Sola Scriptura

[Abrahamist]

Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

This doctrine is problematic for a number of reasons.

The first is that it is self refuting because it is itself extra-biblical doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is established no where in scripture. Instead, we find verses that refer to an oral tradition, countering Sola Scriptura :

"15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

emphasis mine

In verse 15, the author refers to both an oral and a written teaching and the oral teaching is listed first.

In verse 16, the author refers to a gospel that is both deed and word.

Also, the canon itself is extra-biblical doctrine maintained by tradition. The canon of the OT is somewhat confirmed in the NT in the Gospels but it had already been compiled and maintained itself by tradition. No where in the NT is the NT established.

And so specific list of works that make up the canon is a tradition and without this tradition, we have no guide by which to establish this list.

Also, Jesus himself started the church not by writing anything but by teaching his disciples a new oral tradition. In fact, the entire early church was formed by oral tradition. By the time the New Testament was being written, an entire system of congregations was already in place. The entire NT was written as letters to the different congregations to clear and set firm doctrinal beliefs and practices that were already in place.

The early Church used same canon, the Septuagint, as many of the Jewish congregations up until 90 AD when the Jews abandoned the Septuagint in favor of the TaNaK. Since they were using mostly and sometimes entirely the same Bible as the Jews, the only thing that set them apart was the oral tradition.

And so the early church was not a Sola Scriptura Church and in fact could not have been, otherwise, they would have remained Jewish and the NT would have never been written.

Another place it falls apart is that it assumes a Bible outside of the physical steps that are required to maintain the Bible over the centuries. In Luther's and Calvin's time, the printing press had just been invented and so it was convenient for them to just ignore the fact that for the last 15 centuries, every copy of the Bible has to be done by hand. Copying the bible in this way made scripture vulnerable to human error and so many traditions were needed to ensure the integrity of the text over time.

The printing press eliminated the need to copy by hand but the need to ensure the integrity of the texts and the correct canon remained, all of which use tradition and extra-biblical scholarship as a guide.

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes access to a Bible and the ability to read it. In large parts of the world, the vast majority of people were illiterate before the invention of the printing press and universal education. Bibles had to be hand copied and so were rare and expensive and most people couldn't read even if they had access to one. And so by necessity, oral tradition was the only way that Christianity could be spread to these parts of the world

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is it assumes an ability on the part of every individual in the correct way to read and interpret the scriptures and this is demonstrably false. Martin Luther might have argued that the plan for salvation was clear and plain in the text for all to see but even in his own lifetime, the reformation already beginning to split along differences in interpretation of scripture and today, there are literally thousands of different protestant sects, each with their own spin on the Bible. Since many of these interpretations conflict with and contradict each other, it is by necessity that not everyone's interpretation is correct.

Many offer seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This sounds like sound advise on the surface and mostly is. The problem arises when we ask what exactly is meant by the phrase 'Holy Spirit?' When this offered in many protestant churches, what is meant is, ""God will directly enable you to understand what you are reading." No object outside standard is offered against which to test the individual's interpretation.

But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

And so how does one know that the spirit that is visiting them to help them read the Bible is the Holy Spirit/? How is one to test every spirit to see whether they are from God? Some would actually offering testing the spirit to see if what the spirit is telling matches up with scripture or not. But this assumes that you know how to interpret scripture. If the spirit is the one providing you with your interpretation of scripture, how are you supposed to test the spirit against scripture?

It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test their own ideas.

On a final note, God first gave the Law to Moses and the ancient Hebrews at Sinai. And when God did this, God gave them the Ten Commandments and wrote them in stone. This is the only record anywhere in the Bible that God provided a written Word. All the rest of the Law given to the Hebrews and all the rest of Word of God given to us throughout the entire rest of the bible, both before Sinai and after, came in the form of an Oral Word and was given and maintained by Oral Tradition before being written down.

The very story and nature of both the Bible itself and the story told within the Bible is contrary to very notion of Sola Scriptura on every single level.

 

[ananda]

Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation. This doctrine is problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that it is self refuting because it is itself extra-biblical doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is established no where in scripture.

You are correct; besides, those who claim "sola scriptura" cannot clearly identify which "scriptura" is the One "Real" Bible (Protestant? Catholic? Orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox? Etc.) - and why it is so.

Also, the canon itself is extra-biblical doctrine maintained by tradition. The canon of the OT is somewhat confirmed in the NT in the Gospels but it had already been compiled and maintained itself by tradition. No where in the NT is the NT established.

