Defense of Sola Scriptura

[benedictus2]

Now, let’s change subjects and talk about interpretation, yes - there more than one view may be possible.

If two views are contrasting only one view could be right.

Let’s take the example of John 6. How do you resolve the issue of whether it is symbolic or literal. Only one could be right. If SS is the rule and since all protestants adhere to SS then you all should have the same interpretation but you don’t.

Let’s go back to the driving illustration. A friendly man in blue stops you, indicating that his radar read you going 53 in a 35 MPH zone, and he points to the big, white sign right next to the two of you there by the side of the road, the one that reads in black, bold letters and numerals: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH” That would then be the rule/canon/norma normans to which BOTH you and he are accountable. Is it knowable? Unalterable? Now, yes, you COULD say that it says "53 “MPH” (perhaps you have a reading disorder) and you and the policeman might be in disagreement on that - such is possible, and that will need to be arbitrated. But the interpretation AND the arbitration would all be according to the Rule of Law - in this case, that sign. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as that rule in matters of Christian doctrine.

This is a convoluted explanation of an analogy that does not apply.

Now, if you are a raging relativist or existentialist, it may not matter if the position is correct or not - you may not even believe that truth exists.

Aaah and here you finally support my position. Refer to my point in the first part of this post.

 

[benedictus2]

There are two principle factors involved in this. the FIRST is the mutual embrace of a common rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“Measuring stick”) or norma normans (“the norm that norms”) as this is called in epistemology (“how we know”).

That may apply to protestants but the Catholic Church is above that rule for the reasons I have outlined in my previous post.

Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape. It’s outside and above Bob and I (and you). Knowable to us all, alterable by none of us. We accept it as sufficiently reliable for our purpose here. It would then be the norma normans/rule/canon. “Sola Sears Measuring Tape” (lol). Follow? THIS IS THE FACTOR ADDRESSED BY SOLA SCRIPTURA. IT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF WHAT SERVES AS THE RULE/CANON/NORMA NORMANS. Follow? The Catholic Church rejects this as the rule, and thus rejects Sola Scriptura. Thus the constant “debate” of it with the praxis.

Precisely because of what I have written before. Again, for 1500 years of Christianity no such rule was necessary and no such rule is necessary now.

The only rule we can gauge the interpretation of the Bible by is Sacred Tradition, because before any of the books were written it was first tradtion. That is why when the Catholic Church determined which books are going to be included or not, they measured this books against traditioni.

If you will only try to read a bit more about how the Bible was formed you will be a bit more informed.

The Catholic Church is only right to reject that which is man made tradition - SS.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, when The Catholic Church simply declares: “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right” IS circular reasoning.

Oh but sweetheart, the Catholic church never ever said that. You really should stop making this false statements.

1. The Tradition of itself as itself chooses, defines and interprets plus 2) the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself plus 3) the Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the rulings, views, interpretations, arbitrations of itself.

If you accept the Bible then you accept the Churches tradition and magisterium.

Since it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible and her measuring tape for Scripture was Tradtion and she was able to pass that on to us through her magisterial authority, then petal, accepting the Bible means accepting all that.

But of course, you have not extended your thinking that far yet.

 

[benedictus2]

AmericanJosiah,

Thank you for your efforts to explain your position on the topic. However I cannot help but feel you are continually avoiding the question by trying to distract people with big words and immensely long repetetive posts. Maybe this is not your intent and I hope it is not.

But either way it is becoming quite exhausting to try to follow what you are saying and I think I will seek the answer elsewhere.

Best,

-nt

Hmmm, I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

 

[twinc]

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

-nt

Scripture states it is inerrant at 2Timothy3:16-17 and 2Peter1:20-21 - twinc

 

[benedictus2]

Scripture states it is inerrant at 2Timothy3:16-17 and 2Peter1:20-21 - twinc

Yes, but the NT was not considered scripture back then. The scripture that was referred to was the OT.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Again, for 1500 years of Christianity no such rule was necessary and no such rule is necessary now.

I disagree with that observation, but I DO think that became the insistence of The Catholic Church - and is the reason why it rejects Sola Scriptura.

