Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[RedBert]

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.

Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.
the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

Solo Scriptura is a non Biblical perversion of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Sciptura.

Many people today wrongly think that the Bible is the only authority for our faith and life. (Solo)
But this is not what the reformers taught.
They taught that the Bible is the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life.(Sola)
The reformers never intended for people to reject the authority of the church…

I do NOT know of any denomination that adheres to the doctrine of solo scriptura.

But I do know many Protestants who mistakenly think that Sola Scriptura means that “ the Bible is the only authority for our faith and life”

And on these boards, I see many Catholics state the same wrong definition.

And to be honest and fair, we all know Catholics who are mistaken on doctrines like the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility. But a common misconception does not change the meaning of a doctrine.

As I have learned more about the doctrines of the Catholic Church some of my misconceptions were corrected.
For example, the misconception that Catholics worship idols or Mary.
Regardless of what other Protestants think, regardless of what I may observe, and regardless of what misinformed Catholics may say. I strive to use the correct and accurate meaning of Catholic doctrines.

Apparently , not all share my desire to be fair and accurate.

It is my hope that by defining the actual historical Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura that the quality of some of these debates would improve.

 

[RedBert]

. 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.

I guess you missed the news:

“Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper”
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.
the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

aah, so it’s with this Jones whom I have a linguistics bone to pick eh?npatrol:

 

[Drawmack]

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

Quote me saying that, make an actual well stated and cogent argument that I said that, or apologize for defaming me.

 

[paul_c]

I guess you missed the news:

“Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper”
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

Well, it was a qualified statement that the “newpaper” took out of context:

Here’s what he said:

For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love

Here’s the full transcript of the audience in which he taught this.:vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

 

[kepha1]

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?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2910807944_a8aea9b9d8_t.jpg

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

Well, consider the above list. How many of them does The Catholic Church agree with? That’s right, just one: itself.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/216947286_205212eb81_t.jpg%between%

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.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2689857765_0a77aa988f_t.jpg

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.”

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/501386707_4de86b9763_t.jpg

 

[Mark01]

Quote me saying that, make an actual well stated and cogent argument that I said that, or apologize for defaming me.

Drawmack, let me first appologize to you if I have offended you that was not my intention. In the following statement, from a previous post:

*“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.” *

You seem to be critical of the Catholic teaching of Unity or the oneness of the Church.
Jesus in the Bible spoke of that unity, I believe that that is what He instructed. The apostles preached based on that unity. I believe that in our divided state, we Christians that is, take away from the Grace of God. In other words it makes it harder for that Grace to work among the community.

Again let me appologize if I miss understood your point.

 

[Lampo]

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.”

If one doesn’t understand that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ with Jesus Christ as the head of this Church and that when the Church speaks it is actually the Holy Spirit speaking, then what you say above sounds bad.

 

[Lampo]

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.

I hoped that you learned what “infallible” means a few months ago when we dialogued about this in another thread. I’m a little disappointed. Let’s try it again.

An infallible proclamation that is written down can be misinterpreted. Just like the Bible is misinterpreted.

 

[Lampo]

Lumping Protestants in this way is an error.

Why? It highlights the fruit of Protestantism and sola scriptura.

 

[Drawmack]

You seem to be critical of the Catholic teaching of Unity or the oneness of the Church.

That is not what I was getting at, this is a completely different path. I was responding to someone who insists that since “Protestants” can’t agree and the Catholic Church does agree that “Protestants” must be wrong. What I was pointing out was that Protestants as he is using it cannot be expected to agree because they never were a single unified one, they were a many who were lumped by the Catholic Church. Today the word Protestant basically means, with a few rare exceptions, any Christian who disagrees with the Catholic Church. It is, at best, disingenuous to use a term with a definition like that and say they must be wrong because they don’t all agree so I must be right because they, pretty much, by definition disagree with one another.

When you start talking about unity then we actually have to get into heterodoxy vs. heresy. I believe there is much more room for heterodoxy in Jesus’ teachings than the Catholic Church allows for. Thus I would say we’re really not divided on matters that directly affect salvation and therefore there is the type of unity Jesus spoke about. I know that Catholics will disagree with this, which is why I normally don’t say it here I was just answering the question.

Jesus in the Bible spoke of that unity, I believe that that is what He instructed. The apostles preached based on that unity. I believe that in our divided state, we Christians that is, take away from the Grace of God. In other words it makes it harder for that Grace to work among the community.

To a point I agree with you. However, I think that what makes it harder for God’s Grace to work in the community is all the in fighting. If we all realized that we’re all Christians and we all stopped trying to convert each other to the “right” or “True” or “whatever” brand of Christianity then we could allow God’s Grace to work in the community much more easily.

Again let me appologize if I miss understood your point.

It’s okay, but one liner’s bother me (I know I do it to sometimes) because it is very difficult to respond unless you really understand where the other person is coming from and therefore it feels like a trap.

 

[Drawmack]

I hoped that you learned what “infallible” means a few months ago when we dialogued about this in another thread. I’m a little disappointed. Let’s try it again.

An infallible proclamation that is written down can be misinterpreted. Just like the Bible is misinterpreted.

Oh, see what you said in the first post is an inanimate object cannot be infallible. I hoped that you learned to be more clear with your words a few months ago when we dialogued in another thread. I’m a little disappointed.

 

[Drawmack]

Why? It highlights the fruit of Protestantism and sola scriptura.

Please see the lengthy post where I already explained why this is an error. I will not be discussing it any further in this thread unless you can prove that one of the points in that post is not valid or that the conclusion does not logically flow from the premises.

