Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[RedBert]

This thread is about the definition of SS. Hermeneutics is central to the topic of this thread. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

Actually I disagree

Redbert (the Original Poster)

The OP was trying to correct the typical straw man argument / misconception that SS states that everything is in Scripture

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually, the praxis is well exampled in Scripture.

By all means show specific scripture showing this. I don’t think you can. I’ve seen a lot of people try and no one’s come through yet.

…
Let’s get to the point:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?

Yep… that’s precisely why I am not Lutheran. Error that has been refuted from its inception.

Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such?

Yep…that’s why Luther was wrong and shown to be so and all the modern post reformation step children since.

If so, then you think that The Catholic Church is accountable for its doctrines - no less than any and all other teachers and you have rejected what The Catholic Church requires of you (CCC 87 for example),

Already answered… you pulled it out context.

and the question then becomes WHAT best serves as the norma normans for that norming? I have given the reasons why I think Scripture best serves. No Catholic has offered any alternative because The Catholic Church does not (it rejects all others, as well; any you suggest will be rejected by The Catholic Church since it rejects accountability by ANY rule/canon; it requires that all just accept whatever it teaches “with docility”).

Don’t talk about accountability to Catholics. The Lutheran community has not proved faithful in doctrine (since it’s founding by men. Example: Sola Scriptura, which has no basis in the Bible that it calls its final and infallible authority.) nor its faith and morals in very many issues.

When you have all that squared away…then try again. But I don’t believe that will happen.

Most of all I believe that you had no choice but to change the doctrines your community teaches.
My Reformation Theory

 

[maggie41]

Actually I disagree

Redbert (the Original Poster)

The OP was trying to correct the typical straw man argument / misconception that SS states that everything is in Scripture

Ok, but don’t you agree that a discussion, any discussion about SS must involve how we interpret the Scriptures?

If not, what is the point?

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie

 

[RedBert]

The implied purpose of the post was to try to limit the straw man arguments like this one

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6302503#post6302503
If ,as Sola scriptura claims. …all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible

or this one:
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part I and II)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408234

where it is in the Word of God that it specifically **states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages **

 

[Drawmack]

That’s because you can make scripture say virtually anything you want. Remember in Luke, where Satan tested Jesus using scripture? Scripture needs an authorized interpreter to be validly understood.

No, like any book it needs a context to be understood. The context for Scripture is other (more clear but related) Scripture, the people and culture it was written to and by, and the literary form being used in a particular passage.

That role, my friend, was entrusted to the Catholic Church.

I know that is what the Catholic Church teaches, and I know it is what one must affirm to be Catholic. However, I disagree.

[qutoe]Men like Luther and Calvin seprated themselves from the Church because they thought they had a better interpretation of scriptre…

Luther did not separate himself from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church separated Luther from them. If you can’t even be honest about a fact historically provable by documents from your own church then why should I take anything you say with credit or merit and not simply dismiss it as disingenuous and twisted in this very same way?

But what they liked deviated from the truth. For instance, Luther liked scripture to say that sin was unimportant and that Faith alone was required so he selectively read scripture and even tried to eliminate the gospel of James, what he called the epistle of straw, because it taught that Faith without works is dead.

That is an absurd claim based on a P.S. that Luther threw into a letter which was in response to a question we do not have access to today. If Luther really believed sin to be unimportant there would be more support for it that one passing reference from a letter to a friend. Can I scrutinize every communication from every Pope in the history of the Catholic Church to their friends and family and scrutinize every sentence as proclaiming doctrine?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
That’s because you can make scripture say virtually anything you want. Remember in Luke, where Satan tested Jesus using scripture? Scripture needs an authorized interpreter to be validly understood.

Okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c That role, my friend, was entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Well, obviously, otherwise you would still be catholic. But if the catholic church doesn’t play that role, who does?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c Men like Luther and Calvin seprated themselves from the Church because they thought they had a better interpretation of scripture

not exactly. Luther pushed some heretical views. The church asked him to recant. He refused, The Church then acknowledged that he had separated himself from Church teaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c :
But what they liked deviated from the truth. For instance, Luther liked scripture to say that sin was unimportant and that Faith alone was required so he selectively read scripture and even tried to eliminate the gospel of James, what he called the epistle of straw, because it taught that Faith without works is dead.

Its more than a P.S. Luther clearly believed that only faith mattered and that sin was inconsequential. Do you deny this?

 

[JoeT777]

WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming?.

The Roman Catholic Church is the most sound right and sole rule of faith.

While I’m sure you know It’s the Lutherans who hold the concept that norma normans as Scripture being the sole rule of faith. This is quite distant from Catholic truth; such a norm would leave no rule over scripture. We needn’t a rule over scripture? Without a rule over scripture then there is no authoritative authentication of scripture; without which doubt reigns, disorder rules. We don’t find a clear and definitive statement of validity and authority; there is none.

Yes, scripture is a special case of Catholic Tradition and it is the work of the Holy Spirit working through the lives of the men who walked with Christ. It is from her tradition that we have scripture. She and she alone is the pillar and ground of truth, and she is the guarantor of infallible teaching. The norms found in her is the norm of faith.

