The Sola Scriptura Double Standard

[JohnnyReb]

That’s not** what I was doing - and I don’t believe this is off-topic.
I was merely correcting your position that authority is delegated by the Bible and that the Church must submit herself to the Bible.

I do agree with you that what the Church teaches must be in harmony with the scriptures but the Scriptures must *also *be in harmony with what the Church teaches because not all of the Word of God was written down when the NT was compiled.

Do you believe that the church must submit herself to its own teaching? Sounds like you do. Then the Church must submit to the scriptures. Thats all I was saying. I also agree that many Catholic traditions do not explicitly contradict the scriptures either. I often find myself defending the Catholic church against anti-Catholic fundementalists and evangelicals.

 

[traillius]

The Bishop of Rome.

Jon

Sounds like Jon is indulging the RCC v. EO debate. Regardless, Martin Luther wasn’t one of the Patriarchs. if he is implying that the Bishop of Rome doesn’t have sole authority, an off topic discussion, that would only mean that some other patriarchs would have authority with him. regardless, EO aren’t any more in favor of Sola Scriptura than Latin Rite Churches, or Eastern Catholic Churches. This still fails to support the nonbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura, though it does bring into question what authority Martin Luther Appealed to, if not a Patriarchal Authority.

 

[traillius]

Do you believe that the church must submit herself to its own teaching? Sounds like you do. Then the Church must submit to the scriptures. Thats all I was saying. I also agree that many Catholic traditions do not explicitly contradict the scriptures either. I often find myself defending the Catholic church against anti-Catholic fundementalists and evangelicals.

What is taught is not greater than He or She who teaches. Thus the lesson is bound unto the teacher, not the other way around. But even so, what scriptura would have been the authority prior to a canon being developed? Was there no authority before that time? Tradition, since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, is co-equal to scripture. Do equals have their own equal authority, or does one equal need the authority of another?’
In case of diametric opposition, one Authority must take precedent, but even in scripture there is no statement that scripture should be the final arbiter. Scripture and Tradition both agree that the Church should be the final Arbiter.

 

[JohnnyReb]

What is taught is not greater than He or She who teaches. Thus the lesson is bound unto the teacher, not the other way around.

The Holy Spirit will not contradict himself, don’t you agree? The church is not superior to the word of God, but its servant. That is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic church.

But even so, what scriptura would have been the authority prior to a canon being developed? Was there no authority before that time? Tradition, since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, is co-equal to scripture.

We has the Apostles during the Apostolic era, they were the authority. All NT scripture was written by an apostle or one associated with them, during their lifetimes.

Do equals have their own equal authority, or does one equal need the authority of another?’
In case of diametric opposition, one Authority must take precedent, but even in scripture there is no statement that scripture should be the final arbiter. Scripture and Tradition both agree that the Church should be the final Arbiter.

What do you mean by Tradition?

 

[traillius]

The Holy Spirit will not contradict himself, don’t you agree? The church is not superior to the word of God, but its servant. That is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic church.

please give a reference. I don’t have the catechism memorized.

We has the Apostles during the Apostolic era, they were the authority. All NT scripture was written by an apostle or one associated with them, during their lifetimes.

And the successors to the Apostles are the Bishops, led by the Bishop of Rome.

What do you mean by Tradition?
The dogmatic teaching of the Church, as led by the Holy Spirit, through the Bishops.

 

[JonNC]

=traillius;7545795]Sounds like Jon is indulging the RCC v. EO debate.

Exactly.

Regardless, Martin Luther wasn’t one of the Patriarchs. if he is implying that the Bishop of Rome doesn’t have sole authority, an off topic discussion, that would only mean that some other patriarchs would have authority with him.

Indeed, he was not, nor did he claim to be.
It wasn’t my intention to be off topic. I was responding to PS1’s comment about the differing interpretations of scriputre by various non-catholic western communions. What I was questioning is which communion that uses scripture and Tradition is correct?
What it means is, were the patriarchs in unity, I would accept that authority.

regardless, EO aren’t any more in favor of Sola Scriptura than Latin Rite Churches, or Eastern Catholic Churches. This still fails to support the nonbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura, though it does bring into question what authority Martin Luther Appealed to, if not a Patriarchal Authority.

I wasn’t implying in any way that they do, and your comment supports my point. SS is not a doctrine, but a practice. Initially, I would say he was appealing to the pope to correct some of the abuses within the western Church at the time.

Jon

 

[traillius]

Exactly.

Indeed, he was not, nor did he claim to be.
It wasn’t my intention to be off topic. I was responding to PS1’s comment about the differing interpretations of scriputre by various non-catholic western communions. What I was questioning is which communion that uses scripture and Tradition is correct?
What it means is, were the patriarchs in unity, I would accept that authority.

I wasn’t implying in any way that they do, and your comment supports my point. SS is not a doctrine, but a practice. Initially, I would say he was appealing to the pope to correct some of the abuses within the western Church at the time.

Jon

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not the judge of lutheran teaching.I will leave that to God and the Lutheran leadership structure. I merely pointed out that some people demand sola scriptura to be a test of catholic doctrine, while these same people don’t offer proof of its validity, and also don’t follow it themselves. This was the hypocritical double standard over which I am concerned. I would love to see proof of sola scriptura, even extra-biblical evidence. And I might be more inclined to indulge SS, if the so-called proponents of it actually practiced SS themselves.

