Sola Scriptura & Epistemology

[alwayswill]

I get why you refuse to answer my questions, because SS cannot lead you to a correct answer. An adherent to SS is left to their own “authority” to guess what is and is not Scripture.

Am I to assume that if a person who is searching various faiths for the truth, would come to you and ask “Is the Book of Mormon God breathed?”, that you would just answer “Its irrelevant”? Would you refuse to answer the question for them?

Perhaps you might answer this question:
When Jesus said, "“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” (John 6:53)…do you take Jesus literally or figuratively?
Some Christians take Jesus figuratively (most Protestants), and some take Jesus literally (Catholics, Orthodox, a few others). How does SS enable you to determine the proper interpretation of that quote?

“Is the Book of Mormon God breathed?” is relevant to the discussion of the Canon;
And I would answer the question in that discussion.

Is it you view that misunderstanding what God says diminishes God’s authority?

SS does NOT enable anyone to determine the proper interpretation of that quote.

Who said it does?

 

[shockerfan]

“Is the Book of Mormon God breathed?” is relevant to the discussion of the Canon;
And I would answer in the question in that discussion.

non answer noted

Is it you view that misunderstanding what God says diminishes God’s authority?

no

SS does NOT enable anyone to determine the proper interpretation of that quote.

Who said it does?

Then what is the value of SS?

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Catholics also believe that Sacred Tradition / Authority of the Church provides proper interpretation / context of that quote. If, as you say, SS does not enable anyone to determine the proper interpretation of that quote, then you must be appealing to an authority outside of Scripture. What is that authority?

 

[alwayswill]

non answer noted

no

Then what is the value of SS?

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Catholics also believe that Sacred Tradition / Authority of the Church provides proper interpretation / context of that quote. If, as you say, SS does not enable anyone to determine the proper interpretation of that quote, then you must be appealing to an authority outside of Scripture. What is that authority?

???
did you just ask:
What is the value of God’s word as being the highest authority?

 

[guanophore]

Really, irrelevant?  You are betting your salvation on what is written in Scripture, so shouldn't you be sure what exactly scripture is?

Its a simple “yes or no” question: "Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”? Please answer.

I don’t think alwayswill can answer this, shockerfan. She is basically assuming a canon, and must (as has been shown) stringintly avoid exploring the question of how the canon is formed because of this very question. Her method is the same as that the Mormon’s use to verify their book. They say to read it, and you will get a “burning in the bosom” and by that you will know it is Scripture.

alwayswill uses basically the same method, though believes it is the Holy Spirit testifying that the text is Scripture.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

I have to admit, it is one of the cutest avoidances I have encountered here.

alwayswill:

All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos) .
A God breathed writing is Scripture the moment it is penned by a writer move by the Holy Spirit.
Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors) .
Scripture as the word of God is The Truth (not a truth, not merely correct) .
Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error .
It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.
It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.
God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.
Someone misunderstanding God, Jesus, or Scripture does NOT diminish their authority .

These are some standard arguments for the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Some of them are consistent with Catholic faith, though we would describe them differently.

The idea of a text being in “agreement” or “disagreement” is fallacious, since a text does not have intellect, which is a requirment for agreement or disagreement. Basically what it boils down to with SS is a person reading the text agrees or disagrees, and thinks that it is the text when it is themselves. This is one of the grave consequences of reading it apart from the Faith that produced it.

Scripture cannot exercise “authority” either, since this requires acts of the will, a characteristic not shared by texts, however holy.

 

[alwayswill]

I don’t think alwayswill can answer this,.

Its a simple “yes or no” question: "Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”? Please answer.

no

 

[guanophore]

Its a simple “yes or no” question: "Is the Book of Mormon “God breathed”? Please answer.

no

How do you know?

 

[alwayswill]

How do you know?

errors in the book of Mormons
American Indians are not Jews

 

[JonNC]

I agree in principle, but there are additional, highly relevant questions:

1. Where did your list of statements come from?
   2) By what authority did Luther use to claim seven books used by Jesus and the Apostles were no longer considered to be “God breathed”?
2. By what authority to you know the Didache or the letters of Clement are not “God breathed?”
3. There are many misunderstandings between Christians about the proper interpretation of God breathed scripture. How do we determine who has the correct interpretation? (Again, our salvation depends on proper interpretation)

By the same “authority”, or rather, Catholic liberty to question the historically disputed books. Whether it was St.Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Rufinus, John of Damascus, and others* after *400 that did not hold to the same canon.
Luther, like these, was permitted to question the DC books. All Catholics were before Trent. Luther was permitted his opinion, whether you or I agree with it or not. I happen not to, but I’m permitted that liberty, too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

irrelevant
**We uphold Sola Scripture because of what Scripture is
not what is Scripture
**
based on your understating of what Scripture is;
(Its characteristics and attributes)
do you agree with these following statements?

• All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos) .

• A God breathed writing is Scripture the moment it is penned by a writer move by the Holy Spirit.

• Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors) .

