St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[BobRyan]

The people of Christ's day did not have the New Testament compiled as we do now. So, then, how was it then that they understood what Scripture was, for them to use it as either their 'only' or 'most supreme' 'measure of doctrine'?

They used the canon of scripture that they had in Acts 17:11 - the OT.

But the text does not say "totally confused about what might be scripture - they simply accepted whatever Paul said - and hoped for the best - guessing that later after a few centuries it would be found to check-out as valid against whatever form scripture would be in - in the future" -- and I think we can all see that.

 

[ivebeenshown]

They used the canon of scripture that they had in Acts 17:11 - the OT.

But the text does not say "totally confused about what might be scripture - they simply accepted whatever Paul said - and hoped for the best - guessing that later after a few centuries it would be found to check-out as valid against whatever form scripture would be in - in the future" -- and I think we can all see that.

I have not said that it says that. But from where did they receive the canon of Scripture that they had at the time, which informed them as to what was Scripture or not?

 

[BobRyan]

I have not said that it says that. But from where did they receive the canon of Scripture that they had at the time, which informed them as to what was Scripture or not?

Josephus reports that they had no confusion at all about the Hebrew Canon for it had already been fixed - constant - no change for 400 years. The Hebrew canon was kept in the temple and was not added to in all that time. That is a lot of time in "stable form" so that the Acts 17 guys would have no confusion at all on the subject.

Is 8:20 points out that the sola scriptura method was being used at the time of Isaiah BEFORE the closing of the OT canon.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Josephus reports that they had no confusion at all about the Hebrew Canon for it had already been fixed - constant - no change for 400 years. The Hebrew canon was kept in the temple and was not added to in all that time. That is a lot of time in "stable form" so that the Acts 17 guys would have no confusion at all on the subject.

I did not ask whether they were confused or not. I asked about how they knew what constituted Scripture. I think we both agree that it was the canon. So where did the canon come from? Was it not a Tradition that had been handed down for centuries?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Are you talking about who took them from the Jews scribes and stapled them together and gave them to the Gentiles or something?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Are you talking about who took them from the Jews scribes and stapled them together and gave them to the Gentiles or something?

I am asking how one should know what constitutes Scripture in order to use it as any sort of rule or measure.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I am asking how one should know what constitutes Scripture in order to use it as any sort of rule or measure.

What is Christianity without scripture? Nothing. What is Christianity without tradition? Something that can stand on it's own. The scripture is not the problem, people taking scripture out of context is.

Be advised that no one wants to indulge the pride that some take to explain what all Christianity follows as the staple of Christianity that belongs to all Christians.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I am asking how one should know what constitutes Scripture in order to use it as any sort of rule or measure.

Hasn't that been determined already?

 

[MoreCoffee]

hmn, maybe to you. I'm not indoctrinated into beliefs that defy scripture by going far beyond defining cannon and progress into traditions that are not canon based by those who followed the people who made initial decisions that all the churches follow.

It is true that you do not accept any catechesis on this matter of SS that you might have received within the Catholic Church. Your indoctrination came from other sources but it is no less indoctrination and as such ought to be critically examined which is precisely what we are doing in this thread. The doctrine being examined is SS. We're using the definition given by Standing Up (taken from wikipedia) as our operating definition of SS for as long as those who believe SS agree that it is a good definition of what they believe and teach. So when those of us who do not believe or teach SS ask "from whence came the definition of holy scripture?" and history indicates that it came from traditions external to holy scripture it seems both right and reasonable for us to ask "why do you believe it then?" because it is clearly not a teaching contained within holy scripture and yet it is absolutely essential for SS because one cannot maintain that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice" if one does not know what is contained within the bible and what is not. One needs a canon of holy scripture before one can assert that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". This being the case, if those who support SS accept tradition when defining what the bible is, then those who do not believe & teach SS are right to point out the inconsistency implied in the definition of SS and the facts of history. Those of us who do not believe and teach SS can rightly say "You claim to believe SS and yet accept at least one tradition as the fundamental basis for your doctrine; namely that the canon of holy scripture is not contained in any passage of holy scripture but rather is derived from tradition and is that not inconsistent with the definition of SS that you say you accept and teach?".

