Defense of Sola Scriptura

[benedictus2]

1. No. Once again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine.

No it is not. Of course you are free to claim that it is.

1. Yes, Sola Scriptura is Latin for “Scripture alone.” It means that Scripture alone is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine.

No that is not what Sola Scriptura means. That is your own definition of Sola Scriptura. SS is the doctrine itself.

1. No, I’m not saying that the canon is my invention. I’m saying that Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

And I am saying it is not. I did not say that the canon is your invention. Your definion of SS is your invention.

I haven’t a clue what that has to do with anything, but okay. Find me just one quote (just one - I’m in the Christmas, gracious spirit) were ANYONE is referred to as the infallible pope before the year 100 AD.

And where did I say that the Pope was there before the year 100 AD.

Yes, and what do we call something written by God? Ah, Scripture. So, when does Scripture first appear? With Moses. It’s usually dated around 1400 BC. Unless you have ripped The Ten Commandments out of your Bible or you reject them as Scripture, then that makes the oldest Scripture more than FOURTEEN CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself claims (entirely unsubstantiated) that it came into existence. So, no, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for The Catholic Church to have given us Scripture or to be older than Scripture, unless you reject the claim of The Catholic Church and have documentation that the denomination was actually founded over 14 centuries before it itself so claims.

Aah, but the Scripture we talk about now is more than just the 10 commandments. We have several books that form Scripture. And these several books that form Scripture now was declared as scripture by the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ did not call any of the NT scripture and yet we know call the NT scripture. Why? Because the Church said so.

Nice try, but nope. He said, “on this rock.”

More than just nice try. Biblical. Read Matthew 16. It is all there. Unless of course you are one of those who do eisegesis rather than exegesis.

But if you are right, and He built it on Peter, then it died with Peter around 67 AD and Christianity now lies in a vault under St. Peter’s in Rome.

Nope, because He also commissioned the twleve to preach the gospels to all nations and baptize them in the Trinity and He promised them that He will be with them until the end of time.

Horrible thought. Because Jesus is NOTHING about The Catholic Church, nothing about any successors, nothing about any bishops in Rome,

Oh yes He did. By building His Church upon Peter and saying that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. If you say that it ended with Peter death then you are calling Jesus a liar. Which is not surpising since you have lied.

nothing about ANYONE or ANY denomination being infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error or to be accepted with docility. he NEVER referenced The Catholic Church as authoritative and never once used it normatively. Did He so use Scripture?

And Jesus never said that the Scripture that we know it now is inerrant. So are you saying that the Bible is erroneous?

And the yadda yadda about SS being the rule is getting tiresome so I am not buying into that anymore.

 

[tqualey]

I tell you what, AJ … I will engage your thought…and work with you on this. Your job is to respond… So, let’s take a look at these three ideas that you have been hammering away at for the past 50 posts and see what they really contain…

1. No. Once again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine.
2. Yes, Sola Scriptura is Latin for “Scripture alone.” It means that Scripture alone is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine.
3. No, I’m not saying that the canon is my invention. I’m saying that Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah
  .

While there many uses of the term “praxis”, the one I think you are using involves making practical applications to a particular theory ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(process). So, let’s take a look at some of those apparent ‘practical applications’ - and, if you have any different ones, just submit them so we all can have a look.

Items No. 1 and 2 (Item 3 is just a restatement of the first two!)

**IF SS IS THE PRAXIS… **then there should be a uniformity of doctrine on items such as Baptism. Christ was quite clear to the old Pharisee Nicodeamus that Baptism with water was necesssary - and quite clear that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were to go out into the world and baptize in the name of the Trinity. **YET THIS IS NOT THE CASE **- as we see with the multiplicity of protestent groups - who yet all claim SS as their only source of doctrine.

**IF SS IS THE PRAXIS… **then there should be a uniformity of doctrine on items such as Eucharist. Christ was quite clear in John 6 to the group of people that followed Him after being fed with the loaves and fishes that if they do not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood - they have no life in them. And, of course, Christ gives us this wonderful Sacrament of His Love at the Last Supper where Matthew, Mark and Luke all record what took place. **YET THIS IS NOT THE CASE **- as we see with the multiplicity of protestent groups - who yet all claim SS as their only source of doctrine.

