Defense of Sola Scriptura

[ralphinal]

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.

Then why don’t all Christians see the Real Presence the same way? Or Sacramental Baptism? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR. What does sola scriptura do about that? CREATE CHAOS

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.

So, you are denying that GOD had another plan?

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.
.

See, you keep falling back to a cut and dry example. LIFE IS NOT CUT AND DRY.

But, you know what i can do? I can go to court and challenge that law. I can challenge the speed limit, the tools used to clock me, the actual posting of the limit, and other things. Your sola scriptura idea, though good and full of big words and examples, FAILS in the real world of Christianity

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t “answer” that - or any questions. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything or proclaim anything or conclude anything. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. The Rule of Scripture doesn’t “answer” anything anymore than the Rule of Law does - or any other rule. Sola Scriptura embraces Scripture as the norma normans.

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

well, yes - thank you. AND I’m trying to say out of trouble with staff, lol…

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.

I’d tried to keep it simple.

Again. Bob builds a wall.
He says it’s 6 feet tall.
THAT, then, becomes the position.

UNLESS you are a raging relativist and correctness is irrelevant and/or unknowable
UNLESS Bob insists that Bob is INCAPABLE of being wrong, he demands you accept that with docility - and you do
UNLESS one or both of those things are the case (in which case, accountability is moot)
Then, we have the issue: Is it true? Is Bob CORRECT?

The process of determining that is called “norming.”

Norming involves two fundamental aspects.
The first is the determination of what will serve as the rule (“straight edge” - what is used to determine is something is straight, true, correct) or canon (“measuring stick” - again what is used to determine if something is straight, true, correct) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). Let’s say we choose to use a Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the norma normans.

The second issue becomes the determination of how will we decide if the position measures up (arbitration) to the measuring stick (the rule/canon/norma normans)?

Sola Scriptura addresses the first issue. It embraces God’s inscripturated words as the rule/canon/norma normans for theology (especially for dogma).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Then why don’t all Christians see the Real Presence the same way? Or Sacramental Baptism? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR. What does sola scriptura do about that?

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It doesn’t DO anything otherwise.

I agree, arbitration according to Scripture will not always be clear cut - “YES, that definately and unavoidably is affirmed by Scripture!” Or, “NO, that is obviously and clearly denied and contradicted by Scripture!” But then, that might be one reason to be a bit careful about what is declared DOGMA (I think it was Jeremiah who stated that God has a special distain for those who say “God says!” when He said no such thing) or HERESY?

And I agree, it’s much easier for each to simply declare self to be infallible/unaccountable and thus circumvent the entire issue of whether self is correct. But I note - that designation of self about self has nothing to do with self BEING correct, it’s purely and only self circumventing the examination of self; it circumvents the question it in no way addresses it. And I agree, that if self appoints self as the sole arbiter for whether self is correct in what self teaches, and if self embraces the teachings of self as the rule for the examination of the teachings of self, then yes - self is likely to affirm that self agrees with self. I just note the obvious: that process has nothing to do with correctness; it’s just self looking in the mirror to determine if self looks like self. Are those EASIER? Yes! Are they less choatic for self? Yes! It’s just they have nothing to do with being correct. They don’t address the issue, they evade it.

And yes, I agree, self can simply change the issue from correctness to power. “I’m right cuz I have the power.” This is sadly done with some regularity in society. The question becomes power, lordship, ruling - not accountability, humility, examination. That, too, is an evasion.

Look, I have a good friend who just graduated from law school. My discussions with him over the years have convinced me: arbitration ain’t easy - even under the Rule of Law. In the same way, I’m pretty convinced that in theology, arbitration ain’t always easy - even under the Rule of Scripture. But it sure beats self shouting, “I’m right so when I say Im right I ergo must be right so I’m right!” No matter how much ego or self-authentication or power is grabbed - it’s still just self declaring self above accountability, it’s just a circle of self-authentication. And it is MORE choatic for each to just declare the views of self to be the rule for the views of self as arbitrated by self - even if self is a grand denomination of over one billion docilic members, even if self is sincere and filled with integrity. One can be sincerely wrong. And, IMHO, truth should matter more than my feelings or power or control.

So, you are denying that GOD had another plan?

God repeatedly and boldly warned us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and he never exempted The Catholic Church. Christ repeatedly used Scripture normatively but He never once used The Catholic Church thusly. In Revelation, Jesus praises the PEOPLE for regarding their teachers as potentially wrong - and regarding them accountable; He praised THEM for finding those teachers to be false. He never said, “But The Catholic Church cannot err in official matters of faith and morals!” He never said, “You should have taken this to your Catholic Bishop” “You should have taken this to the Pope in Rome.” I see nothing in Scripture that suggests that one - The Catholic Church - is infallible/unaccountable, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, exempt from examination, or that what we should use as normative is the views of The Catholic Church.

