What is Sola Scriptura

[Anna_Scott]

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”) or rule (“straight edge”) in evaluating positions. . . .

I think you mean who is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture? Ah, a different subject for another day and thread, this thread is about what serves as the embraced rule, canon, norma normans - not who or what is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. , ,

You can’t have an intelligent discussion about Sola Scriptura, without discussing who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

. . .Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, it’s praxis. I can see where there would be an “issue” of sorts if Sola Scriptura were a doctrine and then, as such, it would need to be affirmed by Scripture. We would then need to affirm it by Scripture. Actually, we can - but it’s moot. It’s not doctrine. Praxis does not need to be affirmed by Scripture to be sound.

You keep saying Sola Scriptura is Praxis. I can’t really tell by your posts if you actually know what the word “praxis” means.

Praxis means “habitual or established practice, application, convention, habit, custom.” Link to Dictionary.com: dictionary.reference.com/browse/praxis.

By saying Sola Scriptura is “praxis,” you are saying Sola Scriptura is a practice or custom. This does not prove the validity of Sola Scriptura, nor does it relieve you of bearing the burden of proof for Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” was born as the “habit” or “custom” of Protestant Reformers. So, you have traded the “custom” or “tradition” of the Early Church Fathers, for the “custom” or “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

You said Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine. It is considered a doctrine. It is called a “doctrine,” even by those who argue for Sola Scriptura.

The following link is a good example:
Is “sola Scriptura” a biblical or a man-made concept?
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

The article argues for the “doctrine” of Sola Scriptura. I didn’t read every word, and I have no connection to the site or its host. This is just an example.

I will say that while I disagree with the conclusions of the article; I do respect their effort-–which did include passages of Scripture to support the “Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”

Do a search for “Sola Scriptura Doctrine,” and all sorts of articles appear.

There are far too many to post here, it would be way beyond the 6000 character limit this website allows. But just a few examples from just Jesus might suffice. Again, compare this list to the number of times Jesus exampled The Catholic Church alternative of “the-three-legged stool”

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56. . . . . .Just a short, partial list from just Jesus.

Dumping a list of Scripture passages, without quoting even one–with an explanation of how it proves your claims, is rather pointless.

Just quote two passages, and state what you believe they prove.

. . . If there are more examples than the 6000 characters this forum allows, as you claim, surely you can cite a few.

Again…The Official Definition:

“The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3).

“The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website). . . .

You are quoting “traditions” of the Lutheran Church. This does not prove Sola Scriptura. It only proves that the “tradition” in the Lutheran Church is to use Sola Scriptura.

If you use Scripture alone, then you must prove that the Scriptures actually instruct you to use Scripture, alone.

You claim “there are more examples than the 6000 characters this forum allows.” You dumped a long list of Scriptures (without quoting the contents of the passages,) claiming they were “from Jesus.” Yet, you have not been able to quote even one Scripture and explain how it proves Sola Scriptura.

Now, yes, it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is). It doesn’t need to be, but yes - if you want - we can compare how often the Rule of Scirpture is exampled as compared to the Rule of The Catholic Church. I gave just a partial list of examples, just from Jesus. There you are.

I’m still waiting for you to quote Scripture, in context, regarding Sola Scriptura. You did say: “it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is).”

Maybe the folks at this webiste can help you; they argue for Sola Scriptura:

Is “sola Scriptura” a biblical or a man-made concept?
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

Anna

 

[pneuma07]

…
Let me ask a question because it is possible that I might misunderstand Catholicism.

I am a little confused because in the Wiki article on Prima Scriptura it indicated that at least one Catholic theologian supported this (Yves Conger?).

Now I thought Catholics claimed that tradition, magisterium, Scripture were on equal footing.

Now I don’t understand how different sources can be on equal footing, how that exactly works. It seems that any process has to have a tiebreaking procedure.

So hypothetically speaking (you will claim it never occurs of course) what exactly breaks the tie in Catholicism. If you were (hypothetically) unable to resolve conflicting claims between tradition, the Magisterium, and Scripture…what do you run with.

As for me…

If I hypothetically study the early church and became convinced that they believe and practice tradition ‘X’ and at the same time I study scripture and become convinced that tradition ‘X’ might contradict Scripture, I will not adopt tradition ‘X’ until I am convinced that it actually does not contradict Scripture.

As for the Magisterium, I am not Catholic so I am not bound to it. But I do not regard the pastor and teacher of my own church as incapable of being incorrect. So I have no reason to regard the Magisterium of any other church as incapable of being incorrect.

Dear AP,

we read in the Constitution Dei Verbum (Vatican II)

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
2. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, …
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

…

SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

1. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture*

There was a remarkable inluence on the works leading to the formulation of the Dei Verbum of the great contribution on these issues by Yves Cardinal Congar, whom you mention.

Magisterium is not of course a source of the deposit of faith, but rather its servant.
As to the relation of Tradition and Scripture, through both of them the Church receives and preserves the deposit. The Council does not affirm a doctrinal content of Tradition which is larger than the content of Scripture ( neither it explicitly excludes that
). But it states the clear reality that the Canon of Scripture is outside Scripture itself, and therefore it belongs to Tradition only.

IMHO the Canon is not such a trivial question. It’s not just about which books , but the concept itself of NT. The NT does not tell us that there should be an NT.

About your kind question on conflicts, my assumption is that I cannot be a better interpreter of Scripture and the witnesses to Tradition than the Church through her Magisterium.
As simple as that. Protestantims were born IMHO from the implicit assumption that
if I see a conflict between Magisterium and Scripture, then this conflict does exist, and the Church is wrong.

The real difference. at least in principle, is IMHO here, that in Catholicism Magisterium is the measuring stick of my ( as well as other ) interpretations, whereas in Protestantisms my interpretation is the measuring stick of the interpretations of Magisterium as well as any other interpretations

I hope this can help
Bless you
P7

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You can’t have an intelligent discussion about Sola Scriptura, without discussing who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Well, I’d insist without having a good discussion of sports. But actually, as you know, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermeneutics, so insisting on discussing that instead means the thread is hjjacked and we never get around to discussion the issue at hand. My recommendation? If you want to discuss principles or practices of hermeneutics, start a thread on that. If you want to discuss if self may designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter (as The Catholic Church and a couple of others do), fine - but that’s not the issue here.

