Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

Cormack said:

ON TOPIC: I think what would help is if people could describe a distinction with a different between Sola and Prima Scriptura. I’ve read people teach Prima scripture means scripture first, but that’s no different from my earlier definition of sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

?? Sola means only or alone. How is that NOT different from first (among a number of different items)?

Albion said:

?? Sola means only or alone. How is that NOT different from first (among a number of different items)?

Click to expand...

Because the straight etymology of words isn’t always how communities actually define words. The modern definition seems to be that sola Scriptura makes scripture the only infallible rule of faith, someone shared a link saying so earlier. But that definition seems so unremarkable that almost everyone could hold to it.

Cormack said:

Because the straight etymology of words isn’t always how communities actually define words. The modern definition seems to be that sola Scriptura makes scripture the only infallible rule of faith, someone shared a link saying so earlier.

Click to expand...

But that definition seems so unremarkable that almost everyone could hold to it.

Click to expand...

You've got it.

And it took only 100 posts on this thread and at least a half-dozen other threads dealing with the subject before someone (other than the posters who were explaining it) admitted to understanding it so clearly as you did.

Cormack said:

But that definition seems so unremarkable that almost everyone could hold to it.

Click to expand...

it is not the definition that's the problem. It is the application.

It has been proven, by a Sola Scripturist, that SS does not lead to truth. God's Word is truth, but the gymnastics people go through to make scripture agree with their own personal beliefs is nothing short of absurd. Ss is a failure.

Albion said:

You've got it.

And it took only 100 posts on this thread and at least a half-dozen other threads dealing with the subject before someone (other than the posters who were explaining it) admitted to understanding it so clearly as you did.

Click to expand...

Which would make everyone in the topic solar Scriptura. I’m not sure how helpful that is Unless there’s more to the word rather than straight up etymology (which I suspect there is), so we’d have to go deeper than the fact that in some contexts at some times sola means 1 or only.

Hence a distinction with a different between the two positions would help in the conversation.

I imagine the reason these convos go over 100 posts is because people would rather try to flummox the entire exercise.

Cormack said:

Which would make everyone in the topic solar Scriptura.

Click to expand...

No. Of course not. We have had a number of very adamant Catholic posters arguing against Sola Scriptura because their church does not abide by the concept but follows a different one ("Sacred Tradition").

Albion said:

No. Of course not. We have had a number of very adamant Catholic posters arguing against Sola Scriptura because their church does not abide by the concept but follows a different one ("Sacred Tradition").

Click to expand...

But is the Bible their only infallible rule of faith? If so they’d meet the definition of sola Scriptura others have been sharing. If not then we’ve got a good reason to exclude them, but still no definition of what in the world Prima Scriptura is.

Cormack said:

But is the Bible their only infallible rule of faith?

Click to expand...

Yes...so long as we understand that there is no claim made that the Bible contains all the information in the universe. It does contain all that God intended as essential for our salvation. Essential doctrine, in other words.

If so they’d meet the definition of sola Scriptura others have been sharing.

Click to expand...

Yes.

If not then we’ve got a good reason to exclude them, but still no definition of what in the world Prima Scriptura is.

Click to expand...

Prima = first. Prima Scriptura refers to which of a number of authorities is the best (but not alone in its authority).

Albion said:

Catholic posters arguing against Sola Scriptura because their church does not abide by the concept but follows a different one ("Sacred Tradition").

Click to expand...

Is the sacred tradition considered by Romans Catholics to be infallible or fallible? Depending on the answer they’d be inside or outside of the Sola Scriptura definition being shared right now.

Albion said:

Yes...so long as we understand that there is no claim made that the Bible contains all the information in the universe.

Click to expand...

If a Bible believing Christian truly believed in a definition like that I’d be shocked, shocked and disappointed. The Bible makes a totally opposite claim (although depending on a persons perspective, I have no right to say such a thing without an institute behind me.)

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.“

Cormack said:

Is the sacred tradition considered by Romans Catholics to be infallible or fallible?

Click to expand...

Infallible.

Depending on the answer they’d be inside or outside of the Sola Scriptura definition being shared right now.

Click to expand...

No matter what the answer to that question is, they are not Sola Scriptura. Not even though the church does believe that Scripture is divinely inspired.