Your sola scriptura idea, though good and full of big words and examples, FAILS in the real world of Christianity

Oh, I never implied that the arbitration is always easy. Sorry if you are realizing life isn’t always as simple as self insisting, “I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I’m right so I’m right.” But I still think that having an objective, knowable, unalterable, mutually embraced Rule is better, mroe sound than that. The Rule of Law in civil societies isn’t alway easy - but it’s better than the alternatives.

And I could (but won’t) give you examples of denominations and “leaders” who have also declared self as the sole authority, sole itnerpreter, sole arbiter - beyond accountability. And you’d see that your rubric doesn’t work well at all. Yes, its’ easy. Yes, self will tend to agree with self so debate is severly limited. But it’s actually just a circumvention of the issue, a diversion.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hold it right there, AJ - you are off the road again!

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.

As I see it, there are several problems with this presentation. The main one is that God did not design His Salvation Plan according to this model. Now, just think about that for a minute… look what you have - about 2010 since Christ came on earth and His Followers are still arguing about Him. Now, lets see where this idea of yours breaks down…

There is really no difference in the Catholic and Protestant version of the NT (King James). Forget that the Catholic Church gave you the Canon you are so desirous to have. Look at all of those groups that claim SS and look at all the doctrinal divisions that separate them. It takes no marksmanship to do this - just pull the trigger and you will hit an issue. Here are three examples - but,the list is almost endless:

Baptism? Some say it is just a ceremony, some say it is optional, some say that it must be a full emersion, some say it is spiritual and no water is involved. But, what does Christ say?

John 3:5 "…unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

Penance? Some say it is not necessary - we are saved by faith in Christ, some say we just need to go directly to God and not to a man, some say it is a human tradition and of no value. But, what does Christ say?

**John 20:23 “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” **

Eucharist? Some say it is cannibalism, some say Christ never meant what He said, some say it is just a memorial service - a rememberance. But, what does Christ say?

John 6:53 "And Jesus said to them, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, you cannot have any life in you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood."

Look up the references in your abridged version, AJ. You will find that there is no difference in what is being said. So, if Scripture is the sole determination, it would seem that following the Words spoken by Christ would be a pretty good place to take your bearings.

But, it does not work out this way, does it? I will let you supply your reason(s).

When I read you proposal, I found it very similar to the problem Christ identified in telling the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19). I won’t boar you with the story - just the ending. So, here is the suffering rich man thinking of his brothers. Like you, he set out a plan - if only some one would come back from the dead, he pleads. No. If they do not believe Moses and the Prophets they will not believe even if one would come back from the dead, God counters. And, sure enough. The Pharisees did not really believe the spoken Word of God and did not believe that Christ rose from the dead.

If you don’t really believe, the plan you set out under which you claim you will believe, falls apart. Why? Because Faith does not work that way. Either your Faith is in Christ - and the Church He founded on Peter, or it is on something else. Whatever that something else is will prove to be sand on which you have built.

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.

It must really be difficult to try and reduce these rumblings to writing… without further torturing anyone’s SELF just whar are you trying to say?

Do you think you could find some other analogy besides speeders…? You have come close to ‘driving’ this into the ground…

Thanks and God bless

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah.

 

[ralphinal]

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It doesn’t DO anything otherwise.

I agree, arbitration according to Scripture will not always be clear cut - “YES, that definately and unavoidably is affirmed by Scripture!” Or, “NO, that is obviously and clearly denied and contradicted by Scripture!” But then, that might be one reason to be a bit careful about what is declared DOGMA (I think it was Jeremiah who stated that God has a special distain for those who say “God says!” when He said no such thing) or HERESY?

And I agree, it’s much easier for each to simply declare self to be infallible/unaccountable and thus circumvent the entire issue of whether self is correct. But I note - that designation of self about self has nothing to do with self BEING correct, it’s purely and only self circumventing the examination of self; it circumvents the question it in no way addresses it. And I agree, that if self appoints self as the sole arbiter for whether self is correct in what self teaches, and if self embraces the teachings of self as the rule for the examination of the teachings of self, then yes - self is likely to affirm that self agrees with self. I just note the obvious: that process has nothing to do with correctness; it’s just self looking in the mirror to determine if self looks like self. Are those EASIER? Yes! Are they less choatic for self? Yes! It’s just they have nothing to do with being correct. They don’t address the issue, they evade it.

And yes, I agree, self can simply change the issue from correctness to power. “I’m right cuz I have the power.” This is sadly done with some regularity in society. The question becomes power, lordship, ruling - not accountability, humility, examination. That, too, is an evasion.

