Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Montalban]

I would like it if we were on the same side.

So would I. You're welcome to come to my church anytime.

 

[Montalban]

While I realize that I was focusing on councils (for my last several post) I was not trying to suggest that God only comunicates to His people via councils.

That's what I believe too, he's always with his church.

That's why the church teaches the same truth now as it did when it was founded.

 

[Montalban]

From Wikipedia:
A tradition is a ritual, belief or object passed down within a society, still maintained in the present, with origins in the past.

The protestant canon can be classified as a 'tradition', but where is this tradition found in scripture?

the responses have so far been to

a) avoid showing scripture that supports sola scriptura

or

b) to reverse the challenge, unable to meet the challenge they turn this back to asking evidence proving tradition

or

c) citing evidence that states 'the word' is of God, missing the point that it doesn't exclude tradition

or

d) straw-man - to attack the position as being one that rejects scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the responses have so far been to avoid showing scripture that supports sola scriptura

Practice need not be exampled in Scripture to be sound. You are posting on the internet, we both know there are no examples of such in the Bible.

This practice IS exampled. Over and over and over. From the time Scripture first appeared around 1400 BC. The program here does not permit a full listing of all the examples (it would mandate numerous posts), but I can give just just a small, partial list from just the New Testament:


Just a few examples of when Jesus and the Apostles used the Rule of Scripture: NOTE: THIS IS ONLY A PARTIAL LISTING and of course ONLY from the New Testament.

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46


John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
john 20:31
John 21:25

Acts 1:16
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 8:24
Acts 18:28
Acts 1:29
Acts 7:42
Acts 13:29
Acts 13:33
Acts 15:15
Acts 23:5
Acts 24:14
Acts 13:46

Romans 1:2
Romans 4:3
Romans 10:11
Romans 11:2
Romans 15:4
Romans 26:26
Romans 1:17
Romans 2:24
Romans 3:4
Romans 3:10
Romans 4:17
Romans 4:23
Romans 8:36
Romans 9:13
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:8
Romans 11:26
Romans 12:19
Romans 14:11
Romans 15:3
Romans 15:9
Romans 15:21

1 Cor. 15:3
1 Cor. 15:4
1 Cor. 1:19
1 Cor 1:31
1 Cor. 2:9
1 Cor. 3:19
1 Cor. 4:6
1 Cor. 9:9
1 Cor. 9;10
1 Cor. 10:7
1 Cor. 10:10
1 Cor. 14:22
1 Cor. 15:45
1 Cor. 15: 54

2 Cor. 4:13
2 Cor. 8:15
2 Cor. 9:9

Gal. 3:8
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
Gal. 3:10
Gal. 3:13
Gal. 4:22
Gal. 4:27

1 Tim 5:18

2 Tim 3:16

James 2:8
James 2:23
James 4:5

1 Peter 2:6
1 Peter 1:16

2 Peter 1:20
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.



.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

CaliforniaJosiah, your post is awesome!

And by the way, Scripture supporting Sola Scriptura has been posted many times before by several members, myself included.

The problem is that all the Scripture cited in its defense has been discarded. Dare I say rejected?!

 

[ivebeenshown]

Really long post with lots of citations

Your point is moot. Everyone in this board most surely accepts the scriptures as authoritative.

All the Scripture cited in [Sola Scriptura's] defense has been discarded.

They have not been discarded; they have been exposed as not truly supporting 'Sola Scriptura'.

There is 'what the scripture says' and then there is 'what you believe the scripture says.'

 

[Standing Up]

From Wikipedia:
A tradition is a ritual, belief or object passed down within a society, still maintained in the present, with origins in the past.

The protestant canon can be classified as a 'tradition', but where is this tradition found in scripture?

Irenaeus:

Written scripture:
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”33113311 1 Cor. ii. 6.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

People, People! I tell ya. You all beat a dead horse to shreds.Why argue about it. If you believe the 66 books plus the extra books, fine. If you only believe the 66 books fine. What you believe in faith God will honor. But anything you do without faith is moot. Without faith it is impossible to please God because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.And we cannot go about castigating other people's faith. The word of God is my plumb line. I am familiar with the 66 books of the canon, but I am also familiar with other books like Enoch and Jasher and others which I hold in high esteem. The book of John says In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So if you are diligently seeking the face of Jesus, who is the living Word and you are doing it in faith, reading the scriptures which in my opinion is the very mind of God in print form (don't get crazy, that is just my opinion), If you are guided by the Holy Spirit, He will lead you into all truth. I think God is big enough and omnipotent enough to keep scripture intact and true. No matter how man has tried to water scripture down, take away from, add to or any of that, God will keep His word intact. He has already said His word will never pass away. Why worry about scripture that you think should have made the canon of 66 books. If we believe what the 66 books say, we will do well. Most of us have not mastered the 66, let alone others.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

They have not been discarded; they have been exposed as not truly supporting 'Sola Scriptura'.