True. However, in my personal studies, I have concluded that the mainstream Christian perspective on the authority of "Scripture" is at fault. General Christianity believes that all of Scripture have the same level of authority. Messiah, rather, appears to confirm that Scripture has varying levels of authority (cf. Mt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, etc.), along the lines of how Judaism sees it. Torah having the greatest authority, the Prophets next, and the Writings a distant third.

And so how does one know that the spirit that is visiting them to help them read the Bible is the Holy Spirit/? How is one to test every spirit to see whether they are from God? Some would actually offering testing the spirit to see if what the spirit is telling matches up with scripture or not. But this assumes that you know how to interpret scripture. If the spirit is the one providing you with your interpretation of scripture, how are you supposed to test the spirit against scripture?

I believe that fulfilled prophecy, as well as the corroborating testimony of Messiah, has established the authenticity and authority of the Tanach. Within the Tanach are rules given by YHWH to authenticate messages from Him. See Deu 13:1-5, 17:6, 18:18-22, 19:15, Num 35:30, also Mt 18:16, Jn 8:17-18, etc. Also, per Isa 8:20, etc. it is stated "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Any writing claiming to be "holy scripture" must be tested against the Torah and the Prophets; if there is disagreement, then it is certainly not from YHWH.

We have claims that the NT is "holy scripture." Using the established rules of authentication, we are now in a position to evaluate what is and is not truly "Scripture," and its associated priority among the three groupings in the established canon (Tanach).

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

This doctrine is problematic for a number of reasons.

The first is that it is self refuting because it is itself extra-biblical doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is established no where in scripture.

We feel that this has become a slogan, and whenever the many instances in the Bible where the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is to be found, our critics become strangely silent.

Instead, we find verses that refer to an oral tradition

I think you mean that you find scanty references to holding onto "traditions," but can you tell us what one of these extra-Biblical dogmas is all about that we should believe it as necessary to salvation?

In verse 15, the author refers to both an oral and a written teaching and the oral teaching is listed first.

In verse 16, the author refers to a gospel that is both deed and word.

OK, answer me this question. If there is a doctrine that we have to adhere to but is not in the Bible -- although you are using the methodology of Sola Scriptura to prove that it's so (!) -- what is it?

Also, how do you know that these "traditions" are not the same as some issues that also are to be found in written form in the books of the Bible?

Also, Jesus himself started the church not by writing anything but by teaching his disciples a new oral tradition. In fact, the entire early church was formed by oral tradition. By

The question is not whether he passed on instructions or teachings by word of mouth. If it's recorded in scripture, we access it by reading scripture with no need to go outside scripture in the way you are advocating.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura is, as I understand it, the doctrine that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

While SOME believe in the "all-sufficiency" of Scripture, that's not to be confused with Sola Scriptura.

This doctrine is problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that it is self refuting because it is itself extra-biblical doctrine. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is established no where in scripture. Instead, we find verses that refer to an oral tradition, countering Sola Scriptura :

There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a praxis. Praxis need not be normed by Scripture (if it did, I couldn't be posting on the Internet, could I?)

Also, the canon itself is extra-biblical doctrine maintained by tradition. The canon of the OT is somewhat confirmed in the NT in the Gospels but it had already been compiled and maintained itself by tradition. No where in the NT is the NT established.

You seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Sola Biblica or Solum Novum Testamentum. Just as the Rule of Law embraces the Law but never declares what, exactly, that is so the Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture without declaring what, exactly, that is.

Also, Jesus himself started the church not by writing anything but by teaching his disciples a new oral tradition.

1. God wrote Scripture, doesn't that count? MUST Jesus have written such? Why isn't God good enough for you?


2. Where did Jesus even mention oral Tradition? If fact, when did He mention oral anything? And when He spoke of Tradition, it wasn't good.


3. Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura some 50 times. He never once referred to the RC Denomination or RC Tradition or Oral Tradition. For anything. About anything. In any manner or way.

By the time the New Testament was being written

There is no such thing as Solum Novum Testamentum. Scripture has never been limited to what the RCC currently regards as "the New Testament."

The New Testament began to be written within a dozen years of the Resurrection - centuries before there is any evidence for ANY denomination (yours or any other).

the early church was not a Sola Scriptura Church and in fact could not have been, otherwise, they would have remained Jewish and the NT would have never been written.

