Sola Scriptura

[Tzaousios]

When people lie about who I am, until there is some acknowledgement, there is nothing else to talk about.
It has nothing to do with charity. Without honesty, further talk means nothing at all. It is a waste of time, and I am not interested in wasting time here.

In other words, when I first read your posts I was supposed to read your mind rather than the text that you typed out. That seems to be a convenient excuse for you at the moment.

 

[SolomonVII]

How does one smooth things over with you, Sol? Are you searching for a conflict? What I was saying in an earlier post is that we all can be more charitable.

I have no problem with you Steve. Indeed it would be worthwhile for people to see how the various traditions within Catholicism work themselves out with each other, the little discussion between you and the Crusader being the case in point.

As for the more terse tone of this post of yours, this indicates that things are worked out then. You understand now. It is not as if you are able to romanticize such things either, because you would fully understand that there is no love or charity or romance in using such terms as 'wolves' against each other.

My posts are intentionally terse, because the attention span of the average reader is not much more than a paragraph. Flowery words just get in the way, smooth over the real disagreements that I would prefer to be discussed.

Deal with the ideas presented, if you can, and that is as personal as I want it to be. That is how you smooth things over with me. Smash my ideas if you don't like them, but leave my character and supposed intention out of the discussion.


As far as I know, I have only addressed one substantive post here to you, and I can't remember an answer.
Fair enough.
You are not the one making smears and lies about people being wolves of proponents of Trail of Blood, so, like I say, what is there to smooth over between us?

 

[SolomonVII]

I have heard there is some division within the God's Church, including the RC Denomination. Any truth to that?

http://www.christianforums.com/t1213722/#post13659517
Australian Catholic Church Divided Over Priestly Celibacy

.

I don't know if there is one issue that the Catholic Church is not divided upon.
1850 years of nuancing words, and being all things to all people, will have that effect.
As far as I know, Steve and Crusader are both authentic voices of Catholicism. Steve is following the more liberal tendencies of the Vatican II Tradition, and the Crusader is following the Traditions that are more closely aligned with his handle.

 

[Kepha]

What seems to be lost in this lone wolf rhetoric is the fact that everything presented is actually found in tradition and scripture.

For example, there is a tradition in the church that Mary had children (Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Hegesipius, etc).

Very deceptive to throw St. Irenaeus in there when you know very well there's zero evidence He believed any such thing. As a matter of fact, as per Jerome, He believed the contrary along with such other good men who knew the Apostles themselves.

There is a tradition that the church observed the 14th (not easter), per Polycarp, Chrysostom who acknowledged it, but didn't practice it, Melito, etc.

Little t's aren't the same as Dogmatic Traditional truths that cannot change.

There is a tradition that the church promoted the thanksgiving only view of Eucharist (Marytrys of Lyons).

And there's a Tradition from St. Ignatius who heard the Apostle John preach as a little boy say this regarding the Holy Eucharist:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

I don't know if there is one issue that the Catholic Church is not divided upon.

Individual believers who don't know their faith is not what keeps the Church together in Doctrine. If you seriously want to prove that question in your favour, then back it up with something substantial like just one statement by any Bishop in union with the Bishop of Rome, claiming even one Dogmatic proclamation to be false.

 

[SolomonVII]

....Individual believers who don't know their faith is not what keeps the Church together in Doctrine. If you seriously want to prove that question in your favour, then back it up with something substantial like just one statement by any Bishop in union with the Bishop of Rome, claiming even one Dogmatic proclamation to be false.

I would be more interested in seeing Steve and the Crusader resolving the issue of which one is the true Catholic here, which one is the believer in Union with Rome. and which one is the maverick who does not know their faith.

 

[Standing Up]

Very deceptive to throw St. Irenaeus in there when you know very well there's zero evidence He believed any such thing. As a matter of fact, as per Jerome, He believed the contrary along with such other good men who knew the Apostles themselves.

The evidence is twofold. Irenaeus uses the phrase "the virgin Eve", while knowing she had children. Likewise, he uses the phrase "the virgin Mary", while knowing the same.

and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.”
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.10
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7836_2143030

As yet a virgin. IOW, the phrase "the virgin Mary" refers only to her status at His birth and has zero to do with her status over the years.

