WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

JAL · Jul 7, 2020

@CaliforniaJosiah;

I give up. On these issues I've levied probably a dozen arguments and a dozen examples your way and seen nothing in return. When I confront someone with about 25 points and he shows no ability to comprehend even ONE of them, there's not much I can do about it.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 7, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.
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.

Thanks for posting this Josiah. There is a lot of truth in this post that I am sure will benefit many who seek to follow Jesus and understand the gospel of our Jesus Christ.

God bless.

Tradidi · Jul 7, 2020

Albion said:
Sola Scriptura refers to that which IS the truth, not what people think of it.

As in "the Truth is in the Bible, I just don't know how to get it out of there". Yeah, that's Sola Scriptura in a nutshell.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 8, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
JAL

Okay.... I "get" your point about an individual person feeling "CONFIDENT" and "CERTAIN" about some dogma.

Here's what you seem to be ENTIRELY missing (and why you have yet to even approach the issue of this thread). What if 5 Christians persons, churches and/or denoninations are 100% confident and certain of 5 entirely DIFFERENT and conflicting dogmas on some subject? Understand - each in complete disagreement - are all 100% confident, certain, sure? According to you, all 5 are correct - even though they completely contridict each other. So, are you a radical relativist? Do you hold that if truth exists AT ALL, it an be entirely different, that "truth" is entirely different for different people at different moments, so Joseph Smith is right and John Calvin is right and Jim Jones is right because they each had confidence? Or do you simply surrender to the disagreement, to you it's okay if there's no agreement, so what if Christianity has 7 billion different set of dogmas, so what if no one knows what's correct and what doesn't, who cares if Jim Jones or Arius was right or not, it just doesn't matter? What if 5 Christians come to the table with five DIFFERENT dogmas on the same point and each of them - all 5 - are confident they are right? Answer that and you will begin to address the issue that Sola Scriptura does.

I get your point.
But I don't understand it.
If 5 denominations come up with 5 different doctrine...HOW does that address the issue of sola scriptura? Or are you saying it doesn't?

GodsGrace101 · Jul 8, 2020

Tradidi said:
If I have to repeat myself it is only because some people keep twisting my words, making me say things I did not say. But I am pleased to see someone asking the right question, what is Tradition?

First, we have to note that there are two types of tradition, one that is to be rejected and one that is to be kept.

The kind of tradition (with a lowercase "t") that is to be rejected is what we usually term the "traditions of men". Our Lord referred to that kind of tradition in Mark 7:7 and Mark 7:9. And why do we reject them? Because they void or nullify the commandments of God. Our Lord gives us an example in that same chapter 7 of Mark's gospel, but good current day examples of "traditions of men" that nullify God's commandments are sola fide and sola scriptura.

I agree with Sola Fide. Scripture does not support this doctrine, although many seem to read it in the bible and I even fear they might actually be lost, although it's not for me to say. I do feel that they can mislead new Christians. Also, many denominations and pastors teach this because it sounds so pleasant.
Jesus plus nothing.
So I guess Jesus spent over 3 years teaching nothing?

As to Sola Scriptura...I have to agree with that.
I believe the Early Church Fathers relied on scripture and what they believed was based on scripture. Some time after the Nicene Council, I do believe things began to go awry.

The Traditions that came AFTER 325AD are not what I would call scriptural. I know that the CC bases its teachings on certain scripture....I just don't see it there. (but some I do).

The kind of Tradition (with a capital "T") that is to be kept is what St. Paul is talking about when he said: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14), and "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances [some Bibles translate "traditions"] as I have delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

And this leads us to the definition of what Tradition is: the oral teachings of the Church.

It should now be obvious why I made the statements you question me about, and why I reject the statements others have tried to make me say.

I'm sorry I haven't been reading along.
I do believe that some teachings are passed down orally. I do also believe, however, that we are to check everything out as the Bareans did in Acts 17:11...they checked everything out against scripture.