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It is true that you do not accept any catechesis on this matter of SS that you might have received within the Catholic Church. Your indoctrination came from other sources but it is no less indoctrination and as such ought to be critically examined which is precisely what we are doing in this thread. The doctrine being examined is SS. We're using the definition given by Standing Up (taken from wikipedia) as our operating definition of SS for as long as those who believe SS agree that it is a good definition of what they believe and teach. So when those of us who do not believe or teach SS ask "from whence came the definition of holy scripture?" and history indicates that it came from traditions external to holy scripture it seems both right and reasonable for us to ask "why do you believe it then?" because it is clearly not a teaching contained within holy scripture and yet it is absolutely essential for SS because one cannot maintain that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice" if one does not know what is contained within the bible and what is not. One needs a canon of holy scripture before one can assert that "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". This being the case, if those who support SS accept tradition when defining what the bible is, then those who do not believe & teach SS are right to point out the inconsistency implied in the definition of SS and the facts of history. Those of us who do not believe and teach SS can rightly say "You claim to believe SS and yet accept at least one tradition as the fundamental basis for your doctrine; namely that the canon of holy scripture is not contained in any passage of holy scripture but rather is derived from tradition and is that not inconsistent with the definition of SS that you say you accept and teach?".

When God captured the ark back from the Philistines and brought it into the care of the Isaelites again ( as I believe was scriptural proof that it is in fact God who takes the role in keeping His covenant safe, beyond human participation, ie: Holy Spirit in control) ok, so far? So when the ark/covenant was in Isael hands were human hands allowed to touch it then? Ussah was testimony that no, that is not approved by God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

When God captured the ark back from the Philistines and brought it into the care of the Isaelites again ( as I believe was scriptural proof that it is in fact God who takes the role in keeping His covenant safe, beyond human participation, ie: Holy Spirit in control) ok, so far? So when the ark/covenant was in Isael hands were human hands allowed to touch it then? Ussah was testimony that no, that is not approved by God.

How does your post relate to sola scriptura and your view of it? And why did you ignore the argument put in my post that you quoted at the top of yours?
Let me reiterate:

1. "from whence came the definition of holy scripture?"
2. "why do you believe SS given that the definition of the bible comes from tradition and not from scripture?"
3. "You claim to believe SS and yet accept at least one tradition as the fundamental basis for your doctrine; namely that the canon of holy scripture is not contained in any passage of holy scripture but rather is derived from tradition and is that not inconsistent with the definition of SS that you say you accept and teach?".

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

How does your post relate to sola scriptura and your view of it? And why did you ignore the argument put in my post that you quoted at the top of yours?

I'm explaining why I believe what I believe. Give to God what is His and man to what belongs to man. I'm tired of Catholics claiming scripture as being defined by them as a personal pride thing. Traditions has no place in this discussion because it can do no more than say what we all agree on as being foundational to all. It in no way gives credence to any further Tradition.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

When God captured the ark back from the Philistines and brought it into the care of the Isaelites again ( as I believe was scriptural proof that it is in fact God who takes the role in keeping His covenant safe, beyond human participation, ie: Holy Spirit in control) ok, so far? So when the ark/covenant was in Isael hands were human hands allowed to touch it then? Ussah was testimony that no, that is not approved by God.

There is no better apologist for SS than CF's own "California Josiah"........GO CJ!!!

Here are a few thread discussing SS and the "norma normans"
[I like the Lutherans]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ptura-as-luther-and-calvin-called-it.7544221/
The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

3. Hermeneutics.
The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sola-scriptura-norma-normans.7592969/
Sola Scriptura..."norma normans"

This thread is a spin-off from a discussion that started some time ago, and eventually led to a very focused discussion with a Lutheran who proposed a very precise definition of what sola scriptura (hereafter, SS) is, and what it is not. I will attempt to do my best to interact with it. He mentioned in a past thread that he had converted from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism...from not-SS to SS. I, myself, recently converted from Presbyterianism to Orthodoxy...from SS to not-SS. So perhaps we passed each other on the way

The definition of what SS is and is not, together with examples, are here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/.

