The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[heymikey80]

How can the Fathers have believed in SS while they agreed with the councils?

Applying the consistency test to this question: How can Calvin have believed in SS while he agreed with the councils?

Hm, the consistency test does not appear to apply very well, here. Could you clarify what you mean?

if you go on SS then would you also agree with Tradition?

Not as authoritative.

Just curious to where you are all getting to?

Clear Apostolic precedence.

If they Fathers were SS they would not have abided to the Tradition of the Church period!

See the response to the first question

Instead of nitpicking on the Fathers why not just say that they used Scripture?

Hm. I thought that you guys considered the ECFs to have some authority. But ah, well, I guess there's merit in sola scriptura anyway.

The whole idea of using scripture is NOT in opposition to Tradition as scripture comes from the same Tradition.

And the whole idea of using historical traces of tradition is not in opposition to Scripture, because Scripture is not pervasively imposing. The question is one of ultimate authority. It is not a question of completely uniform practice.

Now if you want to prove the opposite ...

It always seems to be an error of the opposition to consider their opposition 180-degree opposed.

... go ahead but do tell us WHERE you see the aftermentioned Fathers to deny Tradition. They just do not.

Well, "go ahead and tell us WHERE you see the aforementioned Reformers deny Tradition. They just do not."

Just because I like chocolate ice-cream also does not mean I like it "solo"

Once again, the mistake is assigning it "solo" in the aberrant characterization of the opposition, instead of acquiring the prior information about "sola scriptura" as the sole infallible authority in matters of faith & practice.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.




A few Orthodox Church Fathers....



Frankly, I agree with these clear statements:


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)



St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.

(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)


St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.

(Homily 13 on Genesis.)


St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian..

(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])


St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with Scripture, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)


St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.

(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)


These statements seem in harmony with the opening post of this thread, with "Sola Scriptura." Some even go well beyond Sola Scriptura.


.

Sister, It may be that you disagree with what these esteemed Orthodox Church Fathers herein wrote (doesn't surprise me). And that's noted. But they were (and are) offered as further aids to understand the practice. They seem to ME to be in harmony with what is spelled out in the opening post and in the definition of the practice as shared there.

Just read the red font quotes. Now go back and read the opening post - the definition and then "what it is" and "what it is not."




.

 

[Philothei]

The early church fathers believed in the authority of scripture. You can just about reconstruct the bible in its entirety using the 2nd century ecfs alone. Jesus used scripture to refute the "T"radition holding Jewish leaders of His time. God gave us His special revelation. The apostles even told us to only believed what came from them either orally or written. They exhorted us not to believe any information that came from other sources. The scriptures IS (I use the singular because it is one) the oral and written apostolic teachings as inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is no other authority.

Hey Henry nice to see you

I agree up to the point that you said that Christ used it to refute the "t" tradition holding by jewish leaders. Not sure that this is how he did it....Cause they also used the Scriptures to dispute Christ actually Christ told them to keep the spirit of the law not the letter. The oral word plus written is God's word but not ALL that God said or Christ said are in the written word or in the oral. Both are lacking and both are not enough to describe or express God fully. The ultimate authority is Christ and God; actually the Holy Trinity as it manifests itself in our human history. (hehe I talked about this in my class last week)

The concept of the sole authority of scripture has always been believed not the sharing of authority with the ever evolving and somewhat blurry concept of "T'radition. No two churches have the same "T"raditions. Not even 2 of those churches that self call apostolic churches have the same "T"raditions. Most can't even quantify "T"raditions. If I were to ask you for a list of the EO "T"radition you would reply that they are all over the teachings just like the RC answers the query with "read the catechism". However, as a praxis most members of these churches do not even agree on all or even part of the interpretations of such documents or teachings by their own church. You can plainly see it by following threads in both TAW and OBOB. The reason for this is that, even among the core doctrines, the lines of demarcation are quite blurry between teaching and practice.

I agree with you that not two churches have the same tradtiion. I also can see the Bible be a "common denominator" in today's christian reality but not for the Apostolic times; as we know historically the Bibles were not so widely spread. That was after the 4th century so it is NOT a historical reality as yet. Scripture was not too well known thus they rely on oral tradition. Ah... practice is practice and doctrine is just that doctrine.

