Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

concretecamper said:

it is amusing how people try to distance themselves from this historical fact.
um, read history

Click to expand...

The PhD doesn't count, huh? And YOUR qualifications--RCIA inquirer's class?

I'm proud to say Christ founded my Church....

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps you know the saying "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." That's from the Bible.

Albion said:

The PhD doesn't count, huh?

Click to expand...

Not if someone comes to the conclusion that Henry VIII didnt found the Church of England. Raises many questions.

Albion said:

RCIA inquirer's class?

Click to expand...

never took RCIA. Taught a few classes. But they dont get into this history anyway.

BobRyan said:

"Sola scriptura" is about "testing" all doctrine - it is not an argument for "there is no useful information outside of scripture".
But all tested by scripture so it is in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" we see both the usefulness of "things spoken by Paul" an apostle of the first order - of the first century -- and also the "testing of it" that is "sola scriptura".

Click to expand...

BBAS 64 said:

No one here has stated that the church has no authority.
Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.
Even the church is under the infallible authority of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Thanks to both of you, defining Sola Scriptura this way does help. I was avoiding defending Sola Scriptura recently with the straw man argument to me that is not my position, but I agree the Bible has precedence for us when will see its authority as God's word for us, it certainly does not exclude communion through Christ with God, any more than it does other ways to know things.

HatGuy said:

Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

Click to expand...

Except it's not "Sola Verba Dei" it's Sola SCRIPTURA. IMO, it's better labeled "The Rule of Scripture."

It is simply the PRACTICE (it's not a doctrine) that in the evaluating of disputed doctrines, Scripture is the rule, the canon, the "norma normans" (as it's called in epistemology). It is similar to the Rule of Law in civil disputes. In all disputes, it is helpful to have a common, objective rule/canon/norm to which all conflicted parties will submit and agree is authoritative in this matter.

THAT'S ALL "Sola Scriptura" is. That's it, that's all. SCRIPTURE serves as such as we evaluate disputed dogmas. The Rule of Scripture is not the dogma of what is and is not Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law is a dogma about what is and is not the Law. The Rule of Scripture is not arbitration any more than the Rule of Law is arbitration. The Rule of Scripture is not interpretation anymore than the Rule of Law is interpretation. It is simply, only, the PRACTICE of looking to the words of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans when evaluating disputed dogmas among us.

Your alternative of looking to Jesus is impossible since there is no objective statement of what JESUS holds about any disputed dogma among us, the only objective record we have about the views of Jesus are found in 4 books - all of which are in Scripture. All you're doing is eliminating everything in the Bible except for the red words in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; you are simply embracing a much smaller canon/rule but one within Scripture and thus just a subset of Sola Scriptura.


SEE THE NEXT POST...


- Josiah




.




.

A Lutheran response....


"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, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). One can argue and claim that "Sola Scriptura" is the preference of fish tacos over hamburgers, but that is not the historic or official meaning.




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 the black-and-white words in Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for US to USE 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." Nor a teaching on what is and is not Scripture. 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. It is NOT the practice that MY feeling about what God SHOULD have stated in Scripture as I myself currently interpret things is the rule and norm. It subjects all the various feelings about things to the words of Scripture. Sola Scriptura does NOT employ invisible words.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon) is often needed. But 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.

READ THIS: Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? DOES IT MATTER? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely, completely irrelevant, then, nope, truth doesn't matter and we can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). OR we can consider that of the over 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong (about this matter, anyway) - and that ONE is Bob the Builder (claims ONE - Bob the Builder). IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims then 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? Understand???

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 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 (page 136), "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 persons and denominations and cults so passionately reject this practice?


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 in dispute (person, church, denomination, etc) rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of himself, herself, itself alone. Those that hold that SELF is that infallible Authority or that SELF is outside accountability will reject Sola Scriptura, NOT because they reject Scripture but because they reject accountability to anything outside of self. The alternative to the Rule of Scripture is typically the Rule of Self.

Others simply hold that THEIR current, personal "interpretation" of Scripture is above Scripture itself. Their interpretation "trumps" Scripture. Thus, if one argues that "in" means "out" then the reality that Scripture says "in" becomes irrelevant, what SELF currently says is MEANT superceedes what is stated. Self becomes the norma normans.


