Sola Scriptura - who has the correct interpretation of the WORD?

[BigNorsk]

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over sola Scriptura comes from the mistaken idea that everything in a Protestant church is dogma. As was pointed out concerning the Catholic Church, there are only certain things that have been defined as dogma.

Trying to put sola Scriptura then into terms that a Roman Catholic would understand, we see the Catholic accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as the source of norm of what is and what isn't dogma, a required belief. Sola Scriptura is really saying that the scriptures and not a church is the source of dogma.

Now of course for Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church teaches things, doctrines that do not rise to the level of dogma. So too for the sola Scripturist the scriptures teach doctrines that do not rise to the level of dogma.

For which is which one turns to that authority which defines the dogma. So Catholics turn to the Roman Catholic Church for a definition of what is and what isn't dogma.

So too sola Scripturists turn to the Bible for an explanation of what is and what isn't dogma.

Now to use a Lutheran example from here on out:

So at the highest level, we have dogma or fundamental doctrines. Fundamental doctrines are those required for salvation. For instance an understanding of who Jesus is.

Then we would have the secondary fundamental doctrines. Those which save but which are not absolutely required. Those would be baptism and the Lord's Supper, both of which save, but which are not absolutely required to be saved.

Then we have non-fundamental doctrines. An example would be angels. We are told about angels by the bible and so we have a doctrine of angels. But the doctrine of angels is not linked to salvation by the bible. As such it is a non-fundamental, a non-essential doctrine. It is not to say that non-fundamental doctrines are not important, and the denial of such is dangerous for often the denial of non-fundamentals at some point can weaken the fundamentals. And we are never given the green light to just believe whatever because dotrines are not important, but we simply take our understanding from our norm, scripture.

Then we get to the matter of open questions. Things which scripture leaves unanswered. Now a lot of people including many Protestants set out to answer all questions and indeed end up teaching their concocted answers as doctrine. This is a violation of sola Scriptura, when God has not chosen to reveal something, then we should submit to his authority and accept that, as those who truly practice sola Scriptura do.

Tied into that is adiaphora, things indifferent, areas of freedom. For instance no where does the Bible teach that a minister is to wear certain clothes. Many do for they find doing so useful, but such is not a matter of dogma, nor doctrine, but a tradition of man, an area of freedom as all traditions of man are. If a man starts to teach that his tradition is not an area of freedom but a requirement which it is a sin to exclude, then that person has usurped God and the practice as a requirement must be taught against.

End of example.

Hope that helps those honestly questioning to understand.

Marv

 

[thereselittleflower]

And make sure we are using correct and accurate translations?

Accurate?
Hmm, highly unlikely lol.



I've explained way more than I intended to on this thread adn
I'm sorry that it's so confusing.
As LLOJ said, we need a thread about hearing God.

Maybe so . . . I am simply trying to get from what you are saying to why you are saying it, what the foundation is on which it is based on.

What I find is many tend to hold to assumptions but never really look at what those assumptions are based on. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of how you know what you know.

I'm sorry if you dont know when you're obeying or disobeying God.

I am not sure what gave you that impression.

I'd simply spend more time in His presence worshipping Him,
He always shows up for that!

 

[thereselittleflower]

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over sola Scriptura comes from the mistaken idea that everything in a Protestant church is dogma.

I don't think anyone in this thread has this confusion . . not sure why you think some do . . .

As was pointed out concerning the Catholic Church, there are only certain things that have been defined as dogma.

Trying to put sola Scriptura then into terms that a Roman Catholic would understand, we see the Catholic accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as the source of norm of what is and what isn't dogma, a required belief. Sola Scriptura is really saying that the scriptures and not a church is the source of dogma.

That would be a dogma itself then, correct?

Where do the scriptures say they are the source of dogma?

Now of course for Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church teaches things, doctrines that do not rise to the level of dogma. So too for the sola Scripturist the scriptures teach doctrines that do not rise to the level of dogma.

For which is which one turns to that authority which defines the dogma. So Catholics turn to the Roman Catholic Church for a definition of what is and what isn't dogma.

Where do the scriptures teach that they are the source of doctrines?

So too sola Scripturists turn to the Bible for an explanation of what is and what isn't dogma.

Where do the scriptures tell us what is and is not dogma?

Now to use a Lutheran example from here on out:

So at the highest level, we have dogma or fundamental doctrines. Fundamental doctrines are those required for salvation. For instance an understanding of who Jesus is.

Then we would have the secondary fundamental doctrines. Those which save but which are not absolutely required. Those would be baptism and the Lord's Supper, both of which save, but which are not absolutely required to be saved.

