Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[Sonny89]

Hi

Can anyone tell me the verse(s) from which Protestants derive their belief in Sola Scriptura (I assme by the nature of the doctrine it will have a Biblical base!!?)?

Thanks
Sonny

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Hi

Can anyone tell me the verse(s) from which Protestants derive their belief in Sola Scriptura (I assme by the nature of the doctrine it will have a Biblical base!!?)?

Thanks
Sonny

Sola scriptura, ironically, is an unscriptural doctrine - it is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hi

Can anyone tell me the verse(s) from which Protestants derive their belief in Sola Scriptura (I assme by the nature of the doctrine it will have a Biblical base!!?)?

Thanks
Sonny

There is no such “belief.”

**Sola Scriptura **(aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[surritter]

They like to use John 7:17 to state that we know the Bible is inspired because the Spirit lets us know that. I can expound on the various problems with their interpretation of that, but that at least gives you one verse that is sometimes used.

Another one they like to twist is 2Tim 3:16, but that of course lacks the SOLA part, doesn’t it?

 

[Moscati]

This site has a rather long list:

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

Unfortunately, its authors don’t share AmericanJosiah’s intelligence and thoughtfulness. His is a much better defense of the doctrine.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This site has a rather long list:

bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

Unfortunately, its authors don’t share AmericanJosiah’s intelligence and thoughtfulness. His is a much better defense of the doctrine.

UGGGH that is a “church of christ” many consider them a cult and outside orthodox christianty they don’t hold the whole of scripture to be the innerrant word of God so that’s kinda weird that they put a defense os SS. They are not reformed nor protestant, they are anti-catholic though.

 

[kepha1]

UGGGH that is a “church of christ” many consider them a cult and outside orthodox christianty they don’t hold the whole of scripture to be the innerrant word of God so that’s kinda weird that they put a defense os SS. They are not reformed nor protestant, they are anti-catholic though.

Yea, we wouldn’t want to see any of that now would we, marty.

The site noted above says the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the twin of Catholicism, which proves how brainless the authors are. I notice too there is no appreciation for the material sufficiency of Scripture, which is accepted by Catholics, and the sole sufficiency of scripture, which is invented by so called reformers.

 

[Zenas]

Another one they like to twist is 2Tim 3:16, but that of course lacks the SOLA part, doesn’t it?

Although I do not accept sola scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not completely devoid of the SOLA.

16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. (Douay-Rheims)

Note where it says “perfect.” This word doesn’t mean without sin. What is means is “complete.” If the man of God is made complete through scripture, what need does he have of anything else?

I doubt if most sola scriptura advocates actually realize this, however. They just see that all scripture is inspired and that’s enough for them. They can’t wrap their minds around the concept of Holy Tradition. They keep going back to what Jesus said about the traditions of men and automatically reject any suggestion of Tradition.

The odd thing about all this is that, without realizing it, the sola scriptura guys really rely on the tradition of men to arrive at this belief. When a doctrine is taught for several generations and your grandparents, parents and yourself never hear anything to the contrary, it becomes deeply imprinted in your psyche and you don’t need scriptural support for it. You will regard it as truth, just like the sun always rising in the East.

And that is why sola scriptura rules in the Protestant world.

 

[surritter]

Although I do not accept sola scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not completely devoid of the SOLA. Note where it says “perfect.” This word doesn’t mean without sin. What is means is “complete.” If the man of God is made complete through scripture, what need does he have of anything else?

I doubt if most sola scriptura advocates actually realize this, however. They just see that all scripture is inspired and that’s enough for them. They can’t wrap their minds around the concept of Holy Tradition. They keep going back to what Jesus said about the traditions of men and automatically reject any suggestion of Tradition.

The odd thing about all this is that, without realizing it, the sola scriptura guys really rely on the tradition of men to arrive at this belief. When a doctrine is taught for several generations and your grandparents, parents and yourself never hear anything to the contrary, it becomes deeply imprinted in your psyche and you don’t need scriptural support for it. You will regard it as truth, just like the sun always rising in the East.

And that is why sola scriptura rules in the Protestant world.