I hope that helps.



- Josiah

NOTE: I'm active at a different site and RARELY post here so I likely will not continue participating in this thread but some like BBAS 64 and Albion both know this is one of many topics that I've studied (they also know where I post these days)




.

@CaliforniaJosiah

The gravity of religious matters (100 billion souls at stake) allows no margin for error. Yet Sola Scriptura affords no possiblity of infallible conclusions due to the fallible and non-objective nature of human cognition. It is completely inane for the church to prioritize movement in a direction guaranteed to fail.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

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.

Click to expand...

But we do have an alternative. Paul authored Scripture in virtue of an infallible insight known as inspiration (Direct Revelation). This is the known alternative, self-evidently indicative of our proper priorities. Note how Paul prioritized the pursuit of Direct Revelation:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially the gift of prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

Such is what a spiritual man prioritizes - anything less is unspiritual, by Paul's own assessment. And I don't need Paul tell to tell me that. I don't even need to know whether the true religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaisim, or some other. All I need to know is that there are 100 billion souls at stake - leaving no margin for error, ergo the primacy of Direct Revelation and the foolishness of any less pursuit. This is precisely why Paul classified the Galatians as fools. They had regressed to the Rule of Law!

Accordingly I have several posts and threads rebutting Sola Scriptura, for example a 16-point rebuttal here. Or the 10 point rebuttal here.

I know, you'll claim that Direct Revelation provides no norming - that's because you don't know how it works. It works like this.
(1) God speaks to the prophet Moses a message such as, "Go slaughter seven nations to lay hold of Canaan."
(2) Moses relays the message to the people.
(3) The Spirit convicts (convinces) them that the message is true.

In fact, the Spirit convicted YOU, for example, that Paul's message is true. Therefore all of us just need MORE of His convicting work (more Direct Revelation) to reach doctrinal unity in the church. Simple as that.

But hey - it's up to you. If you want to continue down the path of guaranteed failure, it's your prerogative. Nothing I can do about it.

JAL said:

@CaliforniaJosiah

The gravity of religious matters (100 billion souls at stake) allows no margin for error. Yet Sola Scriptura affords no possiblity of infallible conclusions due to the fallible and non-objective nature of human cognition. It is completely inane for the church to prioritize movement in a direction guaranteed to fail.

Click to expand...

See post 165.

The Rule of Scripture cannot fail (unless you hold that Scripture errs) but of course, the arbitration according to it can since it is humans that do the arbitration and they can and do err. But Sola Scriptura doesn't concern the arbitration, it concerns the Rule.

I hold that potentially wrong arbitration according to a PERFECT and objective/knowable rule is better than potentially wrong arbitration according to a subjective/unknowable/potentially wrong rule

the primacy of Direct Revelation and the foolishness of any less pursuit.

Click to expand...

Ah.... I see.... so because Joseph Smith claimed to have direct revelation from God, that "trumps" Scripture and Joseph Smith simply must be right because he himself claimed he had this direct revelation.... All you have then as a rule is who can claim the loudest the HE/SHE has special, direct revelation from God.

I can give you the url of a site of a woman who gets these special direct revelations all the time (almost daily) and posts them on her website. Amazing you'd think this all trumps the Bible.... is a better rule than Scripture.

Accordingly I have several posts and threads rebutting Sola Scriptura

Click to expand...

There is only one 'rebuttal' that would be relevant: Something MORE objective and knowable to all parties in dispute than the black and white words on the pages of the Bible, and also something all Christian parties in dispute will accept as authoritative MORE than the words of Scripture. So, just tell us WHAT is more universally knowable and objective than the black-and-white words of the Bible.... something that MORE Christians accept as authoritative than Scripture. Would that be you? Some facebook page? Some lady with a website who claims Jesus talks to her daily and has amazing direct revelations posted there? Is it better to have 6 parties in dispute over a dogma, each holding that the Rule is the ONE each of them sees in the mirror cuz each one FEELS God lead them (uniquely) to that view? Have you studied any of the cults?






