What is Sola Scriptura

[AmateurPianist]

I am finding I have to take a break from these forums until I simmer down.

It is one thing for Catholics to attack Protestants with stupidity. Since we do it to you sometime tit-for-tat, that just means that you are just as messed up as we are. Which has been my contention all along.

It is another thing for Catholics to attack Catholics with stupidity. That is happening (again) on this forum to one of my favorite Catholics here (a 73 year old (or so) lady who just loves Jesus and it simply radiates from her. And it is one poster who always seems to have it out for her.

This behaviour again “really ticks me off”.

And I have found that when I get “really ticked off” I can say stuff that might have a little edge and can be better worded. And then it escalates and I get attacked (you have demons…your church is a brothel). So I don’t want to go there.

Although I might permit myself one intermperate post on this thread to tell the attacker he has absolutely no authority per his church to do what he/she is doing.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Actually, I am asking for his source of authority, as related to Scripture. He keeps repeating the same quotes from the Lutheran Church.

In AmericanJosiah’s first few posts, I was impressed. I thought this was going to be a well informed discussion about Sola Scriptura.

It didn’t take long to realize that AJ either cannot or will not answer questions related to the statements he quotes repeatedly from the Lutheran Formula of Concord, & other Lutheran sources.

He repeats the mantra of Sola Scriptura being “the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans,” & "Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans (“measuring stick”,) & "Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, but “praxis,” & “Scripture as our “measuring stick” IS Sola Scriptura.”

Notice the topic of this thread, and thus the topic we are permitted to discuss:
WHAT IS SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Now, Catholics often state that Lutherans “invented” this praxis, and so it would seem relevant therefore to give the Lutheran definition (the historic one). Official Lutheran positions are stated in The Lutheran Confessions, thus I quoted them. They define the term and the praxis. To affirm that thus is still embraced, I quoted from the official LCMS website. That IS what Sola Scriptura is.

Since the terms “canon” “rule” and “norma normans” are used by Protestants in this regard, I defined those, too. Canon comes from a Greek word meaning “measuring stick” and came to mean a standard, a plumbline, what is looked to as a norma normans. “Rule” means a “straight edge” and means what is looked to to determine or form that. Norma normans is a Latin term from the issue in Philosophy known as epistemology (how we know) and refers to what is embraced as the rule for norming (the process of determining if something is correct or true).

AJ claims, " We MIGHT find it exampled (as Sola Scriptura is repeatedly - some 50 times by Jesus Himself.)" In Post #138, AJ cited about 67 Scripture passages, but did not quote the passages or say how they prove his claims.

Praxis is rarely TAUGHT in Scripture. It may or may not be EXAMPLED. But neither is required by Protestants (at least under Sola Scriptura). Most Protestants use an organ, they have a sign out front with their name on it, they have a parking lot, they have electricity and a telephone, and probably a website. But NO WHERE in Scripture do we find the verse, “Thou shalt have a website” and in fact, there are no churches in the Bible where it is revealed that they had a website. Does that mean ergo no church today may do so? No.

But you asked if Sola Scriptura is EXAMPLED. Yes, actually it is. All over. I gave some 50 examples from Jesus Himself where He uses Scripture normatively.

Where in Scripture is a Cannon identified? Which Cannon is he talking about? Which Bible translation is he talking about?

Again, look to the title of this thread. Hijacking is a rule violation here.

As I noted, The Rule of Scripture as a praxis or rule doesn’t define specifically WHAT that Scripture is anymore than the Rule of Law in civilized societies does not define exactly WHAT every law is in every jurisdiction at this moment (as if the Rule would be moot if any jurisdiction changed that corpus). No. It simply establishes the praxis: the Law will be the norma normans. As noted, Sola Scriptura was just as possible in 1400 BC when the corpus of Scripture was but two stone tablets applying only to the Isarelites as it does today - only the size of the corpus has changed, the PRAXIS has not.

IMHO, this not only is a diversion but moot. Even my Hindu friend in India knows what the Christian Scriptures are. In reality, it is one of the oldest and strongest points of consensus in all of Christianity. But, YES, one denomination (the OO) has a UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books. Another (the EO) has a UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books. Another (the CC) has a UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books. Those 3 denominations disagree on these, and if you want to get into that battle, start a thread on that and take it up with them. This thread is about an entirely different issue. And IMHO, that fight is moot since it has ZERO influence on any doctrine - it’s just moot. But, yes, in theory, a Catholic could use the praxis of Sola Scriptura and embrace the unique set of books accepted by only one - his denomination, and, yes, that would be Sola Scriptura. But all that, too, is moot since the Catholic isn’t permitted by his denomination to use Sola Scriptura at all - REGARDLESS of the embraced list of books. The same is true of the LDS, which also has a larger list of books - it doesn’t allow Mormons to use Sola Scriptura. And look, the only position any denomination uses from those DEUTERO books is the one denomination - the CC - looks to one of them for Purgatory. Ironically, two other denominations ALSO embrace that book and they BOTH REJECT Purgatory - so even that doctrine becomes moot vis-a-vis even that book those 3 denominations accept. It’s just moot. And a diversion. The Rule of Scripture doesn’t define the corpus any more than The Rule of Law defines the corpus of laws. It’s PRAXIS.

