Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedBert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
you said words have meanings:

And no I don’t get your point, other than just being argumentative

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.”** Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, **and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"
 
RedBert said:
And no I don’t get your point, other than just being argumentative
Click to expand...
My point is that goal of the very first sentence of the thread is impossible to achieve.
The purpose of this post is to clarify what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually is.
Click to expand...
RedBert said:
From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.”** Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, **and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"
Click to expand...
That’s all very well and good, but the official definition of sola/solo scriptura is non-existent.
 
Originally Posted by RedBert
Lampo ,
Do you really want to be the Catholic guy who refuses to accept the actual definition of a Protestant doctrine?
Lampo said:
I have absolutely no problem with refusing to accept false doctrines.
.
Click to expand...
Words have meanings , and that was a cheap trick changing the words from accept a defintion to accept false doctrine…

I 've dealt with you in the past and that is your typical MO.

I sure other Catholics and Protestants can see that too.
 
RedBert said:
Originally Posted by RedBert
Lampo ,
Do you really want to be the Catholic guy who refuses to accept the actual definition of a Protestant doctrine?

Words have meanings , and that was a cheap trick changing the words from accept a defintion to accept false doctrine…

I 've dealt with you in the past and that is your typical MO.

I sure other Catholics and Protestants can see that too.
Click to expand...
Not true, but if that’s your perception…
Not into trickery here. I like dealing with only facts and truth.
 
Lampo said:
For some, maybe even most, it means precisely that. Who’s to tell them they are wrong?
Click to expand...
from the OP
“I’m sure that Protestants and Catholics alike desire to accurately and fairly represent each others doctrines.” *****

***** not Lampo

maybe this debate now needs to go to the philosophy board so we can debate absolute truth or the meaning of words, or how humans can communicate without agreeing on the definitions.

the FACT is the doctrine of SS as defined at multiple “generally accepted” references are in agreement with each other and are in disagreement with a common misconception.

Most fair minded people would accept the sheer volume of “generally accepted” references

You, Lampo, have shown no desire to accurately and fairly represent other doctrines.

I’m glad other Catholics are not like that
 
RedBert said:
**Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority **to teach God’s truth.
Click to expand...
What is the “authority” that is signified there? That word has several meanings. For example, it could just mean that Jesus wanted everybody to go talk about the truth with some other people, sort of like mission. Or, it could mean that the only people who can go talk about the truth anywhere are those who are officially appointed by some type of body. Or, it could mean that an individual church within a conference (geographic area or diocese) must only have a pastor or preacher that the bishop allows or certifies. Or it could mean that someone has the authority to settle disputes about what the answer is to various questions. By settle, I mean get everyone to shut up, under penalty of being tossed out. Or, by settle, it could mean to actually say what is right. Hopefully these suggestions indicate to you in what manner I am uncertain about the statement, and the salient point is that the statement does not signify any particular state of affairs to me, so the statement is not informative (yet) to me.
 
Pug said:
What is the “authority” that is signified there? That word has several meanings. .
Click to expand...
It was a direct response to the often misstated Sola Scriptura concept that it rejects the authority of the Church. That rejection of authority would be part of solo (not sola) scriptura.

When Protestants wrongly claim that Catholics worship Mary; do you usually discuss the several meaning of the word “worship”?
 
RedBert said:
It was a direct response to the often misstated Sola Scriptura concept that it rejects the authority of the Church. That rejection of authority would be part of solo (not sola) scriptura.

When Protestants wrongly claim that Catholics worship Mary; do you usually discuss the several meaning of the word “worship”?
Click to expand...
Yes, I might have to clarify what worship means to me when I use the word, since it does seem to be used differently between some Protestants and Catholics.

But, I was actually asking you what you meant. I don’t know what you meant. I’m not being difficult. You said the thread was for to find out what *sola *scriptura actually means. I don’t know what you have in mind by saying the Church does have authority to teach the word of God. I know what a Catholic might mean by that, but you are not Catholic, and presumeably don’t accept our magisterium, so I know you don’t mean a magisterium. That is pretty much all I know you mean. What does a Protestant like yourself mean when they say the Church does have authority?
 
RedBert said:
from the OP
“I’m sure that Protestants and Catholics alike desire to accurately and fairly represent each others doctrines.” *****

***** not Lampo

maybe this debate now needs to go to the philosophy board so we can debate absolute truth or the meaning of words, or how humans can communicate without agreeing on the definitions.

the FACT is the doctrine of SS as defined at multiple “generally accepted” references are in agreement with each other and are in disagreement with a common misconception.

Most fair minded people would accept the sheer volume of “generally accepted” references

You, Lampo, have shown no desire to accurately and fairly represent other doctrines.

I’m glad other Catholics are not like that
Click to expand...
If that’s your take on it, so be it. The FACT is there is not an official definition of SS that every non-Catholic faith tradition adheres to.
 
i have already provided the UMC perspective:

i quick search of the Baptist’s and Lutheran’s statement of beliefs or perspectives show agreement. We are now up to 14 million Protestant represented in just these three denominations;;

so before I look up the other 4 of the “Seven Sisters of American Protestantism” and find they are also in agreement; will it even matter to you?

When does the burden of proof fall on Lampo ?
is the standard that “every non-Catholic faith tradition adheres to”

Lampo , please provide a mainline Christian denomination that believes
"Sola scriptura claims all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_(Protestant)#Mainline_denominations
 
RedBert said:
i have already provided the UMC perspective:

i quick search of the Baptist’s and Lutheran’s statement of beliefs or perspectives show agreement.
Click to expand...
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.
RedBert said:
Lampo , please provide a mainline Christian denomination that believes
"Sola scriptura claims all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible "
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that a non-Catholic faith tradition that believes all Christian doctrines must be found in the Bible is non-existent?
 
OP says:
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
Click to expand...
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
-James White
Click to expand...
By saying the Church is SUBJECT to the Word, I must assume that he means the Church does not have greater authority than the scriptures. Correct me if I am wrong. Does 14 million aforementioned Protestants agree with Mr. White?

SS is a redefinition of the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures, and different definitions are like different languages. That may be why SS threads are 5 miles long.
 
Lampo said:
No. That’s not the same though. The Catholic Church teaches just one set of doctrines. Because individual Catholics disagree on Church teachings, doesn’t mean the Catholic Church teaches differently on doctrines.
Click to expand...
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?”

🤷 :confused:

.
 
kepha1 said:
OP says:

By saying the Church is SUBJECT to the Word, I must assume that he means the Church does not have greater authority than the scriptures. Correct me if I am wrong. Does 14 million aforementioned Protestants agree with Mr. White?
Click to expand...
Absolutely :that is the Church doctrine of the denominations that’s represent about 14 million Protestants.

whether those same 14 million all agree or understand is a different subject;;
 
AmericanJosiah said:
The Catholic Church has a whopping unity of just one: self with self, a unity with self alone,…
.
Click to expand...
You are leaving out the large number of non-dissenting Catholics here.
AmericanJosiah said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top