B
b32865
Guest
Would it be correct to say that Martin Luther originated the idea of sola Scriptura? If so, when?
How did this idea spread and take hold?
How did this idea spread and take hold?
- Status
G
GloriaDeo
Guest
Although I don’t have an answer for you, that brings an interesting point to my attention. As a Protestant leaning towards the RCC, that is one of the reasons why I find myself at odds with Protestantism. Many of the “dogmas” that Protestants hold to have been created by them. They never were derived from scripture. Take, for instance, the Mormons’ founder (I don’t remember his name), he completely fabricated their Book of Mormon.
And Sola Scriptura; Suddenly, Martin Luther and his gang decided that they didn’t need tradition and Peter’s guidance on earth (the Pope).
The last thing I have much issue with is predestination. Out of nowhere comes this guy, John Calvin, and takes a couple things out of context and comes up with an elitist ideal of being “elect”. Sorry for blabbering, but it just goes to show you that ideals that just pop up out of nowhere have no credibility!:nope:
And Sola Scriptura; Suddenly, Martin Luther and his gang decided that they didn’t need tradition and Peter’s guidance on earth (the Pope).
The last thing I have much issue with is predestination. Out of nowhere comes this guy, John Calvin, and takes a couple things out of context and comes up with an elitist ideal of being “elect”. Sorry for blabbering, but it just goes to show you that ideals that just pop up out of nowhere have no credibility!:nope:
T
Tom
Guest
Luther was one, research up Wycliff, Luther, and Calvin. Each had his own idea of “sola”
Why did it take off, well honestly, there were some in the Church who were scoundrels. The “reformers” thought if they used the Bible as sole reference the abuses would be reduced. You might want to read the book “Triumph” it was pretty well written and informative.
A
Aris
Guest
Why are still so many convinced of Sola Scriptura?
Because they have never heard or read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. These writings are not commonly available to the ordinary man.
This was our connection to how the Apostles lived.
It was only through reading and researching that I came across these writings, in part my journey in the search for Truth.
Because they have never heard or read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. These writings are not commonly available to the ordinary man.
This was our connection to how the Apostles lived.
It was only through reading and researching that I came across these writings, in part my journey in the search for Truth.
M
Melchior
Guest
The Reformers Luther and Calvin popularized it. There are many quotes from the Fathers (including Augustine and Athanasius) where they talk about the Scriptures being sufficient for all teaching.
Keep in mind when you say Scripture you need to think of it as * the teaching and writings of the Apostles and Prophets* not a black leather book. There were many Fathers who relied on the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets and of course Jesus, found in the Gospels, for primary instruction. If you look at it that way it makes more sense. This is what the Reformers were trying to re-capture and clarify. Can you find the Jesus and the Apostles direct teaching outside of the Bible? Of course not. Now how we understand scripture is the real issue. It’s centrality should not be.
Mel
S
Socrates
Guest
Augustine also said that he would not even believe the scriptures he hadn’t learned of them from the Catholic Church. Sufficiency within sacred Tradition is one thing, sufficiency within individual personal interpretation is quite another.
If I recall correctly, Luther had doubts about sola scriptura as soon as that horse left the barn because it would set every individual up as his own pope. (I’m paraphrasing here obviously.)
It seems to me from that, for many, sola scriptura is not really a reverence and belief in the sufficiency of scripture so much as it is an active denial that anyone has the absoute authority to interpret scripture. It really amounts to a belief in the sufficiency of the interpretations of scripture with which one already agrees.
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
You may want to read a little more in the Catholic Doctors (Aquinas, Augustine, Duns Scotus, etc…)…
newadvent.org/summa/102300.htm
Predestinarian thought has a long and honorable pedigree in the western church since the time of Augustine that has progressed through a great many fathers and medieval theologians. There are significant differences with Calvin (primarily on the issue of limited atonement), but there is no question that the idea of God’s elect being chosen by God’s decree and infallibly given the grace of final justification both existed and flourished in the church long before Calvin.
ken
A
Apologia100
Guest
I believe the notion of sola scriptura originated long before John Wycliff or Martin Luther. It was popular with anyone who wanted to popularize their own self-formulated theology at the expense of the Magisterium. Since the bible was born of the Church, not the other way around, it is subordinate to, but essential for, the proper effect of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the prime rule of faith, the bible is profitable in supporting it.
M
Melchior
Guest
Agreed.
True. But given the times there was not much of an option. Th anabaptists are one example of his concern.
While true it is not as if the Catholic Church has been immune from people taking great liberties with both Scripture and Tradition. Just look at Liberation Theology etc. But yes, we all approach scripture with a traditional grid that is certainly based on presuppositions. The real question is who right presuppositions.
Mel
M
Melchior
Guest
Ummm… Calvin is much closer to Sts. Augustine and Aquinas on Predestination that the vast majority of modern Catholics. Predestination goes right back to St. Paul (actually the OT). Read Romans 9 to see that the idea did not “pop up out of nowhere”.
