What is Sola Scriptura

[spockrates]

I’m using the terms in a rather precise theological sense.
A doctrine is a TEACHING, a proclaimation of truth. “Jesus is Lord” is a teaching.
A praxis is what we do. “I lift up my hands to Jesus” is a praxis.
Now, I agree - especially in Reformed (Calvinist) circles, the term “doctrine” is used rather loosely for anything good and right - whether a teaching or an action. Some “Evangelicals” tend to do that, too.

Again, I don’t think that “Evangelical” is likely saying anything different than what I am. An arbiter can be the canon/rule/norma normans. For example, we have some Catholic Church Fathers that speak of Scripture as “the arbiter.” In such, it’s a noun. But arbitration is a process, an action, a verb. In my Little League days, one might refer to the Official Little League Rules (a book) as the “arbiter” in the sense of being the canon/rule. But actually, it’s likely there will need to be some process to decide if the action of the player “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (canon)? I doubt we’re disagreeing there. …

No, I don’t think we are disagreeing, either. What I’m wondering (for my own benefit, really) is how to decide what is true when Scripture is not clear. Since I’m better at giving examples than articulating what I mean, let me ask you to consider this:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

Evangelicals tell me that reason and the Holy Spirit and the context of the whole of Scripture make it clear to them that Jesus said what He meant. When I ask them what He actually meant, they tell me this:

a. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is [like] my body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

On the other hand, Catholics tell me that the Holy Spirit and reason and the context of the whole of Scripture and the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church tell them that Jesus said what He meant. And what He actually meant, they tell me, is this:

b. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my [actual] body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

Now, for me, reason, and (I hope) the Holy Spirit, and the context of the whole of Scripture tells me that I just don’t know! The words of Christ are so ambiguous as to allow either (a) or (b) to be the actual meaning.

The upshot is that I find I need someone wiser than myself to resolve the apparent ambiguity. You see?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, I don’t think we are disagreeing, either. What I’m wondering (for my own benefit, really) is how to decide what is true when Scripture is not clear. Since I’m better at giving examples than articulating what I mean, let me ask you to consider this:

For Protestants, that IS an issue. And we do struggle with it - keeping each other accountable. For The Catholic Church, it’s not since The Catholic Church designates one (itself) as incapable of being wrong and thus exempt from accountability and the whole issue of whether it is right (well, for it alone - it DOES embrace accountability for everyone and everything else).

There are, of ocurse, 3 possibilities. The doctrine IS sufficiently “normed” by Scripture - it DOES “measure up” to the “measuring stick”. We tend to call that dogma (well, such may have other requirements, too). The issue is CONTRARY to the measuring stick. We tend to call that heresy. Or it simply isn’t sufficiently clear either way. We tend to call that “pious opinion” (if it meets certain other requirements) or simply disputed. We keep working on those things - sometimes passionately.

What is not done in Sola Scriptura is to permit self to declare self correct because self so declares that self is. OR that self is correct if self agrees with self. This, we tend to think, is unrelated to correctness and thus not helpful to the process.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

Evangelicals tell me that reason and the Holy Spirit and the context of the whole of Scripture make it clear to them that Jesus said what He meant. When I ask them what He actually meant, they tell me this:

a. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is [like] my body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

On the other hand, Catholics tell me that the Holy Spirit and reason and the context of the whole of Scripture and the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church tell them that Jesus said what He meant. And what He actually meant, they tell me, is this:

b. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my [actual] body.”

(Matthew 26:26)

Now, for me, reason, and (I hope) the Holy Spirit, and the context of the whole of Scripture tells me that I just don’t know! The words of Christ are so ambiguous as to allow either (a) or (b) to be the actual meaning.

The upshot is that I find I need someone wiser than myself to resolve the apparent ambiguity. You see?

Of course, you have picked something highly disputed among Protestants. About half accept Real Presence, about half Symbolic Presence. No Protestant (indeed, no non-Catholic) accepts the new, unqiue Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation as normed by Scripture.

