Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[nuntym]

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)

OK, who defines what Scripture is, what is included in Scripture?

From what I read of the OP’s definition of sola scriptura, it says that “Scripture is self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating…” but it is not self-defining, isn’t it?

Now I may be nitty-grittying, but for me this is very important. Sola scriptura may be defined well, but if no one can define what Scripture is, then it is like having a map for London when in fact you are in San Francisco: it is useless.

 

[RedBert]

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

No, /QUOTE]

Could not disagree with you more:

I can’t beleive that is the postion of the Catholic Church.

Can anyone verfiy “one cannot find the fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Scriptures alone”?

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

Then why do you and so many other n-Cs try to bash the Catholic Church for supposedly “unBiblical teachings”?

I think you guys need to make up your mind and either teach one thing or the other.

Oh wait…though you guys will all tell us that the Holy Spirit guides your teachings and interpretations, (whether they agree with the Bible or the writings of the early church or not), there is no one in authority to call all of you into a unified doctrine, and in fact, a great many of you would flip totally out at the very suggestion of such because you’d think that you were moving toward a one world church in these last pre-rapture days. We can’t have that now can we? Even though you now readily admit that everything that Christians believe and practice doesn’t have to be found in the Bible.

Why would we bear the burden of proof about a doctrine we don’t even teach? It’s your error…you clean it up.

No matter how you try to beautify it…the doctrinal position of Sola Scriptura is neither Biblical nor tenable in practice. That’s not the fault of the Catholic Church. We’ve been calling you on it for 500 years. It doesn’t appear to be working out very well for you as it’s more like a bunch of ants on a stick floating down a steam, and all of them telling each other, “I’m steering…I’m steering…I’m steering…”

 

[Church_Militant]

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

No,

Could not disagree with you more:

I can’t beleive that is the postion of the Catholic Church.

Can anyone verfiy “one cannot find the fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Scriptures alone”?

Yeah… let’s see just how that worked out in the New Testament, okay?[bibledrb]Acts of the Apostles 8:26-40[/bibledrb]

 

[JoeT777]

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

No, /QUOTE]

Could not disagree with you more:

I can’t beleive that is the postion of the Catholic Church.

Can anyone verfiy “one cannot find the fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Scriptures alone”?

It’s the Church that’s the Authority, not the book. We worship in (or through) the Church we don’t worship A Book. But, if you need verification, let’s use Bible alone:

“Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation” (Hebrews 13:7). We don’t follow ‘the Word of God’ – per se, straight out of the can ; we follow our prelates (bishops, archbishops) who lead us to God’s word.

JoeT

 

[Lampo]

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)

How would the early Christians have known those were the inspired books?

 

[Lampo]

Can anyone verfiy “one cannot find the fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Scriptures alone”?

Where in scripture does it say the fullness of Christ’s salvation is in scripture alone?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Lampo:

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)**

.

How would the early Christians have known those were the inspired books?

Ask Jesus.

You indicated there was no Scripture and asked how any could use Scripture before 400 AD. Well, here’s none other than JESUS referencing Scripture and using it. TWENTY-TWO times. Guess He doesn’t agree with you that Scripture didn’t exist before 400 AD and that none could use it before then.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

JoeT777:

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]

Ask Jesus.

You indicated there was no Scripture and asked how any could use Scripture before 400 AD. Well, here’s none other than JESUS referencing Scripture and using it. TWENTY-TWO times. Guess He doesn’t agree with you that Scripture didn’t exist before 400 AD and that none could use it before then.

Are you saying there was no need for the Catholic Church,in the late 4th century, to finalize the Canon of Scripture by determining which books should and should not be included in the Bible; or are you just denying it?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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

No

I agree.

Now, let’s return to a discussion of the most sound rule/canon in the norming of doctrines.

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

1. You are speaking of hermeneutics, and thus you are off topic. The issue here is not hermeneutical principles of interpretation but rather the embraces rule/canon for the norming of doctrines. Let’s try to stay on topic (as the rules for this website require).
2. Your “problem” seems to be self alone designating self alone as the sole, authoritative and infallible interpreter. I share your concern on that! But, friend, there’s only ONE in all of Christiandom that does what you are rebuking: The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 (with 87) for starters. Search all you want (PLEASE!) you will find NO OTHER Catechism of ANY OTHER Christian group that does what The Catholic Church does in this regard and thus is the subject of your ridicule (well, it’s universal in all the cults but let’s stick to clearly Christian groups)
3. Yes, we all know that The Catholic Church agrees with only itself. That’s it. That’s all. It has a formal, official agreement with itself exclusively and soley - and that only in those matters that it itself alone currently regards as good for which there to be agreement. A grand unity of one: self with self. Is THAT your idea of “unity?”

