enough: this is where we’ll probably disagree. Christ’s words are (indeed) enough because the Son of God’s words have power:

• He was a teacher: He taught them with words;
• His words are called the “bread from heaven” (“give us this day our daily bread/word”);
• The earth - and mankind breath of life"] - was formed with words;
• Christ warned against the “leaven” of the Pharasees (equating their “teachings and words” to bread).

Christ’s “words” were what changed those men, as he chose them…it wasn’t his actions (because “an adulterous generation seeks after signs…”). His disciples (and thousands more) flocked to him to hear him speak his words.

“Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

Of course, I’m not concluding that the people immediately started recording the Gospels after receiving the Holy Spirit, but that the (Spoken) words of Christ - not the Bible - are (indeed) all that are needed for life, as when he said “My words are spirit and life”.

So what is the real issue that’s (maybe) incorrectly labeled as “Tradition”?? I think the real issue - as you’ve setup in your closing - is authority. Religious Authority is the problem.

 

[Nicea325]

Good argument. What seems apparent in much of the dichotomy between both parties is the definition of “word” when defining the Word of God:

It would seem that many of us assume “Word of God” means “text on paper quoted”, thus we equate “the Bible” (written words) with “the Word” (spoken words). So maybe from now on we should redefine the argument between: “Christ’s Spoken Words” (avoiding the terms “Scripture” and “Bible”) and “Man’s Spoken Words” (avoiding the term “Tradition” and “Cannon”), since there are both oral traditions and written documents that shares (both) Christ’s and man’s spoken words (respectively) as they pertain to the faith.

In other words, there are traditions Christ established and then there are traditions added by man; there are words Christ spoke and then there are words added by man.

Concerning whether Christ’s (Spoken) Words are enough: this is where we’ll probably disagree. Christ’s words are (indeed) enough because the Son of God’s words have power:

• He was a teacher: He taught them with words;
• His words are called the “bread from heaven” (“give us this day our daily bread/word”);
• The earth - and mankind breath of life"] - was formed with words;
• Christ warned against the “leaven” of the Pharasees (equating their “teachings and words” to bread).

Christ’s “words” were what changed those men, as he chose them…it wasn’t his actions (because “an adulterous generation seeks after signs…”). His disciples (and thousands more) flocked to him to hear him speak his words.

“Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

Of course, I’m not concluding that the people immediately started recording the Gospels after receiving the Holy Spirit, but that the (Spoken) words of Christ - not the Bible - are (indeed) all that are needed for life, as when he said “My words are spirit and life”.

So what is the real issue that’s (maybe) incorrectly labeled as “Tradition”?? I think the real issues - as you’ve setup in your closing - is authority. Church Authority is the problem.

Church Authority is the problem.

Yep! Ask Moses about rebellion. Everyone wants to be a Chief,but to bad not are capable of such a position…and Thank God!

 

[Joshua27]

Church Authority is the problem.

Yep! Ask Moses about rebellion. Everyone wants to be a Chief,but to bad not are capable of such a position…and Thank God!

I think I just found my first thread topic.

 

[SSTeacher]

Interesting thread.

This sort of raises a related question for me. How do I obey the Scripture in my signature…how do I verify that something that is put forward to me as Spiritual Truth is in fact true…except through that which I absolutely know as truth…that being Scripture.

In other words there is a difference between claiming that something is Spiritually false because it is not in the Bible and not accepting something as Spiritual truth because it is not in the Bible.

Non–Catholic author, Ken Gire, provides what I think is an instructive comment on Page 55 of his book, Windows of the Soul. He writes:

To say God’s word can be found only in certan places, like the Bible, for example, is to say in effect, that rain water can be found only in lakes where it is most visible. But everywhere we look there are traces of His word. In history. In the circumstances of our lives. In every nook of humanity and in every flower of creation.​

Do you accept or reject this idea?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Well, dave, for Lutherans, a heartfelt practice.

Jon

Sorry but I don’t see the link

 

[SSTeacher]

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

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Sorry but I don’t see the link

Try this one.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

Interesting thread.

This sort of raises a related question for me. How do I obey the Scripture in my signature…how do I verify that something that is put forward to me as Spiritual Truth is in fact true…except through that which I absolutely know as truth…that being Scripture.

In other words there is a difference between claiming that something is Spiritually false because it is not in the Bible and not accepting something as Spiritual truth because it is not in the Bible.

I will fall back on My old standby but with s slight modification.
Mt 18:15-18 speaks of someone sinning, but it certainly applies to dicerning Truth. If you have concern about a question, seek Scripture but also seek how this question might have already been addressed within the Church. Paul certainly supports this when He says that the Church, not Scripture is the “Pillar and Bulwark”. That really is what the Catachism is. A distillation of the wisdome of 2000 years of Scripture and Tradition.

peace
James