Both “sides” look to the Eucharistic texts - and up, (with apologies to Bill Clinton) it does come down to what the meaning of is is. In arbitration, hermeneutics often comes into play. Now, Lutherans plus many Anglicans and some Methodist, would tend to embrace Tradition and take this quite literally. The meaning of is is is (lol). It’s not "converts via alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents) - we don’t think “is” means that (thus we don’t embrace the unique, new Catholic dogma), but “is” doens’t mean symbolize here, either. It CAN mean that in Scripture - but we don’t beleive it does here. Our Zwinglian brothers and sisters hold the view that it has a symbolic meaning (much the same as when Jesus said “I am the door”). We disagree; Christians are not in consensus here, it has not been resolved. I SUPPOSE one could conclude (as Zwinglians do) that thus their view is permissible as pious opinion. Lutherans tend to disagree with that view has no ecumenical or historic affirmation and thus doesn’t qualify as such - but, de facto, you are correct. There are issues that aren’t always resolved. I would be hesitant to call my Zwinglian friends “heretics” doomed to hell for their belief (and I hope such would be mutual, lol) but we disagree. It happens in life. It happens in ALL disciplines - not just Christian theology. In fact, in my college studies and experiences, I’ve often been stunned by how Christians are so much more united than is true in most disciplines. But here is the key: Lutherans do not insist that we are dogmatically correct BECAUSE we are dogmatically correct; right because we can’t be wrong. We will continue to think, pray, study, talk, pray, discuss, study, pray, talk, debate, pray, study - holding OURSELVES accountable, as we hold them accountable. But just insisting “I must be right cuz I’m right so therefore I’m right” is no solution - it’s an evasion. We believe the church works TOGETHER - in faith and prayer and humility - UNDER God, UNDER His Scripture, within history - and hopefully, a working consensus develops. No, it’s not as easy as each party just declaring, “I’m right cuz I’m right so I must be right - accept whatever I say with docility.” It’s not that easy in ANY discipline - Christian theology included. Sometimes, it takes humility, work, prayer, discussion, humility, faith, patience, prayer. And it doesn’t ALWAYS produce a solid “answer.” (Maybe we’re too focused on cognative “answers” anyway???)

Back to the issue of this thread…

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

Interesting, Jon. Are you saying rely on the writings of the Early Church Fathers as the final court of arbitration when seeking the truth?

Certainly they are *a valuable *court of arbitration when seeking the truth, as are the early councils. And as you would guess, the Lutheran Confessions for Lutherans, particularly the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m pleased to discuss anything. But it’s a rule violation here to hijack threads, and I desire to play well, lol.

As I said, in arbitration, I would point to true ecumenical counsels, to Early Church Fathers, to consensus - all by the Rule of Scripture. But, you see, it’s the RULE we disagree on, the embraced rule for this process of arbitration.

My Lutheran brother,
You have made it quite clear how Lutheranism views sola scriptura. The OP has made it clear that we can talk about “arbitration”. I recommend you get after it.

Jon

 

[spockrates]

… Of course, you have picked something highly disputed among Protestants. About half accept Real Presence, about half Symbolic Presence. No Protestant (indeed, no non-Catholic) accepts the new, unqiue Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation as normed by Scripture.

