Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

One of the most popular Catholic apologetics, but one I’ve never understood. Even when I was a Catholic…

Yes, we all realize that The Catholic Church officially, formally and currently agrees with itself alone in all matters that it alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. Yup. No one denies or even questions that. MY question: So what? What on earth does that possibly signify? Doesn’t self usually agree with self? The Catholic Church has a whopping unity of just one: self with self, a unity with self alone, a unity exclusively with the one it sees in the mirror - and THAT only formally, officially and currently, and only in those matters that it alone currently declares is good to agree upon. It seems remarkably unremarkable. And the POINT of it is entirely moot. Heck, I agree with me (formally and currently anyway, in the matters that I alone thinks are good to agree about, currently), and yet what Catholic is posting that ERGO I alone am infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever I alone say is just to be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking?”

.

It signifies the unity of the Catholic Church. Protestantism teaches many conflicting doctrines. The Catholic Church teaches no conflicting doctrines. Why doesn’t Protestantism agree with Protestantism?

Read what you quoted from me.

Yes, The Catholic Church alone agrees with The Catholic Church alone. Formally and officially, anyway. At least in the matters that it itself alone currently regards as good to agree upon. Self agrees with self. A unity of one: Self with self (but THAT only currently and officially, and only in the matters that itself alone currently regards as good to agree upon). And this is suppose to signify WHAT?

Yes, all the other teachers in the world do not agree with all other teachers - officially and formally, in all matters that each currently regards as good to agree upon. But then, nor does the Catholic Church agree with them all - or even one of them.

But, I think you are missing your own point. You seem to think that what a teacher teaches matters. Is that correct? If so, then teachers of doctrine should be accountable for what they teach as such. Do you agree? If so, then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrines it teaches - just as it regards all OTHERS as accountable for what THEY teach - fully, right here and right now. Do you agree? IF so, then you agree with Protestants here and disagree with The Catholic Church - which doesn’t permit accountability in the single, particular, exclusive case of just one: Itself, alone.

.

 

[Lampo]

Yes, all the other teachers in the world do not agree with each other - officially and formally, in all matters that each currenly regards as good to agree upon. But then, nor does the Catholic Church agree with them all - or even one of them.

Clarification is needed at this point. What do you mean with this sentence, “Yes, all the other teachers in the world do not agree with each other - officially and formally, in all matters that each currenly regards as good to agree upon.”?

But then, nor does the Catholic Church agree with them all - or even one of them.

Who is the “them”?

But, I think you are missing your own point.

Maybe.

You seem to think that what a teacher teaches matters. Is that correct?

Correct.

If so, then teachers of doctrine should be accountable for what they teach as such. Do you agree?

It what respect are referring to? Accountable in what way?

If so, then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrines it teaches - just as it regards all OTHERS as accountable for what THEY teach - fully, right here and right now. Do you agree?

Depends on your response to my previous question.

IF so, then you agree with Protestants here and disagree with The Catholic Church - which doesn’t permit accountability in the single, particular, exclusive case of just one: Itself, alone.

I do not disagree with anything the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t know what you mean by the Church "not permitting accountability in the single, particular, exclusive case of just one: itself, alone. "

 

[LionHeart777]

One of the most popular Catholic apologetics, but one I’ve never understood. Even when I was a Catholic…

Yes, we all realize that The Catholic Church officially, formally and currently agrees with itself alone in all matters that it alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. Yup. No one denies or even questions that. MY question: ** So what? ** What on earth does that possibly signify? Doesn’t self usually agree with self? The Catholic Church has a whopping unity of just one: self with self, a unity with self alone, a unity exclusively with the one it sees in the mirror - and THAT only formally, officially and currently, and only in those matters that it alone currently declares is good to agree upon. It seems remarkably unremarkable. And the POINT of it is entirely moot. Heck, I agree with me (formally and currently anyway, in the matters that I alone thinks are good to agree about, currently), and yet what Catholic is posting that ERGO I alone am infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever I alone say is just to be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking?”



