What is Sola Scriptura

[ralphinal]

Actually not a dumb question.

Now my understanding of the word is that it means “incapable of being incorrect”.

If I want to interpret this narrowly, the word would only apply to a repeatable process.

However I think I broader meaning might apply in this case. I can be confident that when I am reading the Bible that it is correct (or incapable of being incorrect which sounds awkward). In other words it is a measure of how reliable your source is.

Not bad. It still seems to beg the question that you raised.

I actually have another possiblity. The word was chosen specifically to argue against the idea of an infallible pope/magisterium/Church. They knew it was the wrong word at the time, but the Church already said that the Bible was inerrent (without errors), so they needed a more anti-Catholic position

 

[AmateurPianist]

The title and topic of this thread is: “What is Sola Scriptura?”

But since I started the thread…

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.

Per the Lutheran definition of the term. Which is acceptible since there is no gold standard definition.

While many that embrace this praxis believe that Scripture is inerrant - even the inspired inscripturated words of God - thus is not a part of the praxis (a practice doesn’t beleive or teach ANYTHING). Nor does the practice require this belief. I typically drive on the right hand side of the road in the USA - even though I don’t regard traffic laws to be inerrant or the inscripturated words of God.

Then from the Lutheran perspective, your definition of Sola Scriptura is not incompatible with Liberal Protestants who claim that the Bible is not inspired. Interesting. Will note that.

Interpretation is a separate issue. There are several principles of hermeneutics among Protestants - most identical to those found in Catholicism. And yes, there are Protestants (persons, congregations and denominations) that embrace private, individual interpretation (although I’ve personally never known any to do so as radically as The Catholic Church). But all this is off topic.

I have observed that. I have also noted that other definitions of Sola Scriptura do deal with interpretations. But anyway, it seems that the Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura is compatible with other definitions that deal with interpretation since to you it is a separate issue.

Oh btw I may have a logic error in my matrix. I have assumed that if A is compatible with B that B is compatible with A. Upon thought I am not convinced this is true. Need to give it more thought.

“Scripture interprets Scripture” obviously deals with hermeneutics and not norming, and thus is off topic here.

Per the Lutheran definition, yes. I would note however that there are alternate definitions to the Lutheran definition where this is a part of Sola Scriptura.

IMHO, this is a very poorly worded moniker for a simple concept also used in Catholicism (and secular interpretation of secular lit). If we want to understand Mark Twain’s understanding of a concept found in a sentence - say Indians - ONE principle would be to look at the various other places in his works where he writes on this. Bring those together, and let the various quotes bring understanding to his view on this matter. But we are way off topic. Yes, SOME that use Sola Scriptura believe this is a good hermeneutical principle but the some of them drive Toyotas too - but driving a Toyota or using the author’s own statements to clarify his thought are not Sola Scriptura.

Again per the Lutheran definition this is correct. Per other definition this is way on topic.

This concept (held by no one known to ME) has a different name because it’s a different praxis. It should not be confused with Sola Scriptura.

So I will note that Solo Scriptura is not compatible with the Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura since I am deferring to the experts in each tradition.

However Solo Scriptura is defined in the book by Keith Matthison “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” (which I have as a separate definition of Sola Scriptura from the Lutheran definition) and he claims that it is widely practiced by evangelicals in the 21st century.

My observation is that he is correct.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Catholicism is incompatible with that, too.

I held it up as a question because of this quote from Wiki (yeah I know it is Wiki)

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is clear on the total equality of Scripture with Catholic tradition when it says that “both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” because together they “form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.”[1] So, in one sense, Scripture has no primacy over Tradition, but an ancient tradition holds that the Word of God, though equally authoritative in whichever form it comes, comes primarily in the form of Sacred Scripture, and thus we should seek for Sacred Doctrine primarily in the Scriptures. As Thomas Aquinas said:

...[S]acred doctrine...properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.[2]

For this reason, some sources say that prima scriptura is the normative Catholic approach. Yves Congar referred to prima scriptura as the “normative primacy of Scripture” as he described the work of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. Pope John Paul II in an address to academics in 1986 said, “Theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church.” This statement has been taken by some as support for interpreting the Church’s teaching in terms of the prima scriptura perspective.
[edit

This is kind of confusing to me.