JoeT

 

[Drawmack]

Its more than a P.S. Luther clearly believed that only faith mattered and that sin was inconsequential. Do you deny this?

Offering a counter point without support is no better than plugging your ears and humming.

 

[Monte1945]

Then all you have to do is go to official Church documents (i.e. the Catechism, Papal Encyclicals, etc.) and clarify the official Church teaching on [insert doctrine] to him. That’s something you cannot do in Protestantism because the lack of authority.

In the majority of Baptist and Pentecostal churches of members of my family there
was/is a set of doctrines. There was 13 in one of my Uncle’s Independence Baptist
church (he was the pastor) and in my other Uncles Church a Pentecostal one (he too was
the pastor there) there was/is 11 doctrines.

When one joins one of those churches one’s name is put in a book of that church.
It is called a “letter” … example: “I have my letter in that church”
Thus I am a member of that church.

If you decide to stop going to the church you have your letter in and become
a member of another church of the same denomination you “remove your letter” from
the first church and put it in the book of the new church you want to attend and support.

If you state that one of the doctrines of either of those churches is not something you can accept or believe … you will be called in for review and you can have your letter removed as a member if the board of review (the eight deacons) finds from examination that you
you do do not agree with any of the doctrines.

I guess one could say… they have church power over the bible as the Catholic Church
does.

Of course I am only speaking of two non-Catholic churches… and I can not speak for
the numerous other christian churches…

 

[Monte1945]

That’s all very well and good, but the official definition of sola/solo scriptura is non-existent.

I was always taught that the sola scriptura was that one could use the bible to
find their means to their “salvation” and one does not need a church to
show them “The Way”… and that was all…

It is the idea that man and God alone work out his salvation. (non-catholic)

Man needs the Grace of God through the Sacraments to work out his salvation
with God Which comes from the Church. (Catholic View)

The questions are:

Can one find the salvation of God through the scriptures alone?

Does one need the Church?

And if so why?

The questions are not implying that the church or authority of the church is not
a good thing… but the question is is it “necessary?”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Roman Catholic Church is the most sound right and sole rule of faith.

So, the best norma normans for the evaluations of the teachings of a teacher are the teachings of that teacher? Do you think that’s a bit circular, a classic case of circular authentication? This is the rubric you wish to defend as the most sound in determining the correctness of a teacher: “I alone agree with I along so I alone an infallibly correct”?

.

 

[Lampo]

In the majority of Baptist and Pentecostal churches of members of my family there
was/is a set of doctrines. There was 13 in one of my Uncle’s Independence Baptist
church (he was the pastor) and in my other Uncles Church a Pentecostal one (he too was
the pastor there) there was/is 11 doctrines.

When one joins one of those churches one’s name is put in a book of that church.
It is called a “letter” … example: “I have my letter in that church”
Thus I am a member of that church.

If you decide to stop going to the church you have your letter in and become
a member of another church of the same denomination you “remove your letter” from
the first church and put it in the book of the new church you want to attend and support.

If you state that one of the doctrines of either of those churches is not something you can accept or believe … you will be called in for review and you can have your letter removed as a member if the board of review (the eight deacons) finds from examination that you
you do do not agree with any of the doctrines.

I guess one could say… they have church power over the bible as the Catholic Church
does.

Of course I am only speaking of two non-Catholic churches… and I can not speak for
the numerous other christian churches…

That’s interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Its more than a P.S. Luther clearly believed that only faith mattered and that sin was inconsequential. Do you deny this?

Here is the full quote by Luther to Melanchthon:

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.

This is not just a Post script. And by the way, its completely consistent with his theology. Did he not teach that all men were sinners but that this doesn’t matter if they put their faith in Christ? Isn’t that the sum of his teaching?

 

[Lampo]

I was always taught that the sola scriptura was that one could use the bible to
find their means to their “salvation” and one does not need a church to
show them “The Way”… and that was all…

How did the early Christians do this for the first 400 years of Christianity? There was no Bible.

The questions are:

Can one find the salvation of God through the scriptures alone?

Possibly. Not definitely.

Does one need the Church?

Yes. For proper interpretation of Scripture for one thing. Jesus established a Church, so He must have thought we needed one. Jesus founded a Church/Magisterium, not a Bible.

The questions are not implying that the church or authority of the church is not
a good thing… but the question is is it “necessary?”

Don’t forget the Catholic Church is what gave us the Bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

How did the early Christians do this for the first 400 years of Christianity? There was no Bible.

There is no praxis of Sola Biblica.

What we are discussing is Sola SCRIPTURA. If you think there was no Scripture before 400 AD, then take it up with Jesus. He disagress with you (Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Matthew 26:54, Matthew 26:56, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:40, Mark 15;28, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9)

.

 

[Drawmack]

Here is the full quote by Luther to Melanchthon:

This is not just a Post script. And by the way, its completely consistent with his theology. Did he not teach that all men were sinners but that this doesn’t matter if they put their faith in Christ? Isn’t that the sum of his teaching?