A good illustration of how Tradition works is St. Paul. He never met Christ himself (other than in a vision). He never walked with Christ, ate with Him, talked to Him, etc. Yet, he is one of the inspired authors of Scripture. How do you think Paul learned the doctrine he wrote down? He learned it from the Apostles, by listening to their oral teachings, not by reading a book and not by writing a book by dictation, like a robot. Which by the way is why we see that each author writes in his own style. They wrote by inspiration, not by dictation. But the pertinent part here is that the teachings of our faith were first handed down orally, then after some time part of these teachings were written down. This written part we now call the Scriptures.

Agreed.
I would post
1 John 1:1-4
1What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

Also important to note is that the Church, after having decided on the canon of the Bible, did not stop teaching and passing down it's teachings orally. In fact, and for very practical reasons, the primary way of handing down the faith and of teaching was and remained for many centuries orally. Christ never said to "write a book and distribute it", but rather, "to teach all nations".

On the other hand, after having canonised the Bible, the Church did not stop writing down some of it's oral teachings. These writings of the Early Church Fathers are often also considered part of Tradition, because they are the oral teachings of the Church written down, just as the Scriptures were the oral teachings of the Church written down. I highly recommend you read some of these Early Church Fathers. If and when you do, you will immediately notice how Catholic they were!

I hope this explain what Catholics mean when they talk about Tradition.

Thanks for such a detailed reply.
As I've said I like the Early Church Fathers.
You must surely know that Barnabas almost made it into the canon and also the Didache...which I sometimes wish it had because it would have saved us from so much disagreement.

I do believe that when we wander away from scripture, we could get into messy situations...as an example I'd give you the remarrieds receiving communion problem.

It's all a bit complicated in any case.
I'll try to read some more posts.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 8, 2020

Albion said:
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.

I'm not saying they're not true.

What I'm saying is that denominations come away from the study of scripture with differing doctrine.

What is right?
Unconditional eternal security
or
Conditional eternal security?

Is Baptism essential for salvation?

If Faith Alone biblical?

Just examples.
We do not agree on most subjects.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 8, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
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.

I just said this to @Albion in post no. 326 (?)

I'm not saying they're not true.

What I'm saying is that denominations come away from the study of scripture with differing doctrine.

What is right?
Unconditional eternal security
or
Conditional eternal security?

Is Baptism essential for salvation?

If Faith Alone biblical?

Just examples.
We do not agree on most subjects.

What do YOU think LGW?
How could we know which doctrine is correct on the above doctrine???

Albion · Jul 8, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
I'm not saying they're not true.

But what you asked was "What IS the truth?"

What I'm saying is that denominations come away from the study of scripture with differing doctrine.

Yes, they do, but that doesn't affect Sola Scriptura or the meaning of the term one way or the other.

What is right?
Unconditional eternal security
or
Conditional eternal security?

Is Baptism essential for salvation?

If Faith Alone biblical?

Just examples.
We do not agree on most subjects.

That's fine. Not preferable, but still fine. We are still both part of Christ's church.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 8, 2020

Albion said:
But what you asked was "What IS the truth?"

Yes, they do, but that doesn't affect Sola Scriptura or the meaning of the term one way or the other.

That's fine. Not preferable, but still fine. We are still both part of Christ's church.

Sure.
But then we don't know the truth.
Both examples cannot be right.
This means we cannot know the truth.

In the CC ALMOST everyone has the same belief because they trust their scholars to exegete the bible. Since it is ONE denomination,,,,ALMOST everyone believes the same doctrine.

This is sorely lacking in Protestantism.

I'll add that JESUS is the truth....
Pontius Pilot asked Him this same question.
But Jesus did not reply.
Interesting to ponder why.

So, at the least, we should post verses Jesus stated...but instead we do to Paul and John and Peter and James. They each spoke in a particular manner and I believe this causes confusion.

I hear there are Jesus Only churches...I don't really know what that is --- but could they be right?