Mel
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Well as a converting Lutheran I have a good answer.
(this is a joke to lighten the mood and the day)
Sola Scriptora actually came about when Rasputin attempted to translate the Good News Bible through a hole in a sheet. This Bible tended to be so horribly inaccurate that they renamed it the Fox News Bible.
In attempt to fix the errors by Rasputin, George Lucas took the Fox News Bible and reinserted deleted verses, a token black man, and senseless love scenes. He called it The Fox News Bible Special Edition. Ted Turner went even further and colorized the whole darn thing. Ted Turners Bible is not well accepted in Hollywood, as it is higher in carbs.
Lutherans believe that Han Solo was the only good thing in the original script so they removed the parts of the script they did not like. Hence “Solo Scriptura”
(this is a joke to lighten the mood and the day)
Sola Scriptora actually came about when Rasputin attempted to translate the Good News Bible through a hole in a sheet. This Bible tended to be so horribly inaccurate that they renamed it the Fox News Bible.
In attempt to fix the errors by Rasputin, George Lucas took the Fox News Bible and reinserted deleted verses, a token black man, and senseless love scenes. He called it The Fox News Bible Special Edition. Ted Turner went even further and colorized the whole darn thing. Ted Turners Bible is not well accepted in Hollywood, as it is higher in carbs.
Lutherans believe that Han Solo was the only good thing in the original script so they removed the parts of the script they did not like. Hence “Solo Scriptura”
M
Melchior
Guest
Think about what you are saying. The writings of the Apostles and the first Pope who were all with Jesus - plus Moses, Elijah, David etc. are subordinate to the Magisterium? The Magesterium is not a rule of faith it is an ecclesiastical structure. How can the very words of Jesus and the Apostles be subordinate to anything? If you said the interpretation is subject to the Magisterium then we have a discussion. But the way you worded it is the type of argument from Catholics that makes most Protestants scratch their heads and say “Huh?”.
Mel
A
Apologia100
Guest
First, the Magisterium is not an ecclesiastical structure, it is the teaching office of the Church, which is the Church’s primary function. I say that the bible is subordinate to the Magisterium, because there would be no bible without the Magisterium. It was under the Magisterium that the Gospel was preached without the use of a formal canon until 397. If Scripture is the sole rule of faith, then there was no rule of faith for about 364 years (33 AD to 397 AD)! There was the Old Testament canon, but the Gospel was not contained therein. The Good News of Christ was taugh solely by Tradition for that intervining time. And Tradition falls under the auspices of the Magisterium.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
I have always considered the Arians to be ampng the first heretics to use Sola Scriptura. While they did not coin the phrase, they did practice it.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Another candidate are the Sadducees, who may have believed in “Torah alone”:
brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/sadducee.html
M
Melchior
Guest
M
Melchior
Guest
This is not historically accurate. In fact I would venture to say that thorough Catholic theolgians and historians would disagree with you. The books of the Bible all existed and were in use prior to the canonization of the New Testament. So while I will agree that the Church put the Canon together it was the Apostles who gave us the Bible. Those who wrote the books and letters of the Bible gave it to us. The Church, or Magisterium if you will, put it together officially for us. But you wording makes it seem as if the Bible was written in 367AD. You need to be more specific than that. It is like saying that Thomas Nelson gave you the Bible since they are the ones who publish the one you have at home. No the authors of the Bible gave it to us. And it is also not true that *“The Good News of Christ was taught solely by Tradition for that intervining time”. * Paul’s letter and the other Epistles and the Gospels were widely distributed to the churches since the first century. There was oral tradition but there was never a time where there was Sola Traditiana. In fact how do you think that had all these books to choose from and consider for canonization? They were not locked in a room some where. They took what was already popular though as sepeate books and epistles.
Mel
A
Amateis
Guest
So, in a sense, and don’t take this the wrong way, too much weight is put on the bible, and not enough on the Church and the Magisterium. If I’m wrong let me know. Obviously, without Scripture, where would most of us be? But, like you said,"…the bible is subordinate to the Magisterim." So, maybe the teachings in the Cathechism should become stronger.
In Christ
C. Amateis
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Satan?
Since we had no Bible before the 4th Century, we know Jesus didn’t invent it!
Since Jesus never preached Sola Scriptura we know He didn’t command it!
It must be one of those ‘man-made’ traditions my old Baptist preachers used to condemn weekly!:yup:
I am glad Catholics don’t believe it.
Since we had no Bible before the 4th Century, we know Jesus didn’t invent it!
Since Jesus never preached Sola Scriptura we know He didn’t command it!
It must be one of those ‘man-made’ traditions my old Baptist preachers used to condemn weekly!:yup:
I am glad Catholics don’t believe it.
B
beng
Guest
Bull
Ever heard of Thomist?
- Status