I think what would be fair would be to regard AJ and other Lutherans as the subject matter experts per the Lutheran definition and Catholics as the subject matter experts per the Catholic definition.
[/quote]

 

[AmateurPianist]

Not bad. It still seems to beg the question that you raised.

I actually have another possiblity. The word was chosen specifically to argue against the idea of an infallible pope/magisterium/Church. They knew it was the wrong word at the time, but the Church already said that the Bible was inerrent (without errors), so they needed a more anti-Catholic position

Possibly, although questioning motives way after the fact seems sort of pointless to me.

As far as my church goes, when they put infallible in the statement of faith, I sort of doubt whether they were thinking of those poor, wrong, deceived Catholics since my church is not particularly anti-Catholic. There was probably a source for that, but we as a local church do not have “Catholic obsession”.

But I was not around at the time so I dunno.

 

[ralphinal]

Possibly, although questioning motives way after the fact seems sort of pointless to me.

As far as my church goes, when they put infallible in the statement of faith, I sort of doubt whether they were thinking of those poor, wrong, deceived Catholics since my church is not particularly anti-Catholic. There was probably a source for that, but we as a local church do not have “Catholic obsession”.

But I was not around at the time so I dunno.

I would agree with you, that I doubt your church had any sort of motives.

It just seems that as smart as the Reformers were (Calvin, Luther, et al), that the word choice is strange.

The real reason that I bring it up is because if one starts looking at it critically, Catholics and Protestants (basically) believe the same thing about the Bible: it is the inspired word of God and has no errors in issues of Faith and Morals.

As AJ has pointed out, the CHurch has no hands to write, etc. The Bible also has no hands, no voice, and is totally unable to be anything but a book. It is not until someone reads it and tries to DO things that the issues become clear. If the sola scriptura is true, 100% of all Christians who read the Bible in a state of connection with God, should come up with 100% of the same faith.

As that has not happened, either all Christians are not lead by the Holy Spirit, sola scriptura is wrong, or both.

In that case, why is it illogical that God would not have created a means to guide everyone?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I would agree with you, that I doubt your church had any sort of motives.

The real reason that I bring it up is because if one starts looking at it critically, Catholics and Protestants (basically) believe the same thing about the Bible: it is the inspired word of God and has no errors in issues of Faith and Morals.

True if you want to neglect liberal Protestants (and Catholics) who believe the Bible is just another nice book about God.
ralphinal;6039340:

As AJ has pointed out, the CHurch has no hands to write, etc. The Bible also has no hands, no voice, and is totally unable to be anything but a book. It is not until someone reads it and tries to DO things that the issues become clear. **If the sola scriptura is true, 100% of all Christians who read the Bible in a state of connection with God, should come up with 100% of the same faith. **

I would expect that statement to be true if your definition of Sola Scriptura incorporates perspecuity (clarity) of Scripture or “Scripture interpreting Scripture”. For other definitions (like the Lutheran one) I am not sure this is an issue

As that has not happened, either all Christians are not lead by the Holy Spirit, sola scriptura is wrong, or both.

In that case, why is it illogical that God would not have created a means to guide everyone?

Again, this is dependent upon which definition of Sola Scriptura you are working with.

 

[SemperReformada]

If the sola scriptura is true, 100% of all Christians who read the Bible in a state of connection with God, should come up with 100% of the same faith.

Why would this be true?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The real reason that I bring it up is because if one starts looking at it critically, Catholics and Protestants (basically) believe the same thing about the Bible: it is the inspired word of God and has no errors in issues of Faith and Morals.

I agree; we have the same doctrine of Scripture.

But obviously, The Catholic Church strongly rejects it as the rule/canon/norma normans; it rejects the Rule of Scripture in favor of “the three-legged-stool” of the Tradition of itself as chosen, defined and interpreted by itself; the Scripture in the heart of itself as interptred by itself; the Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the views, decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of itself - these 3 things inseparably are the “Rule” that it must be measured against to determine the correctness of the views of itself. We disagree with that. We have the same doctrine of Scripture, some just then conclude it is the best canon/rule/norma normans and The Catholic Church rejects it for that insisting on its alternative rule.

