Sola Scriptura and it's purpose

racer · Mar 16, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
You continue to confuse hermeneutics with norming.
Sola Scriptura is not a principle of hermeneutics, it is the norm for the teachings drawn from hermeneutics.

And the "must be interpretred" is also true in the RCC.
People who are registered in congregations associated with that denomination interpret just as such as any other people.

Let's say the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
Posted. Written.
The law says we are not to exceed the posted speed limited.
Posted. Written.
You are going 45 miles per hour.
A policeman stops you.
He says you were going 45 and exceeding the speed limit.

I have a hunch you will direct him both to the sign (written!!) and to the law (written!) and will suddenly change your epistemology to say the interpreter (the policeman) is accountable to the law - and can't just conclude that his interpretation is the norm for his interpretation.

MY $0.01...

Pax.

- Josiah

.

lionroar0 · Mar 16, 2006

I have a hunch you will direct him both to the sign (written!!) and to the law (written!) and will suddenly change your epistemology to say the interpreter (the policeman) is accountable to the law - and can't just conclude that his interpretation is the norm for his interpretation.

Click to expand...

Now if only the Bible would work like that.....Everyone would agree.

Peace

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 16, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Let's say the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour.

Click to expand...

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Posted. Written.
The law says we are not to exceed the posted speed limited.
Posted. Written.
You are going 45 miles per hour.
A policeman stops you.
He says you were going 45 and exceeding the speed limit.

I have a hunch you will direct him both to the sign (written!!) and to the law (written!!) and will suddenly change your epistemology to say the interpreter (the policeman) is accountable to the law - and can't just conclude that his interpretation is the norm for his interpretation.

Click to expand...

To which was responded...

lionroar0 said:
Now if only the Bible would work like that.

It requires that we embrace it as our norma normans. Some don't. Some are defending passionately that nothing written can be used as a norm and that, instead, an individual person, congregation or denomination is the norma nomans for themselves.

MY $0.01...

Pax.

- Josiah

.

A. believer · Mar 16, 2006

lionroar0 said:
What is the goal, purpose of Sola Scriptura?

Peace

I'm not sure what you mean by the purpose. Sola Scriptura is not a means to an specific outcome.

Trento · Mar 16, 2006

racer said:
Maybe, but a person or institution does not become an authoritative interpreter based upon their own claim to such authority. It has to be established by God. Sadly, you nor any of your fellow believers have presented us with this substantiation of the authority you claim for your faith.

The bible has established this interpretive authority.

In the Old Testament, the name "man of God" occurs more than sixty times and consistently refers to those who receive direct revelation from God. For example:

Deuteronomy 33:1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
1Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, "Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth."
2Kings 5:8 But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, he sent to the king
Nehemiah 12:24 ...give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God

In the New Testament, the term "man of God" or "men of God" occurs only three times. When used in 2Peter 1:21 (KJV/NKJ), the same "private interpretation" , it refers to prophets and thus repeats the Old Testament usage. Then Paul used the name "man of God" in reference to apostle Timothy: "as for you, man of God, aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness" (1st Tim 6:11). Given this overall biblical pattern, "man of God" is an exclusive name designating those of highest authority - it does not refer to each and every believer. Therefore the third and final reference to "man of God" in the New Testament, again found in Paul's letter to apostle Timothy, is significant:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I charge you [apostle Timothy] in the presence of God...preach the word, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching...discharge all the duties of your ministry (2nd Timothy 3:16-4:5).

<B>Since the bible places apostles at the center of biblical interpretation, applies the name "man of God" in an exclusive fashion, and indeed calls apostle Timothy a "man of God" (1st Tim 6:11) - the weight of evidence indicates that "man of God" above refers to apostles. Certainly had Paul intended to reference all Christians in 2nd Timothy 3:17, then saying instead "...that the saints may be complete..." would have properly made the point by harmonizing with the sixty plus uses of the common word "saint" or "saints" in the New Testament. Yet Paul chose the rare and exclusive term. And indeed the underlined words above show the connection to the formal work of a minister.
So, though we and our spiritual leaders are all the same in respect to salvation (Gal 3:26-28, 1st Corinthians 12:12-13), what we've learned is that we are very different in respect to spiritual office, ministry, and authority. As it is written:

1st Cor 12:13 By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, yet...
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
19 If all were a single organ, where would the body be?
20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body...
28 God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

St. Paul is saying that everyone cannot interpret

As another example of our different roles, consider the "anointing of the sick" which is a ministry given to elders (aka "prophets") rather than all the saints:
James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
</B>

Brent A.

lionroar0 · Mar 16, 2006

It requires that we embrace it as our norma normans. Some don't. Some are defending passionately that nothing written can be used as a norm and that, instead, an individual person, congregation or denomination is the norma nomans for themselves.

