What is Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

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.

It certainly can be the embraced rule. You may not know what is the current law regarding parking at “Betty’s Lot” in Del Mar, CA - but that does NOT mean you therefore must reject the Rule of Law.

And you are making much ado about nothing. There is FAR, FAR greater consensus - historically and currently - on what is the Christian Scriptures than in the DOGMA of Transubstantiation or Purgatory - and yet you sense no problem there. Look, the PRAXIS of Sola Scriptura TEACHES nothing - no praxis does. That does not render the PRAXIS moot.

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

While physics embraces the embrace of math as a rule/canon/norma normans, the PRAXIS of embracing such does not list for us all mathematics. Nor does it list for us every possible laborative experiment, and YET our praxis is to embrace Math and repeatable, observible, laborative experiementation. A praxis of embracing a rule need not (and never does) define what is entirely contained by that rule. In the Rule of Law, does that Praxis list for us every law of every jurisdiction? Since it never does, does that make the Rule of Law moot in your view? But again, you are making much ado about nothing, even my Hindu friend in India knows what the Christian Scriptures are. The embrace of them is perhaps the single strongest point of agreement (the least most debative) issue in Christianity - you are trying to suggest that no Christian has any understanding of what is or is not Scripture and never has - and I find that incorrect.

If Scriptures are to always be the authority

Let’s TRY this yet again, read the next post

(continues below)

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The Official Definition of Sola Scriptura:

**“The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “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 role 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.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ralphinal]

I see what you are saying, but I am still stuck on that one little key point.

If tradition and only tradition determines what is Scripture, than there is no way that Tradition can be subservient to tradition.

The fact that there is agreement on what is Scripture is unimportant. The fact that Scripture is Scripture because of Tradition means that Tradition, on at least one case, trumps scripture.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

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.

… a good question, it just has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or topic. Your question is about arbitration. Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with that. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the canon. It embraces “the measuring stick” (the meaning of the word “canon”), it doesn’t embrace the specifics of HOW it will be determined if the position under examination “measures up” or not. The first is the embraced canon/rule/norma normans (the only issue addressed in The Rule of Scripture). the second is the arbitration. Another topic for another day and thread. All this I addressed in my post defining the praxis.

Now, it might be helpful to express that there is, obviously, a range of possibilities here. Protestants speak of doctrine (normed true in arbitration), false teaching (normed false in arbitration) and simply unnormed. Let me use an example that hopefully will not divert this thread: There is a position that Our Lady had pink hair. Now, if truth matters not - we could just let the position be perpetuated, but if truth matters - that suggests norming (the process of determining the correctness of a position). Now, if we embrace Scripture as the Rule (and it’s fine with me if we use the unique set of books of the singular Catholic Church), I SUSPECT that it would likely be arbitrated that Scripture neither confirms or denies that teaching - we’ve have an unnormed teaching, and Protestants would be apt to say it thus should not be dogma. Now, let’s say that it is a very ancient, very ecumenical veiw - then it MIGHT be arbitrated as “pious opinion” (a status less than dogma but often taught). Now, let’s change positions. It is instead, “Jesus was born to Hilary Clinton in Little Rock, Arkansas.” If we hold that up to Scripture - to see if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the canon (meansuring stick), I regard it as likely that it would be arbitrated as incorrect - a false teaching, since Scripture rather clearly identifies Mary as His Mother and Bethlehem in Israel as His birthplace. There are always 3 positions: normed correct (dogma), normed incorrect (false teaching), unnormed (neither - in a profound sense). Now, as a Lutheran, I probably agree with The Catholic Church 95% of the time in the “normed correct” and “normed incorrect” areas. We differ in some things, but much of it would be in that middle category: For example, I don’t declare Transubstantiation or the Assumption of Mary or Purgatory (unique dogmas of only The Catholic Church) to be normed correct, but I don’t regard them as being normed incorrect either - thus they are neither dogmas or heresies. For us, none of them qualify as pious opinions either since they are neither ancient or ecumenical. Now switch to say The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and we embrace that as pious opinion - niether confirmed or denied by Scripture but with a strong, ancient, ecumenical embrace - thus a permitted teaching in Lutheranism (but not required for salvation). But, friend, we are WAY off topic. Sola Scriptura embraces the Rule, it has nothing to do with the arbitraton. Just as the Rule of Law embraces the Law as the Rule, but says NOTHING to the issue of how issues are to be arbitrated vis-a-vis that Rule (it differs, frankly).

