sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter tweetiebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes, absolutely. Tradition witnesses as to what books are inspired. So the how we know they are inspired is through Christ Himself. The how we know what is inspired has church reception as one of its factors.
Click to expand...
What are the other factors?
 
PRmerger said:
What are the other factors?
Click to expand...
Evidences external (aside from the church). For example, the recognition of events portrayed in the NT that are corroborated by non-Christian sources (Thallus, the Talmud, Pliny., etc). The volume of copies made of any given manuscript, etc.

Evidences internal…unity of doctrine, unity of language and writing style to identify the author of a book, the recognition of one author that another author’s writing is Scripture (e.g., Peter’s reference to the Pauline corpus; Paul’s quotation of Luke).
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Scripture alone has a context, JM. It is not used in the sense to mean that we use Scripture alone. It means Scripture is alone an infallible source of doctrine. This is in contrast to Tradition and the church also being infallible sources of doctrine.
Click to expand...
What good is an infallible source without an infallible interpretation?
To paraphrase a quote from James Cardinal Gibbons - you tell me there is a source of water to quench my thirst but cannot tell me for certain whether that water might be poisoned?
 
stewstew03 said:
What good is an infallible source without an infallible interpretation?
To paraphrase a quote from James Cardinal Gibbons - you tell me there is a source of water to quench my thirst but cannot tell me for certain whether that water might be poisoned?
Click to expand...
It does not require an infallible interpretation because that would cause an inescapable error of logic. At best, it would move the difficulty one step back. This has typically been referred to as an endless regress. We would be certain of the interpretation but would have no way to be certain that the infallible interpreter is infallible.

Be that as it may, leaving the above argument aside, it is demonstrable that God does send forth infallible revelation without an infallible interpreter (the Old Testsment). When the OT Jews were judged by God for failing to obey His word, the ine excuse they could not use was, “LORD how did you expect us to obey? Your word was incoherent without an infallible interpretation.”
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
It does not require an infallible interpretation because that would cause an inescapable error of logic. At best, it would move the difficulty one step back. This has typically been referred to as an endless regress. We would be certain of the interpretation but would have no way to be certain that the infallible interpreter is infallible.
Click to expand...
You might find this interesting:

“It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its compliment the gift of infallibility.” (John Henry Newman, On The Inspiration Of Scripture)
 
SteveVH said:
You might find this interesting:

"It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself.

True; but no reasonable person here is making the argument that it does not require interpretation. Also, I would argue strenuously against his assertion that Scripture is obscure in the way he paints it. Parts? Yes. On the whole, it can be read and understood at a 7th grade reading level.
Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation?
Click to expand...
Again, its simply historical fact that God gave revelation without an accompanying infalible institution. And He still expected people to hear and obey it 🤷
Click to expand...
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes; but essentially, the latter that you described is what has always been promulgated by the historic Protestant confessions of faith (and I would argue the apostolic and early churches). Of course we maintain Scripture is sufficient; but it doesn’t read itself!
Click to expand...
That doesn’t seem to be hte case, especially with Luther saying neither pope nor council could convince him and a special reliance on his conscionce in order to determine what the bible means. Especially I think its the case sola scriptura as held by most protestants does not reflect your view of it, and thats just eh nature of sola scriptura, that ive now seen a third definition for it.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
It does not require an infallible interpretation because that would cause an inescapable error of logic. At best, it would move the difficulty one step back. This has typically been referred to as an endless regress. We would be certain of the interpretation but would have no way to be certain that the infallible interpreter is infallible.

Be that as it may, leaving the above argument aside, it is demonstrable that God does send forth infallible revelation without an infallible interpreter (the Old Testsment). When the OT Jews were judged by God for failing to obey His word, the ine excuse they could not use was, “LORD how did you expect us to obey? Your word was incoherent without an infallible interpretation.”
Click to expand...
Question: Do you agree with RC Sproul when he says the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books? Or did the Council of Hippo get it right?
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
That doesn’t seem to be hte case, especially with Luther saying neither pope nor council could convince him and a special reliance on his conscionce in order to determine what the bible means. Especially I think its the case sola scriptura as held by most protestants does not reflect your view of it, and thats just eh nature of sola scriptura, that ive now seen a third definition for it.
Click to expand...
Ignatian, the reason I would disagree with this argument is that it presumes that Luther’s (and other reformers) arguments against Catholic teaching of the day was based solely on their own interpretations of the texts and doctrines in question. You may disagree with their conclusions, but to say they did not draw from interpretations, homilies and commentaries before them would be simplistic in the extreme. Aside from that, Ignatian, your own tradition equally assumes the fallibility of popes and councils that Rome maintains as incapable of error, if they contradict your own understanding of Scripture/Tradition. Not saying you’re wrong to do so, but it’s a reality.
 