So, let’s just look at this logically - since Scripture never claims SS (this is really a man-made tradition with its origin solidly in the Reformation) and Scripture must be explained - just like the eunich said to Phillip - there must be a recognized source of divinely inspired wisdom to make these written words understandable. If not, you know what happens? Yep, you guess it, the chaos of protestantism with its divergence on every conceivable topic in Scripture. While Christ prayed that His Chruch would be one - we see the historic and quite contemporary divisions of protestantism that splinter before our very eyes.

Just how can a book - any book - ‘norm’ itself? It just can not be done. Books do not talk and explain things that are questioned or resolve matters that are dispute. Only people do this. And, the people who do this are the ones set up by Jesus Christ in Matt 16. When Christ told Peter whatever he bound was bound and whatever was loosed was loosed in heaven and on earth - He really did mean it. Peter - AND his Successors - have the Power of God to establish what is God’s Word. You see, AJ, the Book did not write itself.

If SS could evlauate a doctrine - to be a genuine praxis - then the evaluation would demonstrate a uniform - and most practical outsome. We clearly observe division, diversity, man-made traditions and a host of conflict and chaos with any group employing SS. It is totally IMPRACTICAL - no one can identify any uniformity of doctrine except one rather strange item … and that one is a rejection of the Church built by Christ on Peter!

I submit, AJ, that SS is devoid of both validity and value. It is really leading your far from Christ! Recall, not every who cries out, “Lord, Lord! will enter the Kingdom of Heaven”

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

I must confess… this is a new term for me…

More than just nice try. Biblical. Read Matthew 16. It is all there. Unless of course you are one of those who do eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Ah, would it be in the same grouping as “wishfulgesis” or “non-gesis”? I think we have all been subjected to prolonged “yadagesis”…

Here is wishing everyone on the list had a very Blessed and Joyous Christmas.

God bless

 

[KingAlfred]

**While the Bible occupies a major role in my life, its doesn’t provide sufficient doctrinal guidance. I need the Catechism and the active stewardship of the Church for that purpose. **

 

[schaick]

“IF SS IS THE PRAXIS… then there should be a uniformity of doctrine on items such as Baptism. Christ was quite clear to the old Pharisee Nicodeamus that Baptism with water was necesssary - and quite clear that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were to go out into the world and baptize in the name of the Trinity. YET THIS IS NOT THE CASE - as we see with the multiplicity of protestent groups - who yet all claim SS as their only source of doctrine.”

What protestant groups don’t baptize with water?

“So, let’s just look at this logically - since Scripture never claims SS (this is really a man-made tradition with its origin solidly in the Reformation) and Scripture must be explained - just like the eunich said to Phillip - there must be a recognized source of divinely inspired wisdom to make these written words understandable. If not, you know what happens? Yep, you guess it, the chaos of protestantism with its divergence on every conceivable topic in Scripture. While Christ prayed that His Chruch would be one - we see the historic and quite contemporary divisions of protestantism that splinter before our very eyes.”

What chaos? HIS Church is one. All Trinitarian Christians believe the same basic tenets of faith and all believe that Jesus is the rock on which the Church of Christ was built.

 

[schaick]

**While the Bible occupies a major role in my life, its doesn’t provide sufficient doctrinal guidance. I need the Catechism and the active stewardship of the Church for that purpose. **

I feel just the opposite-I find my answers from the Word of GOD and not the word of man.

Church Doctrine - Bible stories are much more important then church doctrine- one is man-made one is GOD inspired.

Doctrine tells others what you believe-it doesn’t tell **you **what you believe.

For example -I am a Trinitarian Christian but I dislike that label, it explains what I believe, but it doesn’t tell me what to believe, Gospel does.

 

[benedictus2]

"What protestant groups don’t baptize with water?

Quakers and Salvation Army

What chaos?

The 10,000 differing protestant denominations (and I said 10,000 to be on the extremely conservative side)

HIS Church is one.

That is correct, because there is only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Top Marks on that comment

All Trinitarian Christians believe the same basic tenets of faith

No they don’t. What you call basic is not basic at all. They all believe in the trinity (bare minimum) but their theologies vary greatly.

and all believe that Jesus is the rock on which the Church of Christ was built.