As that has not happened, either all Christians are not lead by the Holy Spirit, sola scriptura is wrong, or both.

A valid point, but it mostly applies to The Catholic Church. It is the one that insists that The Holy Spirit guides ONE - itself. And more to the point, that there is ONE that infallibly follows His lead and infallibly knows His teaching - yup, itself.

Friend, the whole concept of norming flows from your point of fallibility. If fallibility is accepted as at least theoretically possible (as you seem to do), the accountability is necessary. Norming is moot if error is not possible; it’s absurd to ask “is this true?” if it CANNOT be otherwise. And this, IMHO, is the fundamental reason for the bold rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church (and a few others): The Catholic Church (like all those rejecting this) simply declares (exclusively) that self (exclusively) is INFALLIBLE in matters of faith and morals. It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 for example.

IF accountability is embraced (and it can ONLY be embraced for one if it is embraced for all - **including **self), then we’ve just entered the realm of norming: the process of determining if a position is correct, valid, true. And yup, the first issue in that is to mutually agree on the embraced rule/canon/norma normans. IF one party insists, “I will accept only one rule - the views of myself under review!” then all we’ve done is establish the self same as the rule for the self same, we’ve changed “is it true?” to “does it agree with itself.” The issue has been circumvented, not addressed.

In that case, why is it illogical that God would not have created a means to guide everyone?

It’s not “illogical.” Nor is it impossible (“with God, ALL THINGS are possible.”) And of course, this is what the doctrine of Scripture says - God has done that, it’s the Scriptures.

But, yes - ANYONE or ANYTHING can simply appoint self alone to that role - thus making self alone exempt from accountability, exempt from all the stern, divine warnings of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, and those that lead many astray. Are you familiar with cult leaders? Have you studied Mormonism? Yes - this IS possible. And yes - it IS “logical” and “possible.” But it simply is a circumvention of the issue of correctness, a diversion from examination.

And let’s look at it this way. Over and over and over and over, we find in Scripture where the faithful used Scripture normatively. Jesus did it some 50 times. But, if it is true that the rule is actually The Catholic Church, isn’t it at least odd that God never so much as mentioned it? Isn’t it at least odd taht Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Matthew - in fact no Apostle ever so much as even mentioned this? They quoted Scripture, they used Scripture normatively, but where did they use The Catholic Church that way? If The Bishop in Rome is to be the Vicar of Christ, isn’t it at least odd Jesus never even mentioned Rome or Bishop or Vicar - much less infallible/unaccountable? If an institutional denomination is to be the sole authority, sole interpreter, so arbiter - acting as Jesus Himself, it seems profoundly odd He never so much as mentioned it. At all. About anything. Nor did Paul. Nor did Peter. Nor did any Apostle. Or Prophet. Yes, obviously, anyone or anything can exclusively claim anything for self exclusively (again, I refer you to any cult and cult leader) - and if such excludes self alone from accountability and insists that self alone is “infallible” and “whenever I speak, Jesus speaks” (CCC 87?), then you have one choice: accept it WITH DOCILITY. The whole issue of “is it true?” becomes moot - which is how people get caught up in these cults and why they stay.

That’s my perspective.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You missed my point entirely.

Your statements regarding Sola Scriptura are beliefs held by you and the Lutheran sources you quote. They do not represent the beliefs held by all Protestants.

I have a problem with self appointing self as the sole interpreter? Are you kidding me? I don’t accept Sola Scriptura. So, I’m not appointing myself as a sole interpreter. Are you actually reading my posts?

Anna

IF you want to talk about hermeneutics rather than the issue of this thread, I’d suggest starting a thread on that.

IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, then I suggest you take that up with The Catholic Church since this is what it does (CCC # 85, etc.)

:banghead:

 

[ralphinal]

Why would this be true?

Because God could not intend for Communion to be the Real Presence for some people and just a symbol for others.