.

Hello AJ, one difference that I see with you( self) and the Catholic Church (self):

you are truly an individual whereas the Catholic Church is not. It is a visible organization and in certain instances has had Councils and so on and so forth to come to agreement and decide on Doctrine, discipline, etc. In my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges. The “self” you refer to as the CC is made up of lot’s of individuals, including a College of Bishops, who come to an agreement on things and do come into a unity on faith and morals. Whether the individual people (Clergy and lay) obey or disobey is up to self.

 

[LionHeart777]

Red Bert,

I have a question but it is probably me nit picking;

I do not know Latin, but I am a Spanish Major.

In Spanish, the term “Solo Scriptura” is not gramatically correct as “Scriptura” , if I am not mistaken, is femine.

Therefore, from a linguistics stand point- Solo Scriptura = Sola Scriptura.

I take it that “Solo Scriptura” is a name given by more recent Protestant Apologists that signifies an incorrect understanding of what “Sola Scriptura” is, correct?

Therefore, “Solo Scriptura” is a phrase that has a set meaning which you have given us a summary of, correct?

I guess my qualm is with the inventor of that phrase.

I gues I am a language person and a stickler (I’m student teaching as a High School Spanish teacher right now), so you can bop me on the head via computer

peace

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Yes, all the other teachers in the world do not agree with each other - officially and formally, in all matters that each currenly regards as good to agree upon. But then, nor does the Catholic Church agree with them all - or even one of them.

Clarification is needed at this point. What do you mean with this sentence, “Yes, all the other teachers in the world do not agree with each other - officially and formally, in all matters that each currenly regards as good to agree upon.”?

There is more than one teacher teaching doctrines. Not all of them agree with all of them in all matters that any of them regards as necesarry for there to be agreement. Do you agree?

But then, nor does the Catholic Church agree with them all - or even one of them.

.
Who is the “them”?

All other teachers of doctrine.

As you know, The Catholic Church only agrees with itself. Exclusively. It has a unity of one: itself with itself. The WORSE that can be said of any other teacher is that such also only agrees with self (although, in most cases, others aren’t as “bad” in this regard as is The Catholic Church).

You seem to think that what a teacher teaches matters. Is that correct?

.

Correct.

I, as well.

If so, then teachers of doctrine should be accountable for what they teach as such. Do you agree?

.

It what respect are referring to? Accountable in what way?

For what is taught. Joseph Smith says that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His denomination here. John Calvin said that God predestines some to eternal damnation. Do you think these teachers of doctrine should be accountable for what they teach as doctrine? Do you think teachers are accountable in their teachings or not?

If so, then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrines it teaches - just as it regards all OTHERS as accountable for what THEY teach - fully, right here and right now. Do you agree?

IF so, then you agree with Protestants here and disagree with The Catholic Church - which doesn’t permit accountability in the single, particular, exclusive case of just one: Itself, alone.

.

I don’t know what you mean by the Church “not permitting accountability in the single, particular, exclusive case of just one: itself, alone.”

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines, but because it rejects accountability for its doctrines. A good starting point for you would be to read your Catechism # 87. It declares that it alone is incapable of error, that it alone is infallible. Since self alone is such, accountability is moot and norming is to be laid aside in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone, insists The Catholic Church alone. Rather, we are to just accept whatever it says as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

The issue is accountability. Does truth matter? Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach? If you answer “yes” (and, I realize, as a Catholic you may not), then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches. THIS is were we have the fundamental disagreement; we don’t get “past” this point because HERE is where we disagree. Some regard The Catholic Church as accountable for what it teaches, The Catholic Church alone insists that it alone is not (and it requires Catholics to just accept this singular exception to accountability and norming).

