What is Sola Scriptura

[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”

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…

Dumping a list of Scripture passages, without quoting even one–with an explanation of how it proves your claims, is rather pointless.

Just quote two passages, and state what you believe they prove.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

.
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

AmericanJosiah,

You are kidding, right? You just started your claims all over again, and still you have not quoted even one passage of Scripture with any kind of explanation regarding how that Scripture supports your claims.

All your claims are outside Scripture. Therefore, you have proven that Sola Scriptura is not valid.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

All your claims are outside Scripture. Therefore, you have proven that Sola Scriptura is not valid.

Anna

I’m really, really TRYING to see what is alluding you…

MAYBE it’s this: Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, it’s praxis. I can see where there would be an “issue” of sorts if Sola Scriptura were a doctrine and then, as such, it would need to be affirmed by Scripture. We would then need to affirm it by Scripture. Actually, we can - but it’s moot. It’s not doctrine. Praxis does not need to be affirmed by Scripture to be sound. I’m communicating with you now on the internet. I think that’s a sound practice. The internet is not mentioned in Scripture, much less affirmed by it. It is thus heresy for me to communicate via the Internet? Not according to Sola Scriptura.

Now, yes, it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is). It doesn’t need to be, but yes - if you want - we can compare how often the Rule of Scirpture is exampled as compared to the Rule of The Catholic Church. I gave just a partial list of examples, just from Jesus. There you are.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

All your claims are outside Scripture. Therefore, you have proven that Sola Scriptura is not valid.

Anna

I’m really, really TRYING to see what is alluding you…

MAYBE it’s this: Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, it’s praxis. I can see where there would be an “issue” of sorts if Sola Scriptura were a doctrine and then, as such, it would need to be affirmed by Scripture. We would then need to affirm it by Scripture. Actually, we can - but it’s moot. It’s not doctrine. Praxis does not need to be affirmed by Scripture to be sound. I’m communicating with you now on the internet. I think that’s a sound practice. The internet is not mentioned in Scripture, much less affirmed by it. It is thus heresy for me to communicate via the Internet? Not according to Sola Scriptura.

Now, yes, it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is). It doesn’t need to be, but yes - if you want - we can compare how often the Rule of Scirpture is exampled as compared to the Rule of The Catholic Church. I gave just a partial list of examples, just from Jesus. There you are.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. .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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dumping a list of Scripture passages, without quoting even one–with an explanation of how it proves your claims, is rather pointless.

Just quote two passages, and state what you believe they prove.

You are kidding, right? You just started your claims all over again, and still you have not quoted even one passage of Scripture with any kind of explanation regarding how that Scripture supports your claims.

All your claims are outside Scripture. Therefore, you have proven that Sola Scriptura is not valid.

I’m really, really TRYING to see what is alluding you…

MAYBE it’s this: Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, it’s praxis. I can see where there would be an “issue” of sorts if Sola Scriptura were a doctrine and then, as such, it would need to be affirmed by Scripture. We would then need to affirm it by Scripture. Actually, we can - but it’s moot. It’s not doctrine. Praxis does not need to be affirmed by Scripture to be sound. I’m communicating with you now on the internet. I think that’s a sound practice. The internet is not mentioned in Scripture, much less affirmed by it. It is thus heresy for me to communicate via the Internet? Not according to Sola Scriptura.

Now, yes, it is a good thing if praxis is exampled in Scripture (praxis rarely is - but it’s nice when it is). It doesn’t need to be, but yes - if you want - we can compare how often the Rule of Scirpture is exampled as compared to the Rule of The Catholic Church. I gave just a partial list of examples, just from Jesus. There you are.

AmericanJosiah:

As I said before:

“Dumping a list of Scripture passages, without quoting even one–with an explanation of how it proves your claims, is rather pointless. Just quote two passages, and state what you believe they prove.”

“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.”

These are very simple requests.

Anna

 

[schaick]

Jesus warns against takiing traditions of men over scripture:

Mark 7
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Colossians 2
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

 

[ralphinal]

Jesus warns against takiing traditions of men over scripture:

Mark 7
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Colossians 2
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

What is a tradition of men? Does that mean that there must be traditions of God as well?