Both “sides” look to the Eucharistic texts - and up, (with apologies to Bill Clinton) it does come down to what the meaning of is is. In arbitration, hermeneutics often comes into play. Now, Lutherans plus many Anglicans and some Methodist, would tend to embrace Tradition and take this quite literally. The meaning of is is is (lol). It’s not "converts via alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents) - we don’t think “is” means that (thus we don’t embrace the unique, new Catholic dogma), but “is” doens’t mean symbolize here, either. It CAN mean that in Scripture - but we don’t beleive it does here. Our Zwinglian brothers and sisters hold the view that it has a symbolic meaning (much the same as when Jesus said “I am the door”). We disagree; Christians are not in consensus here, it has not been resolved. I SUPPOSE one could conclude (as Zwinglians do) that thus their view is permissible as pious opinion. Lutherans tend to disagree with that view has no ecumenical or historic affirmation and thus doesn’t qualify as such - but, de facto, you are correct. There are issues that aren’t always resolved. I would be hesitant to call my Zwinglian friends “heretics” doomed to hell for their belief (and I hope such would be mutual, lol) but we disagree. It happens in life. It happens in ALL disciplines - not just Christian theology. In fact, in my college studies and experiences, I’ve often been stunned by how Christians are so much more united than is true in most disciplines. But here is the key: Lutherans do not insist that we are dogmatically correct BECAUSE we are dogmatically correct; right because we can’t be wrong. We will continue to think, pray, study, talk, pray, discuss, study, pray, talk, debate, pray, study - holding OURSELVES accountable, as we hold them accountable. But just insisting “I must be right cuz I’m right so therefore I’m right” is no solution - it’s an evasion. We believe the church works TOGETHER - in faith and prayer and humility - UNDER God, UNDER His Scripture, within history - and hopefully, a working consensus develops. No, it’s not as easy as each party just declaring, “I’m right cuz I’m right so I must be right - accept whatever I say with docility.” It’s not that easy in ANY discipline - Christian theology included. Sometimes, it takes humility, work, prayer, discussion, humility, faith, patience, prayer. And it doesn’t ALWAYS produce a solid “answer.” (Maybe we’re too focused on cognative “answers” anyway???)

Back to the issue of this thread…

Pax

• Josiah

My thought is that this is the issue of the thread–to understand whatever we can about Sola Scriptura, including whether it is a reliable method of discerning the true meaning of Jesus’ words. What I hear you saying is that Protestants, such as Evangelicals and Lutherans and Methodists, use the same method to discern the truth–prayer, study, and thinking it through rationally. Yet this same method leads them to different and even contradictory conclusions. So I wonder whether the method you mention is itself flawed.

However, if you don’t wish to discuss this, I won’t pry. Just let me know and I won’t reply.

 

[spockrates]

Certainly they are *a valuable *court of arbitration when seeking the truth, as are the early councils. And as you would guess, the Lutheran Confessions for Lutherans, particularly the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

Thank you for answering, Jon. Does your brand of Lutheranism believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

My thought is that this is the issue of the thread–to understand whatever we can about Sola Scriptura, including whether it is a reliable method of discerning the true meaning of Jesus’ words. What I hear you saying is that Protestants, such as Evangelicals and Lutherans and Methodists, use the same method to discern the truth–prayer, study, and thinking it through rationally. Yet this same method leads them to different and even contradictory conclusions. So I wonder whether the method you mention is itself flawed.

However, if you don’t wish to discuss this, I won’t pry. Just let me know and I won’t reply.

Well, again, the issue here is singular and very focused: What is Sola Scriptura?
I think my response appropriate: I gave the historic, formal definition.
I do not regard this in any way unique, although (as I have said) several other issues are often discussed by Protestants in relation to it.

Yes, it IS possible to use the same rule and have difficult arbitrative conclusions. That’s always true with any rule/canon/norma normans. But that’s not the issue here; the issue is the embrace canon.

I hope that helps.

.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for answering, Jon. Does your brand of Lutheranism believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

All Lutherans believe in the real presence. We are bound to that belief by the Lutheran Confessions. The 2 basic differences between our communions regarding the real presence, as I see it, are how we express the real presence (Catholic - Transubstantiation, Lutherans - Sacramental Union), and the issue of Apostolic Succession and the resulting validity of orders and sacraments. But in the case of the former, we both together hold to what Christ said: “This is my body”. Not, “this is like my body”, or “this is symbolic of my body”, or “this includes my body”, or " my body is there when you eat it". No. When the pastor says Chirst’s words, the bread and wine are His body and blood.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

Dear AP,

           I guess you made a good job in classifying  definitions of SS.