Even Allah is not that inconsistant

 

[ralphinal]

I agree; we have the same doctrine of Scripture.

But obviously, The Catholic Church strongly rejects it as the rule/canon/norma normans; it rejects the Rule of Scripture in favor of “the three-legged-stool” of the Tradition of itself as chosen, defined and interpreted by itself; the Scripture in the heart of itself as interptred by itself; the Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the views, decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of itself - these 3 things inseparably are the “Rule” that it must be measured against to determine the correctness of the views of itself. We disagree with that. We have the same doctrine of Scripture, some just then conclude it is the best canon/rule/norma normans and The Catholic Church rejects it for that insisting on its alternative rule.

I am about to start a thread to refute some of the half-truths that you post. Please participate.

A valid point, but it mostly applies to The Catholic Church. It is the one that insists that The Holy Spirit guides ONE - itself. And more to the point, that there is ONE that infallibly follows His lead and infallibly knows His teaching - yup, itself.

Friend, the whole concept of norming flows from your point of fallibility. If fallibility is accepted as at least theoretically possible (as you seem to do), the accountability is necessary. Norming is moot if error is not possible; it’s absurd to ask “is this true?” if it CANNOT be otherwise. And this, IMHO, is the fundamental reason for the bold rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church (and a few others): The Catholic Church (like all those rejecting this) simply declares (exclusively) that self (exclusively) is INFALLIBLE in matters of faith and morals. It rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87 for example.

IF accountability is embraced (and it can ONLY be embraced for one if it is embraced for all - **including **self), then we’ve just entered the realm of norming: the process of determining if a position is correct, valid, true. And yup, the first issue in that is to mutually agree on the embraced rule/canon/norma normans. IF one party insists, “I will accept only one rule - the views of myself under review!” then all we’ve done is establish the self same as the rule for the self same, we’ve changed “is it true?” to “does it agree with itself.” The issue has been circumvented, not addressed.

You are good at dodging. If you can dodge a topic, you can dodge a ball.

Do ALL Christians believe the same things? No. Do all Christians claim the Bible as at least part of their faith? Yes. If it is true that the Bible is the FINAL rule of faith, then ALL CHristians should be able to appeal to it and end up in the same place, yes?

It’s not “illogical.” Nor is it impossible (“with God, ALL THINGS are possible.”) And of course, this is what the doctrine of Scripture says - God has done that, it’s the Scriptures.

Then why do we not have one Church?

But, yes - ANYONE or ANYTHING can simply appoint self alone to that role - thus making self alone exempt from accountability, exempt from all the stern, divine warnings of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, and those that lead many astray. Are you familiar with cult leaders? Have you studied Mormonism? Yes - this IS possible. And yes - it IS “logical” and “possible.” But it simply is a circumvention of the issue of correctness, a diversion from examination.

And let’s look at it this way. Over and over and over and over, we find in Scripture where the faithful used Scripture normatively. Jesus did it some 50 times. But, if it is true that the rule is actually The Catholic Church, isn’t it at least odd that God never so much as mentioned it? Isn’t it at least odd taht Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Matthew - in fact no Apostle ever so much as even mentioned this? They quoted Scripture, they used Scripture normatively, but where did they use The Catholic Church that way? If The Bishop in Rome is to be the Vicar of Christ, isn’t it at least odd Jesus never even mentioned Rome or Bishop or Vicar - much less infallible/unaccountable? If an institutional denomination is to be the sole authority, sole interpreter, so arbiter - acting as Jesus Himself, it seems profoundly odd He never so much as mentioned it. At all. About anything. Nor did Paul. Nor did Peter. Nor did any Apostle. Or Prophet. Yes, obviously, anyone or anything can exclusively claim anything for self exclusively (again, I refer you to any cult and cult leader) - and if such excludes self alone from accountability and insists that self alone is “infallible” and “whenever I speak, Jesus speaks” (CCC 87?), then you have one choice: accept it WITH DOCILITY. The whole issue of “is it true?” becomes moot - which is how people get caught up in these cults and why they stay.

That’s my perspective.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Please participate in the thread.

