Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[LittleLambofJesus]

This thread has reached the point of making no sense. Apparently now its just "bash-the-EO" time.

Oh come on now!
You and Monty have been subtlely bashing the Protestants here, while at the same time giving the RCs "leniency". EGADS!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

an attack on tradition and listing things I don't believe in.

.... DE FIDE DOGMAS taken lock, stock and barrel right from inerrant APOSTOLIC TRADITION says every Catholic Bishop in the world. You are the one saying we should look to Tradition and yet you reject every one of those DE FIDE DOGMAS. So, which is it? We should embrace Tradition as the rule as you've been suggesting? If so, why don't you?








.

 

[Hentenza]

Show me from scripture your definition is correct

Same verses as you posted, brother (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1). Neither verse supports your denomination's definition of bishop.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You miss the point of Protestants launching into an attack on tradition and listing things I don't believe in.

So, they are pointing out what they think is orthodox/catholic error, then. How is that different from what you are doing attacking Protestant beliefs?

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh come on now!
You and Monty have been subtlely bashing the Protestants here, while at the same time giving the RCs "leniency". EGADS!

Oh sure I have.

.... DE FIDE DOGMAS taken lock, stock and barrel right from inerrant APOSTOLIC TRADITION says every Catholic Bishop in the world. You are the one saying we should look to Tradition and yet you reject every one of those DE FIDE DOGMAS. So, which is it? We should embrace Tradition as the rule as you've been suggesting? If so, why don't you?

.

No one has the slightest clue what you are going on about.

 

[laconicstudent]

So, they are pointing out what they think is orthodox/catholic error, then. How is that different from what you are doing?

Yes, equivocating the two doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Oh come on now!
You and Monty have been subtlely bashing the Protestants here, while at the same time giving the RCs "leniency". EGADS!

QFT.

Pot meet kettle...

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Yes, it is.

Circluar logic is seldom recommended.

Say I tell you "Bishops are mentioned in the Bible". You go look in the Bible and there is mention of bishops. Does this prove to you my understanding of bishop.

The question is not asking if you understood the role of a Bishop, the question is asking if "Bishops are mentioned in the Bible." So therefore, I would go to the Bible and see if Bishops were mentioned. If it was then I can conclude that "Bishops are mentioned in the Bible" and that you are corrected about it being mentioned.

If you said you were to claim something about Bishops in the bible, I would go to the scripture that you sited and again do the research of the other scriptures that speaks about Bishop to see if your understanding and what scripture says is comparable. If so, then I can conclude that you have an understanding about Bishops, if not, then I would conclude either you don't understand it fully or that I don't have enough information to say if you do or do not understand Bishops.

I doubt it. It would confirm you in your own understanding, based as it is on your understanding.

I said

"When someone says something about the bible...I find it in the bible to see if what they said it true or if they read it out of context. Crazy huh."

I didn't claim it was by my own understanding. I claimed that I would go into the word and see what it says and compare the context to see if it says what one claims it to say.

 

[Hentenza]

SS is a method based on what?

Have you not read any of the posts in the upteen threads in GT about it? I'm not going to bother replying with an answer since its been posted a number of times only to be ignored.

I will say this, scriptures have full authority over "T"raditions. You can't even quantify your "T"raditions and keep dancing around the issue. Face it Montalban, you believe whatever your denominations tells you whether is biblical or not.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh sure I have.

No one has the slightest clue what you are going on about.

Most or all EOs and RCs here don't and probably never will, since SS appears to be more of a Protestant thang

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Actually you miss my point.

By saying you've not studied it all implies that you can do that.

That's why I asked if they give you a certificate when you've studied it all.

Wrong!
I said that I have no knowledge of what was said not that I needed all knowledge to see if what the person said to be true.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No one has the slightest clue what you are going on about.

OH, I think our Orthodox friend understands PERFECTLY.....

I think our Protestant ones do, too.....




But to help you...

1. The issue here is ACCOUNTABILITY (especially for doctrines in dispute). IF truth matters in Christian doctrine (and there is passionate disagreement on that point), the accountability matters for the various positions among us, norming is thus embraced (norming of course is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of positions) and of course that include WHAT serves as the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") or norma normans ("the norm which norms") in such. All this you know.

2. The Rule of Scripture (what Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura") is the practice of using Scripture as that rule in that evaluation of disputed doctrines.

3. This the Orthodox here have rejected. Curiously not for exactly the same reason as the RCC and LDS do, but by presenting an alternative rule - one that is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable to all, MORE ecumenically (say by all 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced: TRADITION.

