Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

**
I’m not a “Fundamentalist” but as a Lutheran (and Catholics like to say that Luther invented this), I’ll take a shot…**

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

**Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura. **

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Cominghome89]

**

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans** (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

.

This was a very interesting post, and I think a good general thought on what Sola Scriptura means. But that last paragraph still raises drastic problems.

You say that, because the scriptures are the Word of God, they can be used as rule and canon for interpreting matters of faith. As an example, you cite that all literate people know the words of Romans 3:23 and that the scripture can be used as an “objective and knowable, unalterable” canon. This is simply not so, because the words of scripture alone are not necessarily objective.

Let’s use for an example the verse you cited, Romans 3:23, which says “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” Some could take this to mean that since no humans are perfect, none will ever see God’s glory, which is Heaven. Some would take this to mean that we do not live in a world of God’s glory, like the Garden of Eden, because we have all sinned. I would personally take this to mean that since we have sinned, it is only by the grace of God that I may receive His glory in Heaven, a gift freely given by God to us, despite our sinfulness.

Now, did I get my personal interpretation because I simply read the words and that is what they objectively said? Of course not, since a million other people could get a million different interpretations from this verse. Which comes right back to my original statement. The Bible is an excellent source of knowledge, the only book that contains the fullness of the truth. But the Church is where we get authority, where we get the knowledge of what the texts were originally intended to say and how they apply universally. Without the authority of the teacher, the book is open to all kinds of heresy.

What good is the most perfect textbook, if there is no true teacher?

The problem still stands. If you take away the teaching authority of the Church, you get “as many theologies as there are heads.”

In “Crossing the Tiber” by Steven Ray, he points out “In a letter to Heinrich Zwingli, Martin Luther conceded that reformers would again have to take refuge in the Church councils in order to preserve the unity of faith on account of the many interpretations that were given to the Scriptures.” Now if Luther himself began to doubt the legitimacy of sola scriptura back then, what would he think of Christianity now?

Peace and blessings,
Frank

 

[AmericanJosiah]

American Josiah:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration

: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

I hope that helps.

You say that, because the scriptures are the Word of God, they can be used as rule and canon for interpreting matters of faith. As an example, you cite that all literate people know the words of Romans 3:23 and that the scripture can be used as an “objective and knowable, unalterable” canon. This is simply not so, because the words of scripture alone are not necessarily objective.

What good is the most perfect textbook, if there is no true teacher?

The problem still stands. If you take away the teaching authority of the Church, you get “as many theologies as there are heads.”

In “Crossing the Tiber” by Steven Ray, he points out “In a letter to Heinrich Zwingli, Martin Luther conceded that reformers would again have to take refuge in the Church councils in order to preserve the unity of faith on account of the many interpretations that were given to the Scriptures.” Now if Luther himself began to doubt the legitimacy of sola scriptura back then, what would he think of Christianity now?

Peace and blessings,
Frank

ALL parties in the evaluation can read Romans 3:23. If the words are the rule, then the rule is outside and above ALL parties, it’s knowable and unalterable, and accepted by all in an historic and ecumenical manner. It becomes a solid and sound rule, imho.

What you seem to want to do is replace this with one declaring the VIEWS of one (self) as the rule/canon/norma normans. You are correct that Sola Scriptura would reject that praxis - that would be an express of self declaring the views of self as the rule/canon for the evalation of the views of self. IMHO, all this CAN do is help determine if self agrees with self (self almost always does, lol) - it has zero relevance to self being correct.

Now, where your issue has stronger relevance, IMHO, is in the arbitration (an issue outside and beyond this thread - and I hope not a rule violation here for me to address quickly and in passing). But, regardless of what rubric is used there, again, if self simply designates self as the sole arbiter and then self also designates the views/interpretations/positions of self as the canon/rule/norma nomans, then we’ve just make the situation even LESS helpful: self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self. Again, read my illustration above.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ralphinal]

Josiah,
What do you do if two groups, using the same Scriptures, come to two totally different ideas? Who is right?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,
What do you do if two groups, using the same Scriptures, come to two totally different ideas? Who is right?

REGARDLESS of how a party embraces a position, using Sola Scriptura, the canon would be Scripture.

Allow me to re-post in hopes of bringing some clarification:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Evaluation:

IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

What do you do if two groups, using the same Scriptures, come to two totally different ideas? Who is right?