 

[SemperReformada]

Because God could not intend for Communion to be the Real Presence for some people and just a symbol for others.

That doesn’t answer the question I asked though…does it??

Of course God did not intend Communion to be the Real Presence for some people and just a symbol for others. Either transubstantiation is true or it isn’t but the truth of the teaching is not dependent on every person agreeing with it either. By the same token sola scriptura is not to be judged by whether or not every person who reads the scriptures comes together in a happy unison. Note that there isn’t one reformer (at least none that I am familiar with) who taught that everyone will read the scriptures and come to the same conclusion/interpretation.

Is it your belief that for sola scriptura to be true every person who reads the scriptures must come to the same conclusion? You seem to have stated as much in an earlier post. If that is your opinion or standard of judgement, your church has failed also and must be false as judged by your standard.

Mind you that even with the supposed gift of infallibility and all the authority that your church claims for itself it still isn’t able to ensure every Catholic will have the same understanding of every teaching. Just look at the various threads here at CAF where you have faithful Catholics arguing/debating with one another over various topics such as whether or not scriptures are inerrant, how babies who die before baptism are judged by God, exactly how predestination occurs, whether the story of the flood is real history or a fable, is it okay for a man and wife to do this or that in the privacy of their bedroom, or how to handle the issue of Israel and the Jews. I could go on and on.

You may pont out that certainly protestants suffer from even more disunity but I would answer that charge as follows. First, it’s stacking the deck to judge one church (yours in this case) against all the other churches and then turn around and claim how much unity you have. I would bet my particular denomination (PCA) is much, much more unified than yours. Secondly, the difference is a matter of degree. I will concede that the Catholic church is more unified than all the other non-Catholic churches but as I pointed out earlier that’s comparing one to many. But within the Catholic church we see disunity to.

I’m running out of time so I will leave it at this for now.

Even Allah is not that inconsistant

Is this supposed to be an insult? If it is, why insult me since we have rarely dialogued at CAF?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I

Do ALL Christians believe the same things? No. Do all Christians claim the Bible as at least part of their faith? Yes. If it is true that the Bible is the FINAL rule of faith, then ALL CHristians should be able to appeal to it and end up in the same place, yes?

1. This thread is not about whether all 2.1 billion Christians agree on everything.
2. The issue of this thread is: “What is Sola Scriptura?” For some reason, you seem to want to discuss everything but the question of this thread.
3. Your assumption, while off topic, is not logical. Do most Americans believe that the Rule of Law should be embraced as actions are evaluated? Yes. Does that mean that all Americans always act in full compliance with all laws? No. Does that mean that THEREFORE the Rule of Law is bad and must be replaced by something else (and if so, WHAT)? No.
4. You seem to want to discuss arbitration. This thread isn’t about arbitration, it’s about the embraced rule.

Then why do we not have one Church?

We do. As we confess in the Creed, “We believe in one holy catholic church - the communion of saints.” Yup, the church is one, holy, catholic and it’s the communion of saints. Always has been, always will be. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And Jesus shall be with it until the end of time - the Lord of the church. This is exactly what Protestants believe, teach and confess.

Now, there are more than one Christians (currently about 2.1 billion) but we are united as one body by the Holy Spirit and His gift of faith in Christ. There are more than one Christian institution. There are currently millions of congregations and hundreds (if not thousands) of denominations - as if that mattered. We have a lot of congregations in part because it would be hard for all 2.1 billion Christians to gather in one room of one congregation in one city, probably not too practical. Indeed, we see several congregations even during the period addressed in the NT. Of course, denominations are associations of congregations but there’s no mention of such in the Bible because there likely weren’t any until the 4th century, at least not in any formal since that we can substantiate.