Albion said:

Infallible.

Click to expand...

That’s helpful. So if we agreed to the definition of sola Scriptura being that the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith,” Catholics do exclude themselves by virtue of stating that their own sacred traditions are members of an extra infallible rule of faith NOT included in the Bible. Many of those same sacred traditions I assume are pointing back to the authority of the Catholic Church in such matters as canonising, excommunicating and deciding what’s to be considered an infallible rule of faith. Is that accurate?

You failed to even address the question.

How is it if only scriptura is needed (sola scriptura) and only "thinking" is needed to resolve a meaning that there are so many mutually exclusive views on what almost every aspect of dogma means.

It is clear that it is possible to profane the eucharist with serious consequence , so getting it right is crucial. Many well qualified views are in absolute disagreement as to many aspects of what "getting it right" means. Is a priest needed for valid eucharist, and does the eucharist have sacramental nature? What does profaning it mean? Those are the type of questions on which christians disagree.

Taking muslim view of Jesus is a complete straw man in this context. We are speaking of the differences amongst well read christians.

All can justify disagreement. Oceans of people better qualified in ancient language who have spent far longer studying it than you. (and I mean that in the context of both protestant and catholic scholars)

Are you saying you are the only authority: only your view is right? Only you have the power of correct thought? There are thousands who disagree on pretty much every aspect of dogma and christian practice. As for your "imagination" , your imagination is clearly more limited than God. It is surely what he says it is that matters!

Also: In order to discern difference between sola scriptura and prima scriptura you must first decide what sola scriptura means.

But There is no workable definition. If you postulate that scripture self stands, and both the content of scripture and meaning of scripture can be discerned from scripture without any other source to resolve differences: you are even at odds with scripture, because (for example) scripture itself talks of authoritative means to resolve difference on matters of doctrine and law because that is what "bind and loose" meant to the early Jews. Indeed it is the power wielded by councils.

In reality ALL view scripture through a lens of tradition. A lens which is a product of those churches you have interacted with along the way. Some articulate that lens as "articles of belief" others do not. It does not altar the fact the lens is there. So tradition clearly exists and supplements scripture with meaning which renders nul sola scriptura.

BTW I havent referred to numbers of denominations, I have just taken each of the matters of dogma (many) on which there are mutually exclusive beliefs and compounded them. You rapidly get t o thousands of belief sets.


Anwyay, no offence meant.
Those are my thoughts. Let others have their view.

Cormack said:

Does a cross section of different (and even contradictory) opinions on the definitional level invalidate your or my particular opinion though? If the argument is that other opinions cause our views to be unjustifiable, I’m not sure that follows.

Muslims argue about Jesus with us on the definitional level, but my sources on the life of Jesus are 1st century eyewitness biographies, while the Muslims are using 7th century fiction. My beliefs are objectively more justified than theirs regardless of the definitional debate. Disagreement doesn’t matter because they can’t justify their disagreement.

The bread and wine is an interesting example because, so far as my imagination can carry me, it’s only two things according to the umbrella of what we would call Christian perspectives. The bread and wine is either bread and wine, or it’s not simple bread and wine. It either is or it isn’t.

If you wrote me a third (less plausible) perspective on the level of a definition, as if someone believed “bread wasn’t bread, it’s just data, every time you said bread I heard data,” I wouldn’t consider your views unjustified on the grounds that someone else had a different opinion.

Whereas if you other guy had just finished watching the Matrix and he was really high, I’d consider his viewpoint unjustified



I never really understood why the common argument that the Protestants are divided into 40,000,000,000,000+ different denominations isn’t actually a gentle slight against the Roman Catholic church (as many of these places are an indirect or direct product of her.) Replying “if you didn’t leave you’d still be here” makes sense, that’s a truism, but that’s true for any organisation we reject or are denied entry into.

I don’t think less of the Roman Catholic Church because people abandoned her, no more than I think poorly of any one Protestant church for people dividing her pews. I’ve always felt the sword cut both ways.

If the reply is that an overriding, powerful, singular divine (yet earthly) institute can put checks and balances on these wacky outlaw believers and their fruity ideas, my first thought is that it hasn’t worked so far. Even great heroes, people who are called “the father of the Catholic Church” (Saint Augustine) had wildly alien views to every modern Roman catholic I’ve ever met. He wasn’t called a one man schism or an inventor despite his portrait of God being the kind of thing that Calvin and Luther drew from.

