WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.
- Thread starter LoveGodsWord
- Start date
Here's 31 Bible Verses about Traditions
Tell me, are all traditions good, are all of them bad, or are some good and some bad?
As far as I am concerned, this nonsense has lasted long enough.
Upvote
0
- Jun 5, 2017
- 22,242
- 6,634
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Posted earlier, you ignored this. According to the scriptures there is nothing wrong with traditions if they are biblical and follow the scriptures. Good traditions however are based on scripture or do not supersede or contradict the scriptures. For example good tradition is that received by the Word of God as shown in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 where as tradition that goes against scripture or leads people to break God's commandments or not follow Gods' Word we are warned against following in Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:3-13; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:6. There is nothing wrong with tradition if it is according to the scriptures. Tradition however is bad and wrong if it goes against the teachings of the scriptures and the Word of God. To me I believe Catholic teachings go against the scriptures and put tradition over the Word of God when the scriptures teach it is the Word of God that supersedes man made teachings and traditions.
Hope this is helpful.
Upvote
0
Here's another pearl for your consideration, taken from a Protestant website (emphasis mine):
Papyrus 470 predates the Council of Ephesus (431) by two centuries. This is the Third Ecumenical Council that was convened for the purpose of addressing the Nestorian controversy – Nestorius’ refusal to address Mary as “Theotokos” in the Liturgy. In other words a high view of Mary was held by Christians early on and was not the result of late development of tradition as some might claim but rooted in an ancient Christian tradition. Furthermore, the term “Theotokos” was not coined at the Council of Ephesus but was already in use for some time by early Christians.
As we read the text of this short prayer – 22 words in the original Greek – we find a number of significant ideas. One aspect is the titles given to Mary:
- “Theotokos” – the prayer addresses Mary not on a first name basis but by the formal title “Theotokos,”
- “Only blessed” – a reference to Mary’s special election by God, and
- “Only pure” – a reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity.
This was not an individual prayer but a corporate prayer – the early Christians prayed to Mary in their Sunday worship! This prayer was translated into Latin and in the Latin tradition came to be known as “Sub Tuum Praesidium.” In the Orthodox tradition this prayer is sung during the Vespers service for Great Lent and is echoed in similar prayers in the daily prayers and the Sunday Liturgy. This points to the universality of this ancient prayer. In light of the Vincentian Canon – that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all — prayer to Mary the Theotokos is a catholic or universal Christian practice.
We learn from this papyrus that when early Christians gathered for worship they addressed Mary by the title “God Bearer” recognizing her role in the mystery of the Incarnation – Christ coming down from heaven and assuming human flesh for our salvation. Further, we learn that early Christians believed in praying to the saints and asking the saints to pray on their behalf. In contrast Mary is all but ignored in Protestant worship services today; she is never addressed as “Theotokos;” and she is not asked to pray for us. It is as if Mary is taken out for display during Christmas and then the rest of the year is put away in a box until next year. An early Christian visiting contemporary Protestant worship services would likely be disconcerted if not dismayed by how little attention Christ’s Mother is given by Protestants today.
...
A good first step is to refer to Mary not just as “Mary” but also as “Theotokos” or in English “Mother of God” or “God Bearer.”
Taken from An Early Christian Prayer to Mary
Upvote
0
- Jun 5, 2017
- 22,242
- 6,634
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Here's another pearl for your consideration, taken from a Protestant website (emphasis mine):
Papyrus 470 predates the Council of Ephesus (431) by two centuries. This is the Third Ecumenical Council that was convened for the purpose of addressing the Nestorian controversy – Nestorius’ refusal to address Mary as “Theotokos” in the Liturgy. In other words a high view of Mary was held by Christians early on and was not the result of late development of tradition as some might claim but rooted in an ancient Christian tradition. Furthermore, the term “Theotokos” was not coined at the Council of Ephesus but was already in use for some time by early Christians.
As we read the text of this short prayer – 22 words in the original Greek – we find a number of significant ideas. One aspect is the titles given to Mary:
- “Theotokos” – the prayer addresses Mary not on a first name basis but by the formal title “Theotokos,”
- “Only blessed” – a reference to Mary’s special election by God, and
- “Only pure” – a reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity.
