What is Sola Scriptura

[schaick]

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.

There are many Christian churches, either non-denominational or called simply Christian churches that are sola scriptura and have been protected from false traditions.

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!

*What is a tradition of men? *

Selling of Indulgences is a tradition of man that is really bad. A good tradition from man-singing religious Christmas Carols in December. Another really bad tradition of man singing “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer”

*Does that mean that there must be traditions of God as well? *

Celebrating the Eucharist is a tradition for man that was started by GOD through Jesus at the last supper.

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.

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

We know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were always considered a part of the “official” books of the New Testament. And we know from Paul’s writing that the scripture was in circulation before He died:

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.

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

The Gospel is all we need. The rest of the New Testament is more of a history of the church and it’s develpoement.

*???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.??? *

FALSE!! The Holy Bible is very much alive. For example I can read a verse and come away with an understanding, some time later I can read the very same verse and come away with a whole new insight.

 

[ralphinal]

***Does that mean that there must be traditions of God as well? ***

Celebrating the Eucharist is a tradition for man that was started by GOD through Jesus at the last supper.

Schaick,
Let’s stick with this one example. Eucharist, according to you, is a tradition of or from God. Cool. Now, according to sola scriptura, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist?

 

[schaick]

Before I answer.

What do you believe is more important?

That a person believe with their whole heart that Jesus GOD’s WORD in the flesh died on the cross to pay for their sins. The once and for all final sacrifice of the perfect Lamb a Gift of Grace from GOD.

Or that people believe there is presence of the body and blood in the bread and wine.

Matthew 26
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14
22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22
16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

I believe that the body and blood is in under and with the bread and wine. There was not a mention of a physical change in the substance of the bread and wine the way there was with the water turning to wine at the wedding:

John 2
9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.

 

[ralphinal]

Before I answer.

What do you believe is more important?

That a person believe with their whole heart that Jesus GOD’s WORD in the flesh died on the cross to pay for their sins. The once and for all final sacrifice of the perfect Lamb a Gift of Grace from GOD.

Or that people believe there is presence of the body and blood in the bread and wine.

Matthew 26
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14
22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22
16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

I believe that the body and blood is in under and with the bread and wine. There was not a mention of a physical change in the substance of the bread and wine the way there was with the water turning to wine at the wedding:

John 2
9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.

To deny one is to deny the other.

I did not ask about Transubstantiation. I asked if, according to sola scriptura, Jesus was really present.

I take your answer to be a yes

 

[schaick]

Yes, but I wanted to clarify my position.

“To deny one is to deny the other.” - is a very sad statement and can not be true for they are very separate parts of Christianity.

For so long Catholics didn’t drink of Jesus’ blood/wine- does that mean Catholics denied that part of the Last Supper?

I have been told by Catholics that in fact there are many Catholics out there that do not believe in the presence in the body and blood. In fact they were shocked that I did!

 

[KathleenGee]

Regarding the post about the Bible not containing everything…that is true, science is not in it, science teaches us more about life…

The teaching Magesterium is the Transmissio of Faith through the Holy Spirit, and remember individual perspectives be they Aquinas or Augustine only are carried so far…Aquinas taught that women had defective genes, Augustine had some ideas of how to determine if a woman was pregnant or not, very erroneous teachings…

You have to discern what passages, in what context of the times…

 

[Anna_Scott]

****Schaick:

Re: Corinthians 4 (ESV): ** 6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.**

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

The Gospel is all we need. The rest of the New Testament is more of a history of the church and it’s develpoement.

**Your response does not address the issue of “not going beyond what is written.”

You still have not answered the following re: 1 Corinthians 4:6:**

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.

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

We know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were always considered a part of the “official” books of the New Testament. And we know from Paul’s writing that the scripture was in circulation before He died:

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.

Notice the wording in what you quoted, “what I received, I passed on to you.” (I won’t even mention your take on “Where did we get the N.T.”)

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?

Still referring to 1 Corinthians 4:6:

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.

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.

There are many Christian churches, either non-denominational or called simply Christian churches that are sola scriptura and have been protected from false traditions.

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!

