Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Cominghome89]

Too many posts have been added since my last, and I don’t know where to begin.

I have to disagree with the post that said eventually oral tradition was written down and became written tradition. The written tradition, the four gospels and the epistles, as well as revelation (and of course the OT) are the story of God’s interaction with many. They were written down to preserve what really happened, because when the apostles realized that the apocalypse was not going to occur in their lifetime, they needed to write the history of what had happened. By this point, the Church was well established. The Bible was never meant to replace oral tradition, it was a beautiful gift inspired by the Holy Spirit, so us Christians 2,000 years later could know the Gospel. This does not make it the only tool to measure truth.

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.’”

This is misleading as well. Of course they quoted the Old Testament. Scripture was an essential part of the faith, OT scripture being the key. At this point, NOBODY thought that these gospels and epistles were going to be added to the Holy Book. They were simply accounts written by the first apostles, so the teaching of Jesus could be passed down. To think they were adding to the very Word of God would have been a very serious claim.

The point is, this Book, inspired and beautiful, does have the fullness of God’s interaction with man in it. But it is still a book. It is not the Christian faith. Nothing that the Church teaches has or ever will contradict the Bible, because this is the Church’s Book. The Church is God-breathed and inspired, just as the Bible is.

The words of the Bible can be misinterpreted, mistranslated and taken out of context, but the Book still remains the Word of God. In the same way, corrupt clergy, confused lay faithful, etc. will always come and go, but the Church still remains God’s mouthpiece. Human error can never change the Truth that God has given us.

Peace and blessings,
Frank

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 2nd Adam,

Thank you for providing this ‘defense’ of SS. I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting it to this post. As we will shortly see, this ‘defense’ falls woefully short of proving anything…even by 1692 standards.

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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=403814

From the Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson – Published in 1692

Page 30 – The Scriptures

The Papists cannot deny that the Scriptures is divine and sacred, but they affirm quad nos, with respect to us, it receives its divine authority from the church; and in proof of it they bring that Scripture, 1 Tim 3:15, where the church is said to be the ground and pillar of truth.

It is true, the church is the pillar of the truth; but it does not therefore follow that the Scripture has its authority from the church. The king’s proclamation is fixed on the pillar, the pillar holds it out, that all may read, but the proclamation does not receive its authority from the pillar, but from the king; so the church holds forth the Scriptures, but they do not receive their authority from the church, but from God. If the Word of God be divine, merely because the church holds it forth, then it will follow, that our faith is to be built upon the church, and not upon the Word, contrary to Ephesians 2:20 “Built upon the foundation (that is the doctrine) of the apostles and prophets.”

The basic argument is this: where did the Bible come from? And, while we can all identify that Scripture is the Inspired Word of God - there were a lot of documents lying around before there was a recognized “bible”. While there are several things we are sure of, let’s start off with the basics. That First Pentecost (taking place about 33AD) is recognized as the Birthday of God’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church). The Holy Spirit did many wonderous deeds and gave mighty Gifts to those assembeled in that room - but, the one thing the Holy Spirit did NOT do was to deliver a book! While the books that make up the Canon of the OT were in existence - none of the books of the NT had been written yet!

The Sacred Writers were not the only people who could put ink to paper - there were many other documents out there. Some were simply inspirational writings. Others were malicious tracts and forgeries by the Gnostics in an effort to confuse believers and converts. The Early Catholic Church realized that a Standard or Canon had to be established on what was and what was not the Word of God.

It was the Catholic Church that estabished the Canon of Scripture - not the other way around. Here is an interesting quote:

Catholicism sees the biblical canon as directly related to the nature of the Church and the authority with which it acts in the world. Scripture is not only inspired and authoritative, but definitively established.

Those who hold otherwise are breaking with tradition as it has been guarded by the Church. Protestantism dismisses this position because it supposedly concedes too much to the Church.

Protestants tend to claim Scripture is “self-evidencing.” But it’s hard to see from, say, the 25 verses of Jude that this short book is self-evidently the Word of God. The same can be said of many of the other sacred books.

The Protestant approach is defective because it was the early Church, not the Bible itself, which resolved the issue of the canon. It was the authority of the Catholic bishops which settled disputes about which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. (catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001revw.asp)

Here are a couple of other links that I think will give you something to consider, 2nd Adam:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507bt.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/sola%20scriptura

In all honesty, there is significant creidble evidence that the Bible that you are holding on to today (even that abridged version…) comes from the Catholic Church that established the Canon.

God bless

 

[reteeks21]

Hi, 2nd Adam,

Thank you for providing this ‘defense’ of SS. I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting it to this post. As we will shortly see, this ‘defense’ falls woefully short of proving anything…even by 1692 standards.

From the Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson – Published in 1692

Page 30 – The Scriptures

The Papists cannot deny that the Scriptures is divine and sacred, but they affirm quad nos, with respect to us, it receives its divine authority from the church; and in proof of it they bring that Scripture, 1 Tim 3:15, where the church is said to be the ground and pillar of truth.

It is true, the church is the pillar of the truth; but it does not therefore follow that the Scripture has its authority from the church. The king’s proclamation is fixed on the pillar, the pillar holds it out, that all may read, but the proclamation does not receive its authority from the pillar, but from the king; so the church holds forth the Scriptures, but they do not receive their authority from the church, but from God. If the Word of God be divine, merely because the church holds it forth, then it will follow, that our faith is to be built upon the church, and not upon the Word, contrary to Ephesians 2:20 “Built upon the foundation (that is the doctrine) of the apostles and prophets.”