… consider that question from the position of The Catholic Church. IT alone simply decalres that IT alone is right. Well, anyone can simply appoint self alone as the sole authority and sole arbiter, and simply designate the views of self as the rule/canon for the evaluations of the views of self. But in that case, self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self; IMHO this has zero relevance to whether self is correct. I can say that Mary lived to the age of 300 and died in San Diego. Now, if I appoint myself as the sole arbiter and appoint my own views (my Tradition) as the rule/canon for the evaluations of my views, then the issue would be I alone conclude that my view agrees with my view? It’s likely I will so conclude, but is that relevant to the issue of correctness? IMHO, that’s not a rubric for norming AT ALL - it simply circumvents the question. In Catholicism, this too is justified since The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone cannot err (officially anyway) in matters of faith and morals, so that self alone simply exempts self alone from accountability - and thus the entire issue of norming. “I alone am right because I alone am right thus when I declare that I alone am right I ergo must be right.” Okay, I think we all follow that, but that seems to me to be an evasion of the issue rather than a superior way of determining it.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Holly3278]

I would love to know how those who advocate sola scriptura explain this verse from scripture:

(2 Thessalonians 2:15 NAB-A) Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

 

[Holly3278]

Twenty-One Reasons To Reject Sola Scriptura

 

[Cominghome89]

Now it just seems like we are playing with words. Using the Bible, a collection of books describing God’s interaction with man throughout history, as a rule and canon, is completely vague. The interpretation is all that matters, it is not a separate issue. The Bible can mean absolutely anything to absolutely anyone, so the fact that you claim it is the best rule and canon, besides being historically insufficient, is ineffective at best.

Can you please clarify what you mean without the scientific vocabulary. Your use of praxis, norm, rule and canon seems to overshadow what we are simply trying to discuss. I am asking how Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, is practical and correct in the life of a Christian. In other words, how can we base our faith in God, and thus our conduct towards people, on a book that is open to the interpretation of every person without a single authority to clarify WHAT this book is saying?

Peace and blessings,
Frank

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Can you please clarify what you mean without the scientific vocabulary. Your use of praxis, norm, rule and canon seems to overshadow what we are simply trying to discuss. I am asking how Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, is practical and correct in the life of a Christian. In other words, how can we base our faith in God, and thus our conduct towards people, on a book that is open to the interpretation of every person without a single authority to clarify WHAT this book is saying?

Peace and blessings,
Frank

Read post # 25. I think it is clear. Perhaps especially the illustration. And then the evaulations (in red print).

I’m not sure, but you may be looking at issues OTHER THAN the issue of this thread and the the issue of the embraced rule/canon.

The issue is not “a good guide,” the issue is the embraced canon for the evaluation of the correctness of positions…

IF truth and correctness matter (and if one simply declares self as incapable of error - then one alone has simply exempted self alone from the question), then the first question we need to address is WHAT will serve as the rule for this determination. THAT is the sole, exclusively, only issue of Sola Scriptura: that praxis embraces Scripture as that rule. The Catholic Church of course rejects that rule. But then it regards the entire question as moot since it declares itself as exempt from norming since it declares itself as infallible/unaccountable; one party has simply come to the table (as it where) declaring that self alone is correct because self alone is correct so when self alone declares that self alone is correct, self alone thus be correct. (Ironcially, it rejects this praxis for any other).

Sorry if the language is a bit technical. I tried to define it in the posts.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ntisawesome]

Josiah, I very much appreciate the immense effort you put into your well thought out posts.

But I agree with what was said above: I felt a bit bogged down with your fancy terminology.

I couldn’t find an answer to the question:

What do you do if two groups, using the same Scriptures, come to two totally different ideas? Who is right?

Can you explain it to the rest of us who are laypeoples?

-nt

 

[2nd_Adam]

“Here is a defense of sola scriptura. You will find that the Catholic view to be challenged unlike your RCIA class”

Yes, but there was no Bible in the early Church; teaching was by word of mouth from the Apostles and passed down from there orally. The Canon of Scripture only recognized much later. Help us out here, 2ndAdam.