Certainly there is no norma normans within Protestantisms on what SS is, or should be, and even whether it is OK.
Once I used to have dialogs with a protestant brother no longer active here who staunchly would proclaim that SS ( I guess any definition of it ) is just heresy.
The percentage of those who reject any SS within Protestantisms seems quite significant.

We catholics can only take note of such a diversity, and, as you pointed out, be careful in understanding what sort of SS our interlocutor is referring to.
I tried to offer here nothing more than a personal interpretation of what the core of most definitions seems to imply, in particular about the relation with Apostolic Christianity, ever since my first post.

Out of respect of the meaning and goals of the thread as explained by yourself, I am not going to go on here in my dialogs with Josiah and Schaick.

I thank them for the exchanges, which I hope to develop in other threads.
Thanks to Anna for her encouraging words.

Tanks everybody, and particularly AP for opening the thread and…

    see you all  soon.   :thumbsup:

In Christ
P7

For the record I PMed Pneuma07 and welcomed him back to this thread if he so choose.

From one who just very recently was guilty of derailing a thread because I got ticked, I have a very wide interpretation as to what constitutes thread derailment.

While I do not expect Catholics to embrace any form of SS (my purpose here is not to convince Catholics of the error of their ways) I do appreciate any Catholic that wants to try to understand the various nuances of the term and approach Protestants in that vein (instead of telling us we believe something we don’t). And Pneuma07 has certainly approached that topic in that spirit.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Some comments…

1. It is common for Catholics to state that Luther and Lutherans “invented” this praxis (a point I find baseless - but that’s another issue for another day and thread). IF so, then the “definition” of it would come from Luther and Lutheranism, right? I gave it.

Is that definition you supplied from Martin Luther? Curious?

At any rate, it would be fair to say that if it is, then the original definition came of the term came from that definition? However over time the meaning of words and phrases often change, and as Protestants fragmented into various groups I would understand the various groups redefining this term as suits them.

1. I don’t deny for a second that as Protestants (of various stripes) discuss such, they often discuss issues surrounding it - as is often the case (when Catholics discuss Mary, they almost always discuss Jesus and the Church - related topics but not identical topics). Depending on who is discussing it, a variety of things might come up. But it would be a mistake to assume that ALL SUCH is the definition of Sola Scriptura. In all MY discussions of this for over 10 years, I’ve yet to have a single Protestant disagree with the definition I gave.

I think perhaps some of the Church of Christ and KJV only fundamentalists might have issues. But these groups have issues with Lutheranism.

But anyway, you seem to have supplied quite a broad definition of the term. Your definition is not concerned with arbitration, hermeneutics, etc. Thus I would expect that a broad swath of Protestants would agree with you. But also a number of Protestants have taken your definition to the next level, (or next 10 levels).

It seems as though other groups have taken this definition and expanded on it and have linked it with arbitration and/or hermeneutics (Scripture interprets Scripture, Clarity of Scripture, etc)

I don’t deny such might exist among the 350 million Protestants, but I’ve yet to encounter it. It’s just that some discuss it with a variety of OTHER issues.

They are other issues to you because according to your definition, arbitration is outside of your definition. But to them, it is an important part of their definition.

They may include WHY Scripture is the best norma normans (it’s inerrant or it’s clear or whatever) - all valid discussion but not the praxis. They may discuss how they think things should be arbitrated according to it (relevant but again, not the definition, not what it is). They may discuss means of hermeneutics as we arbitrate according to it (“Scripture interprets Scripture” for example, again, related but not the issue per se). I disagree that there is a broad variety of meanings of the term (although again, this weird idea of SOLO Scriptura has recently arisen in “Evangelicalism”). I think what you are seeing is the praxis (as I defined it) embraced, but sometimes other related issues are discussed in connection with it. As is very common when people discuss theology.