No they don’t. Christ established His Church upon the rock which is Peter (this is very, very, very, clear in the Bible). Protestants don’t believe this. So they either think Jesus was lying when He said this, or else, the Bible is not really inerrant for having included those passage from Matthew. . You can take your pick

 

[benedictus2]

I feel just the opposite-I find my answers from the Word of GOD and not the word of man.

Now perhaps you can tell me how you know that the Bible is the Word of God. I have asked several people that but no protestant has been able to give a convincing answer. You see, we only know that the Bible is the Word of God because the Catholic church said so

Church Doctrine - Bible stories are much more important then church doctrine- one is man-made one is GOD inspired.

But you have really no way of knowing that the Bible is indeed inspired by God without the say so of the Catholic Church. I suggest you start reading the rest of the thread and you will understood a little bit more about the Bible.

Doctrine tells others what you believe-it doesn’t tell **you **what you believe.

Doctrine simply means a system of beliefs. But we need correct doctrine because all our actions proceed from our doctrines, from our beliefs.

You believe in the Trinity I presume but you cannot find the Trinity in the Bible. That is a doctrine that was defined by the Catholic Church at the Counci of Nicea.

For example -I am a Trinitarian Christian but I dislike that label, it explains what I believe, but it doesn’t tell me what to believe, Gospel does.

You are a Trinitarian Christian BECAUSE of the the Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Thank you, Benedictus2 … you did a much better job of explaining the answer…

Quakers and Salvation Army

The 10,000 differing protestant denominations (and I said 10,000 to be on the extremely conservative side)

That is correct, because there is only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Top Marks on that comment

No they don’t. What you call basic is not basic at all. They all believe in the trinity (bare minimum) but their theologies vary greatly.
No they don’t. Christ established His Church upon the rock which is Peter (this is very, very, very, clear in the Bible). Protestants don’t believe this. So they either think Jesus was lying when He said this, or else, the Bible is not really inerrant for having included those passage from Matthew. . You can take your pick

God bless

 

[Magdalena09]

fwiw, i had a book several years ago that listed every christian denomination in the US and there were over 28000. who knows how many now?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick

The response you provided presents some logical contradictions that I would appreciate you addressing. Benedictus2 identified a number, but there are a few more… so, feel free to jump in and clear the air.

I feel just the opposite-I find my answers from the Word of GOD and not the word of man.

I gather that you are a protestant… so, please tell me how this entire group is not based on the, “…word of man…”? Please recall that Christ founded His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter and promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail (Matt 16).

Feel free to respond to Benedictus2’s statement about the Bible coming from the Catholic Church - and how accepting the Bible but rejecting the Church that gave it to you is not logical.

Church Doctrine - Bible stories are much more important then church doctrine- one is man-made one is GOD inspired.

I am really not too sure about what you mean by this. When I hear the term “Bible Stories” I think of the stories told to children about the mighty deeds of God primarily described in the Old Testament. Is this what you mean?

While there is nothing wrong with “Bible Stories”, there really is a lot more to the Bible then what is usually presented to children. For example, I am not familiar with any “Bible Story” that describes Jesus telling the crowd (John 6) that unless they eat His Body and drink His Blood that they will have no life in them. Or, Christ giving His Apostles the delegated Power of God to forgive sin (John 20). From what I gather, protestants just dismiss these as nonsense… even though they claim SS is what they believe. What do you think?

Doctrine tells others what you believe-it doesn’t tell **you **what you believe.
You are seriously mislead here. Doctrine is doctrine - it is a statement of items that are essential to one’s belief. Your presentation sets up a distinction between others and self that is totally artificial and misleading. Are you saying that what you tell others about what is believed is not what you believe? If so, this seems like it would give an average person a terrible conflict with the demands external observance and internal belief. Is this what you meant?

For example -I am a Trinitarian Christian but I dislike that label, it explains what I believe, but it doesn’t tell me what to believe, Gospel does.
From my experience, labels are just short-hand versions of identifying anything. Don’t take it personally…

Now, let me see if I have this straight: as a Trinitarian, you believe that there are Three Persons in One God. Somehow, God the Father sends God the Son to earth - but, He makes these confused and conflicted statements that protestants do not believe (e.g., baptism is necessary, the Eucharist is really His Body and Blood, sinners are to confess their sins to the Apostles and their successors, and that He founded the Catholic Church on Peter and his successors…and they are free to bind and lose as they choose… to name a few.) Since the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ, to keep the Catholic Church from error (a promise not made to Luther and the many, many splinter groups that followed his leap off of the cliff) is not to be believed, either - just what is it that makes a Trinitarian a Christian?