This was not an individual prayer but a corporate prayer – the early Christians prayed to Mary in their Sunday worship! This prayer was translated into Latin and in the Latin tradition came to be known as “Sub Tuum Praesidium.” In the Orthodox tradition this prayer is sung during the Vespers service for Great Lent and is echoed in similar prayers in the daily prayers and the Sunday Liturgy. This points to the universality of this ancient prayer. In light of the Vincentian Canon – that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all — prayer to Mary the Theotokos is a catholic or universal Christian practice.
We learn from this papyrus that when early Christians gathered for worship they addressed Mary by the title “God Bearer” recognizing her role in the mystery of the Incarnation – Christ coming down from heaven and assuming human flesh for our salvation. Further, we learn that early Christians believed in praying to the saints and asking the saints to pray on their behalf. In contrast Mary is all but ignored in Protestant worship services today; she is never addressed as “Theotokos;” and she is not asked to pray for us. It is as if Mary is taken out for display during Christmas and then the rest of the year is put away in a box until next year. An early Christian visiting contemporary Protestant worship services would likely be disconcerted if not dismayed by how little attention Christ’s Mother is given by Protestants today.
...
A good first step is to refer to Mary not just as “Mary” but also as “Theotokos” or in English “Mother of God” or “God Bearer.”
Taken from An Early Christian Prayer to Mary
Lets be honest dear friend you posted someone's blog who has a leaning towards the Catholic Church...
About
It was while I attended a Reformed seminary — Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary — that I first became interested in Orthodoxy. I was drawn to the staunch orthodoxy of the early Church Fathers, the deep sense of worship in the Orthodox liturgy, and the strong sense of historical continuity. However, my journey to Orthodoxy was hampered by the fact that the Orthodox Christians I met were not able to address the questions I had as a Calvinist: What about icons? What about sola scriptura (the Bible alone)? What about sola fide (justification by faith alone)? What about Mary? What about TULIP?
I needed good reasons for converting from the Reformed tradition to Orthodoxy. Eventually, I did my own theological and historical research, and bible study, and developed reasons why Eastern Orthodoxy is truly biblical and grounded in the historic Christian faith; much more so than the Reformed tradition.
The major challenge lies in the fact that Calvinism and Orthodoxy operate from two different theological paradigms. There is a need for theological translators who can explain the differences and commonalities between two great Christian theological traditions. It is my hope that I can help Calvinists interested in Orthodoxy come to a better understanding of Orthodoxy and perhaps cross over to the other side.
Robert Arakaki
.............
Praying to the dead siants is unbiblical
Veneration of the Saints - not biblical
Bowing down to idols - not biblical
Sunday worship - not biblical
Baptism by sprinkling of water - not biblical
Perpetual virginity of Mary - Not biblical
etc.. etc...
Too many more we may stop for now.
The above is only a few examples of why the RCC wants to upplay man-made traditions and teachings that break the commandments of God over the pure Word of God (scripture) because the scriptures alone are the standard of truth and error and they expose false teachings. For me, only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I tend to miss your posts, and I can only surmise that you are missing my responses to you because you continue to raise allegations already repudiated multiple times (whether on this thread or the others)
"Suppose 5 exegetes are sitting at a table. All of them are confident in their (differing) interpretation of a passage. According to you, all five are correct. So are you a radical relativist?"
Five people operating at 100% certainty are blameless regardless whether they disagree. Do you not see the contrast with church history? Church history consists of tens of thousands of leaders, churches, and denominations all PRETENDING to know the will of God - literally every post-apostolic institution is arguably built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. Lies! In that kind of atmosphere, is it any wonder why revival has been rare? Is it any wonder that the church has not proven fertile ground for the spawning of fresh apostles and prophets? Do you not know what happened to Aaron's sons for the slightest religious pretense, or to Uzzah for reaching out to touch the Arc?
I'll admit I'm partially at fault because even though 100% certainty does not NECESSARILY imply veracity, I personally OPINE precisely such association (you have to read between the lines a little when perusing my posts). With good reasons.
(1) If you think we can reach 100% certainty without supernatural aid, you've totally underestimated the DEGREE of certainty in view here. You're still innumerable light years away from grasping it.