Look, I have a good friend who just graduated from law school. My discussions with him over the years have convinced me: arbitration ain’t easy - even under the Rule of Law. In the same way, I’m pretty convinced that in theology, arbitration ain’t always easy - even under the Rule of Scripture. But it sure beats self shouting, “I’m right so when I say Im right I ergo must be right so I’m right!” No matter how much ego or self-authentication or power is grabbed - it’s still just self declaring self above accountability, it’s just a circle of self-authentication. And it is MORE choatic for each to just declare the views of self to be the rule for the views of self as arbitrated by self - even if self is a grand denomination of over one billion docilic members, even if self is sincere and filled with integrity. One can be sincerely wrong. And, IMHO, truth should matter more than my feelings or power or control.

God repeatedly and boldly warned us of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and he never exempted The Catholic Church. Christ repeatedly used Scripture normatively but He never once used The Catholic Church thusly. In Revelation, Jesus praises the PEOPLE for regarding their teachers as potentially wrong - and regarding them accountable; He praised THEM for finding those teachers to be false. He never said, “But The Catholic Church cannot err in official matters of faith and morals!” He never said, “You should have taken this to your Catholic Bishop” “You should have taken this to the Pope in Rome.” I see nothing in Scripture that suggests that one - The Catholic Church - is infallible/unaccountable, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, exempt from examination, or that what we should use as normative is the views of The Catholic Church

Do you no why Jesus never says “Catholic Church?” BEcause he founded ONE church. ONE. ONE. Humans split that Church up into many. Jesus founded HIS Church, man created their own.

Now, which church is the one he founded? BEcause he promised that church that hell would not prevail and that the SPirit would lead it to all truth.

Oh, I never implied that the arbitration is always easy. Sorry if you are realizing life isn’t always as simple as self insisting, “I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I’m right so I’m right.” But I still think that having an objective, knowable, unalterable, mutually embraced Rule is better, mroe sound than that. The Rule of Law in civil societies isn’t alway easy - but it’s better than the alternatives.

And I could (but won’t) give you examples of denominations and “leaders” who have also declared self as the sole authority, sole itnerpreter, sole arbiter - beyond accountability. And you’d see that your rubric doesn’t work well at all. Yes, its’ easy. Yes, self will tend to agree with self so debate is severly limited. But it’s actually just a circumvention of the issue, a diversion.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Child, and I use that in the affectionate Southern way, I know more of life’s pain than I would wish upon an enemy. I also know that God would not have left a way for chaos to rule. Sola scriptura is just that. You tell me 10 good things that it has generated, 10 ways it has made man closer to God.

I will tell you 10,000 ways that it has hurt us

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Point 1: When they came up with the canon, the basis for the canon was sacred tradition. There were many books floating around at that time so how did they decide what is true or not? In their “norming”, the norm was sacred tradition so much so that the first mention of the canon was in reference to tradition and not to scripture. Pope Clement called it the CANON OF OUR TRADITIONS.

Point 2: You can ask, well then why insist on tradition if tradition has already been canonized in the Bible? Because we need to go back to tradition to find out the most accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Take for example John 6. It is already a part of the canon. But which interpretation is correct: merely symbolic or literal. We then go back to tradition to tradtion to see how the Church has always looked at this. Tradition witnesses to the fact that the church has always insisted the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

Or Baptism: Protestants among themselves don’t agree on this either. So how to find out what Christ’s Church has always believed? Answer, we go back to tradition.

One thing that protestants keep forgetting (or insist on forgetting and completely overlooking) is that Christ did not write scripture. What is very clear from Scripture is that He established a Church. And it is this Church that His Spirit inspired to write and canonize scripture.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedoctis2,

Nice to see you on this thread!

As you can see, old AJ is having a problem with the reality of the Canon as opposed to his own stylized version of what he thinks it should be. As I see it, he has a problem with just going back to history and seeing what took place.

But, you know … I think your posts were right on in addressing these issues he raised. Thanks for the post.

Point 1: When they came up with the canon, the basis for the canon was sacred tradition. There were many books floating around at that time so how did they decide what is true or not? In their “norming”, the norm was sacred tradition so much so that the first mention of the canon was in reference to tradition and not to scripture. Pope Clement called it the CANON OF OUR TRADITIONS.

Point 2: You can ask, well then why insist on tradition if tradition has already been canonized in the Bible? Because we need to go back to tradition to find out the most accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Take for example John 6. It is already a part of the canon. But which interpretation is correct: merely symbolic or literal. We then go back to tradition to tradtion to see how the Church has always looked at this. Tradition witnesses to the fact that the church has always insisted the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

Or Baptism: Protestants among themselves don’t agree on this either. So how to find out what Christ’s Church has always believed? Answer, we go back to tradition.