God bless

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

This is a straw man arguement ie. You set up an argument that is never claimed and then you tear it down. Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) does not state that it is the only infallible word of God. What it does state is that it is the all sufficiant word of God. In other words. Everything necessary to lead us to salvation is contained in the Word of God and this is contained in the bible.
Jn.5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jn8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

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

Look no further. Here’s one.

 

[benedictus2]

This is a straw man arguement ie. You set up an argument that is never claimed and then you tear it down. Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) does not state that it is the only infallible word of God. What it does state is that it is the all sufficiant word of God. In other words. Everything necessary to lead us to salvation is contained in the Word of God and this is contained in the bible.
Jn.5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jn8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Look no further. Here’s one.

Here is a definition of SS from Wiki (which may be wrong or not )
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal

But this proposition is self defeating. First of all, Scripture did not come from the sky. The NT was written by the Church and the entire Bible was only considered Scripture because the Church said so.

So how can Scripture Alone be the authority when it derives its own authority from the Church?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

“Straw man argument”…? aw, Richard, let’s try and see that that circular logic and flase statements have only made it appear as covered with the straw in the eyes of some. In reality, it is a solid Rock.

This is a straw man arguement ie. You set up an argument that is never claimed and then you tear it down. While this is a good definition, it is not, in my opinion,what the OP was addressing.

Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) does not state that it is the only infallible word of God. What it does state is that it is the all sufficiant word of God. In other words. Everything necessary to lead us to salvation is contained in the Word of God and this is contained in the bible.
Sounds similar to what Benedictus2 gave you. (Oh, B2…be careful about Wiki references - it bent P101’s nose totally out of joint when i used it! No, the facts were not flawed - just that it came from Wike!

Jn.5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jn8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Actually, Richard, these are excellent quotes - but, there are two major problem with your approach.

1.) As Benedictus2 pointed out, it was the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) that gave us the Scripture as Divinely Inspired and created the Canon which not only identifies what each Book contains but, the order of those Books. Note, it was not Scripture that gave us the Church. This is merely a historical item in the same context that the Church founded by Christ on Peter was about 57 years in operation (Christ died about the year 33AD) before John wrote the last Book in about 100AD and died. So, for about 57 years the Bible, as we think of it today, was not even fully written.

2.) Take a look at how SS had divided and not unified Christianity. While Christ prayed for Unity, it was Luther and Calvin (both former clerics) who complaned about everyone thinking they had the right to determine the MEANING of scripture for themselves. Even thse 16th Century heretics could see the folly of SS - yet, to make the logical correction would mean that they would need to have an Authority that they had already rejected: the Catholic Church.

And, in case you have any doubt about SS being devisive, simply look around you at all of the splintered groups trying to claim a belief system that ultimately rejects the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16) and gave Peter (and his successors) the authority to bind and lose. All the protestant groups that I am familiar with claim this is not the correct interpretation - but, to agree with this means that Christ, Who promised the protection of the Holy Spirit for His Church, lied and simply let it drift for 16 centuries until ‘rescued’ by Luther & the others who sought to destroy the Church instead of reform it!

But, do not stop with the scripturally based authority of Peter and his successors - look at Baptism (Matt 25), some splinter groups believe it is necessary, some say it is optional and some disregard it totally. Look at Eucharist (John 6), some splinter groups say it is just a rememberance and others say it is nothing. Look at Confession (John 20), some splinter groups claim they go directly to God and others just ignore the fact that Christ breathed on the Apostles, telling them to received the Holy Spirit and if they chose to forgive a man’s sins then those sins are forgiven - and if they chose to retain those sins, they are retained!

Ultimately, Scripture is not on the cafateria plan … picking and choosing what you like and rejecting the rest. God has provided clear direction - LOCATED IN SCRIPTURE - but, the challenge is to accept it as is and not as you want it to be.

God bless

Look no further. Here’s one.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Actually, Richard, these are excellent quotes - but, there are two major problem with your approach.

1.) As Benedictus2 pointed out, it was the Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) that gave us the Scripture

As has been noted, this is not only contrary to the teachings of The Catholic Church, but it’s historically IMPOSSIBLE and entirely absurd.