stewstew03 said:
Question: Do you agree with RC Sproul when he says the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books? Or did the Council of Hippo get it right?
Click to expand...
I think the wording is unnecessary. We have an inerrant collection of infallible books. To say it is fallible is a redundancy.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
True; but no reasonable person here is making the argument that it does not require interpretation. Also, I would argue strenuously against his assertion that Scripture is obscure in the way he paints it. Parts? Yes. On the whole, it can be read and understood at a 7th grade reading level.
Click to expand...
Really? Then why so many divisions?
Because Scripture is not written in Holy Ghost Greek. His argument is almost gnostic in the way he asserts that there is some special charism one needs to tell the difference between historical narrative and poetry. Do we expect this of any other work of literature?
Click to expand...
Okay. When Jesus says “this is my Body… this is my Blood…” is he being poetic? Using symbolism?

Can an unbaptized believer be saved?
Again, its simply historical fact that God gave revelation without an accompanying infalible institution. And He still expected people to hear and obey it 🤷
Click to expand...
So - here are my questions:

  1. *]What is the Body of Christ?
    *]What are the keys given to Peter?
    *]What is the authority to bind and loose?
    *]Most Christians did not own a bible until 1500 years after Christ died - what happened to all those non-Sola Scriptura Christians? Are they in hell?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I think the wording is unnecessary. We have an inerrant collection of infallible books. To say it is fallible is a redundancy.
Click to expand...
In other words - the Church was without error when settling the canon of Sacred Scripture.
 
stewstew03 said:
Really? Then why so many divisions?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t addressing interpretations. Rather, the exaggerated obscurity that Newman paints the Scripture as being shrouded in. If that was his opinion of Scripture, one wonders why we should trust his reading of it.

Divisions are a reality among those who claim an infallible teaching office and apostolic tradition. So I don’t see its relevancy to the authority of God’s revelation being authoritative.
Okay. When Jesus says “this is my Body… this is my Blood…” is he being poetic? Using symbolism?
Click to expand...
Historical narrative. Newman was asserting our inability to distinguish genre styles. Since the Protestant Reformation, scriptural scholarship has advanced light yearsvon Protestant (and Catholic) sides. One wonders why that is?
Can an unbaptized believer be saved?
Click to expand...
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. I’m content to leave it at that.
So - here are my questions:

  1. *]What is the Body of Christ?
Click to expand...

  1. The Church
    What are the keys given to Peter?
    *]What is the authority to bind and loose?
    Click to expand...
    The authority to open and shut heaven through the forgiveness or retaining of sin (see Matt 18)
    *]Most Christians did not own a bible until 1500 years after Christ died - what happened to all those non-Sola Scriptura Christians? Are they in hell?
    Click to expand...
    Who said anyone was going to hell for not practicing sola scriptura? God’s revelation is supreme authority even if no one in the world has a bible. Its not dependent on us to read it.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
II wasn’t addressing interpretations. Rather, the exaggerated obscurity that Newman paints the Scripture as being shrouded in. If that was his opinion of Scripture, one wonders why we should trust his reading of it…
Click to expand...
Well yes the scripture is vague, it is obscure, certaintly obscure enough that one with a distorted mind or evil intention can misread it and cause them to be not saved as a result. I like what you said before that we need a church and the like to help read the bible, but then you sort of go to traditional protestant route by suggesting the bible alone is enough to understand it.

No doubt there are certain things clear in the bible but that is still no garuntee.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Well yes the scripture is vague, it is obscure, certaintly obscure enough that one with a distorted mind or evil intention can misread it and cause them to be not saved as a result. I like what you said before that we need a church and the like to help read the bible, but then you sort of go to traditional protestant route by suggesting the bible alone is enough to understand it.

No doubt there are certain things clear in the bible but that is still no garuntee.
Click to expand...
No, but again, I was addressing interpretation of it. Any time you read the Bible it requires some form of interpretation. Language demands it. What I was addressing vis a vie the Newman quote was not the systematizing of doctrine and such…but its basic readability. After reading the gospel accounts, one can understand the life of Christ and his mission without undersanding all variants of atonement theories.
 
Because i can read scriptures at home.

The homily or preaching should be reinforcing the Word of God into our present lives and we pray that the interpretation for the homily or preaching has been influenced by the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top