Ah… that’s the fallacy of the Catholic position. Jesus and the Apostle quoted from the written Word all the time. Heck, the NT is made up of Old Testament quotes. Jesus is the fulfillment in what was written in the OT. Look at the answer of Jesus…

Matthew 4

The Temptation of Jesus

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

 

[2nd_Adam]

The one tried and true scripture verse that doesn’t seem to have an answer within Sola Scriptura Christians (all you Catholics who engage in apologetics should have this memorized ) 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The letters of the apostles are certainly the Bible. The oral statements that we must hold fast to are…whatever our pastor says? Not quite. This is a disciple speaking guided by the Holy Spirit. The only oral statements that can be traced back to first Christians are none other than the teaching of the Catholic Church.

If any Protestant would like to comment on this verse, I would be very interested to hear.

Peace and blessings,
Frank

There’s a point when the oral tradition was written down to become written tradition, do you agree? I don’t think the Catholic Church has a list of oral tradition that they have received, correct? If you can give me a list of oral tradition that the Catholic Church received, please post it so I can read them for myself.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, I very much appreciate the immense effort you put into your well thought out posts

Can you explain it to the rest of us who are laypeoples? :

-nt

See post # 25 - including that in red font.

Your question is one of ARBITRATION - which is not the issue of this thread (and thus I’m not permitted by the website for us to address it, at least at length).

Let’s use an illustration (one I used above, I think).

Bob is contracted to build a fense, 6 feet tall. It’s done, and it’s his position that it IS the required six feet tall. THAT becomes his position.

Now, if it matters if he is correct, then we have entered the process of norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness or truth or validity. It applies in ALL disciplines - not just theology.

The first issue would be WHAT will serve as the Standard. In epistemology, this is called the “norma normans” (literally, the norm that norms). Now, let’s say that in determining if Bob is correct and that wall is 6 feet tall, we may all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, we’d have Sola Sears Measuring Tape (lol). Of course, we could embrace the opinion of Bob about the matter as the norma normans for this issue - but I hope you see the obvious circular nature of that. We could use MY opinion of the issue (but again, you note the lack of objectivity there). In all disciples (again, nothin’ unque about Theology here), the embraced norm, rule, canon is the most objective, universally accepted, the most OUTSIDE all parties. The Sears Measuring Tape might work better than Bob designating the opinions of Bob as the norm, rule, canon for the opinions of Bob. Follow? Now, The Catholic Church rejects using Scripture as the rule and thus rejects The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura).

There of course is another basic issue in this process that FOLLOWS the determination of the rule, canon, standard, plumbline. It is the issue of arbitration. HOW will it be determined if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring tape” (rule, canon)? That is a separate issue, and it is not addressed by Sola Scriptura and thus cannot be discussed here (but in passing). Somehow, a process will need to be agreed upon as to HOW it will be determined if the position “measures up” to the “Measuring Tape.” But, again, this MUST follow the determination of what will serve as the rule. But this is the issue of your question. Now, we could let Bob determine it - using the measuring tape: Bob (whose position is under review) could be designated as the sole arbiter. Certainly Bob may want that (just as The Catholic Church always insists that it - exclusively - be the sole arbiter in all matters, including the unique position of itself under review). Or maybe we’ll determine that all parties in this (including me if it’s my wall!) will determine this together. Or maybe Bob will be excluded and Jim and Sharon will determine it. But again, we are WAY off topic. Sola Scriptura doesn’t address this latter point - the issue of arbitration. It only addresses the first point - that of the embraced rule.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ralphinal]

REGARDLESS of how a party embraces a position, using Sola Scriptura, the canon would be Scripture.

Allow me to re-post in hopes of bringing some clarification:

In ALL disciplines (nothin’ unique about theology in this sense), there is the issue of norming. A position is taken. Unless one is a raging relativist, the issue then becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.”

In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine - but all others will attack what I propose in hopes of revealing weaknesses and to force me to support (or remove or refine) my position. The “canon” for us is math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence. I cannot say it’s true cuz I say it is or because my paper says it is, I can’t point to a dream I had after hitting my head on the toilet or that I alone agree with I alone - those are not recognized canons for physics. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.

Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). Well, he could SAY it is, and I could SAY it’s not and we’d have nothing more than “he says, he says.” Maybe Jim says it’s actually 4 feet tall. Robert says its 7 feet tall. And Sharon says it’s 15 feet tall! They all have something to say… The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule/norma normans.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.

Evaluation:

IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) since that merely creates a circle of self-authentication. Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies.