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.

That MAY be relevant vis-a-vis whether they are TECHNICALLY heresies. But it’s rather moot vis-a-vis whether they are thus normed as CORRECT. Follow?

A position could be: “Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and just loved fish tacos.” Now, hold that up to the Rule of Scripture. Does Scripture declare that false? Actually, I personally can’t think of anything in Scripture that so much as mentions how tall Our Lady was or what Her hair color was or anything about her fave foods - it seems to ME it would be hard to prove this wrong. THEREFORE, is the correct? I suspect most would say: not according to Scripture.

This rubric of “it’s true unless you can prove it false” is silly and rejected in every discipline known to man. I could position that there are 6 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor, and thus (using this rubric) argue: It’s a dogmatic fact unless you can prove it false!!!" Well, you can’t - there is no Moon of Endor! It’s an absurd apologetic permitted nowhere. Catholics don’t permit ANYONE ELSE to use it, thus they shouldn’t either.

Let’s return to the issue here: Sola Scriptura as the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Let’s return to the issue here: Sola Scriptura as the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.

I might be stuck on this NT canon thing, but I figure if I can understand just how this applies with the NT canon, I can get my mind around what this means in concrete terms.

So Sola Scriptura is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule.

So then I ask myself what should my NT canon be. Should it include Hebrews and James? What about the epistles of Ignatius?

I then turn to my Bible (following the practice of Sola Scriptura) and find absolutely nothing to answer my question. What then?

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

Back to the definition.

As you might guess,. I am giving this quite a bit of thought. As a Protestant, my natural inclination would be to be sympathetic to what you are saying.

And I find that I can agree with about 95% of what you have said. If I think upon it and view your definition of Sola Scriptura as a practice and not a doctrine, I have no choice but to conclude that is what I practice also.

I have a very simple logic that I use for a simple mind like mine.

As a Christian, I have come to believe in the Bible as the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God (now we can have a discussion on whether this inerrancy extends to Science and history…that is not an important issue for me).

I came to this belief as taught by my church. Since I became a Christian through a Protestant church, I was not taught that any source was inspired, infallible, and inerrant. That does not eliminate the possibility that one exists out there that is, I just know of none.

Not everything taught out there in the name of Christianity is true. I am commanded by God to “examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good”.

How else am I to do this except through the one source that I know is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

But I still find myself hung up on a little part of your definition as far as the final 5% goes.

It is the little word “final” in your definition.

And I am hung up on the case where the Bible is silent or ambiguous on a position or doctrine.

So back to my example of the NT canon. If the Bible is the “final” standard and the Bible is silent on this point, then by definition there is no standard. However, I believe that the NT canon is correct, not by virtue of the Bible as the “final” standard, but because this point is a settled issue as being agreed upon by the common tradition of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

So in the case of the NT canon, since the Bible can not be the “final” standard by virtue of its silence on this issue, I have adopted the common tradition of all branches of Christianity as the final standard in this case.

Does this make sense? Have I violated the practice of Sola Scriptura by doing so?

 

[pneuma07]

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)

…

.

Hi Josiah

Thanks for your insightful explanations, and , welcome to CAF !

It is a substantially different thing IMHO
saying that I (just I) am able to rebuild the whole of Christianity ( what matters in it, anyway) by a simple (“cover to cover” ?) reading of the sacred text, and saying this is more or less a caricature, and that I need after all the ministry of the XY denomination, producing tons of sermons and commentaries.( mind yourself, just the XY, not the YZ, whose ministries could lead you a little astray ). It appears then, there are at least two Solae Scripturae, two
“praxeis” ( or, better, two principles of praxis ) out there, producing any sort of mix between them.