So, with such radically different views of God, yet many men are described as Roman Catholics, the line of orthodoxy appears to simply be who they’re prepared to bend knee to (not their actual religious beliefs.) It seems like the spiritual Wild West even with the mega power authority.



I think because our thinking faculties are God given they’re generally reliable. I believe God is the God of truth and He’s revealed Himself to His creation in a way that we can understand.

Just like how you can generally understand my message without an overseer.

ON TOPIC: I think what would help is if people could describe a distinction with a different between Sola and Prima Scriptura. I’ve read people teach Prima scripture means scripture first, but that’s no different from my earlier definition of sola Scriptura. So if ignoring my definition helps, please do, but for the sake of defending the topics purpose, is there a recognisable distinction between the two? I don’t feel enough has been said to defend or advance Prima Scriptura.

Click to expand...

“You failed to even address the question.”

You could repost the question if you think I’ve missed something.

“How is it if only scriptura is needed (sola scriptura) and only "thinking" is needed to resolve a meaning that there are so many mutually exclusive views on what almost every aspect of dogma means.”

Well only the ability to think would be needed if (A) God’s communicated His word clearly, and (B) God’s endowed mankind with proper thinking faculties so to understand His clear word. If God hasn’t communicated the Scriptures plainly or humanity isn’t endowed with an intellect that’s able to understand His word, then it’s anybody’s game really. You’re at the mercy of anyone who claims to understand it the loudest.

“It is clear that it is possible to profane the eucharist with serious consequence , so getting it right is crucial.”

Is the proposition that it’s possible to profane the Eucharist with serious consequences clear to you because you’ve used your God given mind to discern the clarity, or is that proposition clear because there’s an infallible institute to inform you of the clarity, or maybe both?

“Those are the type of questions on which christians disagree.”

“Taking muslim view of Jesus is a complete straw man in this context. We are speaking of the differences amongst well read christians.”

Well, originally my reply was to you writing “and they all come to poles opposite conclusions about what scripture means.” See that’s an argument about definitions, meaning my reply (a reply to do with an argument on the level of definitions) was appropriate. Various ideas about what sola Scriptura means are definitional in nature, likewise Muslims arguing about their love of “Jesus” are arguing with us on the level of their definition of Jesus.

A straw man is only a proper straw man when I’m trying to force an opinion or argument onto you which you don’t hold to being true. I can’t see where I’ve done that.

“All can justify disagreement.”

That depends on the nature of what we mean by justified. For example, my original point about Jesus and Islam was that the Muslims are using fiction to try and overturn our first century eye witness biographies of Jesus. My point was that an Islamic Jesus isn’t justified on the level of establishing historicity. Christians on the other hand can establish historicity.

I don’t think all can justify disagreement, some people are just disagreeable.

“Oceans of people better qualified in ancient language who have spent far longer studying it than you.”

Qualified by virtue of the use of their big brains, right? Big brains that can’t discern the meaning of scripture according to many people. Is it the case that you can generally read, interpret and understand my reply, but not the Bible?

“Are you saying you are the only authority: only your view is right?”

No.

“Only you have the power of correct thought?”

No you do too. The same God who made me created you too.

“There are thousands who disagree on pretty much every aspect of dogma and christian practice.”

Do those disagreements invalidate your ability to accurately think on any one matter?

“As for your "imagination" , your imagination is clearly more limited than God. It is surely what he says it is that matters!”

Well, if I’m not mistaken, my use of imagination was with regards to a logical distinction and Christian beliefs. The logical distinction was on the level of either/or.

Either the bread and wine is bread and wine.

Or...

The bread and wine isn’t bread and wine.

Either/Or or Both/And are actually exhaustive logical categories. I think God is the cause of logical distinctions like that. If in Gods imagination there are incoherent illogical things like non categories and contradictions, that may be part of the greatness of God, but wouldn’t be of much use to people trying to have a sensible conversation.

“Also: In order to discern difference between sola scriptura and prima scriptura you must first decide what sola scriptura means.”