 

[schaick]

1 Corinthians 4
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Proverbs 30
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

The New Testament is the only infallible record we have.

 

[ralphinal]

1 Corinthians 4
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Proverbs 30
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

The New Testament is the only infallible record we have.

Where did we get the NT? When and how were the books written?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I’m really, really TRYING to see what is alluding you…

MAYBE it’s this: Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, it’s praxis. I can see where there would be an “issue” of sorts if Sola Scriptura were a doctrine and then, as such, it would need to be affirmed by Scripture. We would then need to affirm it by Scripture. Actually, we can - but it’s moot. It’s not doctrine. Praxis does not need to be affirmed by Scripture to be sound. I’m communicating with you now on the internet. I think that’s a sound practice. The internet is not mentioned in Scripture, much less affirmed by it. It is thus heresy for me to communicate via the Internet? Not according to Sola Scriptura.

This is why I can accept the practice of Sola Scriptura, even though one or two of the statements in the original quotation cited earlier in this thread sort of leave me questioning as far as the underlying theology.

It has always somewhat bothered me that Protestant arguments on these forums that attempt to prove Sola Scriptura as a doctrine really do not do so.

But forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not feel that I need to Scripturally prove a practice.

What I did was ask myself two questions:
(1) What do I practice now?

Now I do not have that high degree of confidence in my own abilities to get Scripture right. In fact one thing that I am confident of is that I am wrong on many issues.

That having been said, I am confident in Scripture as an infallible and inerrant (at least in theology) rule of my faith. In fact it is the only rule of faith that I have at this point in time come to believe possesses this level of authority.

So in the end, as unsure as I may be in my ability to get Scripture right, unless I come to believe that another rule of faith is equal in authority to Scripture, it still has to carry more weight than any other rule of faith I come across.

(2) Is this practice sound?

Well, I know in 1 Thess 5:21 that I am told to examine everything carefully and hold fast that which is good. So I have to go somewhere to verify conflicting claims of Spiritual truth. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping me from becoming a JW.

So, unless there is in fact another rule or rules of faith that are in fact equal to the authority level of Scripture, the practice of letting the one rule of faith that you know and accept as being infallible and inerrant (at least in theology) is just common sense.

I think it is logical that any Christian who holds the Bible as infallible and (theologically) inerrant and who is not convinced that any other rule of faith possesses the same level of authority by definition adheres to the practice (but not necessarily doctrine) of Sola Scriptura, at least as defined earlier in this thread.

 

[AmateurPianist]

MAYBE it’s this: Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, it’s praxis. I can see where there would be an “issue” of sorts if Sola Scriptura were a doctrine and then, as such, it would need to be affirmed by Scripture. We would then need to affirm it by Scripture.

I think I sort of came up with an illustration that supports this contention and contrasts this with doctrine.

Many Christians that I know of have adopted the practice of not drinking alcohol. Now there may be many reasons for this…the simplest being that they just don’t believe God wants them to do so.

Do these Christians need to have this practice proven by Scripture in order to adopt it? I hope we would agree no. Although I do allow myself up to one alcoholic drink per month on average, I respect those Christians that totally abstain.

Now other Christians that I know of have the doctrine of abstention (a Christian should not drink alcohol). I think we should agree that if a Christian raises this belief to a doctrine, the burden of proof is greater since he now is asserting that his practice must be followed by all Christians in order for them to obey God in this respect.

 

[pneuma07]

This is why I can accept the practice of Sola Scriptura, even though one or two of the statements in the original quotation cited earlier in this thread sort of leave me questioning as far as the underlying theology.

It has always somewhat bothered me that Protestant arguments on these forums that attempt to prove Sola Scriptura as a doctrine really do not do so.

But forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not feel that I need to Scripturally prove a practice.

What I did was ask myself two questions:
(1) What do I practice now?

Now I do not have that high degree of confidence in my own abilities to get Scripture right. In fact one thing that I am confident of is that I am wrong on many issues.

