Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

Do you know the difference between a rule and arbitration?

Indeed yes! this is the very difference that invalidates the doctrine of SS.

Although the Catholic Church recognizes the normative rule of Scripture, Scripture is unable to arbitrate, since this is an activity that requires persons, not books, however Holy they maybe.

My study of the LDS and also the cults, as well as attending school for some years, has impressed upon me that having a rule/canon is of much greater use that all defendants simply declaring self alone to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability and form norming by any rule/canon, each simply declaring each alone to be correct so each is.

This is good. You have learned some important truths.

1. There is no such doctrine.

There may not be in your world, Josiah, just like there appears to be no “doctrine” of SS, but as you can see, the rest of us live in a world where there are such doctrines.

1. One cannot “believe” in what done, actions are generally not objects of faith.

they facilitate faith in the object. for example, Jesus enjoined the Jews to believe in him because of the works He did.

1. I embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable. I embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine.

I am glad that we can agree on these important precepts.

Ergo, that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches. This is the basis of our disagreement.

No, I dont’ think so. I think the disagreement emanates from your deficient view of the Church. YOu do not perceive the divine and infallible nature of the Church. If you did, you would not lay the errors of false teachers at the feet of Christ as you do. Jesus is not responsible for the errors of Judas, any more than He is responsible for the errors of Catholics who teach wrongly.

1. I embrace that the most sound norma normans is above, beyond and outside all parties, objective in that it is knowable by all and alterable by none, and embraced as reliable for this purpose by all parties.

It is very Catholic of you to do this! Perhaps at some point you will come into agreement with the Apostles about the identity of that norm?

Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture in norming (“Sola Scriptura”) embrace Scripture as the norma normans. Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults)

You keep asserting this falsehood, as if, by repeating it, you could make it come true.

Scripture is normative because it is Catholic, and the Catholic Church has the authority to make norms.

 

[guanophore]

Would you provide a link to this work of Thomas Aquinas?

Citation: St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, Vol. 2, Questions X-XX, trans., James V. McGlynn, S.J., Question 14, Article 10, Reply, Answer 11 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), p. 258.

Notice then that for Aquinas the Scriptures serve as the sort of outer markers for what those holding apostolic succession can teach and expect us to believe. Notice especially that it is not simply “which the apostles and prophets have left” but he adds “in their writings.”

No Catholic teaching can, therefore, contradict scripture.

 

[guanophore]

When anyone hears or reads something, some interpretation is involved in appropriating the information. Even if the source (be it Bible or Church) is infallible, the hearer’s interpretation is still fallible. The chain is not stronger than its weakest link.

This is well said. The links get weaker the further they get from the Apostolic Succession.

So I would ask, what is easier to understand, the Bible or the CCC together with all of the volumes of documents issued over the years?

I suppse that depends upon if you want the “easy” way, or the correct way. One can receive the apostolic Teaching without being able to read at all. It is possible for an illiterate person today, just as it was in 33 AD to become a Christian, and be formed in the faith if the Apsotles.

I have read portions of the CCC, and I have to tell you, the Bible is hands-down more intelligible (with the exception of some apocalyptic writings, which would fall under the category of things nonessential to Christian understanding).

I agree that the faith of the Apostles really does require that one study to show oneself approved. The CCC is a very dense document.

On what Scripture do you base your assessment that part of it is non essential?

Also, when Catholics claim they need an infallible Magisterium to correctly interpret the Bible for them, I ask: How do you infallibly interpret the Catholic Church’s interpretation?

We do just what the first Christians did on the day of Pentecost. We receive it with conviction,joy, and respond in obedient faith.

Once again, the chain is not stronger than its weakest link. Interposing an infallible interpreter in the form of the Magisterium does not really solve the problem.

I agree. It is a good thing they have the gift of infallibility, or we would have no way of knowing the Truth! We would be orphans, left to be tossed about by every wind. We might even be swayed by certain modern innovators trying to claim that things previously considered doctrines are no longer doctrines!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This is well said. The links get weaker the further they get from the Apostolic Succession.

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession is not related to truth. It accepts that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches all have VALID Apostolic Succession, and yet they are WRONG in what they teach. Ergo, according to The Catholic Church, valid Apostolic Succession has no bearing on whether teachings are correct.