Hence my point about the argument being on the level of a definition. I read an awful lot of people in the topic who would rather dismiss sola Scriptura out of hand. That may be part of the reason why there’s a slowness in coming to a simple definition.

“But There is no workable definition.”

By workable what do you mean???

“you are even at odds with scripture, because (for example) scripture itself talks of authoritative means to resolve difference on matters of doctrine and law because that is what "bind and loose" meant to the early Jews. Indeed it is the power wielded by councils.”

“A lens which is a product of those churches you have interacted with along the way.”

Which doesn’t exclude our thinking facilities, facilities you routinely appeal to in our conversation. The argument from a person who wishes to minimise the importance of our ability to reason is ultimately a dud because they’re using reason to try and disprove reason. Binding and loosing again is an argument built upon the level of what exactly those phrases mean, my question to you is do you believe in your understanding of binding and loosing only because councils have told you that’s the meaning of binding and loosing, or is there more to it? If there’s more to it we should admit to the usefulness of that something more.

“BTW I havent referred to numbers of denominations, I have just taken each of the matters of dogma (many) on which there are mutually exclusive beliefs and compounded them. You rapidly get t o thousands of belief sets.”

The word you used was schism. Hence my reply. Still the wider point my train of thought was going into was that creating a wider ring of interpretive sources and authority doesn’t solve the problem of different definitions, schisms, believers dividing, on further reflection it might even increase and inflame the problem. My point is that the mega institutes can’t contain, define or outthink definitional mistakes or heresy because even amidst their ranks they permit heretical views under the umbrella and approval of the Roman Catholic Church. The cell division started in their own body.

“Anwyay, no offence meant. Those are my thoughts. Let others have their view.”

That’s very generous of you.

Cormack said:

If there’s more to it we should admit to the usefulness of that something more.

Click to expand...

Agree. It is called tradition. Which means "the faith handed down" a translation of the word paradosis.

There are a myriad of verses on which poles opposite views are taken, leading to christian protestant schisms. I chose the eucharist as example because the same verses have produced many mutually exclusive interpretations.
And because Corinthians makes clear that profaning the eucharist is serious. Not me or a council. The only question to resolve is what "profaning" or taking "unworthily" means.

John 6 either does or does not say the eucharist is a life and death matter. No room for fudging. If John 6:56 ( as condition for raising up on last day) indeed means valid eucharist. Then those who do not do as instructed, don't get raised up!

So depending on interpretation of that verse, some have the word of God, indeed the Word of God, others just have words they are wrongly interpreting.

The only way to resolve disputes is to appeal to faith handed down (what did the first christians hand down? - and authority.

We can see in early writings (tradition) what that meant to disciples of John. And all through the councils such as athanasius spoke of a transformation at the blessing. No longer "just" bread and wine.

You used a straw man using muslims. You Misrepresented my argument as false proposition then attacked the false proposition. I speak of christian disagreements who all claim to use the same scripture as their source but come to different interpretation of it. Non christian views are irrelevant in the context of christian interpretation.

Bind and loose meant what I said to first century jews. Whether they were right to think so, does not altar what they meant by it. But using "sola scriptura" you even must lose historical context. No definition suffices. Because once you do include context early christian comment on what it means must matter too.

dms1972 said:

What is the difference between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "prima Scriptura."


Sola Scriptura ("The Rule of Scripture in Norming") is ...


The Definition of Sola Scriptura...


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.


Here is the official, historic, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). One can argue and claim that "Sola Scriptura" is the preference of fish tacos over hamburgers, but that is not the historic or official meaning.




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, especially ones in dispute).

3. An embrace of the black-and-white words in 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 a teaching on what is and is not Scripture. It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens'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. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

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. It is NOT the practice that MY feeling about what God SHOULD have stated in Scripture as I myself currently interpret things is the rule and norm. It subjects all the various feelings about things to the words of Scripture. Sola Scriptura does NOT employ invisible words.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon) is often needed. But 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, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). 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 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 do some persons and denominations and cults 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. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. Persons, churches, cults who essentially insist "I can't be wrong" will reject The Rule of Scripture and will simply substitute self, "I agree with me."