The basic argument is this: where did the Bible come from? And, while we can all identify that Scripture is the Inspired Word of God - there were a lot of documents lying around before there was a recognized “bible”. While there are several things we are sure of, let’s start off with the basics. That First Pentecost (taking place about 33AD) is recognized as the Birthday of God’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church). The Holy Spirit did many wonderous deeds and gave mighty Gifts to those assembeled in that room - but, the one thing the Holy Spirit did NOT do was to deliver a book! While the books that make up the Canon of the OT were in existence - none of the books of the NT had been written yet!

The Sacred Writers were not the only people who could put ink to paper - there were many other documents out there. Some were simply inspirational writings. Others were malicious tracts and forgeries by the Gnostics in an effort to confuse believers and converts. The Early Catholic Church realized that a Standard or Canon had to be established on what was and what was not the Word of God.

It was the Catholic Church that estabished the Canon of Scripture - not the other way around. Here is an interesting quote:

Catholicism sees the biblical canon as directly related to the nature of the Church and the authority with which it acts in the world. Scripture is not only inspired and authoritative, but definitively established.

Those who hold otherwise are breaking with tradition as it has been guarded by the Church. Protestantism dismisses this position because it supposedly concedes too much to the Church.

Protestants tend to claim Scripture is “self-evidencing.” But it’s hard to see from, say, the 25 verses of Jude that this short book is self-evidently the Word of God. The same can be said of many of the other sacred books.

The Protestant approach is defective because it was the early Church, not the Bible itself, which resolved the issue of the canon. It was the authority of the Catholic bishops which settled disputes about which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. (catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001revw.asp)

Here are a couple of other links that I think will give you something to consider, 2nd Adam:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507bt.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/sola%20scriptura

In all honesty, there is significant creidble evidence that the Bible that you are holding on to today (even that abridged version…) comes from the Catholic Church that established the Canon.

God bless

Great comments, great ideas, great links etc, but all of these are ignored and in some cases condemned by Protestants who believe that the Church that had been in existence for over 1,500 years all of a sudden ceased to exist because one man had problems with sin and shame. Now, I am not condemning Luther. I actually agree with him on some things, but he changed his mind like he changed his underwear (if they wore any back then:shrug, and that seriously hurts his credibility. The Church never wavered in its core beliefs, the very beliefs that Luther decided to attack. History nor facts are on the sides, completely, of the reformers. That’s just a fact.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 2nd Adam,

Not quite…! Now, wouldn’t it be expected that the Son of God would know what was inspired and what wasn’t? The idea of the Apostles and Paul quoting from inspired OT text is that God was not going to incorporate fraud into His Word - so, these inspired writers were inspired with the Truth.

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.’”

But, quoting from selected passages of certain books in the OT does not usher in the other books of the OT that were not quoted from. So, we are back to the same question on just how did those books of the OT come to be in our Bible today? If you do your homework, you will see that the Catholic Church was responsible for establishing the Canon of the OT. Ah, but, don’t stop there.

None of the books of the NT were written during the time of Christ. It would be over 20 years from Christ Rising from the dead before the first word of NT text was written. It would be about 67 years from the Resurrection before the last book in the NT was written. And, remember, there was no priting press back then - each document had to be hand written.

It was hundreds of years from the birth of Christ before there was an established Canon - and that was done under the authority of the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church. There really is no way around that. So, when you ask who was here first - the answer is the Catholic Church - not the NT. And, if you are honest, you would realize and acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church for providing you with the Bible.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Reteeks21,

I think it was Archbiship Fulton Sheen who said that a lie is still a lie no matter how many people believe it to be true … and the truth is still the truth no matter how many don’t believe it.

Ultimately, all that can be done is to present the evidence in a logical manner, without mischief and in real humility. Praying for God’s Grace to open the hearts of those who sincerely seek His Truth must preceed any response.

Great comments, great ideas, great links etc, but all of these are ignored and in some cases condemned by Protestants who believe that the Church that had been in existence for over 1,500 years all of a sudden ceased to exist because one man had problems with sin and shame. Now, I am not condemning Luther. I actually agree with him on some things, but he changed his mind like he changed his underwear (if they wore any back then:shrug, and that seriously hurts his credibility. The Church never wavered in its core beliefs, the very beliefs that Luther decided to attack. History nor facts are on the sides, completely, of the reformers. That’s just a fact.

No doubt about it, Marty was right on specific to the problem of selling indulgences! He could have followed in the footsteps of St. Catherine of Siena in reforming a very troubled Church (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena) that was in REAL need of reforming. He chose, however, not to reform but to remake a church in his own image with himself as pope.

God bless,

 

[reteeks21]

Hi, Reteeks21,

I think it was Archbiship Fulton Sheen who said that a lie is still a lie no matter how many people believe it to be true … and the truth is still the truth no matter how many don’t believe it.

Ultimately, all that can be done is to present the evidence in a logical manner, without mischief and in real humility. Praying for God’s Grace to open the hearts of those who sincerely seek His Truth must preceed any response.

No doubt about it, Marty was right on specific to the problem of selling indulgences! He could have followed in the footsteps of St. Catherine of Siena in reforming a very troubled Church (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena) that was in REAL need of reforming. He chose, however, not to reform but to remake a church in his own image with himself as pope.

God bless,

Amen, amen, and amen! Luther could have stuck with the truth and not gone riding off like Don Quixote, but he kept going and going. The man could have truly been a saint and reformer of the Church and had his name etched in history as a “rescuer” of the Church but he chose otherwise. What a blithering shame!