… consider that question from the position of The Catholic Church. IT alone simply decalres that IT alone is right. Well, anyone can simply appoint self alone as the sole authority and sole arbiter, and simply designate the views of self as the rule/canon for the evaluations of the views of self. But in that case, self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self; IMHO this has zero relevance to whether self is correct. I can say that Mary lived to the age of 300 and died in San Diego. Now, if I appoint myself as the sole arbiter and appoint my own views (my Tradition) as the rule/canon for the evaluations of my views, then the issue would be I alone conclude that my view agrees with my view? It’s likely I will so conclude, but is that relevant to the issue of correctness? IMHO, that’s not a rubric for norming AT ALL - it simply circumvents the question. In Catholicism, this too is justified since The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone cannot err (officially anyway) in matters of faith and morals, so that self alone simply exempts self alone from accountability - and thus the entire issue of norming. “I alone am right because I alone am right thus when I declare that I alone am right I ergo must be right.” Okay, I think we all follow that, but that seems to me to be an evasion of the issue rather than a superior way of determining it.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

You did not answer this question. When TWO groups BOTH use Sola Scriptura to determine theology and they reach opposing views, HOW do you decide who is correct?

If it is your measuring stick, than you would assume that it is impossible to get two different measurements. We do. How do you reconcile it?

If you were looking for a church, how can you say who is right?

 

[PMo]

Read post # 25. I think it is clear. Perhaps especially the illustration. And then the evaulations (in red print).

I’m not sure, but you may be looking at issues OTHER THAN the issue of this thread and the the issue of the embraced rule/canon.

The issue is not “a good guide,” the issue is the embraced canon for the evaluation of the correctness of positions…

IF truth and correctness matter (and if one simply declares self as incapable of error - then one alone has simply exempted self alone from the question), then the first question we need to address is WHAT will serve as the rule for this determination. THAT is the sole, exclusively, only issue of Sola Scriptura: that praxis embraces Scripture as that rule. The Catholic Church of course rejects that rule. But then it regards the entire question as moot since it declares itself as exempt from norming since it declares itself as infallible/unaccountable; one party has simply come to the table (as it where) declaring that self alone is correct because self alone is correct so when self alone declares that self alone is correct, self alone thus be correct. (Ironcially, it rejects this praxis for any other).

Sorry if the language is a bit technical. I tried to define it in the posts.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

Josiah:

There seems to be a lack of clear communication here. A few people on this thread have stated that your post is not clear and is bogged down with scientific language. You, in turn, keep saying to read post #25. That is not correcting the problem. Telling someone to keep reading the same thing over and over is not going to make it any clearer. What needs to happen is that you change the language in your posts so that the rest of us can understand what you are trying to say. In addition, you have avoided answering the question several people have asked you to answer:

What do you do if two groups, using the same Scriptures, come to two totally different ideas? Who is right?

Please answer the question. Your answer would be pertaining to the issue of this thread which is:

Can the idea of Sola Scriptura be defended as being true?

 

[JonNC]

You did not answer this question. When TWO groups BOTH use Sola Scriptura to determine theology and they reach opposing views, HOW do you decide who is correct?

If it is your measuring stick, than you would assume that it is impossible to get two different measurements. We do. How do you reconcile it?

If you were looking for a church, how can you say who is right?

Ralph,
I do not feel as constrained as Josiah to speak of “arbitration” (I guess because I’ve been here longer, and have seen threads go crazy off topic. )
Would every Catholic here agree that nothing the Magisterium teaches, nothing in the councils, nothing the pope states ex cathedra contradicts or violates scripture?
If so, in a way, one could say you are making a “sola scriptura” statement. But Catholics go beyond that, to an acknowledgement that Tradition and the Magisterium will always be true because of the protection of the Holy Spirit. You trust them to be true. So, you view authority as a three legged stool - scripture, Tradition, Magisterium.
Am I right?

A Lutheran, however, trusts scripture alone to be true, and we trust our “Tradition” and teachers only insofar as they can be measured by scripture. So, for us, Augsburg is true, not because we believe the writers could not make a mistake in faith, but because we believe it reflects the truth of scripture.

For Catholics, doctrine and dogma are decided (Josiah says arbitrated) by scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium/Pope - all three trusted to be true equally.
A Lutheran has Tradition (some we share with you), teachers, and scripture, but those teachers and Tradition are not equal to scripture.

Sola scriptura does not make doctrine. Doctrine are made by teachers, who use both scripture and other writings to teach. It only says the decisions made by teachers and teachings are, in the end, measured by scripture alone.

