What is Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Originally Posted by AmericanJosiah View Post
I hope I can help:

The Official, Historic Definition:

“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). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (Ditto, 9).

“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)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller.
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) embrace private, individual arbitration (This is called “private arbitration.”) SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis and so if often mentioned in relationship to it. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be likely so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

In the next post, I’ll share some quotes just to clarify the definition.

I hope that helps.

.

The question is “According to this definition of Sola Scriptura” what prevents me from going out and deciding for myself what my own personal New Testament will be?"

Sola Scriptura doesn’t determine what Scripture is; it’s praxis. Let’s compare The Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) with The Rule of Law in civilized societies. The practice of The Rule of Law doesn’t list all the laws of every jurisdiction currently and in the future, it simply embraces the law - as it exists at that time in that place - as the norma normans. I suppose even under the Rule of Law there could be debate as to what law applies. A policeman could stop me, note I was going 50 MPH and point to a big white sign right next to us with black numerals stating: MAX SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH" and I could say, “but the speed limit on Fast Road between Maple and Oak is 55 MPH!” and thus we would be refer to a different law - but the praxis would be the same: the law serves as the rule/canon/norma normans. As I noted in the post you quoted, Sola Scripture embraces the Scriptures as mutually accepted - it doesn’t define WHAT that Scripture is, thus it was just as relevant in 1400 BC when the Scripture was limited to two stone tablets as it is today.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) embrace private, individual arbitration (This is called “private arbitration.”) SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

This got me to thinking and asking another stupid question.

According to this definition of Sola Scriptura, do the Catholics and Orthodox really believe in Sola Scriptura but they just do not use that particular title.

I am asking because it seems to me that the differences lie in the area of arbitration, which this definitions says Sola Scriptura is not.

I am sure I will get a gazillion responses to the effect that this is heresy, but according to this definition I am not sure.

 

[crazzeto]

This got me to thinking and asking another stupid question.

According to this definition of Sola Scriptura, do the Catholics and Orthodox really believe in Sola Scriptura but they just do not use that particular title.

I am asking because it seems to me that the differences lie in the area of arbitration, which this definitions says Sola Scriptura is not.

I am sure I will get a gazillion responses to the effect that this is heresy, but according to this definition I am not sure.

Actually, no we don’t… Scripture is in the final authority in our faith tradition. It’s one of the 3 leggs in our faith tradition, but we recognize that neither tradition or scripture in and of them selves are useful for explaining the faith. That’s the reason for the 3rd leg, the teaching authority, the magesterium which is guided by the holy spirit. The final authority is the magestarium, they in turn use SS and Apostolic Tradition with the guidence of the Holy Spirit to settle matters of doctrinal importance.

It should be noted however, that one thing the Magisterium does not do is actually define Scripture. It provides a proper framework for reading and interpeting it, but it allows the layety quite a bit of leeway when reading SS. As long as we allow our selves to be guided by the interpetive framework, and catholic teaching then we’re good.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

The Official, Historic Definition:

“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). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (Ditto, 9).

“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)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

**
Sola Scriptura is NOT…**

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller.
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) embrace private, individual arbitration (This is called “private arbitration.”) SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis and so if often mentioned in relationship to it. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be likely so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

In the next post, I’ll share some quotes just to clarify the definition.

I hope that helps.

.

According to Sola Scriptura, do the Catholics and Orthodox really believe in Sola Scriptura but they just do not use that particular title.

My Catholic teachers and the Catholic Catechism suggest not.

The rule/canon/norma normans in The Catholic Church is “the three-legged-stool” of Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church (CCC 113, 85) PLUS the Tradition of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church PLUS the Magisterium of The Catholic Church - these three things together, inseparately, forming ONE rule/canon/norma normans. The Catholic Church is quite passionately opposed to the Rule of Scripture. At least, that’s what I was taught in The Catholic Church.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

 

[AmateurPianist]

Sola Scriptura doesn’t determine what Scripture is; it’s praxis.
.

So lemme think about this…

The way that I understand this is that there is nothing within the practice of Sola Scriptura that prevents me from deciding that I don’t like the book of Hebrews, therefore I will rip it out from my canon of Scripture.

So let me say that I decide I am going to do just that.

So I walk into church next Sunday and announce that from here on in my personal canon will omit Hebrews, but hey I like the epistles of Ignatius so I will add them in.

Well I don’t know about all churches, but I suspect mine will say I am free to do what I want, I just can no longer be a member of mine.

