Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

Oh no, you didn’t :stuck_out_tongue:

Because it’s far, far, far more logical to have a chance at being right than being assured of being wrong.

We can discuss which is which on another thread, if you wish.

Any abuses (although they are exaggerated, at least in the universal church) should be corrected, without trying to arrogate leadership to a different group.

Jesus was present when the greatest abuses were present in Judaism. His command was given:

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you
, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Well, I’m no more assured of being wrong than you are. but this too is like …

We can discuss which is which on another thread, if you wish.

…and probably is a topic for a different thread.

Jon

From a logical point of view, this doesn’t follow from the argument.

We keep pointing out that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, and that Apostolic succession is only to be found in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches. You guys then “agree” (if only for the sake of discussion), and point out that deciding which of the two (lumping, incorrectly, all of the Orthodox Churches together) is the Church that Jesus built is a task for which an infallible answer might not be forthcoming.

My answer is that, while not infallible, I at least have a finite chance for choosing the correct Church. Since ONE of the “two” contains the fullness of Truth, other belief systems have something less than that.

I beleive, though, because of such realities as history, that I have chosen correctly even if fallibly.

=FathersKnowBest;11853426]From a logical point of view, this doesn’t follow from the argument.

We keep pointing out that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, and that Apostolic succession is only to be found in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches. You guys then “agree” (if only for the sake of discussion), and point out that deciding which of the two (lumping, incorrectly, all of the Orthodox Churches together) is the Church that Jesus built is a task for which an infallible answer might not be forthcoming.

My answer is that, while not infallible, I at least have a finite chance for choosing the correct Church. Since ONE of the “two” contains the fullness of Truth, other belief systems have something less than that.

Of course you would, and I say should, take this stand, but I don’t work from the Catholic paradigm that only the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is the one true Church. Part of it? Sure! Even the central part of it. Lutherans are every bit a part of that OHCAC, and confess it so every week.

If the Orthodox are offended by being all lumped together, my apologies. I know the feeling when the term ‘protestant’ is used to lump groups together.

I beleive, though, because of such realities as history, that I have chosen correctly even if fallibly.

And I pray you are blessed, in word and sacrament, in that choice.

Jon

That is pretty compelling…:thumbsup:

Yes it is. Thank you for your good use of Sola Scriptura. :slight_smile:

What it shows is that scripture itself is a witness against Sola Scriptura.

Honestly, I do get what you are saying. Let me restate my learnings from CAF better:

As I understand it, Catholic doctrine would not contradict the canon of work considered Scripture because after all, the canon was selected as the Holy Spirit inspired writings that agreed with oral tradition as received from the Apostles. To me, that says that you too are using Scripture as a norm - there could not be a Tradition that contradicted what is accepted as Scripture. Sort of like two oars pulling the same boat?

Please correct my misunderstandings if you don’t mind, I am trying to get on board if possible.

As a Lutheran, I am uncomfortable with making anything de fide that is based on Tradition alone. A practice may be spiritually useful, very beneficial to faith formation - but we hesitate to mandate it (I’m thinking of fasting, confession “X” times a year, etc). After 500 years, this worldview is pretty baked-in to Lutherans. I don’t know if I could ever wholeheartedly say that I can rely on Tradition if I couldn’t fact-check it against Scripture. That said I sometimes think some of the LCMS’ current issues grows from this same reticence in saying “This is the way it shall be.” We make some pretty critical things “adiaphora.” Or pretend they don’t exist.

Of course should the LCMS go off the rails I would be scooting across the Tiber along with some other Lutherans I know (you guys know who you are).

You are correct so far. Scripture is a norm.
Truth cannot contradict Truth, and thus Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, nor the Magisterium (when teaching authoritatively) can contradict each other.

Just as much as, say, a letter of St. Paul’s in scripture can’t contradict the Gospels, or vice-versa.

As a Lutheran, I am uncomfortable with making anything de fide that is based on Tradition alone. A practice may be spiritually useful, very beneficial to faith formation - but we hesitate to mandate it (I’m thinking of fasting, confession “X” times a year, etc).