LoveGodsWord · Jul 8, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
I just said this to @Albion in post no. 326 (?)

I'm not saying they're not true.

What I'm saying is that denominations come away from the study of scripture with differing doctrine.

What is right?
Unconditional eternal security
or
Conditional eternal security?

Is Baptism essential for salvation?

If Faith Alone biblical?

Just examples.
We do not agree on most subjects.

What do YOU think LGW?
How could we know which doctrine is correct on the above doctrine???

Hi GG

.

For me I see all of the many interpretations of the scriptures, or doctrines and all the different Churches as signs of the fulfillment of the prophecies of last days in as shown in the Words of Jesus in Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22 and the Apostles in Acts of the Apostles 20:29; 2 Peter 2:1-5 etc etc which state in the last days there will be many false Christs and false prophets and false teachers even showing great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

So of course the devil has a counterfeit of that which is true but it is a lie in order to deceive people and lead them away from God and his Word as he is the father of lies *John 8:44 (context John 8:31 onwards to the religious teachers of the day); 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Romans 3:4

This more than ever shows the importance of a prayerful understanding of the scriptures 1 John 4:1 and 2 Timothy 2:15 through the Spirit *John 14:26 in order for us to know God's truth and the teachings of error designed by the enemy of souls to lead us away from God and his Word.

The question I believe we must all ask ourselves is who do we believe and follow, and where have we been seeking our understanding of the truth of Gods' Word. Are we seeking God's truth which is defined in the scriptures as the Word of God from the teachings and traditions of men outside of his Word (the bible) or have we been prayerfully seeking God for His truth through his Spirit that we may know what His truth is through his Word?

According to the scriptures, no one can know the truth of God's Word without God's Spirit *John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27; John 8:31-36; John 17:17; John 6:63; Hebrews 8:11; John 8:51; John 8:55; and God only gives his Spirit to those who believe and obey him *Acts of the Apostles 5:32; Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:26-27.

God's promises are conditional however as our salvation is on believing and following what God says. If we are believing and following what God has taught us then it is not a hard thing to know the truth of Gods' Word if we turn away from the teachings of men and seek him for it through his Spirit *John 14:26; John 16:13; John 17:17; John 8:31-32. As long as we are living up to all the knowledge that God has revealed to us and following it, God promises that if any man wills to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God, or whether it is not of God *John 7:17.

The milk of the Word is given by God through men *1 Corinthians 3:1-2; Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:1; 1 Peter 2:1-2. The meat of the Word and a knowledge of His truth is given by God *Isaiah 28:9-10; Hebrews 8:11; 1 John 2:27. This is God's new covenant promise to those who believe and follow his Word *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 7:17; John 17:17; John 6:63; 1 John 2:27.

God promises that you shall seek me (the Word) and find me (the truth) when you shall seach for me with all of your heart * Jeremiah 29:13. Knowing the truth of God's Word is conditional to believing and following God's Word and prayerfully seeking Jesus for an understanding of his truth through his Word.

We are told to turn away from men and cursed is every man that trusts in man and makes flesh his arm *Jeremiah 17:5. Gods' truth can only be revealed through his Spirit and through his Word.

I believe God's people are in all the Churches as long as they are individually living up to all the knowledge that God has revealed to them they are his people as it is written in times of ignorance God winks at until he gives us a knowledge of His truth and they reject it *Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 at which time we are all held accountable for sin Hebrews 10:26-27 and will be judged for it *John 12:47-48.

Of course not all the Churches have the truth of God's Word *Matthew 24:24 but I believe that the hour is coming and now is that the true worshippers must worship God is Spirit and in truth. God is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). God is calling his people out from following man made teachings and traditions back to the pure Word of God *Revelation 18:1-5. God's sheep hear his Voice (the Word) and follow him Those who do not here and follow are not God's sheep according to the scriptures *John 10:26-27

.............

God's true Church according to the scriptures are simply all those who believe and follow God's Word. God's Word tells us who they are here *1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 22:14 etc etc..