• Scripture as the word of God is The Truth (not a truth, not merely correct) .

• Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error .

• It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.

• It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.

• God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.

• Someone misunderstanding God, Jesus, or Scripture does NOT diminish their authority .

AW,
I think it is fair to say that, as a Lutheran, I am a sola scripturist, but I honestly am confused by some of your assertions. I’ve bolded a sentence at the top. ISTM that it is reasonable to assume that God used His Church in order to make those inspired books known to us. It also seems reasonable to look at the entirety of the early Church, and take into account the various opinions of the Fathers, and the statements of the early local councils and synods.

A guess my question is, how do we know what scripture is if we do not know what is scripture?
Luther argued that 2 Macc could not be used to defend the doctrine of Purgatory because he did not believe it was on a level with the canonical books, not one of the universally attested books. It seems to me that, at least to a point, one has to have an idea of what is scripture to know what scripture is.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=shockerfan;13771246]

1. The Septuagint (the version of the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles) contained the deuterocanonicals. Those books were included in the Bible, and went uncontested by Christians for 1100 years until Luther, on his own authority, decided to put them in the appendix and call them apocrypha. Then, in the 1800’s, Protestant Bible societies decided to not print Bibles with those books even in the appendix. Here are my questions:

To say that the DC books “went uncontested” is historically false. They were quite contested, sometimes by Fathers of the Church even after 400 AD.

By what authority can a Protestant claim Jesus and the Apostle’s had an incorrect / partially uninspired version of Scripture?

Ad hominem. No protestant that i know of claims anything like this.

1. Many early Christians thought some of the Gnostic gospels were inspired, as well as the Didache, or the writings of Clement. Whose decision, on which books to include and which books to exclude, do Protestants rely on?

There are Orthodox Churches who hold the same history and “authority” as the See of Rome who claim books other than the 73 in a Catholic Bible (74 in Luther’s), should be included.
The fact is that the claim by Trent as to what books belong only applies to those bishops and churches that are in communion with the See of Rome. So, the answer is, each communion makes a determination for their own use. It is part and parcel of the division within the Church.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

errors in the book of Mormons

And how do you determine that there are any errors?

The Mormons claim that their book is also theopneustos, just like you claim that about your books.

American Indians are not Jews

Of course they are! They are from the Lost Tribes!

Anyway, can’t God reveal Himself to whoever He wants? Why is He confined to Palestine?

 

[alwayswill]

AW,
I think it is fair to say that, as a Lutheran, I am a sola scripturist, but I honestly am confused by some of your assertions. I’ve bolded a sentence at the top. ISTM that it is reasonable to assume that God used His Church in order to make those inspired books known to us. It also seems reasonable to look at the entirety of the early Church, and take into account the various opinions of the Fathers, and the statements of the early local councils and synods.

A guess my question is, how do we know what scripture is if we do not know what is scripture?
Luther argued that 2 Macc could not be used to defend the doctrine of Purgatory because he did not believe it was on a level with the canonical books, not one of the universally attested books. It seems to me that, at least to a point, one has to have an idea of what is scripture to know what scripture is.

Jon

to clarify the bolded statement:

If the only writing from God that we had was the Ten Commandants:SS would still be true

If the Chronicles of Adam or 3 Corinthians were God breathed writings; we would still hold to Sola Scriptura.

<“it is reasonable to assume that God used His Church in order to make those inspired books known to us”>
Absolutely true

<“It seems to me that, at least to a point, one has to have an idea of what is scripture to know what scripture is.”>
All Scripture is God breathed: all of the other characteristics and attributes flow from that.

follow this analogy:
God speaking from His throne::
Consider all of the characteristics and attributes of the very words spoken by God from His throne…
It is impossible for there to be a higher authority than God speaking from His throne.
Because the words are from God

Does knowing whether or not God said “I help those who help themselves” change characteristics and attributes of the words of God

In the same way:

It is impossible for there to be a higher authority than writings breathed out by God Himself.
Because the writings are from God.

 

[guanophore]

Ad hominem. No protestant that i know of claims anything like this.

To be fair, most Protestants have no idea about the history of the canon, or care!

But although Protestants may not “claim” it, by “claiming” a Bible that is different than the Septuagint, they are taking a position that Jesus and the Apostles used a canon that contained uninspired texts.

 

[shockerfan]

???
did you just ask:
What is the value of God’s word as being the highest authority?

No, I did not.

To be clear, there is something called “context”. Different Christian denominations read God’s word differently and get different meanings out of the same texts, thus, we have 40,000 different denominations claiming their understanding what what God’s word says is correct.

A simple example: Lets say you read the phrase “I never said you stole that.” There are 6 words in that sentence, and depending on which word you emphasize, there will be 6 different meanings. Well, the Bible has way more than 6 words, thus different meanings abound…thus 40,000+ Christian denominations.

So, Yes, I agree that Scripture is God’s word, but there is only one correct context. The Bible does NOT give you separate explanations of each verse to help you figure out the correct context…so by what authority can an adherent to SS claim their particular view of the context is correct?