 

[Matthew1820]

With all due respect, would a better question not be, “Can it be defended that when the Pope issues statements ‘ex cathedra,’ they are equal in authority to the very Word of God”? Again, with all due respect, the Bible provides some basis for Sola Scriptura, but what basis is there that the Pope has the authority to speak on behalf of God?

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

While this is most likely speaking of the Old Testament explicitly, there are points in the New Testament, where the writers refer to OTHER New Testament writings as being inspired by God as well. I will find them for you if you want. I simply say this to say, it is easier to defend the Old Testament’s divinity than it is to defend the New Testament’s. But they are both equally divine, inspired by God and infallible in their original forms (which we don’t have, but what we do have is very, very close and no doctrines are at stake because of what is lacking).

2 Peter 1:20-21:Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Again, we have that the scriptures are from God, written by men, but inspired by God.

AGAIN, with all due respect, I believe that either the Pope’s ex cathedra doctrines are the Word of God, OR, the Bible is the Word of God. I do not believe that both can be true. This is because there are many contradictions between the Pope’s ex cathedra statements and the Bible.

For example, I do not know if this was issued ex cathedra, but the Catholic church holds that the leader of a church, the priest, cannot marry. But the Bible gives specific instructions for pastors, or leaders of churches, and it specifically says, “a husband of but one wife” (1Timothy 3). Sounds like he can get married, right??? Further, The Bible teaches that if anyone forbids marriage, he practices the doctrines of demons. The Bible explicitly says that it is demonic…devilish…from Satan…if anyone tells anyone else that they cannot get married (1 Timothy 4:3). This same scripture (1 Timothy 4:3) says that if anyone advocates abstaining from certain foods, they practice the doctrine of demons as well! This sounds to me like the forbidding of eating red meat during Lent…

It is important to establish whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you believe that, it is very important to take it seriously. God is all powerful, but there ARE some things He cannot do. He cannot contradict himself because there is only one truth, only one thing can be true at a time. So if anyone says something, and offers it to be equal to the Word of God, it is imperative to make certain that it fits in with what God has already said in the Bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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?

Lost me…

Are you speaking of hermeneutics instead of norming? Or are you speaking of arbitration?

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. It is not hermeneutics (interpretation). It is not teaching. It is not arbitration.

Let’s use this illustration. A friendly policeman has his radar on you, and notes that you are driving your automobile at 50 MPH. He proceeds to pull you over. You and he stop by the side of the road, where next to you both, is a large, square white sign with large black numerals and letters that read, “MAX SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH.” The policeman directs the attention of you both to that sign (as he should under the Rule of Law that is embraced in all civilized societies). In THAT case, that sign becomes the rule. It’s commonly called, “the rule of law.”

Now, I guess we could talk about various ways to interpret it. Maybe you read it as saying “53 MPH” not “35.” Or maybe there’s an arbitration issue: is 50 MPH faster than 35? But, either way - the rule would be the sign, thus the hermeneutics and/or arbitration would be according to that rule/canon/norma normans.

Now, yes, you could choose a different rule. You could decide that the rule is the sign in your own heart (CCC 113?) as interpreted by your own self (CCC 85?) which all must accept with docility (CCC 87?). Or maybe you could decide that the rule is your views about driving as you yourself chose, define and interpret your own views. Or maybe you can choose what it is said the engineer of this road felt was a good speed limit, and he told someone (you dont know who), who told someone (you don’t know who), who told someone… until finally someone told you. And THAT should be the rule, not the posted speed limit. There are other options, I agree. I’m not sure how those would go over with the friendly man in blue - but that doesn’t mean you can’t try.

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?

You are rising a different issue, one of arbitration. Sola Scriptura doesn’t have anything to do with the arbitration, it only addresses the issue of the rule/canon/norma normans. To go back to my illustartion, it would embrace the sign as the rule. Sure, you might argue that it actually says 53 and not 35 but since it is written in unalterable numerals, that shouldn’t be too hard to arbitrate. And of course, you could try to substitute some other rule such as your own personal feelings/opinions about your own driving and that should “trump” the sign, etc.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Matthew1820

Welcome to the list! I truly believe that you will find this list a real source of information and insight. Now, let me see if I can help you…

With all due respect, would a better question not be, “Can it be defended that when the Pope issues statements ‘ex cathedra,’ they are equal in authority to the very Word of God”? it probably would be best if you either remained with the topic thread or began your own thread on the quesiton you are asking. That way we can have a better chance of staying focused.

Again, with all due respect, the Bible provides some basis for Sola Scriptura, but what basis is there that the Pope has the authority to speak on behalf of God?

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

I think you will find this matter has been addressed. If you return to my post #42, you will find a number of links that provide both scriptural, scholarly and logical responses to this issue - and they do so with far better clarity then I can raise!

While this is most likely speaking of the Old Testament explicitly, there are points in the New Testament, where the writers refer to OTHER New Testament writings as being inspired by God as well. I will find them for you if you want. I simply say this to say, it is easier to defend the Old Testament’s divinity than it is to defend the New Testament’s. But they are both equally divine, inspired by God and infallible in their original forms (which we don’t have, but what we do have is very, very close and no doctrines are at stake because of what is lacking).

The ‘ease of defense’ is a curious way of describing something, if you conclude that both OT and NT are divinely inspired. Ultimately, validity rather then facility is the aim, eh? I mention this because you seem to backtrack that we do not have the documents, “…in their original forms…” like this is an impediment. I do not know about you, but I am doing well to read English.

