READ your Catechism, # 87. Note what a Catholic is required to do. When you joined the RCC, you agreed to this.
1. So, you are supporting and defending the BLIND following of teachers? Then I suspect you agree that Mormons should blindly follow their teacher, and I suspect you disagree with the plethora of divine warnings about FALSE teachers? And I suspect you disagree with Jesus when He praised the Ephesian Christians for NOT so doing with their teachers, but for regarding them as accountable, for testing/norming them, and for arbitrating them as FALSE (Rev. 2:2)?
2. Thus, you are confirming my point. The reason why the RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura is simply because it is opposed to ANY norming by ANY norm/rule in the singular, particular, exclusive case of self alone - demanding instead that whatever self alone says rather just be embraced "with docility?"
3. You may not have noticed that Hebrews 13:17 says NOTHING about the RCC or teachers of the RCC - inclusively, exclusive or otherwise.
When it comes to understanding the Bible on you own you, and every other mere mortal sinner, are blind.
Okay. Then so is every priest, bishop, archbishop and pope in the RCC because they are all "mere mortal sinners." Thus, why do you blindly follow ('with docility') what you believe are the blind? Isn't THAT "blindly following the blind?"
For Selene (so that we are discussing the same thing).....Sola ScripturaThe Official, Historic Definition:
"The Scriptures serve as the sole rule and norm of all doctrine"
(Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments 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 function 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)
Sola Scriptura IS
An embrace of God's inerrent, holy, written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.
Sola Scriptura is NOT
1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.
1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such in norming will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.
Sola Scriptura flows from the embrace of accountability
. (VERY IMPORTANT!)
THIS is where we primarily disagree.
Protestants generally accept that teachers of doctrine are accountable for such.
Those that disagree (mainly the RCC) reject Sola Scriptura because they reject accountability for doctrines (usually in the exclusive case of self alone, they generally insist on accountability for all OTHER teachers - right here, right now). The discussion of this soon centers in this issue: Are teachers accountable for the doctrine they teach? Or is a teacher exempt from such because that single one is incapable of error?
Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.
Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of using Scripture normatively. While practices are SELDOM taught in Scripture, we sometimes see them exampled. They need not be to be sound and good (we're using the internet right now, there's no examples of such in Scripture) but Sola Scriptura is found all over Scripture. Here's just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.
The following examples of the Apostles doing so: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 Of course, during this time, The Catholic Church was not mentioned at all. For anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any context concerning any matter.Norming:
Norming is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of a position. Bob the Builder is hired by us to build a fence 6 feet tall. He's done and says it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to us, the issue then becomes: is it correct? Evaluating that is called "norming."
The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the Standard in such. This is technically called the "norma normans" in epistemology. It is the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") for norming. Let's say you and I and Bob the Builder all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape as our canon (the word literally means "measuring stick" and comes from the epistemology of norming). We are all accepting accountability for the position (that the fence is 6 feet tall) and we are all embracing the same rule/canon/norma normans. We all have one, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose, and it is objective - knowable to all, alterable by none, above and beyond all parties involved.
In theology, accountability is also relevant for truth is. Thus norming is required.
Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.
The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative rule/canon (it doesn't) but because it rejects accountability in doctrine in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone, requiring instead that all just accept whatever it says "with docility." (CCC 87) just as the Catholics in this thread are attempting to state and defend.