C
- Status
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
- Sola Scriptura is the praxis (practice) of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) / canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“norm that norms”). It is not a “theory,” it’s not a teaching or doctrine. It is the PRAXIS of using Scripture as the canon in norming.
- I’d like you to quote the Scriptures (OT and NT) that says that ANY organization is “the authority” - and then that such is infallible/unaccountable. Reality check: The Bible never once so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church for anything, about anything, concerning anything. It doesn’t authorized it for anything or about anything whatsoever. It never even MENTIONS it. Not once. Ever. The claims of The Catholic Church alone for The Catholic Church alone are claims of self for self. Alone. That doesn’t make them wrong, of course (anymore than the same claims that the LDS alone makes for the LDS alone) but I disagree with you that the Bible gives any authority to The Catholic Church.
- I disagree with you that Luther “invented” this praxis. Perhaps Moses did. When he came down the mountain with the very first Scriptures, those two tablets became normative for those issues. Moses did not say, “The Catholic Church wrote these tablets, and The Catholic Church alone has all authority, so ignore these two tablets (might as well destroy them) and look to the infallible/unaccountable bishop in Rome as the sole and infallible authority.” Nope. It seems to me the newer view The Catholic Church is the sole, infallible, unaccountable Authority was invented much later and by The Catholic Church.
- But you ARE giving the classic apologetic against Sola Scriptura (whether you mean to or not). The Catholic Church opposes the Rule of Scripture in norming NOT because it has a better alternative for the rule/canon/norma normans (it doesn’t) but because it rejects ALL norma normans as simply moot in the singular, exclusive case of just one - itself. Self alone (The Catholic Church) excludes self alone from accountability (and thus norming - and the issue of the rule for such) since self alone declares that self alone is “incapable” of error, infallible and unaccountable - thus norming is moot for just one: itself. But friend, such is NOT a better or even alternative praxis, it’s simply self evading the issue for self, it’s just circumventing the issue in the case of one - self.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
So, let’s use YOUR apologetic here. A physical, institutional, organizational entity EXISTS if there’s no mention of it. Okay. Then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints existed in 1400 BC. How do I know? Because nowhere in Scripture or history is it so much as even mentioned. I find your rubric entirely unfounded.Hold up a second…There would be NO MENTION of the Catholic Church … .at the time the Bible was written, it ws simply called ‘The Church’.
It is absurd to argue that SCRIPTURE gives The Catholic Church any authority or declares it and it itself exclusively infalliblity/unaccountability/exemption from norming when - by your admission - it never so much as even MENTIONS it. Using your rubric, I could equally argue that I’m infallible/unaccountable/incaptable of error/ the sole authority/ sole interpreter/ sole arbiter since the Bible doesn’t mention me (I’m not the same Josiah as mentioned in the Bible).
Well, there were believers in 1400 BC but it’s entirely and historically baseless to argue that there was an intra-congregational, institutional, organizational, legal/political entity all centered around the bishop of Rome at that time.
.
C
crazzeto
Guest
There is only one Church, the Catholic Church which was started by Christ and formed upon the Rock Peter. AJ, how do you reconcile Pauls teachings with Protistintism? Paul is talking about the importance of Tradition and Doxology, Protestantism is pretty much all about the abandonment there of.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
I’m not aware that Luther ever spoke of “five solas.” Rather, later, Protestantism came to be defined as the embrace of “five solas.” Four of these are a single doctrine: Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide/ Soli Deo Gloria. This is the Protestant doctrine of justification (narrow sense). You can read an interesting Lutheran/Catholic recent, official discussion of it in “The Joint Declaration of Justification.”
The “fifth” one is Sola Scriptura. This is the praxis (practice) of embracing/using Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine (norming).
Luther consistently used the Rule of Scripture when evaluating doctrines.
Sola Scriptura has nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics. It is not a principle or praxis in interpreting anything, it is the embrace/use of Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines (the process of norming).
If you have a problem with self designating self alone as the sole authoritative interpreter (infallible and unaccountable), then take up your issue with the only one (known to me) that does that - The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 (with 87). But we are way off topic (which isn’t allowed at this website): this thread isn’t about hermeneutics.
