Defining sola scriptura.

[MoreCoffee]

I agree. However, I am unsure if the RCC always means "God breathed" when it uses the term "inspired by God," because according to your link tradition is likewise "inspired by God."

Let me get into that in a second. As best as I understand, let me put forward the following ideas.

-"God breathed," or often translated "inspired by God" literally means that it proceeds right from God, every jot and tittle.
-Inerrant means without error or contradiction, in its purest form.
-Infallible means that it is completely trustworthy, and it won't steer you wrong.

If my understanding of the above definitions is essentially correct, it is not surprising that the above definitions are often conflated. If God breaths out truth, of course it is trustworthy and without error. If something is trustworthy, it cannot have contradiction or untruths. If something is without error and contains only truth, it is therefore trustworthy.

So, what I find challenging is on what written authority in Christian history, so that I may read it, is anything other than the Scripture held up to that bar?

From your link:



And:



In Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) there is more than one rule of faith. I'm not going to jump all over this idea. My issue, however, is this:

To be a rule of faith, I think that source of truth has to be infallible. That infallible source of truth cannot teach errors and contradictions. If it meets these criteria, it must also declare of itself that it is God-breathed/inspired of God.

Where does tradition make that claim of itself? Does it hold up?

God bless,
Craig

Only holy scripture is inspired since inspiration produces written revelation.

Holy tradition together with holy scripture form a single deposit of faith, revealed by God himself they are the single rule of faith.

Saint Paul makes the claim that holy tradition is of equal authority with his letters.

 

[rockytopva]

Only holy scripture is inspired since inspiration produces written revelation.

Holy tradition together with holy scripture form a single deposit of faith, revealed by God himself they are the single rule of faith.

Saint Paul makes the claim that holy tradition is of equal authority with his letters.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. - Mark 7

 

[rockytopva]

Saint Paul makes the claim that holy tradition is of equal authority with his letters.

Scripture

 

[rockytopva]

And Christ Jesus had a passion for every letter of the law...

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

 

[abacabb3]

Only holy scripture is inspired since inspiration produces written revelation.

Okay, so the RCC does not teach that sacred tradition is inspired of God?

If it is not, then how can it be inerrant?

Saint Paul makes the claim that holy tradition is of equal authority with his letters.

On what authority do you accept what Saint Paul says is actually infallible and thereby trustworthy?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Okay, so the RCC does not teach that sacred tradition is inspired of God?

If it is not, then how can it be inerrant?



On what authority do you accept what Saint Paul says is actually infallible and thereby trustworthy?

On the authority of the Catholic Church

 

[abacabb3]

On the authority of the Catholic Church

When did the Catholic Church say they had that authority?

 

[MoreCoffee]

When did the Catholic Church say they had that authority?

Many times, most recently in Dei Verbum.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Saint Paul makes the claim that holy tradition is of equal authority with his letters.

1. St. Paul never once mentioned RC Tradition. And there is no verse that says, "Tradition is equal authority with Scripture."


2. There is no Scripture that says that if a church, denomination, sect or cult claims that it itself (individually, uniquely, singularly, particularly) is exempt from accountability and truthfulness, thus it itself uniquely is. And there is no verse that says, "When the individual, singular, exclusive,m particular RC Denomination as a denomination speaks, God is mandated to agree and it is exempt from the issue of truthfulness."


3. The issue is there are disputed dogmas among us that perhaps cannot all be true (sufficient conflict to present a problem). IF truth matters (and that IS the point of our disagreement), then we've just embraced norming - and includes full accountability to all the disputed position (one cannot exempt self exclusively) AND typically involves a rule for this norming. THIS is the issue of this thread. Catholics and Mormons are disengaged and persistent to change the subject because their denomination exempts it itself individually from the whole thing (accountability in the case of self alone being rejected/protested).