Then we have non-fundamental doctrines. An example would be angels. We are told about angels by the bible and so we have a doctrine of angels. But the doctrine of angels is not linked to salvation by the bible. As such it is a non-fundamental, a non-essential doctrine. It is not to say that non-fundamental doctrines are not important, and the denial of such is dangerous for often the denial of non-fundamentals at some point can weaken the fundamentals. And we are never given the green light to just believe whatever because dotrines are not important, but we simply take our understanding from our norm, scripture.

Then we get to the matter of open questions. Things which scripture leaves unanswered. Now a lot of people including many Protestants set out to answer all questions and indeed end up teaching their concocted answers as doctrine. This is a violation of sola Scriptura, when God has not chosen to reveal something, then we should submit to his authority and accept that, as those who truly practice sola Scriptura do.

Tied into that is adiaphora, things indifferent, areas of freedom. For instance no where does the Bible teach that a minister is to wear certain clothes. Many do for they find doing so useful, but such is not a matter of dogma, nor doctrine, but a tradition of man, an area of freedom as all traditions of man are. If a man starts to teach that his tradition is not an area of freedom but a requirement which it is a sin to exclude, then that person has usurped God and the practice as a requirement must be taught against.

End of example.
​

Hope that helps those honestly questioning to understand.

Marv

Where does the bible tell us what falls into each catagory?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over sola Scriptura comes from the mistaken idea that everything in a Protestant church is dogma. As was pointed out concerning the Catholic Church, there are only certain things that have been defined as dogma.

I do not accept the Dogmas of either one as they all come from how the early ECFs interpreted the Bible. Flee from them!!!!!

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Corin 6:16 "Any yet agreement sanctuary of God with idols? For ye are a sanctuary of God are, living, according as said the God: `That I will dwell in them, and will be walking-about, and I will be to them God, and they shall be to Me a People,
17 wherefore, come forth/exelqete <1831> (5628) out of midst of Them, and be separated, saith Lord, and an unclean-thing do not touch, and I--I will receive you,
18 And I shall be to ye as a father, and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters is saying Lord Almighty/pantokratwr <3841>'".

Reve 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven, saying, `Come forth/exelqete <1831> (5628)! the People of Me, out of Her, that no ye may not being together-communioning to the Sins of her, and out of the stripes of her that no ye may be getting.

 

[CathNancy]

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion over sola Scriptura comes from the mistaken idea that everything in a Protestant church is dogma. As was pointed out concerning the Catholic Church, there are only certain things that have been defined as dogma.

Trying to put sola Scriptura then into terms that a Roman Catholic would understand, we see the Catholic accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as the source of norm of what is and what isn't dogma, a required belief. Sola Scriptura is really saying that the scriptures and not a church is the source of dogma.

Now of course for Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church teaches things, doctrines that do not rise to the level of dogma. So too for the sola Scripturist the scriptures teach doctrines that do not rise to the level of dogma.

For which is which one turns to that authority which defines the dogma. So Catholics turn to the Roman Catholic Church for a definition of what is and what isn't dogma.

So too sola Scripturists turn to the Bible for an explanation of what is and what isn't dogma.

Now to use a Lutheran example from here on out:

So at the highest level, we have dogma or fundamental doctrines. Fundamental doctrines are those required for salvation. For instance an understanding of who Jesus is.

Then we would have the secondary fundamental doctrines. Those which save but which are not absolutely required. Those would be baptism and the Lord's Supper, both of which save, but which are not absolutely required to be saved.

Then we have non-fundamental doctrines. An example would be angels. We are told about angels by the bible and so we have a doctrine of angels. But the doctrine of angels is not linked to salvation by the bible. As such it is a non-fundamental, a non-essential doctrine. It is not to say that non-fundamental doctrines are not important, and the denial of such is dangerous for often the denial of non-fundamentals at some point can weaken the fundamentals. And we are never given the green light to just believe whatever because dotrines are not important, but we simply take our understanding from our norm, scripture.

Then we get to the matter of open questions. Things which scripture leaves unanswered. Now a lot of people including many Protestants set out to answer all questions and indeed end up teaching their concocted answers as doctrine. This is a violation of sola Scriptura, when God has not chosen to reveal something, then we should submit to his authority and accept that, as those who truly practice sola Scriptura do.

Tied into that is adiaphora, things indifferent, areas of freedom. For instance no where does the Bible teach that a minister is to wear certain clothes. Many do for they find doing so useful, but such is not a matter of dogma, nor doctrine, but a tradition of man, an area of freedom as all traditions of man are. If a man starts to teach that his tradition is not an area of freedom but a requirement which it is a sin to exclude, then that person has usurped God and the practice as a requirement must be taught against.