Back to the described approach, you remind us that Scriptures are in a Lutheran view the Norma Normans.

It will be noted that working out a
“norma normata”, and agreeing on it, took Lutherans two full generations from their founder initial individual choice , and a good generation from his death. This norma normata is rejected by many, actually most believers, within Protestantisms.
Which have their own normae normatae, which are so diverse and different from the Lutheran one. So all have the same norma normans, but this produces different normae normatae. Maybe the picture is not so complete, if Jesus’ message is perceived in such different ways.

I guess you do not mean that the NT is the Source of the Gospel.
I guess we agree Jesus is the Source, and that He committed His Gospel to the Apostles. The NT reflects the following Apostolic Teaching, but is not the Source of it. Now, I cannot agree with a Sola Scriptura formulation asking us to believe that we were left by Christ with scriptures only, meaning any sort of apostolic *paradosis * outside OR ABOUT the written text was lost.

I appreciate you do not escape the other no less crucial question of arbitration, or authority, if we prefer, or CONtext, which is IMHO strictly linked to the above one.

The CONtext we are speaking about is the life of the Apostolic Church, serving the Word of God delivered once for all by preaching, guarding, celebrating it.That is why there is no point, IMHO, in asking catholics,as it often and legitimately happens: “OK, write down the
issues the Apostles handed on outside Scripture, if your Church knows them, give us a text”.
Sacred Tradition is rather CONtext. It is the life of the Church.

. The heart of the different versions of Sola Scriptura, or different Solae Scripturae, so diverse in the proposed praxeis, is IMHO the rejection of the CONtext, or authority, or arbitration of the Apostolic Church. Which was and would be a necessary step for any Reformer in any age choosing to preach any doctrine at odds with the teaching of the Apostolic Church. (of any Apostolic Church, in case you should ask “which Apostolic Church” …)

And this leads us to the Fathers…

 

[pneuma07]

Some quotes:

…

. 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)

.

YOUR QUOTING several post-NICENE FATHERS, seem to show an identification of yours, with iv-v century Church. At least from this point of view, which we might consider of major importance. Maybe we could explore this aspect.

Here are some quotes from the Fathers you considered

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“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). “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New” (Catechetical Lectures ,4:33).

“[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).
Saint Gregory of Nyssa

“Of the dogmas and kergymas 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 manners ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term” (Holy Spirt 27:66). Saint Basile the Great.

“For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued;” Augustine,On the Gospel of John,Homily XVIII:1 ,

…

The Church is certainly not afraid of the patristic quotations extolling Scriptures. She teaches them.

In his General Audience November 7 2007 B16 taught:

What can we learn from St Jerome? It seems to me, this above all; to love the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. St Jerome said: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ”. It is therefore important that every Christian live in contact and in personal dialogue with the Word of God given to us in Sacred Scripture.

In the following audience the Pope went on explaining:

“For him, an authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmonious accord with the faith of the Catholic Church. It does not treat of an exegesis imposed on this Book from without; the Book is really the voice of the pilgrim People of God and only in the faith of this People are we “correctly attuned” to understand Sacred Scripture. Therefore, Jerome admonishes: “Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you can preach according to right doctrine and refute those who contradict it” (Ep. 52, 7). In particular, given that Jesus Christ founded his Church on Peter, every Christian, he concludes, must be in communion “with St Peter’s See. I know that on this rock the Church is built” (Ep. 15, 2). Consequently, without approximations, he declared: "I am with whoever is united to the teaching of St Peter" (Ep. 16).”

This is another passage from Jerome:

*We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church. * Dialogue against the luciferians, 28

The Fathers of the Church were …children of the Church Josiah.

I hope this can help
Bless you

p7

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve been reading through this Thread, and I think this is one of the most interesting treatments of Sola Scriptura that I have seen on the Forums–and there have been many, even in the short time I have been here.

Though Protestant, I have abandoned Sola Scriptura for a number of reasons.