Lost me.... So, when Jesus and Paul and Peter and James used Sola Scriptura, they were not Christians but were Jewish?

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes access to a Bible and the ability to read it.

News to me.... I've been studying this long before I left Catholicism, and I've never ever heard anyone say that.

Another problem with Sola Scriptura is it assumes an ability on the part of every individual in the correct way to read and interpret the scriptures and this is demonstrably false.

Also news to me. I've NEVER heard a single supporter of this practice say that. Never.

Do you reject the Rule of Law because not every human being on the planet can read every law of the planet (in hundreds of different languages), you thus reject the Rule of Law?

No object outside standard is offered against which to test the individual's interpretation.

Since Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation but rather deals with norming, I'm entirely lost as to what in the world this comment of yours has to do with the topic here?

Yes, I agree, it IS dangerous and most unsound for self to insist that self is the sole interpreter of Scripture - unaccountable at that. I agree. But note that only one does that. It's the RC Denomination. Read the Catechism of itself, # 85. Where it appoints itself as the sole interpreter. Then see #87 where it itself makes itself unaccountable for such. Search and search and search forever - you will not find a single catechism of a single Protestant denomination - not one - that does what your denomination does and that you rightly rebuke. But we are WAY off topic, let's return to the issue of norming and the most sound norma normans....

But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

... the basis of Sola Scriptura and the very point where the RCC so passionately disagrees with it. It will not permit itself to be tested - with Scripture or anything else for that matter. Rather, all are to "quietly" and "with docility" embrace whatever it and it itself alone says (CCC 87 for example). The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects testing (of itself anyway) - by Scripture or anything else. Take up 1 John 4:1 with the only denomination on the planet that rejects it: Yours. I did. It's one of the reasons I left the RCC.

It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test their own ideas.

BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...






.

 

[Abrahamist]

We feel that this has become a slogan, and whenever the many instances in the Bible where the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is to be found, our critics become strangely silent.

That in no way whatsoever addresses the subject. So what if it's a slogan? If the argument is sound, calling it a slogan doesn't change that. Actually address the argument.

Explain to us all how without tradition, we can establish a canon.

I think you mean that you find scanty references to holding onto "traditions," but can you tell us what one of these extra-Biblical dogmas is all about that we should believe it as necessary to salvation?

One is the reverence of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

In many ways, Catholic Christianity and Judaism are essentially the same religion. Jesus, the Word made Flesh is to us what the Torah is to the Jews. The blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God is to us what the Ark of the Covenant is to the Jews.

A lot of it has to do with reverence and the Deity of Christ. The doctrines on Mary were founded in defense of Christ's Deity. And the Catholics seem to have a lot better grasp of the Deity of Jesus are more reverent to Him whereas to many protestants, Jesus is a rock star and their best buddy.

A lot of has to do with psychology and archetypes. Mary provides a perfect mother archetype and serves as a model for men and women alike. For women, she provides a model of how to behave and to men, she provides a model of how we are to treat and respect women.

If someone comes from a disfunctional family with inadequate role models for parents, the Blessed Mother provides the needed psychological tools in place of the parents.

Many of the "Extra Biblical Doctrine" though was developed before much of the Bible was written or Canonized. When the Church formed counsels to decide and vote on the canon, they used the guide of 'extra-biblical' doctrines and traditions, creeds and catechisms to decide on the canon.

The question kind of confuses the chronological order that things developed. The question assumes that it started with the Bible and everything follows from that. That is not the case at all.

The Church was first established by Jesus via the Septuagint and oral tradition. From there, doctrine and catechism was developed. As the Church establishing itself in differently places, many people started bringing outside beliefs and practices in and so the apostles starting writing letters to each other to set down and make clear whatever doctrine, belief or practice was being challenged.

Over time, the apostles and (mostly) their successors made copies of these letters and bishops would compile their own canons. Most of these canons came to contain the same list of works but many also included other works. And so a canon in one area might be different than a canon in another region. And so until a universal canon was established, it was doctrine, creed and tradition that united the church.

OK, answer me this question. If there is a doctrine that we have to adhere to but is not in the Bible -- although you are using the methodology of Sola Scriptura to prove that it's so (!) -- what is it?

I wasn't using the methodology of Sola Scriptura. I was merely pointing out that the doctrine is contradicted by the verses in the Bible themselves.

It isn't so much that there is doctrine outside of the Bible that is necessary for our Salvation so much as the oral tradition provides a guide to understanding scripture.