Well, verse 16 certainly doesn’t say that the Bible is the only thing needed. And while you make some valid points about verse 17, it still can’t be saying that the Bible is the complete source of everything. That’s for the simple fact that the Bible itself doesn’t tell us what books are to belong to the Bible. So that verse must be interpreted in some way other than a statement about Sola Scriptura.

So I agree with your post, with the modification that “the man of God is made complete through scripture” when that scripture is determined, ratified, and interpreted by the Church that Jesus established to preach the Good News. And I respectfully submit that Protestants have somewhat of a quandary because they lack that visible Church who functions as the authority alongside scripture.

 

[DPMartin]

Well, verse 16 certainly doesn’t say that the Bible is the only thing needed. And while you make some valid points about verse 17, it still can’t be saying that the Bible is the complete source of everything. That’s for the simple fact that the Bible itself doesn’t tell us what books are to belong to the Bible. So that verse must be interpreted in some way other than a statement about Sola Scriptura.

So I agree with your post, with the modification that “the man of God is made complete through scripture” when that scripture is determined, ratified, and interpreted by the Church that Jesus established to preach the Good News. And I respectfully submit that Protestants have somewhat of a quandary because they lack that visible Church who functions as the authority alongside scripture.

I would agree with both observations in this, I believe it is derived from a discontent with the Church, which through out history can be understood at times. But surly the Lord still Loves Israel, of which the prophets never left, even though they where persecuted at times, and surly the Lord still Loves His Church, basically “His People”. It is unwise to not do the same, no matter what the Church may or may not be doing.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

.There is no such “belief.”

Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Unfortunately, its authors don’t share AmericanJosiah’s intelligence and thoughtfulness. His is a much better defense.

Thank you.

I hope my explanation of the praxis helped.

.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

There is no such “belief.”

**Sola Scriptura **(aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Lots of smoke being blown, but no Scriptures cited - because there aren’t any. 1 Tim 3:15 says “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The Church is the pillar and the bulwark of the truth, not Scripture alone (which is a creation of the Church, by the way). Scripture - Sacred Tradition - The Magisterium of the Church - those are the three foundations of the one true faith.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

There is no such “belief.”

Sola Scriptura (aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

.

1 Tim 3:15 says “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The Church is the pillar and the bulwark of the truth, not Scripture alone (which is a creation of the Church, by the way). Scripture - Sacred Tradition - The Magisterium of the Church - those are the three foundations of the one true faith.

1. First Timothy 3:15 does not say that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively and perpetually - is the sole authority, sole interpeter, infallible, incapable of error (in matters of faith and morals) and exempt from accountability/norming; it does not say that all are just to accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc.).
2. You seem to be confusing the norma normans The Catholic Church uses when norming the teachings of ALL OTHERS (which it DOES hold wholly and fully accountable, right here and right now) with what is to be used for its OWN teachings. My Catholic teachers taught me that it’s OWN teachings are correct and need no norming. The “three-legged-stool” that you present is the norm for ALL OTHER TEACHERS, it would be silly for itself (since it is just itself: “If I agree with me, then I’m right” is a rubric The Catholic Church correct rejects - and so should you). The 3 legs are: CATHOLIC Tradition as defined, chosen and interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church + the Scriptures not on any page or tome but in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpeted by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church + the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church - these 3 forming ONE norma normans, so that if The Catholic Church teaches it, Scirpture MUST teach it (if only by invisible words) since otherwise Scripture would be wrong since The Catholic Church cannot be. Friend, even The Catholic Church rejects that as a norm for ITSELF (it would be a prefect circle of self-authentication).

Re-read what you quoted from me. Hopefully, it will explain the praxis. And yes, it does embrace accountability - which is where the disagreement lies.

.

 

[Sonny89]

Thanks AmericanJosiah, I found your explanation very clear and helpful
Thanks also to everyone else commenting on the thread, I’ve enjoyed the discussion and found it very helpful

Peace and good
Sonny

 

[AmericanJosiah]

thanks americanjosiah, i found your explanation very clear and helpful

peace and good
sonny

.

 

[PJM]

=AmericanJosiah;6335360]There is no such “belief.”

**Sola Scriptura **(aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Beautifully done:thumbsup:

Would it then be an (name removed by moderator)osition for you to share some of these passags that at least imply this truth?