You keep saying Sola Scriptura is Praxis. I can’t really tell by your posts if you actually know what the word “praxis” means.

Praxis means “habitual or established practice, application, convention, habit, custom.” Link to Dictionary.com: dictionary.reference.com/browse/praxis.

I use the word to mean: Practice, what is done, the custom or approach. It is the standard praxis in the USA to drive on the right hand side of the road.

Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” was born as the “habit” or “custom” of Protestant Reformers. So, you have traded the “custom” or “tradition” of the Early Church Fathers, for the “custom” or “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

I know this is the position of Catholics, but I don’t agree. I see Jesus using Scripture normatively, but I can’t find a single time when He uses The Catholic Church as such. I can find many instances throughout the Bible when Scripture is used normatively, but I just haven’t been able to find a time used instead was the Tradition of The Catholic Church as interpreted alone by The Catholic Church or the Scriptures in the heart of The Catholic Chruch as interpreted by The Catholic Church. No. I just haven’t found that. It seems to ME, Sola Scriptura is a lot older than the Sola Ecclesia Roma alternative of The Catholic Church alone of The Catholic Church alone. Now, did The Catholic Church Fathers use “tradition” in hermeneutics? Yes - and I think they were wise to do so, but that’s another subject for another day and thread.

You are quoting “traditions” of the Lutheran Church. This does not prove Sola Scriptura. It only proves that the “tradition” in the Lutheran Church is to use Sola Scriptura

.

Actually, I quoted the definition of Sola Scriptura.
IF you think Lutheran invented it, then you’d look to the Lutheran definition, wouldn’t you?
I gave it to you.

If you use Scripture alone, then you must prove that the Scriptures actually instruct you to use Scripture, alone.

Silly. Praxis is RARELY taught in Scripture. We might find it EXAMPLED (although such is by no means required). Of course, I gave you some 50 examples just from Jesus alone. But I typically drive on the right hand side of the road in the USA (I’ve never driven outside the USA). It’s absurd to say that Protestants can drive on any side of any road anywhere unless there is a verse that says, “Thou shalt drive on the right hand side of the road.” Friend, you may not know but Protestants often use electricity, hymnals, organs - and NONE of those things are even MENTIONED in the Bible! They have Sunday School classes, they often have websites, they probably even had a church telephone!!! A little thought might tell you that Protestants do NOT teach that all practices must be found in the Bible or we can’t use them or they cannot be sound. You shouldn’t need me to tell you that.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You can’t have an intelligent discussion about Sola Scriptura, without discussing who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

You keep saying Sola Scriptura is Praxis. I can’t really tell by your posts if you actually know what the word “praxis” means.

Praxis means “habitual or established practice, application, convention, habit, custom.” Link to Dictionary.com: dictionary.reference.com/browse/praxis.

By saying Sola Scriptura is “praxis,” you are saying Sola Scriptura is a practice or custom. This does not prove the validity of Sola Scriptura, nor does it relieve you of bearing the burden of proof for Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” was born as the “habit” or “custom” of Protestant Reformers. So, you have traded the “custom” or “tradition” of the Early Church Fathers, for the “custom” or “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

You said Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine. It is considered a doctrine. It is called a “doctrine,” even by those who argue for Sola Scriptura.

The following link is a good example:
Is “sola Scriptura” a biblical or a man-made concept?
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

The article argues for the “doctrine” of Sola Scriptura. I didn’t read every word, and I have no connection to the site or its host. This is just an example.

I will say that while I disagree with the conclusions of the article; I do respect their effort-–which did include passages of Scripture to support the “Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”

Do a search for “Sola Scriptura Doctrine,” and all sorts of articles appear.

You are quoting “traditions” of the Lutheran Church. This does not prove Sola Scriptura. It only proves that the “tradition” in the Lutheran Church is to use Sola Scriptura.

If you use Scripture alone, then you must prove that the Scriptures actually instruct you to use Scripture, alone.

You claim “there are more examples than the 6000 characters this forum allows.” You dumped a long list of Scriptures (without quoting the contents of the passages,) claiming they were “from Jesus.” Yet, you have not been able to quote even one Scripture and explain how it proves Sola Scriptura.

I’m still waiting for you to quote Scripture, in context, regarding Sola Scriptura. You did say: “it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is).”

Maybe the folks at this webiste can help you; they argue for Sola Scriptura:

Is “sola Scriptura” a biblical or a man-made concept?
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

Well, I’d insist without having a good discussion of sports. But actually, as you know, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermeneutics, so insisting on discussing that instead means the thread is hjjacked and we never get around to discussion the issue at hand. My recommendation? If you want to discuss principles or practices of hermeneutics, start a thread on that. If you want to discuss if self may designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter (as The Catholic Church and a couple of others do), fine - but that’s not the issue here.

I use the word to mean: Practice, what is done, the custom or approach. It is the standard praxis in the USA to drive on the right hand side of the road.

I know this is the position of Catholics, but I don’t agree. I see Jesus using Scripture normatively, but I can’t find a single time when He uses The Catholic Church as such. I can find many instances throughout the Bible when Scripture is used normatively, but I just haven’t been able to find a time used instead was the Tradition of The Catholic Church as interpreted alone by The Catholic Church or the Scriptures in the heart of The Catholic Chruch as interpreted by The Catholic Church. No. I just haven’t found that. It seems to ME, Sola Scriptura is a lot older than the Sola Ecclesia Roma alternative of The Catholic Church alone of The Catholic Church alone. Now, did The Catholic Church Fathers use “tradition” in hermeneutics? Yes - and I think they were wise to do so, but that’s another subject for another day and thread.