**Not an answer. Specifically, identify which religion or denomination holds the truth, and is protected from false traditions, by Sola Scriptura.

It is important to take Scripture in context of both the O.T. and N.T.

At the very least, one needs to read the N.T. cover to cover, before attempting to pull out Scriptures as proof texts.

The N.T. is full of accounts of “teaching.” The Gospel of Christ was and is both written and taught. Tradition is inescapable. **

2 Timothy 2:
1You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 5:
11About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.

Acts 4:
1And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2greatly annoyed because** they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead**. 3And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

Acts 5:
18they arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and **said, 20"Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life." 21And when they heard this, they entered the temple at daybreak and began to teach. . **

1 Corinthians 4:
17That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord,** to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.**

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmericanJosiah (AJ), rarely answers a question. Still waiting:

I probably should not have interjected myself into these conversations. I was just going on impressions.

Isn’t Sola Scriptura all about “authority”?

In a broad sense yes I suppose.

Scripture being self-evident, by the power of the Holy Spirit, giving interpretive authority to the individual
**vs. **
The Holy Spirit giving interpretive authority to the Catholic Church through Apostolic Succession?

I think it is more nuanced than that.

For starters, I am not sure that the Catholic church is the only church that claims it has special interpretive authorities that everyone else lacks.

And I think there are nuances of belief between the Westminster Confession definion of Sola Scriptura and the Catholic understanding. For example, I like the Wesleyan model.

I was sort of interested whether these various nuances of belief still fall under Sola Scriptura. Now Wikipedia says the Wesleyan model is Prima Scriptura…not Sola Scriptura. FWIW,.

How would you discuss Sola Scriptura, without discussing whether or not the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture in light of tradition?

Of course no one church can have any unique authority to interpret Scripture unless the relationship between that church and everybody else is “exclusively THE church of Jesus Christ” to “something else of lesser status”. Now If one church does in fact have that relationship to everybody else, then you would think that what that church claims in this regard would be reliable.

I think you hit on a key issue here: “definition.” We, Protestants, have no consistent definition of Sola Scriptura. It is difficult to argue for or against Sola Scriptura, when we can’t even agree on the definition.

Well yes. I am not sure whether I believe in it because I don’t know what it is. I do probably practice it. Right now the issue is not that important to me and I am beginning to get tired of this thread as it has sort of devolved into an argument.

The new term: Solo Scriptura was born out of disagreements, within Protestantism, regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura.

I think the term was coined by Keith Mathison in his book, which was more a book to Protestants than a theological discourse methinks. At least that is where I came across it. As I read various posters here, I have concluded that Solo Scriptura is alive and well…

Ironically, Sola Scriptura is usually viewed as being in opposition to custom or tradition. AmericanJosiah claims Sola Scriptura is Praxis–a practice or custom. AJ is using a “custom” to denounce “customs” (traditions) of the Catholic Church.

I dunno whether he is denouncing anything. Like I say, I haven’t read everything he says that much.

Not only do we (Protestants) disagree with the definition of Sola Scriptura; we, also, disagree regarding whether or not it is a “doctrine.”

It is convenient for AJ to say Sola Scriptura is not a “doctrine.” By claiming it is a “practice,” he excuses himself from the burden of Biblical proof.

My only point is that I see where this is possible (that it is practice only) since there are other practices that clearly are practices only. So if that is what his definition claims (and since there is no gold standard here) let’s see and take this definition on by itself.

The thing about a practice only though is that your argument to somebody that disagrees can not be “I am right and you are wrong”. Once you do that, you have elevated your practice to a doctrine and at that point it does at that point require proof.

AmericanJosiah makes many claims, with little or no proof to support his claims.

I am not far enough along in my studies, either, to agree or disagree with ECF supporting Sola Scriptura. Considering Sola Scriptura was one of the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation; it would, indeed, be interesting to know if the ECF wrote anything to support Sola Scriptura–or if it was an invention of the Reformers (which I think is the Catholic view.) Scary question for us, as Protestants.

