Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

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?

Good questions.

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

I am not so much interested in tone as substance.
As long as you are in fundamental agreement with each other about Protestant heresy,then that is that.

 

[SolomonVII]

....
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?

Which particular verses are you having a problem with contradicting each other according to numerous canons, varrying translations or variance in manuscripts?.
In the Old Testament for sure, there are certain variations between the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint, likely due to variances in the Hebrew texts. Also, there are nuances and word plays that can be picked up from the Hebrew itself that do not come through in another language, even if identical Hebrew texts were being used for both the Masoretic and the Septuagint in those instances. The nakedness of Adam and eve and the cunning of the snake, for example, use the same word in the Hebrew, and there is most certainly additional meanings that can be derived from knowing this.
All and all though, I am not sure that that is a problem. Either way, Scripture is God-breathed and it is therefore God we are communicating with as we delve into these texts, even using both, and various translations to get a fuller meaning of the texts.
To base ones norms in scripture leads to a less dogmatic exclusionary kind of truth, as what becomes more and more important is interacting with God through getting fuller and fuller understandings of his scriptural word.

But that's just me.

What particular verses are you yourself having as a result of the variances that you are attesting to? Which themes and ideas and truths are clashing as a result of those variances? Until we know this maybe it is not going to be such a problem after all.

 

[Montalban]

.




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

Our of curiosity, how many times do you believe you've posted this?

 

[Montalban]

Sola scriptura is not demonstrated by scripture.

As noted a person resorting to scripture is not proof of only resorting to scripture.

They are two different propositions.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola scriptura is not demonstrated by scripture.

Praxis need not be (or we'd not be able to speak English or post on the internet).

But yes - Scripture is used normatively MANY times in Scripture. Do you know what that is called? Sure you do. We all do.

a person resorting to scripture is not proof of only resorting to scripture.

"Proof?"

If one is using Scripture normatively, then they are using Scripture normatively. Do you know of an example in Scripture were RCC or EOC "Tradition" is used normatively? Or when the RCC or EOC or OOC or LDS is given a "pass" on accountability and truth - exempt from norming? I don't.





.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

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

Isn't that circular reasoning?
We say it all the thing that the word of God is God's word because it says so...same as saying The Catholic church was appointed the authoritative interpreter of the Word of God because it claims it was appointed.

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.

But you didn't prove that the claim came from God, you just said so.

...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.)

The Dead Sea Scrolls, being the oldest manuscript that we have, even though it's not the originals shows us just how accurate of manuscripts we actually have.

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.

Will people get any closer to salvation if we read the Catechism? Is there something missing in Scripture that does not lead me to salvation that Catechism speaks on? Do I learn something about God in the catechism that I don't learn in His Scriptures? Is there a virtue in the Catechism that's not spoken about in Scripture? Is there something about Christ that is not stated plainly in Scripture? And if I die never reading the Catechism but read Scripture alone, will I be save if I follow what the Scripture told me to but missed something that the Catechism address?

 

[Montalban]

But yes - Scripture is used normatively MANY times in Scripture. Do you know what that is called? Sure you do. We all do.

Showing that they use scripture, even showing that they use scripture alone isn't saying one should always do so.

 

[steve_bakr]

Isn't that circular reasoning?
We say it all the thing that the word of God is God's word because it says so...same as saying The Catholic church was appointed the authoritative interpreter of the Word of God because it claims it was appointed.

But you didn't prove that the claim came from God, you just said so.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, being the oldest manuscript that we have, even though it's not the originals shows us just how accurate of manuscripts we actually have.

Will people get any closer to salvation if we read the Catechism? Is there something missing in Scripture that does not lead me to salvation that Catechism speaks on? Do I learn something about God in the catechism that I don't learn in His Scriptures? Is there a virtue in the Catechism that's not spoken about in Scripture? Is there something about Christ that is not stated plainly in Scripture? And if I die never reading the Catechism but read Scripture alone, will I be save if I follow what the Scripture told me to but missed something that the Catechism address?

If you want to use Scripture alone, you can, but doing so does not reflect the full depth of the Christian faith. Plus, it is somewhat of an artificial and even arbitrary position because it (sS) does not take into account the Tradition and Church authority that formed it and canonized it.

 

[Montalban]

Isn't that circular reasoning?
We say it all the thing that the word of God is God's word because it says so...same as saying The Catholic church was appointed the authoritative interpreter of the Word of God because it claims it was appointed.

If it stood on its own claim: The Catholic Church is 'the' church because it says so, it would be circular.

I'm not sure that's the claim they make

 

[daydreamergurl15]

If you want to use Scripture alone, you can, but doing so does not reflect the full depth of the Christian faith. Plus, it is somewhat of an artificial and even arbitrary position because it (sS) does not take into account the Tradition and Church authority that formed it and canonized it.

The "full depth" of the Christian faith? What am I missing if I go by Scripture alone? Is it because I miss the tradition that a Pope is necessary? Is it because I miss the claims that there is such a thing as Purgatory? Is it because I miss the doctrine that one can pray to saints? Is it because I don't know how to sign a proper cross?

Will ANY of that keep me from God?

Do I love less, give less, or am less of a Christian because I go by Scripture alone? Is there a moral virtue that I miss because I go by Scripture alone? Are my sins any less forgiven if I go by Scripture alone?

As for the SS not taking into account the tradition an church authority, that's a lie. The SS tells us what authority the church has, it's just a lot more limited then the Catholic Church makes it seem.