2 Peter 1:20-21:Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Again, we have that the scriptures are from God, written by men, but inspired by God.

I guess I am missing the point you are trying to make here.

AGAIN, with all due respect, I believe that either the Pope’s ex cathedra doctrines are the Word of God, OR, the Bible is the Word of God. I do not believe that both can be true. This is because there are many contradictions between the Pope’s ex cathedra statements and the Bible.

And why do you not believe this? Seriously, what outright contradiction can you present that would put such a doubt in your mind. John ends his Gospel by telling us that Jesus did many things that were not written down. Yet you would limit yourself to what is written down. Don’t you find that a basic weakness in your presentation? If you don’t, I do…

For example, I do not know if this was issued ex cathedra, but the Catholic church holds that the leader of a church, the priest, cannot marry. But the Bible gives specific instructions for pastors, or leaders of churches, and it specifically says, “a husband of but one wife” (1Timothy 3). Sounds like he can get married, right??? Further, The Bible teaches that if anyone forbids marriage, he practices the doctrines of demons. The Bible explicitly says that it is demonic…devilish…from Satan…if anyone tells anyone else that they cannot get married (1 Timothy 4:3). This same scripture (1 Timothy 4:3) says that if anyone advocates abstaining from certain foods, they practice the doctrine of demons as well! This sounds to me like the forbidding of eating red meat during Lent…

Clerical celibacy is not a matter issued ex cathedra. Clerical celebacy is a matter of Church discipline. St. Paul apparently was not married and wished that others could be free (form marital obligations and responsibility) so they could focs on the spreading of God’s Word as he is doing. You are not calling Paul a demon or providing demonic instruction are you?

It is important to establish whether you believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you believe that, it is very important to take it seriously. God is all powerful, but there ARE some things He cannot do. He cannot contradict himself because there is only one truth, only one thing can be true at a time. So if anyone says something, and offers it to be equal to the Word of God, it is imperative to make certain that it fits in with what God has already said in the Bible.

Matthew1820, just where do you think that Bible (even the abbreviated version you probably have…) came from? Here is a chance to do some research. You know God did not deliver the Bible on Pentecost Sunday. You know it did not suddenly appear. So, just how did it come into being? Rather then me tell you - I think this is something you need to look at for yourself. When you get the answer(s), write again, I would enjoy talking to you about this.

God bless

 

[ralphinal]

Lost me…

Are you speaking of hermeneutics instead of norming? Or are you speaking of arbitration?

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. It is not hermeneutics (interpretation). It is not teaching. It is not arbitration.

Let’s use this illustration. A friendly policeman has his radar on you, and notes that you are driving your automobile at 50 MPH. He proceeds to pull you over. You and he stop by the side of the road, where next to you both, is a large, square white sign with large black numerals and letters that read, “MAX SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH.” The policeman directs the attention of you both to that sign (as he should under the Rule of Law that is embraced in all civilized societies). In THAT case, that sign becomes the rule. It’s commonly called, “the rule of law.”

Now, I guess we could talk about various ways to interpret it. Maybe you read it as saying “53 MPH” not “35.” Or maybe there’s an arbitration issue: is 50 MPH faster than 35? But, either way - the rule would be the sign, thus the hermeneutics and/or arbitration would be according to that rule/canon/norma normans.

Now, yes, you could choose a different rule. You could decide that the rule is the sign in your own heart (CCC 113?) as interpreted by your own self (CCC 85?) which all must accept with docility (CCC 87?). Or maybe you could decide that the rule is your views about driving as you yourself chose, define and interpret your own views. Or maybe you can choose what it is said the engineer of this road felt was a good speed limit, and he told someone (you dont know who), who told someone (you don’t know who), who told someone… until finally someone told you. And THAT should be the rule, not the posted speed limit. There are other options, I agree. I’m not sure how those would go over with the friendly man in blue - but that doesn’t mean you can’t try.

You are rising a different issue, one of arbitration. Sola Scriptura doesn’t have anything to do with the arbitration, it only addresses the issue of the rule/canon/norma normans. To go back to my illustartion, it would embrace the sign as the rule. Sure, you might argue that it actually says 53 and not 35 but since it is written in unalterable numerals, that shouldn’t be too hard to arbitrate. And of course, you could try to substitute some other rule such as your own personal feelings/opinions about your own driving and that should “trump” the sign, etc.

.

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. So, sola scriptura does not arbitrate. That means that there must be some other way to decide what is and is not the rule of faith in some matters. Sola scriptura does not interpret or teach, that means some other tool is needed.

Now, please stick to this one example. How can a CHristian decide who is correct about the Real Presence?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AmericanJosiah,

Sounds like you have spent some time with the men in blue discussing speeding issues… Let me see if I can simplify this without resorting to a complex analogy…

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. It is not hermeneutics (interpretation). It is not teaching. It is not arbitration.

it is also like trying to drive that car that wants to speed with no wheels!

Now, yes, you could choose a different rule. You could decide that the rule is the sign in your own heart (CCC 113?) as interpreted by your own self (CCC 85?) which all must accept with docility (CCC 87?). Or maybe you could decide that the rule is your views about driving as you yourself chose, define and interpret your own views. Or maybe you can choose what it is said the engineer of this road felt was a good speed limit, and he told someone (you dont know who), who told someone (you don’t know who), who told someone… until finally someone told you. And THAT should be the rule, not the posted speed limit. There are other options, I agree. I’m not sure how those would go over with the friendly man in blue - but that doesn’t mean you can’t try.