.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

The Rule cannot fail (unless you hold that Scripture errs) but of course, the arbitration according to it can since it is humans that do the arbitration and they can and do err. But Sola Scriptura doens't concern the arbitration, it concerns the Rule.

....
I'll look and see if I can find your "10 rebuttals" but I have yet to see any rebuttal - just misunderstands of Sola Scripture and GREAT efforts to evade the whole topic of WHAT are the various parties in dispute to use as the norm? WHAT is the alterantive? Usually, they just say "ME - whatever I think/feel/opinion is just correct so there."




.

Click to expand...

Paul would recommend blinders.

HatGuy said:

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be me. For starters, nobody seems to know how to define it. For those tempted to set me straight on this, know that your fellow Protestants might correct you on what the term means. Who is right? You or the other guy?

For seconders tho, it's a completely incoherent system. One must use non-scriptural authority to even determine what scripture is. Humanly speaking, men had to write Sacred Scripture and then they had to collect all known Sacred Scripture together into a single volume called the Bible. We depend on their authority to this very day. Because it's not like there's a divinely revealed table of contents. So, "sola scriptura" is flawed at the foundational level.

Third, Sacred Scripture demonstrably does not lead to unity (unless we redefine what "unity" means and looks like, which Protestants are absolutely willing to do). The tendency toward private interpretation has led to these Christian communities to corporate divisions, doctrinal disagreement and even alienation from one another. The result is that there's no single point of doctrine upon which all Protestant communities agree. I can believe many things but I cannot convince myself that God is so supremely unconcerned about doctrine that He doesn't care what Protestants believe so long as they believe something.

Fourth, "sola scriptura" is an ahistorical doctrine that Early Church Fathers implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) rejected.

In the final analysis, and with respect to Protestants, "sola scriptura" is unworkable, a logical dead-end that breeds confusion, disunity and wrong doctrine.

thecolorsblend said:

Yeah, that would be me. For starters, nobody seems to know how to define it. For those tempted to set me straight on this, know that your fellow Protestants might correct you on what the term means. Who is right? You or the other guy?

Click to expand...

First, "fellow Protestants" doesn't describe one's kissing cousins any more than referring to fellow Christians or fellow Bible believers would.

In other words, that way of speaking is no more accurate than if I were to object to some Roman Catholic doctrine and say "but your fellow Catholics"--Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, SSPX, Polish National Catholics, etc.

For seconders tho, it's a completely incoherent system. One must use non-scriptural authority to even determine what scripture is. Humanly speaking, men had to write Sacred Scripture...

Click to expand...

A totally invalid perspective. If we have to search and examine...and then we find the truth...it's the truthfulness of what we've found that determine its validity, not that we had to look for it! If you find the cure for cancer, you don't say "Look here; it prevents the disease...but alas, because I had to do research in order to find the vaccine, it will not work."

And, once again, the alternate authority that the Roman Catholic Church offers--Holy Tradition--is just as human in origin. In fact, it is acknowledged by the church to be something produced by humans whereas the Bible, for whoever accepts it, testifies to being the revealed word of God himself.

thecolorsblend said:

Yeah, that would be me. For starters, nobody seems to know how to define it. For those tempted to set me straight on this, know that your fellow Protestants might correct you on what the term means. Who is right? You or the other guy?

For seconders tho, it's a completely incoherent system. One must use non-scriptural authority to even determine what scripture is. Humanly speaking, men had to write Sacred Scripture and then they had to collect all known Sacred Scripture together into a single volume called the Bible. We depend on their authority to this very day. Because it's not like there's a divinely revealed table of contents. So, "sola scriptura" is flawed at the foundational level.

Third, Sacred Scripture demonstrably does not lead to unity (unless we redefine what "unity" means and looks like, which Protestants are absolutely willing to do). The tendency toward private interpretation has led to these Christian communities to corporate divisions, doctrinal disagreement and even alienation from one another. The result is that there's no single point of doctrine upon which all Protestant communities agree. I can believe many things but I cannot convince myself that God is so supremely unconcerned about doctrine that He doesn't care what Protestants believe so long as they believe something.

Fourth, "sola scriptura" is an ahistorical doctrine that Early Church Fathers implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) rejected.