One thing that protestants keep forgetting (or insist on forgetting and completely overlooking) is that Christ did not write scripture. What is very clear from Scripture is that He established a Church. And it is this Church that His Spirit inspired to write and canonize scripture.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

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.

So let us say that we both agree that the Bible is inerrant.

Without it, no arbitration is possible.

Correct.

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.

Correct again.

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 this is where you are terribly wrong. Because in effect, you are asking to be the judge, that, which is being judged. Circular reasoning.

So let’s break it down properly.

We both hold that the Bible is inerrant.

The question is how do we know it is inerrant? How do we know that the Word of God is indeed the Word of God?

Who told us that it is the word of God? Who else but the Church who wrote and canonized it.

So therefore, if we cannot believe the Church to be infallible, then we have no way of being certain that the Bible is also inerrant. This is why, atheists find protestant reasoning exasperating because of this fallacious argument of “There is God because the Bible says so”.

But you and I won’t fall into that fallacy because we have agreed that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. However, it does put you in a rather awkward position because that which you claim is the word of God did not happen to fall from heaven complete with all the books in it, but rather, was written and canonized by the Church that God founded on earth.

You see Luther and Calvin also recognized the problem of private interpretation as illustrated in this little story below:​

In 1534, a radical apocalytic group in Munster set up an indepedent theocratic state based on a literal reading of scripture which licensed polygamy, condemned all violence and outlawed private ownership. This short lived experiment lasted only a year but it alarmed the reformers.

"If there was no authoritative body to control biblical reading, how could anybody know who was right? Who will give our conscience sure information about which party is teaching us the pure Word of God, we or our opponents Is every fanatic to have the right to teach whatever he please? "-- Martin Luther

Calvin agrees.

"If everyone has a right to be judge and arbiter on this matter, nothing can be set down as certain and our whole religion will be full of uncertainty. —John Calvin.

(reference: :On the Bible" by Karen Armstrong)

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedoctis2,

Nice to see you on this thread!

As you can see, old AJ is having a problem with the reality of the Canon as opposed to his own stylized version of what he thinks it should be. As I see it, he has a problem with just going back to history and seeing what took place.

But, you know … I think your posts were right on in addressing these issues he raised. Thanks for the post.

God bless

Hmm, really the only way to solve this is if they can come up with their own Bible. Then there will be no questioning who that authority on that would be.

 

[benedictus2]

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It doesn’t DO anything otherwise.

How can you make something the rule, when that something was in itself, assesed and determined against another rule, ie. tradition.

Let me simplify this.

You say: I know Y is true. And I agree Y is true.

But you say Y is the only rule. I say no, that is not correct, because we only know that Y is true, because Z said so. And Z said Y is true based on W.

So if you accept Y as true, you will have to accept Z’s authority to proclaim Y as true and you will also have to accept W as true as well.

To say that only Y is true will not work becuase the question will keep coming up: How do you know that for a fact?

How some people get around that is by saying that Z was guided by the Holy Spirit when He proclaimed Y as true but not anymore.

But again, how do you know that for a fact? If Z is not guided now, then perhaps Z was not guided then either.

Which leaves us all in uncertainty. Calvin recognized that. I don’t know if he was able to come up with a way to wiggle out of it.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Non-orthodox Christians have a counter to Sola Scriptura as the only means to determine the truth, the Roman Catholic Church and others use Tradition and the Scriptures. There is another view called Continuous Revelation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_revelation this in simple view is that God thorugh the force and grace of His Holy Spirit (or the Holy Spirit if your a Trinitarian) adds to His teachings from the Bible as people evolve into a society able to accept it.

For example take Homosexuality in the Bible Times it was wrong and treated as an evil. But as our reason and science demonstrated that its possibly natural for some persons that its not in say 2009. But by using the example of Jesus as the vessel of God to grant mercy would not want a homosexual to be alone their whole life. So Christian marriage of two men or two women now is God’s Will. Using a common view of Religious Christian Quakers on this from what I know.

So I would argue there is more than Sola Scriptura there is what God wants and that is passed through His Spirit as a mercy, as we can understand His will. And also teachers of Christianity granted new insights into the faith that we can look to. Understanding one must ground and test them to the Bible and the example of Christ.

I would say its a matter of position and where you get the doctrines either TRADITION or CONTINUOUS REVELATION they may both be valid, God does work in His own ways does He not?