Actually, I quoted the definition of Sola Scriptura.
IF you think Lutheran invented it, then you’d look to the Lutheran definition, wouldn’t you?
I gave it to you.

Silly. Praxis is RARELY taught in Scripture. We might find it EXAMPLED (although such is by no means required). Of course, I gave you some 50 examples just from Jesus alone. But I typically drive on the right hand side of the road in the USA (I’ve never driven outside the USA). It’s absurd to say that Protestants can drive on any side of any road anywhere unless there is a verse that says, “Thou shalt drive on the right hand side of the road.” Friend, you may not know but Protestants often use electricity, hymnals, organs - and NONE of those things are even MENTIONED in the Bible! They have Sunday School classes, they often have websites, they probably even had a church telephone!!! A little thought might tell you that Protestants do NOT teach that all practices must be found in the Bible or we can’t use them or they cannot be sound. You shouldn’t need me to tell you that…

AmericanJosiah,

You keep talking, but you aren’t saying anything.

Sadly, I can see that it is pointless to expect a direct answer to any question.

I do think, spiritually, you are in troubled waters. I will pray for you. That is all I know to do at this point.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah,

You keep talking, but you aren’t saying anything.

I’m not participating in the diversions and hijacks.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans.
That’s it. That’s all.

That’s the question of this thread. That’s the issue before us.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t state what is and is not Scripture - it doesn’t state ANYTHING, it’s not a teaching, it’s a PRACTICE. Now, you can start another thread on your denomination’s unique set of DEUTERO books - and we can let the CC and the EO and OO duke it out on that, but all that is irrelevant to this thread.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t state what is good practices or sound hermeneutics for the interpretation of Scripture. It doesn’t state ANYTHING, it’s not a teaching, it’s a PRACTICE. If you want to discuss hermeneutical principles or practices - cool - start a thread on that. If you have an issue with self designating self as the sole interpreter of Scripture - go argue with your Catechism (# 85) in a thread about that, this thread isn’t about that.

Now, if you want to debate SOUNDNESS of the norma normans - then start a thread on the Doctrine of Scripture (and you’ll find I’ll largely agree with you). We’ll all agree Scripture is inerrant and the inscriptured words of God.

If you want to debate whether the rule/canon in the evaluation of the views of self should be the veiws of self OR Scripture - that would be interesting and I’d WELCOME getting into that, because I think that self looking at the views of self and then declaring that if self agrees with self then self is correct is actually WORTHLESS as a rule/canon (even if self is The Catholic Church). I’d welcome that discussion. But that’s not the issue here. If you want to ahve that discussion,be sure to PM me and let me know! I’d really like to discuss that!

.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
AmericanJosiah,

You keep talking, but you aren’t saying anything

Situation: NORMAL

 

[Anna_Scott]

AmericanJosiah,

You keep talking, but you aren’t saying anything.

Sadly, I can see that it is pointless to expect a direct answer to any question.

I do think, spiritually, you are in troubled waters. I will pray for you. That is all I know to do at this point.

Anna

AmericanJosiah,

You keep talking, but you aren’t saying anything.

Situation: NORMAL

It’s really very sad, and I’m fresh out of ways to request direct answers from AmericanJosiah. He really is in troubled waters, and he ignores the life raft. :imsorry:

Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi:
I am on the verge of getting very confused. So I will try to focus here.

I think to help my confusion I will avoid any other threads.

Grant it, there are some aspects of the bible which are clearly easy to interpet, which no rational Christian would disagree on. You point out some good examples, but then again there are some not so obvious texts in the Bible.

OK. So we agree that there are parts of the Bible that anyone with 5th grade reading comprehension level should agree upon. And we agree that there are other parts of the Bible that upon reading it, men (and women) of goodwill can and will disagree about.

Gotcha.

Exactly part of the problem with Sola Scriptura, where is the Cannon of scripture? In fact where are a lot of the Christian Truths to which we cling? The Trinity for one! There are problems you can’t quite solve with the bible alone.

So here we get into the original subject of this thread, what exactly is “Sola Scriptura”. I agree that with some definitions of Sola Scriptura the issue of the Canon of Scripture is an inconvenient question. But there are other definitions (Keith Mathison for example) that do account for this. Not to say that there are not other issues though.

Now I feel like you’re trying to avoid the unavoidable. It sounds like you’re trying to some how seperate out theology from faith. One can not do this, Theology is how we study God, much like organized religion the the natural framework in which we all worship.

Maybe (probably) I have not made myself clear. I actually am trying to separate doctrine from practice. I think it is possible for one to hold something as a practice but not a doctrine…and as an example I thought of Christians who hold to the practice of not drinking alcohol (for whatever reason) but do not hold to the doctrine that no Christians should drink alcohol (as some do).

These are certain concepts which have become tabboo in certain Protestant secs, but whether or not beleivers want to believe it, we all have a theology, and we all have some manner of orginized religion. With out these things we can’t possibly hope to understand God, let alone win the race.

Here you sort of lose me. I assume it is not that important in the big scheme of things.

That’s yet another problem with what some people are trying to drive at with Sola Scriptura. It’s like some how, the bible is giong to impart some sort of theological knowlege, with out any sort of “theology to get in the way of it”. The bible is a dead book, it’s the word of God but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a dead book. It doesn’t up and interpet it’s self, though I do realize some people like to try an beleive it does.

I do disagree with your assertion that the Bible is a dead book (Hebrews 4:12).

Under some definitions of Sola Scripture that I have read, they claim the Bible as self-interpreting. Now it seems to me to be a contradiction that a self-interpreting document leads to multiple interpretations. Anyway, I can not recall reading in Scripture where Scripture claims that it is self-interpreting. But maybe it is there and I haven’t come across it I sppose.

In the end we need an interpetive model, it would stand to reason the orginization (or person) who defines that interpetive model is the final authority, are they not?

Now here AmericanJosiah claims that the issue of interpretation is outside of the definition of Sola Scriptura that he is bringing to the table for consideration.

Since I wish to be fair to everybody, I will take him at his word in this definition.