In order to facilitate discussion, I copied and pasted the three items in the CCC you referenced just to make it a bit easier for me to see what it is you are talking about:

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The issue as I see can be reduced to four statements:

1.) Christ promised that He would never abandon His Chruch - and, that would be the Catholic Chruch.

2-) No where in the Bible does it state that the Bible is the sole authority for revealing God’s Word.

3-) The Bible - as it exists today - was devleoped by the Early Catholic Church. This is simply a matter of history and has nothing to do with religious belief or denomination.

4-) The Catholic Church, founded by Christ on Peter, has been promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail - that it will not lead men into error by false teaching. And, it was the Catholic Chruch that is protected in perserving God’s Deposit of Faith.

Unlike a traffice sign, God’s Word is Living - and, sharper then any two edged sword…or traffic ticket! There is no contradiction in any teaching of the Cathoic Church and the Bible that it brought into the world for the enrichment of our life with Christ.

Quite honestly, when Christ build His Church on Peter (Matt 16), Christ knew Peter would immediately stub his toe - and was immediately rebuked by Christ for this. Christ also knew Peter would deny Him - and when Peter heard the cock crow, he realized that he had seriously sinned. Christ forgave Peter. Christ did not make a mistake in selecting Peter to be the first Pope - and all the popes that have been selected since Peter to Benedict XVI, have held their position by the Will of God to guide the Church of Christ (and that would be the Catholic Church).

Considering all of the sinful and inept and deceitful and corrupt men that have held this position for the past almost 2000 years - and the same doctrine is taught. Don’t you think that a mere human institution would have cashed and burned in its own folly? But, it is still here today, teaching what it has always taught. No protestant church can say that. No group that claims SS can stand with the same doctrine - even though they all stand with the same bible. Now, that is the reality of how things are - and this is where the rubber meets the road.

God bless

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Ok. So, sola scriptura does not arbitrate.

As has been stated. No one has ever remotely suggested that it does (well, that I know of). Scripture doesn’t arbitrate if someone is correct in a position any more than a speed limit sign arbitrates if someone in speeding. Both simply establish the canon/rule/norma normans.

That means that there must be some other way to decide what is and is not the rule of faith in some matters. Sola scriptura does not interpret or teach, that means some other tool is needed.

No.

It does NOT mean that some “OTHER” way is needed. Again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans. Sola Scriptura is that praxis, that embrace of that rule/canon. It doesn’t teach. It doesn’t decide. It doesn’t reveal. It’s not hermeneutics. It’s not arbitration. It’s not teaching. It’s not revelation. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans.

Let’s say Bob builds a wall. He says it’s six feet tall. THAT, ergo, becomes his position. Follow? Now, unless you are a raging relativist and it’s moot if the position is correct or not, or unless Bob alone insists that Bob alone is INCAPABLE of error and you must docilicly accept that and you do (in which case the issue is moot), then there is the issue of whether Bob is right and the wall IS six feet tall. THAT is called “norming.” The process of determining correctness, truth, validity.

There are TWO issues in this (well, two main ones). The FIRST is to mutually agree on the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (the norm that norms). Obviously, the more objective, the more knowable and unalterable by all parties, the more embraced as reliable by all parties - the better. Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape for this purpose. In that case, it becomes the rule/canon/norma normans. We will hold up things to THAT standard, plumbline, rule, canon. The SECOND issue then is how will it be determined if the wall “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the canon)? Perhaps we decide that Bob will measure it and alone view it and tell us the verdict. OR maybe I will do it. Or maybe… Somehow, the issue of arbitration ACCORDING TO THE RULE needs to be determined. Sola Scriptura addresses the first but not the second issue. But of course, in our discussions with Catholicism, we never get past the first issue since The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to the Rule of Scripture.

How can a CHristian decide who is correct about the Real Presence?

1. We can’t discuss that at length in this thread since that would be hijacking. This thread is about the defense of using Scripture as the Rule (perhaps as opposed to the alternative of The Catholic Church that we use the Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church plus the Scripture not on any page knowable to all but rather in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church plus the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church and the rulings, views, decisions and arbitrations of The Catholic Church as we all evaluate the positions of all - including The Catholic Church.
2. You are assuming private arbitration (which, as a Catholic, you must since The Catholic Church permits only ONE arbiter - itself).

Begin a thread on arbitration and I’ll participate. But in discussions with Catholics, this QUICKLY bogs down because The Catholic Church permits only one arbiter - itself, and it regards one as infallible and thus unaccountable in matters of faith and morals, at least officially, and that one is itself. And it permits only one rule/canon and that is the Tradition of itself, the Scripture in the heart of itself and the magisterium of itself. So, there’s just not anything to discuss outside of itself.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Lost as to what any of this has to do with this thread, but, anyway…

The issue as I see can be reduced to four statements:

1.) Christ promised that He would never abandon His Chruch - and, that would be the Catholic Chruch.

Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About or concerning anything. He never so much as even mentioned it. These are simply the claims of self for self.

2-) No where in the Bible does it state that the Bible is the sole authority for revealing God’s Word.

True enough, I just don’t have a clue what that has to do with anything.

BTW, it also never states that The Catholic Church is the sole authority or even an authority; in fact, it never states ANYTHING about it.

3-) The Bible - as it exists today - was devleoped by the Early Catholic Church. This is simply a matter of history and has nothing to do with religious belief or denomination.