Only God's Word is true and it is only to God's that we must look to know what God's truth is as we seek God to know it through his Spirit *John 14:26.

God bless.

Albion · Jul 8, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
Sure.
But then we don't know the truth.

I don't see why anyone would say that. If it's known to be the truth, and it's right there in your hands, it cannot be said that you can't know the truth.

In the CC ALMOST everyone has the same belief because they trust their scholars to exegete the bible. Since it is ONE denomination,,,,ALMOST everyone believes the same doctrine.

That would also be true of the confessional Lutheran bodies and the Jehovah's Witnesses, just to name some others "off the top of my head." There probably are others as well.

This is sorely lacking in Protestantism.

I'm not convinced that that is correct to say, but if you are going to compare one single denomination against hundreds of others simultaneously--and assume that the hundred others are all the same denomination even though they are not-- the one is probably going to look more united than the hundred others taken together.

We could also do it the opposite way by comparing one Protestant denomination against all the Catholic ones simultaneously (CC, EO, OC,OO, and others). Doing that would make the Protestant denomination appear to be more unified than the Catholic churches.

I hear there are Jesus Only churches...I don't really know what that is --- but could they be right?

It sounds familiar, but offhand I don't know which churches those would be.

Tradidi · Jul 8, 2020

Albion said:
I don't see why anyone would say that. If it's known to be the truth, and it's right there in your hands, it cannot be said that you can't know the truth.

Oh boy, are you dancing around your own words!

Why not humbly admit that you do not know the truth. Oh yes, you know where to find it, so you can say that you have the truth by holding the Book in your hands. But you do not know what exactly is being said in the Book you are holding in your hands. Like a cave dweller that is given a smart phone. That is Sola Scriptura in practice.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 8, 2020

Tradidi said:
Oh boy, are you dancing around your own words!
Why not humbly admit that you do not know the truth. Oh yes, you know where to find it, so you can say that you have the truth by holding the Book in your hands. But you do not know what exactly is being said in the Book you are holding in your hands. Like a cave dweller that is given a smart phone. That is Sola Scriptura in practice.

Correction, what your saying here is not to have faith in what one believe in regards to the scriptures and as the scriptures say whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Think about it. This is the the practice of Catholacism which denies the scriptures which is not biblical. We are saved by Grace through faith in the scriptures (God's Word). This is Sola Sciptura in practice.

Athanasius377 · Jul 8, 2020

Tradidi said:
Oh boy, are you dancing around your own words!

Why not humbly admit that you do not know the truth. Oh yes, you know where to find it, so you can say that you have the truth by holding the Book in your hands. But you do not know what exactly is being said in the Book you are holding in your hands. Like a cave dweller that is given a smart phone. That is Sola Scriptura in practice.

@Albion knows full well what the Bible says as do I and others that have and do read the same. Same as you. He like myself doesn’t accept the whole of the theological framework Rome overlays on top of scripture. We reject this framework because it is not in accord with scripture nor history. Some of us Protestants are quite educated in church history and the early church fathers. Some of us can read the original languages (I’m studying koine Greek for example) yet come to different conclusions as a result.
In fact some of us came out The Roman church. I came from a background in the SSPV which offers only the traditional Latin mass ( pre Pious XII and John XXIII reforms). And those guys consider modern RCCs to be something between heretics and deceived. So we reject Rome’s claims not because we are ignorant rather because we know full well what she teaches. Yet folks like @Albion and myself and others wind up defending Rome not on the basis of her claims but rather her teaching that is in accord with scripture. Go back and look at our postings and see for yourself. But to say we don’t know what the Bible says simply isn’t true. In fact it’s uncharitable. Would your spiritual director approve of such language? I realize you are zealous for your faith but also realize you don’t need to use a tank when a fly swatter will do in order to make your point. Just saying from personal experience.

Tradidi · Jul 8, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
@Albion knows full well what the Bible says as do I and others that have and do read the same. Same as you.