I’m more than glad to anwswer any questions about the topic of this thread, any I’m permitted to without hijacking or diverting the thread. If you want to talk about the OO - EO - CC debate over DEUTERO books, start a thread on that. I’ll ignore it because it’s just entirely moot.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The crux is not whether we should admit doctrines which are not reflected in Scriptures. It is how we should read Scriptures. SS tells us to read them outside Apostolic Christianity, and in particular outside the Catholic Church.
This is the core of what SS is, IMHO.

Actually, that has nothing to do with it.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis in norming of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon.

What you are speaking of is hermeneutics. Sola Scriptura is a praxis in norming, it’s not a principle in hermeneutics.

You keep repeating the same mantra and avoid answering any direct questions.

Pneuma makes some good points. I think “how we should read Scriptures” has much to do with our topic. The Genesis account of creation is a good example. Many Protestants claim the 6-day creation account is literal. Other Protestants, myself included, claim it is not literal. So, what is the “norma normans”?

But, you are “on” to something on this alone: It would be outside Sola Scriptura to ASSUME a specific position (that exclusively of say The Catholic Church) is correct and THUS the correct interpretation of Scripture would be to agree with The Catholic Church. In that praxis, the rule actually would be the position of The Catholic Church - Scripture would actually be entirely moot (it simply required to agree with The Catholic Church - the actual embraced canon).

You are doing exactly what you condemn in Catholicism. You are assuming a position. You are assuming you are correct. You are saying the correct interpretation of Scripture (or lack of interpretation) should agree with you.

IF self designates the position of self as the norma normans then the issue simply becomes if self agrees with self. IMHO, that’s entirely moot to whether self is correct. And if self appoints self as the sole authority to arbitrate this issue, the self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self (even if self clouds all this in claims of self alone for self alone such as “I alone am infallible, I alone am the authority, I alone…” Thank you. Pax - Josiah.

AmericanJosiah, you are designating “yourself” as the norma normans. So, according to your reasoning, it is “entirely moot to whether self is correct.” You have made “yourself” the authority on how we should view Scripture. So, your arguments, against the Catholic Church, negate your own assumptions about the definition of Sola Scriptura and the role of Sola Scriptura.

As Protestants, must face the issue of so many differing interpretations of Scripture within the Protestant sector. And–if the Holy Spirit is our interpreter, why aren’t we all receiving the same interpretation? That is a question Catholics ask of us frequently on the forums; and it is a valid question. At this point, I really cannot give an intelligent answer; but I can acknowledge that we have problems.
Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You keep repeating the same mantra and avoid answering any direct questions.

I’m directly answering the sole question of this threadf

You are doing exactly what you condemn in Catholicism. You are assuming a position. You are assuming you are correct.

No. I’m stating what the praxis is.
This is exactly what the Catholic does (and should do) if we had a thread entited, “What is The Immaculate Conception?” The Catholic would quote the Catechism (etc.) to express what the view is.

As Protestants, must face the issue of so many differing interpretations of Scripture within the Protestant sector. And–if the Holy Spirit is our interpreter, why aren’t we all
receiving the same interpretation? That is a question Catholics ask of us frequently on the forums; and it is a valid question. At this point, I really cannot give an intelligent answer; but I can acknowledge problems with “Protestant” interpretations of Scripture.

Anna

With all due respect, all that is moot to this discussion. I was Catholic for some time, and I can assure you that Catholics have lots of views, too. But this thread isn’t about how many views exist or about hermeneutics or even if those positions are true. It’s about WHAT should be embraced as the norma normans as we evaluate those positions. THAT is the SOLE issue of Sola Scriptura.

Yes, I can have the position that Mary had pink hair. The CC can have a position that She was assumed into heaven upon Her death/undeath. NO ONE DENIES that positions are possible. And NO ONE DENIES that positions may be unique (as is The Catholic Position I listed - and mine, lol). Sure - The Catholic Church alone agrees with itself alone in all maters that itself alone declares should be agreed upon. But then I agree with me pretty much too. So what? Is self alone agreeing with self alone ANY indication of self being correct? I think what some Catholics like to do is play by two opposite rules: One denomination vs. the 99,999 others. “Hey, the CC agrees with itself - officially and currently anyway - in all it alone says that it should agree about, but the OTHER 99,999 denominations don’t all agree with EACH OTHER in all matters that the CC says they should agree on!” Well, nor does the CC agree with the other 99,999 - it only agrees with itself. EVERY denomination (all 100,000 or whatever absurd number Catholics like to come up with) officially and currently agrees with itself in all matters that itself officially declares it should agree on. SO WHAT? What relevance does that have to being correct? Hey, if I had a position that Mary had pink hair, then I’d agree with me. Does the Catholic thus proclaim, “AHHA - it must be a dogmatic fact!” Nope. And for good reasons! But we are WAY off topic.