It’s not that The Catholic Church has a better alternative as a rule/canon as we evaluate doctrines (including of The Catholic Church). No. It’s just that it rejects anything or anyone evaluating the teachings of The Catholic Church at all - by ANY rule or canon, by ANY process. The Catholic Church alone claims that there is ONE (itself alone) that is infallible in official matters of faith and morals, thus norming is moot in the case of one (exclusively) - itself. It’s the entire norming process it rejects (well, for one - itself), thus it rejects all parts of that process, including WHATEVER would serve as the norma normans. “I can’t be wrong, so thus I’m right - accept it with docility and put your hand down.”

You may accept this claim by self alone for self alone - and do just as it requires of you (CCC 87, etc., etc.) just as Mormons and members of various cults. I won’t dispute any article of faith or any docilic acceptance. You may do as you want. But you are right: The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it regards the entire issue of evaluating teachings as moot in the case of one exclusively: itself. Self claims that self is exempt from accountability.

If you will only try to read a bit more about how the Bible was formed you will be a bit more informed.

I think anyone would conclude that The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Most of it came into being and was embraced as Scripture CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself claims that it even came into existence (thus it itself admits it had nothing to do with that) and the Catholic Church itself teaches that GOD gave us the New Testament via His penmen - the Catholic Church wrote, gave and did nothing in that regard (even if it did exist at the time, for which there is ZERO evidence). Yes, centuries later, The Catholic Church officially acknowledged the books - as have virtually all other denominations too, but you don’t seem to know the difference between acknowledging something and creating or giving or forming the same; it’s apples and oranges. We all know that even The New Testament was accepted as Scrptures LONG before The Catholic Church (or any other denomination) did ANYTHING remotely related to that subject.

Again, I agree with you. The reason why The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura (as does the LDS and all cults) is NOT because it knows of something MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historic (before 1400 BC, MORE ecumenically and hisotrically embraced, MORE knowable by all or alterable by none; it does NOT have a better alternative rule/canon. It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability - by anyone, according to anything: it alone insists that it alone is infallible - thus accountability and norming are entirely moot in the case of one and only one: itself.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AJ:

Since you are on this thread, I would like to ask one simple question.

Is the following scenario consistent or inconsistent with your definition of SS. This is a hypothetical that may or may not exist in reality.

• There exists one church with one authoritative central organization.
• Although this central organization does not claim that it is “incapable of being incorrect”, this central organizaion is authoritative enough to set doctrine and to arbitrate doctrinal disputes.
• This central organization established doctrine both through what it calls “tradition” and “Scripture”. Now where there is conflict, Scripture gets the nod. Yet at the same time, tradition is used and highly valued to guard against new inventions in Scripture.
• The faithful are expected to submit to the authority of the central organization.

If this scenario can be consistent with your definition of SS, then what is the difference between this scenario and Catholicism other than the “incapable of being incorrect” part. Also if it can be consistent with your definition of SS, then what is the difference between this scenario and Orthodoxy?

 

[benedictus2]

I disagree with that observation, but I DO think that became the insistence of The Catholic Church - and is the reason why it rejects Sola Scriptura.

It’s not that The Catholic Church has a better alternative as a rule/canon as we evaluate doctrines (including of The Catholic Church).

Please, please, please. If you can, try to read up on how the Catholic Church determined the canon.

I posted a history of the Bible. Before the Bible was written there was only tradition. Therefore what came after must be measured by why came first. The first reference to a canon was not canon of scripture but the Canon of our Traditions.

It is exasperating debating with you when you know so little about the the history of the Bible when you profess to care so much about it.

Please, please, please, try to be better informed in this subject so we are not going in circles.

No. It’s just that it rejects anything or anyone evaluating the teachings of The Catholic Church at all - by ANY rule or canon, by ANY process. The Catholic Church alone claims that there is ONE (itself alone) that is infallible in official matters of faith and morals, thus norming is moot in the case of one (exclusively) - itself. It’s the entire norming process it rejects (well, for one - itself), thus it rejects all parts of that process, including WHATEVER would serve as the norma normans. “I can’t be wrong, so thus I’m right - accept it with docility and put your hand down.”

Okay, let us put your theory to the test. Let us say that there are two contesting rules : The Catholic Church and Sola Scriptura. which one is correct? How do you know which one is correct.

Luther and Calvin themselves realized the error of sola scriptura. But even realizing its flaws they still stuck to it.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Please, please, please. If you can, try to read up on how the Catholic Church determined the canon.

