EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Again, you are correct in noting that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the praxis of Sola Scriptura. It's yet another diversion and/or strawman....

Yes, Paul, Timothy and Silas evidently taught some things. Does that mean that what a Denomination teaches (RCC, LDS, LCMS, EO, UMC, etc.) is to be regarded as equal in normative function with God's Scripture according to this verse?

And note, it says "FROM US..." Not, "from the Bishops of the RCC or LDS."

And, of course, Sola Scriptura says NOTHING about Tradition. Positively or negatively or at all. Now, I suppose embracing Scripture ALONE as the norma normans DOES mean that therefore one's own view cannot be the final Rule for the evaluation of the self-same (creating a perfect circle of self-authentication) but the praxis itself says nothing to that. It simply suggests that ALL views (whether those of self or those of others) are subject to the SAME Canon (and yes, that could not be itself).

Acts says that the Eunich needed Stephen to explain Scripture to him. Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not deny the need for exposition of Scripture by faithful and learned teachers, nor the need for a structured clergy that protects the church against false teachers. But those true teachers must refute heretics from a right use of Scripture.
​

Right. To listen to some critics, you'd think that there's no Baptist preachers or teachers, no Baptist Sunday Schools, cuz all Protestants are opposed to teaching....

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING TO DO with the importance of the activity of teaching. It does have to do with BY WHAT is a teaching to be evaluated.

5. There was no canon of Scripture until the 3rd or 4th century so Protestant's can't know which books to use. Answer: tougher to refute but not if "canon" is understood rightly. The collected works of Shakespeare contain works by that author, and they are his works because he wrote them, not because they were bound up with a table of contents. The church gradually recognized those books that are canonical but did not create the canon. If one holds this argument, does one not then conclude that nobody could have any confidence in which books were inspired, beginning with Genesis all the way down to the 3rd Century? How could a Jew have known that Isaiah was canonical?
​

Right.

And again, the list of books is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura. The praxis was just as valid when Scripture was just two stone tablets that Moses had brought down from the mountain. To argue that it cannot serve as a Canon because we don't know if it's FINISHED would be the same as telling a policeman who has pulled you over for speeding that he's moot because we don't know if the speed limit will someday be changed. And it's all moot anyway, there's only one denomination (the LDS) that is arguing that additional books that DO support thier unique dogmas is to be added to the Canon.

And JESUS Himself refered to Scripture (as He used Sola Scriptura). All these 300 years before the Council of Hippo and over 1500 years before the Council of Trent. Was He lying to call it Scripture when He did? To use such as normative?

The whole argument is irrelevant and moot - just a diversion from the point.

6. SS produces disunity and disagreement--if it were so clear, why don't all Protestants agree? Answer: if Holy Tradition were so clear, why don't all Orthodox agree on both Scripture and Tradition? There is unity within diversity, is there not? Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. It is not S.S. that produces division but our propensity to err and our sinful pride in drawing lines where they shouldn't be drawn. This befalls every Christian body. I believe that to use this argument is to hold to a double standard.
​

Another excellent point....

Actually, there are 3 denominations known to me that solidly reject Sola Scriptura in favor of the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" - the RC, EO and LDS. Do they agree in all matters with each other? With ANY other than self? Where is the evidence that "The Three Legged Stool" leads to more agreement? Unless one simply defines the "stool" as WHATEVER self alone thinks - then, yes, self IS likely to agree with self. So what? I typically agree with myself, does that make me correct? If not, then why does it make the RCC or LDS correct?

Yes, I realize that the RCC alone currently agrees with the RCC alone in all matters that the RCC alone currently thinks there should be agreement upon. Can't the same be said for the other 49.999 denominations that Catholics insist exist? So what?



The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it" (Ditto, 9).


"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Sola Scriptura IS....


An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.




Sola Scriptura is NOT....


1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.



Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.


2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.




Some quotes:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

Click to expand...