Sola Scriptura

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

A few points from our recent exchange might be followed up.

I just don't think that is a significant example of anything. I don't believe in the tenets of the Creed for the reason that I think the men who wrote it to be infallible, and it doesn't matter to me that they chose to wrap Hellenic verbiage around their explanations. The wording of the Creed, in our language, accords very well with scripture. All that I can think you are referring to is "being of one substance with the Father," and that doesn't require any use of homoosious to be true.

I'm always reluctant to disagree with you, but the Church fought hard over the word 'homoousious, so I am not at all certain one can say its use is not essential; the Church held it to be so; we, in our more latitudinarian age may find it difficult to say so, but the Church held belief in the Nicene Creed essential for our salvation, and it has not withdrawn from that position.

To say the wording of the Creed accords very well with Scripture is to say no more than the RCC says about Purgatory. As for the Assumption, I am unsure if the RCC makes that a matter appertaining to salvation.

What difference does it make to us if they argued that way? They were incorrect on that point is all. What they called not Biblical in fact was Biblical.

The difference it makes is that that is just what the RCC says about its doctrines - that what some would say is not Biblical is.

WE DO NOT DOGMATIZE ON THEM AND THEY ARE NOT HELD TO BE NECESSARY TO SALVATION, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, OR ANYTHING ELSE.[/FONT

Oh but 'we' do. The Nicene Creed is held to be essential for salvation according to the canons of Nicaea. The Chalcedonian definition of the nature of Christ was similarly prescribed. Of course one can say all these can be derived from Scripture, but so can most of the things one might disagree with the RCCs on.

If you are talking about something like the Assumption, I can call it an unBiblical idea and you can, I suppose, consider it to have been a true event. What really matters is not that you are wrong but that you subscribe to the idea that it can properly be taught by any church as right and to be received by the faithful.

Unless the RCC holds believing this to be essential for Salvation, I'm not sure why it is being included here? If you are going to insist that nothing that is not in the Bible can be held by Christians I would have to ask what your warrant for holding the NT in its current form to be the word of God; it does not define itself, and yet you believe it to be the word of God in its current form; why do you do that if Tradition is all man-made stuff?

And I might also add that it is not true that I do, in fact (or that we all!), accept Tradition-derived doctrines like the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. etc.

But you do accept Tradition based ideas like the books which should be included in the NT, and that the Father and the Son are homoousious; who is to say that the Tradition-based stuff you reject is any less worthy than the Tradition based ideas you accept?

I appreciate that you do not accept all of those either, your church's idea of Tradition being different from the Roman Church's version of it, but you do accept some of them.

No, the same notion of Tradition is held: the Bible, the Fathers, the ancient liturgies and the Councils; all that is different are the Councils which are accepted - and since we weren't invited to any after Chalcedon (you can see why), it is only natural that we differ on some of the things that came to be defined later. That does not make it a different conception of what Tradition means.

No Nicene Christian, and no Christian who accepts the NT as we have it is doing so sola scriptura; some of us are happy to accept this.

peace,

Anglian

that

 

[katherine2001]

For the EO, the canons state that a Bishop must know the Psalms by heart. Of course, if the Bishop has been a monk in a monastery, he would know them by heart because a monastery holding the daily cycle of services (which I believe is 7), then the Psalms are chanted all the way through each week.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, the primarly argument against Holy Tradition is that it is not from God. Secondarily, there also is the argument that it is different depending upon which church is telling you what Holy Tradition is. By contrast, the Bible is essentially agreed to by all Christians and is not the possession of this denomination while the next one has a different Bible



What part--that we have a Bible that Christians of many different denominations and communions have in common? That it is seen as inspired by God? That "Holy Tradition" varies according to which church we are dealing with? That the main argument against "Holy Tradition" is that it is from men's thinking, unlike scripture?

Which of those do you need proven to you? Most of it is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to debate.

EXACTLY.....


Let us compare the two norma normans:


SCRIPTURE: That which has been embraced as God's very written words since 1400 BC when the first Scripture appeared. It's KNOWABLE by all, ALTERABLE by none, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. This is what the RCC says of it (and Protestants agree): "The Bible is the very written words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He directed and to do so without error." (The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 136).

TRADITION: A phantom of dogmas that a denomination claims was taught by the 13 Apostles (with ZERO evidence of such) but, for some never explained reason, God left out of His Scripture to us. This mysterious phantom was told to someone who told someone who told someone who told someone who told someone (no one knows who any of these persons are, btw) until FINALLY (perhaps centuries later) someone told it to the RCC, which (perhaps centuries later) finally told this to us. Such "Tradition" is whatever the RCC currently says it is and means whatever the RCC currently says it means - it is, in essence - whatever the RCC teaches, officially and currently.

