Defining sola scriptura.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From the Belgic Confession, Article 7:

"The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, to be the only rule of faith.

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

This briefly relates the definition of Sola Scriptura - that Scripture is the only rule.

Of course, the Reformed Confessions also express WHY Scripture should so serve, why it is sufficient for such... It is placing this practice in relation to the doctrine of Scripture (the belief part) which is certainly appropriate. Reformed and Lutherans agree as to the definition.

Here the Reformed Confessions state the practice then give the theological explanation for such for the Reformed. But the definition of the practice is the same.

To date (for nearly 10 years just here at CF), not a single Protestant has disagreed with a single word in the definition given in post # 11. Rarely (so rarely, i can't think of an example) has one disagreed with a single word in post # 11 - including my explanation of it. Only Catholics and Mormons (while admitting they either have ignored or didn't read it, don't know what it is BUT that it is bad, evil, new, unbiblical and condemnable - you know, that practice they don't know what is).




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

From the Belgic Confession, Article 7

This briefly relates the definition of Sola Scriptura ...

Obviously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pismg8l57Rs

 

[tadoflamb]

Lutherans are not the only ones to embrace this practice, as one would note, and as the opening poster knows (or this would be in the Lutheran forum).

Actually, outside of post #11, I've yet to find any source which calls sola scriptura a practice. A principle, rule, teaching and doctrine, but not a practice.

I suspect there is another definition of sola scriptura which does allow for the personal reading of scripture and the rendering of private judgments which seems so popular with the sola scripturists of today.

At any rate, given the official, historic, formal, confessional verbatim definition of sola scriptura offered to us in post #11, it's clear that if your not Lutheran, and if your not norming dogma, sola scriptura is not for you.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry, but when the authors of the official, formal, historical, verbatim, confessional seventeen word definition of sola scriptura penned the words 'among us', I hardly expect that they sought to include neither Anglicans nor the freethinkers of the 21st century.

...and your thought is that no one else is allowed to agree with the definition or concept, either during the Reformation, now, or at any other time.

A fascinating if weird theory, that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"....among us" is not "among Lutherans exclusively." Nice try, but silly.


And since MANY others besides Lutherans (even here at CF) are endorsing the same practice and the Lutherans are affirming that (NOT screaming ONLY LUTHERANS MAY USE SCRIPTURE THIS WAY!!!!!!!!!!), that should have been sufficient for you to not take "us" to mean "Lutherans EXCLUSIVELY." But again, nice try. I am impressed - I truly am - by how good Catholics are at dodging all this. See post # 11 the section, "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?"


.

 

[barryatlake]

Josiah & Albion,

Protestant disunity is due, at least in part, to Protestants following their principle of sola scriptura. Even when sin and pride are excluded from the equation, Protestants still interpreted the Bible differently on important issues--sometimes even on questions directly related to salvation (like the nature of baptism or whether Christians can lose their salvation). This points to a defective method of discerning what it is God has revealed, not merely to defective discerners.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, outside of post #11, I've yet to find any source which calls sola scriptura a practice. A principle, rule, teaching and doctrine, but not a practice.

When you DO something, it's a praxis. When you PROCLAIM A TEACHING, that's teaching.

I'm typing a post at CF. I'm DOING something.

"The Earth is Mostly Round" is TEACHING something.

Really, it's not rocket science....... I think you are trying WAY TOO HARD to evade things..... You asked for the definition. You got it - over and over and over and over and over.... for at least 10 years right here at CF alone.....

e personal reading of scripture and the rendering of private judgments

The CONSTANT, PERSISTENT attempts to divert, evade, hijack is impressive (I truly AM impressed by how skilled and persistent some CAtholic can be at this!) only means you need to evade the very topic you brought up. Read post #11. If you do, you will note that embracing a RULE/Canon/Norma normans is an aspect of norming (evaluating disputed positions for correctness)..... all this has been explained to you over and over and over and over - ALWAYS ENTIRELY, WHOLLY ignored and evaded and circumvented. It is not hermeneutics, it is not arbitration (although those are ALSO commonly aspects of norming - just DIFFERENT ones). Yes, we all KNOW that all this is irrelevant to Catholicism and the RCC so passionatley protests norming (for itself) but that doesn't "justify" the persistent evading, ignoring of what the practice is - while insisting you don't know what the practice is that you so persistently condemn, ridicule and rebuke but insist you don't know what is.


Now, AGAIN, I fully (and passionately!) agree with your condemnation of self insisting that self is the sole interpreter of Scripture and the sole authoritarian, infallible arbiter. I AGREE WITH YOU! But there is only one denomination - church - sect that does that: Yours. The RCC. Your condemnation is correct, it just applies to just one church - yours.

At any rate, given the official, historic, formal, confessional verbatim definition of sola scriptura offered to us in post #11, it's clear that if your not Lutheran, and if your not norming dogma, sola scriptura is not for you.

How silly. Quote the 17 words. Underline and/or embolden the words "exclusively for Lutherans." Quote ANY Lutheran stating that only Lutherans may use Scripture for this purpose. Come on.....







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Protestant disunity

The RCC is disunited with all.
The RCC has doctrinal unity with NONE.

True.... there are some other denominations just as bad as the RC one in this regard, but none worse (it's IMPOSSIBLE to have less doctrinal unity than with NONE - what the RC Denomination has).


Now, let's return to the topic of this thread...






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Please, let's stick with the topic defined in the original post.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Please, let's stick with the topic defined in the original post.