That having been said, I am confident in Scripture as an infallible and inerrant (at least in theology) rule of my faith. In fact it is the only rule of faith that I have at this point in time come to believe possesses this level of authority.

So in the end, as unsure as I may be in my ability to get Scripture right, unless I come to believe that another rule of faith is equal in authority to Scripture, it still has to carry more weight than any other rule of faith I come across.

(2) Is this practice sound?

Well, I know in 1 Thess 5:21 that I am told to examine everything carefully and hold fast that which is good. So I have to go somewhere to verify conflicting claims of Spiritual truth. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping me from becoming a JW.

So, unless there is in fact another rule or rules of faith that are in fact equal to the authority level of Scripture, the practice of letting the one rule of faith that you know and accept as being infallible and inerrant (at least in theology) is just common sense.

I think it is logical that any Christian who holds the Bible as infallible and (theologically) inerrant and who is not convinced that any other rule of faith possesses the same level of authority by definition adheres to the practice (but not necessarily doctrine) of Sola Scriptura, at least as defined earlier in this thread.

Hi AmateurPianist,

you may want to adress a post I had written for you some pages ago,

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

IMHO accepting Scripture as our measuring stick for doctrines is not where Catholicism and Protestantisms differ. Certainly not if, by this, we mean no doctrine can contradict Scripture.
It is quiet evident that the Church does not regard any further text on equal footing as Scripture, otherwise she would have canonized it and we’d have a larger NT.
It is also clear that the whole deal in canonizing books is making them normative.

The gist of the difference between a Reformer and the Church, as between him and other Reformers, is IMHO that he considers his own interpretations of Scripture
( and of the text witnessing to Tradition as well) superior, both as far as the Catholic Church is concerned , and as far his fellow reformers are concerned.

In Christ
P7

 

[Anna_Scott]

1 Corinthians 4
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Proverbs 30
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

The New Testament is the only infallible record we have.

schaick,

I am familiar with in 1 Corinthians 4.

If you accept, literally, “Do not go beyond what is written,” then what does that mean, exactly?

Does it mean do not go beyond what is written in what was known as Scripture at the time?

Does it include things written after this statement was made?

Does it mean the oral transmission, of what eventually became the New Testament, was to cease being taught? All the N.T. Books and Letters had not been written, when this statement was made.

If they were to go only by what was written, at that point in time, a great deal of the N.T. would be lost. The Books and Letters of the N.T. were oral tradition long before they were written; and they circulated separately for a long time.

Please clarify your interpretation of “Do not go beyond what is written.”

One of the main points in this passage is that they/we “should not take pride in one man over against another.” If Sola Scriptura accomplishes this, then why do we (Protestants) have so many denominations?

Sadly, the Protestant world is full of people taking pride in one man over another. So, it doesn’t seem like it’s worked out that well for us.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi AmateurPianist,

you may want to adress a post I had written for you some pages ago,

IMHO accepting Scripture as our measuring stick for doctrines is not where Catholicism and Protestantisms differ. Certainly not if, by this, we mean no doctrine can contradict Scripture.
It is quiet evident that the Church does not regard any further text on equal footing as Scripture, otherwise she would have canonized it and we’d have a larger NT.
It is also clear that the whole deal in canonizing books is making them normative.

The gist of the difference between a Reformer and the Church, as between him and other Reformers, is IMHO that he considers his own interpretations of Scripture
( and of the text witnessing to Tradition as well) superior, both as far as the Catholic Church is concerned , and as far his fellow reformers are concerned.

In Christ
P7

Missed it the first time…

Let me address the point of the last paragraph. Of course on one level I see my own interpretation as superior to the Catholic interpretation. Otherwise I would be here with you arguing Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope etc. from the Bible. The reason why I do not is that I don’t see them in the Bible.

But on the other hand, I don’t have a high degree of confidence that my understanding of the Bible is correct outside of Jesus Christ. So…I can be wrong.

Let me ask a question because it is possible that I might misunderstand Catholicism.

I am a little confused because in the Wiki article on Prima Scriptura it indicated that at least one Catholic theologian supported this (Yves Conger?).