That’s right, it has NOTHING to do with any denomination - including The Catholic Church. In reality, most of the Bible predates even the claim of The Catholic Church for when The Catholic Church came into existence, thus it could not have developed it. You are correct, NO denomination had a THING to do with it - including The Catholic Church.

4-) The Catholic Church, founded by Christ on Peter, has been promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail - that it will not lead men into error by false teaching. And, it was the Catholic Chruch that is protected in perserving God’s Deposit of Faith.

All articles of your faith, but the reality is that Jesus never founded any denomination and Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. And while The Catholic Church alone claims that it alone is so protected, it’s the claim of self for self - and only serves to support its desire to be regarded as unaccountable.

No group that claims SS can stand with the same doctrine - even though they all stand with the same bible.

If you want to start a thread and reveal how all 2,875 points of The Catholic Catechism was taught as such in 31 AD - so that it’s all the SAME now as then, please do. I’d love to read how you prove that.

Back to the issue of this thread…

.

 

[ralphinal]

As has been stated. No one has ever remotely suggested that it does (well, that I know of). Scripture doesn’t arbitrate if someone is correct in a position any more than a speed limit sign arbitrates if someone in speeding. Both simply establish the canon/rule/norma normans.

No.

It does NOT mean that some “OTHER” way is needed. Again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans. Sola Scriptura is that praxis, that embrace of that rule/canon. It doesn’t teach. It doesn’t decide. It doesn’t reveal. It’s not hermeneutics. It’s not arbitration. It’s not teaching. It’s not revelation. It is the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans.

Let’s say Bob builds a wall. He says it’s six feet tall. THAT, ergo, becomes his position. Follow? Now, unless you are a raging relativist and it’s moot if the position is correct or not, or unless Bob alone insists that Bob alone is INCAPABLE of error and you must docilicly accept that and you do (in which case the issue is moot), then there is the issue of whether Bob is right and the wall IS six feet tall. THAT is called “norming.” The process of determining correctness, truth, validity.

There are TWO issues in this (well, two main ones). The FIRST is to mutually agree on the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (the norm that norms). Obviously, the more objective, the more knowable and unalterable by all parties, the more embraced as reliable by all parties - the better. Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape for this purpose. In that case, it becomes the rule/canon/norma normans. We will hold up things to THAT standard, plumbline, rule, canon. The SECOND issue then is how will it be determined if the wall “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the canon)? Perhaps we decide that Bob will measure it and alone view it and tell us the verdict. OR maybe I will do it. Or maybe… Somehow, the issue of arbitration ACCORDING TO THE RULE needs to be determined. Sola Scriptura addresses the first but not the second issue. But of course, in our discussions with Catholicism, we never get past the first issue since The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to the Rule of Scripture.

I had to bold that. What you have said is incorrect. You used quotes from the CCC once to say that, and I showed you how you had edited incorrectly. What the Catholic Church says is that Scripture is ONE rule of faith that we have.

If sola scriptura does not arbitrate, what good it is? If it does not teach, of what use is it? None. We must have a way to decide which of the many denominations is closest to the truth because they cannot all be correct.

1. We can’t discuss that at length in this thread since that would be hijacking. This thread is about the defense of using Scripture as the Rule (perhaps as opposed to the alternative of The Catholic Church that we use the Tradition of The Catholic Church as defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church plus the Scripture not on any page knowable to all but rather in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church plus the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church and the rulings, views, decisions and arbitrations of The Catholic Church as we all evaluate the positions of all - including The Catholic Church.

1. You are assuming private arbitration (which, as a Catholic, you must since The Catholic Church permits only ONE arbiter - itself).

Begin a thread on arbitration and I’ll participate. But in discussions with Catholics, this QUICKLY bogs down because The Catholic Church permits only one arbiter - itself, and it regards one as infallible and thus unaccountable in matters of faith and morals, at least officially, and that one is itself. And it permits only one rule/canon and that is the Tradition of itself, the Scripture in the heart of itself and the magisterium of itself. So, there’s just not anything to discuss outside of itself.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hold on there AJ - this is the thread and there is NO real defense for SS … so, let’s respond to your objections…

.

Lost as to what any of this has to do with this thread, but, anyway…
Let me help you… but, it is obvious that you did not read any of the links I provided which really does answer your arguments - without any difficulty. Just go back to Post #42 - if you are really interested…

Christ never promised The Catholic Church anything. About or concerning anything. He never so much as even mentioned it. These are simply the claims of self for self.
Well, this is where a sense of history would be helpful…

You will recall that Saul of Tarsus was activite in persecuting the group that claimed to be following Jesus called ,“The Way” (Acts 22:4). There is no, “The Way” today and there is no recorded account in Scripture of what happened to this name. According to the logic you are using - it vanished and we are all just bumbling along. But, this is not the case.

At the time of Christ there were Jews and Pagans. Pagans is more a catch all term and went from those who did not believe in God to the Greeks and Romans who were polytheists. Then the Christians (Acts 11:26) came along and they did well - they were recognized by the powers that be and actively persecuted. “A letter written by Ignatius to Christians in Smyrna[4] around 106 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8). By Catholic Church Ignatius designated the universal church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).” Luther did not arrive on the scene for another 1400+ years.

This is where that sense of history comes in handy - and why SS has no defense - there was no Bible in 106AD but, there was a Catholic Church. Bear in mind, this group did not just suddenly spring up in 106 - they trace their origin to Christ… and this is how we arrived at identifiying the group that will 200+ years later, set the Canon - where you can trace your abridged Bible from.