To the issue of this thread, the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) is not about hermeneutics, the arbitive process or tradition (Catholic or Protestant definition). It is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the norming of doctrines. If Scripture is being used normatively, the the praxis is being employed. Lutherans embrace Tradition - passionately and as essential - that just has nothing to do with the issue here.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hello AJ, one difference that I see with you( self) and the Catholic Church (self):

you are truly an individual whereas the Catholic Church is not. It is a visible organization and in certain instances has had Councils and so on and so forth to come to agreement and decide on Doctrine, discipline, etc. In my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges. The “self” you refer to as the CC is made up of lot’s of individuals, including a College of Bishops, who come to an agreement on things and do come into a unity on faith and morals. Whether the individual people (Clergy and lay) obey or disobey is up to self.

You seem to be confusing “self” with an individual human being: I never suggested such.
The Catholic Church is a single teacher (albeit there are many persons officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church). The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is also a teacher (albeit there are many persons officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with it). I was speaking of teachers, not individual homo sapiens.

.

 

[Lampo]

I am having a very hard time following you. I might have to drop back here.

There is more than one teacher teaching doctrines.

Yes. There are Catholic teachers and Protestant teachers.

Not all of them agree with all of them in all matters that any of them regards as necesarry for there to be agreement. Do you agree?

This is a perfect example of me not following what you are trying to say.

All other teachers of doctrine.

Catholic teachers should disagree with teachers that teach doctrines that are not in line with Catholic teaching.

As you know, The Catholic Church only agrees with itself. Exclusively. It has a unity of one: itself with itself. The WORSE that can be said of any other teacher is that such also only agrees with self (although, in most cases, others aren’t as “bad” in this regard as is The Catholic Church).

Like LionHeart said, “…one difference that I see with you( self) and the Catholic Church (self):
you are truly an individual whereas the Catholic Church is not. It is a visible organization and in certain instances has had Councils and so on and so forth to come to agreement and decide on Doctrine, discipline, etc. In my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges. The “self” you refer to as the CC is made up of lot’s of individuals, including a College of Bishops, who come to an agreement on things and do come into a unity on faith and morals. Whether the individual people (Clergy and lay) obey or disobey is up to self.”

For what is taught. Joseph Smith says that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His denomination here. John Calvin said that God predestines some to eternal damnation. Do you think these teachers of doctrine should be accountable for what they teach as doctrine? Do you think teachers are accountable in their teachings or not?

Your question doesn’t make sense to me. How would they be held accountable? What happens to them for teaching false doctrine? Do you mean, “Should teachers believe what they teach?” or “Should teachers be able to prove what they are teaching to be the truth?” I just don’t understand your question.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines, but because it rejects accountability for its doctrines.

No, the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura because it is a heresy. Sola scriptura is not a truth revealed by God.

A good starting point for you would be to read your Catechism # 87. It declares that it alone is incapable of error, that it alone is infallible. Since self alone is such, accountability is moot and norming is to be laid aside in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone, insists The Catholic Church alone. Rather, we are to just accept whatever it says as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

The Magisterium of the Church

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, 49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The issue is accountability.

You need to define your terms. What do you mean by accountability?

 

[LionHeart777]

AJ,

I think I had this quote in mind from that post:

“Heck, I agree with me (formally and currently anyway, in the matters that I alone thinks are good to agree about, currently)…”

My point was that the CC agreeing w/ self is more impressive than an individual person agreeing with self. Apparently you didn’t have individual persons in mind in the “bigger picture” of what you were saying.

Also,

There is a unity with Eastern Catholics/Coptic Catholics, etc. with the Latin Right although everything is not identical and somethings are understood differently.

 

[paul_c]

.

Joseph Smith says that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His denomination here. John Calvin said that God predestines some to eternal damnation. Do you think these teachers of doctrine should be accountable for what they teach as doctrine? Do you think teachers are accountable in their teachings or not?