The issue here is What is Sola Scriptura? I gave the historic, official definition.

.

 

[ntisawesome]

For what it’s worth, I come from a Baptist upbringing and I was always taught the following.

We believe the Bible is the only infallible word of God. That is, everything is assumed to be subject to human error.

Now to clarify, I never heard the phrase “sola scriptura” until I started looking into Catholicism. I initially found the term when I looked up “Protestant” in Wikipedia. ( I didn’t know what a Protestant was exactly but I was told I was one. )

But when I did, it sounded pretty much like what is written above. I don’t know if this is a good representative of Baptist teachings or not but hope it helps clarify what “sola scriptura” means to different denominations.

-nt

 

[Anna_Scott]

Notice the topic of this thread, and thus the topic we are permitted to discuss: WHAT IS SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Now, Catholics often state that Lutherans “invented” this praxis, and so it would seem relevant therefore to give the Lutheran definition (the historic one). Official Lutheran positions are stated in The Lutheran Confessions, thus I quoted them. They define the term and the praxis. To affirm that thus is still embraced, I quoted from the official LCMS website. That IS what Sola Scriptura is.

You quote the LCMS website for the definition of Sola Scriptura. Obviously, Lutherans cannot speak for all Protestants, when defining of Sola Scriptura. Lutherans cannot speak for all Protestants, when claiming Sola Scriptura is a praxis and not a doctrine.

The problem is that you avoid many direct questions that cannot be answered by quoting the LCMS website.

Since the terms “canon” “rule” and “norma normans” are used by Protestants in this regard, I defined those, too. Canon comes from a Greek word meaning “measuring stick” and came to mean a standard, a plumbline, what is looked to as a norma normans. “Rule” means a “straight edge” and means what is looked to to determine or form that. Norma normans is a Latin term from the issue in Philosophy known as epistemology (how we know) and refers to what is embraced as the rule for norming (the process of determining if something is correct or true).

As I noted, The Rule of Scripture as a praxis or rule doesn’t define specifically WHAT that Scripture is anymore than the Rule of Law in civilized societies does not define exactly WHAT every law is in every jurisdiction at this moment (as if the Rule would be moot if any jurisdiction changed that corpus). No. It simply establishes the praxis: the Law will be the norma normans. As noted, Sola Scriptura was just as possible in 1400 BC when the corpus of Scripture was but two stone tablets applying only to the Isarelites as it does today - only the size of the corpus has changed, the PRAXIS has not.

I agree that claiming the rule of Scripture as a praxis doesn’t define what that Scripture is. However, I don’t think one can assume “Scripture alone,” without defining “Scripture.”

I agree that going into a discussion of the Cannon would take us way off topic. So, I’ll agree to remove the issue the Biblical Cannon.

Just clear up one point: when you speak of Sola Scriptura, are you referring to the Protestant Cannon, only?

**Praxis is rarely TAUGHT in Scripture. It may or may not be EXAMPLED. But neither is required by Protestants (at least under Sola Scriptura). **

As a Protestant, I do require an example from Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura was and is a praxis–especially when you claim 50 examples from Jesus, Himself.

But you asked if Sola Scriptura is EXAMPLED. Yes, actually it is. All over. I gave some 50 examples from Jesus Himself where He uses Scripture normatively. Again, look to the title of this thread. Hijacking is a rule violation here.

I’m not attempting to hijack the Thread. You brought up the 50 examples, so quote some.

Didn’t you just say that “praxis” is rarely taught in Scripture and it may or may not be exampled? Now you are claiming 50 examples from Jesus, Himself.

Just Quote two of those passages 50 Scriptures (I mean quote the words of Scripture, )and explain exactly how Jesus “exampled” Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” in those passages. This is not the first time I have asked for this.

I’m more than glad to anwswer any questions about the topic of this thread, any I’m permitted to without hijacking or diverting the thread.

For now, Just Quote two of those passages 50 Scriptures (I mean quote the words of Scripture, )and explain exactly how Jesus “exampled” Sola Scriptura as a “praxis” in those passages. This should be easy for you, since you claim 50 examples. This is not the first time I have asked for this.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m directly answering the sole question of this threadf

So far, you haven’t.

No. I’m stating what the praxis is.
This is exactly what the Catholic does (and should do) if we had a thread entited, “What is The Immaculate Conception?” The Catholic would quote the Catechism (etc.) to express what the view is.

Then you agree that you are doing exactly what the Catholics do. So, why do you criticize Catholics?