There are many definitions of Sola Scriptura. The debate, within the Protestant Sector, regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura eventually led to Solo Scriptura, which seems to be an extreme form of Sola Scriptura.

I do believe that the Bible is our “measuring stick.” However, we cannot abandon the role of “tradition” in interpreting the Scriptures. The Trinity is the prime example of Scripture interpreted in light of tradition. I, also, think many Protestants traded the “tradition” of the ECF for the “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

I appreciate all the quotes from ECF. However, just as one can “cherry pick” Scriptures to justify a certain belief (a common accusation against Protestants); I am seeing that one can “cherry pick” quotes from the ECF to prove a certain belief. I think good points have been made by both Protestant and Catholic Forum Members.

I think I need to deepen my study of the ECF, as well as reformation/post-reformation writings, to really understand the role of “tradition,” in interpreting Scripture.

Even though, Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation; I can not accept something that has no clear and consistent definition.

It is difficult to settle the issue of Sola Scriptura, without an agreement on the composition of the Biblical Cannon, and without an agreement regarding whether or not the Scriptures, contained in the Cannon, are “inerrant.” All must be considered within the framework of “tradition”—not an easy task, since Christian beliefs vary widely over 2,000 years of Christian history. So, this is, indeed, a complicated issue.

AmateurPianist, I do respect your humble approach to this subject. You do not pretend to have all the answers. You are willing to say you do not know something or you do not understand something. This, actually, makes your posts very “intelligent.”

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Back to the definition.

And I find that I can agree with about 95% of what you have said. If I think upon it and view your definition of Sola Scriptura as a practice and not a doctrine, I have no choice but to conclude that is what I practice also.

I have a very simple logic that I use for a simple mind like mine.

As a Christian, I have come to believe in the Bible as the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God (now we can have a discussion on whether this inerrancy extends to Science and history…that is not an important issue for me).

Not everything taught out there in the name of Christianity is true. I am commanded by God to “examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good”.

How else am I to do this except through the one source that I know is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

But I still find myself hung up on a little part of your definition as far as the final 5% goes.

It is the little word “final” in your definition.

And I am hung up on the case where the Bible is silent or ambiguous on a position or doctrine.

So back to my example of the NT canon. If the Bible is the “final” standard and the Bible is silent on this point, then by definition there is no standard. However, I believe that the NT canon is correct, not by virtue of the Bible as the “final” standard, but because this point is a settled issue as being agreed upon by the common tradition of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

So in the case of the NT canon, since the Bible can not be the “final” standard by virtue of its silence on this issue, I have adopted the common tradition of all branches of Christianity as the final standard in this case.

Does this make sense? Have I violated the practice of Sola Scriptura by doing so?

I don’t think so.

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I don’t think so.

One thing that has been on my mind today is the concept of Sola Scriptura as a practice.

I think I can buy into that. Primarily because if I am honest with myself, that is what I already do.

Funny thing I think I said that a while back in the Sola Scriptura thread du jour, even though I really didn’t know what I was talking about.

To me it is quite simple. I know that Scripture is inspired, infallible, and inerrant (at least in matters of theology). There is nothing else that I know of anyway that is of the same level (yes I know of claims to that extent but I remain unconvinced).

The Bible tells me in 1 Thess. to examine everything carefully and hold fast that which is good (I might put this verse in my sig). My goodness, if I didn’t do this I would be a Mormon. How else am I to do this except through that which I know I can trust 100% as reliable…

Now that does not mean I trust my ability to get it right. Good grief, anything that can be screwed up I probably will. But if I am wrong, at least I know where the source of my error is.

The nice thing about holding it as a practice, is that I don’t feel I need to prove it from the Bible. Which is a good thing, because in every Sola Scriptura thread I have read here, everybody (well almost) overreaches imho. I also don’t have to worry about correcting the Catholics from the error of their ways simply because I am not on a mission to get every other Christian to do what I do. Nor do I have to worry about how it is theologically defined, because I don’t hold it as a doctrine.

It is just what I do to obey 1 Thess. 5:21.