Now the definition that he brought to the table did include the word “final” in it. Now when you use that word, the question then comes to my mind as to what then stops me from creating my own personal canon? So the word final is problematic until I get a good answer to that silly question.

But leaving aside the theology of it, I am intrigued by the concept of practice.

Yeah, I’ll skip on discussing Mary and the Immaculate conception. But I would ask that you consider what I wrote above.

Thanx. Now on to the next one.

 

[AmateurPianist]

What you have touched on is the main reason so many Catholics have trouble explaining these doctrines with non-Catholics. As you said, if the Church is right about being the Authentic Bride of Christ, that gives her great validity to the claim that she makes about the faith.

Even Luther noted this, stating that if sola scriptura fell, the whole house collapses around it.

I think from reading this thread, that everybody is having trouble explaining their particular perspectives to others who are not getting it for whatever reason.

I am trying to understand everybody’s unique perspective here and am getting a mental headache doing so.

 

[JonNC]

This gets to Josiah’s arguments. He’s trying to seperate interpetation of the bible, from the bible as being the final authority. The reason why he’s doing this is because Lutheran’s have had a revelation, Private Judgment doesn’t work.

If, in fact, Lutherans had a revelation regarding private judgement/interpretation, it happened some 450 years ago.

This from Martin Chemnitz

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

Anna:
I think you and AmericanJosiah are sort of talking past each other.

I think I sort of understand what he is saying. At the risk of being devoured up at both ends let me offer up my services as an intermediary. For reference, here is his original post.

You can’t have an intelligent discussion about Sola Scriptura, without discussing who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Now the definition that he brought to the table claims that the issue of interpretation is outside of his definition. Now I have observed in my lifetime that scholarly definition of terms often include statements of scope…what is in the bounds of that definition and what is out of bounds. So according to this definition, interpretation is a separate issue.

I do also note that his definition does not really address interpretation. So we are consistent.

Now you can have a discussion on whether this definition is tenable or not. But statements of scope are often a part of scholarly definitions.

You keep saying Sola Scriptura is Praxis. I can’t really tell by your posts if you actually know what the word “praxis” means.

Praxis means “habitual or established practice, application, convention, habit, custom.” Link to Dictionary.com: dictionary.reference.com/browse/praxis.

I have interpreted Praxis as just practice. I don’t use the word praxis in real life.

By saying Sola Scriptura is “praxis,” you are saying Sola Scriptura is a practice or custom. This does not prove the validity of Sola Scriptura, nor does it relieve you of bearing the burden of proof for Sola Scriptura.

But is this really true. In my example that I came up with thinking about this, many Christians that I know have adopted the practice of abstaining from Alcohol. Should I burden these Christians with having to “prove” their practice.

Now other Christians have codified the same practice as a doctrine (a Christian should not drink). I agree once you make something a doctrine with the intent of binding others that may disagree with you to it, you have shifted from practice to doctrine.

Still it is possible that a given belief be held as a practice and not a doctrine. And that is the claim in this definition.

Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” was born as the “habit” or “custom” of Protestant Reformers. So, you have traded the “custom” or “tradition” of the Early Church Fathers, for the “custom” or “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

Of course he argued that this was the practice of the Early Church Fathers in the follow on post. Now whether it was or wasn’t is of course the subject of another debate that you may choose to have or not have. Since I am not an expert in the ECF, I am not touching this one

To be continued due to the anoying max characters per post limit…

 

[AmateurPianist]

You said Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine. It is considered a doctrine. It is called a “doctrine,” even by those who argue for Sola Scriptura.

Here is the crux of the matter. Every other definition that I have encountered on Sola Scriptura make the argument that it is a doctrine. As such, it requires a greater burden of proof.

But here the claim is that it is not a doctrine. Now some of the statements in the opening paragraph seem to contradict that claim, but for now I’ll take him at his word.

But anyway, if it is not a doctrine, then he is bringing to the table a new definition of Sola Scriptura.

The following link is a good example:
Is “sola Scriptura” a biblical or a man-made concept?
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

The article argues for the “doctrine” of Sola Scriptura. I didn’t read every word, and I have no connection to the site or its host. This is just an example.

I will say that while I disagree with the conclusions of the article; I do respect their effort-–which did include passages of Scripture to support the “Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”

Do a search for “Sola Scriptura Doctrine,” and all sorts of articles appear.

I have not the time and inclintation to read all of these threads.

I must assume that they are operating under a different definition of Sola Scriptura than the one AJ brought forth.

I learned very early on in this thread that there was no “Gold standard” definition of this term. Therefore, I have to examine each definition as its own entity.

You are quoting “traditions” of the Lutheran Church. This does not prove Sola Scriptura. It only proves that the “tradition” in the Lutheran Church is to use Sola Scriptura.

If you use Scripture alone, then you must prove that the Scriptures actually instruct you to use Scripture, alone.

While I agree that the second paragraph is true for doctrine, I am not sure it is for practice. Back to my example on the Christian who adopts the practice of not drinking alcohol.

In fact as I have thought about it, I am quite sure that my personal practice could be classified as the practice of Sola Scriptura. At least I asked AJ and he said it was consistent. And since I don’t understand these things, I just take him at his word.

Now I don’t particularly like the title Sola Scriptura, but I am more interested in how AJ perceives this.

But I do maintain that I do not hold this as a doctrine. So to be consistent about this, I won’t be partaking in SS threads with the intent of converting Catholics from the error of their ways. But it is what I practice myself as consistent with how the Lord Jesus has directed my life thus far.

I’m still waiting for you to quote Scripture, in context, regarding Sola Scriptura. You did say: “it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is).”

Maybe the folks at this webiste can help you; they argue for Sola Scriptura:

Is “sola Scriptura” a biblical or a man-made concept?
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

Anna

I assume this web site operates under a different definition of Sola Scriptura. Again, as I learned early in this thread, there is no gold standard here.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Dear AP,

we read in the Constitution Dei Verbum (Vatican II)

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture.
   .
   .
   .
2. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture*

Cut because of this annoying limitation on length of posts…

I sort of struggle with understanding all of this so I will touch upon a couple of points.