With all due respect, all that is moot to this discussion. I was Catholic for some time, and I can assure you that Catholics have lots of views, too. But this thread isn’t about how many views exist or about hermeneutics or even if those positions are true. It’s about WHAT should be embraced as the norma normans as we evaluate those positions. THAT is the SOLE issue of Sola Scriptura.

It seems that anything you don’t want to answer is declared as moot or off topic. So, far the OP has not objected to any of the questions I have asked you.

. . .Sure - The Catholic Church alone agrees with itself alone in all maters that itself alone declares should be agreed upon. ** But then I agree with me pretty much too. So what? Is self alone agreeing with self alone ANY indication of self being correct?**

. . .EVERY denomination (all 100,000 or whatever absurd number Catholics like to come up with) officially and currently agrees with itself in all matters that itself officially declares it should agree on. SO WHAT?. . .

So, if you acknowledge that basically all of us could be wrong, yourself included; then why should I accept anything you have said about Sola Scriptura? Why are you even arguing a position on SS at all.?

The issue here is What is Sola Scriptura? I gave the historic, official definition.

You gave the “historic” and “official” definition, according to the Lutheran Church. That does not mean you have the authority to speak for all Protestants.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You quote the LCMS website for the definition of Sola Scriptura. Obviously, Lutherans cannot speak for all Protestants, when defining of Sola Scriptura. Lutherans cannot speak for all Protestants

True; I never stated otherwise.

But since it is common for Catholics to insist that Lutherans “invented” this, it would seem particularly relevant to note the historic, official position. And I’ve had this discussion - with Protestants of all natures - for over 10 years. I have yet to find one that disagrees with the definition I gave. Now, some will expand to include ramifications and principles related to hermeneutics and arbitration - in other words, they will speak of other issues related to Sola Scriptura - but the definition of Sola Scriptura I gave is embraced by all theologians known to me.

The problem is that you avoid many direct questions

I’d addressed all questions about Sola Scriptura - the issue of this thread. The website does not allow hijacking so I’ve only lightly addressed other issues.

Just clear up one point: when you speak of Sola Scriptura, are you referring to the Protestant Cannon, only?

Once again, the Rule of Scripture is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans, the rule, the canon. The Rule of Scripture doesn’t define what IS Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law defines the entire corpus of laws in all juristdiction: It establishes the praxis, it doesn’t define the exact content of the corpus.

Once again, yes, THEORETICALLY, a Catholic could embrace the Rule of Scripture and include the CC’s own unique set of DEUTERO books in what he/she regards as Scripture one embraced by only one denomination, and the praxis would still be Sola Scriptura. It’s MOOT because: 1. It ignores that we AGREE on the great majority of that list of books. 2. Nothing under debate rests on any of those books anyway. 3. The Catholic Church doesn’t allow anyone to use the Rule of Scripture REGARDLESS of what list of books is accepted or not.

As a Protestant, I do require an example from Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura was and is a praxis–especially when you claim 50 examples from Jesus, Himself.

… Been there, done that. It’s entirely moot to the question of this thread, and entirely moot to the soundness of the praxis, but I gave you 50 examples - just from Jesus alone. You can look them up for yourself, can’t you? As if it mattered. Praxis need not be exampled to be sound. However, this one is.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

But since it is common for Catholics to insist that Lutherans “invented” this, it would seem particularly relevant to note the historic, official position. And I’ve had this discussion - with Protestants of all natures - for over 10 years. I have yet to find one that disagrees with the definition I gave. Now, some will expand to include ramifications and principles related to hermeneutics and arbitration - in other words, they will speak of other issues related to Sola Scriptura - but the definition of Sola Scriptura I gave is embraced by all theologians known to me.

Actually, the argument among Protestant Theologians over the definition of Sola Scriptura became so fierce, a new term was born: Solo Scriptura.

I’d addressed all questions about Sola Scriptura - the issue of this thread. The website does not allow hijacking so I’ve only lightly addressed other issues.

You haven’t answered all questions related to Sola Scriptura.

Once again, the Rule of Scripture is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans, the rule, the canon. The Rule of Scripture doesn’t define what IS Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law defines the entire corpus of laws in all juristdiction: It establishes the praxis, it doesn’t define the exact content of the corpus.

Soooooo repetitious.

Once again, yes, THEORETICALLY, a Catholic could embrace the Rule of Scripture and include the CC’s own unique set of DEUTERO books in what he/she regards as Scripture one embraced by only one denomination, and the praxis would still be Sola Scriptura. It’s MOOT because: 1. It ignores that we AGREE on the great majority of that list of books. 2. Nothing under debate rests on any of those books anyway. 3. The Catholic Church doesn’t allow anyone to use the Rule of Scripture REGARDLESS of what list of books is accepted or not.

I thought you didn’t want to discuss the cannon, because it would “hijack” this Thread.

… Been there, done that. It’s entirely moot to the question of this thread, and entirely moot to the soundness of the praxis, but I gave you 50 examples - just from Jesus alone. You can look them up for yourself, can’t you? As if it mattered. Praxis need not be exampled to be sound. However, this one is.