Now I thought Catholics claimed that tradition, magisterium, Scripture were on equal footing.

Now I don’t understand how different sources can be on equal footing, how that exactly works. It seems that any process has to have a tiebreaking procedure.

So hypothetically speaking (you will claim it never occurs of course) what exactly breaks the tie in Catholicism. If you were (hypothetically) unable to resolve conflicting claims between tradition, the Magisterium, and Scripture…what do you run with.

As for me…

If I hypothetically study the early church and became convinced that they believe and practice tradition ‘X’ and at the same time I study scripture and become convinced that tradition ‘X’ might contradict Scripture, I will not adopt tradition ‘X’ until I am convinced that it actually does not contradict Scripture.

As for the Magisterium, I am not Catholic so I am not bound to it. But I do not regard the pastor and teacher of my own church as incapable of being incorrect. So I have no reason to regard the Magisterium of any other church as incapable of being incorrect.

 

[crazzeto]

Missed it the first time…

Let me address the point of the last paragraph. Of course on one level I see my own interpretation as superior to the Catholic interpretation. Otherwise I would be here with you arguing Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope etc. from the Bible. The reason why I do not is that I don’t see them in the Bible.

But on the other hand, I don’t have a high degree of confidence that my understanding of the Bible is correct outside of Jesus Christ. So…I can be wrong.

Let me ask a question because it is possible that I might misunderstand Catholicism.

I am a little confused because in the Wiki article on Prima Scriptura it indicated that at least one Catholic theologian supported this (Yves Conger?).

Now I thought Catholics claimed that tradition, magisterium, Scripture were on equal footing.

This is correct, they are all on equal footing. One can not violate the other, one without the others can not stand. This gets to Josiah’s arguments. He’s trying to seperate interpetation of the bible, from the bible as being the final authority. The reason why he’s doing this is because Lutheran’s have had a revelation, Private Judgment doesn’t work.

Problem:
You can’t seperate the two concepts. The bible is not an authority at all, unless it can be properly understood. So I would ask any one buying into this nuvo-lutheran understanding of “Sola Scriptura” this, in what way is the bible the final authority of faith, if the final authorty of interpeting the bible isn’t the bible. In the end you are putting your faith in the hand of the church, they are the ones doing the interpeting, they are the ones explaining to you what the word of God means. So in what way is The Church not the authority? In what way is it not the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

But again, the Church it’s self can not simply make stuff up. All teachings must be derived from the deposite of faith, and that is exactly what the Bible is, it’s one half of the deposite of faith, the other half being Apostolic Tradition. No part of the deposit of faith may be contradictory, no part can superseed the other, it must all logically fall into place when properly understood. This is how we say all 3 are on equal footing. The bible is our written record of salvation history, it’s immutable and (more or less, one must account for translation differences) consitantly and clearly available for all to read in their native tounge (btw, something the Catholic church was at work on long before Luther). Apistolic Tradition completes the written record, by carefully passing on generation after generation the beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers, this includes their interpetations of things found in what we today call Sacrade Scripture (which they had no access to, they knew it as Oral Teaching). Finally there is the Magisterium, this is the teaching Authority which draws upon all this information, and presents it to the layety in a somewhat more accessable format. Rather than requiring the Lay people to spend their entire life studying the bible, Tradition, writings of the early fathers, Jewish history, Helenistic history etc etc, you can just go to Mass, or purchase (or otherwise obtain, online for free vatican.va) books published by the vatican which will present this information in an easy to understand format.

The Catholic view make any more sense?

Now I don’t understand how different sources can be on equal footing, how that exactly works. It seems that any process has to have a tiebreaking procedure.

So hypothetically speaking (you will claim it never occurs of course) what exactly breaks the tie in Catholicism. If you were (hypothetically) unable to resolve conflicting claims between tradition, the Magisterium, and Scripture…what do you run with.

There are none, at all. You’re welcome to present your challenges to this assertion, though the Apologetics forum would be best for this. If you’re so interested post back and let us know what topic you’ve posted and where.