The subjectivism of sola Scriptoria asserts that each holds the principle key to unlock the meaning of Scripture.

Again, you desire to switch topics to hermeneutics and to rebuke The Catholic Church’s appointement of self alone as the exclusive and infallible interpreter. Actually, I agree with you and reject that. But let’s try to get back to the topic of this thread, okay?

The conflict with sola Scriptoria is found that each becomes his own interpreter of Chrit’s meaning.

Again, take that up with The Catholic Church (CCC 85) since it alone designates itself alone as the sole, infallible, authoritative interpreter of Scripture. And it’s off topic and I think not permitted in this thread.

Most Christians, other than Catholic (used in the broad sense), form distinct groups of likeminded sole judges of the rule-of-faith.

Wait a minute… The Catholic Church forms the Magisterium: a group of clergy of The Catholic Church each and every one pledged upon death to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church as the sole judges of the teachings of The Catholic Church; but the whole thing is moot since The Catholic Church proclaims that The Catholic Church is INCAPABLE of being wrong and is exempt from norming and whatever it says is just to be accepted with docility. But you’re sidetracking the issue again, this time with arbitration. And (oddly) you continue your ridicule of Catholicism which I don’t think is appropriate here.

This produces chaos in the order of faith

Off topic…

So, how does self alone agreeing with self alone - and even that ONLY formally, officially and in those matters that self alone currently views as good to agree upon - how is THAT less “choatic?” Does The Church of Christ - Scientist agree with itself alone - officially, formally and in those issue where self alone currently things agreement is good? So what? Each cult agrees with itself, too. Heck, I agree with me. So what?

Friend, look at all that reject Sola Scriptura and do what you are defending: self proclaims self as infallible, incapable of wrong, unaccountable, and just to be accepted “with docility.” The LDS and each and every one of the cults, for example. Do you see unity under that praxis? Do you see a lack of choas?

.

 

[Lampo]

Ask Jesus.

You indicated there was no Scripture and asked how any could use Scripture before 400 AD. Well, here’s none other than JESUS referencing Scripture and using it. TWENTY-TWO times. Guess He doesn’t agree with you that Scripture didn’t exist before 400 AD and that none could use it before then.

The Old Testament existed in Jesus’ time. That’s fact. The inspired books of the NT existed as late as 90AD. So did many, many other writings. Did all of the early Christians know precisely which ones were and were not inspired? No. Here are some of the books/letters/writings that were floating around at the time that did not make it into the Bible because the Catholic Church authoritatively decided they were not inspired.

1.1 The Epistles of Jesus to Abgarus
2. Pseudo-apostolic (general) apocrypha
2.1 Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)
2.2 Epistle of the Apostles

1. Pseudo-apostolic (specific - by Apostle) apocrypha
   3.1 - Andrew -
   3.1.1 Acts of Andrew
   3.1.2 Acts of Andrew and Matthias*

3.2 - Barnabas -
3.2.1 Acts of Barnabas*
3.2.2 Epistle of Barnabas
3.2.3 Gospel of Barnabas

3.3 - Bartholomew -
3.3.1 Gospel of Bartholomew
3.3.2 Martyrdom of Bartholomew*

3.4 - James -
3.4.1 Apocryphon of James
3.4.2 Book of James (protevangelium)
3.4.3 First Apocalypse of James
3.4.4 Second Apocalypse of James

3.5 - John -
3.5.1 Acts of John
3.5.2 Acts of John the Theologian*
3.5.3 Apocryphon of John (long version)
3.5.4 Book of John the Evangelist
3.5.5 Revelation of John the Theologian*

3.6 - Mark -
3.6.1 Secret Gospel of Mark

3.7 - Matthew -
3.7.1 Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle*
3.7.2 The Martyrdom of Matthew

3.8 - Nicodemus -
3.8.1 Gospel (Acts) of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pontius Pilate)