You’re kidding, right?

You are the one who claims 50 examples from Jesus, Himself. So, the burden of proof is on you. So, far you have not quoted even one of those 50 passages to support your claims. So, I must assume that your claims are false.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

For what it’s worth, I come from a Baptist upbringing and I was always taught the following.

We believe the Bible is the only infallible word of God. That is, everything is assumed to be subject to human error.

ntisawesome,

Most Baptist Churches adhere to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone,) as they define it—though Baptists may not use the term in sermons or Bible classes.

Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation.

Sola Scriptura usually dismisses (to varying degrees) the role of “tradition,” established through Apostolic Succession, in the interpretation of Scripture.

Hope this helps.

Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

And now that I have gotten some stuff off my chest I am a happy camper again.

If anything gets me ticked it is Chrisitians killing Christians for Christ. Now we don’t do it with flames and water any more. We just do it with words.

For what it’s worth, I come from a Baptist upbringing and I was always taught the following.

I wish I knew how to quote within a quote. But that is similar to a statement of faith in my church.

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Now to clarify, I never heard the phrase “sola scriptura” until I started looking into Catholicism. I initially found the term when I looked up “Protestant” in Wikipedia. ( I didn’t know what a Protestant was exactly but I was told I was one. )

Neither did I really.

I really don’t like the title sola scriptura anyways because it gives a real misleading impression. For the sake of these threads I have decided to adopt the term “prima scriptura”. But I don’t have a cow over “sola scriptura” either.

But when I did, it sounded pretty much like what is written above. I don’t know if this is a good representative of Baptist teachings or not but hope it helps clarify what “sola scriptura” means to different denominations.

I am not sure whether this definition is Sola Scriptura or not. But I like it anyway. Nice, short, and sweet. And not a theological discourse.

If you think about it.

It certainly applies to the Winchester Confession, Lutheran Confession, and Matthison definitions.

But it applies to me also. In fact I think it applies to all Protestants who believe that the Bible is infallible but are not there yet on anything else.

If I go by this definition I don’t have to worry about whether the Bible is self-interpreting or not or whether the Bible is the final authority in cases where it is silent (like the canon). I don’t even have to worry about whether I can logically prove this from Scripture (although I would if I were here to convert the Catholics from the errors of their ways). I don’t have to worry about whether or not I believe in tradition and what its role is. I don’t have to worry about what the paradigm was in the apostolic church (it says is and our…not was and everybody’s).

All I have to do is ask myself two stupid questions:
(1) Do I believe the Bible is infallible. Sure, at least theologically. And that is all that matters.
(2) Do I believe that there is any other rule of faith that is infallible. Nope. Not persuaded yet. Tomorrow or 10 years from not I might be persuaded in something else (but I doubt it). But I’m not there yet.

So check on the above two questions. So we are good.

Now I don’t know whether or not this conforms to other definitions of “sola scriptura”. I’ll let the others tell me that. And I will myself use the term “prima scriptura” in these types of discussions if only for the sake of clarity.

But it works for me.

 

[pneuma07]

Actually, that has nothing to do with it.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis in norming of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon.

What you are speaking of is hermeneutics. Sola Scriptura is a praxis in norming, it’s not a principle in hermeneutics.

But, you are “on” to something on this alone: It would be outside Sola Scriptura to ASSUME a specific position (that exclusively of say The Catholic Church) is correct and THUS the correct interpretation of Scripture would be to agree with The Catholic Church. In that praxis, the rule actually would be the position of The Catholic Church - Scripture would actually be entirely moot (it simply required to agree with The Catholic Church - the actual embraced canon). IF self designates the position of self as the norma normans then the issue simply becomes if self agrees with self. IMHO, that’s entirely moot to whether self is correct. And if self appoints self as the sole authority to arbitrate this issue, the self is simply looking in the mirror to see if self looks like self (even if self clouds all this in claims of self alone for self alone such as “I alone am infallible, I alone am the authority, I alone…” .

,
Dear Josiah,

I’m trying to take the definition you are repeatedly offering at face value.

Let’s say: Scripture is the only norma Normans, or has the authority to serve as such.

This sounds like stating:

1 ) I must extract Jesus’ message from Scriptures, and only from them. This is what is available for us of Revelation. It would not make sense using a norma normans if it did not include the wholeOf what is left available for us of Revelation. Jesus did not leave anything else but a text for us to get His message.

He built a Church after instructing His Apostles, living alongside Him for years, BUT he decided that, eventually, only a Book would remain of what He had delivered. The Church lost any memory of the Apostolic teaching but for the Sacred texts .

Therefore, apostolic succession
is a moot concept. We all must just build the message from scratch by reading those texts.
This way I have destroyed the principle that we should look at the successors of the Apostles as guiding criterion. Apostolic succession does not help at all in discerning who keeps the gist of the original teaching and who comes up to propose the novelties he chooses from his own reading of the Bible.