The Synod of Hippo in 393 established the Canon - and the Books of the OT and the NT were set then as we have them today. Your bluster about, “…claims of self for self” fail in the face of historical evidence.

And, really, here hangs the tale - your clinging to the (abridged) Catholic Bible in your hand and denouncing the Catholic Church that gave it to you seems ingrateful at best…closed minded and hard hearted does come to mind. You really have to wonder how any group can provide the falutless Word of God - that you cling to - and not be inspired by that same God to produce the document. Really, now, AJ - just think about it.

When Christ said, “…and the Gates of Hell will not prevail…” (Matt 16) just what do you think He was talking about? When He said, “I have a lot more to tell you, but that would be too much for you now.” (John 16:12) just what do you think He was talking about? When the Resurrected Christ told Peter, “…feed my lambs…” (John 21:15) - Christ was carpenter - not a shepherd … there was no actual flock of sheep out there to be be fed - Christ was giving His Special Authority to Peter (and not to the other Apostels) to take care of us - the followers of Christ. Notice, Christ did not give Peter a book and say, “It is all here and it explains itself!” That is not the way it happened at all.

Hopefully, you now have the clue you have been missing: It is the Catholic Church (please note you are on the Catholic Answer Forum) that provides Christ’s direction to His Heavenly Kingdom.

I hope this helps. God bless

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I had to bold that. What you have said is incorrect. You used quotes from the CCC once to say that, and I showed you how you had edited incorrectly. What the Catholic Church says is that Scripture is ONE rule of faith that we have.

… then it rejects Sola Scriptura.

And note, it does NOT use Scripture on the page but Scripture in its heart, as it understand such - and that is but **PART **of the canon, not even that IS the canon.

If sola scriptura does not arbitrate, what good it is? If it does not teach, of what use is it? None. We must have a way to decide which of the many denominations is closest to the truth because they cannot all be correct.

Let’s say you are driving down the road at 105 MPH. A policeman stops you. Now what? He can’t accuse you of speeding because there is no canon/norma normans about that. Sure, he could say “It is my humble opinion that you were driving too fast.” You equally can reply, “It is my humble opinion that I was not.” Okay. He says, you say. Arbitration thus becomes moot because there is nothing to arbitrate to. How can I hold up this issue to the canon if one doesn’t exist? Now, what is likely to occur in that case is that truth gets replaced with power. The policeman pulls out his gun and says, “This means I’m right.” To which you might pull up your shirt to reveal a bomb. “This means I’m right!” But of course, neither has ANYTHING to do with who is right - only who has more power. Power becomes the issue, not correctness. The issue has been circumvented.

You are correct, if there are two conflicting positions, they cannot BOTH be correct. Thus, the NEED for norming. And the first step in norming is to agree on the canon/rule/norma normans. Without it, no arbitration is possible. What CAN be done is for each to simply declare each to be INCAPABLE of being wrong - and thus the issue has been circumvented. “I’m right so I must be right when I declare that I’m right, thus I’m right.” This, however, is entirely moot to the issue of correctness. Or one can play the power came. “I’m right because I’m the head of this department and I can fire you.” But that, too, is moot to the issue of correctness.

What is needed is a canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND the parties holding to the two conflicting positions. What is needed is that BOTH are regarded as accountable (yes, capable of being wrong). Sola Scriptura addresses the first (and probably assumes the second). But, if this thread was about arbitration, I’d be of the view that the arbitration should not simply be by one of the parties declaring self to be the sole, infallible, authoritative arbiter (but as a Catholic, you must disagree with me on that). I agree with you that arbitration is the tougher part of the norming process, but sadly for us, we never even get there. As Christians, we don’t agree on the rule/canon. Those embracing Sola Scriptura desire Scripture - those inscripturated words of God, knowable to all and alterable by none - to be the canon. The Catholic Church insists that it be the Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church PLUS the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church PLUS the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church and its opinions, rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations - these 3 equally as the canon. And yes, it futhermore insists on one arbiter for the issue of whether The Catholic Church agrees with The Catholic Church - and that one is The Catholic Church. We don’t get too far.

But this thread isn’t about the arbitration. It’s about whether it is sound to embrace God’s inscripturated words as the canon/norma normans. I gave my “defense” for this. I could note why this is better that self declaring the views of self as the canon for the evaluation of the views of self but that’s a different topic for another day and thread.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ralphinal]

… then it rejects Sola Scriptura.

And note, it does NOT use Scripture on the page but Scripture in its heart, as it understand such - and that is but **PART **of the canon, not even that IS the canon.

Let’s say you are driving down the road at 105 MPH. A policeman stops you. Now what? He can’t accuse you of speeding because there is no canon/norma normans about that. Sure, he could say “It is my humble opinion that you were driving too fast.” You equally can reply, “It is my humble opinion that I was not.” Okay. He says, you say. Arbitration thus becomes moot because there is nothing to arbitrate to. How can I hold up this issue to the canon if one doesn’t exist? Now, what is likely to occur in that case is that truth gets replaced with power. The policeman pulls out his gun and says, “This means I’m right.” To which you might pull up your shirt to reveal a bomb. “This means I’m right!” But of course, neither has ANYTHING to do with who is right - only who has more power. Power becomes the issue, not correctness. The issue has been circumvented.

You are correct, if there are two conflicting positions, they cannot BOTH be correct. Thus, the NEED for norming. And the first step in norming is to agree on the canon/rule/norma normans. Without it, no arbitration is possible. What CAN be done is for each to simply declare each to be INCAPABLE of being wrong - and thus the issue has been circumvented. “I’m right so I must be right when I declare that I’m right, thus I’m right.” This, however, is entirely moot to the issue of correctness. Or one can play the power came. “I’m right because I’m the head of this department and I can fire you.” But that, too, is moot to the issue of correctness.