Now that is with the caveat that it really is not “Sola Scriptura”. Good grief, I need all the help I can get. That is why I go to church.

I for one think tradition is very important particularly in the face of all the nice little creative innovations to the Bible that are out there. It is comforting to know that I can reject doctrines solely on the basis of them being new inventions. And to be honest, I got that from here and studying out the issue a little bit.

To me Sola Scriptura is just what has precedence in the face of diverse opinions. And that just makes sense, I will go with what I know that I can rely upon.

So I will probably be a humble onlooker in the next Sola Scriptura thread du jour. And I will laugh to myself when the Catholics attack a wierd version of Solo Scriptura. And I will laugh to myself when the Protestant tries to prove something he just can’t.

 

[pneuma07]

One thing that has been on my mind today is the concept of Sola Scriptura as a practice.

I think I can buy into that. Primarily because if I am honest with myself, that is what I already do.

Funny thing I think I said that a while back in the Sola Scriptura thread du jour, even though I really didn’t know what I was talking about.

To me it is quite simple. I know that Scripture is inspired, infallible, and inerrant (at least in matters of theology). There is nothing else that I know of anyway that is of the same level (yes I know of claims to that extent but I remain unconvinced).

The Bible tells me in 1 Thess. to examine everything carefully and hold fast that which is good (I might put this verse in my sig). My goodness, if I didn’t do this I would be a Mormon. How else am I to do this except through that which I know I can trust 100% as reliable…

Now that does not mean I trust my ability to get it right. Good grief, anything that can be screwed up I probably will. But if I am wrong, at least I know where the source of my error is.

The nice thing about holding it as a practice, is that I don’t feel I need to prove it from the Bible. Which is a good thing, because in every Sola Scriptura thread I have read here, everybody (well almost) overreaches imho. I also don’t have to worry about correcting the Catholics from the error of their ways simply because I am not on a mission to get every other Christian to do what I do. Nor do I have to worry about how it is theologically defined, because I don’t hold it as a doctrine.

It is just what I do to obey 1 Thess. 5:21.

Now that is with the caveat that it really is not “Sola Scriptura”. Good grief, I need all the help I can get. That is why I go to church.

I for one think tradition is very important particularly in the face of all the nice little creative innovations to the Bible that are out there. It is comforting to know that I can reject doctrines solely on the basis of them being new inventions. And to be honest, I got that from here and studying out the issue a little bit.

To me Sola Scriptura is just what has precedence in the face of diverse opinions. And that just makes sense, I will go with what I know that I can rely upon.

So I will probably be a humble onlooker in the next Sola Scriptura thread du jour. And I will laugh to myself when the Catholics attack a wierd version of Solo Scriptura. And I will laugh to myself when the Protestant tries to prove something he just can’t.

Hi AmateurPianist,

                       let me first join those who praise your attitudes and approaches.

You have IMHO correctly pointed out that you, as I and everyone, received the Canon of our NT from a common tradition ( which catholics would say Sacred Tradition).

You are also ready to prefer approaching Scriptures within your faith community, that just by yourself.

Now, the catholic position IMHO is basically the same one. Only that approaching Scriptures within the Catholic Church means approaching it within Sacred Tradition, which is the life of the Church. Within which not only the Canon was fixed, but the very concept of having a NT too, in the first place. Nowhere does Jesus command in the Gospel to write and compile new books to be considered Scripture. The NT, and its very idea, come from and through the Apostolic Tradition.

The norma normans within Christianity is Jesus. It seems to me He did not give us directly the NT. He directly gave us, built for us, His Church. The deposit of the faith was committed to her. Through her we have the NT.

Am I to trust her, or one of the individual modern prophets coming with their own diverse visions about Scripture and the magisteriums of the faith communities founded by those guys, each of them claiming to be able to extract Jesus’ message from Scriptures better than any other, and better than the Catholic Church can know the message ?

As you quoted from 1 Thess 5 AmateurPianist

20Do not despise prophecies, 21but test everything; hold fast what is good.

