Defining sola scriptura.

[Metal Minister]

Not a personal opinion.

That was a recap of what's actually been alleged by Catholics here and what their church stands on. If you need additional help, look it up.

And, by the way, I'm conversing with a person who demanded a definition of Sola Scriptura and when he got essentially the same one from several different posters and also from official sources, pretended that none of it meant anything. And you think you can take me down that black hole on this issue, too?????

Beyond that, he is also using this red herring to avoid providing CaliforniaJosiah with what was asked of him...

 

[Albion]

Albion & Josiah,the question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, as the question of where matter came from presents to those who believe in evolution, yet do not believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe the matter used in evolution came from somewhere. But, if there is no God, then where did matter come from? Big problem. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible – as to which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But, if there is no binding authority outside of the Bible, then where did this authoritative decision come from? Big problem.

In other words, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you believe in something that is logically inconsistent.

Is this another one of those putdowns of Scripture that will later be followed by a protest about someone daring to suggest that Catholics might not hold the Bible in highest esteem?

 

[Metal Minister]

Albion & Josiah,the question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, as the question of where matter came from presents to those who believe in evolution, yet do not believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe the matter used in evolution came from somewhere. But, if there is no God, then where did matter come from? Big problem. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible – as to which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But, if there is no binding authority outside of the Bible, then where did this authoritative decision come from? Big problem.

In other words, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you believe in something that is logically inconsistent. You believe the Bible is the sole authority in deciding Christian belief and practice; yet, you believe in a binding authority – whether you realize it or not – outside of the Bible which gave us the Bible in the first place. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the sole authority in matters of faith and morals. There is some authority outside of the Bible that we have to have in order to have the Bible in the first place!

I would like to add that as a Catholic I believe – and historical documentation backs up my belief – it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together as we have it today. There are many Protestants who disagree with me on that, but whether you agree that it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together or not, you have to agree that someone did. Someone with binding authority on Christians decided the disputes about which books should and should not be in what we now call the Bible. The Bible was not consulted in order to determine the question of which books should and should not be in the Bible.

In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the test of logic.

Using this line of reasoning with Sola Scriptura believers on this forum in the past, I have received several different responses. One response is: “God put the Bible together – He gave it to us.” Yes, He did. Catholics believe that God is the primary Author of Scripture. The question remains, however, as to exactly how God put the Bible together. Did he do it all by Himself and then the Bible just dropped down off of a cloud one day and all the people on the Earth heard a voice that said, “Here it is – read it and interpret it for yourselves," I don't believe that happened, but apparently that must be the way most of you understand it
Instead maybe He first use human beings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to write the Scriptures, and then He used human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit, to authoritatively decide the disputes as to which books were and were not written by Him? We Christians all agree that He used human beings to write the Scriptures, so it’s logical to assume that He also used human beings to authoritatively decide the disputes regarding Scriptures. The question is, which human beings did He use to decide these disputes? You as Sola Scriptura believers ultimately have no answer for this question.

Another response I've received is something like this: “We rely on the witness of the early Christians for our knowledge of what books should and should not be in the Bible. Do you know what we Catholics call the “witness of the early Christians?” Tradition. That’s a word that most of you Protestants will not use, when discussing your religious beliefs. All of your beliefs, you claim, come straight from the Bible and only from the Bible. Yet, when discussing where your beliefs about the Bible came from, you inevitably have to conclude that they came from tradition – whether you use the actual word, “tradition,” or not.

Also, if you respond that you rely on the witness of the early Christians for your knowledge of what is and is not Scripture, then we need to ask how is it that you non-Catholics know what the witness of the early Christians was. Is the witness of the early Christians on this matter written in the Bible? No. In other words, your knowledge of the witness of the early Christians comes from extra–biblical sources, also known as – tradition. Non-Catholic/Apostolics cannot get away from that word – tradition – no matter how hard you try.
__________________

Here barry, watch the following video, and go to michaeljkruger.com. It will alleviate this red herring for you:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...xEXsjjwvfIqc-svKQ&sig2=iwfgf2rAMPxcTOP3Z56xCg

You can skip the first roughly 15-20 minutes if you like, as its a recording of a phone call which Michael and James are responding to.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not a personal opinion.

That was a recap of what's actually been alleged by Catholics here and what their church stands on. If you need additional help, look it up.

And, by the way, I'm conversing with a person who demanded a definition of Sola Scriptura and when he got essentially the same one from several different posters and also from official sources, pretended that none of it meant anything. And you think you can take me down that black hole on this issue, too?????

That may have been your understanding of what's actually been alleged, but with no direct quotes, it's your own black hole...

 

[Albion]

That may have been your understanding of what's actually been alleged, but with no direct quotes, it's your own black hole...

Yes, that's what's actually been alleged.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by tadoflamb

Yup, I thought so. Instead of bolding, underlining or otherwise highlighting where a Catholic or the Church has said such a thing, all I get is a personal opinion.
​

Originally Posted by Albion

Not a personal opinion.

