The Sola Scriptura Double Standard

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pablope said:
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?
Click to expand...
If I hold a ‘teaching’ that the vast majority of Christianity does not hold, that would be private interpretation. If I hold a ‘teaching’ that is common to all Christianity then I surely can judge a tradition from there.
 
elvisman said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...
**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 . . . :rolleyes:**

circular reasoning is potentially dangerous
 
elvisman said:
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. 👍
Click to expand...
Jesus said what He said and meant what He meant and possibly you misunderstand.
 
Dokimas said:
If I hold a ‘teaching’ that the vast majority of Christianity does not hold, that would be private interpretation. If I hold a ‘teaching’ that is common to all Christianity then I surely can judge a tradition from there.
Click to expand...
But your problem is that your interpretation is not rooted in the historical Church but rather the past 500 years. Even if you wait another 2000 years it won’t make any difference. The reason is because once you break you’ve created something other than the Church that Christ himself created. That makes you cut off from the Church of Christ and the graces responsible for you salvation. We could speak culpability, but that’s another issue. Now stubbornness is a form of pride. We read and then say that’s doesn’t fit my model of the Church and throw it out. This is the path that does not lead to salvation but something completely different. It separates us from God. If you’re saved, my friend, it will be through the Church that Christ established, not some cut off entity created by man because they refused to believe like the followers of Jesus in John 6. If not you, then “To whom shale we go, Lord?”
 
PbloPicasso said:
But your problem is that your interpretation is not rooted in the historical Church but rather the past 500 years. Even if you wait another 2000 years it won’t make any difference. The reason is because once you break you’ve created something other than the Church that Christ himself created. That makes you cut off from the Church of Christ and the graces responsible for you salvation. We could speak culpability, but that’s another issue. Now stubbornness is a form of pride. We read and then say that’s doesn’t fit my model of the Church and throw it out. This is the path that does not lead to salvation but something completely different. It separates us from God. If you’re saved, my friend, it will be through the Church that Christ established, not some cut off entity created by man because they refused to believe like the followers of Jesus in John 6. If not you, then “To whom shale we go, Lord?”
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your opinion and interpretation.
 
JonNC said:
You know, agent, someday I honestly hope you will stay around a thread long enough to dialogue, instead of just being a type-by poster.

Sola scriptura is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture. It neither excludes nor condemns Traditions. Properly practiced by the Church, it is actually a guard against personal interpretation.
It is not, in any way, the worship of a book, but a recognition that that book contains the word of God, and tells us about the Word - Christ and Him crucified. It is the Triune God that is worshipped and glorified.

Jon
Click to expand...
This is about as workable a definition of SS that I have read. Catholics will, of course, still find problems with it but it is a shame that there isn’t more adherents of SS who hold this view. Some real progress in dialogue could be made. Then again maybe not. I am never surprised by the human ability to break down dialogue.

Jon how do you feel this definition would be welcomed in the evangelical or fundamentalist circles? How do you think a place like CARM would view it?

God bless
 
Dokimas said:
Jesus said what He said and meant what He meant and possibly you misunderstand.
Click to expand...
If I follow the Church’s teaching - I CAN’T misunderstand.
**Jesus guaranteed it (John 16:12-15) that the church would be guided to ALL truth - not just SOME . . .
 
Dokimas said:
circular reasoning is potentially dangerous
Click to expand...
Yes, it CAN be - IF you’re wrong.
Thank God Jesus guaranteed that the Church wouldn’t be wrong.

You see, Doki - the SCRIPTURES tell us a few things about the Church:
She is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
She is the BODY of Christ (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12:27 and Eph. 4:12).
She is the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH (1 Tim. 3:15).
She and christ are INDIVISIBLE (Acts 9:4-5).

For you to be right about the Church - Christ himself would have to be wrong. . .
 
Where in sacred scripture does it say “'sola scriptura” (scripture alone)???
 
elvisman said:
If I follow the Church’s teaching - I CAN’T misunderstand.
Jesus guaranteed it (John 16:12-15) that the church would be guided to ALL truth - not just *SOME *. . .
Click to expand...
And that’s your opinion.
 