I have of course started this thread “What is Sola Scriptura” because at least to me that seems to be a rather vague term (and probably a bad title).

I could just as easily have started a thread “What is tradition” because I am really having difficulty getting my head around that one.

When I start from the Bible and the Scripture that I see that Catholics have brought to the table is 2 Thess 2:15.

Now I have observed that the scope of this tradition in this passage of Scripture is tradition that has the apostles as its source. I assume that there is such an entity as junk tradition that I should not regard.

Then it begs the important question to me “How do I know that an element of tradition that somebody claims is from the apostles actually is”. You see I do not want to be led astray by junk tradition.

Now you will claim of course that your church has the authority to separate the good from the bad. Now this is true if and only if your church is exclusively “The Church of Jesus Christ”, “The Bride of Christ” and everybody else excluded from that and presumably relegated to an inferior status. For many reasons which are outside of the scope of this thread, I am “not there yet”. So that having been said, the only method at my disposal to separate the good from the junk is…the Bible…

but…

then again we have the issue of what prevents me from deciding my own canon will omit Hebrews. And this piece of tradition at least is not apostolic. But I have no interest in deciding my own personal canon anyway, so I think I am on safe grounds accepting it.
There was a remarkable inluence on the works leading to the formulation of the Dei Verbum of the great contribution on these issues by Yves Cardinal Congar, whom you mention.

Magisterium is not of course a source of the deposit of faith, but rather its servant.
As to the relation of Tradition and Scripture, through both of them the Church receives and preserves the deposit. The Council does not affirm a doctrinal content of Tradition which is larger than the content of Scripture ( neither it explicitly excludes that
). But it states the clear reality that the Canon of Scripture is outside Scripture itself, and therefore it belongs to Tradition only.

IMHO the Canon is not such a trivial question. It’s not just about which books , but the concept itself of NT. The NT does not tell us that there should be an NT.

About your kind question on conflicts, my assumption is that I cannot be a better interpreter of Scripture and the witnesses to Tradition than the Church through her Magisterium.
As simple as that. Protestantims were born IMHO from the implicit assumption that
if I see a conflict between Magisterium and Scripture, then this conflict does exist, and the Church is wrong.

The real difference. at least in principle, is IMHO here, that in Catholicism Magisterium is the measuring stick of my ( as well as other ) interpretations, whereas in Protestantisms my interpretation is the measuring stick of the interpretations of Magisterium as well as any other interpretations

I hope this can help
Bless you
P7

With all due respect, it is getting late here on the east coast and I am quickly losing my ability to think clearly and fairly.

 

[crazzeto]

Hi:
I am on the verge of getting very confused. So I will try to focus here.

I think to help my confusion I will avoid any other threads.

OK. So we agree that there are parts of the Bible that anyone with 5th grade reading comprehension level should agree upon. And we agree that there are other parts of the Bible that upon reading it, men (and women) of goodwill can and will disagree about.

Gotcha.

So here we get into the original subject of this thread, what exactly is “Sola Scriptura”. I agree that with some definitions of Sola Scriptura the issue of the Canon of Scripture is an inconvenient question. But there are other definitions (Keith Mathison for example) that do account for this. Not to say that there are not other issues though.

Here’s the rub, in what way do you know the Cannon of scripture, is truely the cannon of the actually inspired word of God? How did we get to what we have now (72 books unless of course you don’t belong to any form of Orthodox faith). In otherwords, how did we first come to know what the cannon is, and thus if we don’t have a clear understanding, how the early fathers, with out the beneift of our hind sight could possibly have known which books were inspired, doesn’t that call into question the entire cannon of scripture?

That’s sort of the rub. I’m not sure how familiar you are, exactly with what all was going on at that time but for starters until there was a compiled cannon no one in the Christian world had a complete set of what we today consider the cannonical books. More over, the collections of “inspired books” in a given region changed pretty wildly. Some locations thought that St. Johns Apocolyps wasn’t an inspired book, so they might have replaced it with the Apocalypse of Peter instead which is now known not to be insipred. Some locations might have thought the Didcache was inspired, or the Gosple of Thomas was inspired, or even The Gosple of Truth, because why would it be called the Gosple of Truth if it wasn’t (ok, little humor there)? You see the problem?

Maybe (probably) I have not made myself clear. I actually am trying to separate doctrine from practice. I think it is possible for one to hold something as a practice but not a doctrine…and as an example I thought of Christians who hold to the practice of not drinking alcohol (for whatever reason) but do not hold to the doctrine that no Christians should drink alcohol (as some do).

Then I guess my question is, at what point is something Doctrine? How do you know this? Or is it all good? Do what you want! God’s a loving god right? He’s totally open, and accepting of everything. I’ve seen you post else where, so I know you don’t subscribe to this, so there must come a point at which things are not mearly practice. Or as we Catholics like to say, there comes a point when the small t in tradition becomes a bit T in tradition. Where exactly are we crossing that line?

Here you sort of lose me. I assume it is not that important in the big scheme of things.

I do disagree with your assertion that the Bible is a dead book (Hebrews 4:12).

The bible you own in your home isn’t the Word of God, it’s a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of another translation of the Word of God. The original authors were inspired, no one else in the chain was (another rub in the Sola Scriptura doctrine). On this basis, I say the printed book in our libraries (all 6 or 7 including my fiances protestant ones) are dead books. This isn’t a knock against the word of God mind you, it’s mearly acknowlegement of the corperal process by which we got our bibles, thus what the bibles we own are. The word they contain can come alive, but it doesn’t happen all by it’s self, as you assert below:

Under some definitions of Sola Scripture that I have read, they claim the Bible as self-interpreting. Now it seems to me to be a contradiction that a self-interpreting document leads to multiple interpretations. Anyway, I can not recall reading in Scripture where Scripture claims that it is self-interpreting. But maybe it is there and I haven’t come across it I sppose.

