Why Sola Scriptura fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter KEP1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnPB said:
As you already know, there is no “one voice” among Protestant church groups. As you also know, I have consistently identified my specific area of concern with whether the Catholic Church explicitly refutes the 1571 doctrinal statement of the Church of England, which reads:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. "

If the problem arises because I have confused people by using the name “sola Scriptura” to refer to this statement, I apologize. I regard it as an early (if not the earliest) English language version of SS, and it is still in effect today in the Anglican Church, regardless of any other versions that may have arisen.
Click to expand...
But it has been refuted: Church,Tradition and Scripture were all part of the early church,which helped define and ratify doctrines,not simply the Bible. I do not understand what explicit debunked explanation you are seeking?

So SS in essence has no official voice,thus it is a loose-knit practice understood and explained based on one’s interpretation or Protestant tradition?
 
JohnPB;10774576]It doesn’t. It also does not say that I am a 50-yr-old man. Certain facts in life are verifiable or refutable without the aid of Scripture.
Click to expand...
👍
My question is, does the Catholic Church refute the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” because it holds some additional doctrine, not included in Scripture, as also necessary for one’s salvation (contrary to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura)?
Click to expand...
The CC rejects sola scriptura via private discernment. Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition + the Magisterial office of Jesus’ Church.
If so, what is that “necessary belief” that everyone must also have, in order to be saved? And where is the necessity of this particular additional belief taught by the Church?
Click to expand...
Regarding a person’s salvation? Agreed. Do you believe the early catholic councils were guided by God, in terms of truth?
If you mean the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, that premise does not refute or conflict with Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Well, not your definition of SS. It absolutely refutes or conflicts with SS according to many of my non-Catholic friends, including family members.
 
ffg said:
I love this thread, I appreciate the contributions of our non-Catholic friends.

I think with regard to the topic in general, there is a key point that has been mentioned a few times - people not on the same page.

I think the people in question though are not being defined correctly, it’s not a miss-understanding between the Catholics and the non-Catholics.

It’s between the non-Catholics themselves…

If multiple people define / use / apply the term differently, how does it stand as meaningful to any one of those people, with this knowledge? Of course, all assuming their definition or application is true.

Hopefully this helps drive people to strive to find what the Truth is, whether in the meaning and application of the term, or if the term is bogus.

And then to the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
From my POV, how other people use the term is, frankly, irrelevant, for the following reasons:
  1. As SS is a practice, and not a doctrine, it is not an article of faith, which must be believed for salvation. So even Catholics who, obviously, reject it, are not bound to it for salvation.
  2. As SS is a practice, we employ it for our Church, in the manner described by our confessions, that being, the way our church holds teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma accountable. If others use it in other ways ( even if incorrectly, in our view) that is an issue for their communion, not ours.
Jon
 
JonNC said:
From my POV, how other people use the term is, frankly, irrelevant, for the following reasons:
  1. As SS is a practice, and not a doctrine, it is not an article of faith, which must be believed for salvation. So even Catholics who, obviously, reject it, are not bound to it for salvation.
  2. As SS is a practice, we employ it for our Church, in the manner described by our confessions, that being, the way our church holds teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma accountable. If others use it in other ways ( even if incorrectly, in our view) that is an issue for their communion, not ours.
Jon
Click to expand...
👍👍👍👍👍

Fifty-odd pages later, and this concept still hasn’t made headway… 🤷
 
JonNC said:
From my POV, how other people use the term is, frankly, irrelevant, for the following reasons:
  1. As SS is a practice, and not a doctrine, it is not an article of faith, which must be believed for salvation. So even Catholics who, obviously, reject it, are not bound to it for salvation.
  2. As SS is a practice, we employ it for our Church, in the manner described by our confessions, that being, the way our church holds teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma accountable. If others use it in other ways ( even if incorrectly, in our view) that is an issue for their communion, not ours.
Jon
Click to expand...
Blessings Jon!

Interesting take…
 
JohnPB said:
Interpretation of Holy Scripture is a non-issue. “Sola Scriptura” allows for seeking counsel from clergy, teachers, etc. So, are you OK with this doctrine, so long as the right interpreters are used?
Click to expand...
Certainly. Right interpreters means interpreters who have not divorced themselves from the Faith, given once for all, to the Catholic Church.
 
JonNC said:
From my POV, how other people use the term is, frankly, irrelevant, for the following reasons:
  1. As SS is a practice, and not a doctrine, it is not an article of faith …
  2. As SS is a practice, we employ it for our Church, in the manner described by our confessions, that being, the way our church holds teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma accountable. If others use it in other ways ( even if incorrectly, in our view) that is an issue for their communion, not ours.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment, Jon, given that the earliest statements on which your “practice” is built were doctrinal statements and articles of faith. As I have mentioned before, in 1571 the English version was prepared for the Church of England, included in its 39 Articles, and it is still official doctrine today.

But you’re absolutely correct, neither of us is responsible for the other’s take on how to apply it. Just shows the nature of the conflicts that can arise over using the same name to mean different things.
 
JohnPB said:
Interesting comment, Jon, given that the earliest statements on which your “practice” is built were doctrinal statements and articles of faith. As I have mentioned before, in 1571 the English version was prepared for the Church of England, included in its 39 Articles, and it is still official doctrine today.

But you’re absolutely correct, neither of us is responsible for the other’s take on how to apply it. Just shows the nature of the conflicts that can arise over using the same name to mean different things.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And the problem that arises when there is no one in authority to act as arbiter.

We are left with confusion and chaos without a Magisterium.
 
=JohnPB;10780480]Interesting comment, Jon, given that the earliest statements on which your “practice” is built were doctrinal statements and articles of faith. As I have mentioned before, in 1571 the English version was prepared for the Church of England, included in its 39 Articles, and it is still official doctrine today.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that the 39 Articles are part of Lutheran doctrinal statements. Curiously, and I make no attempt to define Anglican teaching, but instead offer this from an Anglican:
OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.
Click to expand...
REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:
Click to expand...
(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.
Click to expand...
But in fact, the argument should be of the form:
Click to expand...
(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.
Click to expand...
And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html
But you’re absolutely correct, neither of us is responsible for the other’s take on how to apply it. Just shows the nature of the conflicts that can arise over using the same name to mean different things.
Click to expand...
True.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top