"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." (Matthew 5:37)

A man who knows the truth has no need to dance around it.

@Albion is a dancing prodigy, dodging questions, playing on words and avoiding the real issues.

Athanasius377 said:
So we reject Rome’s claims not because we are ignorant rather because we know full well what she teaches.

If you really knew what the Catholic Church teaches you would have never left Her.

Athanasius377 said:
I’m studying koine Greek for example

And how does one learn Koine Greek? By picking up a Greek manuscript and studying if all by yourself? Or by being taught by one who knows Koine Greek? Why then do you throw common sense out the window when you pick up a Bible "in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction"? (2 Peter 3:16)

No, it takes humility to say with the Ethiopian Eunuch: "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" (Acts 8:31).

Athanasius377 · Jul 8, 2020

Tradidi said:
But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." (Matthew 5:37)

A man who knows the truth has no need to dance around it.

@Albion is a dancing prodigy, dodging questions, playing on words and avoiding the real issues.

Just because you don’t understand what he is saying doesn’t mean he’s dancing around the subject. Ask clarifying questions. Perhaps it’s his presupposition that is causing the issue.

Tradidi said:
If you really knew what the Catholic Church teaches you would have never left Her.

You have no idea what I know. At least that’s how you come across. of course you could ask. But that would involve engaging the argument. This is what we call spot balling. Throw anything out and see what sticks. Weak sauce.

Tradidi said:
And how does one learn Koine Greek? By picking up a Greek manuscript and studying if all by yourself? Or by being taught by one who knows Koine Greek? Why then do you throw common sense out the window when you pick up a Bible "in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction"? (2 Peter 3:16)

This is a category error. Meaning you are limping two unrelated ideas into the same category because it’s either expedient or you don’t know how to respond in knowledgable manner. Understanding the original language does not belong in the same category as accepting the framework which overlies the same. Silly error frankly. Why? Because the words and grammar, syntax and definitions have meaning that existed for centuries before your framework came into existence. Framework I would add that is based on a translation that came centuries later. So the framework came even later. My contention isn’t that Rome isn’t ancient. Rather she is ancient enough.

Tradidi said:
No, it takes humility to say with the Ethiopian Eunuch: "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" (Acts 8:31).

Agreed. Are you ready to hear the good news?

JAL · Jul 8, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
I get your point.
But I don't understand it.
If 5 denominations come up with 5 different doctrine...HOW does that address the issue of sola scriptura? Or are you saying it doesn't?

Exactly. Sola Scriptura has consistently proven itself to be a norming-failure throughout history. The only doctrines exegetes agree on, as far as I can see, are the fundamentals taught to us by the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) during conversion. That's my opinion backed by observation, anyway. That's why I hold:
(1) Exegesis usually doesn't work.
(2) Direct Revelation succeeds.

Athanasius377 · Jul 8, 2020

Tradidi said:
Oh boy, are you dancing around your own words!

Why not humbly admit that you do not know the truth. Oh yes, you know where to find it, so you can say that you have the truth by holding the Book in your hands. But you do not know what exactly is being said in the Book you are holding in your hands. Like a cave dweller that is given a smart phone. That is Sola Scriptura in practice.

If you want to debate start a thread and lay out our case and let me know. Or I can start one. Let’s not trade barbs let’s get to the truth. As a committed Protestant I appreciate a Roman Catholic that cares about truth as much as I do.
IM me for a topic that we can agree to debate. Be specific. Or if you like I can propose a topic.

Throws down the gauntlet. Your move.

JAL · Jul 8, 2020

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.

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.

And your false assumption is that we all need to be epistemologists. That unity advances only insofar as we:
(1) All must explicitly agree that Sola Scriptura is the best epistemology, i.e, all agree that the Bible is the ideal norma normans
(2) All must proceed to put it into practice
However:
(1) This epistemology has proven itself a failure (see my post previous to this one).
(2) The Inward Witness is capable of coercing assent, and thus coercing consensus/unity, even among non-epistemologists.