While NO ONE is saying "Tradition" should be disregarded, the issue of this thread is which should serve as the final Rule/Canon/Norma normans for evaluation of the various traditions among us, the various positions and teachings. When the LDS uses its Tradition as an equal part of it's norma normans, Catholics claim this is absurd and circular and self-authenticating since using the teachings of self as the Rule for the teachings of self has no other possible function but to reveal that self agrees with self. When the RCC uses its Tradition as an equal part of it's norma normans, Mormons claim this is absurd and circular and self-authenticating since using the teachings of self as the Rule for the teachings of self as no other possible function but to reveal that self agrees with self. I think they are both correct. What is needed is some Rule/Canon/Norma normans ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - including the RCC and LDS and Joseph Smith and Martin Luther and Pope Benedict and you and me - something KNOWABLE and UNALTERABLE. What would be absolutely ideal for such would be something written in black and white, something all regard as written by God Himself, something that we all embrace in one of the oldest and most ecumenical points of consensus in all of Christianity - THAT would be an absolutely ideal norma normans. Ah, Protestants and Catholics all agree such exists. It's the Scriptures.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Albion]

Dear Albion,

A few points from our recent exchange might be followed up.

Thanks!

I'm always reluctant to disagree with you, but the Church fought hard over the word 'homoousious, so I am not at all certain one can say its use is not essential;

I'm sure that it meant much to them, but it doesn't figure into my belief system. That's all that I'm saying...and I'm sure that this goes for most Christians who don't speak Greek or are theologians. The Creed is Biblical just as it stands, so that's why I said that it's (the word) not an essential for us. It's nothing that shows that we need more than the Bible to believe in the triune nature of God.

but the Church held belief in the Nicene Creed essential for our salvation, and it has not withdrawn from that position.

You are referring to your church when you say "the Church" I take it.

To me, to us, the Creed is a statement of belief that expresses the key doctrines of Christianity. Who wrote it or whom they rebutted is really of no particular concern. Anyway, I have asked about Holy Tradition being the source of many unBiblical dogmas, and you've replied with a lengthy commentary upon the Nicene Creed as if that is the heart of the issue, which it is not. I am hoping that you will now turn to the matter of extra-Biblical doctrine at some point.

To say the wording of the Creed accords very well with Scripture is to say no more than the RCC says about Purgatory.

Of course it is the case that every doctrine that is arrived at by way of tradition is said by those churches doing this to have gotten the idea from the Bible and just embellished it a bit...under divine guidance, to be sure. But most of these have no Biblical basis whatsoever. Purgatory is one, at least as the RCC has defined Purgatory and expained its operation. I asked about the Assumption, you recall. And I could add the Immaculate Conception. Both are strictly later innovations that are not found in Scripture.

As for the Assumption, I am unsure if the RCC makes that a matter appertaining to salvation.

We can be sure that it is said by the RCC to be infallibly true, obligatory upon the membership to believe, and heretical for them not to believe it. In an age when the RCC has adopted the idea that even a well-intentioned pagan who has never heard of Christ can be saved, I am not sure how the church would address the point-blank question of salvation in regard to the Assumption; however, it's been made a dogma that is binding upon Catholics, and I would think that for them, it is clearly an "essential," no matter how you look at the matter.

The difference it makes is that that is just what the RCC says about its doctrines - that what some would say is not Biblical is.

The point escapes me. If a bunch of churches say that their beliefs are Biblical, all that matters is whether or not they actually are. And this again has nothing to do with objecting to Sola Scriptura in favor of Tradition.

Oh but 'we' do.

Anglian, the "we" in that sentence of mine (WE DO NOT DOGMATIZE ON THEM AND THEY ARE NOT HELD TO BE NECESSARY TO SALVATION, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, OR ANYTHING ELSE) refers to the churches that accept the Bible as our guide, not the Tradition churches. So now you have the crux of the issue.

The Nicene Creed is held to be essential for salvation according to the canons of Nicaea. The Chalcedonian definition of the nature of Christ was similarly prescribed. Of course one can say all these can be derived from Scripture, but so can most of the things one might disagree with the RCCs on.