 

[benedictus2]

Non-orthodox Christians have a counter to Sola Scriptura as the only means to determine the truth, the Roman Catholic Church and others use Tradition and the Scriptures. There is another view called Continuous Revelation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_revelation this in simple view is that God thorugh the force and grace of His Holy Spirit (or the Holy Spirit if your a Trinitarian) adds to His teachings from the Bible as people evolve into a society able to accept it.

And there again is the problem How do you know that thatis God’s leading. The devil masquerades as the angel of light.

For example take Homosexuality in the Bible Times it was wrong and treated as an evil. But as our reason and science demonstrated that its possibly natural for some persons that its not in say 2009.

Science has no say on morality. Morality is God’s domain alone. Science cannot declare permissible what God has declared to be a sin unless of course you are an atheist and do no believe in the Bible in the first place.

But by using the example of Jesus as the vessel of God to grant mercy would not want a homosexual to be alone their whole life.

How do you know that for a fact? How can he nullify His Father’s own law because He is merciful? Have you not heard? He has come to do His Father’s will.

So Christian marriage of two men or two women now is God’s Will.

And this is the biggest lie that the devil has somehow convinced some into believing.

There is not such thing as Christian marriage of homosexuals. Man does not determine what is right and wrong. God does.

To declare otherwise it to claim to be god.

Using a common view of Religious Christian Quakers on this from what I know.

I quake at the thought that some people actually think this practice is Chrsitian. Just goes to show how far off the truth that is Christ, one can get once cut off from His Body.

So I would argue there is more than Sola Scriptura there is what God wants and that is passed through His Spirit as a mercy,

Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life. What you are proposing here is far from Christian.

God has mercy ON REPENTANT SINNERS. IF you insist on saying that homosexual marriage is right when God has declared it a no-no, then there is no chance of repentance because you don’t even think that that sin needs repenting.

as we can understand His will.

And you clearly don’t What you tried to do is to justify your own.

And also teachers of Christianity granted new insights into the faith that we can look to.

But how do you know that these teachers of Christianity are precisely that. St Ignatius is very clear about this. The devil masquerades as the angel of light. And this is very evident when we pass off fuzzy muzzy feelings for love. Love must be grounded on truth.

Understanding one must ground and test them to the Bible and the example of Christ.
I would say its a matter of position and where you get the doctrines either TRADITION or CONTINUOUS REVELATION they may both be valid, God does work in His own ways does He not?

Cotinuous revelation is a man made doctrine.
God does work in His own way, but how do you know it is indeed His own way?
Simple. Test it against His expressed will in the Bible. What was His expressed will in the Bible. Not to write a book. But to build a Church. That is where His revealtion was made known to, and through.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Libertarian,

You received an excellent response from Benedictus2. But, maybe I can add something for you to consider

Non-orthodox Christians have a counter to Sola Scriptura as the only means to determine the truth, the Roman Catholic Church and others use Tradition and the Scriptures. There is another view called Continuous Revelation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_revelation this in simple view is that God thorugh the force and grace of His Holy Spirit (or the Holy Spirit if your a Trinitarian) adds to His teachings from the Bible as people evolve into a society able to accept it. You are quite right about God choosing to act as He wants. But, if He contradicts Himself - God created marriage in the Garden of Eden between one man and one woman - and this was endorsed by Christ as what God intended from all time - what PROOF do you have that God has suddenly changed? Actually, this is change we can NOT believe in based simply on ‘feel good’ reasoning.

For example take Homosexuality in the Bible Times it was wrong and treated as an evil. But as our reason and science demonstrated that its possibly natural for some persons that its not in say 2009. But by using the example of Jesus as the vessel of God to grant mercy would not want a homosexual to be alone their whole life. So Christian marriage of two men or two women now is God’s Will. Using a common view of Religious Christian Quakers on this from what I know. Not to put too fine a point on this, Libertarian, but your pen-name says it all. You do not appear to have come to this post as a disinterested third-party with no vested interest. It truly appears that you have your own agenda - and have decided that hijacking this thread may be good sport.

So I would argue there is more than Sola Scriptura there is what God wants and that is passed through His Spirit as a mercy, as we can understand His will. And also teachers of Christianity granted new insights into the faith that we can look to. Understanding one must ground and test them to the Bible and the example of Christ. And, I would counter that you sorely abuse God’s mercy by twisting His Words to suit your own end. Now, for those merrily singing that God’s written words that clearly condemn homosexuality no longer abide, let me direct you to the 25th Chapter of Matthew. Here we see souls who at least made a pretense of serving God - being rebuked for their failure with eternal punishment. Imagine those who simply create their own gospel to excuse their abuses. There really is a day of judgment. And dragging the Quakers into this, too… shame!

I would say its a matter of position and where you get the doctrines either TRADITION or CONTINUOUS REVELATION they may both be valid, God does work in His own ways does He not?