No. The LDS is the other major denomination (besides The Catholic Church) that rejects the Rule of Scripture, and it does so for the same reason: it declares that it is infallible/unaccountable and thus exempt from norming so the whole issue of WHAT will serve as the rule/canon for such is moot. Now, like the RCC, it insists that ALL OTHERS are accountable and are subject to norming, so it has a norma normans for all others. It uses the same one the RCC does: itself. If a teacher agrees with self alone, then that teacher is correct. it’s the same norm the RCC uses. The LDS DOES speak of a rule/canon, however. It calls it “the three-legged-stool.” It is:
- Tradition as chosen, defined and interpreted exclusively by the LDS.
- The Bible but not as it appears in any book or tome but in the heart of the LDS as interpreted by the LDS.
- The leadership of the LDS as chosen by the LDS and it’s rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations.
These 3 are INSEPARABLE and EQUAL and form ONE SOURCE, ONE NORM, ONE RULE. They use a cool illustration form a old-style color TV tube to show the importance of all 3 working together to form one “picture.”
It’s remarkably similar to the epistemology of the RCC. Read your catechism # 80-113. I’ve even heard Catholics use the exact same phrase of “three-legged-stool.” But again, while the LDS insists on accountability and thus norming for ALL OTHERS, it rejects it in the case of just one: itself. Well actually, it’s not nfearly as extreme as the RCC is in this. About a century ago, it dropped it’s claim to unaccountability/self-exemption - but the praxis still stands today.
Again, the Rule of Scripture is not a theory and its not a teaching. It is the praxis (practice) of embracing/ using Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines (norming). And it has nothing whatsoever to do with justification.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
I’m afraid it is you who is disillusioned.
St. Augustine mentions his criteria below for determining which scriptures ought to receive the highest place. This was written prior to the determination of the agreed upon canon. Apparently the supreme authority of the pope or his local church was not the most important factor in Augustine’s mind. He mentions that the unanimous view of all the churches ought to rule supreme. And if there was a majority of churches of the same opinion regarding the value of a scripture, this held equal weight to a minority of churches of high authority with a different opinion. It doesn’t sound like papal authority existed in any substantial form, now does it?
On Christian Doctrine, In Four Books by St. Augustine
Book II Chapter 8 (Paragraph 12)–The canonical books
"…Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.
The council of Carthage was provincial and composed of a few bishops; there is no authority in them, by themselves, to make a judgment of this kind having been provincial and not general. Even in their own canons at that council (canon 26.2) states “the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief of the priests, or by any such title.” They cannot bind those by the authority they refuse upon themselves.
Finally, it looks like you’ll have to write a letter to “The New Catholic Encyclopedia”. They say, “The decision (on the Canon) was not given until rather late in the history of the church, at the Council of Trent. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.” (Section on “The Canon”).
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
Baloney.
God has"magnified his word, even above His very name" (Ps 138:2). Since that is so, there simply is no room for tradition to share the same pedastal as Scripture.
Catholics are desperate to derail 2 Tim 3:16 from stating unequivocally that the Scriptures are sufficient for the Christian’s rule of life, and come up with lame reasons like, “proficient, yes”—“sufficient, no”. However, the apostle tells us at the outset that the man of God may be “fully equipped” (i.e., not 50%) with the God-inspired scriptures. Hence, it is only reasonable to assume that if there were any other rules of faith that need be mentioned to “fully equip” the saints with, logic demands that just here he should have directed us to any and all other sources. But he does not! Neither is “Tradition” ever once even hinted at from Genesis to Revelation that it too should be considered, “theopneustos” (God breathed). Already, two deadly blows to the RC position.
The first term to be examined is “perfect” or “complete” (artios) in 3:17— from which we get “fully equipped, or thoroughly furnished”. Artios is related in its root to these secondary terms from which Paul builds upon so we may embrace his full-orbed meaning of “completedness”. The apostle (and hence, the Holy Spirit) is using the verb, to compound and emphasize the meaning present in the adjective (fully or thoroughly)----the third deadly blow to your position. Now while it is true that Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich & Danker define exartizo (fully equipped) as “complete, capable and proficient”, they further note that this means, “able to meet all demands”, specifically citing 2 Tim 3:17…so a 50% quality of proficiency which the Roman Catholic Church asserts, is something the experts would disavow—face it. Unfortunatley, the wide difference you are desperately seeking between “proficient” and “sufficent” to buttress “Tradition” being on the same “fully equipped” level as Scripture, is simply wishful thinking; thus, the fourth deadly blow.