Apples and oranges. I hope you can see that. If the Trinity is held to be essential, the Immaculate Conception is not--NOT, for Bible Alone Christians, that is. If, however, the RCC claims that its manmade dogmas are in accord with Scripture but they actually are not, this doesn't mean a thing. They are still using--and unapologetically asserting--that there is a second and equal source of divine revelation. How much of that your church indulges in, I'd be interested in knowing, if you'd like to explain it. Please discuss in terms of specific doctrines that are not held by Sola Scriptura people because they are not revealed in Scripture..

Unless the RCC holds believing this to be essential for Salvation, I'm not sure why it is being included here? If you are going to insist that nothing that is not in the Bible can be held by Christians I would have to ask what your warrant for holding the NT in its current form to be the word of God;

I think we really need to stay on topic if this discussion is to be profitable, not bringing in false stereotypes about reformed Christians. They only junk up the discussion.

No, the same notion of Tradition is held: the Bible, the Fathers, the ancient liturgies and the Councils; all that is different are the Councils which are accepted - and since we weren't invited to any after Chalcedon (you can see why), it is only natural that we differ on some of the things that came to be defined later. That does not make it a different conception of what Tradition means.

So you are saying that your idea of Holy Tradition is different from that of the RCC and from the explanation I offered above?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



JoabAnias, this will help you:






The official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura:


"The Scriptures are the rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the Old and New Testaments as the 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).


Here's how it is commonly expressed today: "The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the Holy Scriptures serving 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....


A praxis of embracing God's inerrant, holy, written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans." It serves as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions.




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.



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.


3. Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all revelation is written down and included in the Scriptures (remember: Sola Scriptura doesn't "say" anything - it is a praxis). The Bible itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" and thus are revelatory. But while enjoying a sunset on Maui may be a spiritual and revealing experience, it is not an especially helpful Canon for the evaluation of doctrines. Nor does Sola Scriptura say that all knowledge is contained in the Bible (there's nothing there about Columbus sailing the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety two), remember, Sola Scriptura doesn't say anything, it's a praxis.




Thank you.



Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Albion]

The "Tradition Churches" all still hold to water Baptism, many other Churches don't (like the teaching I heard on the radio that "water and the spirit" refers to amniotic fluid/water (all born that way) and then later the Holy Spirit, essentially negating the scriptural command - per Tradition anyway - to Baptize).

I really think we need to stay on topic. We can all take turns finding fault with a batch of other unnamed churches that are out there somewhere--and I can make the same point here that you are attempting, but with regard to the Tradition churches, i.e. they teach different doctrines although they all say they are following "Holy Tradition." And, what's more, what you heard on the radio doesn't even tell us what churches you are talking about or whether they believe in Sola Scriptura or not.

But the thread is about Sola Scriptura, not that some churches interpret the Bible (or Tradition) differently in some respects from other churches.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I still see that Sola Scriptura basically rejects at will anything that is not scripture. So it seems silly to even be concerned with what the Apostles taught since SS rejects what they taught anyhow through the oral Tradition.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Albion,

I have tended to concentrate upon the Nicene Creed because it is crucial in a number of ways. It is foundational to our beliefs and every Church that accepts it accepts also that it is needful for salvation; if one does not hold that then it is hard to know why one would bother holding any Creed at all.

It is crucial in another way in that it defines what we believe in a way that is certainly Scriptural, but which requires us to go outside of Scripture for they key definition that Christ is one with the Father, not a docetic Christ, or a god-like Christ, but wholly man and wholly divine at the same time; this is deducible from Scripture - but so is the docetic Christ, as Theodore of Mopsuestia shows. Who wrote and who accepted the Creed is crucial; those who rejected it stepped outside the mainstream into unorthodoxy. One of my own great fears has been that the Chalcedonians were correct in their statements that our definition was Monophysite, and only when it was clear that this has never been the case was I happy with where I was placed. Maybe these things are not as important to those in other traditions; in my own it is crucial. If we do not believe in the Christ who redeemed us, then our faith is void; and that Christ is the second person of the Trinity.

Churches which do not accept this but claim they accept Christ as their saviour accept someone who is not the Christ we know.

'Bible alone' Christians surely also propound a man made doctrine? Where does it say in the NT that one follows the written word alone? Indeed, where in Scripture does it define itself? Since it does not, no one, incluiding you, follows a 'Bible alone' system.

I am not sure what Sola Scriptura Christians accept, but since they accept the Church's NT, they are not Sola Scriptura since they accept something on the basis of Tradition; or are you saying it does not matter in this discussion that you accept something outside the plain words of the Bible? I should have thought it rather central?