As for me…

If I hypothetically study the early church and became convinced that they believe and practice tradition ‘X’ and at the same time I study scripture and become convinced that tradition ‘X’ might contradict Scripture, I will not adopt tradition ‘X’ until I am convinced that it actually does not contradict Scripture.

As for the Magisterium, I am not Catholic so I am not bound to it. But I do not regard the pastor and teacher of my own church as incapable of being incorrect. So I have no reason to regard the Magisterium of any other church as incapable of being incorrect.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This gets to Josiah’s arguments. He’s trying to seperate interpetation of the bible, from the bible as being the final authority. The reason why he’s doing this is because Lutheran’s have had a revelation, Private Judgment doesn’t work.

No. I’m simply STAYING ON TOPIC. The topic is Sola Scriptura - which is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans. The topic is not principles or practices of hermeneutics. I welcome that discussion, but that’s not the discussion here.

The bible is not an authority at all, unless it can be properly understood. So I would ask any one buying into this nuvo-lutheran understanding of “Sola Scriptura” this, in what way is the bible the final authority of faith, if the final authorty of interpeting the bible isn’t the bible.

Let’s try AGAIN…

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it’s called in epistemology (the standard or plumbline).

Bob says a wall is 6 feet tall. Jim says it’s 5 feet tall. Is it? That question is the issue of norming (NOT hermeneutics). The first issue for that norming that must be decided is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for that deliberation? If they decide to use their Sears 20 Foot Tapemeasure, then that becomes the norma normans. Perhaps we’d call that Sola Sears Tapemeasure, lol…

Now, yes, there would be the issue of arbitration (how it will be determined if the wall “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring tape” (the rule/canon/norma normans)- but that’s another issue for another day and thread. We need to determine what the rule/canon will be before we can determine how it will be used.

In the end you are putting your faith in the hand of the church, they are the ones doing the interpeting, they are the ones explaining to you what the word of God means. So in what way is The Church not the authority? In what way is it not the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Well, if this thread were about principles or practices of interpreting Scripture, I’d point out that I know of only two where self alone appoints self alone as the sole individual interpreter - and neither of them are Protestant. One of which is The Catholic Church (see CCC # 85). It simply designates itself as the sole, infallible/unaccountable Authority in this regard. But we are WAY off topic.

The Catholic view make any more sense?

WAY, WAY off topic, but IMHO, no.

Why? Because self has simply designated self to look in the mirror at self. What is this “three-legged-stool?” Well…

1. The Tradition as self determines,chooses and interprets.
2. The Scripture not in words on a page but in the heart of itself alone as interpreted by itself alone (CCC 85, 113)
3. The Magisterium of itself and the decisions, views, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of self alone

These three CANNOT be varient, so what one says the others MUST agree with (or God would be lying - since all 3 come from God and all 3 are Truth). So the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church MUST agree with the Tradition as chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church and with the views of the Magisterium of The Catholic Church. And what does The Catholic Church designate as the sole arbiter for determining if The Catholic Church agrees with the Tradition of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church, and with the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church, and with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church and as pledged to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church? Why, it’s The Catholic Church. To ME (and I’m Protestant), this is just a perfect circle of self-authentication, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self and alone determining if self looks like self. But again we are WAY off topic. Sola Scriptura doesn’t concern the arbitive process, it concerns the embraced Rule - which it embraces as OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - including self. I cannot determine what Romans 3:25 is. Nor can you. But there is it, objectively - and we are both subject to it. This is different than I alone appointing I alone to determined if the views of I alone agree with I alone. One embraces self as the Rule, the other embraces a Rule outside, above and beyond self to which self too is subject.

**But let’s return to the subject of this thread: The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura), the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans/canon/rule. **

.

 

[crazzeto]

No. I’m simply STAYING ON TOPIC. The topic is Sola Scriptura - which is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans. The topic is not principles or practices of hermeneutics. I welcome that discussion, but that’s not the discussion here.

But scripture directly contradicts your “praxsis”, you have yet to address this. I can only assume you doubt scripture when it says the church is the pillar and ground (or foundation, or bulwerk) of the truth.