Neither of your examples are “de fide.” They are disciplines.

After 500 years, this worldview is pretty baked-in to Lutherans. I don’t know if I could ever wholeheartedly say that I can rely on Tradition if I couldn’t fact-check it against Scripture.

Hmmm … what if you were Saul, traveling to Damascus, and Jesus Himself taught you something that went against your fallible understanding of scripture?

Now, how about all the things that He taught the Apostles that weren’t written down? Things that were taught to their successors by deeds (like celebrating the Eucharist with them) that were obviously meant to be passed on?

We know from John’s Gospel, Luke and Acts, among other places, that Jesus taught a whole lot of things that weren’t written down. And we know that the Apostles passed those things to the next generation, with instructions to keep passing them down:

2Ti 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

[note that Timothy was commanded to entrust teachings to faithful men. Timothy didn’t write any scriptures, yet I believe that he followed this command. How, if not through passing on the *paradosis?]

… just as Jesus commanded them to teach “all things”:
Mt 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you

Note He said to teach them to observe all. That would certainly include things like sacraments.

Of course should the LCMS go off the rails I would be scooting across the Tiber along with some other Lutherans I know (you guys know who you are).

While I think that, of all the protestants, the LCMS is the closest family we’ve got, I have to humbly submit that they began off the rails since they rejected the authority that Jesus gave to His Church in starting their church.

I do not defer to scripture alone my friend. :)Doctrinal disputes, when they arise cannot be resolved via scripture alone; a teaching office guided by God is required. :thumbsup:

We are six…oops…no, five posts away from the magic 1000 mark.
Let’s wrap it up, or start a follow-up thread folks.

Aquinas/Augustine/Sola Scriptura???..

“Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): ‘Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.’”~( St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia,
Part 1, Question 1, Article 8.)

And yet neither one of them made their Church away from the Church and yet both of them submitted to the Catholic Church, insomuch that both were ordained under the discipline and authority of the Church, not their own rebellion.

I don’t know what to say about Aquinas. To tell you the truth I don’t know much about him because all of my reading of the Patristic fathers was focused on the first several centuries after the apostolic age. I have read a fair amount of Augustine’s writings and don’t completely agree with you here.

In that case you are familiar with St. Augustine’s letter Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Chapter 5.6:

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

And with his replies to Questions to Januarius:

“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.”

And with On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book V)

“The apostles,” indeed, “gave no injunctions on the point;” but the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings.

Hardly the words of a SS advocate.

Also, he did not ordain himself - did he? In that case he obeyed an authority. Did he not?

This all sounds very good but . . . where is this stated in scripture? If this is to be doctrine then it should have a scriptural base. But it doesn’t. The answer is a big fat NO. This idea that scripture was the highest authority was invented by men who rejected church authority. Scripture is replete with references to a Church empowered by Christ and led by the Spirit into all truth. Paul, as an Apostle, claimed this authority and used it when he told the Thessalonians to hold onto the teaching (Traditions) that they received by letter (written tradition) or by word of mouth (oral tradition). Those words of Paul are as valid today as when he penned them 2,000 years ago. He did not equate either one with primacy over the other and neither do Catholics. But protestants do. WHY? So too, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles did not side with the sola scripturists who were the Judiacizers. The Judiacizers were the ones who referred to scripture. But the Apostles claimed a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and based their decision on that alone. They had authority outside of scripture. So the entire idea of sola scriptura is a man made tradition and thus is wrong. By the way, in 2,000 years no doctrine of the church has ever changed. Defined, yes: changed, no. But in just 500 years the idea of sola scriptura has changed. Previously sola scriptura meant that scripture was the only authority. That was what sola meant- only or alone (and still does). Now sola scriptura means, using your own words, “highest authority”. That inherently implies the existence of lesser authority. So protestantism has gone from only one authority to more than one authority.

False; you’ve clearly never read the Lutheran Confessions.

You get the last word.
1000 post limit.
Feel free to start a new one folks.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.