Defining sola scriptura.

[tadoflamb]

Have you found any contradictions? New thread perhaps?

You know, since I've become the topic of so many posts I've thought that I should start a thread about me, but in lieu of that let me just say the Catholic Church agrees with my personal reading of scripture 100%.

 

[LostMarbels]

You're going to have to bring that up with the author of post #11. According to him, 'scripture interprets scripture' is not part of the definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura.

Ok. Please explain to me why this post #11 is so important that it is brought up incessantly threw out the entire thread?

 

[tadoflamb]

Ok. Please explain to me why this post #11 is so important that it is brought up incessantly threw out the entire thread?

It contains all seventeen words of the official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching/doctrine of sola scriptura. Allegedly.

 

[LostMarbels]

Ok... I'm still trying to figure out why this post #11 is being referred to like scripture itself. It seems like the answer to any question is found in THE Post #11.

For it is written in; Post#11, What it is NOT: verse 2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. ........

Just tell me the point your trying to make please.

 

[Albion]

Ok... I'm still trying to figure out why this post #11 is being referred to like scripture itself. It seems like the answer to any question is found in THE Post #11.

For it is written in; Post#11, What it is NOT: verse 2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. ........

Just tell me the point your trying to make please.

LostMarbels, the purpose of this thread was allegedly to get a definition of Sola Scriptura. It was given--from official sources--and explained--in post #11.

We then were treated to dozens of replies in the vein of "I want a different definition" or "I don't like that definition" or "I don't understand the definition" along with various jokes about Sola Scriptura.

There comes a point when a poster who has taken the time to answer a question here (even if he knows that the one doing the asking already has the answer) declines to be made to jump through additional hoops for no good reason.

Want the definition? Read Post #11. It's there.

 

[Standing Up]

You know, since I've become the topic of so many posts I've thought that I should start a thread about me, but in lieu of that let me just say the Catholic Church agrees with my personal reading of scripture 100%.

Always nice when someone agrees with you (universal you).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok. Please explain to me why this post #11 is so important

The definition is therein given. As it has at CF for nearly all its history. If I asked for the official statement of the RCC Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, I'd likely be quoted the official, formal, verbatim statement from the Catechism. No matter how many times I asked for the official definition of the dogma, I'd be referred to the official Catechism and I'd be given the very same verbatim words. The official definition doesn't change just because its been asked for repeatedly.

The definition of the practice is officially, formally, confessionally stated. And NO PROTESTANT in nearly 500 years has disagreed with it. When i came to CF nearly 10 years ago, this definition was already widely being discussed here. And as several of us have shared it during these past 10 years, not one Protestant (lay or clergy) has disagreed with it (and fact, not with ANYTHING in that post!) - although, I agree, some like to ADD explanations as to why Scripture is the best rule in the norming of disputed doctrines among us, some like to ADD their doctrine of Scirpture, some like to ADD principles of interpretation - all to rebuff well known Catholic and Mormon protests - but ADDING those explanations is not changing the definition of the practice itself.

There are COUNTLESS threads and posts at CF that have asked for the definition (usually posted by Catholics or Mormons). COUNTLESS times (it must be at least be in the hundreds, just in the past 10 years alone, just at CF) the definition has been given. It's always just ignored. Then Catholics will post on and on and on about how they don't have a clue what it is BUT that whatever "it" is "it" is bad, horrible, terrible, divisive, satanic, new, condemnable - but they don't know what it is. Some will add that Lutherans "invented" this but that Lutherans (oddly) don't have a CLUE what it is they invented so we can't look to Lutherans for a definition or explanation because Lutherans don't know what they invented - no one does - but it's bad, wrong, horrible, condemnable, new.


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[tadoflamb]

Ok... I'm still trying to figure out why this post #11 is being referred to like scripture itself. It seems like the answer to any question is found in THE Post #11.

For it is written in; Post#11, What it is NOT: verse 2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. ........

Just tell me the point your trying to make please.

Good point, seeing that the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching doctrine of sola scriptura offered to us in post #11 doesn't offer any scripture to support it.

Even more troublesome is when we look at the quote in context:

[9] In the pure churches and schools these public common writings have been always regarded as the sum and model of the doctrine which Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, has admirably deduced from God's Word, and firmly established against the Papacy and other sects; and to his full explanations in his doctrinal and polemical writings we wish to appeal, in the manner and as far as Dr. Luther himself in the Latin preface to his published works has given necessary and Christian admonition concerning his writings, and has expressly drawn this distinction namely, that the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal, but to which everything should be subjected.

(emphasis mine)

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

(Thanks to MoreCoffee for provided the link to the source of the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching doctrine of sola scriptura)

Further exploration of the above document will reveal the authors condemnations of anyone who disagrees with them as well as the conspicuous absence any provision which allows for the private judgement or the personal reading of scripture, the sola scripturist concept that the bible is reliable for making everyday decisions or, in your case, that scripture interprets scripture.

No, the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching doctrine of sola scriptura offered to us in post #11 only allows Lutheran churchmen to to employ the official, formal, historical, confessional, verbatim definition of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching doctrine of sola scriptura and then only for norming dogma. If you're not Lutheran, and if your not norming dogma, sola scriptura is not for you.