It is quite a chore for the rank and file apostolic church congregant to become familiar enough with the extensive catechisms out there. The chore is analogous to a Jew attempting to remember and follow all 613 commandments of the law. To the rank and file member is almost impossible.

ok.Although is seems lazyness..

The bible, on the other hand, never changes. It is always the same. It is written and quantifiable. Anyone can make a list of what it teaches. Sure, there are variations of translations but that is a product of translation and scholar disagreement. However, it is not a fault of scripture but a fault of man just as the different, sometimes polar opposite, interpretations and recordings (or lack there of) of "T"raditions are the fault of man. Man can not not err. It is our nature since we are not perfect nor are we going to be perfect until we stand with God in Heaven. Holding "T"raditions that are inherently human as coauthoritative with scriptures with are inherently divine is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow and can not follow given the inherent nature comparison of both.

But the Bible as a document is not to be used as an only "measure" to dogma or replacing it. It is a gathered account of witness that we humans have about God. It is a "matryria" of certain people like Paul about God * it is even mentioned by Paul* . I think in placing the fault of man about different intereprations is a bit too much I would say that the better way to do theology would be to have a "synodical" body to interpret and use the scripture as a "measure" of Truth would be a better approach. Traditions is "dogma" expressed in councils. Allowing the Holy Spirit guiding the Chruch in the right dogma has been the way of the Fathers. The first council being described in the Acts. So the norm was established pretty early in the Apostolic times. There is no co-authority as there cannot be. The starting point is diferent here that scripture can establish authority, it just cannot as like you admited before it is both "oral" and "written" so both have to be present. Any time we talk about the 'written" logos (word) we establish a different norm. We blend the written with the oral word of the scripture in that "blending" someone or something has to have "timeless" essence and becasue the written word cannot ONLY do that it needs both the oral and the "decisions" of the councils that have already established the faith. All these (oral and written word) plus the trad. of the councils are what move the church in the future from its present time.

 

[heymikey80]

BTW all the quotes for St. C and ST. B are all quotes from pastoral letters so of course he would encourage his faithful to follow the scriptures. They were not teaching dogma or theology but were pastoral writings Just viewing them one can realize this no need to be a theologian indeed.

Would it then be safe to conclude that a church father addressing the entire church need not conform to the doctrines committed once for all to the saints, nor commend the same to them? That is a far leap from what the Apostles said & did.

 

[Philothei]

Applying the consistency test to this question: How can Calvin have believed in SS while he agreed with the councils?

Hm, the consistency test does not appear to apply very well, here. Could you clarify what you mean?

Is Calvin's theology more authorittative than the scripture? if that is so then he uses his theology in explaining the scripture really...

Hm. I thought that you guys considered the ECFs to have some authority. But ah, well, I guess there's merit in sola scriptura anyway.

ECFs? nah... they have input and opinion that can agree with the dogma if they do not they just do not! We won't burn them to the stick either never did with Origen. We just declare their writings heretical if they disagree with the dogmatic truths of the decisions of the councils. Even the councils can become "fallable" the vivid example is the iconoclastic contraversy and the Victory of Orthodoxy. one council was "cancelled" to give way to the next.

And the whole idea of using historical traces of tradition is not in opposition to Scripture, because Scripture is not pervasively imposing. The question is one of ultimate authority. It is not a question of completely uniform practice.

I never said it is ... Tradition always agree with the scripture and vice versa. Doctrine has to be agreeing with Scripture.

It always seems to be an error of the opposition to consider their opposition 180-degree opposed.

Well, "go ahead and tell us WHERE you see the aforementioned Reformers deny Tradition. They just do not."

Once again, the mistake is assigning it "solo" in the aberrant characterization of the opposition, instead of acquiring the prior information about "sola scriptura" as the sole infallible authority in matters of faith & practice.