In the final analysis, and with respect to Protestants, "sola scriptura" is unworkable, a logical dead-end that breeds confusion, disunity and wrong doctrine.

Click to expand...

No, clergy that keeps redefining itself and its doctrine via human teachings is unworkable. The Bible is the sole source of the truth. Period.

pescador said:

No, clergy that keeps redefining itself and its doctrine via human teachings is unworkable. The Bible is the sole source of the truth. Period.

Click to expand...

thecolorsblend said:

Yeah, that would be me. For starters, nobody seems to know how to define it. For those tempted to set me straight on this, know that your fellow Protestants might correct you on what the term means. Who is right? You or the other guy?

For seconders tho, it's a completely incoherent system. One must use non-scriptural authority to even determine what scripture is. Humanly speaking, men had to write Sacred Scripture and then they had to collect all known Sacred Scripture together into a single volume called the Bible. We depend on their authority to this very day. Because it's not like there's a divinely revealed table of contents. So, "sola scriptura" is flawed at the foundational level.

Third, Sacred Scripture demonstrably does not lead to unity (unless we redefine what "unity" means and looks like, which Protestants are absolutely willing to do). The tendency toward private interpretation has led to these Christian communities to corporate divisions, doctrinal disagreement and even alienation from one another. The result is that there's no single point of doctrine upon which all Protestant communities agree. I can believe many things but I cannot convince myself that God is so supremely unconcerned about doctrine that He doesn't care what Protestants believe so long as they believe something.

Fourth, "sola scriptura" is an ahistorical doctrine that Early Church Fathers implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) rejected.

In the final analysis, and with respect to Protestants, "sola scriptura" is unworkable, a logical dead-end that breeds confusion, disunity and wrong doctrine.

Click to expand...

Good Day,

Just in case you missed it.....


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

Pretty simple you should be able to remember that. I know full well as a member of the Roman Church you can not affirm it... To Err is human.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day,

Just in case you missed it.....


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

Pretty simple you should be able to remember that. I know full well as a member of the Roman Church you can not affirm it... To Err is human.

In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

BBAS 64 said:

Just in case you missed it.....

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Click to expand...

This is a straw man. You're arguing against a point I didn't make.

Originally, I wrote "Golly, you're not off to a great start here" but then I realized that you copied that section of your post from Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? – Alpha and Omega Ministries and, I guess, you forgot to cite your source.

That's not a criticism, you understand. Point is tho that the copyrighted page from which you took the bulk of your post uses arguments and point that really don't apply to my post. The problem with doing that whole Copy + Paste Commando bit is when your source is well-written but not applicable. And in this case, it's not applicable. Not to my post anyway.

Maybe you can find some other source or website to copy from to more specifically address my post?

BBAS 64 said:

Pretty simple you should be able to remember that. I know full well as a member of the Roman Church you can not affirm it... To Err is human.

Click to expand...

Golly, copypasta in the main part of your post and some passive-aggression at the end of it. I'm impressed!

BBAS 64 said:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church

Click to expand...

and if you could get 100 protestant ministers to agree on what the bible teaches, your post may begin to go somewhere. I'd even venture to say get 5 protestant ministers to agree. The definition you supply fails becasue you are relying on the authority of the individual. It all depends on "I".

Albion said:

"but your fellow Catholics"--Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, SSPX, Polish National Catholics, etc

Click to expand...

nice try, none of which is in communion with Rome. Simple old non PHD knowledge

On the other hand, @thecolorsblend made some excellent points, which you didnt address. I wonder why?

Albion said:

"Look here; it prevents the disease...but alas, because I had to do research in order to find the vaccine, it will not work."

Click to expand...

What do you think the Early Church did? The cure for cancer was found.

In other words, 1+1 was found to equal 2. Now protestantism is trying to say it equals something else.

concretecamper said:

nice try, none of which is in communion with Rome. Simple old non PHD knowledge

Click to expand...

Similarly, there are relatively few Protestant churches that are in communion with each other.

That, however, didn't prevent you from talking as though all were part of some close family simply simply because they are customarily classified as "Protestant."

Well, by the exact same token, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches of the East, the Old Catholic churches, the Polish National Catholic church, the SSPX, SSPV, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and others ARE ALL CLASSIFIED AS CATHOLIC.