So…my church has in effect established a dogma (the New Testament canon consists of Hebrews but not the epistles of Ignatius) that is not normed by Scripture. Is that OK?

If so, it implies really that the only doctrines that can be rejected out of hand are those that Scripture blatantly contradicts.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So lemme think about this…

The way that I understand this is that there is nothing within the practice of Sola Scriptura that prevents me from deciding that I don’t like the book of Hebrews, therefore I will rip it out from my canon of Scripture.

That’s true. The Rule of Scripture is PRAXIS - it’s not a teaching; declaring “This is Scripture” would be a teaching.

The same is true under The Rule of Law. Let’s say again that that friendly policeman stops me, noting I was going 50 in a 35 MPH zone - as determined by that big white sign right next to us there by the side of the road, the one proclaiming: “MAX SPEED 35 MPH.” Yes, by the Rule of Law, I could say “I don’t accept that law as applying to me.” We’d see how far that gets you, but yes - under the Rule of Law - that would be possible.

All this is rather moot in my humble, fallible opinion. With the exception of the almost entirely moot DEUTERO books uniquely embraced by the OO, the DEUTERO books uniquely embraced by the EO and the DEUTERO books uniquely embraced by the CC, the embrace of Scriptures may well be the single strongest point of consensus in all of Christianity - it is the LEAST debated issue we have. Even my Hindu friend in India knows what the Christian Scriptures are. Now, in JESUS’ day - that WAS an issue, and yet that doesn’t keep Jesus from referring to The Scriptures over 50 times - using such normatively (and thus Sola Scriptura). Again, the PRAXIS of the Rule of Scripture doesn’t define what is or is not Scripture anymore than the PRAXIS of The Rule of Law doesns’t define what the law is. But it’s a moot issue since (with the exception of the LDS - and to a far, far lesser degree with the issue of the DEUTERO books), there’s no debate on that

BTW, the Rule of Law would apply in England where the law is to normally drive on the left hand side of the road EQUALLY as it would apply in the USA where the law is normally to drive on the right hand side of the road. The PRAXIS is to embrace the law as the rule/canon/norma normans. When I discuss with a Catholic, I WELCOME him/her using the unique CC list of books (it’s moot anyway) - although usually in norming, we embrace what all parties accept. But (except for the LDS), it’s moot in Christianity. What DOES change things is when a denomination insists that the Scripture is not what is stated but rather what is in the “heart” of itself alone, as interpeted by itself alone, to conform with the teachings of itself. That changes the norma normans from Scripture to something else.

it implies really that the only doctrines that can be rejected out of hand are those that Scripture blatantly contradicts.

The praxis “implies” no such thing. That would be an entirely different issue - one of arbitration. Sola Scriptura has nothing whatsoever to do with arbitration, it only has to do with what is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ralphinal]

Please help me to grasp this.

Since the Bible never tells us what should be in the Bible, the follower of Sola Scriptura has the right to rule out or ignore any Books they see fit. There may not be fall-out from this until they die.

Am I reading that correctly?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Please help me to grasp this.

Since the Bible never tells us what should be in the Bible, the follower of Sola Scriptura has the right to rule out or ignore any Books they see fit. There may not be fall-out from this until they die.

Am I reading that correctly?

THEORETICALLY, yes. Just as when you are driving. The Law may say that the speed limit is 65 MPH. MUST you accept that law? No, THEORETICALLY, you can speed - ignoring it, substituting your own “law”.

But all this is very moot. I suspect that the great majority of the 6.5 billion people on the planet accept the Christian Scriptures as such. It is perhaps the strongest point of consensus and acceptance in Christianity. Yes, the LDS has a larger canon and that IS significant - but it applies only to that one denomination. And yes, the OO has a unique set of Scirptures as does the EO and as does the CC - but these are surprisingly moot since virtually no teaching looks to these books and again, they are limited to one denomination each. It actually makes no practical difference if we accept the OO list of books or the EO’s list of books or the CC’s list of books - or the commonly embraced Protestant ones, it’s just moot. But yes, the PRAXIS of the Rule of Scripture doesn’t state what IS Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law states what is the Law in every juristdiction on the planet at this moment. In my field (physics), our norma normans is math and repeatable laborative experimentation, but the Praxis doesn’t list all math and every possible experiment - it simply states that such is the embraced rule/canon.

.

 

[OchsFam]

All this is rather moot in my humble, fallible opinion. With the exception of the almost entirely moot DEUTERO books…

You say that this is almost moot, but previously you state that the books are a mutually accepted norm.