4. You seem to be confusing the issues of source with the issue of norming. While I agree that SOME Protestants hold that Scripture is not just the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us (Sola Scriptura) but ALSO that Scripture is the sole source of such doctrine. It's a related issue but not the same one. Catholics (like Mormons) speak of "The Three-Legged Stool" as the SOURCE (but not.... not...... NOT as the norm!!!!!): 1) The current Tradition of it itself alone as it itself exclusively defines, chooses and interprets PLUS EQUALLY 2) the Scripture hidden in the heart of it itself as interpreted by it itself to confirm to the teachings of it itself, PLUS EQUALLY 3) The Leadership of it itself individually and exclusively as chosen by it itself from those who pledge to uphold the teachings of it itself unqiuely. There 3 things - equally and inseparately and together - are the SOURCE of the unique individual teachings of the RC Denomination itself. BUT IT IS NOT THE NORM. No norm is permitted because no accountability is permitted in the sole case of it itself alone (its demanded of all OTHERS, forbidden for self) - in formal doctrine at least. The RCC itself tells all to just swallow whole whatever IT ITSELF says (doctrinally at least) BECAUSE it itself is saying it and it itself tells all to do that (CCC 87, etc., etc.).




Back to the topic.... See post # 11.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[tadoflamb]

1. St. Paul never once mentioned RC Tradition. And there is no verse that says, "Tradition is equal authority with Scripture."

We see the oral Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures in play with when St. Paul stayed with the Bereans for three weeks teaching them the revelation of Christ. Obviously, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching by accepting the subsequent letters.

If we were to look for a sola scripturist group one would only need look to the Thessalonians who rejected the oral teaching, opted for using 'scripture alone', and tossed St. Paul out on his ear.

So, the Sacred Scriptures do testify to Sacred Tradition, not sola scriptura.

 

[tadoflamb]

Catholics (like Mormons) speak of "The Three-Legged Stool" as the SOURCE (but not.... not...... NOT as the norm!!!!!):

The 'three-legged' stool is an Anglican thing. It's too clumsy of an analogy to be applied to Catholicism.

Christian denominations that uphold the position of prima scriptura are the Anglican Communion and the Methodist Church.[1][4] In the Anglican tradition, Sacred Scripture, tradition, and reason form the Anglican triad or "three-legged stool", formulated by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker.

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. St. Paul never once mentioned RC Tradition. And there is no verse that says, "Tradition is equal authority with Scripture."


2. There is no Scripture that says that if a church, denomination, sect or cult claims that it itself (individually, uniquely, singularly, particularly) is exempt from accountability and truthfulness, thus it itself uniquely is. And there is no verse that says, "When the individual, singular, exclusive,m particular RC Denomination as a denomination speaks, God is mandated to agree and it is exempt from the issue of truthfulness."


3. The issue is there are disputed dogmas among us that perhaps cannot all be true (sufficient conflict to present a problem). IF truth matters (and that IS the point of our disagreement), then we've just embraced norming - and includes full accountability to all the disputed position (one cannot exempt self exclusively) AND typically involves a rule for this norming. THIS is the issue of this thread. Catholics and Mormons are disengaged and persistent to change the subject because their denomination exempts it itself individually from the whole thing (accountability in the case of self alone being rejected/protested).


4. You seem to be confusing the issues of source with the issue of norming. While I agree that SOME Protestants hold that Scripture is not just the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us (Sola Scriptura) but ALSO that Scripture is the sole source of such doctrine. It's a related issue but not the same one. Catholics (like Mormons) speak of "The Three-Legged Stool" as the SOURCE (but not.... not...... NOT as the norm!!!!!): 1) The current Tradition of it itself alone as it itself exclusively defines, chooses and interprets PLUS EQUALLY 2) the Scripture hidden in the heart of it itself as interpreted by it itself to confirm to the teachings of it itself, PLUS EQUALLY 3) The Leadership of it itself individually and exclusively as chosen by it itself from those who pledge to uphold the teachings of it itself unqiuely. There 3 things - equally and inseparately and together - are the SOURCE of the unique individual teachings of the RC Denomination itself. BUT IT IS NOT THE NORM. No norm is permitted because no accountability is permitted in the sole case of it itself alone (its demanded of all OTHERS, forbidden for self) - in formal doctrine at least. The RCC itself tells all to just swallow whole whatever IT ITSELF says (doctrinally at least) BECAUSE it itself is saying it and it itself tells all to do that (CCC 87, etc., etc.).




Back to the topic.... See post # 11.





.

We see the oral Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures in play with when St. Paul stayed with the Bereans for three weeks teaching them the revelation of Christ. Obviously, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching by accepting the subsequent letters.