Something that is written has to be read. Something that is being read has to be intepreted by the reader(s)

Do you disagree?

Peace

racer · Mar 16, 2006

Trento said:
The bible has established this interpretive authority.

In the Old Testament, the name "man of God" occurs more than sixty times and consistently refers to those who receive direct revelation from God. For example:

Deuteronomy 33:1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.

1Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, "Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth."

2Kings 5:8 But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, he sent to the king

Nehemiah 12:24 ...give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God

In the New Testament, the term "man of God" or "men of God" occurs only three times. When used in 2Peter 1:21 (KJV/NKJ), the same "private interpretation" , it refers to prophets and thus repeats the Old Testament usage. Then Paul used the name "man of God" in reference to apostle Timothy: "as for you, man of God, aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness" (1st Tim 6:11). Given this overall biblical pattern, "man of God" is an exclusive name designating those of highest authority - it does not refer to each and every believer. Therefore the third and final reference to "man of God" in the New Testament, again found in Paul's letter to apostle Timothy, is significant:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I charge you [apostle Timothy] in the presence of God...preach the word, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching...discharge all the duties of your ministry (2nd Timothy 3:16-4:5).

<B>Since the bible places apostles at the center of biblical interpretation, applies the name "man of God" in an exclusive fashion, and indeed calls apostle Timothy a "man of God" (1st Tim 6:11) - the weight of evidence indicates that "man of God" above refers to apostles. Certainly had Paul intended to reference all Christians in 2nd Timothy 3:17, then saying instead "...that the saints may be complete..." would have properly made the point by harmonizing with the sixty plus uses of the common word "saint" or "saints" in the New Testament. Yet Paul chose the rare and exclusive term. And indeed the underlined words above show the connection to the formal work of a minister.
So, though we and our spiritual leaders are all the same in respect to salvation (Gal 3:26-28, 1st Corinthians 12:12-13), what we've learned is that we are very different in respect to spiritual office, ministry, and authority. As it is written:

1st Cor 12:13 By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, yet...
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
19 If all were a single organ, where would the body be?
20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body...
28 God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

St. Paul is saying that everyone cannot interpret

As another example of our different roles, consider the "anointing of the sick" which is a ministry given to elders (aka "prophets") rather than all the saints:
James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
</B>

Brent A.

So, the authority of your Church is established in Scripture?

lionroar0 · Mar 16, 2006

A. believer said:
I'm not sure what you mean by the purpose. Sola Scriptura is not a means to an specific outcome.

I take it has more then one purpose, goal?

Peace

Ethan_Fetch · Mar 16, 2006

The "purpose" of Sola Scriptura is to limit authority in the Church to the Word of God and to doctrines either explicitly stated in Scripture or necessarily inferred therefrom.

racer · Mar 16, 2006

racer said:
So, the authority of your Church is established in Scripture?

Bryan,

Don't you see that if this is so, that the Bible establishes this proclaimed authority, then the ideology of Sola Scriptura only solidifies and affirms the claim?

racer · Mar 16, 2006

I posted this in the "Bible Alone . . ." thread:

I have asked numerous times and have received no answer to this question: When you submit to an authority besides Scripture, from what source do you defer when affirming or acknowledging this authority?

For instance, where does the Catholic/Orthodox Church get its authority? It had to come from God, right? So, where would you tell me to look for this affirmation? Where would I go to find God's directive to us to submit to the Church? Would you not refer me to Scripture?

So, for the authority of Holy Tradition, most likely you would direct me to:

II Thes 2:15; Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Correct?

For establishment of the interpretive authority of the Church you would direct me to:

I Tim 3:15; But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Correct?

For the Infallibility of the Pope or the Magisterium you would direct me to:

Matt 16:18; And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matt 18:18; Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Correct?

