Defining sola scriptura.

[abacabb3]

So, how about it sola scripturists, did you redefine every Christian doctrine formulated before 1577, or did you accept in part what you received from the Catholic Church?

How many practices has the Catholic Church changed since 1577?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What makes it not 'holy tradition" when Paul himself calls it "tradition" right next to the Lord's Supper and when the whole early church continued the practice?

The Church discerns it to be so just as she discerned the holy scriptures.

 

[abacabb3]

The Church discerns it to be so just as she discerned the holy scriptures.

So, it is not what the Church has in the Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, or what the Canon Laws and writings the Church has produced since the writing of Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, but what the Church says is tradition now is tradition?

 

[Albion]

So, it is not what the Church has in the Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, or what the Canon Laws and writings the Church has produced since the writing of Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, but what the Church says is tradition now is tradition?

Correct. However, we should add that it's not tradition that determines what is Tradition either! That is to say, it's not necessary for there to have been any record of consistency through time or among theologians or in any other way that we would normally think of a "tradition," either religious or any other kind, as representing.

The church simply selects which thoughts or actions from history it wants to consider traditional...and then considers them to have been the norm...and then says that they are a revelation from God.

This used to be readily admitted by the pro-"Holy Tradition" posters here, but for some reason, they seem to have decided to stop doing that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, it is not what the Church has in the Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, or what the Canon Laws and writings the Church has produced since the writing of Scripture that calls something tradition that is tradition, but what the Church says is tradition now is tradition?

Canon law only rarely relates to some specific holy tradition. Canon law is much more often about cultural and other traditions. It's about ordering and regulating matters pertaining to principles such as marriage, baptism, confirmation, ordination, church courts and the like.

 

[barryatlake]

Defining sola Scriptura;
The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected. Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught – even if those contradict one’s current religious system – should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.

The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established. According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority. Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:

The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or indirect rule of faith.

Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church – a historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession – is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach ( Matt. 28:20). It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Defining sola Scriptura;
The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura

You seem ENTIRELY unaware of what you speak. Read post # 11.

The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church

Yes, the reason why the RC Denomination so passionately, boldly, foundationally protests this practice is because it itself exempts it itself exclusively from accountability, insisting that the issue of truth be entirely laid aside in the singular, exclusive, unique, singular, individual case of it itself alone and in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that, all just swallow whole whatever it itself currenly says cuz it itself individually now does and it itself tells them to do that. See post # 11, especially the section, "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?"






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

CaliforniaJosiah, how do you know what scripture is; specifically, how do you know which books are inspired and canonical?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CaliforniaJosiah, how do you know what scripture is; specifically, how do you know which books are inspired and canonical?

TRY to stick to the topic and avoid hijacking the thread..... I suggest you read post # 11, if you did you would not keep changing the subject or inventing these strawmen....

Sure, we all know that the RCC has a UNIQUE Bible, one that NONE have EVER accepted - just it itself alone for it itself uniquely. Even Catholics for some 1000 years ignored the RCC on this point. But as you'd know if you read post #11, PRACTICING the Rule of Scripture in the norming of disptuted dogmas among us does not teach what is or is not Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law in the norming of disputed behavors teaches what is and is not the law as of this second in all of the millions of jurisdictions: the practice DOES something, practices don't teach anything since they are incapable of doing so. I counsel you to read post #11. I'm confident that if you do, you will cease with these diversions, evasions and strawmen.







.

 

[MoreCoffee]

TRY to stick to the topic and avoid hijacking the thread.....

Well, I did start this thread. I reckon I know what my intention was in the first post in this thread. Asking you CaliforniaJosiah, how do you know what scripture is; specifically, how do you know which books are inspired and canonical? is in keeping with the first post.

How does your denomination define its doctrine of scripture and does it have a specific section or sections that tell you that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures?

If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?

It seems your posts have laboriously avoided the questions asked in the original post. How about telling us what passages of holy scripture are used to support the definition (seventeen word definition) that you gave. And while you're at it why not tell us what books constitute the bible and why you believe that those are the books that are holy scripture?

 

[Rick Otto]

Lol! If you see the other team scoring a point,... move the goalposts!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, I did start this thread.

Then you SHOULD know it's about defining the practice of Sola Scriptura. It's not about the UNIQUE RCC Bible.

As you'd know if you read post #11.... (Note the highlighted point # )...


Here is the historic, formal, official definition. From 1577: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9).



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.


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 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 does it teach what is and is not Scripture. It's not a teaching at all. Practices do not teach anything, practices are incapable of teaching anything. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doesn'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.

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.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). This is also beyond the scope here, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.


An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

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 irrelevabnt - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. 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 both moot and 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 does the RCC so passionately PROTEST and 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 authoritative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Since it itself declares that it itself is unaccountable and that it itself is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of accountability and norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes entirely irrelevant (for itself), the whole issue of truth has been entirely laid aside in the sole, individual case of it itself alone. The issue has been changed from truth to unmitigated, unaccountable power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).