Protestants tend to agree with The Catholic Church that GOD gave us His Scriptures. And one would hope it obvious that The Catholic Church did not write a single letter of it (much less book, but less everything from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21). And since The Catholic Church itself doesn’t even CLAIM to have existed before 31 AD, therefore MOST of the Bible COULD NOT have come from it since it didn’t even exist! And while we often attribute NT books to various men (in the case of nearly one-third, we don’t know who was the penmen) NONE of those penmen was The Catholic Church - they were all PEOPLE. And there is ZERO evidence that they wrote what they did by command of and at the authorization of The Catholic Church, as an official agent of The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with it. Absolutely nothing.

Now, what SOME Catholics may MEAN by this very common claim is that in the very late 4th century, a meeting - which those same Catholics claim was a meeting specificly, solely of The Catholic Church (evidently, no Orthodox bishops present) officially and formally acknowledged the list of canonical books. That has NOTHING to do with “giving” us ANYTHING, it has to do with acknowledging a list of books. But historically, this was moot. The list was ALREADY accepted; as history shows and as all my Catholic teachers taught, those meetings ACKNOWLEDGED the list of books - it didn’t create or form or give it. They were a denomination officially acknowledging such for itself. You might not know that nearly all denominations have done EXACTLY THE SAME THING - there is nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - unique about what The Catholic denomination did - most have done EXACTLY the same thing. It has NOTHING to do with any specific denomination giving us all the material from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

There is ZERO evidence that The Catholic Church even existed in 1400 BC when the oldest Scripture was given, thus your statement that the Church gave it - and that would be The Catholic Church is simply impossible. You are off by AT LEAST fourteen centuries!

2.) Take a look at how SS had divided and not unified Christianity.

1. No one denies that The Catholic Church officially and currently agrees with itself alone in all matters that itself alone determines should be agreed upon. Yup. It has a unity of one: Self alone with self alone. Is THAT what you think Jesus prayed for? Self in current and official agreement with exclusively self in matters that self alone thinks self should agree on? Because that’s ALL that exists in The Catholic Church. AT :LEAST the same can be said of all the other denominations. Heck, I typically agree with myself in all things that I currently think I should agree on, and yet I don’t see you yelling that THEREFORE I’m infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter.
2. I think you would benefit GREATLY by a solid study of cults. They ALL reject Sola Scriptura - because they all reject accountability. Each claims - in some way or form - that Jesus founded it and ergo Jesus protects it from error, that it somehow knows about things Jesus taught but didn’t get recorded in God’s Scripture to us, that it (and/or it’s leader or leadership) is in some sense infallible, unaccountable, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter. Friend, THAT has lead to FAR more disunity than Sola Scriptura! I am in FAR greater unity with my Calvinist friend under Sola Scriptura than you are with the Davidians rejecting Sola Scriptura and replacing it with claims of self alone for self alone that self alone is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error (at least under certain conditions), that the sole authority is self alone. Study the cults. Pay extra attention to their epistemology. Then read your Catechism (start with CCC 85 and 87). IMHO, Sola Scriptura has lead to LESS disunity of teachings that self proclaiming self to be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole authority.

Continued in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing from post above…

it was Luther and Calvin thinking they had the right to determine the MEANING of scripture for themselves.

Actually, they both REJECTED that rubric. It is The Catholic Church that insists, demand this. Read your Catechism # 85. The Catholic Church designates that only one has this “right” to authoritatively interpret Scripture - and that one is (you guessed it)… itself. All must just accept whatever itself exclusively says - “with docility” (CCC 87). THAT is what Luther and Calvin questioned: the claim of self alone for self alone of unaccountability. If join with Luther in rejecting that self can designate self as the sole authoritative, unquestionable, infallible, unaccountable interpreter - then read your Catechism # 85 and 87. Your “issue” is not with Luther or Lutheranism, it’s with The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults).

Christ, Who promised the protection of the Holy Spirit for His Church, lied and simply let it drift for 16 centuries until ‘rescued’ by Luther & the others who sought to destroy the Church instead of reform it!

1. Jesus promised The Catholic Church nothing. He authorized it for nothing. He commanded it for nothing. He never so much as MENTIONED it. For anything. About anything. Not once. Ever. These are simply the claims of one for one - self. And you might notice that Jesus NEVER said that ANY denomination or person or teacher is infallible or incapable of error or the sole authority or the sole interpreter or the sole arbiter. These are just the claims of one for one - self.
2. You seem to have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. Take your question here to the LDS (the largest and most vocal restitutionalist group).