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession also has no bearing on whether a teacher is accountable or not. For it holds The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Church as fully and wholly accountable for all they teach as doctrine - right here and right now (not just before God) - and yet it affirms that these have valid Apostolic Succession.

Your point is moot.

.

 

[guanophore]

Which of us are right? Well, we must take the sentence in its entirety. In this quote it is clear Aquinas assumes the teaching of the Church will always proceed from the “First Truth”. In this respect, you are correct. However, from the quote I provided earlier, it is also clear Aquinas would not have written what he did in Summa Theologica if he had thought the Church would ever at any point stray from those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.

I think this is true. St. Thomas accepted Jesus’ promises that the Church will be protected and guided into all Truth.

Obviously you, like Aquinas, believe the RCC is indefectible and therein lies our difference in opinion. On the other hand I, like Aquinas, believe teachers should only be believed in so far as their teaching is congruent with Scripture (as opposed to Scripture plus Tradition).

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

The divine elements in the Church are indefectable. The human are not. To distinguish between them, you would have to abandon your deficient notion of “church”.

I would ammend this statement to say: “Sola Scripturists do not believe many of the RCC’s teachings comes from God.”

Most SS don’t know or understand the Teachings. they don’t realize that the Scripture they are using is one of them.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Unfortunately, it appears that the rest of the Protestant world disagrees with your claim that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine.

I will quote just one Protestant apologist for now, James White, one of the foremost defenders of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura today:

“The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that** we can refer to and embrace**…” - James White. (vintage.aomin.org/SS.html)

Actually, while he uses the word “doctrine” his use of the term is defined in the quote as “refer to” and “embrace.” These are ACTIONS, not objects of faith. Thus, he is speaking of a PRAXIS - what is DONE rather than a teaching of an article of faith. He’s simply using the term for an embraced PRAXIS.

.

 

[guanophore]

OK – you know everyone is thinking it:

AJ, why do you like to double the font size, and add all sorts of spaces and periods? Are you purposely trying to have your posts take up a whole page?

I ask this in good humor, but I can’t help myself anymore!

I thought this was a reflection of his desire to “take up a lot of space” here on CAF?

Is not this an expression of ego? Clearly he is on a mission to get us to abandon our Catholic faith. How will he get noticed if he does not take up a lot of room?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Although the Catholic Church recognizes the normative rule of Scripture, Scripture is unable to arbitrate, since this is an activity that requires persons, not books, however Holy they maybe.

Actually, it doesn’t when it comes to the doctrines of ITSELF, and what it means by “Scripture” is found in it’s Catechism # 113.

But if you were correct, then The Catholic Church would be embracing Sola Scriptura. But as you note, it does not.

You continue to confuse the rule with the arbitration. Sola Scripture addresses ONLY the rule, not the arbitration.

My study of the LDS and also the cults, as well as attending school for some years, has impressed upon me that having a rule/canon is of much greater use that all defendants simply declaring self alone to be incapable of error and exempt from accountability and form norming by any rule/canon, each simply declaring each alone to be correct so each is.

1. I embrace that teachers of doctrine are accountable. I embrace that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine. Ergo, that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches. This is the basis of our disagreement

.

No, I dont’ think so. I think the disagreement emanates from your deficient view of the Church. YOu do not perceive the divine and infallible nature of the Church.

You just agreed with me. The basis of our disagreement is that you think the best, most sound epistemology for determining if a teacher is correct is for the teacher alone to declare self alone to be infallible, incapable of error - and thus exempt from accountability. You are defending The Catholic Church employing this, agreeing with me that this foundational issue is accountability and whether it is most sound in determining correctness for the defendant to exempt himself exclusively from accountability since self declares self to be incapable of being wrong.

1. I embrace that the most sound norma normans is above, beyond and outside all parties, objective in that it is knowable by all and alterable by none, and embraced as reliable for this purpose by all parties.

.

It is very Catholic of you to do this! Perhaps at some point you will come into agreement with the Apostles about the identity of that norm?

I have. You, on the other hand, are rejecting what you quoted from me, as you must in order to be Catholic.

Those that embrace the Rule of Scripture in norming (“Sola Scriptura”) embrace Scripture as the norma normans. Those that reject this rule (RCC, LDS, as well as all the cults) do so not because they each have an alternative norma normans (they don’t) but because each alone insists that each alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong and thus is exempt from norming by ANY norma normans. You are to lay all such accountability and all norming aside, you are required to just rather accept whatever The Catholic Church exclusively says - “with docility.” Read your catechism # 87 for starters.