But if you read Matthison, arbitration is a part of the definition and is what separates Sola Scriptura from what he calls Sola Scriptura. So I get it that if we were to discuss Sola Scriptura with you that we need not concern ourself with arbitration. You don’t care how Scripture is arbitrated (at least as far as Sola Scriptura goes). But that is not the case with Matthison.**

 

[AmateurPianist]

Yes, but what does one do when that rule (or measure of truth) outside ourselves is ambiguous? Does one then not need an authority outside oneself and over the rule to interpret the true meaning of the rule (in this case, the true meaning of the biblical text)?

That is a good question.

The alternative would be to recognize that the text is ambiguous and to allow multiple interpretations of the written text in that case.

Unfortunatly what usually happens is that folks insist that the text is clear (according to their own interpretation) when in reality the text is not as clear as assumed.

I actually asked a question on what prevents one from adopting their own personal canon, one that say omits Hebrews and one that adds Ignatius.

Now my answer would be that since the written word is silent on this issue that we turn to tradition where the tradition of everyone is in agreement. So in this case I am not using the praxis of Sola Scriptura. But that does seem to be a violation of the Lutheran understanding if I understand it correctly (which I probably do not).

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmericanJosiah,

You are not the OP. You keep telling us what is allowed on this Thread, when it is not your Thread.

AmateurPianist is the OP and has clearly stated that "arbitration is not outside the scope of this Thread.

Anything you don’t want to discuss is declared by you to be off topic, moot, or hijacking the Thread.

You do not have the authority to speak for all Protestants. You do not have the authority to define Sola Scriptura for all Protestants. You do not have the authority to claim that Sola Scriptura is not considered a doctrine, within all of Protestantism.

That is true. This is because in other definitions, arbitration is within the scope of the definition.

But what one has to understand is that when discussion SS with a Lutheran that holds this definition is that arbitration is outside of the scope of his definition of the term.

What makes these conversations complex is that one could be talking to AJ with a ChristianAnswers.net understanding of Sola Scriptura while the understanding he has of the term is quite different.

You refer to the Catholic Church, as being “like the LDS and all the cults,” which I find offensive, and I’m not even Catholic.

I probably would have worded this differently.

But he does raise a point that I have observed. JW and Mormons are two groups that I am aware of where the central organization seems to be the arbitrator of Scripture where the faithful are required to accept their interpretation.

Now this in itself does not mean that Catholicism is wrong. But often discussions of the two systems of determining truth evolves into a discussion of upside / downside. Catholics like to claim that a downside of SS is that because of this Protestants have fragmented into a gazillion groups.

Now this may or may not be a true statement (in other words the reason why Protestants have fragmented may be totally separate from SS). I at the same time have observed that when a central headquarters determines that it is to be the arbitrator of Scripture that a certain lack of accountability seems to be the result (as the faithful are required to accept it without questioning…and this could lead to the faithful accepting stuff that is just not ture).

Now at the same time I also observe that there are many differences between JW, Mormons and Catholics and any comparison between them on this point is not meant to imply that the three are equivalent.

In the end it seems to me that an upside / downside discussion of this issue is not very helpful and the only issue in the end is what did God design.

 

[Anna_Scott]

That is true. This is because in other definitions, arbitration is within the scope of the definition.

But what one has to understand is that when discussion SS with a Lutheran that holds this definition is that arbitration is outside of the scope of his definition of the term.

What makes these conversations complex is that one could be talking to AJ with a ChristianAnswers.net understanding of Sola Scriptura while the understanding he has of the term is quite different.

I probably would have worded this differently.

But he does raise a point that I have observed. JW and Mormons are two groups that I am aware of where the central organization seems to be the arbitrator of Scripture where the faithful are required to accept their interpretation.