End of example.

Hope that helps those honestly questioning to understand.

Marv

Thank you for your explanation Marv. I find it to be helpful in understanding Sola Scriptura. I do not agree with all you have said, but I have not followed this thread with the thought of debating but rather understanding the Protestant POV.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Trying to put sola Scriptura then into terms that a Roman Catholic would understand, we see the Catholic accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as the source of norm of what is and what isn't dogma, a required belief. Sola Scriptura is really saying that the scriptures and not a church is the source of dogma.

Can all those that base their faith on Sola Scriptura come to a single and common understanding of what Sola Scriptura means?

By the way this thread really does not concern RCC or any other church that does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Instead the point of the thread is to see how those that base their faith on Sola Scriptura make allowances or even teach when it comes to differences in interpretation.

I have addressed several differences amongst those churches that base their faith on Sola Scriptura. They were the Eucharist as real or symbolic and another was Jesus is fully God and fully human or Jesus is only man from God. The churches that hold these as truths are based on Sola Scriptura. What I have found is differing teachings on what Sola Scriptura is. From the OP the definition of Sola Scriptura is "scriptures interpret scriptures". So why the differences in interpretation?

 

[BigNorsk]

Why do we need to? Scripture doesn't define sola Scriptura per se.

You seem to think that if a group disagrees on anything that that fact proves that their standard is incorrect. Why is that?

Marv

 

[sunlover1]

Can all those that base their faith on Sola Scriptura come to a single and common understanding of what Sola Scriptura means?

I dont base my faith on SS, but I do know it is impossible for ALL of those
who advocate SS to come to a single and common understanding of what
ANYthing means.
WE don't even have a common understanding of what love means.

To ME, ss means that I will go to the Word of God for confirmation
of what my pastor teaches, to make sure it's Biblical.

Instead the point of the thread is to see how those that base their faith on Sola Scriptura make allowances or even teach when it comes to differences in interpretation.

The same way any one teaches when it comes to differences of
interpretation of any subject matter, whether it be the Scriptures,
the writings of the ECF's or even a classic novel.

From the OP the definition of Sola Scriptura is "scriptures interpret scriptures". So why the differences in interpretation?

There are differences of interpretations because 'mortals' are interpreting
the Scripture that interprets Scripture.

 

[Nathan45]

Sola Scriptura.

This term is used frequently by Catholics, with myself included, and used to say that Protestants or those that use Sola Scriptura are wrong in their interpretations of scripture.

So... who is right?

I mean, which denomination that teaches Sola Scriptura is correct?

Lutheran? Anglican? Baptist? Pentecostal? Calvinism? Non Denominational? Jehovah Witness? Mormon? Seventh Day Adventists? Evangelicals? Or any other that is not mentioned?

AND WHY?


Seems to me that God is Truth and since there is but one God then there is only One Truth. Which denomination has it?

1 cor 3:5-15

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each.
6I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.
7So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.
8The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labour of each.
9For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it.
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.
12Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—
13the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done.
14If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward.
15If the work is burned, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Why do we need to? Scripture doesn't define sola Scriptura per se.

You seem to think that if a group disagrees on anything that that fact proves that their standard is incorrect. Why is that?

Marv

What kind of a standard is a standard no one can agree on?

Definitions of standard on the Web:

• [SIZE=-1]
• a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "the schools comply with federal standards"; "they set the ...
• criterion: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community"
• conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind; "windows of standard width"; "standard sizes"; "the standard fixtures"; "standard brands"; "standard operating procedure"
• a board measure = 1980 board feet
• the value behind the money in a monetary system
• established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence; "a standard reference work"
• conforming to the established language usage of educated native speakers; "standard English" (American); "received standard English is sometimes called the King's English" (British)
• an upright pole or beam (especially one used as a support); "distance was marked by standards every mile"; "lamps supported on standards provided illumination"
• any distinctive flag
• regularly and widely used or sold; "a standard size"; "a stock item"
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
  [SIZE=-1]
• In this article the term standard is used in the sense of a process for establishing a technical standard (ie, a document containing specifications) among competing entities.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard[/SIZE]

Imagine the chaos that would occur if no one could agree on what an inch was, or a foot, or a mile, etc, etc, etc. . . .

A standard is something everyone who uses it agrees on what it is . . that is its nature.


This is not the case with sola scriptura . . . . it is in fact a standard in name only which means it is no real standard at all . . .

 

[sunlover1]

What kind of a standard is a standard no one can agree on?