.

Scripture is normative

Then you would be supporting Sola Scriptura and would be in violation of your Catechism # 87. And you are forgetting about your Catechism # 113 and 85, for such “Scripture” is simply whatever is in the heart of ITSELF as interpreted by ITSELF exclusively so as to agree with ITSELF exclusively, for since itself exclusively declares that itself exclusively cannot be wrong, and since God cannot be wrong, God must therefore agree with ITSELF exclusively or God would be wrong.

READ what you quoted from me.

.

 

[twb1621]

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession is not related to truth. It accepts that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches all have VALID Apostolic Succession, and yet they are WRONG in what they teach. Ergo, according to The Catholic Church, valid Apostolic Succession has no bearing on whether teachings are correct.

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession also has no bearing on whether a teacher is accountable or not. For it holds The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Church as fully and wholly accountable for all they teach as doctrine - right here and right now (not just before God) - and yet it affirms that these have valid Apostolic Succession.

Your point is moot.

.

 

[twb1621]

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession is not related to truth. It accepts that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches all have VALID Apostolic Succession, and yet they are WRONG in what they teach. Ergo, according to The Catholic Church, valid Apostolic Succession has no bearing on whether teachings are correct.

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession also has no bearing on whether a teacher is accountable or not. For it holds The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Church as fully and wholly accountable for all they teach as doctrine - right here and right now (not just before God) - and yet it affirms that these have valid Apostolic Succession.

Your point is moot.

.

I would be interested to know what official source (document) issued under the authority of the Western or Roman Catholic Church recognizes any other Church or faith as continuing independently of the Chair of Peter with Apostolic Succession. Further, there has been and there is a substantial growth in the desire and continuing conferences within the Roman and Orthodox Churches (which is currently causing heated debate among some within the Orthodoxy), to return under the papacy. This is evident when reading commentaries of Orthodox officials in some of their own web sites. There also is a difference between claiming full apostolic succession under the Chair of Peter and claiming apostolic succession from a select number of regional
Bishoprics after separating from the centuries old recognized authority of St. Peter in Rome. The Catholic Church (Rome) has remained clear on this… Peace.

 

[Philthy]

So, was Thomas Aquinas contradicting himself? Of course not (I suspect he was more brilliant than the two of us put together .

Aquinas’ brilliance far surpasses ours, but his greatest claim to fame is his Sainthood.
This point is relevant because he would not have been declared a Saint if he believed in Sola Scriptura.

Actually, I see a very clear consistency in both quotes. He declared the Church infallible, but only in so far as it was consistent with the Bible (to wit: “Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.”).

It is a pointless and poorly thought out claim to say that that Aquinas “declared the Church infallible, but only in so far as it was consistent with the Bible.” They are both infallible (actually, Scripture is inerrant). Furthermore, it begs the question of who decides when the Church is “consistent with” the Bible. You? Me? Who?

In these two quotes by Aquinas I see a philosophy of the Church under the Bible. What I hear from a lot of Catholics in this thread is a philosophy of the Bible under the Church.

The Bible is not under the Church, but interpretations of the Bible are. Interpretations of the Bible are only infallible when they are consistent with the teaching of the Church.

 

[inkaneer]

American Josiah has repeatedly used the term “praxis” to characterize sola scriptura rather than using the term “doctrine”. So what is a praxis and since American Josiah claims to be Lutheran does the Lutheran denomination consider sola scriptura to be a doctrine or a praxis. First a praxis can be defined as “1 a practice, as distinguished from theory. 2 custom.” Oxford dictionary]. Webster’s New World College Dictionary gives a similar definition, "1.practice, as distinguished from theory, of an art, science, etc. 2.established practice; custom. Then there is this interesting definition from the Orthodox Church. “Praxis is the customary use of knowledge or skills, distinct from theoretical knowledge. The term is used in Eastern Orthodox theology to refer to the practice of the faith, especially to askesis and liturgical life. Praxis is key to Eastern Orthodox understanding because it is the basis of faith and works and the understanding of not separating the two. “Theology without action (praxis) is the theology of demons.” —Maximus the Confessor”

So praxis is the practice side of faith as opposed to the theoretical or doctrinal side. It is the “what” we do not the “why” we do it. So is this correct, is sola scriptura a praxis or is it a doctrine? The ELCA on its website states this:

“When we affirm the Reformation principle sola Scriptura, “Scripture alone,” we mean, at the very least, that no ecclesiastical authority or pious custom can impose doctrines, actions, and attitudes on persons as conditions for their reconciliation with and salvation by God which are not clearly enjoined in the Scripture.”