(2) In fact Jesus said that anyone at 100% certainty about a miracle (anyone without doubts), gets the miracle! Do you think God is stupid enough to put that kind of power in the hands of Christians? As opposed to divine fiat?
(3) If God allowed the devil to grant us 100% certainty, He'd have no form of reliable communication with us.
(4) He'd still have to reward us for honoring the maxim, so I fail to see how 100% demonic deception serves His purposes.
(5) How does a prophet know he's a prophet? Consider an OT saint cogitating, "I am 100% certain that Yahweh wants me to proclaim these words in my mind." If it turns out he's wrong, he could be stoned to death. Why would Yahweh allow such errors? Isn't He kind?
Therefore we can reasonably conclude (theorize) that 100% certainty is only by divine fiat, in which case five people postured at 100% certainty will NOT be in disagreement. Unless you think that Yahweh would speak lies to the other four.
Regardless of my theorizing, 100% certainty is the appropriate goal. Even exegetes ambition for the same thing (in vain of course).
Should we aspire to less than 100% certainty in your opinion? Even with 100 billion souls at stake? That would be morally negligent and irresponsible!
Finally, regardless of your attempted EXTRAPOLATIONS of 100% certainty, the maxim remains an unavoidable obligation.
For the millionth time, that is a misextrapolation of my my position. I even turned it around on you, to illustrate the fallacy. YOUR claim is that Scripture is an objective source of norming. So I challenged you like this, if you recall:
"Suppose 5 exegetes are sitting at a table. All of them are confident in their (differing) interpretation of a passage. According to you, all five are correct. So are you a radical relativist?"
Five people operating at 100% certainty are blameless regardless whether they disagree. Do you not see the contrast with church history? Church history consists of tens of thousands of leaders, churches, and denominations all PRETENDING to know the will of God - literally every post-apostolic institution is arguably built on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. Lies! In that kind of atmosphere, is it any wonder why revival has been rare? Is it any wonder that the church has not proven fertile ground for the spawning of fresh apostles and prophets? Do you not know what happened to Aaron's sons for the slightest religious pretense, or to Uzzah for reaching out to touch the Arc?
I'll admit I'm partially at fault because even though 100% certainty does not NECESSARILY imply veracity, I personally OPINE precisely such association (you have to read between the lines a little when perusing my posts). With good reasons.
(1) If you think we can reach 100% certainty without supernatural aid, you've totally underestimated the DEGREE of certainty in view here. You're still innumerable light years away from grasping it.
(2) In fact Jesus said that anyone at 100% certainty about a miracle (anyone without doubts), gets the miracle! Do you think God is stupid enough to put that kind of power in the hands of Christians? As opposed to divine fiat?
(3) If God allowed the devil to grant us 100% certainty, He'd have no form of reliable communication with us.
(4) He'd still have to reward us for honoring the maxim, so I fail to see how 100% demonic deception serves His purposes.
(5) How does a prophet know he's a prophet? Consider an OT saint cogitating, "I am 100% certain that Yahweh wants me to proclaim these words in my mind." If it turns out he's wrong, he could be stoned to death. Why would Yahweh allow such errors? Isn't He kind?
Therefore we can reasonably conclude (theorize) that 100% certainty is only by divine fiat, in which case five people postured at 100% certainty will NOT be in disagreement. Unless you think that Yahweh would speak lies to the other four.
Regardless of my theorizing, 100% certainty is the appropriate goal. Even exegetes ambition for the same thing (in vain of course).
Should we aspire to less than 100% certainty in your opinion? Even with 100 billion souls at stake? That would be morally negligent and irresponsible!
Finally, regardless of your attempted EXTRAPOLATIONS of 100% certainty, the maxim remains an unavoidable obligation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
@CaliforniaJosiah;
If 100% certainty isn't something that we should rely on (as if we really had a choice at that point!), explain to me the following:
(1) How does prophethood work? How does he know he's a prophet and how does he know what to say, where to say it, and when to speak?
(2) How does biblical inspiration work? How did Paul know, when writing Romans, that he was writing unadulterated truth? Paul said:
"I speak the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 9:1).
I often refer to my maxim as "the rule of conscience". Here Paul seems to be expressing a degree of certainty influenced by the Holy Spirit. That pretty much sums up my entire epistemology.