The RCC's "fathers" on Sola Scriptura:


"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439) Note: Gregory of Nyssa died in 394, quite a few years BEFORE Luther or Calvin were born. Compare to the definition of the practice.


Here are just a few other cases....

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)


"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).



"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).


"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)


For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)


Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Read post #11.

Try reading post #1 ... I repeated it for you in post #310.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Try reading post #1

Done in post #11.

Nothing in post #1 or the title about the UNIQUE RCC Bible that no other accepts. If you want discuss that, start a thread entitled, "Why Does the Singular RC Denomination Have a Unique Bible That None Have Ever Accepted - Not Even Many Catholics?" Start that thread, I'll post in it. But try to stick to the topic of this thread (it's a rule here at CF).




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In epistemology, "canon" = rule, measuring stick. See post # 11.

Here is the historic, formal, official definition. From 1577:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us"

(Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9).

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.

Great post bro!

Perhaps you and others may be interested in this other thread concerning that:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7246132-31/

Scripture as my measure

A conversation was derailing another thread and so
I'm moving the discussion here.
We're discussing using Scripture as a measuring tool.
We're not calling this practice by any formal name,
just it is what it is, using Scripture to measure.
Here's how the conversation began:

I measure everything against Scripture, to the best of
my ability anyhow.
What would be a better measuring tool in your opinion?

sunlover

Then Macarius spoke thus:

Originally Posted by Macarius

A better measuring tool would be the recieved teaching of the Church, which scripture itself calls the pillar and ground of the Truth.

You said it extremely well - you measure everything against Scripture to the best of your ability. I don't know about you, but my ability is extremely thin. It seems odd that the scriptures would emphasize discipleship so strongly, and yet (as sola-scriptura claims) we are supposed to "figure it out" based on our own personal best attempt to interpret a document. That isn't discipleship - it's literary analysis.

Instead, the EO (and RCC, but I'm Orthodox so I can't really speak for them) emphasize that God preserves His faith not only in a text, but also in a living body of people - His Body, the Church.
​

Ephesian 3:
17 To dwell the Christ thru the Faith in the hearts of ye in Love, having been rooted and having been founded,
18 That ye should be being strong to be grasping/apprehending together to all the Saints what the breadth and length and height and depth,
19 To know the transcending of the knowledge love of the Christ , that ye may be being filled into all filling of YAHWEH

Reve 21:
15 And the one talking with me had measure reed, golden,
that He should be measuring the City and the gates of Her and the wall of Her
16 And the City four cornered is-lying, and the length of Her as much as, and the breadth.
And Me measures the City to the reed on stadia twelve thousands the length and the breath and the height of Her equals is
17 And He measures the wall of Her, hundred forty four of cubits, measure of a Man, which is of a Messenger.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Done in post #11. ...

I am glad that you read post #1 but a little disappointed that post #11 does not tell me what scriptures support the definition that you gave.

How does your denomination define its doctrine of scripture and does it have a specific section or sections that tell you that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures?

If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?

When you're ready I'd be interested to see your answers to the bold text.

 

[Rick Otto]

It feels like I'm watching a Peter Sellers movie.
Look how sola scriptura is used to give a pseudo-debunking to sola scriptura:
"A better measuring tool would be the recieved teaching of the Church, which scripture itself calls the pillar and ground of the Truth."

It clearly deflected attention away from the self-appointment of being the Truth Police.

 

[Albion]

It feels like I'm watching a Peter Sellers movie.
Look how sola scriptura is used to give a pseudo-debunking to sola scriptura:
"A better measuring tool would be the recieved teaching of the Church, which scripture itself calls the pillar and ground of the Truth."

It clearly deflected attention away from the self-appointment of being the Truth Police.

...and it was necessary to change the meaning of that verse in order to try to make the point, anyway. So what's that--an affirmation of
"Sola Pseudo-Scriptura" (SPS)?

 

[Rick Otto]

...and it was necessary to change the meaning of that verse in order to try to make the point, anyway. So what's that--an affirmation of
"Sola Pseudo-Scriptura" (SPS)?

When I learned in HS geometry class that the distance between two points was infinitely divisible, I immediately thought of how Latin can infinitely divide (and thus conquer) the meaning of words.

My 4yrs older brother used to have me drill him in his Latin homework.
It really gave me an appreciation for root meanings and verbal construction.

 

[tadoflamb]

I understand that you don't want to answer these simple inconsistencies and that's ok.

Presenting myself for communion?

Because the Spirit of God lives within my heart. I don't need to eat a piece of bread and believe that it's the King of kings.

I do however remember the LORD in His death til He comes. That's what the body of Christ does when they come together to worship Him.

If you want to talk about Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, start a thread. This thread is about sola scriptura. From your brief description, I can tell your personal doctrine on the Eucharist varies from other sola scripturists.(ie:Lutherans). Did you know that 60 short years after the protestant revolt a Catholic priest found 200 individual interpretations of 'this is my body'. We know now that sola scripturists rejected the Catholic teaching and substituted it with several different versions of their own. How does this meld with one sola scripturists opinion that sola scriptura brings accountablity?

(See post #11)