Definitions of standard on the Web:

• [SIZE=-1]
• a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "the schools comply with federal standards"; "they set the ...
• criterion: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community"
• conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind; "windows of standard width"; "standard sizes"; "the standard fixtures"; "standard brands"; "standard operating procedure"
• a board measure = 1980 board feet
• the value behind the money in a monetary system
• established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence; "a standard reference work"
• conforming to the established language usage of educated native speakers; "standard English" (American); "received standard English is sometimes called the King's English" (British)
• an upright pole or beam (especially one used as a support); "distance was marked by standards every mile"; "lamps supported on standards provided illumination"
• any distinctive flag
• regularly and widely used or sold; "a standard size"; "a stock item" [/SIZE]
  [SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
  [SIZE=-1]
• In this article the term standard is used in the sense of a process for establishing a technical standard (ie, a document containing specifications) among competing entities. [/SIZE]
  [SIZE=-1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard[/SIZE]

Imagine the chaos that would occur if no one could agree on what an inch was, or a foot, or a mile, etc, etc, etc. . . .

A standard is something everyone who uses it agrees on what it is . . that is its nature.


This is not the case with sola scriptura . . . . it is in fact a standard in name only which means it is no real standard at all . . .

All agree on the standard.
Just as all carpenters agree what an inch is.
Two carpenters measure an area and come up with two different
measurements, but that doesnt mean that they disagree on the
standard.

What standard would you use rather than SS?

 

[Albion]

Can all those that base their faith on Sola Scriptura come to a single and common understanding of what Sola Scriptura means?

The question of the thread is who has the right answers. I have answered that every time you've asked.

Sola Scriptura is a method; the conclusions reached by every last person on Earth cannot be guaranteed. And that is the same with any other method used by any other church or churches.

I have addressed several differences amongst those churches that base their faith on Sola Scriptura. They were the Eucharist as real or symbolic and another was Jesus is fully God and fully human or Jesus is only man from God. The churches that hold these as truths are based on Sola Scriptura.

Yes. Some of those churches are in error on those points. That doesn't make Sola Scriptura incorrect OR any alternative method into being correct.

What I have found is differing teachings on what Sola Scriptura is. From the OP the definition of Sola Scriptura is "scriptures interpret scriptures". So why the differences in interpretation?

You've already had this explained thoroughly to you several times, and you're now asking the same questions in return--in the same way. I'd guess at least a dozen times. It may be time to say, "Jack, read the posts. Tell us what parts of our answers didn't add up for you."


What good does it do to explain the issue to you over and over again, and you to show no recognition of having been answered? It amounts to badgering us to keep asking the same question, repeatedly, even after it's been answered by a number of us, time and again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All agree on the standard.
Just as all carpenters agree what an inch is.
Two carpenters measure an area and come up with two different measurements, but that doesnt mean that they disagree on the
standard.

What standard would you use rather than SS?

I would say that also goes for Translations, correct? For example. How well did the NKJV follow the Greek Text with the greek word for "anathema"

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 23:14 Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema/anaqemati <331> we anathemtize/aneqematisamen <332> (5656) ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing the Paul."

Reve 22:3 and every anathema/katanaqema <2652> not shall be still. And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lamb-kin/Word in Her shall be, and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

NKJV)Acts 23:14 They came to the chief priests and elders, and said, "We have bound ourselves under a great oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul.

NKJV) Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

[Tex-Rec] Acts 23:14 oitineV <3748> {WHO-ANY} proselqonteV <4334> (5631) {TOWARD COME} toiV <3588> {TO-THE} arciereusin <749> {CHIEF-PRIESTS} kai <2532> {AND} toiV <3588> {TO-THE} presbuteroiV <4245> {ELDERS} eipon <2036> (5627) {SAID,} anaqemati <331> {TO ANATHEMA} aneqematisamen <332> (5656) {WE ANATHEMETIZE} eautouV <1438> {OURSELVES,} mhdenoV <3367> {NO-YET-NOTHING} geusasqai <1089> (5664) {TO TASTE} ewV <2193> {TILL} ou <3739> {OF} apokteinwmen <615> (5725) {WE MAY BE KILLING} ton <3588> {THE} paulon <3972> {PAUL.}

 

[Albion]

Sunlover's example is one worth thinking about, Jack.

Let's say two people use a tape measure to determing how high something is, in inches. One says it's 20 inches. The other says it's something else. But the second one couldn't read the numbers clearly because his glasses were in need of correction, or the numbers were partially scratch, or he accidentally read the metric side of the tape instead of the inches.

According to your logic, tape measures are no good because these two men gave different answers.

You probably also would advocate using something to measure instead of a tape measure, such as an abacus or a protractor, since the tape measure "didn't work."