If SS rists do not deny Tradition then they should be agreeing with all the councils and their decisions ah...I do not think they do. You cannot say I accept also Tradition but agreeing in doing "sola scriptura" as per its name sola : only / scripture is just that. Just because it happens to overlap in certain "dogmas" with the Tradition that does not mean it is the same as.
Shall we name a few? Ever Virginity comes to mind. Calvin accepted it as true but today's SS would not. Calvin did not consider it "essential" either so he rejected it as binding. That is NOT agreeing with the Tradition that is staying on the fence.

 

[Philothei]

Would it then be safe to conclude that a church father addressing the entire church need not conform to the doctrines committed once for all to the saints, nor commend the same to them? That is a far leap from what the Apostles said & did.

What you tell people pastorally has nothing to do with dogma perse. Saying that God is love does not necessarity mean that God is ONLY love. Paul talks about love in paradigms and analogies pastorally the same. All his letters are pastoral in nature that is the Apostolic way for sure

 

[Philothei]

Sister, It may be that you disagree with what these esteemed Orthodox Church Fathers herein wrote (doesn't surprise me). And that's noted. But they were (and are) offered as further aids to understand the practice. They seem to ME to be in harmony with what is spelled out in the opening post and in the definition of the practice as shared there.

Just read the red font quotes. Now go back and read the opening post - the definition and then "what it is" and "what it is not."

You are quoting some snipits I already anwered your post if you care to reply that is great if not posting this over and over does not establish "validity" either. Any father can say many things they are not binding. Some Christians make the same mistake in qualifying dogma and fall in error for this manner.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hey Henry nice to see you

I agree up to the point that you said that Christ used it to refute the "t" tradition holding by jewish leaders. Not sure that this is how he did it....Cause they also used the Scriptures to dispute Christ actually Christ told them to keep the spirit of the law not the letter. The oral word plus written is God's word but not ALL that God said or Christ said are in the written word or in the oral. Both are lacking and both are not enough to describe or express God fully. The ultimate authority is Christ and God; actually the Holy Trinity as it manifests itself in our human history. (hehe I talked about this in my class last week)



I agree with you that not two churches have the same tradtiion. I also can see the Bible be a "common denominator" in today's christian reality but not for the Apostolic times; as we know historically the Bibles were not so widely spread. That was after the 4th century so it is NOT a historical reality as yet. Scripture was not too well known thus they rely on oral tradition. Ah... practice is practice and doctrine is just that doctrine.

Some VERY big and critical realizations here. I am (being completely honest here)... AMAZED at times at how different the EO can RC are at times. As much a I'd LOVE (!!!) to discuss all that, you raised one very important point: "Tradition" is denominational, Scripture is ecumenical. Yes, they both need to be "interpreted" but one is us and the other is outside and above us; one is each looking at the Tradition of self, the other is all of us looking at the inscripturated black and white words of God.


The other point I find both irrelevant and largely wrong. Yes - between 1400 BC and 100 AD, the corpus of Scripture was growing. Yes - for a time, what is and is not Scripture was a matter of SOME significance (it still is in an irrelevant way - no denomination but yours alone agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture, it's just that it really doesn't matter in practice). BUT, the discussion is about NOW - not in 33,413 BC.
"the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans as WE evaluate the dogmas in dispute among US." How appropriate you may have felt Jesus was in using this 2000 years ago is irrelevant, we don't live 2000 years ago.

But the Bible as a document is not to be used as an only "measure" to dogma or replacing it. It is a gathered account of witness that we humans have about God.

Understood. But if we add "Tradition" - you already supplied one problem: whose? Every denomination answers: "MINE! As I alone currently interpret my alone!" It ends up with self looking in the mirror at self and then shouting, "Gee, I think I look like me!" (And probably does, lol). The other problem is more complex. If such is norma normans, then it is EQUAL and INSEPARABLE and UNITED with Scripture (since there is no "ranking"), both equally "true" if you will. Thus, it MUST be true that they are in full agreement (if only by implication) since truth can't be different than truth. Ergo, whatever is in Tradition (remember the problem you mentioned) MUST be present in Scripture since truth = truth and because these TWO rules must form ONE rule/canon/norma normans, "one stream" as the RCC puts it. All it does is means that Scripture is mandated to agree with that denomination's current interpretation of whatever that denomination regards as "tradition" since such is "Truth." To make ANYTHING equal, inseparable and united with Scripture as THE norma normans simply makes Scripture irrelevant because the other always is seen as more complete, more clear, more to the point - and since it's True, God MUST teach the same (however invisably). Oh how my Catholic (and later Mormon) teachers went to SUCH lengths to stress me to me....