That was a recap of what's actually been alleged by Catholics here and what their church stands on. If you need additional help, look it up.

And, by the way, I'm conversing with a person who demanded a definition of Sola Scriptura and when he got essentially the same one from several different posters and also from official sources, pretended that none of it meant anything. And you think you can take me down that black hole on this issue, too?????
​

That may have been your understanding of what's actually been alleged, but with no direct quotes, it's your own black hole...

Great classic Disney movie


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCw67CtIOYM


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Albion & Josiah,the question of where the Bible came from presents the same kind of problem to those who believe in Sola Scriptura

Read post # 11.

There is no such thing as a "belief" in a practice. One may do it.... one may think it sound..... but "belief" is something one has in a teaching. I don't BELIEVE drinking coffee (the very sentence makes no sense).

If you read post # 11, you'll note that using Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us does not teach.... ANYTHING (Practices are incapable of such). And if you read it, you will note that PRACTICE was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it has been for the past at least 1900 years when Scripture has been complete.

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you have to believe that an authoritative decision was made as to which books did and did not belong in the Bible

Yes, we all KNOW that the singular RC Denomination has a UNIQUE Bible, a UNIQUE canon, a UNIQUE official embrace of what is and is not Scripture, UNIQUE in that NONE OTHER agrees with it on this and NO OTHER ever - ever - has. I can understand why this would trouble you, concern you greatly - but take it elsewhere. If you want to discuss this, start a thread entitled: "Why Does My Denomination Have a Unique Bible NO Other Accepts - And Never Has?" I'll post in it.

Heck, if you want to use Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Leodiceans canonically in the norming of disputed dogmas among us - I personally won't protest. Thing is, you can't use ANY book normatively in evaluating the dogmas of your denomination: to be Catholic you are to just swallow them BECUASE your singular, individual, unqiue, singular, particular denomination now teaches them and tells you to docilicly accept them. See post #11, note the section: "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?"

it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together as we have it today

Well, the ONE you have. No one else does. Never has. The RCC has a UNIQUE Bible. ALWAYS has had. But it would be good if you could engage in the topic instead of these CONSTANT, PERPETUAL attempts to evade the topic and change the subject (in debate, this is called "the shell game").







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

At any rate, the official, formal, historic, confessional definition of sola scriptura offered to us here doesn't make any provision for your personal reading of the bible.

That's because the practice concerns NORMING, not hermeneutics.

But I agree in your condemnation of self insisting that self alone is the individual, authoritarian interpreter of Scripture. Of course, there is only one denomination that does what you ridicule and condemn: YOURS. The bishops of the individual RC Denomination wrote and approved and authorized the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination for it itself. See who/what they appoint as the interpreters of Scripture. Yup, self. Now..... I challenge you AGAIN (as I have many Catholics for nearly 10 years here at CF)...... search and search.... search all the days of your life on Earth and in Purgatory..... search every Catechism of every church, sect or denomination on the Planet Earth..... search them ALL.... see if you can find even one that states the same thing the RCC does in the Catechism of it itself # 85. I can tell you - to date - NO Catholic at CF (and at least a dozen other websites - including CatholicAnswers) has been able to do this.... they jsut find ONE doing what you condemn, ridicule, mock...... and it happens to be YOUR church, the RCC.

But as you admit, you are off topic.





.

 

[topcare]

Defining sola scriptura

How can something that at it heart has no real meaning be absolutely defined

 

[Metal Minister]

How can something that at it heart has no real meaning be absolutely defined

Seriously, you should stop posting on this subject.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Defining sola scriptura

How can something that at it heart has no real meaning be absolutely defined

The topic title uses the present tense "defining" to indicate that it may be a work in progress. Clearly there is some sort of core definition present but thus far not many have discussed the elements in it. For example these topics are yet to be properly examined:

• What is (what constitutes) holy scripture and why is it what it is?
• What is doctrine?
• What is authority in matters of religion?
• What is one's hermeneutic for holy scripture?
• What role does interpretation play?

Some may object that these questions do not match their idea of this thread's topic but I remind readers that the original post explicitly asks for such issues to be presented and justified. If I may remind the reader once again the original post says:

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?

 

[Rick Otto]

A similar thread about a term that has no meaning could be started, called "defining tradition".

 

[MoreCoffee]

A similar thread about a term that has no meaning could be started, called "defining tradition".

You are welcome to start one

Holy Tradition is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Metal Minister]

The topic title uses the present tense "defining" to indicate that it may be a work in progress.

I think you must realize this idea has been roundly falsified. As you've admitted yourself, the definition is quite well standardized across many multiple sources, and even across multiple denominations right here on CF. It isn't "in progress" it isn't "vague" it's well defined, and aside from a flurry of misrepresentations and strawmen, has stood up quite well.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think you must realize this idea has been roundly falsified. As you've admitted yourself, the definition is quite well standardized across many multiple sources, and even across multiple denominations right here on CF. It isn't "in progress" it isn't "vague" it's well defined, and aside from a flurry of misrepresentations and strawmen, has stood up quite well.