Certainly, not every teaching, every message is expliicitly taught; nevertheless, off the top of my head, with limited underststanding of the Bible, I cannot think of passages that support your thesis.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

=AmericanJosiah;6335360]There is no such “belief.”

Sola Scriptura

(aka The Rule of Scripture) is the PRAXIS (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it is known in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us.

Norming (and the thus required norma normans) is a part of all disciplines. My degree is in physics. If I desired to submit a position for publication in a respected scientific journal, I would need to state my position and then offer the required substantiation according to the rule/canon used by us - namely, math and experimental observation. The best, most sound norma normans is one OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties involved, one that is knowable by all and alterable by none, with a strong (and hopefully historic and universal) embrace as reliable for this purpose. The more objective, the better.

Let’s say you and I, as neighbors, hired Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, expressly to be 6 feet tall. The fense is done, and Bob teaches that the fense is 6 feet tall (that, thus, becomes his position). Got it? Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares if it’s 6 feet or not, if Bob is correct or not? But let’s say we DO care about truth and whether the teaching is correct. Then, we are embracing Bob as ACCOUNTABLE for his teaching. That, then, mandates norming. Norming is the consideration of whether a position is valid, correct, true. And the first issue in such is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Perhaps you, I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. In that case, it would be the norma normans. We all have one. It’s objective, it’s knowable by all of us, it’s alterable by none of it, and all 3 of us regard it as reliable for this purpose. Follow?

Now, turning to doctrine, some Christians think that truth in such matters, and thus believe that teachers of such are ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach as doctrine. Thus, norming is embraced and the first issue becomes WHAT is most sound as the rule/canon here? They believe that Scripture is best. It is regarded by Christians as inerrant and the inscripturated words of God Himself (whom we all see as the ultimately Authority among us); it is knowable by all (we can all equally read the words on the pages) and it is alterable by none (none can change those words). And since it is God’s very inscripturated words and inerrant, we regard it as reliable. We think it a sound norma normans. Some (namely the RCC, LDS as well generally all cults) reject the Rule of Scripture, but not because they have a better candidate for the function but because each rejects accountability for the doctrines of itself, requiring instead that all just accept whatever doctrine that teacher exclusively “with docility.” We disagree on the issue of accountability of doctrines.

BTW, while it is true that the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is nowhere specifically taught in Scripture (VERY few praxis is!), we do have it exampled many, many times - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, from the arrival of the very first Scripture some 3,400 years ago when the Ten Commandments were embraced as normative. And we are told - over and over and over - to beware of false teachers (and none is exempted) thus implying accountability for teachers, and we have Jesus praising the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming them, and even for arbitrating the issue and declaring them false; Jesus praised them for this indicating that accountability and norming of teachers is praiseworthy rather than condemnable (Rev. 2:2).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Beautifully done:thumbsup:

Would it then be an (name removed by moderator)osition for you to share some of these passags that at least imply this truth?

Certainly, not every teaching, every message is expliicitly taught; nevertheless, off the top of my head, with limited underststanding of the Bible, I cannot think of passages that support your thesis.

Love and prayers,

Pat

Thank you. As a Protestant GUEST here at Catholic Forums, I do not desire to persuade or convert any; that’s not what a guest does. But, as a former Catholic and now Lutheran - having been in both “camps” - I think there is MUCH disunderstanding, and IF we can respectfully explain things - I think that helps. Not to convert, but simply in the spirit of mutual understanding. If we are going to disagree, let’s at least disagree with reality - not misunderstandings.

**I’ll address that in the post that follows **(that pesky character limit here at CAF!)…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

continuing post above…

Sola Scriptura embraces two things. The first is accountability. Those that embrace it believe that truth matters and that no truth matters more than doctrine concerning our very souls. Thus, the teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such. This goes for all among us: whether as individuals or collectively in our various church groups. The Scriptures that immediately pop into my mind (at least NT ones, there are lots more OT ones):

2 Peter 2:1
Titus 2:1
Revelation 2:2
1 Timothy 6:3
James 3:1
Matthew 13:52
Luke 20:46
Ephesians 4:14
And many more.

Once accountability is embraced, we’ve entered the second issue, the realm of norming. Norming is the issue of evaluating if a position is correct, valid or true. Accountability requires such. There are two main issues in norming: The embraced rule/canon (straight edge, measuring stick, standard, plumbline) and the arbitration (how will it be determined if the position “measures up” - arbitration, with the “measuring stick” - the norma normans). Sola Scriptura only concerns the first of these: WHAT serves as the rule/canon/norma normans. The praxis is the embrace of Scripture for such, as positions among us are evaluated.