=Roman_Catholic;7551686]This is about as workable a definition of SS that I have read. Catholics will, of course, still find problems with it but it is a shame that there isn’t more adherents of SS who hold this view. Some real progress in dialogue could be made. Then again maybe not. I am never surprised by the human ability to break down dialogue.
Click to expand...
Hi R_C,
It seems to me that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, either method of hermeneutics ought to eventually lead us to a common understanding of the faith. Some might consider that wishful thinking.
Jon how do you feel this definition would be welcomed in the evangelical or fundamentalist circles? How do you think a place like CARM would view it?
Click to expand...
Those who practice *solo *scriptura would reject it, and probably me as well. 😃

Jon
 
karl77 said:
Where in sacred scripture does it say “'sola scriptura” (scripture alone)???
Click to expand...
It doesn’t, per se. That is why it isn’t a doctrine, but a practice. That is why those who don’t practice it have the same opportunity to receive His grace, and salvation.

A return question: where does it say in scripture, or even the early councils (Tradition), universal jurisdiction, or papal infallibility?
The question is rhetorical, but equally applicable. Who is to decide what Tradition(s) can hold the conscience of the believer? The only communion that holds to these is the CC, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. No other communion does, even the Orthodox.

Jon
 
Dokimas said:
If I hold a ‘teaching’ that the vast majority of Christianity does not hold, that would be private interpretation. If I hold a ‘teaching’ that is common to all Christianity then I surely can judge a tradition from there.
Click to expand...
thanks for your response Doki…

follow up questions:

I presume when you stated “I” in that you are or you will be the judge of what is held and what is not held or common and what is not common in Christianity? So in one church has one tradition and is not the tradition in another, it is not valid tradition? Then who will be the final arbiter? You will be the one final arbiter? And if not, who will have the authority to be the final arbiter? Who twill have the credentials to be such?
 
traillius said:
many noncatholics will only apply sola scriptura when trying to discredit catholic teaching. Otherwise, they don’t particularly concern themselves with it. And then, if a catholic uses scripture, all they will say is that we are distorting scripture. I guess they have no legitimate rebuttal, so they stick to the twin labels of " unbiblical " and " distortion of the scripture "
Click to expand...
There are legitimate rebuttals for all of the catholic positions that are disputed by protestants. Sola Scriptura is not a hypocritical basis for bible study, it does not use tradition, it uses history and *philology * instead. I am very much turned off by the Catholic Church is always right attitude prevalent on this forum. I would be labeled “Protestant” by most people on this forum but I am not protestant. I am Christian, pure and simple. I realize that there are many arguments that I have not researched about infallibility, but it is unjustifiable regardless of any argument that I have read so far. Unless the Pope has a direct line of communication to God Himself and can prove it, he and the whole Church is subject to error.
 
pablope said:
thanks for your response Doki…

follow up questions:

I presume when you stated “I” in that you are or you will be the judge of what is held and what is not held or common and what is not common in Christianity? So in one church has one tradition and is not the tradition in another, it is not valid tradition? Then who will be the final arbiter? You will be the one final arbiter? And if not, who will have the authority to be the final arbiter? Who twill have the credentials to be such?
Click to expand...
You’re very welcome. 🙂

Even if YOU choose to believe everything the CC teaches, you are ultimately responsible for what you believe, leaving you the final authority for your life. We won’t be able to stand before God and blame anyone for our false beliefs. We’ll only be able to be thankful to the Holy Spirit for any correct beliefs we’ve held.
 
Dokimas said:
Your understanding of a passage is your opinion. All we can do is hope our opinions match with God’s intent.
Click to expand...
**No, it’s not. It is what the CHURCH teaches. **

My own interpretation doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. The Church - the Body of Christ, the FULLNESS of Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth - that’s whose interpretation and instruction matters. Not mine or yours. By ourselves - we are nothing but flawed humans. As the Church - we are all of the above . . .**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top