Let’s try AGAIN…

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it’s called in epistemology (the standard or plumbline).

See above

Bob says a wall is 6 feet tall. Jim says it’s 5 feet tall. Is it? That question is the issue of norming (NOT hermeneutics). The first issue for that norming that must be decided is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for that deliberation? If they decide to use their Sears 20 Foot Tapemeasure, then that becomes the norma normans. Perhaps we’d call that Sola Sears Tapemeasure, lol…

You do what scripture tells you to do, take it to the church

Now, yes, there would be the issue of arbitration (how it will be determined if the wall “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring tape” (the rule/canon/norma normans)- but that’s another issue for another day and thread. We need to determine what the rule/canon will be before we can determine how it will be used.

No, there is the issue that scripture directly says the Church is the upholder and defender of the truth, not scripture.

Well, if this thread were about principles or practices of interpreting Scripture, I’d point out that I know of only two where self alone appoints self alone as the sole individual interpreter - and neither of them are Protestant. One of which is The Catholic Church (see CCC # 85). It simply designates itself as the sole, infallible/unaccountable Authority in this regard. But we are WAY off topic.

With out knowning what scripture is and what it says, what is it worth? Nada

WAY, WAY off topic, but IMHO, no.

Why? Because self has simply designated self to look in the mirror at self. What is this “three-legged-stool?” Well…

1. The Tradition as self determines,chooses and interprets.
2. The Scripture not in words on a page but in the heart of itself alone as interpreted by itself alone (CCC 85, 113)
3. The Magisterium of itself and the decisions, views, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of self alone

These three CANNOT be varient, so what one says the others MUST agree with (or God would be lying - since all 3 come from God and all 3 are Truth). So the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church MUST agree with the Tradition as chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church and with the views of the Magisterium of The Catholic Church. And what does The Catholic Church designate as the sole arbiter for determining if The Catholic Church agrees with the Tradition of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church, and with the Scripture in the heart of The Catholic Church as interpreted exclusively by The Catholic Church, and with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church and as pledged to uphold the teachings of The Catholic Church? Why, it’s The Catholic Church. To ME (and I’m Protestant), this is just a perfect circle of self-authentication, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self and alone determining if self looks like self. But again we are WAY off topic. Sola Scriptura doesn’t concern the arbitive process, it concerns the embraced Rule - which it embraces as OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - including self. I cannot determine what Romans 3:25 is. Nor can you. But there is it, objectively - and we are both subject to it. This is different than I alone appointing I alone to determined if the views of I alone agree with I alone. One embraces self as the Rule, the other embraces a Rule outside, above and beyond self to which self too is subject.

**But let’s return to the subject of this thread: The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura), the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans/canon/rule. **

Interesting, but wrong

 

[AmateurPianist]

This is correct, they are all on equal footing. One can not violate the other, one without the others can not stand. This gets to Josiah’s arguments. He’s trying to seperate interpetation of the bible, from the bible as being the final authority. The reason why he’s doing this is because Lutheran’s have had a revelation, Private Judgment doesn’t work.

When I read the original statement, I did have a couple of issues with the phrase “final authority” myself. Is the Bible the “final authority”? To me the answer is depends.

One the one hand I can read the Bible and clearly determine that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Mary and Joseph, was crucified, and rose from the dead. Case closed. To use a highly abused phrase “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”.

On the other hand if I decide I want to omit the book of Hebrews from my personal canon, there is nothing in the Bible to stop me from doing so. I must look elsewhere if I am to convince myself this would be…just…wrong.