Others simply hold that THEIR current, personal "interpretation" of Scripture is above Scripture itself. Their interpretation "trumps" Scripture. Thus, if one argues that "in" means "out" then the reality that Scripture says "in" becomes irrelevant, because self insists that what SELF currently says is MEANT supercedes what is stated. Self becomes the norma normans. For those who insist self alone is simply smarter or better than Scripture, then this practice will be rejected.


- Josiah





.

Mountainmike said:

Agree. It is called tradition. Which means "the faith handed down" a translation of the word paradosis.

Click to expand...

Traditions which can’t be properly understood, accepted, defended or justified without the use of our God given faculties.

Mountainmike said:

leading to christian protestant schisms.

Click to expand...

Resulting in my reply about the weakness of the common denominations criticism against the Protestant churches, which you resisted by writing you didn’t bring denominations and numbers into the discussion. You appear to believe without using the common listed number of denominations or without writing the word denomination you’re not repeating that same old argument. You were reusing and slapping a coat of paint on those same ideas by your use and introduction of the whole schism point.

You don’t need to be writing my exact vocabulary to be making the same argument in principle.

“BTW I haven’t referred to numbers of denominations,”

Yes you have. You have referenced many denominations. That’s an unspecified number of denominations. Unspecified numbers are still numbers of denominations, the number simply isn’t being defined. More than a couple (a couple is two,) instead you wrote “Your fellow christians of many denominations.....all come to poles opposite conclusions about what scripture means.“ Maybe you won’t accept it’s a point involving numbers of denominations until you’ve actually shared a statistic. Either way you’re referencing denominations, schisms, many amounts of denominations in fact.

Mountainmike said:

And because Corinthians makes clear that profaning the eucharist is serious. Not me or a council.

Click to expand...

Oh so there’s a sola Scriptura moment here. The scripture alone makes the seriousness of profaning the Eucharist plain and clear. That’s very convenient. So to recap, defining sola Scriptura is “unworkable,” impossible maybe, however Corinthians alone is clear to establish the seriousness of certain propositions. Part of the interpretation would have to be “you” by default, so when you write “not me or a council” yes maybe not a council, but you’re in the equation no doubt (you’re not a bot.)

“John 6 either does or does not say the eucharist is a life and death matter.”

Unless the Eucharist as we define it isn’t part of John 6, therefore you’d be smuggling in the entire Roman Catholic concept whole cloth and misinterpreting Jesus’ teaching the entire time. Poisoning the conversation before it’s began. I’d love to go through John 6 with you here but there’s a couple of obstacles. Firstly that’s detracting from the aim of the thread, going deep into the matter would be disrespectful to the host and unhelpful in terms of thinking through the topic uninterrupted.

Secondly how’s the conversation between us even possible when there’s no infallible institute placing another man upon a golden throne to interpret and define our exchange (his unkempt heavenly eyebrows and officially authorised pope skirt blowing in the wind!)

Once again are you capable of understanding, interpreting and replying to my messages online, periodical Catholic publications, epic novels, or even books written in obscure languages, but you’re unable to understand Gods Bible made for the whole world? It’s noticeable that you comment about your questions not being answered only to neglect so many of mine.

Honestly when I reply you’ve got to be part of the decision process, that doesn’t appear to be a particularly controversial viewpoint. Whereas using air quotes on the word “thinking” does strike me as strange and self defeating. I can only see your position as defeating itself.

Mountainmike said:

So depending on interpretation of that verse, some have the word of God, indeed the Word of God, others just have words they are wrongly interpreting.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how people are interpreting everybody has Gods work. The word is always Gods word just like how the Ark was always Gods ark even when people thought it wasn’t. If a monkey steals your power tools, regardless of his inability to use or understand their fine motor parts, he has your power tools. Yes some people could be misunderstanding the words of God, and as a consequence of that Gods message which He intends to communicate by those words has been obscured.

Still the deficiency lays with either Gods word or mans will, I’d never write God isn’t clear in His word though. Would you write that Gods Bible isn’t clear? The entire exchange only highlights that God given thinking facilities are a non negotiable must have for those of us being judged.

Mountainmike said:

You used a straw man using muslims. You Misrepresented my argument as false proposition then attacked the false proposition. I speak of christian disagreements who all claim to use the same scripture as their source but come to different interpretation of it. Non christian views are irrelevant in the context of christian interpretation.