Now that's debatable.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I would like it if we were on the same side.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

CaliforniaJosiah, your post is awesome!

And by the way, Scripture supporting Sola Scriptura has been posted many times before by several members, myself included.

The problem is that all the Scripture cited in its defense has been discarded. Dare I say rejected?!

*cough* you mean, refuted?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

*cough* you mean, refuted?

No, I meant what I said.

 

[Montalban]

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Practice need not be exampled in Scripture to be sound. You are posting on the internet, we both know there are no examples of such in the Bible.

flawed analogy, but anyway, let's deal with your list.

All you do here is make the mistake of confusing two things

a) teaching from scripture

with

b) teaching sola scriptura

It's so obvious that I'm amazed you guys don't see it.

If the Apostles believed in it, then we'd have no need for the NT, because the OT was sufficient.

Jesus himself used the OT as a tool, but modified its message.

Look to Luke 10:25-37 as one exmaple

Jesus asks at Luke 10:26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?

And the answer he gave was not sufficent. Jesus then had to give the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Another example is given...
Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus contrasts his teaching to that which is written.

Aside from where Paul says to keep to teachings both written and spoken,
Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.

Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

 

[Montalban]

Your point is moot. Everyone in this board most surely accepts the scriptures as authoritative.They have not been discarded; they have been exposed as not truly supporting 'Sola Scriptura'.

It always speaks volumes of a stance when one has to recourse to straw-man in order to support it.

Over the last four days I've encountered about 7 different Protestants trying this same one

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well that are not written in this book....

flawed analogy, but anyway, let's deal with your list.

Yes, John indicates that not everything Jesus DID is record in the Gospel of John. So what? How does that indicate that any one denomination is unaccountable or that the whole of Scripture is not the most sound rule or us as we evaluate the validity of disputed doctrines among us?

All you do here is make the mistake of confusing two things a) teaching from scripture with b) teaching sola scriptura

1. There is no teaching of Sola Scriptura, there is the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. You here make the mistake of John saying that he doesn't record everything Jesus did with the soundless of self proclaiming that self is exempt from accountability and that truth is moot in the case of self, if self so claims for self.

Look to Luke 10:25-37 as one exmaple Jesus asks at Luke 10:26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it? And the answer he gave was not sufficent. Jesus then had to give the parable of the Good Samaritan. Another example is given...
Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

READ this:


.



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 doctrines) 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).




What it IS:

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

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.


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.


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.



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.

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.

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

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.



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. 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).



Pax



- Josiah







.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It always speaks volumes of a stance when one has to recourse to straw-man in order to support it.

Over the last four days I've encountered about 7 different Protestants trying this same one

Except for me, as I am not a "Protestant"

 

[Philothei]

Why do some so passionately reject it?


Th

ose 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. 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.

Teaching from one's own authority is not teaching from authority? Anyway you see it I would rather have the collective opinion of a Church due to the Church tradition than one's man view What it seems you are saying is that you would rather have the freedom to interpret any way any one feels fit to interpret. It makes no difference... But to me it does matters to have a whole tradition of interpretation than an opinion....

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).

Authority is authority is authority and when it comes to the RC it is the Papal authority to the EO it is the collective conscience of the Church through time expressed not only from its formal councils but from its local as well. I prefer the councilliar method ...You prefer the "one man " method... I think my opinion is better. You do not. So if it is a matter of authority why would an authority by the Church be bad?

The Apostles told us that if we are in dispute to go to the elders. The first church had councils to have this Bible we hold so dear today to me that case is closed. The authority of the Bible is depended upon the collective conscience of the Church that "normalizes" the faith. Proof : the radification of the Bible by a counsil. The Bible was indeed a collective decision. NOT an individual at all...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Teaching from one's own authority is not teaching from authority?

It's teaching from self.

The issue here is this: Is self ergo correct? Is self accountable or exempt from accountability if self alone so claims that self alone is?

Anyway you see it I would rather have the collective opinion of a Church due to the Church tradition than one's man view

I tend to agree with you, but when the RCC speaks IT alone speaks - not the collective opinion of the church. When I speak, I alone speak - not the collective consensus of the church.

But again, the issue here is this: Is self ergo correct? Is self accountable or is self exempt from accountability if self alone so claims that self alone is?

What it seems you are saying is that you would rather have the freedom to interpret any way any one feels fit to interpret.

Actually, NONE insists on that except the RCC denomination (and the early LDS but no longer).

No, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with self or with interpretation. It has to do with accountability, norming, and the most sound rule in norming.





.

 

[SullivanZ]

The Bible cannot be understood without the Holy Spirit illuminating one's view of what is written. Just look at all the thousands of 'man-made' denominations that contradict each other, borne out of each man's own interpretation, with little regard for seeking God's truth. :/

 

[Montalban]

I spotted the norming spiel again!