And, I would say you position is already ablaze! Seriously, if you are sincere about following God’s Word, then how does your new gospel of ‘feels-good-must-be-right’ differ from the problems that the Corinthians of Paul’s time had? Paul took a dim view of practicing homosexuality. The issue here is to love the sinner but hate the sin. God can not embrace sin - only a sinner who is truly sorry. And, we are all sinners.

Now, if Scripture must stand up the searching eye of honest inquiry - how does your version of a revelation that has no real objective standards meet the test? How does one honestly test the validity of what you speak? The challenge is, can you distinguish the vision shared by God and contained in His Written Word in the Bible - and as expressed as the consistent teaching of the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) from a fanciful tale given by a disgused ‘angel of light’? The ‘prize’ for answering correctly is no less then where your immortal soul will spend all eternity.

God bless

 

[Jon_Hus]

… I also know that God would not have left a way for chaos to rule. Sola scriptura is just that. You tell me 10 good things that it has generated, 10 ways it has made man closer to God.

I will tell you 10,000 ways that it has hurt us

By US in the last sentence, you mean me (ralphinal) or the RCC, not US as in the general population of the earth, right?

I say this because I live in a country that considers freedom of religion to be a basic (God given) right.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

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 this is where you are terribly wrong. Because in effect, you are asking to be the judge, that, which is being judged. Circular reasoning.

No. Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with arbitration.

As to the rule/canon/norma normans, what Sola Scriptura embraces is ANOTHER rule - outside, above, beyond all the parties to which ALL are subject. It is the alternative rubric of The Catholic Church that demands that it and it itself exclusively serve as the judge and that the rule/canon/norma normans is: The Tradition of itself as interpreted by itself, the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself, and the Magisterium of itself and the decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of itself - these three things equally and inseparately.

]So let’s break it down properly.

We both hold that the Bible is inerrant.

The question is how do we know it is inerrant? How do we know that the Word of God is indeed the Word of God?

1. Moot, since we’re not discussing the doctrine of Scripture, this thread is about the embrace of such as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions.
2. You seem to be missing your own point! WE ALL embrace it - it, something outside and above and beyond ALL OF US. Equally knowable by all, equally unalterable by all. NO ONE is pointing to self (whether the Tradition or interpretations or magisteriums or views), it is a rule we ALL accept and its a rule OUTSIDE and above ALL parties.
3. Since we all view it as inerrant, that makes it a PARTICULARLY good rule!! An IDEAL rule for us would be the very inscriptured words of God Himself - written in black and white so that we ALL know exactly what such is, knowable, unalterable. Viewed by all as inerrant, reliable. THAT would be an ideal rule/canon/norma normans!!! Thing is, it exists. If you can think of something MORE the inscriptured written words of God Himself, MORE inerrant, MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE outside and above all parties (including The Catholic Church, you, me, Luther, Pope Benedict, etc.) - thus a better rule/canon, then propose it.
4. A rule need not be inerrant to be sound. When driving in the USA, the Rule of Law means we normally drive on the right hand side of the road. Do I beleive the driving laws of the State of California are the inerrant, inscriptured words of God Himself? Nope. Still, I regard embracing the Rule of Law as we drive to be the best and most sound norma normans. Fallible or not. Divine or not. In my field (physics) we embrace math and observable, repeatable laborative evidence as the rule/canon/norma normans but I certainly don’t regard such as inerrant or the inscripturated words of God Himself. You seem to be assuming a canon/rule MUST be the inerrant inscripturated words of God Himself - which is not the case, but then missing your own point: we all agree that Scripture is!!! What ELSE is more so, so that it would be a better norma normans?

Who else but the Church who wrote and canonized it.

Well, here’s what the Handbook of The Catholic Faith states (page 136). “The Bible is the inspired word of God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God wrote the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error.” I was taught in The Catholic Church that GOD is the author of the Bible, and I agree. I find it absurd to argue that The Catholic Church (which has no hands, no eyes, no abillity to write at all!) wrote The Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai (the oldest Scriptures) or that IT wrote First and Second Kings or that IT wrote the Book of Proverbs or that IT wrote the Book of Romans. And while it ACKNOWLEDGE the list of such books at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, it never formed the list of books of the Bible (again, my Catholic teacher: “The Catholic Church affirmed the list of books, it did not form it” I agree, history agrees). BTW, most denominations have done what The Catholic one did at Trent, Italy in the 16th century - affirm the list of books. Mine did it at St. Louis, MO in the 19th century. But affirming something is not causing it. I affirm the sun came up this morning (and I could do so formally and officially), I had nothing to do with it.