We also find this statement:

“We … accept the Scriptures, i.e., the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the only source and ultimate judge, rule and standard of all doctrine of the Church, also in the doctrines on the Holy Scriptures and on Inspiration.”

In addition this statement is also found:

“Lutherans still celebrate the Reformation on October 31 and still hold to the basic principles of theology and practice espoused by Luther, such as Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura:”

So we see that sola scriptura has been described as a 'principle", a “rule and standard of all doctrine” and one of the “basic principles of theology and practice”. These are the words of the ELCA. Now let’s see how the word ‘doctrine’ is defined.

The following definitions were found in the *American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language *

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
   Archaic: Something taught; a teaching.

Again in the Webster’s New World College Dictionary we find the following definitions:

1.something taught; teachings
2.something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, political party, etc.; tenet or tenets; belief; dogma
3.a rule, theory, or principle of law
4.☆ an official statement of a nation’s policy, esp. toward other nations

Notice the same words are used to define doctrine as in the ELCA statements. They are 1. a principle, 2. a rule, 3. a tenet or belief.

It is clear that American Josiah’s claim of sola scriptura being ONLY a praxis is fraudulent. It is a doctrine of protestantism as it is one of the core beliefs and rule of faith. That it is practiced means nothing. What good is it to havve a doctrine if that doctrine is not practiced? Does that make any sense? What American Josiah is saying in effect is that sola scriptura is only a discipline of protestantism and disciplines can be changed. Doctrines, however, can not be changed. How many ptrotestants do you think will agree with that? None that I know of, that’s for sure Therefore, sola scriptura is more than a mere praxis. It is a doctrine of protestantism and since it inherently violates the very scriptures it claims to uphold is fatally flawed and not worthy of belief.

 

[hellopeople]

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

Neither is the authority of the church though. The thing is that no one really knew they were writing scripture when they were writing the NT. Scripture up until the mid to late 2nd century was only the OT.

 

[surritter]

Neither is the authority of the church though. The thing is that no one really knew they were writing scripture when they were writing the NT. Scripture up until the mid to late 2nd century was only the OT.

Methinks that you are forgetting Our Lord’s words: “He who hears you hears me.” That is a declaration of authority.

Notice that Jesus didn’t refer to the words that would be written and then in three centuries subsequent declared to be a canon of scripture. Only the Church that he directly gave the authority to could declare the New Testament, and that authority didn’t cease upon the creation of the NT; it continued until today.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

American Josiah has repeatedly used the term “praxis” to characterize sola scriptura rather than using the term “doctrine”. So what is a praxis and since American Josiah claims to be Lutheran does the Lutheran denomination consider sola scriptura to be a doctrine or a praxis. First a praxis can be defined as “1 a practice, as distinguished from theory. 2 custom.” Oxford dictionary]. Webster’s New World College Dictionary gives a similar definition, "1.practice, as distinguished from theory, of an art, science, etc. 2.established practice; custom.

So, if we USE Scripture as the rule/canon in the norming of doctrines, do you regard using something for a purpose to be a doctrine or a praxis?

“When we affirm the Reformation principle sola Scriptura, “Scripture alone,” we mean, at the very least, that no ecclesiastical authority or pious custom can impose doctrines, actions, and attitudes on persons as conditions for their reconciliation with and salvation by God which are not clearly enjoined in the Scripture.”

We also find this statement:

“We … accept the Scriptures, i.e., the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the only source and ultimate judge, rule and standard of all doctrine of the Church, also in the doctrines on the Holy Scriptures and on Inspiration.”

In addition this statement is also found:

“Lutherans still celebrate the Reformation on October 31 and still hold to the basic principles of theology and practice espoused by Luther, such as Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura:”

So we see that sola scriptura has been described as a 'principle", a “rule and standard of all doctrine” and one of the “basic principles of theology and practice”. These are the words of the ELCA.

I’m not sure any of them is meant to be a description of Sola Scriptura. And I think the ELCA sources you are quoting are not specifically addressing the distinction of a doctrine with a praxis, but I don’t know since they are not referenced.