Anna

As I think about it, if (1) you do not believe that your particular church is exclusively “the church of Jesus Christ” and everybody else is of lesser status and (2) you do believe that Scripture is what it claims to be, then you probably do believe in the primacy of Scripture in relationship to everything else since you are not giving your particular church exclusive status in relationship to Scripture and you are not holding anything else to the level of “incapable of being incorrect” at least not anything else that we have access to today (the oral teachings of the apostles might be at that level of course).

Whether or not you call this Sola Scriptura is entirely your choice since there is not one gold standard definition of this term.

The thing that makes the ECF problematic is that they lived in a period where the relationship of their church to everybody was in fact"one true church" to “something else” - that being heretic. Thus their writings reflect that. But it would be a mistake to assume that they would automatically think that now if they were magically transported in time to this period since all of the major splits we see today occurred afterwards.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, but I wanted to clarify my position.

“To deny one is to deny the other.” - is a very sad statement and can not be true for they are very separate parts of Christianity.

No, they are not. Christianity cannot be divided into parts. Jesus is the Word of God. To remove part of what he did IS to deny all of it. Christ gave his body as a sacrifice to God for our sins. IN that, he also gave his body to us as food. Just as the OT animals were offered to God and consumed by the priests. Just as the passover lamb was used as food by the people and to mark the door to save them. They are one in the same.

Christ on the cross is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World. Just like the passover lamb, we must consume him as well.

To me, one of the worst results of the Reformation, after the man-made division in the church, is the idea that we can classify one thing as more important or less important than the other. WE cannot. Sure, some dogmas are central (like the heart and brain), but none can be tossed out.

For so long Catholics didn’t drink of Jesus’ blood/wine- does that mean Catholics denied that part of the Last Supper?

From the theological perspective of the Catholic Church, the Priest is the only one required to receive both species. Again, that is a throwback to the OT, when the priest consumed some of the offered animals AND because only the Apostles were at the Last Supper. Besides, all of Jesus is in each part.

I have been told by Catholics that in fact there are many Catholics out there that do not believe in the presence in the body and blood. In fact they were shocked that I did!

And that is tragic on both counts. Catholics who deny the Real Presence need prayers and help. Non-Catholics who accept it need to be complemented.

Now, if I may return to my original question. If you accept the Real Presence based on Sola Scriptura, how do others not do the same? They use the same Bible as you? How can they miss one of the most clear things in the Bible?

I have my theory, BTW

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Schaick,
Let’s stick with this one example. Eucharist, according to you, is a tradition of or from God. Cool. Now, according to sola scriptura, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist?

Lost me…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything, thus there isn’t anything that is “according” to the practice, except the practice.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

isn’t sola scriptura all about “authority”?

in a broad sense yes i suppose.

scripture being self-evident, by the power of the holy spirit, giving interpretive authority to the individual
**vs. **
the holy spirit giving interpretive authority to the catholic church through apostolic succession?

i think it is more nuanced than that. For starters, i am not sure that the catholic church is the only church that claims it has special interpretive authorities that everyone else lacks.

of course no one church can have any unique authority to interpret scripture unless the relationship between that church and everybody else is “exclusively the church of jesus christ” to “something else of lesser status”. Now if one church does in fact have that relationship to everybody else, then you would think that what that church claims in this regard would be reliable.

Actually, I was thinking about this, before going online this morning–part of my daily “pondering.”

It is probably safe to say that all Churches, rejecting Catholicism, claim interpretive authority in Sola Scriptura–with varying combinations of collective and individual authority–and with varying views on the role of tradition.

Unfortunately, many (not all) who reject Catholicism, also, “claim” to reject the role of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture. As I have said many times, I think many Protestants simply traded the tradition of the ECF for the tradition of the Protestant Reformers–and the traditions established through the subsequent splintering.

In the discussions with Catholic forum members, it does come down to authority of the Catholic Church vs. authority of non-Catholics to interpret Scripture in any way that opposes the “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”

I do believe the Word of God is living and active. So, I do not agree that the Bible is a “dead Book.” I think most Christians are familiar with Hebrews 4:12 (ESV): 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I do believe the Holy Spirit can speak to and work through the individual—as a member of the body of Christ. I have had personal experiences with praying according to the Words of Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The results have been, at times, really quite miraculous.