This thread is a discussion of what is and is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura.
I gave you the official, historic definition.
If you don't agree with it, then we're talking past each other.
And there's nothing I can do about that.
I gave you the official, historic definition. Verbatim.
I gave you what has been here described as a good explanation of such.
If you think it's wrong, then I've done all I can.

As I stated, in the 6 years I've been at CF and have discussed this, to date not a single Protestant has disgreed (even in a micro way) with what is in that post. Indeed, more than one Reformed Protestant has used the exact, verbatim wording from the Lutheran Confessions. But if you think it's the wrong definition, so be it.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord

the Book of Concord the norma normata (Latin, "the normed norm") in relation to the Bible, which they consider the norma normans (Latin, "the norming norm")

To this day the Book of Concord is doctrinally normative among traditional and conservative Lutheran churches, which require their pastors and other rostered church workers to pledge themselves unconditionally to the Book of Concord.[17] They often identify themselves as "confessional Lutherans." They consider the Book of Concord the norma normata (Latin, "the normed norm") in relation to the Bible, which they consider the norma normans (Latin, "the norming norm"), i.e. the only source of Christian doctrine (God's authoritative word)..........





.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I was looking for CJ's post on that, thanks LittleLamb, he was always great to have around, someone invite him back here, all the good ones take off.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

There is no better apologist for SS than CF's own "California Josiah"........GO CJ!!!

Here are a few thread discussing SS and the "norma normans"
[I like the Lutherans]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ptura-as-luther-and-calvin-called-it.7544221/
The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

3. Hermeneutics.
The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sola-scriptura-norma-normans.7592969/
Sola Scriptura..."norma normans"





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord

the Book of Concord the norma normata (Latin, "the normed norm") in relation to the Bible, which they consider the norma normans (Latin, "the norming norm")

To this day the Book of Concord is doctrinally normative among traditional and conservative Lutheran churches, which require their pastors and other rostered church workers to pledge themselves unconditionally to the Book of Concord.[17] They often identify themselves as "confessional Lutherans." They consider the Book of Concord the norma normata (Latin, "the normed norm") in relation to the Bible, which they consider the norma normans (Latin, "the norming norm"), i.e. the only source of Christian doctrine (God's authoritative word)..........





.

Huh?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Huh?

I dont know how that goes to your post but I really like CJ

He had one long post on it, but I forget where that is and helped me understand SS because I never heard that term till I come to CF, I never heard of a lot of the terms from any of all these sects and CJ made the best sense.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm explaining why I believe what I believe. Give to God what is His and man to what belongs to man. I'm tired of Catholics claiming scripture as being defined by them as a personal pride thing. Traditions has no place in this discussion because it can do no more than say what we all agree on as being foundational to all. It in no way gives credence to any further Tradition.

It's good to explain but the explanation does not relate to what I wrote.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Hasn't that been determined already?

This question is hard to answer. I and others have determined that they knew what constituted Scripture by means of Tradition in the form of canon. Others seem to acknowledge that they knew because of the canon but refuse to acknowledge that the canon is in itself Tradition.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What is Christianity without scripture? Nothing. What is Christianity without tradition? Something that can stand on it's own. The scripture is not the problem, people taking scripture out of context is.

What is Scripture without the canon, and what is canon if not Tradition?

Be advised that no one wants to indulge the pride that some take to explain what all Christianity follows as the staple of Christianity that belongs to all Christians.

I am not sure how to interpret this sentence.

 

[Fireinfolding]

This question is hard to answer. I and others have determined that they knew what constituted Scripture by means of Tradition in the form of canon. Others seem to acknowledge that they knew because of the canon but refuse to acknowledge that the canon is in itself Tradition.

That all sounds sort of hokey to me