To the question of this thread:

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) canon (“measuring stick”) or as it’s called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”). Let’s say that Bob builds a fense. He says it’s 6 feet tall (that becomes his position). Now, IF it matters to you if the position is correct or not, then we come into the realm of norming - the process of determining correctness, truth, validity. There are two issues involved in that, the first is to mutually agree on WHAT will serve as the rule, canon, norma normans; WHAT will be the standard or plumbline for this examination. Perhaps we agree to use a Sears Measuring Tape - in which case, THAT becomes the rule. Establishing that is an aspect in all disciplines. In my field (physics) we use math and repeatable, experimental evidence. A position is thus held up to the “light” of the mutually embraced rule. And the more objective, the more knowable, the more unalterable, the more historically and broadly embraced that rule, the better. THIS is the issue addressed in Sola Scriptura, the issue of WHAT is embraced as the rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines (including of self, including of The Catholic Church, including all theological, Christian doctrines).

There is a second issue, too, that of arbitration. Arbitration is the issue of determining if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (canon, rule, norma normans). This Sola Scriptura does not address.

The Catholic Church opposes and rejects this Rule of Scripture. It does so, IMHO, not because it disagrees taht Scripture is the inerrant, divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God knowable to all and alterable by none, ecumenically and historically embraced. But because it rejects accountability - to anything - for one and only one: itself. It alone declares it alone to be infallible in official matters of faith and morals, and thus accountability for one is moot - itself. It’s right because it’s right so when it says it’s right, ergo it must be right. It is the task of all to accept whatever it says with docility, not to hold such as accountable; thus the issue of WHAT is not what concerns the Catholic Chruch, it’s the issue of holding it accountble to anything. But yes, there is, theoretically a “norma normans” in Catholicism (officially, anyway), there is somethings that it will permit one (itself) to arbitrat whether it agrees with. That is: 1) The Tradition of itself as interpreted by itself, 2) the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself, 3) the Magisterium of itself and the views, rulings, decisions, arbitrations of itself - these 3 things together and inseparately are what it will allow one (itself) to use to determine if it agrees with that rule. But of course, it’s moot since it insists that one (itself) cannot be wrong - thus the answer exists before the arbitration by itself alone according to the views of itself even begins. Catholics are told by it to accept it with docility.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ralphinal]

That doesn’t answer the question I asked though…does it??

Of course God did not intend Communion to be the Real Presence for some people and just a symbol for others. Either transubstantiation is true or it isn’t but the truth of the teaching is not dependent on every person agreeing with it either. By the same token sola scriptura is not to be judged by whether or not every person who reads the scriptures comes together in a happy unison. Note that there isn’t one reformer (at least none that I am familiar with) who taught that everyone will read the scriptures and come to the same conclusion/interpretation.

Ok. Then why would they not see the need for some means of unity of teaching?

Is it your belief that for sola scriptura to be true every person who reads the scriptures must come to the same conclusion? You seem to have stated as much in an earlier post. If that is your opinion or standard of judgement, your church has failed also and must be false as judged by your standard.

Mind you that even with the supposed gift of infallibility and all the authority that your church claims for itself it still isn’t able to ensure every Catholic will have the same understanding of every teaching. Just look at the various threads here at CAF where you have faithful Catholics arguing/debating with one another over various topics such as whether or not scriptures are inerrant, how babies who die before baptism are judged by God, exactly how predestination occurs, whether the story of the flood is real history or a fable, is it okay for a man and wife to do this or that in the privacy of their bedroom, or how to handle the issue of Israel and the Jews. I could go on and on.

But the Church as one clear teaching. People may or may not know or understand it, but the one teaching is there.

You may pont out that certainly protestants suffer from even more disunity but I would answer that charge as follows. First, it’s stacking the deck to judge one church (yours in this case) against all the other churches and then turn around and claim how much unity you have. I would bet my particular denomination (PCA) is much, much more unified than yours. Secondly, the difference is a matter of degree. I will concede that the Catholic church is more unified than all the other non-Catholic churches but as I pointed out earlier that’s comparing one to many. But within the Catholic church we see disunity to.

I’m running out of time so I will leave it at this for now.

Fair enough.

Is this supposed to be an insult? If it is, why insult me since we have rarely dialogued at CAF?

I am sorry if you saw it as an insult. I had no desire or intent to insult you.

Let me explain it like this. Maybe it will help.

Did Jesus found one Church or many? One.