The Bible is a kind of coded text, meaning it's written in a specific way because that's the best way to communicate the information contained within. The oral tradition is the key to this code, the guide by which to interpret the scriptures.

Since it is obvious we don't all agree on what the scripture says, then there must be an objective standard by which we can judge our interpretation. That standard is the oral tradition.

Without the oral tradition, one is like a kid trying to interpret a physics book without having been schooled in Calculus.

Also, how do you know that these "traditions" are not the same as some issues that also are to be found in written form in the books of the Bible?

Actually, most of them are and are found in the Old Testament. A good number of Catholic traditions were (and still are) Jewish practices that were never dropped.

When Jesus came, he did very little to change or modify Old Testament practice. His immediately disciples further modified the practice but not much. And so from their, the tradition was added to but only under the same guidelines that were established under Old Testament traditions and doctrine was developed as it was challenged and needed to be defended (The doctrine of the Trinity was established in the 4th century).

The question is not whether he passed on instructions or teachings by word of mouth. If it's recorded in scripture, we access it by reading scripture with no need to go outside scripture in the way you are advocating.

Except for no one seems to be able to understand the scriptures on their own enough to come to any agreement as to their meaning.

Do you remember the movie Contact? The scientists couldn't figure out how to read the instructions transmitted by the aliens because it was written in 3D, not 2D. It wasn't until someone broke the code that they were able to understand the instructions enough to build the machine.

I liken protestant Christianity to what might have happened if they hadn't found the code but decided to build the machine anyway by making their own code and filling in the blanks by making something up. The result is a big, loud, noisy machine that puts on a great show and accomplishes nothing.

 

[Albion]

We feel that this has become a slogan, and whenever the many instances in the Bible where the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is to be found, our critics become strangely silent.

That in no way whatsoever addresses the subject. So what if it's a slogan? If the argument is sound, calling it a slogan doesn't change that. Actually address the argument.

I meant that it has become ONLY a slogan.

One is the reverence of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

No. We've already agreed that Sola Scriptura deals with determining doctrine necessary for salvation. Not only is reverence toward Mary not necessary for salvation, it isn't a doctrine in the first place. We don't advocate disrespecting Mary, and, finally, every Catholic will immediately cite the relevant Bible verse the minute this subject comes up.

When Jesus came, he did very little to change or modify Old Testament practice. His immediately disciples further modified the practice but not much. And so from their, the tradition was added to but only under the same guidelines that were established under Old Testament traditions and doctrine was developed as it was challenged and needed to be defended (The doctrine of the Trinity was established in the 4th century).

I believe that you've slipped into a discussion of traditions, not Holy Tradition, the substitute for Sola Scriptura.

Except for no one seems to be able to understand the scriptures on their own enough to come to any agreement as to their meaning.

They still are using Scripture. And your alternative is no improvement; we then would have to choose between the different versions of tradition. You have already decided which one you prefer, so it looks easy to you, but there are of course many different versions of Tradition.

Do you remember the movie Contact? The scientists couldn't figure out how to read the instructions transmitted by the aliens because it was written in 3D, not 2D. It wasn't until someone broke the code that they were able to understand the instructions enough to build the machine.

I liken protestant Christianity to what might have happened if they hadn't found the code but decided to build the machine anyway by making their own code and filling in the blanks by making something up. The result is a big, loud, noisy machine that puts on a great show and accomplishes nothing.

That isn't a very good analogy. For one thing, whoever discovered the 3D answer could have been a sharper interpreter of the code than any of the others. That's the parallel to Scripture usage. It's not the case that finding the key was impossible until someone came along and suggested tea leaves or whatever Aristotle had to say. That would be the real parallel to Holy Tradition, an additional, outside, secondary, alternative to the instruction manual.

 

[Abrahamist]

While SOME believe in the "all-sufficiency" of Scripture, that's not to be confused with Sola Scriptura.


The Rule of Scripture in Norming (What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")




The Definition:


The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially disputed dogmas) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).

Okay. This isn't really far removed from what I posted in the OP, just worded differently.

I am reading this to mean that scripture is the standard by which all doctrine will be judged.

The problem with this is line of reasoning is that is backwards. The scripture was established according to doctrine and practice that was passed on by tradition.

Also, the norming process assumes a universal understanding of scripture. What if there are disagreements to the meaning of scripture? Then where do we turn?