Click to expand...

Remember from earlier in my message. You don’t have to use the same vocabulary to be making an in principled argument that’s the same as other arguments. In the same way I don’t have to write about the exact same faith group because the subject matters are the same on the level of argument. Your argument to do with interpretation is definitional in nature, any argument from any religious (or even non religious) subject that involves disagreement on the definitional is an analog to our conversation. They’re the same argument in principle even without the vocabulary.

You made the same mistake by trying to extract yourself from the denominations argument because you mistakenly believed you didn’t use the word denominations or cite a number of denominations. Writing disparagingly about Luther and using the word schism or writing about interpretive differences brings you into the field of denominational differences and definitions.

It’s like a man complaining about the state of soccer, to which another man replies agreeing, pointing out that LA Galaxy ruined football in the states.

Wow now, who said anything about football?! Don’t straw man me and change the topic from soccer to football

^^^^ That’s the kind of thing you’re doing when you write about Luther and schism but then try to extract yourself from Protestantism and it’s denominations.

Mountainmike said:

Non christian views are irrelevant in the context of christian interpretation.

Click to expand...

Not on the level of the rules of logic and logical categories. Not on the level of “thinking.”

Mountainmike said:

But using "sola scriptura" you even must lose historical context. No definition suffices. Because once you do include context early christian comment on what it means must matter too.

Click to expand...

Why would using sola Scriptura mean losing out on historical context? With everyone posting the definition that sola Scriptura means = “the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith,” that definition wouldn’t exclude reading or being informed by anything else in terms of historic context.

I mean it’s best not to hold my breath on getting an answer, but it’s certainly important to understand that we don’t need to make every source an infallible source just to believe in the material contained therein. We don’t have to canonise or sanctify Tacitus or Josephus or our morning paper for fear of missing out on vital historical context.

Cormack said:

Traditions which can’t be properly understood, accepted, defended or justified without the use of our God given faculties.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, they can be! In fact, that is the concept that IS divine revelation and also that the Church claims for Holy Tradition.

Tradition is supposed to be revelation precisely because some idea can be traced back to the beginning of the Church and also seen to have been believed by the people of the Church Universal. Remember what St. Vincent of Lerins said about it: always believed, everywhere, and by all.

That's us humans seeing it pass the test (in theory, at least). It's not supposed to be something that a theologian just figured out somewhere.

Albion said:

Tradition is supposed to be revelation precisely because some idea can be traced back to the beginning of the Church and also seen to have been believed by the people of the Church Universal.

Click to expand...

The revealed nature of revelation alone requires that an audience (or any sort of recipient) can in fact receive the thing being revealed. How does a sincere Christian believer receive anything that’s being disclosed to them? By faith someone might reply. Faith isn’t groundless however.

Albion said:

It's not supposed to be something that a theologian just figured out somewhere.

Click to expand...

Nor should it be. If it belonged to them it may not be meant for us. When my messages touch upon thinking faculties that’s not me alluding to some ivory tower intellectualism. I’ve been writing of God given tools humanity are generally blessed with and use everyday (like your ability to read and arrive at independent conclusions about my reply.)

Albion said:

Absolutely, they can be! In fact, that is the concept that IS divine revelation and also that the Church claims for Holy Tradition.

Click to expand...

Well, I’m going to simplify and invert my earlier statement and you can tell me if you agree with its new formulation.

“Traditions can be properly understood, accepted, defended and justified without using your brain.”

Would anybody anywhere on any side of the faith divide believe this statement of faith ^^^^ (except for the most extreme believer in exhaustive divine determinism.)

Cormack said:

Well, I’m going to simplify and invert my earlier statement and you can tell me if you agree with its new formulation.

“Traditions can be properly understood, accepted, defended and justified without using your brain.”

Would anybody anywhere on any side of the faith divide believe this statement of faith ^^^^ (except for the most extreme believer in exhaustive divine determinism.)

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what sides are in play with this discussion now. My post wasn't a defense of "Tradition" being a genuine second stream of divine revelation, after the Bible.

It was only a comment to the effect that when we consider what is called "Tradition" in the Catholic churches, we are talking about something that is believed in, rightly or wrongly, because the history of that particular belief can be traced. That's what proves it, the advocates say.