1. I can extraxt Jesus’ message from Scriptures. What is usually referred to as perspicuity. I cannot IMHO adopt in a sensible way a norma normans without this presupposition, ie that it is, given proper conditions, correctly understandable by me.

These conditions, moreover, are not to be left out of the picture, if , passing through the Text, as mere significant, I want to reach the signified, ie Revelation.

Point 1) above, ie that the only access to the original teaching are the written words of the Bible is the necessary step to found, in a possibly consistent way, faith communities outside Apostolic Christianity, in the first place. By step 1) I do put myself , in principle, on equal footing with the Catholic Church in attaining Jesus’ message. ( not a minor step, indeed ). But even such a step is far from being enough, whether you want to identify it with SS, excluding anything else, or not.

To propose a view, I must also persuade myself and others, that she is wrong, and that I am right. Ie, I have the required conditions, or the key if we prefer, to extract the correct meaning that the Catholic Church, and any other ecclesial body or individual believer seemingly has not.
Otherwise I should just say that the Bible contains the whole of Revelation, that we all have equal access to the Bible ……but what this Revelation is sadly escapes us. In other words, Revelation is not given.

If we must say that the key, the criterion to correctly get Revelation out of the texts, is outside SS, then we should also say, IMHO, that … " Sola “Sola Scriptura” ", ie Sola Scriptura alone, does not stand. .

But we likely agree that Sola Scriptura plus something is not… Sola Scriptura.

I hope this can help.
P7

 

[schaick]

"guess the Council of Jerusalem we see in Acts 15 did not decide the Sola Scriptura way, but based on what had been received from the Lord Himself. "

Yes actually they did decide by Sola Scriptura- the Gospel.

John 7
22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

 

[Anna_Scott]

,
Dear Josiah,

I’m trying to take the definition you are repeatedly offering at face value.

Let’s say: Scripture is the only norma Normans, or has the authority to serve as such.

This sounds like stating:

1 ) I must extract Jesus’ message from Scriptures, and only from them. This is what is available for us of Revelation. It would not make sense using a norma normans if it did not include the wholeOf what is left available for us of Revelation. Jesus did not leave anything else but a text for us to get His message.

He built a Church after instructing His Apostles, living alongside Him for years, BUT he decided that, eventually, only a Book would remain of what He had delivered. The Church lost any memory of the Apostolic teaching but for the Sacred texts .

Therefore, apostolic succession
is a moot concept. We all must just build the message from scratch by reading those texts.
This way I have destroyed the principle that we should look at the successors of the Apostles as guiding criterion. Apostolic succession does not help at all in discerning who keeps the gist of the original teaching and who comes up to propose the novelties he chooses from his own reading of the Bible.

1. I can extraxt Jesus’ message from Scriptures. What is usually referred to as perspicuity. I cannot IMHO adopt in a sensible way a norma normans without this presupposition, ie that it is, given proper conditions, correctly understandable by me.

These conditions, moreover, are not to be left out of the picture, if , passing through the Text, as mere significant, I want to reach the signified, ie Revelation.

Point 1) above, ie that the only access to the original teaching are the written words of the Bible is the necessary step to found, in a possibly consistent way, faith communities outside Apostolic Christianity, in the first place. By step 1) I do put myself , in principle, on equal footing with the Catholic Church in attaining Jesus’ message. ( not a minor step, indeed ). But even such a step is far from being enough, whether you want to identify it with SS, excluding anything else, or not.

To propose a view, I must also persuade myself and others, that she is wrong, and that I am right. Ie, I have the required conditions, or the key if we prefer, to extract the correct meaning that the Catholic Church, and any other ecclesial body or individual believer seemingly has not.
Otherwise I should just say that the Bible contains the whole of Revelation, that we all have equal access to the Bible ……but what this Revelation is sadly escapes us. In other words, Revelation is not given.

If we must say that the key, the criterion to correctly get Revelation out of the texts, is outside SS, then we should also say, IMHO, that … " Sola “Sola Scriptura” ", ie Sola Scriptura alone, does not stand. .

But we likely agree that Sola Scriptura plus something is not… Sola Scriptura.

I hope this can help.
P7

pneuma07,

Question about the Catholic Church’s position on “private revelation”: Do Catholics believe the Holy Spirit can speak to or teach the “individual,” in any way, through reading Holy Scripture?

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

,
Dear Josiah,

1 ) I must extract Jesus’ message from Scriptures, and only from them. This is what is available for us of Revelation. It would not make sense using a norma normans if it did not include the wholeOf what is left available for us of Revelation. Jesus did not leave anything else but a text for us to get His message.

No. Sola Scriptura does NOT teach that all divine revelation is found in the pages of Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything; it’s not a teaching, it’s a practice.