**
Continues in next post (because of that annoying 6000 character limit, lol)**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continued from the post above…

]So therefore, if we cannot believe the Church to be infallible, then we have no way of being certain that the Bible is also inerrant. This is why, atheists find protestant reasoning exasperating because of this fallacious argument of “There is God because the Bible says so”.

1. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it.
2. You seem to be missing your own point: WE ALL AFFIRM IT AS RELIABLE. Why we do is moot to the point. In Physics, we all embrace math as reliable. I don’t recall anyone is asking WHY we do. The critical points are: 1) It’s OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - knowable, unalterable. 2) It’s regarded as reliable sufficient for the process.
3. Again, a rule/canon need not be INERRANT. I will pay my taxes by April 15th because the Rule of Law applies in the USA and that law so states - it is the canon for that issue. Do I think that law is inerrant? Nope. Do I need to? Nope. If a policeman stops me for going 50 MPH and says I was speeding, he may direct BOTH of us to that big, white, square sign next to us that proclaims, “MAX SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH” - he is subject to that, I’m subject to that. It’s called The Rule of Law. Now, THAT law is not inerrant. THAT law is not historically and ecumenically embraced. THAT law is not the inscripturated words of God Himself - and yet you accept it as the canon in that situation. Friend, you seem to be missing your own point. Scripture is viewed by ALL OF US as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God Himself. What can you propose is regarded by all of us as MORE inerrant, inspired, and the inscripturated words of God Himself so as to be MORE reliable and a better canon/rule/norma normans? And you seem to be missing your point that Scripture is not you. It’s not me. It’s not The Catholic Church. It’s not Martin Luther or Pope Benedict or Joseph Smith or Joel Osment or me or you - it’s ABOVE, OUTSIDE all of us, knowable equally to all of us, unalterable by all of us.

But you and I won’t fall into that fallacy because we have agreed that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. However, it does put you in a rather awkward position because that which you claim is the word of God did not happen to fall from heaven complete with all the books in it, but rather, was written and canonized by the Church that God founded on earth.

1. Of course, The Catholic Church had nothing to do with that. No denomination did. This is what The Handbook of The Catholic Church proclaims, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error” (page 136). I agree; GOD wrote the Bible - from the Ten Commandments (the oldest part) to the Revelation of John (the newest part). As you know, The Catholic Church as no hands or eyes or ability to write anything.
2. The Catholic Church never canonized any biblical book, no denomination did or has. The Catholic Church wasn’t even in existence when most of the Scriptures were first regarded as God’s inscripturated words. What The Catholic Church did at Trent, Italy was to ACKNOWLEDGE the books - just as nearly all denominations have likely done. But acknowledging is entirely unrelated to forming or causing. I acknowledge that the sun came up this morning, but I had nothing to do with its rising. As my Catholic teacher said, “The Catholic Church didn’t form the list but it did acknowledge and affirm it.” I agree. History agrees. And of course, the same can be said for nearly all other denominations, too. Of course, this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. I can regard a rule as normative without regarding the process that formed it as such (I drive on the right hand side of the road, I have NO IDEA how or when or who developed that law - and frankly, it doesn’t matter such). But you seem to be missing your own point: WE ALL EMBRACE SCRIPTURE as the inerrant, reliable, inscripturated words of God. Knowable by all. Alterable by none.

]You see Luther and Calvin also recognized the problem of private interpretation

I totally agree! Take up that issue with The Catholic Church, just as they did!! If your issue is self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter, then ask: what does The Catholic Church appoint as the sole authoritative interpreter?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jon,

I hope I am not intruding … but, I saw your post and thought I would offer my comments in response to your question… My guess is that Ralphinal will probably be posting shortly.

By US in the last sentence, you mean me (ralphinal) or the RCC, not US as in the general population of the earth, right? Anyone freely following the broad road with the wide gate and easy steps is going to eventually realize that it was the narrow path they they should have been on (Matt 7:13).

I say this because I live in a country that considers freedom of religion to be a basic (God given) right. I may live in that country, too! And, we are free to make the mistake that Christ warned us about with governmental involvement!

God bless you - and the State of Texas!

 

[ralphinal]

By US in the last sentence, you mean me (ralphinal) or the RCC, not US as in the general population of the earth, right?

I say this because I live in a country that considers freedom of religion to be a basic (God given) right.

No, the US is everyone. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion (which is no where in the Bible).

Some of the ways that sola scriptura has hurt humanity include the abuse of women, child abuse, and slavery. All of these things were and still are defended using the Bible.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

I think the reason for the 6,000 character limitation is to show that… “brevity is still the soul of wit!”

Let me briefly touch on just one of your items … and see if we can get that clarified…

Well, here’s what the Handbook of The Catholic Faith states (page 136). “The Bible is the inspired word of God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God wrote the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error.” No doubt about it - God is the Divine Author of Scripture. He chose to use human writers to be part of this great experience.