This is hugely important. Because of SS’s rejection of “Sacred Tradition”, there is not uniform understanding of the necessity of Baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, can a person lose their salvation?, etc. These topics matter, but SS fails to provide the reader of God’s word the correct context.

 

[shockerfan]

errors in the book of Mormons
American Indians are not Jews

By what authority do you have to say that you are right in your assessment and the Mormons are wrong?

 

[shockerfan]

By the same “authority”, or rather, Catholic liberty to question the historically disputed books. Whether it was St.Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Rufinus, John of Damascus, and others* after *400 that did not hold to the same canon.
Luther, like these, was permitted to question the DC books. All Catholics were before Trent. Luther was permitted his opinion, whether you or I agree with it or not. I happen not to, but I’m permitted that liberty, too.

Jon

Actually, those books were in the Vulgate, St. Jerome’s translation.

Why were they in there when St. Jerome had issues? He submitted his will to the authority of the Church. “He who hears you hears me” (Jesus to the Apostles - Luke 10:16).

Cardinal Cajetan had questions too…but he also submitted to the authority of the Church.

Opinion is not the same as authority.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;13776507]To be fair, most Protestants have no idea about the history of the canon, or care!

That the same could be said of the average Catholic in no way diminishes the truth of what you say here.

But although Protestants may not “claim” it, by “claiming” a Bible that is different than the Septuagint, they are taking a position that Jesus and the Apostles used a canon that contained uninspired texts.

The same could be said of numerous Fathers who disputed the canonicity of some of the DC books.
Could Catholicism receive the same criticism that they exclude books of the Septuagint, 3 Macc, and Prayer of Manasseh as examples?

Jon

 

[shockerfan]

To say that the DC books “went uncontested” is historically false. They were quite contested, sometimes by Fathers of the Church even after 400 AD.

I should have used the phrase “virtually uncontested”. The Canon was the same for 1100 years. (same list used from 382 until Luther decided to put 7 books in the appendix, and on his own authority claim they were apocryphal. Then Protestant Bible societies in the 1800s, on their own authority, decided to not print those books even in an appendix.

In other words, whether it was Luther, or Protestant Bible societies, they became their own “Pope”, since the Bible does not have a “holy table of contents”

Ad hominem. No protestant that i know of claims anything like this.

If your Bible does not have the DC, then your Bible does not have books in the version of Scripture used by Jesus and the Apostles.

There are Orthodox Churches who hold the same history and “authority” as the See of Rome who claim books other than the 73 in a Catholic Bible (74 in Luther’s), should be included.
The fact is that the claim by Trent as to what books belong only applies to those bishops and churches that are in communion with the See of Rome. So, the answer is, each communion makes a determination for their own use. It is part and parcel of the division within the Church.

Jon

So then the Book of Mormon is correct for the Mormons?

Jesus founded one Church…not 40,000 different ones. Its not up to each one to determine “truth”. Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is leading people to different answers.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, those books were in the Vulgate, St. Jerome’s translation.

Why were they in there when St. Jerome had issues? He submitted his will to the authority of the Church. “He who hears you hears me” (Jesus to the Apostles - Luke 10:16).

Cardinal Cajetan had questions too…but he also submitted to the authority of the Church.

Opinion is not the same as authority.

They are in Luther’s translation, as well, as is the Prayer of Manasseh. Luther’s opinion is no different than theirs when it comes to the canon. He had the same liberty. To deny Luther his liberty while granting Cajetan his is the double standard often presented here about the canon of scripture and Luther.

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

No, I did not.

To be clear, there is something called “context”. Different Christian denominations read God’s word differently and get different meanings out of the same texts, thus, we have 40,000 different denominations claiming their understanding what what God’s word says is correct.

A simple example: Lets say you read the phrase “I never said you stole that.” There are 6 words in that sentence, and depending on which word you emphasize, there will be 6 different meanings. Well, the Bible has way more than 6 words, thus different meanings abound…thus 40,000+ Christian denominations.

So, Yes, I agree that Scripture is God’s word, but there is only one correct context. The Bible does NOT give you separate explanations of each verse to help you figure out the correct context…so by what authority can an adherent to SS claim their particular view of the context is correct?

This is hugely important. Because of SS’s rejection of “Sacred Tradition”, there is not uniform understanding of the necessity of Baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, can a person lose their salvation?, etc. These topics matter, but SS fails to provide the reader of God’s word the correct context.

And I could actually be standing in ear shot of Jesus giving His Sernon on the Mount:

and I and 99 others could all misunderstand or disagree on what He meant
and I could quote him exactly and 1000s more could misunderstand what He meant…

That does not diminish the authority of Jesus Christ in the slightest way.

There is no authority higher than words of Jesus.

Misunderstand the writings breathed out by God does NOT and NEVER will diminish the authority of a God breathed writing.
That is hugely important.

How can you argue otherwise?