I do not wish to confuse the call of the Holy Spirit with the “emotion,” which many Protestant ministers use to their own advantage, in engaging and controlling a congregation. I think many Protestants (myself included) have, at one time or another, acted upon human emotion, mistaking it for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is actually a dangerous area, and one I have given a great deal of thought.

The Catholic Church is aware of this issue and makes a good point:

Catholic Encyclopedia Tab on CAF Toolbar
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Scripture
Scripture
A. Question of Right
(3) The same must be said of the psychological criterium, or the effect which the perusal of Scripture produces in the heart of the reader. Such emotions are subjective, and vary in different readers. The Epistle of St. James appeared straw like to Luther, divine to Calvin. (4) These internal criteria are inadequate even if they be taken collectively. Wrong keys are unable to open a lock whether they be used singly or collectively.

The problem we (Protestants) face, is the many different interpretations of Scripture. I join Catholics in asking how so many different and opposing Protestant doctrines, were born through Sola Scriptura.

If Dr. Phil asked Protestants, regarding Sola Scriptura, "And how’s that working for you? I would have to say Sola Scriptura is not working very well.

One of the many reasons, I left the Baptist Church, was because I found many of their doctrines to be false, even when measured by Scripture alone–very ironic, since Baptists claim Sola Scriptura.

So, now what do I do? I am a Protestant without a church. There are so many different religions within Protestantism; I could spend the rest of my life sorting through all the different beliefs, in searching for a Church that holds the truth—And I might still get it wrong. That is why I carefully consider the words of Catholics on the forums. Maybe they were right to start with.

Bottom line: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not helping me. It has actually created the sea of Protestant voices, in which I could easily drown.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

Lost me…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything, thus there isn’t anything that is “according” to the practice, except the practice.

Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you believe that you are right and that Catholics are wrong as far as their respective beliefs? And would you spend bandwidth on these forums attempting to attempt to get Catholics to see the error of their ways?

My point is that once a practice is elevated to “I am right … you are wrong”, that practice has in effect become a doctrine, at least in the sense of requiring the same burden of proof.

For example.

Many Christians do not drink alcohol. Some Christians have no issues with those that choose to drink in moderation. Other Christians might believe yeah it is preferable not to drink alcohol, they will not condemn those who in good conscience believe otherwise.

That is fine and consistent with a practice.

Other Christians do not drink alcohol and believe that those who choose to drink in moderation are disobeying God and therefore sinning. For these Christians, they have elevated their practice to a moral doctrine and this moral doctrine IMHO should have the same burden of proof as a theological one.

So where are you on this scale?

 

[ralphinal]

Lost me…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/ canon/ norma normans.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything, thus there isn’t anything that is “according” to the practice, except the practice.

.

We have too many things going on. I have to translate

According to the praxis of sola scriptura, is the faith in the Real Presence acceptable?

 

[crazzeto]

Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you believe that you are right and that Catholics are wrong as far as their respective beliefs? And would you spend bandwidth on these forums attempting to attempt to get Catholics to see the error of their ways?

My point is that once a practice is elevated to “I am right … you are wrong”, that practice has in effect become a doctrine, at least in the sense of requiring the same burden of proof.

For example.

Many Christians do not drink alcohol. Some Christians have no issues with those that choose to drink in moderation. Other Christians might believe yeah it is preferable not to drink alcohol, they will not condemn those who in good conscience believe otherwise.

That is fine and consistent with a practice.

Other Christians do not drink alcohol and believe that those who choose to drink in moderation are disobeying God and therefore sinning. For these Christians, they have elevated their practice to a moral doctrine and this moral doctrine IMHO should have the same burden of proof as a theological one.

So where are you on this scale?

Good question, and just to out my self personally I’ll answer the question you posed to AJ… Personally I do feel my faith tradition is right, so I guess in that sense I’ll answer yes to your question Pianist.

There might be a slight difference though, from what you may or may not be thinking. So I hope you don’t think I’m trying to put words in your mouth, but I think the point at which some one makes an affirmation of “yes I really do think my side is right” that’s it’s always good to exercies some prudence in so far as being completely clear as to what this means.