Thus while Sola Scriptura is ONE possibly theory of solidarity, ANOTHER theory is that we will unify if we properly seek His Voice. When we all are hearing the same thing - especially if it's at the degree of 100% certainty - we will be unified. Since you can't seem to comprehend this concept, please don't object to it. I will just ignore your confused objections. Feel free to ask me questions about my position, and once I am satisfied you have some inkling of an understanding of it, I will then be happy to consider any objections.

You state:

Or what objective and universally embraced rule/canon/norm is best in the arbitration of correctness

But you incorrectly assume that we must EXPLICITLY embrace that epistemology. And one thing (among many) that I've been trying to tell you is that we all IMPLICITLY (tacitly) embrace the following maxim - which has epistemological ramifications!

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

For example, suppose you're preaching to 5,000 unbelievers. Suddenly the Spirit convicts/convinces them all that Jesus is Lord. (This is unity, this is norming). They now feel certain about it. They cry out to you, "Yes we are convinced. What shall we do next?".

You've got two basic responses:
(1) You can respond as Peter did. "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).
(2) OR, you can respond, "Do NOT embrace the gospel as yet! Do NOT embrace your navel! Do not accept doctrine until you've undertaken a proper norming process as bona fide bible scholars!" This response is absurd - and immoral because it contradicts the maxim.

And even the exegete, ultimately, looks to feelings of certainty as his epistemological standard. He researches an issue in Scripture until he feels he has reached a satisfying level of certainty that his interpretation is correct. And thus, for example, if he ALREADY felt 100% certain on an issue (due to to Direct Revelation), he wouldn't research it at all.

Thus we all accept certainty as an epistemological standard, even if we are not always EXPLICTLY aware of this tacit acceptance.

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.

It's totally absurd for you to suggest that you can "establish" a religious epistemology merely by appealing to simplistic empirical, easily reproducible anecdotes and lab-experiments. That's like trying to resolve the history of philosophical debates by running a couple of experiments on lab rats. Seems that YOU are the one posting material that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with resolving the norming-problem raised on this thread.

And let's go back to your silly example of building a brick wall six feet tall. Does it culminate in norming? My Dad WAS a contractor. No matter how much he tried, the customer was never satisfied. For example he'll come back and say, "No, I meant six feet above ground level but that particular spot was already below normal ground level and therefore you needed to erect something taller." At that point it then becomes a question of whether the customer wants to sue my Dad in court - and they often did.

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.

Explicitly embraced? Or tacitly/implicitly? See above.

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...

Empirically verifiable math and science have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with addressin the empirically UNVERIFIABLE questions of religion. Shall we take David as an example? On several cases he had to decide whether to go up and slaughter the Philistines. But a good man, such as David, doesn't run around murdering nations at less than 100% certainty. How was he to arrive at 100% certainty on this issue?
(1) Biblical exegesis?
(2) Or seeking the Voice?

"David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines…Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him [again]…I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand (1Sa 23:2, 4, KJV)."

Why a second inquiry? Either the level of certainty on the first iteration was less than 100%, or was indeed so but subsequently waned. But here's the clincher. When an evangelical is unsure about a possible revelation, he says to himself, "I need to 'check it out with Scripture'". David's attitude was, "If I'm unsure about a revelation what I need to do is - seek more Direct Revelation!"

Tradidi · Jul 8, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
If you want to debate start a thread and lay out our case and let me know. Or I can start one. Let’s not trade barbs let’s get to the truth. As a committed Protestant I appreciate a Roman Catholic that cares about truth as much as I do.
IM me for a topic that we can agree to debate. Be specific. Or if you like I can propose a topic.

Throws down the gauntlet. Your move.

Picks up the gauntlet. The topic of this thread is good enough to me: Sola Scriptura.

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord

Active Member

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord

Veteran

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord

Veteran

Active Member

Similar threads