3.9 - Peter -
3.9.1 Acts of Peter
3.9.2 Acts of Peter and Andrew
3.9.3 Apocalypse of Peter - version 1
3.9.4 Apocalypse of Peter - version 2
3.9.5 Gospel of Peter
3.9.6 Letter of Peter to Philip

3.10 - Philip -
3.10.1 Acts of Philip
3.10.2 Gospel of Philip

3.11 - Thaddeus -
3.11.1 Acts of Thaddeus (Epistles of Pontius Pilate)*
3.11.2 Teaching of Thaddeus

3.12 - Thomas -
3.12.1 Acts of Thomas
3.12.2 Apocalypse of Thomas
3.12.3 Book of Thomas the Contender
3.12.4 Consumation of Thomas
3.12.5 Gospel of Thomas

1. Pseudo-Pauline apocrypha
   4.1 3 Corinthians
   4.2 Acts 29
   4.3 Acts of Paul
   4.4 Acts of Paul and Thecla
   4.5 Acts of Peter and Paul*
   4.6 Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
   4.7 Apocalypse of Paul
   4.8 Apocalypse of Paul - other version
   4.9 Epistle to the Laodiceans
   4.10 Revelation of Paul*
   4.11 Paul and Seneca
2. Infancy Gospels apocrypha
   5.1 Arabic Infancy Gospel
   5.2 First Infancy Gospel of Jesus Christ
   5.3 Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
   5.4 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek A
   5.5 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek B
   5.6 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Latin
3. Relatives of Jesus apocrypha
   6.1 Gospel of Mary
   6.2 Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
   6.3 Book of John concerning the dormition of Mary (transitus mariæ)*
   6.4 History of Joseph the Carpenter*
   6.5 Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
4. Sub-canonical (disputed canon) apocrypha
   7.1 Shepherd of Hermas
   7.2 II Clement
   7.3 Diatession
   7.4 Gospel of the Lord (Marcion)
5. Other significant Epistles and pseudomynous writings and apocrypha
   8.1 I Clement
   8.2 Avenging of the Saviour
   8,3 Epistles of Pontius Pilate
   8.4 Letter of Aristeas
   8.5 Sentences of the Sextus
   8.6 Alexandrians
   8.7 Revelations of Stephen
   8.8 Muratonian Canon (fragment)
6. Fragments of lost apocryphal books
   9.1 Gospel of the Ebionites
   9.2 Gospel of the Egyptians
   9.3 Egerton Gospel (Egerton Papyrus 2)*
   9.4 Gospel of the Hebrews
   9.5 Traditions of Mattias
   9.6 Gospel of the Nazaraeans
   9.7 Preaching of Peter

 

[Lampo]

Again, take that up with The Catholic Church (CCC 85) since it alone designates itself alone as the sole, infallible, authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

Here it is in context:

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.

 

[Lampo]

1. Yes, we all know that The Catholic Church agrees with only itself. That’s it. That’s all. It has a formal, official agreement with itself exclusively and soley - and that only in those matters that it itself alone currently regards as good for which there to be agreement. A grand unity of one: self with self. Is THAT your idea of “unity?”

Let’s just pick a year in early Christianity. In the year 107AD, did the Church that Jesus found agree with only itself?

Yes, we all know that The Catholic Church agrees with only itself.

In the year 107AD, what was the alternative? Today, what is the alternative? For the Catholic Church to agree with 30,000 different Protestant denominations, proclaim that doctrines don’t matter or that that conflicting doctrines are okay? Is this what you would prefer that Catholic Church to do?

 

[nuntym]

Ask Jesus.

You indicated there was no Scripture and asked how any could use Scripture before 400 AD. Well, here’s none other than JESUS referencing Scripture and using it. TWENTY-TWO times. Guess He doesn’t agree with you that Scripture didn’t exist before 400 AD and that none could use it before then.

.

Ooookaaaay…So sola scriptura only can be used on the Old Testament, specifically the Septuagint?

So…the New Testament is not Scripture?

Wow.

 

[JoeT777]

Where in scripture does it say the fullness of Christ’s salvation is in scripture alone?

I don’t know that anybody can help you with finding a verse that might say ‘the fullness of Christ’s salvation is in scripture alone’ since there is no such thing as sola Scriptoria, it’s not likely we’ll find any. But, here are a few that would lead you to a fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Church’.

