What is Sola Scriptura

[pneuma07]

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

.

Dear Schaick,

                 I agree that the issue of indulgences would derail the thread. :)

In Christ
P7

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .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.

Schaick,

I agree that the Gospel is contained in Scripture.

However, I do not agree with your statement, “Sola Scriptura protects the church from taking on traditions that are false.”

If you believe this to be true, then please name the religion or denomination who holds the truth, protected from false traditions, by Sola Scriptura.

Even though I am Protestant, I believe the role of tradition is inescapable; and I do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

Quotes from two of my previous comments regarding Sola Scriptura:

. . .Do you attend any type of church service or Bible class? Have you ever relied upon a commentary in a Study Bible?

I’m really curious about this, because every time we sit in any type of Bible class or church service; the leader is quoting Scripture and then explaining his/her interpretation of that Scripture. I am a Protestant, and I know this is the case in Protestant Churches.

If we need nothing beyond Scripture, that would mean that every Protestant Bible Class and every Protestant sermon could only contain the reading of Scripture. There could be no “teaching” regarding what Scripture means, or even how to apply it to our lives.

The point is that “tradition” is inescapable in Christianity. It is just a matter of the “tradition” you accept. Basically, Protestants traded the “tradition” of the early church fathers for the “tradition” of the Protestant Reformers.

If “Scripture alone” was sufficient, we wouldn’t have a gazillion Protestant Churches with a gazillion different interpretations of Scripture. I am exaggerating a bit here, probably because I haven’t come to terms with the many belief systems within Protestantism (it bothers me a great deal.)

Interpretation of Scripture creates “tradition,” whether the tradition is 5 minutes old or 2,000 years old. It took me a while to grasp this. When I first came to CAF, I argued Sola Scriptura. I had long discussions with some very patient forum members. I finally had to admit that the interpretation of Scripture is shaped by some form of tradition or commentary.

I am constantly amazed by the patience of Catholic and Orthodox Forum Members–and others who accept the role of tradition–who have to go through this discussion, every time a new Protestant Member hits the forums with the same arguments. . .

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. . .

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.

I welcome your comments.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I

I do believe that the Bible is our “measuring stick.”

Then, by definition, you accept Sola Scriptura.

And, IMHO, you thus cannot be Catholic.

.

 

[crazzeto]

Then, by definition, you accept Sola Scriptura.

And, IMHO, you thus cannot be Catholic.

.

Not really, Catholic’s also use the Bible as a measureing stick. Nothing in Apistolic Tradition can Violate what’s in the bible (and none of it does), just as nothing in the Bible violates anything that is in Apistolic Tradition (in fact the Bible is a product of said tradition). I’m well aware of the current lutheran effort to redefine “sola scriptura”, make it seem more rational. But I do wonder, can you solve the paradox I found with in the first 3 pages of this thread. I think by page 2 or 3 at the latest I laid out the paradox so that it can be easily seen.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Not really, Catholic’s also use the Bible as **a **measureing stick.

Ah, but I responded to this statement, "I do believe that the Bible is our “measuring stick.” And noted that thus IS (by definition) Sola Scriptura and that IMHO, by embracing Sola Scriptura, our friend cannot be Catholic.

I’d also remind you that the “Bible” that The Catholic Church uses is the one in its own heart (CCC 113) as interpreted by its own self (CCC 85). Sola Scriptura embraces the Scripture on the page - the exact thing rejected by The Catholic Church (CCC 113) But again, Sola Scriptura is what our Catholic friend said: The use of Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans (“measuring stick”)

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[crazzeto]

Ah, but I responded to this statement, "I do believe that the Bible is our “measuring stick.” And noted that thus IS (by definition) Sola Scriptura and that IMHO, by embracing Sola Scriptura, our friend cannot be Catholic.

I’d also remind you that the “Bible” that The Catholic Church uses is the one in its own heart (CCC 113) as interpreted by its own self (CCC 85). Sola Scriptura embraces the Scripture on the page - the exact thing rejected by The Catholic Church (CCC 113) But again, Sola Scriptura is what our Catholic friend said: The use of Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans (“measuring stick”)

Well the “Catholic Bible”, is the only western bible which is actually complete. Protestants, with the usage of the Hebrew OT are providing their faithful an incomplete bible, the cannon is, and has been nice ~400AD when the cannon was first set:

Septuigant + NT books we all agree upon.