That is not more than a post script. If you read the entire letter that entire quote is from the post script of the letter. A man who wrote numerous books, including two catechisms and the only defense you can find for your claim is a post script from one letter. Again, I ask, would you like me to hold every pope up to the same standards and shout from the hill tops that everything I find there is Catholic doctrine?

Now, you ask if Martin Luther taught that men are sinners. Yes he did and as far as I know so does the Catholic Church. You go on to ask that this doesn’t matter if the put their faith in Christ. That is an extreme over simplification, but again I would assert that yes both Luther and the Catholic Church teach this. Or am I mistaken, does the Catholic Church teach that one can get to Heaven by not sinning? Does the Catholic Church teach that one need not put their faith in Christ for eternal salvation? Does the Catholic Church teach that there is some other means of entering Heaven then through Christ’s (God’s) mercy?

 

[RedBert]

How did the early Christians do this for the first 400 years of Christianity? There was no Bible.

Breaking news!
They had the books of the Bible. they treasured them , studied them , shared and learned.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus

"notable early manuscripts of John include Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, in consequence of which a substantially complete text of the Gospel of John exists from the beginning of the 3rd century at the latest. Hence the textual evidence for the Gospel of John is commonly accepted as both earlier and more reliable than that for any other of the canonical Gospels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

 

[Philthy]

The implied purpose of the post was to try to limit the straw man arguments like this one

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6302503#post6302503
If ,as Sola scriptura claims. …all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible

or this one:
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part I and II)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408234

where it is in the Word of God that it specifically **states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages **

Hi RedBert!

If you really want progress in your OP, then you have to come to grips with something:
There is no such thing as a fixed definition of Sola Scriptura. You have no right to claim that those definitions proposed above misrepresent what sola scriptura is. It is not defined in Scripture, is never mentioned in the first 1500 years of Christianity and, unless you are prepared to reveal an authoritative council or individual who defined it, it remains a moving target subject to the equally unauthoritative whims of those who claim to adhere to it as something that they define for themselves. It is what it is - an alterable attempt at a workable platform for the development of Christian doctrine necessitated by those who separated themselves from authority while recognizing the need to create an authority but who simultaneously realized that the Bible alone cannot be that authority. What more is there to discuss?

Blessings!

 

[RedBert]

There is no such thing as a fixed definition of Sola Scriptura.

But there sure is a fixed definition of what it is NOT

and it is NOT that “all Christian beliefs must come from the Bible”

so even though I have presented definitions of Sola Scriptura from
catholic.com
New Advent.org
wiki
Methodists,
Baptists
historical understandings,
protestants authors:

**that all agree **that SS does NOT means “**all **Christian beliefs must come from the Bible”: you will continue to claim that it does?

I think the burden of proof is now on you to provide any reliable reference to validate your understanding of the meaning of the doctrine.

 

[JoeT777]

1). Can one find the salvation of God through the scriptures alone?

2). Does one need the Church?

3). And if so why?

The questions are not implying that the church or authority of the church is not
a good thing… but the question is is it “necessary?”

Can one find the salvation of God through the scriptures alone?

No, one cannot find the fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Scriptures alone.” Some call Scripture-only or solo Scriptoria the sole rule of faith whereby Scripture alone authenticates and infallibly interprets Scripture . This principle rests in a subjective reasoning diminishes God’s ability to reveal His Truth in our lives. Occasionally, you’ll hear the refrain that the ‘Holy Spirit guides our understanding’. My objection is that we are asked to believe that the Holy Spirit is so schizophrenic as to create several (multiple) sole-rules of infallible fallible faith - an absurdity. The contention is in a divided house which we know cannot stand

The subjectivism of sola Scriptoria asserts that each holds the principle key to unlock the meaning of Scripture. The conflict with sola Scriptoria is found that each becomes his own interpreter of Chrit’s meaning. This concept called Sola Scriptoria is best described in ‘it’s freedoms’ articulated during the French Revolution with the philosophy rooted in Kant’s intellectual mushey-minded subjectivism; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.”

Most Christians, other than Catholic (used in the broad sense), form distinct groups of likeminded sole judges of the rule-of-faith. Since each individual has the same rights there can be as many different measures in faith as there are non-Catholic denominations. Hypothetically we could eventually end up with as many denominations as there are Protestants (Since the number of Protestant faiths are increasing exponentially it shouldn’t be long before we reach this state of anarchy). This produces chaos in the order of faith, a state antithetical to moral order. One and only one faith can be representative of God’s absolute truth. This is especially true when the founder of that faith is Christ - you do know that Christ only created ONE Church? We can’t be left wondering which faith is correct and which isn’t. Nor, is it acceptable to believe that one faith is as good as another; this cheapens any faith – Catholicism is not lesser than any other Christian faith. So we’re left with the real question, which has Christ’s Authority, and which doesn’t?

Protestantism isn’t ‘one faith in the spirit of Christ’; it can never be ‘one’ given that each is the arbitrator of his own faith. As you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.” (John 17:11). This is the Tradition guarded, kept, and taught, one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith.

no. 2 and 3 will follow shortly

JoeT