Now, IF, my full and unseparated sister, IF you are trying to say, "Scripture is primary, but there are some things UNDER that that help us understand it" - that's not such a problem (depends!). As many have pointed out to you, Sola Scriptura is not "SOLO Scriptura." As we go to the NEXT STEP - arbitration - there may be many things "on the table" - but they would be UNDER Scripture, they would not be norma normans. Tradition would not tell us the view (and then Scripture "read" so as to affirm it), Scripture would tell us the view (and then Tradition help us in hermeneutics and arbitration regarding the black and white words on the page).



Your passionate rejection of what your Orthodox Church Fathers wrote suggests to ME that you don't accept Scripture as the Rule but desire something else in that role (if you accept that role at all). YES - I realize you strongly disagree with what all those Orthodox Church Fathers wrote in these quotes. POINT NOTED AND UNDERSTOOD (and frankly, expected). And yes - it strongly suggests to me you don't regard Scripture as normative or you would be agreeing, not so passionately objecting - to what these Saints wrote.





.


.

 

[Philothei]

Some VERY big and critical realizations here. I am (being completely honest here)... AMAZED at times at how different the EO can RC are at times. As much a I'd LOVE (!!!) to discuss all that, you raised one very important point: "Tradition" is denominational, Scripture is ecumenical. Yes, they both need to be "interpreted" but one is us and the other is outside and above us; one is each looking at the Tradition of self, the other is all of us looking at the inscripturated black and white words of God.

What is "us" ? Naw... It is not the scripture is not black and white. Look we do not even agree on a translation... never mind interpretation that is the beef of the argument.

The other point I find both irrelevant and largely wrong. Yes - between 1400 BC and 100 AD, the corpus of Scripture was growing. Yes - for a time, what is and is not Scripture was a matter of SOME significance (it still is in an irrelevant way - no denomination but yours alone agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture, it's just that it really doesn't matter in practice). BUT, the discussion is about NOW - not in 33,413 BC.
"the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans as WE evaluate the dogmas in dispute among US." How appropriate you may have felt Jesus was in using this 2000 years ago is irrelevant, we don't live 2000 years ago.

you find it wrong yet you agreed! ok. Wrong again what scripture is most denominations have almost the same canon with slightly bigger or smaller canon that does not necessarily make it a tremendous difference. I thought you maintained that SS always existed not you say "now" ???
The Apostolic Tradition does not justify SS so the tradition is of 200 years old? How this establishes an old tradition? You seem to change the guideposts again I am afraid.

Understood. But if we add "Tradition" - you already supplied one problem: whose? Every denomination answers: "MINE! As I alone currently interpret my alone!" It ends up with self looking in the mirror at self and then shouting, "Gee, I think I look like me!" (And probably does, lol). The other problem is more complex. If such is norma normans, then it is EQUAL and INSEPARABLE and UNITED with Scripture (since there is no "ranking"), both equally "true" if you will. Thus, it MUST be true that they are in full agreement (if only by implication) since truth can't be different than truth. Ergo, whatever is in Tradition (remember the problem you mentioned) MUST be present in Scripture since truth = truth and because these TWO rules must form ONE rule/canon/norma normans, "one stream" as the RCC puts it. All it does is means that Scripture is mandated to agree with that denomination's current interpretation of whatever that denomination regards as "tradition" since such is "Truth." To make ANYTHING equal, inseparable and united with Scripture as THE norma normans simply makes Scripture irrelevant because the other always is seen as more complete, more clear, more to the point - and since it's True, God MUST teach the same (however invisably). Oh how my Catholic (and later Mormon) teachers went to SUCH lengths to stress me to me....

It was the church 'tranlating" the scripture; it was the church interpreting it also. Period.