As I noted in the post you quoted, Sola Scripture embraces the Scriptures as mutually accepted - it doesn’t define WHAT that Scripture is, thus it was just as relevant in 1400 BC when the Scripture was limited to two stone tablets as it is today.

The problem is, the vast majority of Christians recognize the Deuterocanon as inspired. These books offer much support for Catholic teachings that many protestants argue against. In this respect, this is not a moot point. If one is to claim scripture as their norm, then they would need all of scripture.

The argument you make here would justify one to only follow the book of Romans because it is mutually accepted. You cannot possibly come to an accurate understanding of Christianity out of this single letter.

Another problem is that when the “scripture” was confined to two tablets (I assume you are referring to the 10 commandments) it is important to see that Moses did not have any remorse for breaking them. This is because what was more important was the Tradition that God bestowed upon him. He could teach those commandments without the tablets and they would be every bit as legitimate. Everyone was still bound by the commandments without the tablets so there is no praxis being formed by the written word. The praxis is coming from the oral tradition and being supported by the written word. We see that the tablets are recreated as a proof of the Tradition and a reference for the Tradition. This is an excellent proof of the oral and written Word of God being transmitted together. What we are bound by is somewhat independent of our understanding of the written Word of God. I say somewhat because there are scenarios that can be fathomed which prevent an inclusive statement. This moves into a different topic so I will leave it at that.

God Bless.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The problem is, the vast majority of Christians recognize the Deuterocanon as inspired.

Well, one denomination (the OO) has one unique set of them…
One denomination (the EO) has one unique set of them…
One denomination (the CC) has one unique set of them…

The first two cases are simply a matter of the tradition of their denomination, the last is an official decision made at Trent in the 16th century.

But all this is entirely moot to the question and issue of this thread. As has been pointed out, an Oriental Orthodox could embrace the Rule of Scripture - although in that case, his “Scripture” would be different than yours. It’s moot. But yes, he could still be practicing The Rule of Scripture. Just like you could go from one parking lot where there is no limit on how long you can part there to another parking lot where there is a limit - and in each case, be embracing The Rule of Law - the practice of embracing the law would not be different.

These books offer much support for Catholic teachings that many protestants argue against.

I respectfully disagree. They are very rarely referenced by Catholics today (Luther referenced them far more than Catholics do!). In my years in Catholicism, I heard them read in the lectionary - but that’s it. Sometimes Catholics will reference a single verse in one of their Deutero books for purgatory, but I agree with the EO and OO (both of whom also accept that book) that the reference does not support the unique teaching of The Catholic Church. It’s just moot to anything; Protestants known to be GLADLY permit the Oriental Orthodox to use their unique list, the EO to use its unique set and the CC to use its unique set of Deutero books - not only in the spirit of Sola Scriptura because (to be blunt) it makes no difference to anything.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Official, Historic Definition:
“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). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (Ditto, 9).

“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)

Sola Scriptura IS…
An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine. .

“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10).

Very interesting quotes.

Would a Catholic forum member comment on some or all of these quotes specifically?

Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

I wish I had my old screen name NotTooSmart, because I really feel that is me in this discussion, because I am getting a disconnect.

So we have

I hope I can help:
Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

So…

My church has as a position that the book of Hebrews is a part of the NT canon but sorry the epistles of Ignatius are not.

When I use God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” for this one point I get a blank. It just is not there.

So how exactly does it work in this case.

I know I can apply this in the case where a doctrine or position explicitely violates Scripoture. But how exactly does this work in the case that Scripture is silent or ambiguous on a doctrine or position.

I also observe that Catholics claim that their doctrines and positions do not violate Scripture. Now whether they do is another issue, but let us assume that they do not. It is true that according to their method of arbitrating Scripture they do not.

And it seems to me that Sola Scriptura as defined here only works in the case that a doctrine, position violates Scripture.

So what again is the difference (disconnect…NotTooSmart).

 

[AmateurPianist]

Very interesting quotes.

Would a Catholic forum member comment on some or all of these quotes specifically?

Anna

I was going to ask the same. Thanx.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hi:
I must have missed this the first time. One question sticks out…

The Catholics here often raise the issue of the NT canon of Scripture. Although I think they overstate their argument somewhat, I also think they do have a good underlying point.

The question is “According to this definition of Sola Scriptura” what prevents me from going out and deciding for myself what my own personal New Testament will be?"

I will read this more to see if any other questions come to mind.