The great Greek scholar, Richard Trench, in his “Synonyms of the New Testament” said with reference to artios, “If we ask ourselves under what special aspects “completeness” is contemplated in artios, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that completeness, but involves, further, adaption and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve. St. Paul would say the man of God should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed.”
Hence, the fifth blow.
Please note that Paul was not simply satisfied to use the term “complete”, but forged ahead to define exactly what he means; namely that of being “fully equipped”. Vine tells us that it means to, “furnish completely”…and Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker expressed these same words in relation to “equip”—and Eric Svendsen reports that “fully equipped” is, "the participal form of artios that is intensified by the prefix “ek”. Therefore, if the Scriptures are fully able to equip us for every good work relating to “doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction”, then the burden is on the RCC to show me one “good work” the Scripture in inadequate for. Read that as the sixth fatal blow.
I ask you—what does it mean to say that one is “fully equipped”, if not to say that one is SUFFICIENT for a task? If you cannot answer that question, then the imaginary line of demarcation you are trying to create to sustain your position must be rejected. The seventh blow.
I also ask you now to consider the scriptural standard that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall a fact be established:
- Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, where we encounter the definition for the semantic domain for exartizo:
They state, “To make someone completely adequate, or SUFFICIENT for something, to make adequate, to furnish completely; to cause to be fully qualified.” (By the way, these are two witnesses----the 8th and 9th blow). - Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, by Reinecker & Rogers. In regard to 3:17, they state: "complete, capable, SUFFICIENT, i.e. able to meet all demands. (Another two witnesses; thus, the final 10th and 11th blow).
The fact that people might disagree on certain points of theology, DOES NOT negate the Bible as being sufficient as the sole rule of faith. If I misinstall an engine in my car according to the owner’s manual, that is not a poor reflection on the manual, but my own incompetence.
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
Still yet another falsehood!
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing:
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” [Kindly note he did not think the CHURCH was the pillar and ground of the faith, as Karl Keating who started “Catholic Answers” has taught for decades].
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
“For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching.”
As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out: “The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis”.
Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church: “Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition”.
The concept of “three-fold” fount of revelation contained in Tradition, the Magistirium and Scripture—as modern RCism teaches, can be found NO WHERE in the ECF’s. As only one example, Cyril of Jerusalem held to sola Scriptura as did everyone else, too numerous to mention here:
The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture!
He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”
Thus, your (Edited) assertion above that S.S. has no historical “footing”, must be abandoned at once.
C
CWBetts
Guest
How could the ECFs teach from Scripture alone when MUCH OF IT WAS NOT WRITTEN!!!
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
I would be delighted.
Vatican 1 said that their interpretation of M-16 had “always” been the faith of the Catholic Church, and they would not interpret Scripture outside of the “unanimous consent” of the fathers. Once again, we find this council could NOT have been infallible because if you know anything about the history of Vatican 1, many RC scholars felt it necessary to LEAVE communion with Rome after infallibility claims based on M-16 were made. They could not in good conscience stay within a community which was saying that M-16 had “always” been interpreted as they were doing then…and neither can Protestants accept this revision of history either. One writer says,
“So the mere fact that the fathers differed in opinion as to what was meant by “this rock”, proves that none of them regarded this text as establishing a perpetual constituion for the Christian Church” (“The Infallibility of the Church” by George Salmon, p. 337).
Further, the French Roman Catholic, Launoy, surveyed the patristic evidence and found 17 citations that Peter was the rock (but this did not mean that they saw the bishop of Rome as a Pope!), 16 identified the rock as Christ; 8 said the rock was the apostles combined; and 44 that said the rock was the faith that Peter confessed. If we add these numbers together, we find that the RC position only gets 20% of the “unanimous” vote. Also, in case you don’t know, Augustine retracted his original position. Catholics loves to cite Augustine, but oh how quickly they will drop him like a hot potatoe when there is conflict of interest:
“I have somewhere said of St. Peter that the church is built upon him as the rock…But I know that I have since frequently said that the word of the Lord, “Thou art Petrus, and on this petra will I build my church”, must be understood of Him who Peter confessed as Son of the Living God…Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the most probable.” (Retractiones). Notice, if you please, the implicit rejection of distinctly Roman claims to have the last word on interpreting the Bible by the admonition that the reader (not the Roman church) may decide which best fits the context.