Josiah,
This example points to exactly the problem with Sola scriptura. Both Joseph Smith and John Calvin claimed scriptural support for their views. Of course, Joseph Smith added and amended scripture to suit his purposes and Calvin was “innovative” in his interpretation of scripture, as were all the reformers. You argue incessantly against the Catholic Chruch because it claims its interpretations are the normative view but effectivley, every religious body believes its particular interpretations are the correct ones. You will argue, perhaps, that your denomination (the Lutherans) use scripture alone as its norm, but you are being disengenuous when you say that because it not scripture alone that you are using, but your particular interpretation of scripture. In fact, Luther, not only used his particular spin on scripture, but altered it as well, adding a few selectied words to his translation and eliminating 7 books from the old testament.

 

[Lampo]

One would think that if the Bible is one’s sole rule of faith, then one could find that teaching in the Bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I am having a very hard time following you. I might have to drop back here.

Then, let’s take it slow and easy, one step at a time.

Do you think that truth matters? Especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that it matters of a doctrine is right or wrong?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for the correctness of that teaching?
Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

There is more than one teacher teaching doctrines.

Yes. There are Catholic teachers and Protestant teachers.

Well, to name just a very, very, very few teaches:

Arius
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Origen
Martin Luther
The Catholic Church
The Mennonite Church
John Calvin
Brigham Young
The United Presbyterian Church (USA)
Joseph Smith
Mary Baker Eddy
The Greek Orthodox Church
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
John Wesley
William Miller
The Assembly of God Church
Charles Taze Russell

Not all of them agree with all of them in all matters that any of them regards as necesarry for there to be agreement. Do you agree?

.

This is a perfect example of me not following what you are trying to say.

Well, consider the above list. How many of them does The Catholic Church agree with? That’s right, just one: itself. How many does The Assembly of God Church agree with? Well, fully - just one: itself. Some of the above (The Catholic Church for example) have a unity of just one: self with self; they agree only with the one it sees in the mirror - and that only formally, officially and in those matters that self alone currently regards as good for there to be agreement. Others (such as Brigham Young) have another on the list where there is agreement. the significance of this is an issue that concludes to perplex me.

All other teachers of doctrine.

Catholic teachers should disagree with teachers that teach doctrines that are not in line with Catholic teaching.

Just as the LDS church agrees with the LDS church when the LDS church teaches LDS doctrines. Okay. So what?

**As you know, The Catholic Church only agrees with itself. Exclusively. It has a unity of one: itself with itself. The WORSE that can be said of any other teacher is that such also only agrees with self (although, in most cases, others aren’t as “bad” in this regard as is The Catholic Church). **

.

one difference that I see with you( self) and the Catholic Church (self):you are truly an individual whereas the Catholic Church is not.

So what? A teacher is a teacher. The LDS is not an individual person, but the LDS agrees with the LDS (formally and officially, anyway) in all matters that it itself currently holds as necessary to agree upon, exactly as does The Catholic Church. I’m entirely at a loss to know why self agreeing with self indicates that self is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and all must accept whatever that self says with docility.

Accountable for what?

For what is taught. The Reformed Church in America teaches that God predestines some to eternal damnation. Do you think that teacher should be accountable for what is teach as doctrine?

.

Your question doesn’t make sense to me. I just don’t understand your question.

I realize that accountability is a very foreign concept for Catholics…

A teacher says, “If one watches Jungle2Jungle starring Tim Allen, he shall be saved.” Does it matter if that teaching is correct or not? IF so, then you are embracing that the statement is accountable, the teaching is accountable, the teacher is accountable for this teaching. Follow?

Now, if you don’t think truth matters - then who cares if it’s right or not? But if you do (especially since this involves our eternal salvation - and especially if this was declared as doctrine), then it matters to you if it is true. And it would be relevant - even essential - to determine if it is correct.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has an alternative rule/canon for the norming of its doctrines, but because it rejects accountability for its doctrines.

A good starting point for you would be to read your Catechism # 87. It declares that it alone is incapable of error, that it alone is infallible. Since self alone is such, accountability is moot and norming is to be laid aside in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone, insists The Catholic Church alone. Rather, we are to just accept whatever it says as correct “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”

.

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, **the faithful receive with docility the teachings **and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

.

Yup.