 

[paul_c]

That is not what I was getting at, this is a completely different path. I was responding to someone who insists that since “Protestants” can’t agree and the Catholic Church does agree that “Protestants” must be wrong. What I was pointing out was that Protestants as he is using it cannot be expected to agree because they never were a single unified one, they were a many who were lumped by the Catholic Church. Today the word Protestant basically means, with a few rare exceptions, any Christian who disagrees with the Catholic Church. It is, at best, disingenuous to use a term with a definition like that and say they must be wrong because they don’t all agree so I must be right because they, pretty much, by definition disagree with one another.

When you start talking about unity then we actually have to get into heterodoxy vs. heresy. I believe there is much more room for heterodoxy in Jesus’ teachings than the Catholic Church allows for. Thus I would say we’re really not divided on matters that directly affect salvation and therefore there is the type of unity Jesus spoke about. I know that Catholics will disagree with this, which is why I normally don’t say it here I was just answering the question.

To a point I agree with you. However, I think that what makes it harder for God’s Grace to work in the community is all the in fighting. If we all realized that we’re all Christians and we all stopped trying to convert each other to the “right” or “True” or “whatever” brand of Christianity then we could allow God’s Grace to work in the community much more easily.

.

Drawmack,
while I completely appreciate your ecumenical sentiments here, it does bring out a quandry. We know there is only one truth and when we deviate from that truth, we mislead people. So while we should, and must acknowledge and celebrate those doctrines that we have in common, which for most Christians is the majority, we are must also point out where we deviate so that people are not misled. After all, once you start allowing some error, where does it end. Instruction and correction is a spiritual work of mercy, after all.

 

[Lampo]

Oh, see what you said in the first post is an inanimate object cannot be infallible. I hoped that you learned to be more clear with your words a few months ago when we dialogued in another thread. I’m a little disappointed.

That’s correct, an inanimate cannot be infallible.

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack,
while I completely appreciate your ecumenical sentiments here, it does bring out a quandry. We know there is only one truth and when we deviate from that truth, we mislead people. So while we should, and must acknowledge and celebrate those doctrines that we have in common, which for most Christians is the majority, we are must also point out where we deviate so that people are not misled. After all, once you start allowing some error, where does it end. Instruction and correction is a spiritual work of mercy, after all.

I affirm this statement 100%. However, Paul, there are three types of teaching: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Heresy.

Orthodoxy is that which must be affirmed to be Christian.

Heterodoxy is that which one can take many points of view on and not be in conflict with Orthodoxy (like Thomism vs. Molonism)

Heresy is that which contradicts Orthodoxy.

Okay, that being said. The point I was making is that where the real disagreements lie is what is Orthodoxy and what is Heterodoxy as these will define Heresy.

The Catholic Church defines much more as Orthodoxy that other Christian churches do. So, Catholics see division amongst Protestants where Protestants do not see division. Many of the denominations disagree on points that those denominations consider heterodoxical.

Since Protestants and Catholics disagree on the definitions of these words it significantly hampers inter-denominational dialogues between Protestants and Catholics because we get hung up in all this minutia that really comes down to us defining these words differently.

So, my point is sure we can discuss our differences. Sure we can work towards understanding one another. Sure, if you believe that my beliefs are heretical you can tell me so and tell me why and I can do the same with you. But, we should really stop trying to convert one another.

If God seeks the conversion it will happen. Leave if up to God and up to God’s Grace and stop trying to convert one another, stop the in fighting but keep up the discussions, and allow God’s Grace to work unhampered by we Christian brethren. That’s really all I was saying. Which I think is clear if you take my post in the context of the post I was responding to.

 

[Drawmack]

That’s correct, an inanimate cannot be infallible.

And, a written proclamation from the Magisterium is an inanimate object and therefore cannot be infallible.

 

[Lampo]

And, a written proclamation from the Magisterium is an inanimate object and therefore cannot be infallible.

Correct. The teaching is infallible though.

 

[Drawmack]

Correct. The teaching is infallible though.

And, that is the same thing we’re saying about the Bible.

 

[Mark01]

And, a written proclamation from the Magisterium is an inanimate object and therefore cannot be infallible.

Drawmack, by your example above the Bible could be considered an inanimate object, but you and I both believe, at least I do,that it is the Inerrant Word of God.

Copied from an earlier post:

*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.*

I include this here so that those who read this post can note that in CCC 86 above the Church states it is not superior to the Word of God, but it’s servant.

And, that is the same thing we’re saying about the Bible.

We of the Catholic faith also agree that the Bible is the Inerrant/Infallible Word of God even though it is an inanimate object. The rub lies when the Catholic Church places Tradition as part of the Word of God, no greater, no less, the Word of God. Prior to the Reformation most Christians accepted that teaching. I will not attempt to take this line of discussion any further concerning how the Bible came into being in my dialog, because I get the feeling you are quite learned in biblical history and I don’t want to get into a circular argument with you. That is not the purpose of my post.

The OP of this thread was on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a doctrine than I find very difficult to understand in light of what the Bible teaches as I have been taught. It just does not make sense to me. My wife and I have some very passionate discussions on this topic, she is Baptist " If it is not in the Bible it’s not true" her words not mine.

It does grieve me though that in our discussions about faith just how much she was taught as a young women that is totally false and to be quite frank actually hostile towards the Catholic Church. I dare say that I don’t think she will ever convert to Catholicism, though she did ask me about praying the Rosary the other night, so maybe there is hope. I do think as Paul C. stated in an earlier post it is important not to mislead people and as Christians we must not exclude portions or make false statements about our own or other’s faith doctrines.

Now I’ll go do a little research on Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy and our differences. No need to study Heresy I’ve got the Church to tell me what that is.

Thanks for setting me straight on posting “one liners”