Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[mcq72]

And the decision of what constitutes scripture is itself a tradition.

Agreed…we just differ on how the decision came about.

I have heard of folks dying over having scripture on their person, or went to great lengths to procure it. Pretty sure it is due to nature of writ (God’s Word) moreso than out of reverence to who decided it was so ( yet anyone surrounding scripture such as writers,copiers, translators and discerners of its sacredness is referenced, and helps justify the appeal and hunger for said writings, unto death).

 

[HopkinsReb]

Agreed…we just differ on how the decision came about.

Regardless of how the decision came about, scripture was canonized by human beings. There are only two possibilities for our acceptance of their selection:

1. We have reviewed the arguments and think they are correct
2. We believe that they were guided by God and their selection is infallible

If we accept the first claim, we must constantly be open to arguments that we should disregard this or that book of scripture. After all, if the selection of books is simply the best a bunch of infallible men could come up with, it’s always subject to revision. So Luther can toss seven books out. Someone really committed to sola fide could just toss out James, or someone opposed to the the sacramental view could just toss out the Gospel of John. It all comes down to a tremendous trust in human reason.

If we accept the second claim, we must accept that, at least at some point, the Catholic Church was capable of infallibility, at least within certain conditions. And if we accept that premise, what reason is there to think that that capability was lost after the canon was formalized? If we accept that premise, how can we accept the Reformers’ tossing out the deuterocanonical books from the canon of scripture?

 

[mcq72]

Disagree with your two scenarios. Both one and two have the potential of correctness thru reliance on and guidance of the Holy Spirit and both are compromised of individuals who also are part of the Body, the church.

How did they do it in OT? Was Jesus and apostles concerned wth canon, a table of contents ? Did He address any Jewish segment or justify one over the other for their infallible correctness on this matter?(don’t get me wrong, the Spirit discernth all things.)

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The meaning of the “sola” in sola scriptura means scripture alone is the final norm.
The norm that norms but is not normed.

But that is the part that makes no sense. How can scripture “ALONE” be the final norm?

Read what The Lutheran reformers wrote. I posted it.
It means that no other norm from Tradition should be considered equal with scripture. Not the councils, not the ECF’s, not even the reformers themselves.

If scripture is truly alone then nothing happens. In the end someone’s “tradition” has to tell us what scripture is teaching us. Therefore in the end the final “norm” is the one doing the interpreting, the tradition not the written words on the page.

This is a misunderstanding of the term norm. Again, read what the reformers wrote. Clearly if there are doctrines, the Church determined them. So, of course something happens. It just requires determining doctrine to be consistent with scripture.
A principle of hermeneutics, practiced by the Church.

 

[JonNC]

And again, try and fit this paradigm over the nascent Church, when Christ walked the earth and up to the canonization of Scripture. Scripture cannot be the “final norm”. Not possible.

Why would you try to? No one claims, or at least shouldn’t claim, sola scriptura to be anything other than a post-apostolic practice. But if we want to speak about “development of doctrine”, that’s an interesting topic.

What was the norm then? And is it still the norm? Or did the norm die? This kind of thinking is very problematic for Christians.

Christ often said, “it is written”, but in that time they had those who haven’t been on Earth since apostolic Times: the apostles themselves. You could actually hear them speak in those days. Thank God He inspired them to write things down.

 

[goout]

goout:

And again, try and fit this paradigm over the nascent Church, when Christ walked the earth and up to the canonization of Scripture. Scripture cannot be the “final norm”. Not possible.

Why would you try to? No one claims, or at least shouldn’t claim, sola scriptura to be anything other than a post-apostolic practice. But if we want to speak about “development of doctrine”, that’s an interesting topic.

What was the norm then? And is it still the norm? Or did the norm die? This kind of thinking is very problematic for Christians.

Christ often said, “it is written”, but in that time they had those who haven’t been on Earth since apostolic Times: the apostles themselves. You could actually hear them speak in those days. Thank God He inspired them to write things down.

This issue is, written things are dead if not living within the Church. The apostles are no longer here. Do I hear you saying Jon, that the apostles are dead? Or are they alive in Christ?

The Trinity that you believe in was taken from Christ’s life and words. He himself is the second person of the Trinity. And then our written Gospels have seeds of the Trinity, but it took human beings a few centuries to reason with Tradition and Scripture, and the Living Magisterium arrives at the full development of the Trinity.

The Church is a living organism. Of course it develops.

 

[pnewton]

How did they do it in OT?

They didn’t. They relied on authority, that is, people. When the structure of authority broke down, then there was not canon of Scripture. The idea of a Bible came about during the Christian era, so looking for precedence is not really possible.

 

[MT1926]

Read what The Lutheran reformers wrote. I posted it.
It means that no other norm from Tradition should be considered equal with scripture. Not the councils, not the ECF’s, not even the reformers themselves.