Did Jesus pray that they all be one or be divided? That they all be one.

Did Jesus leave any written instructions to his Church? No, but he left Apostles to teach and spread the faith.

Did these Apostles write down what they knew? Maybe, or they made sure someone else did.

Did they write down everything that Jesus said or did? Not at all. In fact, John tells us that.

Are the Scriptures the inspired word of God? Yes

Do they contain error in matters of Faith or Morals? No.

Can you understand Jesus just by reading the Scriptures? Maybe. When you do, however, you may not grasp that he is the Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity.

Does everyone that reads the Scriptures come away with the same understanding of what is expected of them as a Christian? No

Now, I would think that you would agree with all of that. When you get back, we can continue. I hope you have a good evening until then.

 

[AmateurPianist]

1. You seem to want to discuss arbitration. This thread isn’t about arbitration, it’s about the embraced rule.

Just one comment here.

The Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura does not concern itself with the issue of arbitration, true.

The Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura is not the only definition out there.

For example, the Keith Matthison definition does concern itself with arbitration. According to this definition, Scripture is to be interpreted through the church and what he calls the “rule of faith”. This sounds like arbitration.

The wikipedia standard (and the web site) Anna brought forth said that Scripture interprets Scripture. That sounds like arbitration.

IMHO the different definitions of the term is what is making this discussion seem so difficult. One might have in mind “definition 6” of this term when talking with one who adheres to “definition 3”.

IMHO, if the Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura claims that arbitration is outside of the scope of this definition, then this definition must be taken at face value. Good grief, if I believe the Catholics when they say they don’t worship Mary, I believe AJ when he says that arbitration is a separate issue. According to his definition anyway.

But that does not mean that arbitration is outside of the scope of this thread. But that is because the Lutheran definition is not the only one out there.

 

[SemperReformada]

I am sorry if you saw it as an insult. I had no desire or intent to insult you.

Ralph,

I’ll get to the rest of your post but appreciate the above. From reading most of your posts it seemed out of place or out of the ordinary so I am glad I misunderstood your intent.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,

I’ll get to the rest of your post but appreciate the above. From reading most of your posts it seemed out of place or out of the ordinary so I am glad I misunderstood your intent.

Good. I also want to make sure that my appology didn’t seem like a backhanded one. I am sorry if you were offended.

 

[pneuma07]

Could you quote me where I state, “There exists no collective memory of what Jesus said but God kept out of His Scripture to us.” Where did I say that? It’s moot to this thread, but I don’t think ANYONE can rule out - as least as theoretical - that Jesus said that He loved fish tacos. He MIGHT have. It’s just we have nothing that so indicates. The Mormons quote Jesus saying all kinds of things, but that “memory” seems unconfirmed by anything outside that denomination.

…
Memories work like that. They don’t disappear for centuries and then, BAMM - out of thin air, something big is suddenly “remembered.” The dogmas that divide us (The Infallibility of the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, for example) are not things taught in every generation from 30 AD on. There’s no record of that at all. And I think you know that.

No, I just agree with the Catholics here at self appointing self as the sole, authoritative, infallible/unaccountable interpreter is no indication that self is thus correct.

And this thread has nothing to do with interpretation. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics at all. It is about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans for the process of norming.

.

Dear Josiah,

About being off topic or not, let us remember that what AP is IMHO asking for is proposing and understanding together what SS is. Not anything which does not fit into your own, or your denomination’s own Definition is ipso facto outside the limits of this research. I am glad AP observed something like this himself.

And exploring the presuppositions and consequences of SS in its definitions, including yours, maybe is not so off topic.

As you kindly request I quote your words on memory

( ready to receive your own original interpretation on this text)
post 255

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).

This zero-memory scenario is IMHO of paramount importance in founding Protestantisms and rejecting the principle of apostolic succession as objective mark of orthodoxy.
This is a common core of most if not any definition of SS. Ant it amonunts to the rejection of a principle that the Fathers of the Church, being children…of the Church, would have dear, as we can so strongly see in Irenaeus, still in the II century, in his Against Heretics. Irenaeus, who would hold in high place of course Scripture, even defining it “pillar of truth”, was of the persuasion that it is through apostolic succession that the deposit of faith is guarded. I see a remarkable continuity between his view and the present teaching of the Church.