As I noted earlier, those that embrace Sola Scriptura are very apt to believe there IS revelation beyond Scripture. Scripture itself says that, “the heavens declare the glory of God” (thus, it would seem, star gazing is also revelatory). Sola Scriptura is not a teaching that all revelation is contained in Scripture (it’s not a teaching at all!), it is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as positions are evaluated.

Now, off topic, but I agree with you that what we embrace as the words of Jesus are found primarily in 4 books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I realize that one denomination (the LDS) argues that He said much more than that - and it quotes Him doing so. But generally, historically, ecumenically, we embrace that what we know of the words of Jesus are found there. But that’s a whole other issue for another day and thread.

He built a Church after instructing His Apostles, living alongside Him for years, BUT he decided that, eventually, only a Book would remain of what He had delivered. The Church lost any memory of the Apostolic teaching but for the Sacred texts .

Of course, a denomination (including The Catholic Church) can’t “remember” anything, it doesn’t have a brain - only PEOPLE can remember. But, obviously, the only ones who possibly could remember would have been dead by the end of the first century (assuming they were 5 at the Ascension and died at 65 years of age). Now, I don’t doubt that Jesus DID say other words than those recorded by God in His Holy Scripture. But it’s a LONG, LONG series of unsubstantiated leaps to assume that He taught multiple dogmas entirely unrecorded by God and that some unknown someone told this to some unknown someone who told it to someone who told it to someone who told it to someone… and finally this was told to The Catholic Church that perhaps centuries later decided to tell the church. We cannot know if this is NOT true but we have zero reason to accept that it is true. And if this senario is true, the Mormonism becomes as credible as any other position. But we are WAY off topic.

To propose a view, I must also persuade myself and others, that she is wrong, and that I am right. Ie, I have the required conditions, or the key if we prefer, to extract the correct meaning that the Catholic Church, and any other ecclesial body or individual believer seemingly has not.
Otherwise I should just say that the Bible contains the whole of Revelation, that we all have equal access to the Bible ……but what this Revelation is sadly escapes us. In other words, Revelation is not given.

If we must say that the key, the criterion to correctly get Revelation out of the texts, is outside SS, then we should also say, IMHO, that … " Sola “Sola Scriptura” ", ie Sola Scriptura alone, does not stand. .

But we likely agree that Sola Scriptura plus something is not… Sola Scriptura.

I hope this can help.
P7

No. Sola Scriptura doesn’t preclude or conclude ANYTHING. No, Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all revelation is found in Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything. Sola Scriptura doesn’t conclude anything. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions. The Catholic Church rejects this.

If there are multiple rules/canon/norma normans, then none of them would be “alone.” The LDS Church, for example, as THREE rules - which it insists are so united that they form one “stream” as they put it. These THREE things are: Tradition (as defined, chosen and interpreted by the LDS alone - this includes some written materials), the Bible (as it exists in the soul of the LDS and as interpreted by the LDS) and the Leadership of the LDS. These THREE things are EQUALLY revelatory and equally normative. They “perfectly work together” it insists to form “ONE canon.” The illustration that I was told was to think of an old style color TV tube. In the back are 3 “guns” - yellow, green and red (let these represent the 3 sources, the 3 “sides” of revelation): if we were to look at each INDIVIDUALLY, we would get an incomplete and often confusing “picture.” But the tube combines these perfectly so that we see the whole picture the broadcaster intended. “So it is with God,” my LDS apologist friend insisted. He gives us the Bible (but NOT found in any book but in the ‘soul of the church’ - compare it CCC 113?), He gives us the Tradition of the Prophets and Apostles (their church fathers) - as selected and interpreted by the (LDS) Church, and He so guides and protects His Church leadership in faith and morals. These THREE work together “perfectly” so as to present ONE picture, or (to switch illustartions to a river) ONE stream (out of 3 tributaries). But, you are correct, Sola Scriptura doesn’t do that. Sola Scriptura embraces the words of Scripture - knowable, unalterable - as the canon. Thus, it is “alone” as the canon.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

To propose a view, I must also persuade myself and others, that she is wrong, and that I am right. Ie, I have the required conditions, or the key if we prefer, to extract the correct meaning that the Catholic Church, and any other ecclesial body or individual believer seemingly has not.
Otherwise I should just say that the Bible contains the whole of Revelation, that we all have equal access to the Bible ……but what this Revelation is sadly escapes us. In other words, Revelation is not given.

If we must say that the key, the criterion to correctly get Revelation out of the texts, is outside SS, then we should also say, IMHO, that … " Sola “Sola Scriptura” ", ie Sola Scriptura alone, does not stand. .

But we likely agree that Sola Scriptura plus something is not… Sola Scriptura.

I hope this can help.
P7

No. Sola Scriptura doesn’t preclude or conclude ANYTHING. No, Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all revelation is found in Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything. Sola Scriptura doesn’t conclude anything. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions. The Catholic Church rejects this.