Now this in itself does not mean that Catholicism is wrong. But often discussions of the two systems of determining truth evolves into a discussion of upside / downside. Catholics like to claim that a downside of SS is that because of this Protestants have fragmented into a gazillion groups.

Now this may or may not be a true statement (in other words the reason why Protestants have fragmented may be totally separate from SS). I at the same time have observed that when a central headquarters determines that it is to be the arbitrator of Scripture that a certain lack of accountability seems to be the result (as the faithful are required to accept it without questioning…and this could lead to the faithful accepting stuff that is just not ture).

Now at the same time I also observe that there are many differences between JW, Mormons and Catholics and any comparison between them on this point is not meant to imply that the three are equivalent.

In the end it seems to me that an upside / downside discussion of this issue is not very helpful and the only issue in the end is what did God design.

AP,

I did sign off this Thread, but I do want to thank you for this response.

I think I basically got tired of AmericanJosiah telling us what is and is not allowed on this Thread, when he is not the OP. He mentions all sorts of things. Then when I ask him a question about the very issues he has mentioned, suddenly it would be “hijacking” this thread to answer me.

I have enjoyed your posts, AP. I think you try to be fair to those of us who have participated on this Thread. You have far more patience that I do. I hope to see you around.

Really signing off this time,
Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

My thought is that this is the issue of the thread–to understand whatever we can about Sola Scriptura, including whether it is a reliable method of discerning the true meaning of Jesus’ words. What I hear you saying is that Protestants, such as Evangelicals and Lutherans and Methodists, use the same method to discern the truth–prayer, study, and thinking it through rationally. Yet this same method leads them to different and even contradictory conclusions. So I wonder whether the method you mention is itself flawed.

However, if you don’t wish to discuss this, I won’t pry. Just let me know and I won’t reply.

Norming (the process of determining correctness, truth, validity) involves TWO things:

1. The rule/canon/norma normans. The standard or plumbline that will be used. This is the only part that Sola Scriptura addresses: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon in this process.
2. The arbitration: how it will be determined if the position under evaluation “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the literal meaning of “canon”).

As I noted earlier, Protestants are apt to believe that Scriptures are inerrant (ONE of the reasons it is embraced as the canon), but obviously the arbitration (part two above) is not infallible.

Friend, life is just not as simple as declaring that self is just right - so just docilicly accept it. That, IMHO, is NOT an alternative approach to norming, it is a circumvention of it. “I’m (alone) am right so when I (alone) declare I’m (alone) am right, ergo I MUST be right” is not norming at all, it is the exemption of ONE (self) from the entire process. Which is why, it seems to me, The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura (and any other norma normans), because it simply declares itself alone to be INCAPABLE of error in official matters of faith and morals - thus the whole issue before us (norming) is declared as moot by one for one (self). It’s NOT that The Catholic Church as a alternative that it regards as better, it just regards the whole issue moot (well, for ONE - self; it does hold that all others are fully accountable).

There IS a basic assumption behind Sola Scriptura. Since it is the first part of norming, it assumes that positions are evaluated. There is an assumption that a position is not correct on the basis that the one who proclaiming insists that it is; there is an assumption of accountability among us all. This is what The Catholic Church rejects; there is ONE who is not: itself; why? Because one (The Catholic Church) declares one (The Catholic Church ) to be incaptable of error in many matters (the ones typically reviewed). It has its “reasons” for this exemption of self alone for self alone (the same “reasons” the LDS and the cults do - it’s a separate issue if such are valid), but IMHO, the “issue” for The Catholic Church is not the value of Scripture in norming, the issue is norming (for one - itself).

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”), canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology, the “norm that norms”). Those that practice this tend to believe that Scripture is reliable (even perhaps inerrant), it is outside and beyond all parties involved, it is knowable by all and alterable by none, it is historically and ecumenically embraced. They tend to believe it is better than simply comparing the views of self with the views of self to see if self agrees with self.