What was good for St. Paul ?
What was better than his apostolic teaching, with which he had planted the seed of the faith creating the local church to which he was sending his first letter ?

In Christ
P7

 

[schaick]

Some thoughts a Christian very concerned about how we are going to live with Muslims if/when they take over. If all Christians vanished could the Holy Bible alone lead people to the One True GOD?

I like to think of all the different trinitarian denominations as different celebrations of the same one true Christian faith.

Sure all churches and denominations have traditions of some sort -the way we serve communion, the order of our service- if traditions changed would that be the end of it-does it really matter as long as we stay true to the Holy Bible, GOD’s Word?

The tradition-women covering their heads in church. What if her head is covered and her heart is not at church but full of hate or thinking about shopping? On the other hand what if covering her head does prepare her to celebrate Christ? None of us should be her stumbling block.

Consbubtantiation vs transubstantiation-I know for a fact that some Catholics actually believe more in consbubtantiation then transubstantiation. But then I know of Lutherans that do not believe in the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist. What if for some reason the thought of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine is a turn off- yet that person believe with their whole heart and soul that Jesus gave HIS life for us on the cross?

Has the forcing of traditions on people pushed them from the church? Sola scripture protects the church from taking on traditions that are false. Some questionable traditions such as indulgences and purgatory. Isn’t that what happened to Luther- he was not trying to form a new church just get rid of some lousy traditions.

Did tradition and church fathers really create the canon? Didn’t they just chose the various Books because they all jived with each other and taught what Jesus taught us. GOD/Jesus and scripture did chose the canon, it just took the church faters a while to recognize it.

 

[JonNC]

Consbubtantiation vs transubstantiation-I know for a fact that some Catholics actually believe more in consbubtantiation then transubstantiation. **But then I know of Lutherans that do not believe in the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist. **

By definition, Lutherans confess the Augsburg Confession, which clearly states that
“Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.” One who doesn’t believe in the real presence is, therefore, not Lutheran, regardless of their claim to be.

What if for some reason the thought of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine is a turn off- yet that person believe with their whole heart and soul that Jesus gave HIS life for us on the cross?

It is beyond me how the presence of Christ could be a “turn-off”, but I cannot either claim that someone who doesn’t discern His presence is not Christian.

Jon

EDIT: Almost forgot, the real presence is not tradition, it is scripture.

 

[pneuma07]

Some thoughts a Christian very concerned about how we are going to live with Muslims if/when they take over. If all Christians vanished could the Holy Bible alone lead people to the One True GOD?

I like to think of all the different trinitarian denominations as different celebrations of the same one true Christian faith.

Sure all churches and denominations have traditions of some sort -the way we serve communion, the order of our service- if traditions changed would that be the end of it-does it really matter as long as we stay true to the Holy Bible, GOD’s Word?

The tradition-women covering their heads in church. What if her head is covered and her heart is not at church but full of hate or thinking about shopping? On the other hand what if covering her head does prepare her to celebrate Christ? None of us should be her stumbling block.

Consbubtantiation vs transubstantiation-I know for a fact that some Catholics actually believe more in consbubtantiation then transubstantiation. But then I know of Lutherans that do not believe in the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist. What if for some reason the thought of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine is a turn off- yet that person believe with their whole heart and soul that Jesus gave HIS life for us on the cross?

Has the forcing of traditions on people pushed them from the church? Sola scripture protects the church from taking on traditions that are false. Some questionable traditions such as indulgences and purgatory. Isn’t that what happened to Luther- he was not trying to form a new church just get rid of some lousy traditions.

Did tradition and church fathers really create the canon? Didn’t they just chose the various Books because they all jived with each other and taught what Jesus taught us. GOD/Jesus and scripture did chose the canon, it just took the church faters a while to recognize it.

Hi Schaick !

I do not know to what kind of Sola Scriptura you adhere, but if under the umbrella of the Solae Scripturae different statements of faith, and different interpretative traditions, were forged, it cannot be IMHO that
“Sola scripture protects the church from taking on traditions that are false”.
For one, you appear to propose that Real Presence is a turn off, which appears beyond what Jon can conceive.