With regard to translations, I wouldn’t question it if I were you. If you’re not aware, I’ll let you know right now that the KJV is based upon the Douay-Rheims translation (released ~3 years prior to the first KJV), a Catholic bible. There is an updated Douay-Rheims, from what I understand the updated Douay bible is in turn, based upon the KJV creating a bit of a symbiotic relationship between the two major British bibles (Douay/KJ).

And yes, the bible is a measureing stick, no other part of faith may violate anything contained within it’s pages, and for obvious reasons no bit of Apistolic tradition does violate anything contained with in the bible, seeing as Apistolic Tradition, was instituded by the very same people who wrote the bible.

You didn’t answer my question. I guess if you don’t want to that’s fine, but I am curious. Can you solve the paradox I found?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Then, by definition, you accept Sola Scriptura.

And, IMHO, you thus cannot be Catholic. .

1. Believing the Bible is our “measuring stick,” does not logically lead to “Sola Scriptura.”
2. It is true that I am not Catholic.
3. You pulled one line out of my Post #122, ignoring the heart of the post.

Not really, Catholic’s also use the Bible as a measureing stick. Nothing in Apistolic Tradition can Violate what’s in the bible (and none of it does), just as nothing in the Bible violates anything that is in Apistolic Tradition (in fact the Bible is a product of said tradition). I’m well aware of the current lutheran effort to redefine “sola scriptura”, make it seem more rational. But I do wonder, can you solve the paradox I found with in the first 3 pages of this thread. I think by page 2 or 3 at the latest I laid out the paradox so that it can be easily seen.

1. As our Catholic friend, Crazzeto, stated, “Catholic’s also use the Bible as a measuring stick. Nothing in Apostolic Tradition can Violate what’s in the bible (and none of it does), just as nothing in the Bible violates anything that is in Apostolic Tradition.”
2. Again, using the Bible as our “measuring stick,” does not logically lead to Sola Scriptura–neither for Catholics nor for non-Catholics.
3. Since you are arguing for Sola Scriptura, please quote Scripture that supports your claims.
4. Arguments, without a Scriptural basis, negate your entire argument for Sola Scriptura.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ah, but I responded to this statement, "I do believe that the Bible is our “measuring stick.” And noted that thus IS (by definition) Sola Scriptura and that IMHO, by embracing Sola Scriptura, our friend cannot be Catholic.

I’d also remind you that the “Bible” that The Catholic Church uses is the one in its own heart (CCC 113) as interpreted by its own self (CCC 85). Sola Scriptura embraces the Scripture on the page - the exact thing rejected by The Catholic Church (CCC 113) But again, Sola Scriptura is what our Catholic friend said: The use of Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans (“measuring stick”) Thank you. Pax- Josiah.

AmericanJosiah:

You are making less sense with every post.

Again, since you are arguing Sola Scriptura, quote the Scripture passage that says, “Using the Bible as our measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.” Quote anything that even comes close to saying that.

What Bible do you believe to be the true translation/transmission of Scripture?

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

AmericanJosiah:

You are making less sense with every post.

Again, since you are arguing Sola Scriptura, quote the Scripture passage that says, “Using the Bible as our measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.” Quote anything that even comes close to saying that.

What Bible do you believe to be the true translation/transmission of Scripture?

Anna

I hope it’s not the KJV, esp not the 1611!!! He’d practically be reading a Catholic bible

 

[Anna_Scott]

AmericanJosiah:

You are making less sense with every post.

Again, since you are arguing Sola Scriptura, quote the Scripture passage that says, “Using the Bible as our measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.” Quote anything that even comes close to saying that.

What Bible do you believe to be the true translation/transmission of Scripture?

Anna

I hope it’s not the KJV, esp not the 1611!!! He’d practically be reading a Catholic bible

We’ll have to wait and see if he gives an answer.

Frankly, I’m exhausted; and not due to challenging arguments from AmericanJosiah. He’s not making any sense. After a while, it’s like, what is the point?

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

1. Believing the Bible is our “measuring stick,” does not logically lead to “Sola Scriptura.”

USING Scripture as our “measuring stick” IS Sola Scriptura.

.

 

[crazzeto]

USING Scripture as our “measuring stick” IS Sola Scriptura.

.