(Edited)
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
Kindly furnish me with the source you are looking at which verifies that “much of” the Scriptures were not yet written at the time of the ECF which would have rendered them incompetent to teach from the written record. Thank you.
C
CWBetts
Guest
It is common knowledge that multiple copies accessible to every Bishop were not available before the fourth century. To suggest otherwise indicates an absolute ignorance of history.
T
Trumpetcall
Guest
You have just refuted yourself. I did not ask you, nor did you refer to, multiple copies not being accessible----you stated that much of Scripture had not yet been WRITTEN and that’s what I was referring to. If you didn’t mean that, you phrased your statement quite badly.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
Pax
- The issue of the size of the corpus of Scripture is actually entire moot to the praxis of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura was just as sound when Scripture consisted of nothing more than two stone tablets: such was normative for that which it addressed; it was the norma normans. Yes, for the next 1500 years or so, the corpus would grow - but that’s moot to the rubric of the Rule of Scripture. Let’s use the example of the Rule of Law in most civilized societies. The Law that is normative is the law THAT EXISTS. If a traffic policeman pulls you over, notes that you were driving 60 MPH and points you to a large, square, white sign right next to you two, a sign with big black letters and numerals proclaiming: “MAX SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH” then that’s the law that is normative in case of any dispute. I’d like to see you try to respond to the policeman, “But how do we know that 200 years from now, this will be an expressway for jet cars and the speed limit will be 600 MPH?” I have a hunch I’d say this is now, and the Law NOW is what is normative now.
- Sola Scriptura is not a teaching (and thus not a doctrine), it’s not a theory and it has nothing to do with justification. It is the praxis (the practice) of embracing/using Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) / canon (“measuring stick”)/ or as it’s called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the evaluation (“norming”) of doctrines. Let’s say Bob the Builder builds a fense. He claims it is 6 feet tall. IF truth matters to you, and IF you do not permit Bob to exclude just one - himself exclusively - from any examination of what Bob says or does, then the issue becomes “is it correct?” Addressing that question is called “norming.” It involves two basic parts. The first is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this process (Sola Scriptura only addresses this first part). The second would be: HOW will it be determined if the veiw “measures up” TO THE “measuring stick”? (this is called “arbitration”). Sola Scriptura does not address that issue.
- The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has an alternative canon/rule (better or worse) but because it rejects norming in the case of exclusively one: itself, thus it rejects everything that is a part of norming - including the embraced norma normans. The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone CANNOT err (in certain matters and under certain conditions anyway) - it alone declares that it alone is infallible and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming; thus we are to accept whatever its view is “with docility.” IMHO, this is not an alternative (much less better) method of norming and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with self being correct. It is simply self alone excluding self alone from the question, demanding instead docilic acceptance.
Pax
- Josiah
C
CWBetts
Guest
Whatever. You are pushing heresy. Sola Scriptura was not taught before it was invented by a disaffected monk form Germany.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Apparently you do not know your own doctrine. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith for the Christian. That is the wat it is presented and that is the way it is practiced. It is heresy.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Josiah:
Apparently you do not know your own doctrine. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith for the Christian.
- It cannot be both a doctrine and a rule. Yes, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines, but it thus is not a doctrine. A doctrine (strictly speaking) is a teaching, a praxis is a practice. Embracing, using Scripture as the rule is a practice.
- Here is the official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura: “The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the function of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)
C
CWBetts
Guest
It is a teaching. It is a teaching that there is no other authority. You just refuse to accept the fact that Sola Scriptura was invented by Luther, and has no weight to it whatsoever.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Josiah:
It is a teaching. It is a teaching that there is no other authority.
- I think you need to make up your mind: Is it a doctine, proclaiming a necessarily article of faith OR is it the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans?
- Here is the praxis: “The Scriptures are and should remain the rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)
C
CWBetts
Guest
Why is everything with Protestants either/or. SS is definitely a protestant dogma.
- Status