Now, IF, my full and unseparated sister, IF you are trying to say, "Scripture is primary, but there are some things UNDER that that help us understand it" - that's not such a problem (depends!). As many have pointed out to you, Sola Scriptura is not "SOLO Scriptura." As we go to the NEXT STEP - arbitration - there may be many things "on the table" - but they would be UNDER Scripture, they would not be norma normans. Tradition would not tell us the view (and then Scripture "read" so as to affirm it), Scripture would tell us the view (and then Tradition help us in hermeneutics and arbitration regarding the black and white words on the page).

Just read the red part it is an antinomy is it not?

if one says sola scriptura then that is what is meant. If you use Tradition arbitrarily then again any type of 'tradition" would do but how this remains true throught history ? How is Apostolic Tradition safeguarded? Plenty examples where the idea of SS is not only enough but hardly holds any water at all esp. in moral issues. If Apostolic Tradition is "under" scripture then it would remain somehow irrelevant to the Scripture in our times that you already have admited that it does not relate. So in a sense the SS clause indeed surpasses all previous tradition but the tradtiion of the current Christian culture as of our times based on situational ethics.

Your passionate rejection of what your Orthodox Church Fathers wrote suggests to ME that you don't accept Scripture as the Rule but desire something else in that role (if you accept that role at all). YES - I realize you strongly disagree with what all those Orthodox Church Fathers wrote in these quotes. POINT NOTED AND UNDERSTOOD (and frankly, expected). And yes - it strongly suggests to me you don't regard Scripture as normative or you would be agreeing, not so passionately objecting - to what these Saints wrote.

I am not rejecting what the Fathers say I am rejecting your implication on what you bring forth. This is not right to accuse others on not believing your implication and alegation of what the Fathers are saying you are taking their writings and you add your interpretation . I just deny to see a pastoral letter into a theological treatise that is all. You keep repeating yourself in this and putting words into my mouth. I do not disect the writings either of the Bible or the Fathers to prove my point. I do not have to as the Church speaks loud enough through its dogma. For the ones who rely solemely on Scripture I can see bringing in anything else to support their view I do not need to do this.

I think you object to the saints when they do not support your view i.e. about tradition just the same

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is "us" ? Naw... It is not the scripture is not black and white. Look we do not even agree on a translation... never mind interpretation that is the beef of the argument.

Read the opening post, especially the section: "what it is NOT."

Yes, the words of Scripture are all words, all of them. Black letters forming knowable words on a white page. Pretty objective, pretty knowable.

Wrong again what scripture is most denominations have almost the same canon with slightly bigger or smaller canon that does not necessarily make it a tremendous difference.

If the Catholics around here are right and there are 50,000 denominations, then 49,996 have exactly the same books. The other 4 denominations each have a unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture, none of them agreeing with any but itself exclusively - principally the OOC (several different embraces actually), the EOC, the RCC and the LDS. Only in the case of the LDS does it make any difference.

I thought you maintained that SS always existed not you say "now" ?

You're wrong. I did not.


It's irrelevant what may or may not have been used in 13,456 BC or in 5 BC or even in 200 AD. The year in 2011. Read the opening post. Read the definition. It says "US", not "them." It is all CURRENT, PRESENT tense - it says nothing about what Abraham should have used for this specific purpose.

It was the church 'tranlating" the scripture; it was the church interpreting it also. Period.

Let's return to the topic of this thread, okay?

How is Apostolic Tradition safeguarded?

It depends on whether truth matters, what is embraced as the norma normans, and what happens in arbitration. But let's get back to the issue of this thread.

If Apostolic Tradition is "under" scripture then it would remain somehow irrelevant to the Scripture in our times that you already have admited that it does not relate.

1. Whose Apostolic Tradition? The LDS's? The OOC's? The RCC's? You seem to be under the impression there's some objective book out there, one we all can find at the library or our favorite bookstore, entitled, "Apostolic Tradition."


2. It's it's true, then it has nothing to worry about. Unless you think that what a denomination says some Apostle said (but has ZERO evidence of such) is MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE true than is God's Scripture.

I am not rejecting what the Fathers say

Ah, that does surprise me. If you don't reject, does that mean you accept what these Orthodox Church Fathers herein state?