Quoting of Scripture for such would be a bit circular, and I admit there is no verse that says, “Use Scripture as your canon in the norming of teachings among you.” However, it is the only norma normans we see used in Scripture (Jesus used this praxis some 50 times) and most Protestants think it simply the most sound canon for this purpose. We ultimately embrace God as the Authority, and here we have the literal inscripturated words of God Himself. In the words of The Handbook of The Catholic Faith, page 138, “The Bible is authoritative because the Author is God.” And again, “The Bible in inerrant because God, its Author, cannot err.” And it is objective (literally in black on white words) - knowable to ALL and alterable by NONE. And because it has a strong, historic, ecumenical embrace as reliable (even inerrant!) - it is embraced as reliable among us ALL. And maybe most important, it is not just ONE of us. Self saying that self is the rule/canon for the norming of self is obviously a perfect circle - and is rejected by all as a completely worthless rule/canon (self usually agrees with self, lol). As in all disciplines, we need a reliable, knowable rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties. We think Scripture best qualifies.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The 3 legs are: CATHOLIC Tradition as defined, chosen and interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church + the Scriptures not on any page or tome but in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpeted by The Catholic Church so as to agree with The Catholic Church + the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church - these 3 forming ONE norma normans, so that if The Catholic Church teaches it, Scirpture MUST teach it (if only by invisible words) since otherwise Scripture would be wrong since The Catholic Church cannot be. Friend, even The Catholic Church rejects that as a norm for ITSELF (it would be a prefect circle of self-authentication).

Re-read what you quoted from me. Hopefully, it will explain the praxis. And yes, it does embrace accountability - which is where the disagreement lies.

.

Of course, since the Catholic Church is the body (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit imparted to it by Jesus Christ himself) that defined what is and is not Sacred Scripture, it’s only logical that Scripture would fit in with the other aspects of the fullness of the truth - Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I’m not sure who Norma McNormingtom is, but the OP asked for Scripture passages that supported Sola Scriptura (of which there aren’t any) - since there aren’t any, you proceeded to try to obsfucate the issue. I was merely pointing that out.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

.

continuing post above…

Quoting of Scripture for such would be a bit circular, and I admit there is no verse that says, “Use Scripture as your canon in the norming of teachings among you.” However, it is the only norma normans we see used in Scripture (Jesus used this praxis some 50 times) and most Protestants think it simply the most sound canon for this purpose. .

In Acts of the Apostles ch. 11, Peter returns to Jerusalem after baptizing Cornelius (a gentile) and defends his actions: "And I remember the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?’ When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God as granted repentance unto life.’

Here, Peter (the one to whom Jesus entrusted the keys to the kingdom - the first Pope) interprets the words of Jesus and applies them to the current situation. The other apostles recognize his authority and agree with him. This is what the Scripture is teaching us - Peter (the rock upon whom Jesus will build his Church - the Catholic Church - the “pillar and bulwark of truth”) has the authority to interpret Scripture and apply it, so it becomes a living word, not a dead letter. Of course, the Bible never teaches anything so ridiculous as sola scriptura - that the Scripture interprets itself, and that we are free to interpret it in any way we see fit.

When Phillip sees the Ethiopian official trying to read Scripture in Acts 8, he “asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’
And he (the Ethiopian) said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’”

Self saying that self is the rule/canon for the norming of self is obviously a perfect circle - and is rejected by all as a completely worthless rule/canon (self usually agrees with self, lol). As in all disciplines, we need a reliable, knowable rule/canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all parties. We think Scripture best qualifies.

Yes, we need an authority - and fortunately for us, Jesus instituted one for us - the Catholic Church.