The Catholic Church designates The Catholic Church as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, and designates itself as infallible/unaccountable in such. So it requries that you just accept whatever it says “with docility.”

.

 

[Ignatius]

The purpose of this post is to clarify what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually is.

You propose that there is some doctrine called Solo Scriptura. I believe that you are in error about that. I believe that this is a smoke screen to cover the previous definition of Sola Scriptura.
If that is not the case, Please give some primary sources of evidence from any protestatn denominations that subscribes to the Doctrine of Solo Scriptura.

 

[Drawmack]

The reformers started off wrong. An inanimate object cannot be infallible. Did the Reformers believe the Bible was the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life in the year 107AD?

An inanimate object cannot be infallible? This should be great news for every Catholic here. You see once an infallible proclamation is written down, it can no longer be infallible according to this logic.

 

[Drawmack]

Will every Protestant that adheres to ss agree with this definition/clarification? If not, then it fails immediately. Because there is no central authority in all of Protestantism, there are many definitions of sola/solo scriptura; and all other doctrines for that matter.

Lumping Protestants in this way is an error.

 

[Mark01]

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

You left one out AmericanJosiah

 

[Drawmack]

Southern Baptist Convention? Primitive Baptist? Southern Baptists? First Baptists? Reformed Baptist? Independent Baptists? Evangelical Lutheran Church of America? Missouri Synod Lutherans? Wisconsin Synod Lutherans? North Carolina Lutheran Synod? Evangelical Lutheran Synod? I could go on and on.

None of the Baptist denominations you mention teach Solo Scriptura. Regardless of what you might like to believe. Otherwise they would hold services on Saturday.

 

[Drawmack]

It signifies the unity of the Catholic Church. Protestantism teaches many conflicting doctrines. The Catholic Church teaches no conflicting doctrines. Why doesn’t Protestantism agree with Protestantism?

It is a fallacy of the Catholic Church that it should, because Protestantism is not, and never has been, one. There were a number of reformers who all operated relatively close to one another in time frame but were separated by a chasm of doctrine and it was the Catholic Church which decided it could lump them all together into a single entity that they never were or claimed to be.

Fast forward 500 years and Catholic apologists use the Catholic Church’s errant lumping to show that they are right because not everyone else agrees with each other even though they have a single name but declines to mention that it is a name given to them by the Catholic Church.

Technically the only Protestants were Germans who lived in the 1500’s and Protested the German princes who agreed with the Catholic Church and they all agreed with each other on all the matters we debate today. And, they are all dead anyway.

Now, you can either use your straw man to scare some crows or you can continue to show your unwillingness to be educated on the matter – in the yittish language there is a word for that.

 

[Mark01]

So Drawmack are you saying that when Jesus said we should be one, that He was wrong?

 

[Drawmack]

Josiah,
This example points to exactly the problem with Sola scriptura. Both Joseph Smith and John Calvin claimed scriptural support for their views. Of course, Joseph Smith added and amended scripture to suit his purposes and Calvin was “innovative” in his interpretation of scripture, as were all the reformers. You argue incessantly against the Catholic Chruch because it claims its interpretations are the normative view but effectivley, every religious body believes its particular interpretations are the correct ones. You will argue, perhaps, that your denomination (the Lutherans) use scripture alone as its norm, but you are being disengenuous when you say that because it not scripture alone that you are using, but your particular interpretation of scripture. In fact, Luther, not only used his particular spin on scripture, but altered it as well, adding a few selectied words to his translation and eliminating 7 books from the old testament.

Please provide one Bible translated by Luther that does not contain the Deuterocannon.

 

[paul_c]

Please provide one Bible translated by Luther that does not contain the Deuterocannon.

Fair enough. He took the Deuterocannon out of their normal place and placed them in the back of the bible in an appendix labeled “Apocropha”. Then his successors did away with the appendix. Further, he added the word “alone” to Roman’s 3:28 to propagate his innovative view of salvation by faith alone. This is undeniable. He pushed Sola scriptura, but altered scripture at the same time.