No it’s not, if that’s the case Luther would have had no Argument with the Catholic Church. That’s what we’ve always done, Tradition and Scripture complament eachother. Anything that violates scripture is tossed. You haven’t answered my question about the paradox I found, Lutheran’s can’t escape the true meaning of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith. Keith A. Mathison couldn’t avoid it in his write up regarding Sola Scriptura, and it trapped his definition in a circular logic.

He tried suggesting that the Church has always been the interpetive authority of Scripture, or the word of God. If this is true, then the Church is the final authority as to what the word of God is. Then he turns around and attacks so called “solo-scriptura” practitioners saying each person is reading the bible on their own, making them selves the final authority in what the word of God is, and not the word of God it’s self (which he previously defined as the bible) and also threw a swipe at the CC here because obviously we subscribe to his earlier position.

So who’s the final authority? If it’s the church which interpets the bible, then I would suggest Lutherans finally admit that the Church as been correct all along. If it’s the bible it’s self, then I would like to know how you solve the paradox, where does the final authority of what the word of god lay? In the Church? Or in the Bible? If it’s in the Bible, then the Church really has no authority at all.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Again, since you are arguing Sola Scriptura, quote the Scripture passage that says, “Using the Bible as our measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.” Quote anything that even comes close to saying that.

Anna

It’s RARE than praxis is required in Scripture. We MIGHT find it exampled (as Sola Scriptura is repeatedly - some 50 times by Jesus Himself) but rarely is it taught. Is there a verse that says, “Churches must use electricity!” and yet I suspect yours does - but nothing in the Bible that says, “All Churches MUST use electricity” and not a single example in the Bible of any doing so. You have a cross in your church. No Scriptures speak of doing that. You use a liturgy in your church, nope - nothing about that either. PRAXIS is RARELY taught in the Bible. What we DO see (occasionally) is such exampled - examples of it being done. But of course, Sola Scripture is exampled all over the place. What is never exampled is anyone using “the three-legged-stool” alternative. But I’m just don’t sure what you are getting at. Here we are in 2009. Let’s say Jim says Jesus’ mother was named “Jennifer.” Robert says Her name was “Mary.” WHAT should all of us turn to as the rule/canon for evaluating those positions? Sola Scriptura says Scripture.

.

 

[crazzeto]

It’s RARE than praxis is required in Scripture. We MIGHT find it exampled (as Sola Scriptura is repeatedly - some 50 times by Jesus Himself) but rarely is it taught. Is there a verse that says, “Churches must use electricity!” and yet I suspect yours does - but nothing in the Bible that says, “All Churches MUST use electricity” and not a single example in the Bible of any doing so. You have a cross in your church. No Scriptures speak of doing that. You use a liturgy in your church, nope - nothing about that either. PRAXIS is RARELY taught in the Bible. What we DO see (occasionally) is such exampled - examples of it being done. But of course, Sola Scripture is exampled all over the place. What is never exampled is anyone using “the three-legged-stool” alternative. But I’m just don’t sure what you are getting at. Here we are in 2009. Let’s say Jim says Jesus’ mother was named “Jennifer.” Robert says Her name was “Mary.” WHAT should all of us turn to as the rule/canon for evaluating those positions? Sola Scriptura says Scripture.

Unless the Bible it’s self were to directly contradict your theology:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=3&l=15&f=s#x

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

In which case one must re-examin their theology.

 

[Anna_Scott]

1. Believing the Bible is our “measuring stick,” does not logically lead to “Sola Scriptura.”
2. It is true that I am not Catholic.
3. You pulled one line out of my Post #122, ignoring the heart of the post.
4. As our Catholic friend, Crazzeto, stated, “Catholic’s also use the Bible as a measuring stick. Nothing in Apostolic Tradition can Violate what’s in the bible (and none of it does), just as nothing in the Bible violates anything that is in Apostolic Tradition.”
5. Again, using the Bible as our “measuring stick,” does not logically lead to Sola Scriptura–neither for Catholics nor for non-Catholics.
6. Since you are arguing for Sola Scriptura, please quote Scripture that supports your claims.
7. Arguments, without a Scriptural basis, negate your entire argument for Sola Scriptura.

Anna

AmericanJosiah:

You are making less sense with every post.

Again, since you are arguing Sola Scriptura, quote the Scripture passage that says, “Using the Bible as our measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.” Quote anything that even comes close to saying that.