Sola scriptura does not eliminate all other writings. That is foolishness. Examples:
The three creeds are clear, concise, statements of the true faith.
Luther left us a wonderful tool, his Small Catechism, to use in the instruction of the young in the faith.

Jon

PS. Gosh, I hope I didn’t goof anything up.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,
I do not feel as constrained as Josiah to speak of “arbitration” (I guess because I’ve been here longer, and have seen threads go crazy off topic. )
Would every Catholic here agree that nothing the Magisterium teaches, nothing in the councils, nothing the pope states ex cathedra contradicts or violates scripture?
If so, in a way, one could say you are making a “sola scriptura” statement. But Catholics go beyond that, to an acknowledgement that Tradition and the Magisterium will always be true because of the protection of the Holy Spirit. You trust them to be true. So, you view authority as a three legged stool - scripture, Tradition, Magisterium.
Am I right?

A Lutheran, however, trusts scripture alone to be true, and we trust our “Tradition” and teachers only insofar as they can be measured by scripture. So, for us, Augsburg is true, not because we believe the writers could not make a mistake in faith, but because we believe it reflects the truth of scripture.

For Catholics, doctrine and dogma are decided (Josiah says arbitrated) by scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium/Pope - all three trusted to be true equally.
A Lutheran has Tradition (some we share with you), teachers, and scripture, but those teachers and Tradition are not equal to scripture.

Sola scriptura does not make doctrine. Doctrine are made by teachers, who use both scripture and other writings to teach. It only says the decisions made by teachers and teachings are, in the end, measured by scripture alone.

Sola scriptura does not eliminate all other writings. That is foolishness. Examples:
The three creeds are clear, concise, statements of the true faith.
Luther left us a wonderful tool, his Small Catechism, to use in the instruction of the young in the faith.

Jon

PS. Gosh, I hope I didn’t goof anything up.

No, I am cool with all of that (both sides of the argument). What I want to know is HOW, according to a sola scriptura basis, you can tell who is right when you have two opposing views on things.

If Scriptures is the final rule of faith, and two groups use Scripture to prove totally different views, who is correct?

 

[JonNC]

No, I am cool with all of that (both sides of the argument). What I want to know is HOW, according to a sola scriptura basis, you can tell who is right when you have two opposing views on things.

If Scriptures is the final rule of faith, and two groups use Scripture to prove totally different views, who is correct?

How do you decide, Ralph? Even if you use the Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium instead of scripture alone, how do you decide?

Without putting words in your mouth, I’m guessing you submit to the Church because you believe it has the authority to not only be right, but to say something is right.
To perhaps lesser degree, I do the same thing. I trust the Augsburg Confession is a right reflection of God’s word.

Now, either of us could change our minds, based on how we believe the Spirit leads us.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

How do you decide, Ralph? Even if you use the Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium instead of scripture alone, how do you decide?

Without putting words in your mouth, I’m guessing you submit to the Church because you believe it has the authority to not only be right, but to say something is right.
To perhaps lesser degree, I do the same thing. I trust the Augsburg Confession is a right reflection of God’s word.

Now, either of us could change our minds, based on how we believe the Spirit leads us.

Jon

Well, even as a Lutheran, you could still say that because the FINAL word is not clear, I will look at what has been the faith since day one and go from there. To an extent, that is the idea behind the Augsburg Confession: a return to first century understandings.

This is, to me, where sola scriptura ALONE fails. When it is coupled with other means to judge, it might work.

The best example is that of the Real Presence. Both sides use Scriptures, some of them the same ones. Now, which one it right?

As a praxis, sola scriptura is fine but not 100% effective. I want to know what you do when you hit the wall.

The Holy Spirit cannot be leading people in opposite directions for them to stay there. Sure, one may be guided from Muslim to Pentecostal to Lutheran to Catholic, but they are moving along as they can grow in the faith. It is NOT possible for the Spirit to say “You can deny the Real Presence because it is the right way” and “You can accept it because that is the correct view.” at the same time

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ntisawesome,

Let me welcome you to the list and encourage you as you journey toward a greater understanding of Christ and His Church. You have taken a bit step - but, you are not alone. I think you will find this list to a real source of informaiton and insight.

Now, personally, I do not think there is any real argument to support SS. Like you said, if the Bible is not claiming it is the sole source - then just who can make such a claim for the Bible? To my way of thinking, the entire argument hinges on this.

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

Best wishes,