I beleive the Catholic Church, centered in Rome, offers the complete revelation of God to the world. I believe the teachings of this Church are completely inerrant. I do beleive the teachings of all other secs/groups/denominations are either incomplete and likely suffer varrying degree’s of errantness. The degree depends upon how wildly the faith tradition departs from the totally Orthodox teaching. Eastern Orthodox Churchs collectivly, are pretty darn close. In fact, so close that I might really more say they suffer from omission, their seperation from the See of Peter. Otherwise everything else I know about the faith tradition really in no way screams error.

Protestant faiths, I do beleive all contain error. In fact I’ll go a step further and suggest that error is inherant to the Protestant faith tradition, due to the very subject matter of this thread. Sola Scriptura is really the most base tennant of the faith. I’ve heard it suggested that Luther said that should Sola Scriptura fall, the rest of Protestant docterain would fall like a house of cards around it. I’m not sure about the historical accuracy of it, since I’ve never really looked up any reference on it, but I think it’s pretty true. If Sola Scriptura falls, then really what are you protesting anymore? The Church is right!

Now the important part is, do I beleive this means seperated bretheren are damned? Aboslutly not. I beleive (as does the church) that all seperated bretheren are in fact members of the Body of Christ, imperfectly through the Catholic Church. In this regard they have the same chance of salvation as the rest of us, though I would argue with the disadvantage that so much of church doctrine, including the sacraments and even the very principals upon which we are saved have been thrown out the window (i.e. beliefs in sola fide, OSAS etc).

 

[AmateurPianist]

I am finding that I am fast sort of losing interest in this thread.

What I have learned in a narrow sense is that there is no agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura. I suppose there is the Westminster Confession standard, but then there are a lot of offshoots in different directions.

There has been an interesting book written to Protestants that addresses some of the extremes (which the author calls Solo Scriptura) that take the original Westminster Confession standard to an extreme. Having read about this, I have become sensitive to when us Protestants practice Solo Scriptura and have concluded it is alive and well here.

Now upon my reflection I have made a few logical conclusions:

Any Christian that does not believe his church (or any other church) has a “One True Church” → Inferior Status relationship to the other churches out there who at the same time believes what the Bible says about itself (in other words is not a Liberal who believes the Bible is a bunch of fairy tails) must logically believe in some form of primacy of Scripture. This is because (1) he does not believe any one church has any more special authority than the other to interpret Scripture (2) even if he believes that tradition is 'very, very important" he does not have a church with the authority to separate the good, apostolic tradition from other tradition.

This Christian may or may not use the term Sola Scriptura (thinking the Westminster standard might be a little too exterme for him). Also, it is possible that the beliefs of a Christian who is uncomfortable with the term Sola Scriptura and claims he doesn’t believe in it might in reality hold a belief system that is compatible with some of the less extreme definitions of Sola Scriptura out there. That is what happens when a term does not have a common definition.

At any rate, Sola Scriptura is not an accurate title for any of these belief system because all Christians should be under the ministry of a local church, should be taught by teachers in the body of Christ, and are influenced by some tradition or another to some extent anyway. The NT canon is an example of a belief that all Christians should share that ultimately is not Scripture based. No Christian has a right to adopt his/her personal New Testament canon.

As for me, I am sure that my belief system is compatible with some less extreme definitions of Sola Scriptura that are out there. Nevertheless, I am not going to call my belief system Sola Scriptura for the sake of these discussions because I consider the title misleading and subject to being misunderstood. If you want to call it that, fine…I will not be using that term for it though. There is also a term Prima Scriptura which I consider a more accurate description of my belief system which I will use instead.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Good question, and just to out my self personally I’ll answer the question you posed to AJ… Personally I do feel my faith tradition is right, so I guess in that sense I’ll answer yes to your question Pianist.

It occurred to me that post might not have been clear enough. I should have qualified it right or wrong versus their respective belief in regard to authority. Beliefs about the say assumption of Mary are outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[crazzeto]

It occurred to me that post might not have been clear enough. I should have qualified it right or wrong versus their respective belief in regard to authority. Beliefs about the say assumption of Mary are outside the scope of this discussion.