I was taught in The Catholic Church that GOD is the author of the Bible, and I agree. I find it absurd to argue that The Catholic Church (which has no hands, no eyes, no abillity to write at all!) Do you think the Catholic Church is a building?

wrote The Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai (the oldest Scriptures) or that IT wrote First and Second Kings or that IT wrote the Book of Proverbs or that IT wrote the Book of Romans. It is getting harder to tell when you are trying to be funny or just have run off of the road, again. The Catholic Chruch is the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter and that took place in time - and that time was about 33AD. Obviously none of the books of the OT were written by followers of Christ. Some books of the NT were written by Apostles - and all the books of the NT were written (just like the OT) by human authors who were Divinely inspied.

And while it ACKNOWLEDGE the list of such books at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, Actually - this ACKNOWLEDGEMENT predates Trent by about 1300 years with the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (and, I had previously told you this …

it never formed the list of books of the Bible (again, my Catholic teacher: “The Catholic Church affirmed the list of books, it did not form it” I agree, history agrees). it may have been a while since you listened to your Catholic teacher, so let me help you with this. Prior to the Councils of Carthage (393AD) and Hippo (397AD) there was no Canon - the list of inspired books that made up the OT and the NT. In addition to the Divinely inspired books there were also fakes - written by ‘pre internet hackers’ who had the same focus as todays internet hackers - to confuse and cause problems for others. The mission of these Catholic Church Councils was to separate the ‘wheat from the chaf’ i.e., Inspired Text from strictly human text. The CC did more then ‘affirm’ a list - it DEVELOPED AND PUBLISHED it and the books that went with it.

BTW, most denominations have done what The Catholic one did at Trent, Italy in the 16th century - affirm the list of books. Mine did it at St. Louis, MO in the 19th century. But affirming something is not causing it. I affirm the sun came up this morning (and I could do so formally and officially), I had nothing to do with it. So, let us be clear about this - the CC did not write the Bible or any book in the Bible, AJ,. The CC determined which book is to be included in the Canon. There was no change in the books or in their order by the Council of Trent. It makes little difference when others gave (or withheld) their consent as to the Canon. The Canon is a done deal and the books of the Bible are set. Nothing will be added or taken away.

Now, for my own curiosity, since Luther (founder of your church) came up with his own canon in the 16th Century - why did there need to be a special activity to affirm the books in the 19th Century?

Looking forward to getting a response from you…

.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Hi, Libertarian,

You received an excellent response from Benedictus2. But, maybe I can add something for you to consider

I never said I support gay marriage just pointed out common argued points some denominations use with regard to Continuous Revelation, although to me such matters in the end are a matter of those involved and God. Personally in the few cases where two people are confirmed homosexuals and come to each other, since it is in fact very small a percentage of people I would consider an Affirmation of Love in the matter.

As for Tradition verses Continuous Revelation the RC uses both in your councils its clear you call on the latter but shore it up with the former. Most who use Continuous Revelation shore it up with the Tradition I will note many faiths do have strong conservative aspects such as the Evangelical Charismatic movements are very much anti-homosexualin practicing it. And like you would say if such persons abstain they are not living in sin, I think that is correct of the RC position. But these same movements often have women ministers drawn from the simple fact God doesn’t see men and women as different creatures before Him. So they and I note He can call to ministry and leadership whome He wishes. The same if He calls a black person or a asian person He doesn’t see race.

As for Sola Scriptura I will note that its not true tradition doesn’t matter to denominations. I was raised in the WELS (Wisconsin Evagelical Lutheran Synod) and they draw on what they refer to as core teachings and Old Church Traditions noted in the Bible but focus on the superiority of scripture. I suspect that is not unique. They just don’t support Papal Traditions but Luther’s work. I don’t ignore tradition I look at the example of Jesus and the first organized faith after the Pentacost that were Christian. That is tradition after all the Apostles led it and its clear the early days the faith grew and they honored Jesus.

When I see the later formation of a central faith and later the RCC formed centuries of horrors made in the name of Christ, for one example the Spanish Inquisition. I can point out many others that the Pope as the head of the Church should be held accountable for. I agree there was good done but that cannot be used to overlook evils done. So when you say Tradition of the Church I question that for the reason if your right the Jesus of the Bible and the grace of the NT mean nothing to the Councils and Popes in many cases. Not all but reigns of terror are not the Way as far as Jesus taught.

So my question would be what Tradition with a Big T are we to use to shore up Sola Scriptura and Continuous Revelation that of the Bible leaning to the former, or the RC view and their Tradition?