BTW , how do you know that what Luther wanted to get rid of was nothing else but “ lousy traditions” ? Is that because Scriptures are perspicuous about all those items ?

Then why didn’t the Catholic Church get them right, having studied Scriptures for centuries and centuries ?

What if the version of SS you were taught were a “questionable tradition” ?

In Christ
P7

 

[schaick]

*the real presence is not tradition, it is scripture. *

Yes I believe that also, but there are those out there that do not and are Lutheran. I also have a trinitarian Christian friend that used to be Lutheran and is completely turned off by the thought of the real presence.

 

[JonNC]

*the real presence is not tradition, it is scripture. *

Yes I believe that also, but there are those out there that do not and are Lutheran. I also have a trinitarian Christian friend that used to be Lutheran and is completely turned off by the thought of the real presence.

Without beating a dead horse, to be a Lutheran, one must believe in the real presence. Being a member of a Lutheran Church does not make one Lutheran. Confessing the Augsburg Confession does.
Your trinitarian Christian friend is honest, in being a “former” Lutheran.

Jon

 

[schaick]

Without beating a dead horse, to be a Lutheran, one must believe in the real presence. Being a member of a Lutheran Church does not make one Lutheran. Confessing the Augsburg Confession does.
Your trinitarian Christian friend is honest, in being a “former” Lutheran

Yes, I am understanding your point and agree. I do not know when the presence became offensive to her.

*“BTW , how do you know that what Luther wanted to get rid of was nothing else but “ lousy traditions” ? Is that because Scriptures are perspicuous about all those items ?

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther, on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)

URL=“http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html”]http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html*

Then why didn’t the Catholic Church get them right, having studied Scriptures for centuries and centuries ?

My guess is - GREED and men way too full of themwselves.

What if the version of SS you were taught were a “questionable tradition” ?

GOD’s Word is always above any manmade tradition. Everything that a person needs for a good relationship with GOD is in the Holy Bible. Nothing else is needed.

 

[pneuma07]

*“BTW , how do you know that what Luther wanted to get rid of was nothing else but “ lousy traditions” ? Is that because Scriptures are perspicuous about all those items ?

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther, on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)**

URL=“http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html”]http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Then why didn’t the Catholic Church get them right, having studied Scriptures for centuries and centuries ?

My guess is - GREED and men way too full of themwselves.

]

Dear Schaick,

  you appear to agree with  the Ninetyfive theses.   You also propose GREED as foundation of the catholic position.  I guess you mean about indulgences.

(on which BTW you may want to read this

www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp )

As a more general issue, which is more to the point here, you appear to believe Luther was a better interpreter of Scripture than the Catholic Church. Maybe because greed is the foundation of the Catholic Church in your eyes …

Soon Zwingli, and Menno and Calvin and Socinus and Arminius and many other would come, each claiming to be better interpreter of Scripture than Luther and …all the other available colleagues.

What if the version of SS you were taught were a “questionable tradition” ?

So this is the version of SS you accepted.

Catholics of course concur on the first sentence.
They can also agree IMHO on the second one, properly qualified.

They reject the third one, considering it a manmade tradition.
I IMHO also need the appropriate CON text to extract in a sound way Jesus’ message from Scripture.

In Christ
P7

 

[schaick]

Should we start another thread? I don’t want to derail this one!

Yes the selling of indulgences = GREED. I do not believe is scriptural.

Yes we owe man and society and do need to repay/receive punishment for our crimes, pay our debts to society.

We might be able to repay society but - our purely just GOD we can NEVER repay HIM for the debt our sins cause. Think of all the sins we do everyday even the smallest -butterfly effect.

No matter how many good deeds, penance, prayers I perform it is only Jesus’ sacrifice that can erase all my sins, “Justification by grace through faith”.

If as Catholics you need indulgences then of course you must follow your needs to help you be closer to GOD. I would never want to put up stumbling blocks for a fellow Christian.