I don’t believe I was talking about the Assumption of Mary, in fact I don’t think I brought it up once, other than to comment I wouldn’t talk about it in this thread. I’m talking about Authority.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I don’t believe I was talking about the Assumption of Mary, in fact I don’t think I brought it up once, other than to comment I wouldn’t talk about it in this thread. I’m talking about Authority.

Cool (was not meant as a criticism of you anyway…thought I might have been unclear). 20 minutes is not long enough to allow me to edit posts for the sake of clarity.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you believe that you are right and that Catholics are wrong as far as their respective beliefs? And would you spend bandwidth on these forums attempting to attempt to get Catholics to see the error of their ways?

My point is that once a practice is elevated to “I am right … you are wrong”, that practice has in effect become a doctrine, at least in the sense of requiring the same burden of proof.

(Fearing more diversion of the topic, lol)…

Unlike The Catholic Church alone for itself alone, I alone do not declare myself alone to be “right” about anything… I do not designate myself to be infallible/unaccountable. I designate myself to be a sinner, of limited understanding, and thus welcome, invite and need accountability.

The problem, IMHO, with the alternative of The Catholic Church is that itself simply declares itself to be unaccountable since it is infallible - and thus the whole issue of norming is (it alone insists for it itself alone) moot. And thus, so is the issue of what will serve as the rule/canon for the evaluation.

What Sola Scriptura assumes is that all parties are accountable, that one (person, congregation, denomination) should not simply declare self alone to be incapable of error and thus right simply because self alone so declares that self alone is. It assumes that all fall under accountability. Then the question becomes not: who/what submits docilicly to another party in the discussion, but to what do ALL subject equally.

To your question: Sola Scriptura doesn’t “answer” anything. It simply provides the canon, rule, norma normans for the arbitration. Bob says the wall is 6 feet tall (that becomes the position to be normed). All parties agree to use a Sears Meansuring Tape as the canon (“measuring stick”). Now, the Measuring Tape doesn’t say if Bob is right or not - that’s an issue for arbitration. Again, Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule, canon, norma normans. It is not a decision, it is not an interpretation, it is not an answer - it’s the embrace of a rule/canon. One outside, above, beyond all parties. One that is regarded as inerrant and divine. One that is objective and is knowable to all and alterable by none. We’ll hold up the Sears Measuring Tape to the wall. THAT would be “Sola Sears Tape” (LOL). Determining if the wall "measures up’ (arbitration) to the measuring tape (canon) is another issue.

.

 

[ralphinal]

(Fearing more diversion of the topic, lol)…

Unlike The Catholic Church alone for itself alone, I alone do not declare myself alone to be “right” about anything… I do not designate myself to be infallible/unaccountable. I designate myself to be a sinner, of limited understanding, and thus welcome, invite and need accountability.

The problem, IMHO, with the alternative of The Catholic Church is that itself simply declares itself to be unaccountable since it is infallible - and thus the whole issue of norming is (it alone insists for it itself alone) moot. And thus, so is the issue of what will serve as the rule/canon for the evaluation.

What Sola Scriptura assumes is that all parties are accountable, that one (person, congregation, denomination) should not simply declare self alone to be incapable of error and thus right simply because self alone so declares that self alone is. It assumes that all fall under accountability. Then the question becomes not: who/what submits docilicly to another party in the discussion, but to what do ALL subject equally.

To your question: Sola Scriptura doesn’t “answer” anything. It simply provides the canon, rule, norma normans for the arbitration. Bob says the wall is 6 feet tall (that becomes the position to be normed). All parties agree to use a Sears Meansuring Tape as the canon (“measuring stick”). Now, the Measuring Tape doesn’t say if Bob is right or not - that’s an issue for arbitration. Again, Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule, canon, norma normans. It is not a decision, it is not an interpretation, it is not an answer - it’s the embrace of a rule/canon. One outside, above, beyond all parties. One that is regarded as inerrant and divine. One that is objective and is knowable to all and alterable by none. We’ll hold up the Sears Measuring Tape to the wall. THAT would be “Sola Sears Tape” (LOL). Determining if the wall "measures up’ (arbitration) to the measuring tape (canon) is another issue.

.

What do you say to those who use sola scriptura to prove no Real Presence.