What is needed is a canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND the parties holding to the two conflicting positions. What is needed is that BOTH are regarded as accountable (yes, capable of being wrong). Sola Scriptura addresses the first (and probably assumes the second). But, if this thread was about arbitration, I’d be of the view that the arbitration should not simply be by one of the parties declaring self to be the sole, infallible, authoritative arbiter (but as a Catholic, you must disagree with me on that). I agree with you that arbitration is the tougher part of the norming process, but sadly for us, we never even get there. As Christians, we don’t agree on the rule/canon. Those embracing Sola Scriptura desire Scripture - those inscripturated words of God, knowable to all and alterable by none - to be the canon. The Catholic Church insists that it be the Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church PLUS the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church PLUS the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church and its opinions, rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations - these 3 equally as the canon. And yes, it futhermore insists on one arbiter for the issue of whether The Catholic Church agrees with The Catholic Church - and that one is The Catholic Church. We don’t get too far.

But this thread isn’t about the arbitration. It’s about whether it is sound to embrace God’s inscripturated words as the canon/norma normans. I gave my “defense” for this. I could note why this is better that self declaring the views of self as the canon for the evaluation of the views of self but that’s a different topic for another day and thread.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Ah, but it IS about that. See, if the question posed is for a critique of sola scriptura, and we can show that sola scriptura is flawed on at least one level, then there we go.

We should start a thread about the dispute we are having about the Church. You are doing a bang-up job of missing paragraphs

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Ah, but it IS about that. See, if the question posed is for a critique of sola scriptura, and we can show that sola scriptura is flawed on at least one level, then there we go.

It is MY view that where disputes exist, it is best to have a canon ABOVE and BEYOND all parties in the dispute, and in theology, the ideal canon would be the very inscripturated words of God Himself, written down in black and white so that it is objective, knowable to all, alterable by none, is historically and ecumenically broadly embraced (including by the parties involved) THAT would be ideal. Interestingly, such exists. Those that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace THAT as the canon.

The alternative is that self (but only if self IS self - self permits no other to do as self insists on doing) designates self alone as the sole arbiter as to whether self is correct, and then designates the views of self (as self chooses, defines and interprets) PLUS Scripture in the heart of self as interpreted by self PLUS self and the decisions, rulings, arbitrations and interpretations of self as the canon for the evaluation of the views of self. OR self circumvents the entire question by self declaring self to be infallible/unaccountable - the question becomes moot in the exclusive instance of self since self insists self CANNOT err and thus is exept from accountability. OR self circumvents the entire question by insisting that self alone as the power/lordship/authority to speak here, the issue is changed from correctness to power. Or any combination of the 3.

Again, let’s say that friendly man in blue pulls you over - noting his radar got you going 50 MPH and right next to your car is a big, white,square sign with clear, black, big numerals and letters which read: 'MAX SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH." Now, to the issue of whether you were speeding, BOTH you and the policeman would be under the Rule of Law and thus be subject to that sign (there it is, in black and white, unalterable, knowable). OR he could pull out his gun and say, “This makes me right!” OR you could insists, “But there is one who is INCAPABLE of speeding and I declare I am that one.” OR you could insist, “The sign in my heart as I understand and interpret it says 60 MPH and the view of myself abvout the driving of myself is that I’m a good driver - infact, infallible. And I myself appoint I myself as the sole arbiter for whether I was speeding and I say I didn’t.” I just think the first is more sound. In fact, the alternatives actually have nothing to do with determining anything - they are actually circumventions of the issue.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ntisawesome]

AmericanJosiah,

Lost as to what any of this has to do with this thread, but, anyway…

Back to the issue of this thread…

Please let me assure you that those ideas were not outside the scope of the intent behind this thread. The question on how one decides whether the Eucharist is the real presence, or a form of Idolatry needs to have an answer based on Sola Scriptura.

So by answering those questions, the thread would surely not be being hijacked.

I appreciate your concern for not wanting to hijack a thread though that is very considerate of you.

I have to admit though I have a hard time reading your posts. You answer a very brief and clear cut question by replying with a 3 page post which contains quotes from many of your previous posts (which are not outlined as quotes). This makes it very hard to find the answer which may or may not be buried in the middle.

The problem with your speeding example is that it does not apply. In your example, the posted speed limit and the police officer’s radar are completely sufficient for resolving the dispute as to whether the driver was speeding. This is not always the case with the Bible. The Eucharist example is one that more closely illustrates the problem I have with Sola Scriptura.

I am also fairly young in my religious learning life. ( I spent most of my early life ignoring the journey and I am just getting back on track now. ) But as a consequence, I am not familiar with terms like arbitration, and I have a suspicion that such terms might not really be necessary to answer the question.

Forgive my ignorance if I missed an obvious answer above somewhere.

But to clarify the question:

The question on how one decides whether the Eucharist is the real presence, or a form of Idolatry needs to have an answer based on Sola Scriptura.

Best,

-nt

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Any references to where he justifies that “The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.” ? That would be a pretty important premise in his argument.

I believe he discusses it in detail in his debate, but he does make reference to the famous passage in 2 Timothy where Paul calls all scripture “God-breathed,” or inspired.

Of course, the question is, was Paul referring to the Old Testament, or even works that did not exist at the time of that writing, and works which were not considered scripture even by him.