< staff edit > < staff edit >

If you don't reject what these Orthodox Church Fathers herein state, do you therefore agree with them?







.

 

[Philothei]

Everything asked is either irrelevant or the "copied and pasted" posts did you notice that? We are not getting anywhere if we become circular like this can we?

 

[Thekla]

One that doesn't oppose sola scriptura in any sense I'm aware of. So you're saying Cyril was of the opinion that the prayers of the dead are an infallible teaching from the Apostles, that can't be concluded from Scripture?

I know lots of people who infer things from Scripture, but who don't hold to them as infallible doctrine. Many are sola scripturists.

What've you demonstrated? That Cyril is a lot like sola scripturists of today? Hm.

He teaches a doctrine of the intercession on our behalf of those reposed in Christ.

Indeed if this is Scriptural, then it is embraced by all who adhere to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Thekla]

I have read the presentation on the ECFs given here by Sola Scriptura adherence; the use of these quotations do not adhere to any standard of historical or textual analysis.

The sort of twisting, misrepresentation, distortion and "bullying to win" without regard for respect for the thought of those quoted, or interest in engaging in actual research to determine what is historically factual that is evidenced by those here who embrace the praxis of Sola Scriptura is the strongest recommendation against embracing the tradition of SS.

It calls every Scriptural interpretation they espouse into question, and truly suggests that the Way of Christ is not important when one has the opportunity to assert the supremacy of one's ego and win at any cost - without regard or interest in actual truth.

The behavior persistently evidenced by some SS adherents in this forum degrades the reputation of the Churches they claim affiliation to, and is certainly an affront to even the common standards of human decency.

Further, on another level, there is no interest in intellectual nor academic integrity - this sort of quote mine antic is certainly not acceptable in any institution of higher learning, a fact which should be of interest for those who so post claiming to have earned such an education.

 

[katherine2001]

He teaches a doctrine of the intercession on our behalf of those reposed in Christ.

Indeed if this is Scriptural, then it is embraced by all who adhere to Sola Scriptura.

And since those of us who do pray for the intercession of the saints often get accused of being idol worshipers, that isn't the case, is it?

 

[katherine2001]

Nm

 

[fhansen]

.



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.



I humbly request that discussions of the praxis are in accord with the definition herein offered (it's useless to argue with what is not suggested). Thank you!



Pax



- Josiah







.

So is "norming" sort of a majority vote? How does one determine what the norm is, to judge norming by? Also, what if, as in the case of Luther and Calvin, one determines that baptism is essential for salvation while the other doesn't?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So is "norming" sort of a majority vote?

This thread is about WHAT is embraced as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm used to norm) for norming.

Arbitration according to it might be in various forms; this thread is not about that since Sola Scriptura is not about that. See the opening post, the section "What It is NOT."





.

 

[heymikey80]

He teaches a doctrine of the intercession on our behalf of those reposed in Christ.

Indeed if this is Scriptural, then it is embraced by all who adhere to Sola Scriptura.

As I've pointed out, numerous people teach things that they think are Scriptural, but aren't.

Cyril makes mistakes. Clearly he either made the mistake of claiming for Scripture a position he's not giving it, or he's made the mistake of assuming a Greek version of Hades. Hm. Which would it be?

The concept however is stated by Cyril.

And since those of us who do pray for the intercession of the saints often get accused of being idol worshipers, that isn't the case, is it?

I believe that iconography that draws this charge, is it not?

 

[Philothei]

Cherry picking the Fathers does not prove the point. It just proves that some pick and chose whatever they want from Tradition.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Cherry picking the Fathers does not prove the point. It just proves that some pick and chose whatever they want from Tradition.

I understand that you disagree with what these several Orthodox Church Fathers and Saints herein wrote. That doesn't surprise me all that much. As noted, they are herein quoted only and solely to note additional definitions and descriptions (I purposely looked for them from sainted, esteemed EO Church Fathers); IMO they rather well match the definition and description in the opening post and as defined and described by Protestants. But yes - you disagree with what they wrote in these quotes, I know. Thank you for once again making that clear! It has been well noted.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.