Thank you for that agreement.

Yup, Scripture says NOTHING about RCC Tradition..... NOTHING about tradition and Scripture being "equal" in authority. NOTHING about how phantoms trump Scripture..... NOTHING about how if a denomination itself claims that it itself uniquely and individually is exempt from accountability, ergo it itself alone is.





.

 

[tadoflamb]

2. There is no Scripture that says that if a church, denomination, sect or cult claims that it itself (individually, uniquely, singularly, particularly) is exempt from accountability and truthfulness, thus it itself uniquely is.

Denominations are a protestant, abiblical invention. What the bible does affirm is a visible Church with the authority to teach.

 

[tadoflamb]

Thank you for that agreement.

Yup, Scripture says NOTHING about RCC Tradition..... NOTHING about tradition and Scripture being "equal" in authority. NOTHING about how phantoms trump Scripture..... NOTHING about how if a denomination itself claims that it itself uniquely and individually is exempt from accountability, ergo it itself alone is.





.

You've misread me again, I have no agreement with you. Catholic Sacred Tradition is etched all through the pages of the New Testament. What isn't there is this:

that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine,

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What the bible does affirm is a visible Church with the authority to teach.

What the Bible does not affirm is any denomination (that includes the RC one) and it does NOT affirm that any individual person, church, denomination, sect or cult is exempt from accountability and truthfulness if the self same insists that it self uniquely and individually is, THAT is what the Bible does not affirm.

Yes, the church is visible because Christians are. But no denomination is visible (the RCC cannot be seen, no denomination can; the RCC is invisible as are all other denominations, too). But since the RCC rejects any role of the church but insists that it itself rather is the sole exempt one, the sole infallible one, the sole authoritarian interpreter, the sole authoritarian teacher, the sole individual authority (entirely ignoring the church, looking ONLY to it itself exclusively), in the RCC, the church is irrelevant. It isn't exactly denied, just entirely ignored (so fixated the RC Denomination is on the reflection it itself sees in a pool of water).



Back to the issue: See post #11





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine



​

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord



.

Yup, that's Sola Scriptura.

See post # 11.






.

 

[tadoflamb]

What the Bible does not affirm is any denomination.....

The bible doesn't affirm denominationalism at all. Once you start adopting that language, you're getting away from the biblical definition of Church.

Denominationalism is a sola scripturist invention which, being a lover of the Sacred Scriptures, I passionately reject.

 

[tadoflamb]

Yup, that's Sola Scriptura.

See post # 11.






.

I guess. There's nothing around that statement that says this is the official, historic, formal, verbatim, historic definition of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura isn't' even mentioned in the document. Moreover, with no scriptural references, the bible alone doctrine can't be verified by the bible alone.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What the Bible does not affirm is any denomination (that includes the RC one) and it does NOT affirm that any individual person, church, denomination, sect or cult is exempt from accountability and truthfulness if the self same insists that it self uniquely and individually is, THAT is what the Bible does not affirm.


Yes, the church is visible because Christians are. But no denomination is visible (the RCC cannot be seen, no denomination can; the RCC is invisible as are all other denominations, too). But since the RCC rejects any role of the church but insists that it itself rather is the sole exempt one, the sole infallible one, the sole authoritarian interpreter, the sole authoritarian teacher, the sole individual authority (entirely ignoring the church, looking ONLY to it itself exclusively), in the RCC, the church is irrelevant. It isn't exactly denied, just entirely ignored (so fixated the RC Denomination is on the reflection it itself sees in a pool of water).



Back to the issue: See post #11




.

The bible doesn't affirm denominationalism at all.

I agree. It's one of the reasons I left the RC one. But this thread is not about the extreme individualism and denominational institutionalism which is so foundational to the RCC. But obviously when IT exempts only ITSELF from truthfulness, obviously some "IT" exists apart from the whole church (which the RCC entirely ignores although doesn't technically deny)


I'm glad we finally agree on the definition of Sola Scriptura. AND, finally, after nearly 10 years of insisting otherwise, that I didn't go back in time and pen it in 1577.








.

 

[abacabb3]

Many times, most recently in Dei Verbum.

What's the earliest?