What exactly is wrong with the tape measure, Jack? Why exactly is it incapable of telling us how high the object is, in inches?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But with those people who use something OTHER than the Word of God, ALL OF THEM ARE WRONG because they didn't use the right tool and so had no chance of coming up with the correct answers.

Hi. Well we know the Holy Spirit is one "tool" Christians use but my motto is, when in doubt of a verse in the Bible, go directly to the Greek/Hebrew texts, which themselves are Inspired but Translations are not. And how are Doctrines invented? INCORRECT TRANSLATIONs!!!

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 21:5 And certain-ones saying about the Temple, that to stones, goodly and to devoted-things/anaqhmasin <334> it has been adorned/kekosmhtai <2885> (5769). He said,.........

Reve 22:3 and every anathema/katanaqema <2652> not shall be still. And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lamb-kin/Word in Her shall be, and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

 

[Albion]

On second thought, I edited that line out of my post because we can't say that those who don't follow Bible Alone are always wrong. They use some inappropriate tools, but they do come up with the same answers as we Bible Alone Christians...in some instances.

 

[thereselittleflower]

All agree on the standard.
Just as all carpenters agree what an inch is.

Hi sunlover - for all carprenters to agree on what an inch is, they have to agree on how to DEFINE an inch.

That is why the inch as a standard works, they all agree on its definition. excatly, so it is a legitimate standard.

However, as we have seen, there is no agreement as to how to define the standard of sola scriptura - so by definition, it can't be a standard,

Is that making sense?

Two carpenters measure an area and come up with two different
measurements, but that doesnt mean that they disagree on the
standard.

That may be very true, but we have a very different issue with sola scriptura as we have seen in this thread and others these last several days - where the carpenters agree on how to define an "inch", sola scripturists do not agree on how to define sola scriptura.

That is the first hurdle to cross for sola scriptura to be a valid standard - everyone who uses it has to agree on how to define it (just as all carpenters agree on how to define an "inch") or else it is not a "standard" to begin with.

What standard would you use rather than SS?

First, how is SS scriptura a standard when Sola Scripturists cannot agree on how to define that "standard"?

 

[sunlover1]

Hi sunlover - for all carprenters to agree on what an inch is, they have to agree on how to DEFINE an inch.

That is why the inch as a standard works, they all agree on its definition. excatly, so it is a legitimate standard.

However, as we have seen, there is no agreement as to how to define the standard of sola scriptura - so by definition, it can't be a standard,

Is that making sense?




That may be very true, but we have a very different issue with sola scriptura as we have seen in this thread and others these last several days - where the carpenters agree on how to define an "inch", sola scripturists do not agree on how to define sola scriptura.

That is the first hurdle to cross for sola scriptura to be a valid standard - everyone who uses it has to agree on how to define it (just as all carpenters agree on how to define an "inch") or else it is not a "standard" to begin with.



First, how is SS scriptura a standard when Sola Scripturists cannot agree on how to define that "standard"?

I dont care if it's called a doctrine or called a tool or called a method.
SS, using the Scripture as the measure to determine if a statement
is Biblical, by any other name, is still a rose.

What would be a more accurate measure than Scripture?

 

[thereselittleflower]

The question of the thread is who has the right answers. I have answered that every time you've asked.

You have responded yes, but you have not exactly answered the question - ie you have not told us who has the correct answer.

Is the answer no one has the correct interpretation of the bible among sola scripturitsts?

Sola Scriptura is a method; the conclusions reached by every last person on Earth cannot be guaranteed. And that is the same with any other method used by any other church or churches.

What is the basis for this "method"? What makes this "method" legitimate?

Yes. Some of those churches are in error on those points. That doesn't make Sola Scriptura incorrect OR any alternative method into being correct.

Again, what is the basis for this "method"? What makes this "method" legitimate

You've already had this explained thoroughly to you several times, and you're now asking the same questions in return--in the same way. I'd guess at least a dozen times. It may be time to say, "Jack, read the posts. Tell us what parts of our answers didn't add up for you."

1. That sola scripturists do not agree on how to define sola scriptura

2. That sola scripturists cannot give us a clear answer as to who is correct, or tell us explicitly that no sola scripturist is correct.

What good does it do to explain the issue to you over and over again, and you to show no recognition of having been answered? It amounts to badgering us to keep asking the same question, repeatedly, even after it's been answered by a number of us, time and again.

Responding is not the same as answering the question.

 

[Albion]

First, how is SS scriptura a standard when Sola Scripturists cannot agree on how to define that "standard"?

It's as much a standard as any other method, only that it makes the word of the infallible God the object of our inquiry rather than something less. I see no reason to base my conclusions on something less.