 

[elvisman]

Do you believe that the church must submit herself to its own teaching? Sounds like you do. Then the Church must submit to the scriptures. Thats all I was saying. I also agree that many Catholic traditions do not explicitly contradict the scriptures either. I often find myself defending the Catholic church against anti-Catholic fundementalists and evangelicals.

Fair enough.

 

[JonNC]

=traillius;7546138]Please don’t misunderstand. I am not the judge of lutheran teaching.I will leave that to God and the Lutheran leadership structure.

And I the same about Catholic teaching. It seems our goal should be a convergance of these teachings, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And in recent years, that seems to be happening.

I merely pointed out that some people demand sola scriptura to be a test of catholic doctrine, while these same people don’t offer proof of its validity, and also don’t follow it themselves.

It shouldn’t be. It should be a test of our own beliefs, with the understanding that hermeneutics is the role of the Church, not the individual.

This was the hypocritical double standard over which I am concerned. I would love to see proof of sola scriptura, even extra-biblical evidence. And I might be more inclined to indulge SS, if the so-called proponents of it actually practiced SS themselves.

So, let me ask you, does it appear to you that Lutheranism practices sola scriptura?
Does it appear to you that my explanations here evidence a double-standard?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Do you believe that the church must submit herself to its own teaching? Sounds like you do. Then the Church must submit to the scriptures. Thats all I was saying. I also agree that many Catholic traditions do not explicitly contradict the scriptures either. I often find myself defending the Catholic church against anti-Catholic fundementalists and evangelicals.

Well said.

Jon

 

[traillius]

And I the same about Catholic teaching. It seems our goal should be a convergance of these teachings, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And in recent years, that seems to be happening.

It shouldn’t be. It should be a test of our own beliefs, with the understanding that hermeneutics is the role of the Church, not the individual.

So, let me ask you, does it appear to you that Lutheranism practices sola scriptura?
Does it appear to you that my explanations here evidence a double-standard?
I honestly don’t know enough about lutheranism. However what you’ve stated does show that, although you seem to ascribe to SS, you haven’t applied it to catholic beliefs in a doublesided fashion.
Jon

 

[Dokimas]

**We *also ***reject tradition that is against the Scriptures. Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict each other as they are both the Word of God.

Thank God the Catholic Church doesn’t have one, single tradition that *isn’t *harmonious with the Scriptures - which are a Catholic Tradition in and of themselves.

However - your church* does* . . .

Thanks

 

[Dokimas]

I have been on “christian” forums and I can assure you they speak about SS all the time and use it as the foundation for dismissing the church. The unfortunate thing is SS is itself non biblical

They should get a life and thanks for your opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

Certainly the scriptures delegate authority,

It does.

including authority of the church

Yes.

This does not negate that the fact that the church must submit herself to the scriptures however.

Exactly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It does.

Yes.

Exactly.

Men of the Church wrote the God inspired scriptures. This means the authoritative Church gave us the scriptures, that explain the ‘delegation of authority’. How can one interpret that to be the Church submit to what it gave us?

Scriptures tell us to take disputes to the Church, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church. Where does scriptures tell us that scriptures are the final and only authority?

Please provide some scriptures to answer these questions.

 

[Dokimas]

Men of the Church wrote the God inspired scriptures. This means the authoritative Church gave us the scriptures, that explain the ‘delegation of authority’. How can one interpret that to be the Church submit to what it gave us?

Scriptures tell us to take disputes to the Church, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church. Where does scriptures tell us that scriptures are the final and only authority?

Please provide some scriptures to answer these questions.

Who said it’s the only authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who said it’s the only authority.

Ok, please drop the word only and show me where scriptures tell us that scriptures are the final authority?

As I said, scriptures show us the delegation of authority within the Church, the same Church that gave us the scriptures. That Church has maintained the scriptures through the centuries, so that we have one in the present day. How can people overlook the fact that the Church that safeguarded the scriptures throughout hundreds of years had the authors meanings/interpretations passed down with it?

We have writings from the early Church fathers maintaining their authority with specific instructions through their writings. Can anyone please show us writings, from Christians, prior to the reformation that support the ‘sole authority’ of the Bible?

 

[pablope]

We have each other, the Body of Christ. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the love of God. I guess we’re quite blessed.

We don’t reject tradition unless it’s against the Bible. As for your ideas about authority and our own interpretation - I have no clue because I don’t believe in private interpretation.

So how will you know if a tradition is for or against the Bible? Since you do not believe in private interpretation as you stated, who should then decide? Who has the authority to decide? By whose authority?

 

[elvisman]

It does.
Yes.

This does not negate that the fact that the church must submit herself to the scriptures however.

Exactly.
**And the Scriptures must agree with Catholic teaching. Since it is the Catholic Church who wote the Bible under the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) - it HAS to agree with her teachings.

It’s a circular dynamic my friend . . . **

 

[elvisman]

Who said it’s the only authority.

Jesus Christ: Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23.

**Funny - Jesus NEVER said that the Scriptures were the authority - did he Doki?
He only said that about the Church.