Problem:
You can’t seperate the two concepts. The bible is not an authority at all, unless it can be properly understood. So I would ask any one buying into this nuvo-lutheran understanding of “Sola Scriptura” this, in what way is the bible the final authority of faith, if the final authorty of interpeting the bible isn’t the bible. In the end you are putting your faith in the hand of the church, they are the ones doing the interpeting, they are the ones explaining to you what the word of God means. So in what way is The Church not the authority? In what way is it not the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

But again, the Church it’s self can not simply make stuff up. All teachings must be derived from the deposite of faith, and that is exactly what the Bible is, it’s one half of the deposite of faith, the other half being Apostolic Tradition. No part of the deposit of faith may be contradictory, no part can superseed the other, it must all logically fall into place when properly understood. This is how we say all 3 are on equal footing. The bible is our written record of salvation history, it’s immutable and (more or less, one must account for translation differences) consitantly and clearly available for all to read in their native tounge (btw, something the Catholic church was at work on long before Luther). Apistolic Tradition completes the written record, by carefully passing on generation after generation the beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers, this includes their interpetations of things found in what we today call Sacrade Scripture (which they had no access to, they knew it as Oral Teaching). Finally there is the Magisterium, this is the teaching Authority which draws upon all this information, and presents it to the layety in a somewhat more accessable format. Rather than requiring the Lay people to spend their entire life studying the bible, Tradition, writings of the early fathers, Jewish history, Helenistic history etc etc, you can just go to Mass, or purchase (or otherwise obtain, online for free vatican.va) books published by the vatican which will present this information in an easy to understand format.

The Catholic view make any more sense?

But it seems now that you are getting into the theology just as much as the original statement did.

When I read the proposition that Sola Scriptura was a practice, then it just sort of occurred to me that I can bypass all of the sticky theological questions that accompany this and ask myself the basic question “What do I do right now” to obey 1 Thess. 5:21.

And it occurred to me that of all the possible rules of faith, the one that carries the most weight to me is the Bible. And it seems me that if that is my practice, then I practice Sola Scriptura.

Now if you want to convince me that my current practice is not sound, have at it.

There are none, at all. You’re welcome to present your challenges to this assertion, though the Apologetics forum would be best for this. If you’re so interested post back and let us know what topic you’ve posted and where

Here is the rub. There are a number of issues in which Catholics and Protestants typically disagree with. I’ll cite one, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

When I look at this issue through the eyes of a Catholic I can understand but not necessarily agree. I honestly believe (looking at this your way) that I can not Scripturally disprove this.

But…

When I look at it through my eyes, I conclude that I have absolutely no reason to buy into this because I have no idea whether it is true and there is at least a decent chance that it is in fact Scripturally false. Certainly per 1 Thess 5:21 I will not buy into it until convinced that it does not run counter to Scripture.

But I know I will not persuade you anyway so why waste the bandwidth. Anyway, these issues sort of skirt around the biggie in my mind. Which is…

Is what we know today as the Catholic church exclusively the church of Jesus Christ. Or stated another way, when heaven looks down to earth and looks at the entity of “the Church” or “The Bride of Christ” is what heaven sees what we know today as “the Catholic church”.

By definition that would leave everybody else having a lesser status. It that is true, then it is highly likely that what is says concerning rules of faith is in fact true. And if that is true, all of the other issues like the Immaculate Conception are in fact true.

But I have no reason to believe the original proposition is true.

But that is why I tend to ignore your local Immaculate Conception thread du jour.

All of this being off-topic of course.

 

[crazzeto]

When I read the original statement, I did have a couple of issues with the phrase “final authority” myself. Is the Bible the “final authority”? To me the answer is depends.

One the one hand I can read the Bible and clearly determine that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Mary and Joseph, was crucified, and rose from the dead. Case closed. To use a highly abused phrase “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”.

Grant it, there are some aspects of the bible which are clearly easy to interpet, which no rational Christian would disagree on. You point out some good examples, but then again there are some not so obvious texts in the Bible. As St. Peter him self says:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

or again from Acts 8:

30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

On the other hand if I decide I want to omit the book of Hebrews from my personal canon, there is nothing in the Bible to stop me from doing so. I must look elsewhere if I am to convince myself this would be…just…wrong.

Exactly part of the problem with Sola Scriptura, where is the Cannon of scripture? In fact where are a lot of the Christian Truths to which we cling? The Trinity for one! There are problems you can’t quite solve with the bible alone.

But it seems now that you are getting into the theology just as much as the original statement did.

Now I feel like you’re trying to avoid the unavoidable. It sounds like you’re trying to some how seperate out theology from faith. One can not do this, Theology is how we study God, much like organized religion the the natural framework in which we all worship.