So, what are we to think of the sola scripturists whose application of the principle/praxis/rule/teaching doctrine of sola scriptura comes into conflict with the one provided to us in post #11? Obviously, in spite of the protest to the contrary, there's other definitions out there.

So, where did you get the idea that sola scriptura included the concept that scripture interprets scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")

It is Gal 1:6-9 that explains why that is such an important NT concept ...

Do you believe Paul taught something different from what he wrote down? Or is it more likely that the tradition he's speaking of is what he taught that is exactly the same as what he preached?

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should teach a different Gospel ... let him be accursed".

 

[BobRyan]

Holy tradition is not a higher authority above holy scripture. Both are revealed by God and both have that authority which every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God has. The hyperbole in the things you've said does not help to advance the discussion. All it does is make things unclear so that the facts cannot be examined without first removing the misconceptions that obscure truth.

What is "claimed" as "holy tradition" has not always lined up with the Bible.

As Christ points out here -- notice how supposedly 'holy tradition' did not measure up to the sola scriptura test.

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

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.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Very contrary to Catholicism; quite the antithesis of the RCC....


A Catholic entirely, wholly, completely IGNORES the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (as does the RC Denomination). WHAT MAKES THEM CATHOLIC is that they swallow whole whatever the singular, exclusive, unique, particular, individual RC Denomination currently says BECAUSE it itself individually and currently is saying it and because it itself alone tells them to do that. Doing it is what makes them Catholics. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination for it itself # 87. The one, holy, catholic church has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it - it is to be completely and entirely ignored - the RCC is the only one the RCC sees and the only one all others are to see, obey, submit to, and what alone can tell them what to swallow.

And this IS the reason for the passionate PROTEST of this practice:

Originally Posted by Josiah

Why does the RCC 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, 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 individually and exclusively is unaccountable and that whatever it itself exclusively and currently says is just to be swallowed because it itself individually and currently is saying it, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) has simply been denied (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to the unmitigated power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively). THIS is why Catholics will never engage in the issue but rather run to defend this unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like POWER that the RCC claims for itself exclusively that "trumps" the issue of truth and accountability, they claim.


​

Where did the "Josiah" post come from?

 

[BobRyan]

You know, since I've become the topic of so many posts I've thought that I should start a thread about me, but in lieu of that let me just say the Catholic Church agrees with my personal reading of scripture 100%.

Then you must be 100% in favor of sola scriptura testing of RCC doctrine and tradition against the actual Bible.

nice to meet you.

 

[tadoflamb]

So while it is true that Acts 17:11 shows sola scriptura "in practice" -- ("They searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things SPOKEN to them by the APOSTLE Paul -- were so")
.

(emphasis mine)


Actually, it demonstrates the oral Sacred Tradition working in tandem with the written Sacred Tradition just like it does today.

 

[tadoflamb]

Then you must be 100% in favor of sola scriptura testing of RCC doctrine and tradition against the actual Bible.

nice to meet you.

How do you define sola scriptura?

Nice to meet you too.

 

[LostMarbels]

So, where did you get the idea that sola scriptura included the concept that scripture interprets scripture?

I think you are a little to intellectually inclined to try and explain a denominational explanation of the concept of Sola Scriptura. As always, when ever man gets involved with religion, they make adaptations that suit their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs to suite the Word of God.

Forget the semantics. Can God Interpret himself? Yes or no. What mankind terms as sola scriptura may or may not be real. But the simple implication of it is very real.

Can God interpret himself?

I say yes.... that being said I believe scripture can interpret scripture, because scripture comes form the Word of God, God is the Word, and God is the only one who can explain him self to us.

All the religious stuff doesn't matter.

 

[tadoflamb]

I think you are a little to intellectually inclined to try and explain a denominational explanation of the concept of Sola Scriptura. As always, when ever man gets involved with religion, they make adaptations that suit their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs to suite the Word of God.

Forget the semantics. Can God Interpret himself? Yes or no. What mankind terms as sola scriptura may or may not be real. But the simple implication of it is very real.

Can God interpret himself?

I say yes.... that being said I believe scripture can interpret scripture, because scripture comes form the Word of God, God is the Word, and God is the only one who can explain him self to us.

All the religious stuff doesn't matter.

So, you define sola scriptura as a concept in which scripture interprets scripture. Duly noted.

 

[LostMarbels]

So, you define sola scriptura as a concept in that scripture interprets scripture. Duly noted.

Take a stance. Give me an iron clad statement of your convection.

Can God interpret himself?

 

[Standing Up]

(emphasis mine)


Actually, it demonstrates the oral Sacred Tradition working in tandem with the written Sacred Tradition just like it does today.

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Oral Tradition: they said.
Scripture test: you tried them that say and found them

IOW, scripture is the test, the assay, the rule of faith, the plumb line against which doctrine/dogma is tested.

Likewise, Paul spoke. The Bereans searched scripture.

Both verses tell us the same thing; that is, scripture is the standard.

 

[barryatlake]

Nowhere in the bible does it say anything remotely indicating that written words self-interpret. The very concept is nonsensical.

 

[LostMarbels]

Nowhere in the bible does it say anything remotely indicating that written words self-interpret. The very concept is nonsensical.

That depends on whether you believe you're reading a book, or the written Word of God.