Yes, the second part (not an aspect of Sola Scriptura) is how issues will be arbitrated according to this rule. It’s pretty moot to get into that with Catholics since they reject the rule/canon - so the whole issue op how we will arbitrate according to it is moot. But there is a wide range of possibilities here. On the two extremes, we find private arbitration (as is the case in Catholicism) whereby one is designated to do this (self, a specific person or board, the denomination) to public arbitration (consensus, ecumenical councils, etc.). Like most Lutherans, I lean heavily on the public approach. But all this is beyond the scope of Sola Scriptura since Sola Scriptura simply doesn’t say HOW the arbitration will happen. Obviously, it does - but Sola Scripture doesn’t say HOW.

.

 

[joe370]

Nom, you said:

What it means is that the Scriptures are the norma normans (norming norm) of all doctrine in practice. In other words, in a dispute, we will go to the Scriptures rather than to the Pope for the answer. Nothing more, nothing less.

What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Nom, you said:
What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

You have to understand that per the Lutheran definition this is arbitration which is outside of the scope of their differences.

I imagine that there are two logical possibilities.
(1) Recognize that this difference is concerning an ambiguity in Scripture. Then both should realize that this is a point where neither know for sure, and then both should accept each others opinions (because that is what they are).
(2) Look to some other methodology or source to resolve their conflict. That would have to be the answer if one believes adopting your own personal canon is not allowed.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Nom, you said:
What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

AP, you responded with:

You have to understand that per the Lutheran definition this is arbitration which is outside of the scope of their differences.

I imagine that there are two logical possibilities.
(1) Recognize that this difference is concerning an ambiguity in Scripture. Then both should realize that this is a point where neither know for sure, and then both should accept each others opinions (because that is what they are).
(2) Look to some other methodology or source to resolve their conflict. That would have to be the answer if one believes adopting your own personal canon is not allowed.

---

So, according to you, a Christian has but 2 options:

1. The holy spirit teaches conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and both should accept each others opinions, realizing that that is all it is, an opinion, as opposed to truth.

Or

1. Look to some other methodology or source outside of sacred scripture, to resolve their conflict. What might that methodology or source be???

 

[AmateurPianist]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Nom, you said:
What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

AP, you responded with:

So, according to you, a Christian has but 2 options:

1. The holy spirit teaches conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and both should accept each others opinions, realizing that that is all it is, an opinion, as opposed to truth.

Not quite…but I will let it stand for now.

But with the comment that Catholicism does this also.

Once I was reading a web site of a Catholic 7 day creationist, geocentrist.

Although I am sure geocentrism is a minority opinion within Catholicism it is certainly allowed. Most Catholics that I am aware are probably Theologically Evolutionists but not all.

But the net is that under your paradigm, the Holy Spirit is teaching one set of truths to one set of Catholics and another set of truths to another set of Catholics.

Or

1. Look to some other methodology or source outside of sacred scripture, to resolve their conflict. What might that methodology or source be???

Well for example, with the NT canon the arbitrator would be the fact that Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics all share a common canon. That is what prevents me from going out and adopting my personal NT canon.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Nom, you said:
What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

AP, you responded with:

So, according to you, a Christian has but 2 options:

1. The holy spirit teaches conflicting truths regarding any one doctrine, and both should accept each others opinions, realizing that that is all it is, an opinion, as opposed to truth.

Not quite…but I will let it stand for now.

Don’t let it stand; please answer the question?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Don’t let it stand; please answer the question?

By let it stand, I meant I don’t have that many objections to argue about it.

Obviously the Holy Spirit does not contradict himself.

When two Christians disagree over an issue, the following are logical possibilities.

(1) God has revealed the answer in which case 1 or both of the parties in disagreement are wrong.

(2) God has not revealed the answer in which case both parties in the disagreement are wrong and hold merely speculative opinions.

However, my comment holds about the exact same scenario occuring within Catholicism (see the origins of the earth issue).