God has provided clear direction - LOCATED IN SCRIPTURE - but, the challenge is to accept it as is and not as you want it to be.

I agree. And He never so much as MENTIONED The Catholic Church. Not once. Ever.

God repeatedly and stearnly warned of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, and contrary to the claim of The Catholic Church, God never exempted The Catholic Church, never giving ANY denomination a “pass” on accountability, never declaring ANYONE or ANY institution to be infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole interpreter and sole arbiter. Those who read Scripture see that all these claims of one for one are missing - entirely unsubstantiated there.

IMHO, The Catholic Church rejects the embrace of God’s Scripture as the rule/canon (Sola Scriptura) NOT because it has a better alternative rule/canon (it doesn’t) or because it has a better approach to norming (it doesn’t). It rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming for the same reason it rejects any and all other alternatives - because it rejects norming. It simply circumvents the entire subject of norming (and thus what will serve as the rule/canon in such), itself alone exempting itself alone from accountability. Since it alone insists that it alone is infallible and it CANNOT err (in matters of official doctrine and morals anyway), ergo it is unaccountable. The whole issue of whether it is correct is moot since itself alone insists that itself alone CANNOT be anything but correct. It’s norming it rejects since it alone regards it meaningless, irrelevant, moot in the case of ONE - itself (exclusively).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, any may claim that self alone is jsut right cuz self says self is - and thus exempt one - self - from accountability and examination. But this is not an alternative praxis (better or worse), it is self exempting self from such. “Just accept whatever I say with docility cuz I insist I’m right so I am.”

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Magdalena09]

Josiah… you seem very passionate about all your claims, but you don’t actually provide any evidence, such as citing your claims. You just say, “history says this” when in fact it does not say such things.

In the non-religious, widely used and accepted (at both Christian and secular colleges and universities) textbook Western Civilization by Jackson Spielvogel… the history of how the Bible was compiled that you seem to protest so much and call historically inaccurate… is documented.

I’m sure it is documented in other history texts as well.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

. You say, “history says this” when in fact it does not say such things.

Actually, we’ve been all over this - even though it’s entirely and completely moot to the issue at hand.

Yes, the diversion is often made that The Catholic Church “gave us” the Bible.
First of all, this is historically IMPOSSIBLE for over two-thirds of the Bible since that material is older (in some cases, over fourteen centuries older) than The Catholic Church - even by the entirely unsubstantiated claim of The Catholic Church. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for The Catholic Church to have given us anything in the Old Testament.

Let’s now turn to the other less than one-third of Scripture, the New Testament.
Who wrote it? Well, The Catholic Church says that GOD is the Author of it - and I agree, thus GOD gave it. But yes, He did so through penmen (in several cases, we don’t know who these penmen are) but The Catholic Church penned not a single letter of The New Testament. And there is ZERO evidence that ANY of the penmen (whether the 2 or 3 known or the ones unknown) wrote ANYTHING as an authorized agent of The Catholic Church, thus The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with ANY of that material, either.

Now, let’s turn to an entirely different issue, not the “giving” of the Bible but the embrace of such as Scripture - the embrace of Scripture as such. Let’s look at the history on this - and where we see The Catholic Church as the active agent. That’s in the next post:

Continued in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The New Testament Canon

First Century:

1. The “heart of the Canon” is often regarded to be Paul’s epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (before 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul’s works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of “Paul’s letters” in this way, indicating a canonical status.
2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as Scripture and as canonical. They were “published” together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we seem to have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. NOTE; THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS.

Second Century:

Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of “all of Paul’s epistles” authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of “all Paul’s epistles” and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

NOTE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS.

Third Century:

At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) says Christians accept 21 books: Paul’s 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian’s list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon seems pretty solid for 21 of the 27 books. NOTE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS.

Fourth Century:

By this time, there seem to be an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only “debate” centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handful soon to be dropped.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as “spurious” - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God’s people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It’s our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as “associated with” but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. NOTE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS. IT HAS NOT SAID OR DONE ANYTHING AT ALL RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE.

**

Continues in the next post…
**

.