I have studied it, and history is absolutely, totally clear: The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the developement of embracing Scripture as such (a process that began around 1400 BC). In fact, NO denomination did ANYTHING WHATSOEVER in relation to Scripture until the very late 4th century (at the very earliest), and of course, by then, Scripture was anywhere from 1800 to 300 years old!!! And the embrace of what is and is not Scripture was already largely determined. What The Catholic Church did is what nearly all other denominations have also done: acknowledge Scripture and the corpus thereof. There’s NOTHING unique about what The Catholic Church did - thousands of other denominations have done the same thing. But acknowledging Scirpture is not causing it; acknowledging the list is not determining it.

Now, back to the issue of what best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church) are evaluated.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

]Luther and Calvin themselves realized the error of sola scriptura. But even realizing its flaws they still stuck to it.

Quote both of them where they specifically state: “Sola Scriptura is erronious.” Or “It is an erronious practice of use Scripture as the canon/rule in the evaluation of doctrines.”

The snippets Catholic like to quote are directed either at individual interpretation (self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter) which has NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura and is a REBUKE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (not Sola Scriptura) since it is the one that appoints one - self - as the sole authoritative interpreter (CCC 85, etc.). Luther opposed this designation of one - self - as the sole authoritative interpreter (part of his dispute with The Catholic Church since in his day, it was the main one that did that). OR they quote a snippet where Luther rebukes individual arbitration, which again has NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura and is AGAIN a rebuke of Catholicism, for it is The Catholic Church that designates only one (yup, you guessed it - itself) as the sole arbiter for all issues of itself. So, don’t quote those things that have NOTHING to do with the issue of this thread, quote if you can find both Luther and Calvin specifically stating that SOLA SCRIPTURA is wrong.

Now, back to the issue of what best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church) are evaluated.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AJ:

Since you are on this thread, I would like to ask one simple question.

Is the following scenario consistent or inconsistent with your definition of SS. This is a hypothetical that may or may not exist in reality.

• There exists one church with one authoritative central organization.
• Although this central organization does not claim that it is “incapable of being incorrect”, this central organizaion is authoritative enough to set doctrine and to arbitrate doctrinal disputes.
• This central organization established doctrine both through what it calls “tradition” and “Scripture”. Now where there is conflict, Scripture gets the nod. Yet at the same time, tradition is used and highly valued to guard against new inventions in Scripture.
• The faithful are expected to submit to the authority of the central organization.

If this scenario can be consistent with your definition of SS, then

None of them are.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

None of them are.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

Are what…consistent or inconsistent.

Maybe I didn’t ask my question well. Is this hypothetical church practicing Sola Scriptura according to your definition.

Note that the “magisterium” of this church sets and arbitrates doctrine. The magisterium does not claim to be infallible however, and uses Scripture (but strongly influenced by tradition) as the norma normans. The faithful are expected to submit to the authority of the magisterium.

 

[Presence]

Quote both of them where they specifically state: “Sola Scriptura is erronious.” Or “It is an erronious practice of use Scripture as the canon/rule in the evaluation of doctrines.”

The snippets Catholic like to quote are directed either at individual interpretation (self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter) which has NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura and is a REBUKE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (not Sola Scriptura) since it is the one that appoints one - self - as the sole authoritative interpreter (CCC 85, etc.). Luther opposed this designation of one - self - as the sole authoritative interpreter (part of his dispute with The Catholic Church since in his day, it was the main one that did that). OR they quote a snippet where Luther rebukes individual arbitration, which again has NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura and is AGAIN a rebuke of Catholicism, for it is The Catholic Church that designates only one (yup, you guessed it - itself) as the sole arbiter for all issues of itself. So, don’t quote those things that have NOTHING to do with the issue of this thread, quote if you can find both Luther and Calvin specifically stating that SOLA SCRIPTURA is wrong.

Now, back to the issue of what best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church) are evaluated.

.

This style of debate is just silly AJ. Why don’t you answer that one for us since you seem to already know the answer?

Like other threads where you’ve received answers you didn’t like, you’ll go back and forth ad nauseum. It’s pointless, you’re going to get an answer. Discuss like an adult please.

 

[benedictus2]

I have studied it, and history is absolutely, totally clear: The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the developement of embracing Scripture as such (a process that began around 1400 BC).

No it is blatantly clear that you have not done so.