So, my question to you is: Even if your Church possesses interpretive authority, even if Holy Tradition is authoritative, or the Pope is infallible or the Magisterium is infallible, how do those facts disprove Sola Scriptura?

What you people are arguing against are the numerous cases of misinterpretation of Scripture. If you can not refute or disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you have reduced your faith to yet another interpretation of Scripture that is subject to err. And for some reason, you have a problem dealing with that reality.

lionroar0 · Mar 16, 2006

The "purpose" of Sola Scriptura is to limit authority in the Church to the Word of God and to doctrines either explicitly stated in Scripture or necessarily inferred therefrom.

Okay now we are getting somewhere. IS this the only goal or are there more?

peace

lionroar0 · Mar 16, 2006

So, my question to you is: Even if your Church possesses interpretive authority, even if Holy Tradition is authoritative, or the Pope is infallible or the Magisterium is infallible, how do those facts disprove Sola Scriptura?

I'm not going to touch on the magisterium or the Pope. I hope that is okay?

Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere with in Christianity till the reformation. Whether it's the RCC, EOC or the OO.

The ECF's did hold the Bible as an authority and authorotative but not the only and sole Authority.

Peace

racer · Mar 16, 2006

lionroar0 said:
I'm not going to touch on the magisterium or the Pope. I hope that is okay?

Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere with in Christianity till the reformation. Whether it's the RCC, EOC or the OO.

The ECF's did hold the Bible as an authority and authorotative but not the only and sole Authority.

Peace

Well, actually, you didn't answer any of my question. But, that's okay.

racer · Mar 16, 2006

lionroar0 said:
Something that is written has to be read. Something that is being read has to be intepreted by the reader(s)

Do you disagree?

Peace

So, there should be a policeman standing next to every speed limit sign interpreting how fast we can drive? Is that good enough? Or should there be one riding in our cars with us interpreting all road signs?

Trento · Mar 16, 2006

racer said:
So, the authority of your Church is established in Scripture?

The Bible is a witness of what the Church believed not a determiner of what the Church believes. The Bible like Sacred Tradition reflects the original deposit of faith. It is not the original deposit of faith.

True Apostles who are still with us are our authority.
Scripture is the inerrant word of God, whereas apostles are people who can and do err (Gal 2:11). Nevertheless, the anointing given to apostles prevents them from being ignored or preempted - lest the saints engage in "private interpretation."The result is this: Scripture holds ontological primacy; apostles hold pragmatic primacy. Neither can be separated from the other and both righteously point to each other's authority.

lets consider how to discern true apostles who we do not judge - from false apostles who we cannot tolerate (Revelation 2:2):

2nd Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, [unfortunately] you submit to it readily enough. 5 But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things. 7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you... 9 So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. 11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those ["super-apostles"] who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. (cf. Romans 16:17-18, Galatians 1:6-9).

As part of the context above, Paul says false apostles "commend themselves" and that "it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man who the Lord commends" (2Cor 10:12.18). Indeed, biblically any time the commission of a spiritual leader is expressly recorded - it is always from miracles or succession rather than self-commendation:

Moses lays hands on Joshua in succession (Numbers 27:15-20, Deuteronomy 34:8-10)
Miracles attest that Elisha succeeded Elijah (2nd Kings 2:8-15)
Aaron's appointment, after Korah's rebellion, is confirmed with a miracle (Numbers 17:1-10)
Those returning from Babylonian captivity without records of priestly descent and succession had priestly privileges suspended, such as authorative exposition (Nehemiah 8:2-8), until a known priest consulted Urim and Thummin (Ezrah 2:59-63)
Prophecy pointed to John the baptist (Malachi 4:5, Matthew 11:14) and miracles marked his conception (Luke 1:5-24)
Elders and deacons are appointed by apostles (Titus 1:5, Acts 6:3, Acts 14:20.23)
After Judas perished, Peter recounts "let another take his office" whereupon Matthias was selected for apostolic succession (Acts 1:15ff)
Paul's apostleship was designated by miracles (Acts 9, 2Cor 12:12 cf. Mark 16:17)

Thus we should likewise expect our apostles today to originate in miracles or succession, and our elders in turn to be appointed by apostles. In contrast, those who instead "commend themselves" by credentials of education or trying merely to behave like an elder or apostle - these are not our elders or apostles. Discribing the Reformers here who commended themselves by trying to behave like an Apostle with no sucession and started a rebellion.