What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

Okay

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this process.

Except for it isn't. As stated before, the meaning of scripture isn't always clear. If it was, the Jews and the Christians would all be part of one big religion.

What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

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.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). This is also beyond the scope here, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.




An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.

This can apply to the subject of interpreting scripture. We don't except Bob's private interpretation of 6 ft. because we have a standard that we all agree on (established by tradition) that tells us what 6 feet is.

Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.

Alright. I agree with this. But it is still tradition that established what 6 ft is before the tape measure was manufactured.

Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

I do accept the Bible as the Word of God but only because I can objectively verify what it claims is true and because I can verify the claims of those put the Bible together and maintained it.

I'm not opposing the Bible as the Word of God or as an Authority. What I'm opposing is the idea that the Bible carries authority but those that wrote, canonized and maintained it do not.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

Except for what I can do is make a copy of it and alter it to suit me own ends. There is evidence of this having been done from time to time. The JW's use the New World Translation that has been altered.

Also, not everyone is using the same canon.

And so it's not just the question of the Bible's authority but the authority of the particular Group, Individual, Church, Institution, etc, that provided your particular copy, canon and translation of the Bible.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none.

Except for that it has been. Or at least some versions of it.

Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

I'm not advocating using Oral Tradition in place of or in opposition to the Bible but rather in cooperation with the Bible. The oral tradition tells us what books are in the Bible and how to interpret them.

The claims of the Church as an Authority are every bit as legitimate as the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't agree that the authority of the Bible can be established without establishing the authority of those that produced it.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.

And that is why Sola Scriptura fails. Without an objective yardstick by which to measure our interpretation and use of scripture, we have nothing but our own private interpretation which may or may not be any more valid than anyone else's.

Why do some so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative.

Again, this is the position that scripture stands by itself.

I am arguing that scripture AND tradition together are the authority, not just scripture alone.

And my argument is more sound because scripture is itself a tradition.

Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).

Except for the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops ARE the teachings of Christ. The pope can trace a direct line of succession all the way back to Peter and Jesus himself. No other Church can make such a claim.

So it is not just an empty claim of the Church but one that is backed up both by history and scripture.

The pope does not have to power to alter the word of God or change the teachings of the Church. The Pope's authority is not in himself but in his office. And his office does not permit him the authority to change the Bible or the teachings of the Church in any way.

 

[Abrahamist]

Just a few examples of Jesus and the Apostles using Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura)
Compare with the number of times Jesus and the Apostle quoted from the RC Denomination and used such normatively (or even when they just mention it - for nothing at all).

Matt 21:42

<snip>

2 Peter 3:16

There are many more, but I hope the point is made as to which Rule is illustrated in the Bible. It seems significant to me.

Quoting scripture is not the same as Sola Scriptura. Nowhere in quoting these scriptures or in these scriptures themselves is the authority of tradition ever invalidated.

There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is a praxis. Praxis need not be normed by Scripture (if it did, I couldn't be posting on the Internet, could I?)

Gotcha.

You seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Sola Biblica or Solum Novum Testamentum. Just as the Rule of Law embraces the Law but never declares what, exactly, that is so the Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture without declaring what, exactly, that is.

Not familiar with those terms. Will have to do research.

1. God wrote Scripture, doesn't that count? MUST Jesus have written such? Why isn't God good enough for you?

You seem to be overlooking the point that the reason we believe that God had a hand in writing these particular books is because we trust that the men that wrote them were men of God. And we trust that claim, because we trust the people that claimed they were men of God. Or least some of us do.

2. Where did Jesus even mention oral Tradition? If fact, when did He mention oral anything? And when He spoke of Tradition, it wasn't good.

He attacked many of the practices of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees but at the same time, he did engage in tradition. His first recorded miracle was at a wedding, which is a tradition. When he taught, because he spoke instead of wrote and order his disciples to go and preach instead of "stay home and write letters" he establish the tradition of transmitting his stories orally. He engaged in Baptism and the last supper and in the process established the tradition of the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.

3. Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura some 50 times. He never once referred to the RC Denomination or RC Tradition or Oral Tradition. For anything. About anything. In any manner or way.

Except for he spent his entire career establishing the teachings, the sacrament and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

There is no such thing as Solum Novum Testamentum. Scripture has never been limited to what the RCC currently regards as "the New Testament."

The New Testament began to be written within a dozen years of the Resurrection - centuries before there is any evidence for ANY denomination (yours or any other).