You ask about specific doctrines. All I can do is to state ours and see whether Sola Scriptura Christians hold to them:
- We accept that Our Lord is wholly human and wholly divine and that not for a moment did the two natures mingle
- We accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and reject the innovation to the Creed which added 'and the Son'
- We believe in the seven sacraments
- We believe there is no salvation without the blood of Christ alone (Heb. 9:22)
We believe in the virtue of confession (James 5:16)
- We believe that when Our Lord said 'This is my body' He meant what He said.

All these we find in the Bible and in the rest of Holy Tradition. We and the RCC hold the same idea about Tradition, we simply have not received any Councils since AD 451. As and when we do, we may find we are in agreement. Until then, we are divided by a long history of separation; the good news is that the dialogue between the See of St. Mark and St. Peter reveals how much we hold in common despite such a long separation.

A happy Christmas to you, dear Albion.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

I really think we need to stay on topic. We can all take turns finding fault with a batch of other unnamed churches that are out there somewhere--and I can make the same point here that you are attempting, but with regard to the Tradition churches, i.e. they teach different doctrines although they all say they are following "Holy Tradition." And, what's more, what you heard on the radio doesn't even tell us what churches you are talking about or whether they believe in Sola Scriptura or not.

But the thread is about Sola Scriptura, not that some churches interpret the Bible (or Tradition) differently in some respects from other churches.

I am responding to your statement re: Sola Scriptura or alternatives, to use the characterization. I followed with the point that tradition and Holy Tradition act to protect the scripture itself and core Biblical teachings; the new idea about baptism represents an erosion that has not likewise occured in the Tradition Churches. Likewise I pointed out how scripture itself has been eroded in translation and alteration. It is hard to think that the praxis of Sola Scriptura should rely on such translations (and the two examples I gave are related to the support of the praxis under discussion).

As to the "teach different doctrines", on this you would need to enumerate; absent such detail it is difficult to evaluate your point. AFAIK, however, all the Tradition Churches have maintained a core set of doctrines and have kept the scriptures intact. The same can not be said of non-Tradition Churches and translators.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Sola Scriptura:
In Scripture Alone. One of the cardinal principles of Protestantism; it declares that all of divine revelation is contained exclusively in the Bible. It therefore denies that there is any revealed tradition.

Source: "Modern Catholic Dictionary" by John A Hardon, S.J.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura:
In Scripture Alone. One of the cardinal principles of Protestantism; it declares that all of divine revelation is contained exclusively in the Bible. It therefore denies that there is any revealed tradition.

Source: "Modern CATHOLIC Dictionary" by John A Hardon, S.J.

A Catholic misconception, perpetuated but corrected.




.

 

[Thekla]

What actions are taken by Sola Scriptura adherents to protect the erosion of scripture and its teachings; for example, is every idea about Baptism accepted as long as it can be argued from scriptural support ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

, is every idea about Baptism accepted as long as it can be argued from scriptural support ?

An issue of arbitration. Another discussion for another day and tread. Read post 2441.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

A Catholic misconception, perpetuated but corrected.




.

If only this were true.

But the Truth is that all Sola Scriptura believers have as many definitions for Sola Scriptura as there are denomoniations of Sola Scriptura.

Care to guess how many denominations there are?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If only this were true.

Oh, it HAS been corrected. But some choose to perpetuate the misconception - innocently or knowingly.



.

 

[Thekla]

An issue of arbitration. Another discussion for another day and tread. Read post 2441.




.

The evaluation of a system includes the consideration of the resulting outcome, and the contribution of the ethos of the system to the potential variety of outcomes resulting from its use.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Oh, it HAS been corrected. But some choose to perpetuate the misconception - innocently or knowingly.



.

So you say...

I am glad it is only you saying it.

Have a Merry Christ Mass Josiah.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The evaluation of a system includes the consideration of the resulting outcome

What "system?"

Do you want to see how the Rule of "The Three-Legged-Stool" works in the LDS and RCC, and see if that Rule results in good stuff? IF so, start a thread on that, I'd be pleased to post in it. This one is about what serves as the norma normans.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What "system?"

Do you want to see how the Rule of "The Three-Legged-Stool" works in the LDS and RCC, and see if that Rule results in good stuff? IF so, start a thread on that, I'd be pleased to post in it. This one is about what serves as the norma normans.




.

OR

OR

Is there another diagram???


LOL

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm pretty sure you don't want to discuss the "outcome" of arbitrations according to the "three-legged-stool" of the RCC and LDS. And, of course, such is not the topic of this thread.




.