I agree.... not hermeneutics, not arbitration, not how the RCC has unity with none, not how the RCC has a UNIQUE Bible none but it itself (currently) accepts - and never has, not how the RCC insists that it itself is the sole, authoritarian, infallible, unaccountable interpreter and arbiter, not how Catholics condemn and ridicule a practice that they insist they don't know even what it is.....

The definition was given in post #11. Protestants have been affirming it (for some 10 years just here at CF, probably longer) and Catholics have been ignoring, evading and circumventing....






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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?

Above is the original post, I hope it helps to set the tone of replies in the future.

God have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Obviously. This is why Catholics and Mormons CONSTANTLY post strawmen, misconceptions, silly stuff.... and why they keep asking unrelated questions.... and why they keep so persistently diverting things into other subjects. You actually ASKED for the definition - then reveal (and admit) you just ignore it, evade it, circumvent it, divert from it.






.

It's a misconception because Protestants can't answer the question with one voice.

 

[Albion]

Josiah & Albion,

Protestant disunity is due, at least in part, to Protestants following their principle of sola scriptura. .

Is Catholic disunity then due to Catholics following their principle of Traditions?

If so, "ties go to the" word of the Lord over the opinions of men.

 

[Root of Jesse]

*sigh* I detest repeating myself. So I will use a quote from yet another source, and one who is well known as a scholar on the canon.


Scripture Alone by Michael Kruger | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org

I highly recommend you read the whole article. Very informative. As to bible texts that teach it:
1 Cor 4:6

In context, Paul was speaking to the Corinthians about following what Paul had taught them. Orally. Nothing like your definition.

Luke 1:1-4

What was "Scripture" to Luke? And why should what Luke wrote be authoritative? And how do we know Luke wrote it?

Matthew 4:1-11

Says nothing about Scripture alone...

2 Timothy 3:16-17

doesn't say Scripture ALONE is inspired by God...

Luke 10:26

Ditto.

Matthew 12:3,5, 21:42

Ditto.

But I'm sure you knew this all already....

Ditto.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Protestants can't answer the question with one voice.

Protestants all define it the same (yes, some ADD explanations - as I did in post # 11 - and/or how that Scripture should be interpreted, but ADDING EXPLANATIONS is not changing the defintion).


I've been posting those same 17 verbatim, official, formal, historic words of the definition for nearly 10 years here at CF. To date, not one - not even one - Protestant has disagreed with it (in fact, not one has disagreed with ANYTHING in post # 11 - not here, not anywhere known to me). Some ADD explanations but none yet has suggested a DIFFERENT definition.

I agree.... Catholics condemn the practice while insisting they don't know what they are talking about because they don't know what the practice is, only that WHATEVER "it" is (and they don't have a clue) it's bad, wrong, condemnable, unbiblical (whatever "it" is). They can't even say why, but only can change the subject (which great skill, I must confess - it really is impressive how the whole topic is dodged).





.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Protestants all define it the same (yes, some ADD explanations - as I did in post # 11 - and/or how that Scripture should be interpreted, but ADDING EXPLANATIONS is not changing the defintion).


I've been posting those same 17 verbatim, official, formal, historic words of the definition for nearly 10 years here at CF. To date, not one - not even one - Protestant has disagreed with it (in fact, not one has disagreed with ANYTHING in post # 11 - not here, not anywhere known to me). Some ADD explanations but none yet has suggested a DIFFERENT definition.

I agree.... Catholics condemn the practice while insisting they don't know what they are talking about because they don't know what the practice is, only that WHATEVER "it" is (and they don't have a clue) it's bad, wrong, condemnable, unbiblical (whatever "it" is). They can't even say why, but only can change the subject (which great skill, I must confess - it really is impressive how the whole topic is dodged).





.

And, as I said before, if that's the definition, then there's no dispute. But when you dive further into what Protestants mean by that, it becomes disputable.
The Catholic Church bases its doctrine on Scripture, relies on the apostles and their successors to tell us what Scripture means and how to interpret it (Tradition), and that the apostles and their successors in communion with the successor of the head of the apostles have the authority to tell us what they mean. That was the definition for 1577 years. Then, ML comes along and says, no, it should mean (Insert post 11). It's like how politicians these days try to reinterpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And, as I said before, if that's the definition, then there's no dispute.

That IS the definition. But you dispute, ridicule and condemn it. As does your denomination.

But usually Catholics go to ENORMOUS lengths (really, quite impressive how they do this!) to evade, avoid, ignore and circumvent the whole thing. As I've witnessed you do.




.

 

[LostMarbels]

Is God capable of conveying his message without his creation having to interpret it for him?

That is the debate. Is God smart enough without our amazing insight and knowledge to communicate his will?

Lets forget all the legalism, dogmatic religious ideals and ask a simple question.

Is God's word able to interpret its self?

Does the one true God, creator of all rely on his creation to interpret his word for him, because he cannot do it himself?

 

[Root of Jesse]

That IS the definition. But you dispute, ridicule and condemn it. As does your denomination.

But usually Catholics go to ENORMOUS lengths (really, quite impressive how they do this!) to evade, avoid, ignore and circumvent the whole thing. As I've witnessed you do.




.

Well, I am not part of any denomination. I'm Catholic. I don't dispute what you say, but what you mean by it, usually, which is not the same as what we mean by it.
The point is you do exactly what we do, and just apply different aspects and standards.

 

[tadoflamb]

Is God's word able to interpret its self?

According to some definitions of sola scriptura it is, just not in the one offered to us in post #11.