If there are multiple rules/canon/norma normans, then none of them would be “alone.” The LDS Church, for example, as THREE rules - which it insists are so united that they form one “stream” as they put it. These THREE things are: Tradition (as defined, chosen and interpreted by the LDS alone - this includes some written materials), the Bible (as it exists in the soul of the LDS and as interpreted by the LDS) and the Leadership of the LDS. These THREE things are EQUALLY revelatory and equally normative. They “perfectly work together” it insists to form “ONE canon.” The illustration that I was told was to think of an old style color TV tube. In the back are 3 “guns” - yellow, green and red (let these represent the 3 sources, the 3 “sides” of revelation): if we were to look at each INDIVIDUALLY, we would get an incomplete and often confusing “picture.” But the tube combines these perfectly so that we see the whole picture the broadcaster intended. “So it is with God,” my LDS apologist friend insisted. He gives us the Bible (but NOT found in any book but in the ‘soul of the church’ - compare it CCC 113?), He gives us the Tradition of the Prophets and Apostles (their church fathers) - as selected and interpreted by the (LDS) Church, and He so guides and protects His Church leadership in faith and morals. These THREE work together “perfectly” so as to present ONE picture, or (to switch illustartions to a river) ONE stream (out of 3 tributaries). But, you are correct, Sola Scriptura doesn’t do that. Sola Scriptura embraces the words of Scripture - knowable, unalterable - as the canon. Thus, it is “alone” as the canon.

It’s not to deny that we all have views (we do) it just doesn’t then use of views of self as the rule for the correctness of the views of self (whether or not arbitrated also by self). It does not deny that Jesus might lead you to accept a new job or lead you to a special someone - it just doesn’t use your opinions on that as the canon for the evaluation of that opinion/position. Those that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace accountability, and reject the notion that self may exclude self from such (exclusively). And they tend to embrace that the rule/canon should be outside, above and beyond ALL parties (including self), and it would be ideal in theology if such is viewed as from God, written (thus knowable and unalterable), ecumenically and historically embraced. THAT would be ideal! We think that exists. And THAT should be the canon.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

No. Sola Scriptura does NOT teach that all divine revelation is found in the pages of Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything; it’s not a teaching, it’s a practice.

. . . .Sola Scriptura is not a teaching that all revelation is contained in Scripture (it’s not a teaching at all!), it is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as positions are evaluated.

No, Sola Scriptura doesn’t preclude or conclude ANYTHING.

No, Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all revelation is found in Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t conclude anything.

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions. The Catholic Church rejects this.

. . . Sola Scriptura embraces the words of Scripture - knowable, unalterable - as the canon. Thus, it is “alone” as the canon.

AmericanJosiah,

There are definitely Protestants who would disagree with your claim that Sola Scriptura is not a teaching that all revelation is contained in Scripture, or that it doesn’t teach anything.

Example (emphasis is mine throughout):

Christian Answers.net
What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture? (sola Scriptura)

"The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.

Initially the apostles taught orally, but **with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. **Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God."

Link: christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

I am not claiming to agree with this article. I just want forum members to know that AmericanJosiah’s statements about Sola Scriptura are not held by all Protestants.

Anna

 

[pneuma07]

"guess the Council of Jerusalem we see in Acts 15 did not decide the Sola Scriptura way, but based on what had been received from the Lord Himself. "

Yes actually they did decide by Sola Scriptura- the Gospel.

John 7
22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

Dear Schaick,

          we know that that  Council, or how you prefer to call it, took place around 50 AD.  None of the 4 canonic written Gospels you have in your Bible  was available then. :) Certainly they did not decide by them, and  most certainly not by the Gospel according to John, the latest of them.

Sola Scriptura for them then, could only mean by the Tanakh only. The nature of the decision of the Council makes it implausible …that it was taken by the Tanakh only. This tells us that the primitive Church did not practice Tanakh only, ie the possible Sola Scriptura of the time.

They did decide IMHO by the Gospel, if we mean the teaching that had been received from the very voice and the very life of the Master.

In Christ
P7

 

[pneuma07]

pneuma07,

Question about the Catholic Church’s position on “private revelation”: Do Catholics believe the Holy Spirit can speak to or teach the “individual,” in any way, through reading Holy Scripture?

Anna

Hi Anna,
thank you for appreciating my previous contributions !

From the CCC

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

*131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110 *

Scripture is seen as “pure and lasting fount of spiritual life” for individual believers. And Christ pours out the Holy Spirit to all the members of the Church.

This does not mean that every member is protected from preaching error. Evidence is that individual believers do understand and proclaim doctrines in very diverse ways within Christianity.
And divergent views among them cannot be solved IMHO by merely claiming a better ability to listen to the Spirit. Which , in principle and in unsubstantiated way, everyone could.

I hope I answered your question
P7

 

[semper_fi_usmc]

just scripture. it is latin