The RCC is universal, not a denomination.

Lost me.... So, when Jesus and Paul and Peter and James used Sola Scriptura, they were not Christians but were Jewish?

In the early Church, before there was a New Testament canon, or even writings, tradition was the norm and the standard because there were not yet any Christian scriptures to be the standard.

The Jews and the early Christians were using the same Bible but reaching two different conclusions about Jesus. And so it wasn't Sola Scriptura which was the standard but tradition. It was tradition that served as the standard until the Bible was written and Canonized. Now, it is tradition and Bible.

News to me.... I've been studying this long before I left Catholicism, and I've never ever heard anyone say that.

It's never stated because the moment that the assumption is pointed out, the argument for Sola Scriptura falls completely apart.

The point is that Sola Scriptura assumes availability of scripture. If scripture isn't available, it is only through tradition that one has access to the gospel.

Also news to me. I've NEVER heard a single supporter of this practice say that. Never.

Again, it's an assumption that goes unaddressed because the moment that it is acknowledged, Sola Scripture falls apart. If the meaning of scripture is not clear to all, then how can it alone be the standard?

Do you reject the Rule of Law because not every human being on the planet can read every law of the planet (in hundreds of different languages), you thus reject the Rule of Law?

No. But I'm not seeing how this applies.

Since Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation but rather deals with norming, I'm entirely lost as to what in the world this comment of yours has to do with the topic here?

I don't see how Sola Scriptura and interpretation can be seperated. How can Sola Scriptura be the standard if a universal interpretation is not already assumed?

Yes, I agree, it IS dangerous and most unsound for self to insist that self is the sole interpreter of Scripture - unaccountable at that. I agree. But note that only one does that. It's the RC Denomination. Read the Catechism of itself, # 85. Where it appoints itself as the sole interpreter. Then see #87 where it itself makes itself unaccountable for such. Search and search and search forever - you will not find a single catechism of a single Protestant denomination - not one - that does what your denomination does and that you rightly rebuke. But we are WAY off topic, let's return to the issue of norming and the most sound norma normans....

... the basis of Sola Scriptura and the very point where the RCC so passionately disagrees with it. It will not permit itself to be tested - with Scripture or anything else for that matter.

I have not found this to be the case at all. I have tested every religion and every variant of every religion that I have encountered and the RCC is the only one that stands up to every test.

Rather, all are to "quietly" and "with docility" embrace whatever it and it itself alone says (CCC 87 for example). The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects testing (of itself anyway) - by Scripture or anything else. Take up 1 John 4:1 with the only denomination on the planet that rejects it: Yours. I did. It's one of the reasons I left the RCC.

Again, the RCC is not a denomination. Also, not only the RCC but the Orthodox Churches do as well. In fact, there is no evidence that any Christian Church anywhere subscribed to Sola Scriptura before the reformation.

BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...

Except for I can test their claims against both Jewish history and tradition and secular history and I have found their claim to Authority to be supported by both. Also, I have found that out of all the religions I have investigated, their practice most resembles what I would expect in the religion that Jesus started based upon the evidence I have seen.

 

[Abrahamist]

I meant that it has become ONLY a slogan.

So you are just not going to address the argument? That is not the least bit convincing.

No. We've already agreed that Sola Scriptura deals with determining doctrine necessary for salvation. Not only is reverence toward Mary not necessary for salvation, it isn't a doctrine in the first place. We don't advocate disrespecting Mary, and, finally, every Catholic will immediately cite the relevant Bible verse the minute this subject comes up.

You got a point.

Being brought up protestant, I was taught that Mary reverence wasn't Biblical and the truth is I haven't been a Catholic long enough to think of it as Biblical, just that it isn't antibiblical. I need to study up on my Mary-ology.

But aside from that, my argument is not so much that tradition contains extra biblical doctrine found only in tradition but still necessary for salvation so much as that the tradition is a necessary guide to understanding the Bible.

I believe that you've slipped into a discussion of traditions, not Holy Tradition, the substitute for Sola Scriptura.

Not a substitute but a guide. I have never and will never claim the Bible isn't necessary, just that it's not sufficient by itself. It needs a guide by which we can understand it. That's where tradition comes in.

They still are using Scripture. And your alternative is no improvement; we then would have to choose between the different versions of tradition. You have already decided which one you prefer, so it looks easy to you, but there are of course many different versions of Tradition.