You see, as from your perspective the Church rejects SS because she does not want to be as accountable as any other individual or denominational subject, and I understand this, from my perspective SS is the necessary proposal of any consistent movement outside and against the Apostolic Church, advanced in order to make it at least theoretically possible, with a bit of a stretch, that a Reformer be a better interpreter of Revelation than the collective mind of the Church.

Now, SS was not the praxis of the Church in ancient times more than it is in the 21st century, because it is and was a praxis intrinsincally and ad hoc contrary to the Apostolic Church herself.

The early Church did not decide by Tanakh only, the then available version of Sola Scriptura. They decided by the teaching of the Master as remembered by His Church, and by Tanakh in the light of this teaching. This we see eg in the Council recorded in Acts 15. This is what in any age she can and must do.

In order to refute the Catholic Church as locus of the living memory of the apostolic teaching, You propose that there is no continuity in the tenets you do not share with Catholicism, and this is hardly surprising, else you’d share them

BAMM ??

Telegraphically, and just since you mentioned them so explicitly ( you could open three thread on the Apologetics subforum ):

1. Actually what “divides us” is not papal infallibility , it is the infallibility of the Church, expressed by whatever organ, be it the pope, the Council … This divides Lutheran brothers from Apostolic Christianity. But the infallibility of the Apostolic Church has always been postulated by the Apostolic Church, however circular you see this position.
   In Acts 15:28 you see that the leadership of the Church assumes that its decision IS also a decision of the Holy Spirit. This reflects IMHO the awareness of being protected from authoritatively teaching error.
2. My suggestion is the reading of the decrees of the Jerusalem Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, held in AD 1672, in chapter 6 , decree 17 you have:

*In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, <145> transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord,…; *

tbc

 

[pneuma07]

In decree 18 of the aforementioned acts you read:
And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented ……depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most.

The point being, if 2 and 3 are essentially shared and affirmed by the EO Churches, they are not catholic medieval inventions, as unfortunately it is believed by many protestant brothers. I rather guess those points are part of the collective memory of the Apostolic Church.

Conserving a living memory of the deposit of the faith which was entrusted to her, the Apostolic Church explicitly reads Scriptures in the light of that. Not in a supposed vacuum or in other unspecified CONtexts.

I also maintain that, were the Reformers and yourself right in postulatiing the zero-memory scenario, we’d have a mess, since we wouldn’t be in a position to extract a sure and sound interpretation. In other words, Revelation, in this scenario, remains unattainable.

Like the meaning of “Paula did not say that Steve stole the jam”

God bless you
P7

 

[AmateurPianist]

Since folks here seem to have a penchant for speaking for me as to what the purpose of this thread was/is, let me speak up for myself here.

For me, my objectives were/are

• To determine if there is a gold standard definition of Sola Scriptura (no)
• If not, to get an understanding as to what the various definitions of Sola Scriptura are out there.
• To get an understanding of what definitions are compatible with other definitions as opposed to what definitions are opposed to other definitions
• To determine whether my beliefs are compatible with any definitions out there (or incompatible).

As far as my personal objectives go, they have mostly been met. Still somewhat confused on what is compatible with what though.

Now as far as you all go, my objectives are/were

• To get you to understand better (along with me) the various definitions out there
• If you claim to oppose Sola Scriptura, to get you to understand that if you wish to dialogue with someone that supports Sola Scriptura with somebody that say supports definition 3 of Sola Scriptura with an argument that is only applicable so say definition 6 of Sola Scriptura. You must dialog with your opponent on the basis of his understanding of the term, not yours. Who knows, you might find that you are basically in agreement (more likely the further down my scale your opponent is here).
• If you claim to support Sola Scriptura, to get you to understand that there are many definitions of Sola Scriptura and the inherent difficulties involved in discussing this subject.

In reading this thread I am not sure the 2nd set of objectives is met, but I didn’t have high expectations here in the first place.