Little t's aren't the same as Dogmatic Traditional truths that cannot change.

Only in some vocabularies. Semantics aside about what group defined what, the point is there were other traditions back then besides the ones RC settled with or that EO settled on or that P settled with. Those "T"raditions vary between groups. Virgin vs ever-virgin is a case in point. Same with eucharist as thanksgiving vs sacrifice. Quite frankly, once the decision is made to actually use tradition to confirm or deny scripture, it's easy to find other Traditions besides the ones some groups like to promote. Like Firmilian said, anyone may know Rome doesn't follow apostolic teachings in all things.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.




The Rule of Scripture in Norming (What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")




The Definition:


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 disputed dogmas) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).




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).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans 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." 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.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). 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 MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. 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 both moot and 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 (page136), "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 so passionately reject it?


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. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).





Just a few examples of Jesus and the Apostles using Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura)
Compare with the number of times Jesus and the Apostle quoted from the RC Denomination and used such normatively (or even when they just mention it - for nothing at all).

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46


John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
john 20:31
John 21:25

Acts 1:16
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 8:24
Acts 18:28
Acts 1:29
Acts 7:42
Acts 13:29
Acts 13:33
Acts 15:15
Acts 23:5
Acts 24:14
Acts 13:46

Romans 1:2
Romans 4:3
Romans 10:11
Romans 11:2
Romans 15:4
Romans 26:26
Romans 1:17
Romans 2:24
Romans 3:4
Romans 3:10
Romans 4:17
Romans 4:23
Romans 8:36
Romans 9:13
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:8
Romans 11:26
Romans 12:19
Romans 14:11
Romans 15:3
Romans 15:9
Romans 15:21

1 Cor. 15:3
1 Cor. 15:4
1 Cor. 1:19
1 Cor 1:31
1 Cor. 2:9
1 Cor. 3:19
1 Cor. 4:6
1 Cor. 9:9
1 Cor. 9;10
1 Cor. 10:7
1 Cor. 10:10
1 Cor. 14:22
1 Cor. 15:45
1 Cor. 15: 54

2 Cor. 4:13
2 Cor. 8:15
2 Cor. 9:9

Gal. 3:8
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
Gal. 3:10
Gal. 3:13
Gal. 4:22
Gal. 4:27

1 Tim 5:18

2 Tim 3:16

James 2:8
James 2:23
James 4:5

1 Peter 2:6
1 Peter 1:16

2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16

There are many more, but I hope the point is made as to which Rule is illustrated in the Bible. It seems significant to me.




News to me.... I've been studying this long before I left Catholicism, and I've never ever heard anyone say that.





Yes, I agree, it IS dangerous and most unsound for self to insist that self is the sole interpreter of Scripture - unaccountable at that. I agree. But note that only one does that. It's the RC Denomination. Read the Catechism of itself, # 85. Where it appoints itself as the sole interpreter. Then see #87 where it itself makes itself unaccountable for such. Search and search and search forever - you will not find a single catechism of a single Protestant denomination - not one - that does what your denomination does and that you rightly rebuke. But we are WAY off topic, let's return to the issue of norming and the most sound norma normans....





... the basis of Sola Scriptura and the very point where the RCC so passionately disagrees with it. It will not permit itself to be tested - with Scripture or anything else for that matter. Rather, all are to "quietly" and "with docility" embrace whatever it and it itself alone says (CCC 87 for example). The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects testing (of itself anyway) - by Scripture or anything else. Take up 1 John 4:1 with the only denomination on the planet that rejects it: Yours. I did. It's one of the reasons I left the RCC.










.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test ideas.


.

BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...



.

 

[Rick Otto]

Can you discuss the issues without having to be anti-Catholic? BTW, calling the Catholic Church schismatic is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Not with an anti-Protestant.
I'm not in schism with anyone because I don't claim an exclusive affiliation with any of them. The blackness of schism is all owned by those who do.
RCC is by definition Anti-Protestant. I see no righteousness in outrage, just pouting.

Originally Posted by abrahamist It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test ideas.

Yep, here we have the kettle calling itself black.

 

[Standing Up]

.


[/color]


BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...[/color]



.
[/size][/color][/font]

The point is well made, even if unintended. For all Christians, there is only one common standard, which is the 66 books of the bible.