*And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy: Because in him, it has well pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell: *(Col 1:18-19)

The body referred to here is the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. The Church. Christ who is firstborn from the dead, and who holds primacy pleases the Father, then so to would His Mystical Body please the Father in all fullness. All the things received by Christ are given to the Church. (Cf. John 16:15)

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. John 1:14

He prepared them bread in the first place unto fullness: for the sacrifices also of the Lord they shall eat, which he gave to him, and to his seed. (Sirach 45:26)

When was the last time you’ve seen A Book “feed a His sheep”? Only in the Church do we receive the fullness of faith through the sacraments found in her.

*And he has subjected all things under his feet and has made him head over all the church, which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. *Eph 1:22-23

JoeT

 

[Lampo]

I don’t know that anybody can help you with finding a verse that might say ‘the fullness of Christ’s salvation is in scripture alone’ since there is no such thing as sola Scriptoria, it’s not likely we’ll find any. But, here are a few that would lead you to a fullness of Christ’s salvation in ‘Church’.

*And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy: Because in him, it has well pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell: *(Col 1:18-19)

The body referred to here is the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. The Church. Christ who is firstborn from the dead, and who holds primacy pleases the Father, then so to would His Mystical Body please the Father in all fullness. All the things received by Christ are given to the Church. (Cf. John 16:15)

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. John 1:14

He prepared them bread in the first place unto fullness: for the sacrifices also of the Lord they shall eat, which he gave to him, and to his seed. (Sirach 45:26)

When was the last time you’ve seen A Book “feed a His sheep”? Only in the Church do we receive the fullness of faith through the sacraments found in her.

*And he has subjected all things under his feet and has made him head over all the church, which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. *Eph 1:22-23

JoeT

I like that.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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)

.
Are you saying there was no need for the Catholic Church,in the late 4th century, to finalize the Canon of Scripture by determining which books should and should not be included in the Bible; or are you just denying it?

This is your point:

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

I simply noted that

1. There is no such thing as Sola Biblica - you are creating a strawman.
2. The early Christians DID. Even Jesus.
3. Jesus Himself referred SPECIFICALLY to Scripture, by that very term, 22 times.
4. If you want to argue that Jesus could not have used Scripture or considered Scripture to exist, then your problem is with Jesus - not me.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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)

.

Are you saying there was no need for the Catholic Church,in the late 4th century, to finalize the Canon of Scripture by determining which books should and should not be included in the Bible; or are you just denying it?

I think you need to ask that question of Jesus. He didn’t need The Catholic Church to tell Him what is or is not Scripture - and nor did any of those who listened to Him. All this 400 years before any church declaration you may have in mind.

When Moses came down the mountain with the first Scripture, did Moses and all the Israelites need The Catholic Church to hold a meeting and declare that such is, indeed, Scripture? Or did some Pope go back in time to 1400 BC and tell Moses that?

Read the following, all some 400 years before any meeting you may have in mind. If you think they were wrong to embrace Scripture as such, or to use Scripture normatively (the praxis is known as Sola Scriptura) then take it up with them.

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
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 18:24
Acts 18:28
Romans 1:2
Romans 4:3
Roamns 9:17
Romans 10:11
Romans 11:2
Romans 15:4
Romans 16:26
1 Cor. 15:3
1 Cor. 15:4
Gal. 3:8
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
1 Tim. 5:18
2 Tim. 3:16
James 2:8
James 2:2
James 4:5
1 Peter 2:6
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16

None of them needed The Catholic Church to tell them anything. And it didn’t.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Ooookaaaay…So sola scriptura only can be used on the Old Testament, specifically the Septuagint?

So…the New Testament is not Scripture?

Lost me…

We’re discussing Sola SCRIPTURA. There is no such thing as Sola Biblica. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon in the norming of doctrines. Yes, we regard the OT as Scripture and we regard the NT as Scripture - thus both are Scripture. Does The Catholic Church disagree with that? Sola Scriptura is the embrace of SCRIPTURE as the rule/canon.

The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture for exactly the same reason as the others that do (LDS and all the cults): it rejects accountability for the teachings of it and it itself alone, exclusively: thus it rejects norming and everything associated with norming - including whatever might serve as the norma normans in such. The alternative is this: each insists that whatever each says is simply to be accepted as correct “with docility” “as God speaking.”

.