Oh and just so you know the church did not "form" scripture. It was written down long before it was bound and the church most definitely didn't make it inspired or even authorized the writings of the individual books, that's all thanks to God.

 

[Noxot]

I think those full of God can speak new scripture out like a river of gushing water. and if it is the same spirit then what would be the difference in between the NT and OT and the dude full of the Spirit of God? i suppose those considered "fully mature in Christ" are able to do those kinds of things. the john who wrote those 3 letters in the NT was considered an elder if I recall correctly. so if he was an elder according to the spiritual man, then he ofc would speak by the spirit.

so i would say, any spiritual elder can speak words of God, since they are full of the spirit of God.

and honestly, why would anyone not want more words of the Spirit of God? the only real problem is knowing for sure if they are really full of the Spirit of knowledge and wisdom and understanding. we know for sure that all the things written in the OT and NT are and so i suppose it is easier to cling to those vs some random dude we don't know well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If it stood on its own claim: The Catholic Church is 'the' church because it says so, it would be circular.

Do you know of any other that claims that about the RC Denomination? Or just itself?




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

(sS) does not take into account the Tradition and Church authority that formed it and canonized it.

1. I (and the RCC) disagree with you that the RC Denomination wrote God's Scripture. You need to explain how the RCC wrote the Ten Commandments on that Mountain and how the RCC told the Hebrews that it is Scripture. I disagree with you and agree with the RCC that teaches that GOD is the creator and author of ALL of Scripture - not the RC Denomination.


2. Your denomination did not "decide" for any but itself as to what Scripture is and is not, which is why NONE agree with it on that topic. It has a grand unity of NONE on that, it agrees with NONE. If it's the "leader" or if it's the "authority" then where are the followers, why does not but itself recognize it? And ask yourself: if IT decides this, when why hasn't even ITSELF follow that? For some 1000 years, it mysteriously added a 28th book to the NT and then mysteriously dropped it - even it paid no attention to it's own decisions in this regard. Certaintly, no other does.


3. As you know, what is and is not Scripture is not an aspect of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a PRACTICE, it has to do with DOING, it doesn't teach anything (anymore than taking a shower in the morning or drinking a cup of coffee). Sola Scriptura is a PRAXIS - the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us. It doesn't TEACH or DECLARE or DECIDE what is and is not Scripture, it cannot teach or decide or declare anything, it's a PRACTICE. The Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) doesn't declare what is and is not Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law declares what is and is not the law in every jurisdiction.


4. Look. I can understand why you, as a Catholic, would be disturbed and troubled by the fact that your denomination doesn't agree with ANY on what is and is not Scripture. It stands entirely, completely alone on this issue. It has a unity of NONE on this. I can understand why that bothers you a lot. But it's another issue for another day and thread. And frankly, no one cares about your denomination's extra DEUTERO books which is why it's never been much of an issue. Your dernomination doesn't care a bit about them and nor does anyone else. Look, if you want to call them Scripture - no one cares. The RCC and LDS are so opposed to the Rule of Scripture NOT because either agrees with any on what is Scripture but because each rejects accountability and norming by ANY rule. It's accountability in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular case of itself alone that they so passionately reject. THAT'S the "problem" for them - not that no one and nothing agrees with each on what is and is not Scripture.







.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=steve_bakr;If you want to use Scripture alone, you can, but doing so does not reflect the full depth of the Christian faith.

Sure it does. It is the deepest, fullest part. the rest is just guilding the lily as far as using scripture to 'see whether things are so' regarding spiritual trurh & usining it for what is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, & for instruction in righteousness.

Plus, it is somewhat of an artificial and even arbitrary position because it (sS) does not take into account the Tradition and Church authority that formed it and canonized it.

It fully takes into account all things in scripture in which no Christian is never mentioned
with an adjective in front of "Christian". In fact all who do are in violation of Paul's admonition not to make such associations.
Much of scripture must be nullified to take what various groups call 'tradition' & 'Church' into account.

 

[Albion]

If you want to use Scripture alone, you can, but doing so does not reflect the full depth of the Christian faith.

That's certainly a matter of opinion. BUT keep in mind that Sola Scriptura is a guide to essential doctrine, not to every last thing that pertains to the Christian religion. All the devotions, dignity, ceremony, history, etc. that is also part of our faith remains...or can remain, depending upon individual and denominational preference. We are only talking here about doctrine that is necessary for salvation. I suspect that most of what you are thinking of with your church isn't in that category, either.

Plus, it is somewhat of an artificial and even arbitrary position because it (sS) does not take into account the Tradition and Church authority that formed it and canonized

Depending upon the meaning you place on those terms, sure it does! What we rule out is making human opinion, legend, folklore, and the like part of the dogmas that the church imposes upon its people as being necessary for salvation.

 

[Montalban]

Do you know of any other that claims that about the RC Denomination? Or just itself?




.

I don't understand the question. I don't think the RCC is making a claim based on circular logic

 

[Montalban]

That's certainly a matter of opinion.

Well at best Scripture can give you a hint of Jesus. It's the experience of Jesus himself that's what we're after.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

If it stood on its own claim: The Catholic Church is 'the' church because it says so, it would be circular.

Do you know of any other that claims that about the RC Denomination? Or just itself?

I don't understand the question.

What else besides the RCC so claims?

If it's no other, then it is - by definition - circular.





.





.

 

[Montalban]

.
What else besides the RCC so claims?

If it's no other, then it is - by definition - circular.

That's not the definition of circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning rests on itself. Not that it's only being claimed by one person/group.