I read what you posted. I still don’t see how this is an answer my question.

You can state “no other norm from Tradition”, all you want. Those words are meaningless because it still leaves the logical person with the question… who’s Tradition? Mine, Yours, Luther’s, Calvin’s, etc?

Like you keep doing to everyone else here, please post the official Church document that defines what the “norm of Tradition” is. If there is no definitive statement on what Tradition is then it is whatever we want it to be.

This is a misunderstanding of the term norm. Again, read what the reformers wrote.

I did, read it 3 times. Still makes no sense when you actually think about what is being said.

Here’s an example…A good bit of Luther’s doctrine, which he believed was subject to the Holy Scriptures, came about because he believed Romans 3:28 should be read…For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE apart from works of law.

He believed it so much that he added it to his translation of the Bible. Claiming he added it because the Catholic Church was wrong for 1500 years and this is what St. Paul meant when he wrote it.

This is the point I am making here. Sure Luther’s writings were subject tor the Holy Scriptures. I totally agree. However, they were subject to his personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Which would make the “NORM” Luther’s interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

How can the real presence in the Eucharist be subject to John 6. When we do that we end up with Catholics claiming it is literal and Calvinists claiming it is figurative? Both can easily make it subject to scripture but only one can be correct. Agreed?

How can we base heresies and dogmas on the Nicene Creed that states “We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” When there are so many “Sola Scripturists” who don’t believe Baptism does anything other than shows everyone present you are now a member?

Even the Creeds themselves are subject to the “tradition” of the one interpreting them.

I believe the term Tradition is the only misunderstanding we are having here. It’s easy to speak using vague terms like “norm of Tradition”. But these vague terms don’t answer the deeper questions that someone who wants to know the deeper truths should be asking.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

This issue is, written things are dead if not living within the Church. The apostles are no longer here. Do I hear you saying Jon, that the apostles are dead? Or are they alive in Christ?

In terms of this temporal world, yes. Of course. And that doesn’t deny their living in God’s presence in Heaven, please aiding God and praying for us, the Church Militant.
The very nature of sola scriptura is that it occurs as a hermeneutical principle within His Church. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

The Trinity that you believe in was taken from Christ’s life and words. He himself is the second person of the Trinity. And then our written Gospels have seeds of the Trinity, but it took human beings a few centuries to reason with Tradition and Scripture, and the Living Magisterium arrives at the full development of the Trinity.

Of course. Again, and this seems to be a repeating question, why do you think this is contrary to sola scriptura? Human beings, within the Church, practice hermeneutics.

 

[mcq72]

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Yes, I have seen this thought before. Perhaps it was to make no doubt of the sole uniqueness of God’s written word as normative, maybe even second to none?

I believe Scripture is His end of the bargain, even His Word. Tradition is how we have responded to it (Him).

 

[mcq72]

They didn’t. They relied on authority, that is, people.

Thank you, not sure exactly what you mean by authority, for it can come in a variety of ways (and did inOT)

 

[JonNC]

… who’s Tradition? Mine, Yours, Luther’s, Calvin’s, etc?

Are you now claiming a tradition of your own? I’m not. Luther didn’t. There were lots of western “traditions “ in Luther’s time that didn’t agree with the early Church. Hence, the Great Schism.

…please post the official Church document that defines what the “norm of Tradition” is. If there is no definitive statement on what Tradition is then it is whatever we want it to be.

I already did, regarding what sola scriptura is. Go back and read it again.

Here’s an example…A good bit of Luther’s doctrine, which he believed was subject to the Holy Scriptures, came about because he believed Romans 3:28 should be read…For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE apart from works of law.

He believed it so much that he added it to his translation of the Bible. Claiming he added it because the Catholic Church was wrong for 1500 years and this is what St. Paul meant when he wrote it.

It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [ klar und gewaltiglich ], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words " kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

This is from his open letter on translating. It will help in a discussion such as this that we not misrepresent the writings of others.

 

[Addai]

I saw an argument made by a Protestant website (I think it was bible.ca) that many Protestants hold on to tradition and their own opinions and thus do not follow Sola Scriptura. He added that if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.

Thoughts?

Take note because what your seeing is something that your going to see with many many Biblical fundamentalists. What is going on is called “Naive Realism”. I actually wrote a Facebook blog style post on this topic years back that I saved and will re-post part of it here. It was written in the context of arguing with Pentecostal and Charismatic Protestants but still applies here.

1. Naïve Realism
   This is the basic notion some folks have that they can see reality perfectly clear. If they are upset over something, it is because such and such thing is bad (and there is no possibility that they are reacting because of their own baggage, personal bias, history etc.). We all however see and interpret through filters or to put it Biblically “We see through a glass darkly”.