That’s pretty much what I mean by dead book, and if you want the spoiler. Look as hard as you want, there’s no passage in the bible that says it’s self interpeting. You’ll find several that say if you try baseing all you know on God around scripture alone, with out guidence you’re likely to go astray though.

Now here AmericanJosiah claims that the issue of interpretation is outside of the definition of Sola Scriptura that he is bringing to the table for consideration.

Since I wish to be fair to everybody, I will take him at his word in this definition.

Yes, I know but consider the above. Consider the issue that the bible can’t interpet it’s self, and never claims to (quite the contrary). Also consider that AmericanJosiah has been repeatedly making these claims, but when I bring up scripture which directly contradicts his points, it’s uniformly ignored.

Now the definition that he brought to the table did include the word “final” in it. Now when you use that word, the question then comes to my mind as to what then stops me from creating my own personal canon? So the word final is problematic until I get a good answer to that silly question.

But leaving aside the theology of it, I am intrigued by the concept of practice.

Thanx. Now on to the next one.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Here’s the rub, in what way do you know the Cannon of scripture, is truely the cannon of the actually inspired word of God? How did we get to what we have now (72 books unless of course you don’t belong to any form of Orthodox faith). In otherwords, how did we first come to know what the cannon is, and thus if we don’t have a clear understanding, how the early fathers, with out the beneift of our hind sight could possibly have known which books were inspired, doesn’t that call into question the entire cannon of scripture?

…cut again because of annoying word limit.

The canon of Scripture is an issue that you must address if you are going to claim Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. No matter how you cut it at some point somebody made the decision that Hebrews was in while Ignatius was out. Now this decision might have been so easy that even a caveman can do it. Still, it was a decision God allowed humans to be involved in (even though I am sure that God gave the grace to make sure the decision was correct.

Now Matthison in his book addresses the canon issue quite well I think. But any definition that has the Bible as the final authority is problematic because in this one case it is not the final. So my question remains why can’t I create my own personal canon where I toss Hebrews out and add Ignatius in. Any answer has to acknowledge tradition (which Matthison does).

Then I guess my question is, at what point is something Doctrine? How do you know this? Or is it all good? Do what you want! God’s a loving god right? He’s totally open, and accepting of everything. I’ve seen you post else where, so I know you don’t subscribe to this, so there must come a point at which things are not mearly practice. Or as we Catholics like to say, there comes a point when the small t in tradition becomes a bit T in tradition. Where exactly are we crossing that line?

Actually this is a good question that I have been giving some thought to. I don’t have the complete answer, but I think a part of the answer anyway is that the line is crossed when I insist that you do it my way or else you are wrong.

Think back on my example of alcohol. Some Christians do not drink but are cool with Christians that do drink provided it is in moderation and they don’t get wasted. Other Christians insist that God does not want any Christian to drink and those that do are sinning. Those in the second group have alcohol abstention as a doctrine and have a greater burden of proof methinks.

The bible you own in your home isn’t the Word of God, it’s a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of another translation of the Word of God. The original authors were inspired, no one else in the chain was (another rub in the Sola Scriptura doctrine).

Meh…now you are sort of skating on thin ice methinks. Now, unless you are a KJV only and insist that God preserved his Word…word by word…in the KJV, most others who believe in inerrancy believe it applies to the original languages only. I actually asked a stupid question on inerrancy in a thread awhile back.

I have to believe that to the extent that God did inspire Scripture, that He is well able to insure that inspiration is somehow passed on through the assorted translations that exist even if they are not guaranteed to be inerrant. I know I am not wording this very well.

On this basis, I say the printed book in our libraries (all 6 or 7 including my fiances protestant ones) are dead books. This isn’t a knock against the word of God mind you, it’s mearly acknowlegement of the corperal process by which we got our bibles, thus what the bibles we own are. The word they contain can come alive, but it doesn’t happen all by it’s self, as you assert below:

That’s pretty much what I mean by dead book, and if you want the spoiler. Look as hard as you want, there’s no passage in the bible that says it’s self interpeting. You’ll find several that say if you try baseing all you know on God around scripture alone, with out guidence you’re likely to go astray though.

If that is what you mean by “dead book”, I would strongly suggest that you drop that term and just say that it is not self-interpreting. You will be misunderstood with the phrase “dead book”, and good grief there are enough misunderstandings going on here withou adding to them.

Yes, I know but consider the above. Consider the issue that the bible can’t interpet it’s self, and never claims to (quite the contrary). Also consider that AmericanJosiah has been repeatedly making these claims, but when I bring up scripture which directly contradicts his points, it’s uniformly ignored.

Well I have not followed every post that AJ has ever made in this and other threads.

Now I don’t know what is exactly meant by self-interpreting, but to me when I hear the phrase I think that even a caveman should be able to read the Bible and come up with the correct interpretation. Any self-interpreting book should not yield multiple interpretations by men who love the book and devote their lives to studying the book.

But that is my understanding of the phrase self-interpreting. Maybe there are other understandings of this phrase other than mine.

But, there are definitions of Sola Scriptura out there that do not claim the Bible as self-interpreting. I don’t think Matthison does, The definition that AJ brought forth earlier that has sort of caught my interest does not either. It was the Sola Scriptura as a practice statement that sort of piqued my interest.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is very interesting the Lutherans use praxis to explain aspects of Sola Scriptura, because what praxis is taking one piece out of the totality, let’s say of the Gospel, and applying it to action. So, in essence when praxis is applied to, ‘We are saved by faith alone’ or saved by Christ alone…then our praxis shows how we mean that in living out our faith so that it is authentic…Am I correct?

Trouble is with praxis, it is individual picking and choosing to create an overbroad statement … I am no scholar in the erudite tradition, but a good example of praxis misuse is liberation theology…the praxis of liberation theology…when this isn’t theology. It is taking a piece of the gospel and turning it into a praxis but calling it Liberation Theology. It is a praxis from one phrase in a gospel.

 

[KathleenGee]

How does the Catholic Church look at Scripture?