If 100% certainty isn't something that we should rely on (as if we really had a choice at that point!), explain to me the following:
(1) How does prophethood work? How does he know he's a prophet and how does he know what to say, where to say it, and when to speak?
(2) How does biblical inspiration work? How did Paul know, when writing Romans, that he was writing unadulterated truth? Paul said:
"I speak the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 9:1).
I often refer to my maxim as "the rule of conscience". Here Paul seems to be expressing a degree of certainty influenced by the Holy Spirit. That pretty much sums up my entire epistemology.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I'm off topic? Hilarious. Again, I was the original author of the main thread where Miss LoveGodsWord was debating with me. She then spun off several threads to respond directly to me. This is one of them. Her post #15 is (supposedly) a "response" to my 16-point rebuttal of Sola Scriptura (although I subsequently argued it ineffective).
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
@CaliforniaJosiah;
And please don't respond with the nonsense that Joseph Smith, Mohammed (et. al.) were definitely 100% certain. I've had Christians tell me that both Hitler and the devil are 100% certain of their behavior. My reply, "Glad to hear that both Hitler and the devil are perfectly well-intentioned! Perfectly good guys! Sad that God is the sort of evil monster determined to mistreat them on judgment day." Look, if Joseph Smith operated at 100% certainty, he is blameless. I don't think you believe that. I certainly don't.
And please don't respond with the nonsense that Joseph Smith, Mohammed (et. al.) were definitely 100% certain. I've had Christians tell me that both Hitler and the devil are 100% certain of their behavior. My reply, "Glad to hear that both Hitler and the devil are perfectly well-intentioned! Perfectly good guys! Sad that God is the sort of evil monster determined to mistreat them on judgment day." Look, if Joseph Smith operated at 100% certainty, he is blameless. I don't think you believe that. I certainly don't.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
@CaliforniaJosiah;
You do realize, don't you, that 100% certainty is the paradigmatic standard of faith set forth in Hebrews 11 for all of us to emulate? For example:
(1) It says that Abraham tried to kill his son by faith. (Recall that faith cometh by hearing the Voice - Rom 10:17). The Voice left him 100% certain that it was the right thing to do. How do I know that? Because Heb 11 celebrates him for it! (You can't rightly celebrate a man who tries to murder his son based on a voice heard at LESS than 100% certainty).
(2) It says that the prophets (viz. David) slaughtered the nations by faith! (You can't rightly celebrate men who slaughter nations based on a voice heard at LESS than 100% certainty). In fact, three times in Heb 3 and 4, the writer rebuked Israel's failure, the first time around, to go up and slaughter the nations. He (thrice) classified it as disobedience to the Voice.
You do realize, don't you, that 100% certainty is the paradigmatic standard of faith set forth in Hebrews 11 for all of us to emulate? For example:
(1) It says that Abraham tried to kill his son by faith. (Recall that faith cometh by hearing the Voice - Rom 10:17). The Voice left him 100% certain that it was the right thing to do. How do I know that? Because Heb 11 celebrates him for it! (You can't rightly celebrate a man who tries to murder his son based on a voice heard at LESS than 100% certainty).
(2) It says that the prophets (viz. David) slaughtered the nations by faith! (You can't rightly celebrate men who slaughter nations based on a voice heard at LESS than 100% certainty). In fact, three times in Heb 3 and 4, the writer rebuked Israel's failure, the first time around, to go up and slaughter the nations. He (thrice) classified it as disobedience to the Voice.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Well, almost every Christian denomination, including both the Catholic and the Protestant ones, affirm that the Bible is divine revelation and, therefore, true.
I couldn't agree. There are some people who, of course, belong to non-Christian religions, but we aren't debating that. And there are a small number of freethinkers who consider themselves Christian but think of the Bible as important and that it contains some truths...but isn't divinely inspired. But for most of us, there is agreement that the Holy Scriptures are true.
Upvote
0
- Jun 5, 2017
- 22,242
- 6,634
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
According to the scriptures the only true definition of truth is God's Word which is revlealed through his Spirit to those who ask for it and continue in it...