Being in communion with each other--or not--doesn't change anything about this or about what I wrote in the previous post.

I missed this post.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

See post 165.


The Rule of Scripture cannot fail (unless you hold that Scripture errs) but of course, the arbitration according to it can since it is humans that do the arbitration and they can and do err. But Sola Scriptura doesn't concern the arbitration, it concerns the Rule.

Click to expand...

Oh lovely. A Rule guaranteed to fail on account of human fallibility is what God ordained for us because He is too negligent and irresponsible a Father, even with 100 billion of His children at stake, to ordain a paradigm that CAN work.

I hold that potentially wrong arbitration according to a PERFECT and objective/knowable rule is better than potentially wrong arbitration according to a subjective/unknowable/potentially wrong rule

Click to expand...

. Yes, now you've confirmed a ridiculous point of view. You're claiming that a system that guaranteed to fail is better than a system (1) proven to succeed in the past and (2) is by sheer logic a system offering real hope for further success.

And that's not even to mention a rather large volume of exegetical data that seems to fly in the face of the Sola Scriptura position. Nor even the internal contradictions - for example the inability for you to specify, without contradiction, what is your basis/authority for accepting the Bible as inspired? Any basis/authority specified already contradicts the idea that the Bible is the only authority. Logically speaking, Sola Scriptura is a joke (pure nonsense), as Catholics have been demonstrating for centuries.

Ah.... I see.... so because Joseph Smith claimed to have direct revelation from God, that "trumps" Scripture and Joseph Smith simply must be right because he himself claimed he had this direct revelation.... All you have then as a rule is who can claim the loudest the HE/SHE has special, direct revelation from God...I can give you the url of a site of a woman who gets these special direct revelations all the time (almost daily) and posts them on her website. Amazing you'd think this all trumps the Bible.... is a better rule than Scripture.

Click to expand...

I recently addressed this shallow objection on another thread where I already responded to you.

There is only one 'rebuttal' that would be relevant...

Click to expand...

Um...any rebuttal that exposes a contradiction is relevant, actually. For example the following rule is inviolable, tautological, because it defines righteousness and, by implication, justice (as I explained on that link) - and it is therefore authoritative (thus contradicting the Sola-Scriptura claim that exegesis alone is authoritative).

"If I feel certain that action-A is is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

But you claim that the only valid rebuttal to Sola Scriptura would be:

...Something MORE objective and knowable to all parties in dispute than the black and white words on the pages of the Bible, and also something all Christian parties in dispute will accept as authoritative MORE than the words of Scripture. So, just tell us WHAT is more universally knowable and objective than the black-and-white words of the Bible.... something that MORE Christians accept as authoritative than Scripture. Would that be you? Some facebook page? Some lady with a website who claims Jesus talks to her daily and has amazing direct revelations posted there? Is it better to have 6 parties in dispute over a dogma, each holding that the Rule is the ONE each of them sees in the mirror cuz each one FEELS God lead them (uniquely) to that view? Have you studied any of the cults?

Click to expand...

This post of yours is touted by you as an adequate response to my post to you - a post where I predicted that you'd respond by insinuating that Direct Revelation doesn't provide norming, which sums up all these allegations of yours - and conveniently ignores the example of norming provided in my post! How convenient for you - and yet how telling. It's akin to the plea, "I'm already convinced of my view so don't confuse me with the facts!"

As I clearly implied in that earlier post, Direct Revelation is the only system that can provide a norming that actually works. The truth is, you don't WANT to see how this system can succeed, where others are doomed to fail, because it contradicts your assumptions. That's why you ignored my clear example. Here's a second example, a bit humorous.

You're driving down an icy road. The tires slip, and you're about to head over an embankment. God shouts to an angel, "Go save that guy!". Angel says to himself, "I don't trust in Direct Revelation. I'm not 100% sure that was God's voice. I better take some time to 'check it out with Scripture' That's the only reliable authority."

Obviously, your system CANNOT WORK in real life.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

See post 165.

Click to expand...

Um...Even my first response to you was already leveraged as an explicit rebuttal of post 165.