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 16, 2006

lionroar0 said:
I'm not going to touch on the magisterium or the Pope. I hope that is okay?

Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere with in Christianity till the reformation. Whether it's the RCC, EOC or the OO.

The ECF's did hold the Bible as an authority and authorotative but not the only and sole Authority.

1. Whose ECF? As determined by who/what? As interpreted by who/what? Did the ECF teach the infalliblity of the Pope? Did they teach that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation?

2. Sola Scriptura doesn't suggest that the Bible be the only Authority, only that it be the only norma normans.

MY $0.01...

Pax.

- Josiah

.

Maximus · Mar 16, 2006

Ethan_Fetch said:
But you still have to interpret the interpreter, so the "chaos" is just removed one step.

No.

A living interpreter can speak, answer questions, and correct mistakes in understanding.

No book can do that.

Not even the Bible.

lionroar0 · Mar 16, 2006

So, there should be a policeman standing next to every speed limit sign interpreting how fast we can drive? Is that good enough? Or should there be one riding in our cars with us interpreting all road signs?

Let's dig deeper into this analogy. Before a speed sign is put up people got the road and determine the speed limit. I assume they have tools and some sort of education to determine what is a safe speed for that road. We trust these people, who ever they are as an authority to keep us safe.

Does a policeman have to stand at each and every sign and interpret it? No this has already been done by those that came before us. The policeman merely enforces the speed limit.

Let me give you a personal experience example that cost me $500. My car insurance deductible.

I was on my way to college and I was getting off the highway and was on the off ramp. The spees limit for the off ramps is 35MPH. I was doing probaly about 50 or 60. ( no one does the speed limit on off ramps anyways)

Ahead at thee off ramp there is a choice of either going left or right. Left we have to wait for the light. Right the traffic coming of the interstate has to merge onto oncoming traffic and does not have to stop because, the mergerging lane is a whole new lane for peolpe getting off the interstate. Someone ahead of me about 5 or 6 cars slammed on their break. Had I been going the speed limit I would not have rear ended the lady in front of me.

Do I need a policeman to interpret for me that I was speeing? of course not. I knew I was speeding. I was my own authority in this instance and wham!!!

Also there's more to my story. The policewoman gave me a ticket for careless driving. She could have also given me a ticket to speeding but she did not.

She's was the authority and this is the way that she interpreted the events at the time.

Things are not as always as clear as "It is written" all of the time.

Peace

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 16, 2006

Maximus said:
A living interpreter can speak, answer questions, and correct mistakes in understanding.

No book can do that.

Not even the Bible.

What/who norms the interpreter?
Or is the interpreter correct because he just is?
If so, is the interpreter whoever interprets that he is the interpreter?

From an earlier post in this thread:

CaliforniaJosiah said:
And if there's no accountability, that's all we'll have.
He says, he says.
Heard any debates between a Catholic and a Mormon? VERY revealing...

Maybe you've heard or read some discussions like this one:

Bob: "X" is true! I say it is!

Tom: "Y" is true! I say it is!"

Bob: Who says "Y" is true?

Tom: I did, didn't you hear me? And here are some snippets of quotes from people that agree with me! And here are Scriptures that prove I'm not actually totally wrong - and they don't prove I'm wrong because I interpret that they don't! So there! Have some humility and know that I'm right, cuz I told you, I am! And who says that "X" is true?

Bob: I did, didn't you hear me? And here are some snippets of quotes from people that agree with me! And here are Scriptures that prove I'm not actually totally wrong - and they don't prove I'm wrong because I interpret that they don't! So there! Have some humility and know that I'm right, cuz I told you, I am!

If we assume that we are right cuz, well, we are, and if accountability is rejected, that's what you get. Where there is no accountability, there are no wrong answers.

Once you've heard a few conversations like this, you begin to think that maybe accountability is a good thing. Self-norming-self (Sola Ecclesia) isn't very helpful. IMO.

MY $0.01...

Pax.

- Josiah

.

Sola Scriptura and it's purpose

Contributor

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Coffee drinker

Contributor

Coffee drinker

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Coffee drinker

Coffee drinker

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Similar threads