These are certain concepts which have become tabboo in certain Protestant secs, but whether or not beleivers want to believe it, we all have a theology, and we all have some manner of orginized religion. With out these things we can’t possibly hope to understand God, let alone win the race.

That’s yet another problem with what some people are trying to drive at with Sola Scriptura. It’s like some how, the bible is giong to impart some sort of theological knowlege, with out any sort of “theology to get in the way of it”. The bible is a dead book, it’s the word of God but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a dead book. It doesn’t up and interpet it’s self, though I do realize some people like to try an beleive it does. In the end we need an interpetive model, it would stand to reason the orginization (or person) who defines that interpetive model is the final authority, are they not?

When I read the proposition that Sola Scriptura was a practice, then it just sort of occurred to me that I can bypass all of the sticky theological questions that accompany this and ask myself the basic question “What do I do right now” to obey 1 Thess. 5:21.

And it occurred to me that of all the possible rules of faith, the one that carries the most weight to me is the Bible. And it seems me that if that is my practice, then I practice Sola Scriptura.

Now if you want to convince me that my current practice is not sound, have at it.

Here is the rub. There are a number of issues in which Catholics and Protestants typically disagree with. I’ll cite one, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

When I look at this issue through the eyes of a Catholic I can understand but not necessarily agree. I honestly believe (looking at this your way) that I can not Scripturally disprove this.

But…

When I look at it through my eyes, I conclude that I have absolutely no reason to buy into this because I have no idea whether it is true and there is at least a decent chance that it is in fact Scripturally false. Certainly per 1 Thess 5:21 I will not buy into it until convinced that it does not run counter to Scripture.

But I know I will not persuade you anyway so why waste the bandwidth. Anyway, these issues sort of skirt around the biggie in my mind. Which is…

Is what we know today as the Catholic church exclusively the church of Jesus Christ. Or stated another way, when heaven looks down to earth and looks at the entity of “the Church” or “The Bride of Christ” is what heaven sees what we know today as “the Catholic church”.

By definition that would leave everybody else having a lesser status. It that is true, then it is highly likely that what is says concerning rules of faith is in fact true. And if that is true, all of the other issues like the Immaculate Conception are in fact true.

But I have no reason to believe the original proposition is true.

But that is why I tend to ignore your local Immaculate Conception thread du jour.

All of this being off-topic of course.

Yeah, I’ll skip on discussing Mary and the Immaculate conception. But I would ask that you consider what I wrote above.

 

[ralphinal]

Here is the rub. There are a number of issues in which Catholics and Protestants typically disagree with. I’ll cite one, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

When I look at this issue through the eyes of a Catholic I can understand but not necessarily agree. I honestly believe (looking at this your way) that I can not Scripturally disprove this.

But…

When I look at it through my eyes, I conclude that I have absolutely no reason to buy into this because I have no idea whether it is true and there is at least a decent chance that it is in fact Scripturally false. Certainly per 1 Thess 5:21 I will not buy into it until convinced that it does not run counter to Scripture.

But I know I will not persuade you anyway so why waste the bandwidth. Anyway, these issues sort of skirt around the biggie in my mind. Which is…

Is what we know today as the Catholic church exclusively the church of Jesus Christ. Or stated another way, when heaven looks down to earth and looks at the entity of “the Church” or “The Bride of Christ” is what heaven sees what we know today as “the Catholic church”.

By definition that would leave everybody else having a lesser status. It that is true, then it is highly likely that what is says concerning rules of faith is in fact true. And if that is true, all of the other issues like the Immaculate Conception are in fact true.

But I have no reason to believe the original proposition is true.

But that is why I tend to ignore your local Immaculate Conception thread du jour.

All of this being off-topic of course.

What you have touched on is the main reason so many Catholics have trouble explaining these doctrines with non-Catholics. As you said, if the Church is right about being the Authentic Bride of Christ, that gives her great validity to the claim that she makes about the faith.

Even Luther noted this, stating that if sola scriptura fell, the whole house collapses around it.