(I know some groups use more, but as a way to define the "objective, outside standard", that would be it.)

The standard of 66 books, however, is impossible for all upon which to agree.

 

[steve_bakr]

I would be more interested in seeing Steve and the Crusader resolving the issue of which one is the true Catholic here, which one is the believer in Union with Rome. and which one is the maverick who does not know their faith.

I don't think it's a matter of one of us being a maverick not in union with Rome but of the tone of the posts.

 

[steve_bakr]

Not with an anti-Protestant.
I'm not in schism with anyone because I don't claim an exclusive affiliation with any of them. The blackness of schism is all owned by those who do.
RCC is by definition Anti-Protestant. I see no righteousness in outrage, just pouting.

Yep, here we have the kettle calling itself black.

You don't affiliate yourself with a faith community?

 

[Rick Otto]

You don't affiliate yourself with a faith community?

You didn't see my faith community icon?

 

[steve_bakr]

You didn't see my faith community icon?

I use my phone and I can't make out some of the icons.

 

[Rick Otto]

I use my phone and I can't make out some of the icons.

Mine is "Christian". No modification with adjectives.

 

[ivebeenshown]

.


[/COLOR]


BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter

Strawman -- the Catholic Church did not appoint itself as the authoritative interpreter of the Word of God. It claims it was appointed as such.

and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self).

Strawman -- the Church does not claim that it is right by virtue of its claim that it is right. It claims that it is right by virtue of having been given authority by God. Whether or not you believe that claim is another matter.

We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...

[/COLOR]



.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

...except Scripture is not 'unalterable'. There are multiple canons (and don't YOU EVEN DARE pull your 'I know you are SO concerned about your unique canon blah blah blah' joke of a copy-and-paste on me again), multiple translations, multiple alterations and insertions, and multiple manuscripts (none of which are original.)

I ought to make a huge, long, copy-and-paste called "What the Church teaches and what it doesn't teach" and demand that you read it every time you post -- oh, wait, that already exists. It's called the Catechism, and you clearly do not read it other than to pull paragraphs out of context from it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the Catholic Church did not appoint itself as the authoritative interpreter of the Word of God.

Then who or what wrote #85 in the Catholic Catechism?

...except Scripture is not 'unalterable'.

... a whole lot more than the pure phantom of "Tradition"...

Here is Romans 3:23: "πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ" What letters does any denomination alter?



.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Then who or what wrote #85 in the Catholic Catechism?

Please explain how this question is relevant to my statement.

... a whole lot more than the pure phantom of "Tradition"...

Here is Romans 3:23: "πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ" What letters does any denomination alter?

.

What does one verse matter when we have evidence for:

1.) Numerous canons
2.) Varying translations
3.) Variance in manuscripts

Tell me, if I am to embrace Scripture as my one and only, be all end all, absolute final rule in 'norming', which Scripture should I use? Which canon, which translation?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Then who or what wrote #85 in the Catholic Catechism?


.

Please explain how this question is relevant to my statement.

You claim that The Catholic Church doesn't say this, so my question is simple: It's the Catechism of The Catholic Church (# 85 for your reference) where The Catholic Church is designated as the sole interpreter of Scripture. So, who or what wrote that paragraph - since it wasn't The Catholic Church? If it's not The Catholic Church that wrote this, designating The Catholic Church as the sole interpreter, who or what did?

Here is Romans 3:23: "πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ" What letters does any denomination alter?

What does one verse matter when we have evidence for

You said that Scripture is not unalterable. I gave you a Scripture and asked a very simple, direct question: What denomination alters it? What denomination(s) change one or more of the letters there? How is "πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ" altered by any denomination?






.

 

[ananda]

Please explain how this question is relevant to my statement.

What does one verse matter when we have evidence for:

1.) Numerous canons
2.) Varying translations
3.) Variance in manuscripts

Tell me, if I am to embrace Scripture as my one and only, be all end all, absolute final rule in 'norming', which Scripture should I use? Which canon, which translation?

How about the texts Messiah Himself identified as Scripture (Mt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40, Lk 16:16, 24:44) ... the Law (Torah), as preeminent Scripture as the direct words of YHWH; and the Prophets (Ne'vim), as YHWH's Words through human intermediaries