What Bible do you believe to be the true translation/transmission of Scripture?

Anna

USING Scripture as our “measuring stick” IS Sola Scriptura.

AmericanJosiah,

You do not answer any questions. You do not deal directly with the issues. You just keep repeating the same thing. Repeating “Scripture as our “measuring stick” IS Sola Scriptura,” does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

At this point, your lack of Scriptural basis for your claims is actually proving you wrong. If you are serious about this discussion, then put some effort into your responses. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time. :banghead:

I’ll repeat my request: Since you are arguing Sola Scriptura, quote the Scripture passage that says, “Using the Bible as our measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.” Quote anything that even comes close to saying that.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

It’s RARE than praxis is required in Scripture. We MIGHT find it exampled (as Sola Scriptura is repeatedly - some 50 times by Jesus Himself) but rarely is it taught.

Is there a verse that says, “Churches must use electricity!” and yet I suspect yours does - but nothing in the Bible that says, “All Churches MUST use electricity” and not a single example in the Bible of any doing so. You have a cross in your church. No Scriptures speak of doing that. You use a liturgy in your church, nope - nothing about that either. PRAXIS is RARELY taught in the Bible.

What we DO see (occasionally) is such exampled - examples of it being done. But of course, Sola Scripture is exampled all over the place. What is never exampled is anyone using “the three-legged-stool” alternative. But I’m just don’t sure what you are getting at. Here we are in 2009. Let’s say Jim says Jesus’ mother was named “Jennifer.” Robert says Her name was “Mary.” WHAT should all of us turn to as the rule/canon for evaluating those positions? Sola Scriptura says Scripture.

AmericanJosiah,

We are not talking about electricity, crosses, the name of the Mother of Jesus, or the “three-legged-stool” alternative."

You are claiming Sola Scriptura. You are claiming that using the Bible as a measuring stick is, by definition, Sola Scriptura.

You are claiming “examples of Sola Scriptura repeatedly - some 50 times by Jesus Himself.” Give me some examples. Keep in mind, when Jesus spoke of Scripture, He was referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet written. Keep in mind that the Jewish people claim the oral Torah was given, as well as the written Torah. So, “tradition,” in addition to written Scripture, was already well established.

You are claiming “Sola Scriptura is exampled all over the place,” yet you fail to give even one example.

Where is the Scripture to back up your claims?

Aren’t you saying that everything we need to know is in Scripture? Evidently not, because you are arguing outside Scripture.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No it’s not

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”) or rule (“straight edge”) in evaluating positions.

That’s what we’ve always done

I don’t know about “always” but that was not the canon of The Catholic Church in Luther’s day… or since. The Catholic Church was (and is) opposed to Sola Scriptura.

Lutheran’s can’t escape the true meaning of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith.

We don’t want to “escape” it; Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

He tried suggesting that the Church has always been the interpetive authority of Scripture

Moot. Sola Scriptura is a praxis of norming, it’s not a principle of hermeneutics.

Now, if you removed the capitol letter, I’d agree with you - but that would require a new thread, one on hermeneutics. This one is about norming, and the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans.

So who’s the final authority? If it’s the church which interpets the bible, then I would suggest Lutherans finally admit that the Church as been correct all along.

I think you mean who is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture? Ah, a different subject for another day and thread, this thread is about what serves as the embraced rule, canon, norma normans - not who or what is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Apples and oranges.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You are claiming that using the Bible as a measuring stick is, by definition, Sola Scriptura.

Because that’s what it is.

Give me some examples.

There are far too many to post here, it would be way beyond the 6000 character limit this website allows. But just a few examples from just Jesus might suffice. Again, compare this list to the number of times Jesus exampled The Catholic Church alternative of “the-three-legged stool”

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46

John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
John 20:31
John 21:25

Just a short, partial list from just Jesus.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Because that’s what it is.

There are far too many to post here, it would be way beyond the 6000 character limit this website allows. But just a few examples from just Jesus might suffice. Again, compare this list to the number of times Jesus exampled The Catholic Church alternative of “the-three-legged stool”

Again, repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it true. You have failed to make a case for your assertion that using the Bible as a measuring stick, is by definition, Sola Scriptura.

If there are more examples than the 6000 characters this forum allows, as you claim, surely you can cite a few.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Again…

The Official 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 as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3).

“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.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.