4. Well, but they don't. Because according to the RCC, that Tradition - INERRANT Tradition, APOSTOLIC Tradition, coming right from all 13 Apostles - TRADITION teaches in the most bold and clear way that it is de fide dogma (the highest level of certainty and truth) that the Bishop of Rome is infallible, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc., etc. DOGMAS. Right straight from TRADITION: lock, stock and barrel. Every Catholic bishop in the world would confirm that reality. So, if Tradition is clearer, more objectively known to all, more reliable and more inerrant than Scripture - why doesn't the EO go by it? (I could add Anglican Bishops talking about Tradition and Mormon Bishops talking about Tradition - but I think you get my point now). Sure you do.





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Montalban SS is a method based on what?

Have you not read any of the posts in the upteen threads in GT about it? I'm not going to bother replying with an answer since its been posted a number of times only to be ignored.

I will say this, scriptures have full authority over "T"raditions. You can't even quantify your "T"raditions and keep dancing around the issue. Face it Montalban, you believe whatever your denominations tells you whether is biblical or not.

Hi Henry.
I will give ya 50 million blessings if you reopen this thread...pweese

http://www.christianforums.com/t7488934/
Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural? (2)

 

[laconicstudent]

Most or all EOs and RCs here don't and probably never will, since SS appears to be more of a Protestant thang

I was a Protestant, LLOJ, for the overwhelming majority of my life. I get sola scriptura. What I don't get is CJ's "lock, stock and barrel" rant that he keeps repeating.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Have you not read any of the posts in the upteen threads in GT about it? I'm not going to bother replying with an answer since its been posted a number of times only to be ignored.

Patience is a gift of mine.
I'd do it:






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).



I hope that helps extend understanding of this praxis.




Pax



- Josiah







.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was a Protestant, LLOJ, for the overwhelming majority of my life. I get sola scriptura. What I don't get is CJ's "lock, stock and barrel" rant that he keeps repeating.

Well, he is a Lutheran......watdaya expect

http://www.christianforums.com/t7437997-7/#post54059895
Were Martin Luther and John Calvin "anti-RC"?

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture….
For that reason they have said correctly: 'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"
--Martin Luther (1483-1546)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But to help you...

1. The issue here is ACCOUNTABILITY (especially for doctrines in dispute). IF truth matters in Christian doctrine (and there is passionate disagreement on that point), the accountability matters for the various positions among us, norming is thus embraced (norming of course is the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of positions) and of course that include WHAT serves as the rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") or norma normans ("the norm which norms") in such. All this you know.

2. The Rule of Scripture (what Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura") is the practice of using Scripture as that rule in that evaluation of disputed doctrines.

3. This the Orthodox here have rejected. Curiously not for exactly the same reason as the RCC and LDS do, but by presenting an alternative rule - one that is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable to all, MORE ecumenically (say by all 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced: TRADITION.

4. Well, but they don't. Because according to the RCC, that Tradition - INERRANT Tradition, APOSTOLIC Tradition, coming right from all 13 Apostles - TRADITION teaches in the most bold and clear way that it is de fide dogma (the highest level of certainty and truth) that the Bishop of Rome is infallible, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc., etc. DOGMAS. Right straight from TRADITION: lock, stock and barrel. Every Catholic bishop in the world would confirm that reality. So, if Tradition is clearer, more objectively known to all, more reliable and more inerrant than Scripture - why doesn't the EO go by it? (I could add Anglican Bishops talking about Tradition and Mormon Bishops talking about Tradition - but I think you get my point now). Sure you do.

I was a Protestant, LLOJ, for the overwhelming majority of my life. I get sola scriptura. What I don't get is CJ's "lock, stock and barrel" rant that he keeps repeating.

Rant?

Re-read what I posted. IF it really isn't clear to you, ask - I'd be GLAD to further explain (although I sincerely doubt that's necessary). No need to ask LLOJ, you may ask me. I'm nice....

I was Catholic, btw. So we have something in common: we regarded our denomination as potentially wrong, held it accountable, engaged in norming as to it's doctrines - and concluded it such that we needed to leave it. Yes, since you were Protestant you could do that (although now you must repudiate all that lead you to the RCC), I was a Catholic and not to do what I did - I was honest enough to admit that I thus was not Catholic.

Again, LLOJ knows I'm a sweetheart. And more than willing to converse and to explain.


Lenten blessings to you, my full unseparated and equal brother or sister in Christ.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Montalban]

So, they are pointing out what they think is orthodox/catholic error, then. How is that different from what you are doing attacking Protestant beliefs?

You've missed the point again.

They're pointing out errors of points of dogma to Orthodox who don't believe in those points.

I don't believe in a co-redemprtix so demanding that I address it is pointless.

 

[Montalban]

Patience is a gift of mine.

So is repitition

 

[laconicstudent]

Well, he is a Lutheran......watdaya expect

http://www.christianforums.com/t7437997-7/#post54059895
Were Martin Luther and John Calvin "anti-RC"?

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture….
For that reason they have said correctly: 'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"
--Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Hm, well, even when I was a nondenominational, I thought Martin Luther was rather reprehensible.