This is the 2 most boring thread we have had on this board after the one with the priest and it is time to stop it,it is Booooorrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg

 

[ralphinal]

THEORETICALLY, yes. Just as when you are driving. The Law may say that the speed limit is 65 MPH. MUST you accept that law? No, THEORETICALLY, you can speed - ignoring it, substituting your own “law”.

But all this is very moot. I suspect that the great majority of the 6.5 billion people on the planet accept the Christian Scriptures as such. It is perhaps the strongest point of consensus and acceptance in Christianity. Yes, the LDS has a larger canon and that IS significant - but it applies only to that one denomination. And yes, the OO has a unique set of Scirptures as does the EO and as does the CC - but these are surprisingly moot since virtually no teaching looks to these books and again, they are limited to one denomination each. It actually makes no practical difference if we accept the OO list of books or the EO’s list of books or the CC’s list of books - or the commonly embraced Protestant ones, it’s just moot. But yes, the PRAXIS of the Rule of Scripture doesn’t state what IS Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law states what is the Law in every juristdiction on the planet at this moment. In my field (physics), our norma normans is math and repeatable laborative experimentation, but the Praxis doesn’t list all math and every possible experiment - it simply states that such is the embraced rule/canon.

.

So, sola scriptura, in this form, fails on the first point. There is no proof of what is Scripture within Scripture, so Scripture cannot be the authority on a crucial matter of faith.

In your example, physics, the math is constant. 2+2 is always 4. Hypothesis may come and go, but the framework is always stable.

If Scriptures are to always be the authority, then the fact that only tradition dictates what is considered scripture creates quite a paradox

 

[Anna_Scott]

Some quotes:

“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10).

This is the 2 most boring thread we have had on this board after the one with the priest and it is time to stop it,it is Booooorrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg

Bill Pick: Care to make it “interesting” by commenting on these quotes?

Anna

 

[OchsFam]

Well, one denomination (the OO) has one unique set of them…
One denomination (the EO) has one unique set of them…
One denomination (the CC) has one unique set of them…

The first two cases are simply a matter of the tradition of their denomination, the last is an official decision made at Trent in the 16th century.

Again, the vast majority of Christians support the Deuterocanon. The protestants have more denominations, but not numbers. Catholics make up for the majority of Christians throughout the world. When you throw in Orthodox, you have a significantly larger number of Christians who support the inspiration of the Deuterocanon.

But all this is entirely moot to the question and issue of this thread.

This is in response to your previous comment regarding mutually accepted scripture as being part of Sola Scriptura and so does fit into this thread.

I respectfully disagree. They are very rarely referenced by Catholics today (Luther referenced them far more than Catholics do!).

I suppose the question still comes down to this. If you are a Sola Scriptura follower and do not have the entirety of what God intended scripture to be, can you come to a full understanding of Christianity?

The law does not specifically state each jurisdictions laws because they are inclusive. The federal law says you will follow the states laws which says you will follow the counties laws which says you will follow the cities laws. You are creating an analogy of the law which can not fit Christ’s teachings. In your analogy, the police officer that pulled you over is right regardless of your knowledge of the speed limit. If you are not looking at each level of law from federal to city, you are not capable of coming to an informed decision in regards to said laws. If God gave us scripture, our mutual acceptance of it is irrelevant. God provided scripture as it is to be and any exclusion of His books or inclusion of other books is going to lead to inaccurate interpretations and thus one will not be able to come to an informed decision. It is not moot because we are talking about God’s plan. If God said the Deuterocanon is inspired and should be included in the Bible, then it should be in the Bible. It doesn’t matter how often you reference it because our understanding of scripture is ever changing. There may be something in scripture we have yet to realize its impact because it is a topic that has not come up yet. If you do not have all of God’s Word, you cannot come to an informed decision on God’s will for us.

 

[OchsFam]

Care to make it “interesting” by commenting on these quotes?

Anna

I am working on it. Give me a minute or 60.

 

[Anna_Scott]

This is the 2 most boring thread we have had on this board after the one with the priest and it is time to stop it,it is Booooorrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg

I am working on it. Give me a minute or 60.

OchsFam:

At least you are contributing to the discussion, instead of declaring it “boring” as Bill Pick did.

Anna

 

[OchsFam]

We should know everything they taught, not just what we want them to have taught.

“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

Basil also said “Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

Augustine also said “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4).

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

John Chrysostom also said “[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

Gregory also said “[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?” (Against Eunomius,4:6).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

See Basil’s quote above.

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Cyril also said “But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the CHURCH, and which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES” (Catechetical Lectures, 5:12).

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

See Augustine’s quote above.