This is official teaching and not my own.

First, and I think we can all basically agree on this, that the Bible is the Eternal Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word…Made Flesh. We cannot change or add anything to what God says through His people…or through His theopanies or through His Son.

To change one word of Scripture creates a different response and a praxis on the whole. Because ‘no mere man has revealed’…the truth of God but of Himself.

So we must first acknowledge the Author’s intent, the message, in the Same Holy Spirit --then and today.

And, we must be attentive to the Whole of Scripture. Not praxis, not bits and pieces, because God causes all to exist, all exists for a purpose.

There is always the veil of language. Aramaic, Jesus’ language, Hebrew of the Jewish people, and Greek, the language of the scholars, philosophers.

Then you have to look at the senses of Scripture…the literal sense, the spiritual sense, the allegorical sense such as the crossing of the Red Sea can also symbolize the coming of Christ as the bridge to new life through baptism, the moral sense, and the angogical sense – our eternal significance… Christianity being the heavenly Jerusalem…

So you have alot to consider…

As Catholics subsequently, we must be as stated earlier, especially attentive to the Whole of Scripture. We must read the Bible in its content and unity in light of the teachings of the whole church of Sacred Tradition coming from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ to His apostles, to the Church Fathers, and bishops.

People will come on using a piece from st. Thomas or St. Philip or St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine…whoever…to show how some aspect does not represent a piece of Scripture they are referring to…one saint or one bishop…each is contributing their piece to the whole picture…look around on the same topic, and you will find a saint or church father using and supporting the very piece a non-Catholic is using to disprove our faith.

The only perfection that can be achieved in our belief system is when we as Catholics profess the Nicene Creed in union with each other in the same Spirit throughout the world, because the Catholic Church is essentially a mysticalogical institution. We are based on faith although we have external, visible administration, practices, worship, liturgies, rites of different cultures, times and histories…but all proving and supporting Jesus True God and True Man in each era of time.

The Church speaks in authority when it incorporates every pope and bishop in union, and we are united to our bishops…when we fragment through error or dissension, this unity is broken.

So we have to step away from the bible and understand just what is the nature and mission of the church vs individual sola scriptura.

 

[mmmcounts]

This post is really not that difficult a question to answer, and I really wish people would have gone through the minor difficulty of finding sources when answering it. Here’s a good one.

theopedia.com/Sola_scriptura

And this is what you need to know about SS.

“Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God’s Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.”

And here’s a little more.

“Sola Scriptura ‘does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ’” (Dr. James White).

Some key points to highlight here: The Bible does not contain all knowledge, but it does contain all that is necessary for salvation. (This has direct bearing on the idea of “sanctifying grace”).

A point of further clarification on what is “found within the Scriptures:”
“Sola Scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from Scripture.”

This has direct bearing on the oft-discussed matter of the Trinity: You can’t find the word “Trinity” in the Bible, so doesn’t that mean Protestants have to call the Roman Catholic leaders their masters as the Catholics do? The answer is no, we don’t, because the Trinity is in the Bible. The word isn’t in the Bible, but the Trinity is in the Bible. It’s actually quite fun to demonstrate this to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A couple of points to highlight from Dr. James White’s quote: Protestants do not reject everything that has ever been said by Catholics. Catholics believe lots of things that Protestants also believe, often for the same exact reasons. However, Protestants recognize that Church teaching is not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Bible was, it is not inerrant, it can and has been wrong (and in contradiction with Scripture) a number of times, and the Bible must be the final authority on these matters.

There are quite a few Protestant leaders that teach things that are in error; however, Catholic leaders over the centuries are and have been no less prone to teaching things that are in error. And it doesn’t make it any less of an error if you force everyone to assent to it on pain of death, excommunication, exile, or whatever you’re choosing to do at a particular point in history. In short, the Catholic description of religious utopia is not appealing; it is actually quite frightening. This utopia is one where all Christians believe the same exact thing because they all take their cues from the same group of people who are ostensibly infallible. If they actually were infallible, that would be quite nice. In fact, you can’t see anything in this description except for “absolute bliss” because you won’t even allow yourself to entertain the hypothetical situation of “What if they actually are not and have never been infallible, and what if they actually have been wrong on a number of occasions?” If you can bring yourself to imagine this hypothetical situation without actually believing it, you will begin to understand why any Protestant you run across will react to this scenario with horror and revulsion.

Oh, and for the record, the Magisterium is not and has never been infallible- not any more than you or me. This is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of “This is what I believe, but if you believe differently, you’re ok.” It is a matter of fact: In actual reality, the Magisterium is not and has never been capable of infallibility, and that means you’re not ok. Nevertheless, I am quite capable of imagining a hypothetical situation where they are and always have been infallible. I can certainly understand why the Catholic utopia would be quite attractive under those circumstances. I see where you’re coming from. Now I hope you can do the same and understand where I’m coming from.

 

[ralphinal]

This post is really not that difficult a question to answer, and I really wish people would have gone through the minor difficulty of finding sources when answering it. Here’s a good one.

theopedia.com/Sola_scriptura

And this is what you need to know about SS.

“Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God’s Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.”

And here’s a little more.

“Sola Scriptura ‘does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ’” (Dr. James White).

Some key points to highlight here: The Bible does not contain all knowledge, but it does contain all that is necessary for salvation. (This has direct bearing on the idea of “sanctifying grace”).

A point of further clarification on what is “found within the Scriptures:”
“Sola Scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from Scripture.”

This has direct bearing on the oft-discussed matter of the Trinity: You can’t find the word “Trinity” in the Bible, so doesn’t that mean Protestants have to call the Roman Catholic leaders their masters as the Catholics do? The answer is no, we don’t, because the Trinity is in the Bible. The word isn’t in the Bible, but the Trinity is in the Bible. It’s actually quite fun to demonstrate this to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A couple of points to highlight from Dr. James White’s quote: Protestants do not reject everything that has ever been said by Catholics. Catholics believe lots of things that Protestants also believe, often for the same exact reasons. However, Protestants recognize that Church teaching is not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Bible was, it is not inerrant, it can and has been wrong (and in contradiction with Scripture) a number of times, and the Bible must be the final authority on these matters.