 

[mcq72]

Naïve Realism
This is the basic notion some folks have that they can see reality perfectly clear. If they are upset over something, it is because such and such thing is bad (and there is no possibility that they are reacting because of their own baggage, personal bias, history etc.). We all however see and interpret through filters or to put it Biblically “We see
through a glass darkly”.

Yes, but I always like to add to the glass darkly scripture this from John:

" children…ye know all things…having an unction from the Holy Ghost".

 

[MT1926]

Are you now claiming a tradition of your own?

Come on Jon, this is getting ridiculous, you know exactly what I’m talking about here. Why do you make statements like this? You know I’ve said it over and over yet you ignore the elephant in the room. The way someone interpreted the scriptures is there tradition. The Catholic Church interprets scripture from their tradition. If I were to interpret on my own that would be my tradition, And yes Luther started his own traditions of interpretation wether you want to believe it or not.

I already did, regarding what sola scriptura is. Go back and read it again

And I already pointed out any logical person can clearly see it doesn’t define what it means by tradition or who’s tradition it’s referring to.

This is from his open letter on translating. It will help in a discussion such as this that we not misrepresent the writings of others.

WOW. Definetly wouldn’t want to follow a guys theology who calls fellow Christians block heads, cows and donkeys. He appears very arrogant and self centered in his writing.

The only question I would have is…if Luther is correct here and this is the “proper” German way to translate, is the word allien still in the Current German translations? If not that would sure seem he was reading his own interpretation into the verse

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

I believe the term Tradition is the only misunderstanding we are having here. It’s easy to speak using vague terms like “norm of Tradition”. But these vague terms don’t answer the deeper questions that someone who wants to know the deeper truths should be asking.

what about , “(scripture and tradition) come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” ?Seems like vague language from C catechism.

But to be fair it can be understood with the other passages from catechism.

Still deeper truths could be asked, in fact were asked, if indeed the “fashion and thing” have honest goals, but sectarian in the end ?

 

[mcq72]

WOW. Definetly wouldn’t want to follow a guys theology who calls fellow Christians block heads, cows and donkeys. He appears very arrogant and self centered in his writing.

Actually was surprised also at some of his "speech " and other possible vices, but quite frankly, and please take no offense, but a product of Catholic times/clergy. That is, that was common amongst clergy, something that Ignatius Loyola wanted to address in his counter reformation. But what does that mean if such a man was appalled or disappointed at what he saw during his visit to Rome from his fellow clergyman and church officers. Also do not want to diminish his intellect and studies, and his genuine spiritual awakening.

He was quite zealous for souls in his care , was especially hard on those who were supposed to be pillars of the truth, teachers, just as Jesus was , who called those failing in those positions as “foxes, sons of devils,wolves”.

 

[JonNC]

Come on Jon, this is getting ridiculous, you know exactly what I’m talking about here. Why do you make statements like this? You know I’ve said it over and over yet you ignore the elephant in the room. The way someone interpreted the scriptures is there tradition. The Catholic Church interprets scripture from their tradition. If I were to interpret on my own that would be my tradition, And yes Luther started his own traditions of interpretation wether you want to believe it or not.

The failure of the Catholic Church at that time to maintain continuity with the Tradition of the early Church was precisely the problem.

WOW. Definetly wouldn’t want to follow a guys theology who calls fellow Christians block heads, cows and donkeys. He appears very arrogant and self centered in his writing.

Do you see some of the things Luther is called here? That doesn’t respond to the letter, however.
The bigger question is, how do English non-Catholic translations translate Romans 3:28?
There is not one that I am aware of that includes " alone". If the doctrine of Justification depended on “alone” being in Romans 3:28, it would be there in the English, as well.
Obviously, Luther was being honest in his explanation of his translation.

 

[MT1926]

But to be fair it can be understood with the other passages from catechism.

Yes, my point exactly, the Catechism has other passages to help in the understanding.

This is exactly what I’m asking for here, where is the other documents that tell us what exactly is meant by the word tradition in that document.

Like you said, I’m just asking him to be fair here.

Thank you,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Actually was surprised also at some of his "speech " and other possible vices, but quite frankly, and please take no offense, but a product of Catholic times/clergy.

Oh yes agree, from my understanding it got quite heated and out of hand on both sides.

He was quite zealous for souls in his care , was especially hard on those who were supposed to be pillars of the truth, teachers,

From my understanding he was especially hard on those who disagreed with him as well. When other reformers took his teaching farther than he intended he described them in his letter on Loss of Unity…

the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormentingme. As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppress the souls of men; now they have bodies (here he is referencing what he calls the other ungodly reformers who don’t agree with him), and give themselves out for living angels.

I liked the part when he added…When the Pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles.

I was like this is a guy that is clueless. Here he is complaining about people breaking from unity with him but saw no problem in breaking with unity with the Catholic Church.

I mean no offense to anyone, but like I said Luther seems a bit self centered and tends to look at things with tunnel vision.

God Bless