My alternative is not to abandon scripture but to use tradition as a guide to understanding scripture.

You are right, there are different versions of tradition but most of the traditions of the Churches that can trace their history back to the original apostles all engage in a practice that is very similar and in many ways identical.

The traditions of churches that cannot trace their history back to the first generation apostles differ widely.

And so it appears there is much stronger support for the traditions of some Churches than others.

So instead of just arbitrarily deciding what tradition to follow, instead we should follow the church with the strongest historical support.

That isn't a very good analogy. For one thing, whoever discovered the 3D answer could have been a sharper interpreter of the code than any of the others. That's the parallel to Scripture usage. It's not the case that finding the key was impossible until someone came along and suggested tea leaves or whatever Aristotle had to say. That would be the real parallel to Holy Tradition, an additional, outside, secondary, alternative to the instruction manual.

Except for tradition predates scripture. This is undeniable fact. The Bible itself establishes that the early congregations were established by Christian tradition before the New Testament was written.

Again, you are confusing which order events happened.

 

[OpenDoor]

So instead of just arbitrarily deciding what tradition to follow, instead we should follow the church with the strongest historical support.

If I don't recognize your church to have the strongest historical support, were do we go from there?

 

[OpenDoor]

My alternative is not to abandon scripture but to use tradition as a guide to understanding scripture.

Since you are Roman Catholic you would probably say that the position of Universal Bishop (Catholic Pope) is found in church tradition. However, Orthodox Christians would say that the position of Universal Bishop is a teaching not found in church tradition and unknown to the apostles. What now?

 

[Abrahamist]

If I don't recognize your church to have the strongest historical support, were do we go from there?

I would then say, "let's examine the reason you think so," and I would offer the evidence in support of the Catholic Church.

 

[Abrahamist]

Since you are Roman Catholic you would probably say that the position of Universal Bishop (Catholic Pope) is found in church tradition. However, Orthodox Christians would say that the position of Universal Bishop is a teaching not found in church tradition and unknown to the apostles. What now?

Scripture, Matthew 16:18 specifically backs up the Church's position on this.

With that said, the historical evidence in support of the Orthodox is very strong. And although I believe the Church is the true instrument of Christ on this earth, I believe that the Orthodox faith is a legitimate expression of Christian faith.

 

[Standing Up]

Is the thread about SS or something else?

 

[OpenDoor]

Scripture, Matthew 16:18 specifically backs up the Church's position on this.

No it doesn't

 

[Abrahamist]

Is the thread about SS or something else?

It's about Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture plus tradition.

 

[Abrahamist]

No it doesn't

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus appoints Peter the first Pope. I know protestants disagree with this interpretation of that verse but I do not find their argument to be the least bit convincing.

Edit: And I came to this conclusion back in my days as a protestant, a good decade before I ever even considered joining the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up Is the thread about SS or something else?

It's about Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture plus tradition.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus appoints Peter the first Pope. I know protestants disagree with this interpretation of that verse but I do not find their argument to be the least bit convincing.

Edit: And I came to this conclusion back in my days as a protestant, a good decade before I ever even considered joining the Church.

Beating dead horses is always fun

http://www.christianforums.com/t7634884-10/#post59862962
Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

The purpose of the thread is not debate in any way, but merely to set out how the authority of the positions are established and represented, and in contrast to each other. However, minimal debate on peripheral issues may be necessary -- probably on what a bible verse can mean.
I think it is proper that the meaning of a bible verse can be questioned, but then, I believe there should just be the two sides presented on what the verse means, without continuing disagreement and debate. It is enough just to know, that the two sides have two ways at looking at a verse. I do not know that such perirpheral issues will arise on the meaning of verses, but it is possible.

 

[Albion]

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus appoints Peter the first Pope. I know protestants disagree with this interpretation of that verse but I do not find their argument to be the least bit convincing.

Nor do we accept that Christ appointed Peter to a position that didn't exist for another 400 years, wasn't mentioned in that verse, was rescinded a few verses later (I know that no Catholic cares about THOSE verses), and conflicts with the purpose for which Peter was chosen to proclaim the message of the Messiah. IOW, there's no point in making your argument just to make it for the jillionth time, knowing it's just a theory.

 

[Albion]

Is the thread about SS or something else?

It seems to be about sayings used to belittle the use of scripture. If there were actual concerns, we'd be more than interested in engaging and explaining, I'm sure.

As it is, there doesn't seem to be anything new here.