Here it is again. davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
**Timeline of how the Bible came to us **

Date

Event**AD **

51-125

The New Testament books are written.140

Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. 200

The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. 367

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D… 382

Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 393

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.397

The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …AD787

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.1442

AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.1536

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. 1546

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

Now tell me which Church it was that did all that 51 to 1546 AD?

 

[benedictus2]

In fact, NO denomination did ANYTHING WHATSOEVER in relation to Scripture until the very late 4th century (at the very earliest), and of course, by then, Scripture was anywhere from 1800 to 300 years old!!!

Duh, but the Bible was not the Bible then. There was no set canon! You just can’t seem to grasp that bit.

And the embrace of what is and is not Scripture was already largely determined. What The Catholic Church did is what nearly all other denominations have also done:

Wrong again. I posted a timeline earlier but I doubt you will read that. You are one of those who insist on being ill-informed even when enlightenment is staring them in the face. I suppose it is better to live in denial rather than face the truth that you are in error.

**Now, bck to the issue of what best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church) are evaluated. **

No, not back to the issue. We have been discussing the issue all along. But it seems you are unable to grasp that.

Sola Scriptura is unnecessary and completely unbiblical. So no. Not an accepted rule and will never be an accepted rule.

 

[benedictus2]

Quote both of them where they specifically state: “Sola Scriptura is erronious.” Or “It is an erronious practice of use Scripture as the canon/rule in the evaluation of doctrines.”

They both agreed that if you go by Sola Scritpura you end up with disparate and opposing interpreations which is untenable.

Here is something I already posted before on this thread but you seem to have over looked.

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.

---

SOLA SCRIPTURA FOSTERS UNCERTAINTY. DOES GOD REALLY WANT US TO MUDDLE ABOUT IN UNCERTAINTY?

 

[Trilor]

Benedictus2, you wkouldn’t happen to have a source for those two quotes, would you? Not that I think ou made them up, its that I am a bit of a documentation freak

 

[AmericanJosiah]

"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

Thank you. Please reference the quotes.

Now, you posted that Luther and Calvin both stated that it is an error to embrace Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. And yet neither of these unreferenced quotes REMOTELY states such. As I noted earlier when you made the claim but didn’t offer any support for it, neither of these have anything whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura or with this thread.

As I noted then, yes - you can find where Luther rejects the appointment of self as the sole interpreter of Scripture (as The Catholic Church does, see its Catechism # 85). And as I noted earlier, both also reject self appointing self as the sole arbiter (as The Catholic Church does). Both are rejections of the claims of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church. But let’s see if we can return to the subject of this thread, the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. Sola Scriptura embraces Scripture as such. What does The Catholic Church suggest is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historically embraced (to 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraces, MORE outside and above and beyond all parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable to all and alterable by none? It doens’t have a better alternative. In fact, it doesn’t have an alternative at all - why? Because it rejects ALL norma normans since it rejects accountability (well, of one exclusively - itself, all others ARE regarded as accountable, just not itself). It circumvents the entire issue by itself alone declaring itself alone to be “infallible” in official matters of faith and morals, thus above accountability and this whole issue.

I agree with you, the reason why The Catholic Church itself alone for itself alone rejects the Rule of Scripture for the norming process is that it rejects accountability (well, for one - itself, exclusively): “I’m right, so when I say I’m right ergo I must be right so I’m right; just accept whatever with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). It rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects all accountability (for one: itself) and thus a rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT in the case of one (itself). If one insists that one alone (self) is INCAPABLE of error, then accountability is moot and the rule/canon/norma normans is moot (for self anyway). THAT’S the Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura. Self is jsut right so self is. And self is the SOLE authority, so it’s not subject to anything (except God as self alone so arbitrates).

I’m curious, have you read the writings of Brigham Young or any of the many cult leaders in regard to accountability, norming, and what rule/canon they accept? Have you read the LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie’s work, “On The Authority of the Church?” Their insistence on self being infallible/unaccountable, their reasons for rejecting the Rule of Scripture? I have. I recommend you study these.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2, you wkouldn’t happen to have a source for those two quotes, would you? Not that I think ou made them up, its that I am a bit of a documentation freak

Woops, that was from a book called On the Bible by Karen Armstrong (I did include this note on my previous post on this same thread). She gave references to these quotes in her book. Martin Luther’s was from Luther’s works (I think Volume4) and Calvins is I think from his Commentaries.

I will post the exact works when I get home.