Interesting opinion you've offered.

 

[Metal Minister]

Interesting opinion you've offered.

Are you seriously going to make me chase down your post where you admitted to the steadfastness of the definition of Sola Scriptura? -_-

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are you seriously going to make me chase down your post where you admitted to the steadfastness of the definition of Sola Scriptura? -_-

What is the purpose of your post? I do not see a definition of sola scriptura in it nor any passages of scripture to support the definition nor any explanation of the doctrine using your own words. That's what I was asking. It's what I hoped would be given. But you may have your own approach and maybe it will get to a definition eventually. So I await your reply with some interest. I want to see where you're going with this.

 

[Metal Minister]

What is the purpose of your post? I do not see a definition of sola scriptura in it nor any passages of scripture to support the definition nor any explanation of the doctrine using your own words. That's what I was asking. It's what I hoped would be given. But you may have your own approach and maybe it will get to a definition eventually. So I await your reply with some interest. I want to see where you're going with this.

Cognitive dissonance. I have posted the definition. Albion has posted the definition. CaliforniaJosiah has posted the definition. Multiple sources have been quoted with definition. All nearly word for word the same. The only way to not see them is to purposefully ignore them...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Cognitive dissonance. I have posted the definition. Albion has posted the definition. CaliforniaJosiah has posted the definition. Multiple sources have been quoted with definition. All nearly word for word the same. The only way to not see them is to purposefully ignore them...

My apologies if you have posted a definition of sola scriptura with scripture backing and explanation in your own words of what it means. I looked through the thread and haven't seen it, it is a very long thread now so I may have missed it. I've seen CaliforniaJosiah's seventeen word definition but it had no scripture backing and the explanation has been repeated (post #11 I think) so often that it is becoming almost invisible - I admit that having read it two or three times I gave up reading it more and I skip over reposts of it now. But if you can direct me to your post that contains the things I asked for then I will gladly read it if I have not already read it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You are welcome to start one

Holy Tradition is not the subject of this thread.

No need to start a new one

http://www.christianforums.com/t7846222/
Holy Tradition. Please define it.

I quoted the below from another thread and thought it deserved it's own thread.

What exactly is Holy Tradition, and how many Christian denominations practice it, and how many different versions are there?

Originally Posted by Albion
Oh, I don't think we can go that far. At least not if we're still discussing Tradition, and I think we are, since the Ever-Virgin doctrine is entirely based upon it.

And they might have been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament writings. And those children might logically enough have been mentioned by name, too. Oh wait, they were.

No, I can hardly put my faith in a decision to deny the evidence, but that is how "Tradition" works--selectively. That's why I've said before that it isn't even true to itself.

And it's why every church body that says it believes in Holy Tradition uses a different version of what that Tradition is--doing which refutes the concept of Tradition.
​

Sacred tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the English language, "sacred tradition" is more likely to be used in reference to Catholicism and "holy tradition" in reference to Eastern Orthodoxy, although the two terms are interchangeable in meaning.

Among the earliest examples of the theological appeal to tradition is the response of early 'orthodox' Christianity to Gnosticism, a movement that used some Christian Scripture as the basis for its teachings.[1]

Irenaeus of Lyons held that 'rule of faith' (regula fidei) is preserved by a church through its historical continuity (of interpretation and teaching) with the Apostles.[2]

Tertullian argued that although interpretations founded on a reading of all Holy Scripture are not prone to error, tradition is the proper guide.[3]

Athanasius held that Arianism fell into its central error by not adhering to tradition.[4]

The Second Vatican Council taught on tradition, scripture, and magisterium in Dei verbum, n. 10:..................................
In the Catholic and Orthodox churches

Holy tradition for the Eastern Orthodox is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration, or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky described tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church."[5] It is dynamic in application yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression yet is always the same in essence.

The Eastern Orthodox churches do not regard tradition as something which accrues or expands over time. Rather, Orthodox believe tradition is the faith which Jesus Christ taught to the apostles and which they gave to their disciples without any development or deepening in understanding of the faith. It is merely that faith once delivered as understood within the context of lived history.

Protestant position

Most Protestant denominations historically claimed that the Bible alone is the source for Christian doctrine. This position does not deny that Jesus or the apostles preached in person, that their stories and teachings were transmitted orally during the early Christian era, or that truth exists outside of the Bible.

For sola scriptura Christians today, however, these teachings are preserved in the Bible as the only inspired medium. Since in the opinion of sola scriptura Christians, other forms of tradition do not exist in a fixed form that remains constant in its transmission from one generation to the next and cannot be referenced or cited in its pure form, there is no way to verify which parts of the "tradition" are authentic and which are not.[6]


.