There are quite a few Protestant leaders that teach things that are in error; however, Catholic leaders over the centuries are and have been no less prone to teaching things that are in error. And it doesn’t make it any less of an error if you force everyone to assent to it on pain of death, excommunication, exile, or whatever you’re choosing to do at a particular point in history. In short, the Catholic description of religious utopia is not appealing; it is actually quite frightening. This utopia is one where all Christians believe the same exact thing because they all take their cues from the same group of people who are ostensibly infallible. If they actually were infallible, that would be quite nice. In fact, you can’t see anything in this description except for “absolute bliss” because you won’t even allow yourself to entertain the hypothetical situation of “What if they actually are not and have never been infallible, and what if they actually have been wrong on a number of occasions?” If you can bring yourself to imagine this hypothetical situation without actually believing it, you will begin to understand why any Protestant you run across will react to this scenario with horror and revulsion.

Oh, and for the record, the Magisterium is not and has never been infallible- not any more than you or me. This is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of “This is what I believe, but if you believe differently, you’re ok.” It is a matter of fact: In actual reality, the Magisterium is not and has never been capable of infallibility, and that means you’re not ok. Nevertheless, I am quite capable of imagining a hypothetical situation where they are and always have been infallible. I can certainly understand why the Catholic utopia would be quite attractive under those circumstances. I see where you’re coming from. Now I hope you can do the same and understand where I’m coming from.

I’ll throw the questions at you, too. Can you show me in the Bible what is supposed to be in the Bible? How do you know that the Bible is correctly assembled without missing anything or including anything that should have been left out?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna:
I think you and AmericanJosiah are sort of talking past each other.

AmericanJosiah (AJ), rarely answers a question. Still waiting:

AJ, . . .You claim “there are more examples than the 6000 characters this forum allows.” You dumped a long list of Scriptures (without quoting the contents of the passages,) claiming they were “from Jesus.” Yet, you have not been able to quote even one Scripture and explain how it proves Sola Scriptura.

. . .You did say: “it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is).”. . . .

. . At the risk of being devoured up at both ends let me offer up my services as an intermediary.

AmateurP: Can’t answer for AmericanJ.

I’m not into devouring. Your posts reflect your sincere consideration of responses.

AJ, You can’t have an intelligent discussion about Sola Scriptura, without discussing who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

. the definition that he brought to the table claims that the issue of interpretation is outside of his definition. . .according to this definition, interpretation is a separate issue.

Now you can have a discussion on whether this definition is tenable or not. .

Isn’t Sola Scriptura all about “authority”?

Scripture being self-evident, by the power of the Holy Spirit, giving interpretive authority to the individual
**vs. **
The Holy Spirit giving interpretive authority to the Catholic Church through Apostolic Succession?

How would you discuss Sola Scriptura, without discussing whether or not the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture in light of tradition?

I think you hit on a key issue here: “definition.” We, Protestants, have no consistent definition of Sola Scriptura. It is difficult to argue for or against Sola Scriptura, when we can’t even agree on the definition.

The new term: Solo Scriptura was born out of disagreements, within Protestantism, regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura.

AJ, You keep saying Sola Scriptura is Praxis.

AJ, You are quoting “traditions” of the Lutheran Church. This does not prove Sola Scriptura. It only proves that the “tradition” in the Lutheran Church is to use Sola Scriptura.

If you use Scripture alone, then you must prove that the Scriptures actually instruct you to use Scripture, alone.

I have interpreted Praxis as just practice. . .

Ironically, Sola Scriptura is usually viewed as being in opposition to custom or tradition. AmericanJosiah claims Sola Scriptura is Praxis–a practice or custom. AJ is using a “custom” to denounce “customs” (traditions) of the Catholic Church.

AJ, By saying Sola Scriptura is “praxis,” you are saying Sola Scriptura is a practice or custom. This does not prove the validity of Sola Scriptura, nor does it relieve you of bearing the burden of proof for Sola Scriptura.

But is this really true. In my example that I came up with thinking about this, many Christians that I know have adopted the practice of abstaining from Alcohol. Should I burden these Christians with having to “prove” their practice.

Now other Christians have codified the same practice as a doctrine (a Christian should not drink). I agree once you make something a doctrine with the intent of binding others that may disagree with you to it, you have shifted from practice to doctrine.

Still it is possible that a given belief be held as a practice and not a doctrine. And that is the claim in this definition.

Here is the crux of the matter. Every other definition that I have encountered on Sola Scriptura make the argument that it is a doctrine. As such, it requires a greater burden of proof.

But here the claim is that it is not a doctrine. Now some of the statements in the opening paragraph seem to contradict that claim, but for now I’ll take him at his word.

But anyway, if it is not a doctrine, then he is bringing to the table a new definition of Sola Scriptura.

Not only do we (Protestants) disagree with the definition of Sola Scriptura; we, also, disagree regarding whether or not it is a “doctrine.”

It is convenient for AJ to say Sola Scriptura is not a “doctrine.” By claiming it is a “practice,” he excuses himself from the burden of Biblical proof.

AJ, Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” was born as the “habit” or “custom” of Protestant Reformers. So, you have traded the “custom” or “tradition” of the Early Church Fathers, for the “custom” or “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

Of course he argued that this was the practice of the Early Church Fathers in the follow on post. Now whether it was or wasn’t is of course the subject of another debate that you may choose to have or not have. Since I am not an expert in the ECF, I am not touching this one

AmericanJosiah makes many claims, with little or no proof to support his claims.

I am not far enough along in my studies, either, to agree or disagree with ECF supporting Sola Scriptura. Considering Sola Scriptura was one of the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation; it would, indeed, be interesting to know if the ECF wrote anything to support Sola Scriptura–or if it was an invention of the Reformers (which I think is the Catholic view.) Scary question for us, as Protestants.

Anna