The following definitions were found in the *American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language *

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
   Archaic: Something taught; a teaching.

Again in the Webster’s New World College Dictionary we find the following definitions:

1.something taught; teachings
2.something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, political party, etc.; tenet or tenets; belief; dogma
3.a rule, theory, or principle of law
4.☆ an official statement of a nation’s policy, esp. toward other nations

The dictionary is revealing COMMON USAGE among the American people today. I’m not sure it’s a good source for traditional theological uses. But, I think you are making the correct distinction. A doctrine is a statement of fact, a teaching, that is to be believed. A practice is what is done, a custom, an action. Of course, they can be related. I think Jennifer is the most amazing girl in the world (a teaching) and I’m going to meet with her this afternoon for a bit of a date (an action). That’s true in Sola Scriptura, too. We embrace it as the norma normans because we think it is the inscripturated words of God, for example.

What good is it to havve a doctrine if that doctrine is not practiced? Does that make any sense?

1. Of course, they are related but they are not the same thing.
2. I hold as a correct teaching that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety-two, but I can’t think that I have any praxis resulting from such. I hold it as a correct teaching that the Egyptians built some paramids, but I can’t think of any praxis I perform based specifically on that “doctrine.” Do you?

What American Josiah is saying in effect is that sola scriptura is only a discipline of protestantism and disciplines can be changed

Where did I say that? Could you quote me?

Now, I DO think that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist in 431,864 BC. But then Scripture didn’t exist before 1400 BC. But you’ve lost me; we’re speaking of the practice FOR US - no one has suggested how people living 431,000 years ago should have done things.

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that the teachers of doctrines are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to the above (and read your Catechism # 87 before you do), then you embrace that The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrine it teaches - equally with all other teachers of such. And in so doing, you embrace the necessity of norming. The question then becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for us as we evaluate the doctrines among us? What should we USE? Yes, our doctrine of Scripture (which we agree on) might help us answer that.

.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Neither is the authority of the church though. The thing is that no one really knew they were writing scripture when they were writing the NT. Scripture up until the mid to late 2nd century was only the OT.

Since we’re not espousing sola scriptura - everything we believe doesn’t have to be in the Bible.

Secondly, Jesus established the church as his kingdom that would span the world and last to the end of time. Look at Matt 16:16-18, 18:15-18; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1-2 for examples of Jesus giving structure and authority to his church.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Neither is the authority of the church though. The thing is that no one really knew they were writing scripture when they were writing the NT. Scripture up until the mid to late 2nd century was only the OT.

…the authority of the church. Yes, the authority of the church was taken for granted since that’s all there was. As you say, Scripture up until the mid to late 2nd century was only the OT. Of course, the NT scriptures had been written, but they weren’t regarded in quite the same way as they are regarded today.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession is not related to truth. It accepts that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches all have VALID Apostolic Succession, and yet they are WRONG in what they teach. Ergo, according to The Catholic Church, valid Apostolic Succession has no bearing on whether teachings are correct.

According to The Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession also has no bearing on whether a teacher is accountable or not. For it holds The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Church as fully and wholly accountable for all they teach as doctrine - right here and right now (not just before God) - and yet it affirms that these have valid Apostolic Succession.

Your point is moot

.

.

would be interested to know what official source (document) issued under the authority of the Western or Roman Catholic Church recognizes any other Church or faith as continuing independently of the Chair of Peter with Apostolic Succession.

Are you stating that The Catholic Church alone insists that only it alone has valid Apostolic Succession, and rejects such in The Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, I’d like to see some confirmation of that since that is the opposite of what I was taught in The Catholic Church.

The point has been made here that The Catholic Church particularly, exclusively and perpetually, is excused from accountability and norming because it has Apostolic Succession and this keeps it and it itself exclusively from any possibility of error. This argument, IMHO, falls flat as we recall that it declares all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church itself seems to reject the argument of Catholics here.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Secondly, Jesus established the church as his kingdom that would span the world and last to the end of time. Look at Matt 16:16-18, 18:15-18; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1-2 for examples of Jesus giving structure and authority to his church.

1. Where did Jesus mention The Catholic Church?
2. Where did He state that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, perpetually and exclusively - is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming, and we are to just accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility?”
3. Jesus DID embrace accountability and never exempted The Catholic Church. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.
4. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too:** Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16** There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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

.

I get it. You don’t believe what you practice.