JOHN 17:17; JOHN 8:31-32; PSALMS 119:43; PSALMS 119:160; 1 KINGS 17:24; PROVERBS 22:21; ECCLESIASTES 12:10; PSALMS 119:142; PSALMS 119:151; MALACHI 2:6; JOHN 1:1-4; 14; JOHN 14:6; JOHN 14:16-17; JOHN 15:26; JOHN 16:13
JOHN 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth: YOUR WORD IS TRUTH".
This is the only test of all truth and error.
God bless.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
IF so, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of Sola Scriptura. Nothing.
If there's 5 heretics sitting around a table - all with contradictory views on a dogma - and all five are "100% certain" their their own unique view is right, that has nothing.... absolutely nothing whatsoever.... to with they each being 100% right and even less to do with the 5 coming to agreement.
Read post 204.
.
Upvote
0
Quote me saying that.
This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christians coming to agreement on dogma. Or what objective and universally embraced rule/canon/norm is best in the arbitration of correctness. Thus, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura, which the title of the thread states is the topic here.
I fail to see what that has to do with Sola Scriptura.... Okay, you view that Joseph Smith's WRONG ideas come from God and not the devil. I disagree with you, but that's entirely irrelevant to Sola Scriptura.
Okay, so you hold that Mormons are certain of their dogmas because God gave them certainly in heresy. I disagree but I sincerely cannot for the life of me remotely image WHAT IN THE WORLD that has to do with Sola Scriptura.
.
Upvote
0
.
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 or the insistence that Fords are better than Chevy's, 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.
Note: All arbitration has 3 parts:
1. The acceptance that positions among those in dispute COULD be right or wrong. The acceptance of accountability of all parties.
2. Some rule ("straight edge" that determines what is straight) or "rule" (as in ruler or measuring tape that determines correctness) - the more objective and knowable by all and accepted as reliable by all, the better.
3. Arbitration. Some agreed upon process of determining which (if any) of the disputed positions "measures up" to the "measuring tape" (rule, canon, norm).
Sola Scriptura addresses point #2.
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, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). 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 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 rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone (self = an person, church, denomination, cult). Those who reject accountability and the possibility of self being wrong will reject Sola Scriptura (indeed, all of arbitration; all that will matters is that self speaks and self agrees with 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 "out" becomes irrelevant, what SELF currently says is MEANT supercedes what is stated. Self becomes the norma normans. For those who insist self alone is simply smarter or better than Scripture, then this practice will be rejected.
- Josiah
.
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 or the insistence that Fords are better than Chevy's, 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.
Note: All arbitration has 3 parts:
1. The acceptance that positions among those in dispute COULD be right or wrong. The acceptance of accountability of all parties.
2. Some rule ("straight edge" that determines what is straight) or "rule" (as in ruler or measuring tape that determines correctness) - the more objective and knowable by all and accepted as reliable by all, the better.
3. Arbitration. Some agreed upon process of determining which (if any) of the disputed positions "measures up" to the "measuring tape" (rule, canon, norm).
Sola Scriptura addresses point #2.
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, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). 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 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 rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone (self = an person, church, denomination, cult). Those who reject accountability and the possibility of self being wrong will reject Sola Scriptura (indeed, all of arbitration; all that will matters is that self speaks and self agrees with 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 "out" becomes irrelevant, what SELF currently says is MEANT supercedes what is stated. Self becomes the norma normans. For those who insist self alone is simply smarter or better than Scripture, then this practice will be rejected.
- Josiah
.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but at some point this begins to looks like dishonest debating.
(1) For the 10 millionth time, contradictory views cannot be both correct. I am NOT a relativist. K?
(2) I gave you about five arguments for my opinion that 100% certainty is by divine fiat wherefore five people at 100% certainty on an issue cannot be of opposing views (on that issue).
You ignored all five arguments. You seem intent on regurgitating your view over and over instead of facing the rebuttals.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I never accused you of saying that.
Maybe this isn't dishonest debating at all. Maybe you really just don't have any clue what I'm saying to you in these posts. Have you understood anything I've said?
Confirmed. You misunderstood that argument as well.
Huh? To whom are you responding? You have no inkling of anything I have written.
Say - WHAT? To whom are you responding?
This is insane.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
