Sola Scriptura

ivebeenshown said:

It admits to having made mistakes in some sense...

Click to expand...

Well, that was the only point there--just that we sometimes use these terms carelessly. To be infallible means NEVER making a mistake. The RCC doesn't claim that for itself, although there is the matter of Papal Infallibility which has been used a grand total of twice.

Abrahamist said:

I am reading this to mean that scripture is the standard by which all doctrine will be judged.

Click to expand...

Well, if employing the Rule of Scripture, then Scripture is the Rule.

Also, the norming process assumes a universal understanding of scripture.

Click to expand...

No. If you read what I posted, Sola Scriptura has to do with norming, not hermeneutics.

I don't think I mention "universal" anywhere. About anything. Accept that the embrace of Scripture as inerrant is universal.

As stated before, the meaning of scripture isn't always clear.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, so what? I'm ENTIRELY lost as to what that has to do with anything. I never mentioned in my post about anything being clear to anyone.

Let's say the Law isn't clear to you. Does that mean you reject the Rule of Law as thus invalid and instead each is exempt from accountability/responsibility?
on.

This can apply to the subject of interpreting scripture.

Click to expand...

No. Sola Scriptura has to do with norming, not hermeneutics.

If you are opposed to self appointing self as the sole interpreter of Scripture, take that up with the only one that does that - the RC Denomination. But that has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

I do accept the Bible as the Word of God but only because I can objectively verify what it claims is true and because I can verify the claims of those put the Bible together and maintained it.

Click to expand...

Okay. WHATEVER reasons you do, you accept it. All others do to. And it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE you and me and everyone else too. By your advise, it thus is the best norma normans. The RCC is not above and beyond and outside all, it's simply the RCC.

I'm not opposing the Bible as the Word of God or as an Authority. What I'm opposing is the idea that the Bible carries authority but those that wrote, canonized and maintained it do not.

Click to expand...

God wrote it, according to the RCC. God canonized it, according to the RCC. I agree with the RCC in this.

Except for what I can do is make a copy of it and alter it to suit me own ends.

Click to expand...

No. You can do that with RCC Tradition, but not with Scripture. I know what words are in Romans 3:23. So you do. So do all. I can't change them, you can't change them - they are objective, unalterable.

I'm not advocating using Oral Tradition in place of or in opposition to the Bible but rather in cooperation with the Bible.

Click to expand...

If this phantom of "oral tradition" is equal to Scripture, then Scripture MUST agree with this phantom - and thus is irrelevant. All you've done is replace an OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE rule ABOVE all with self looking at a phantom of it's own creation.

The claims of the Church as an Authority are every bit as legitimate as the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.

Click to expand...

An yet YOU suggested that what we need is not self claiming that self is the sole Authority but rather an OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE Authority, knowable to all and alterable by none. Self looking at a phantom of it's own creation is not embracing some Authority outside, above and beyond self - it's just self alone declaring that self alone IS the Authority.

I don't agree that the authority of the Bible can be established without establishing the authority of those that produced it.

Click to expand...

The CANON of Scripture perhaps - although that's another issue for another day and thread. We all agree that GOD produced His Scriptures. We all agree that HE is the Authority (although the RCC and LDS equate self with God in this - see CCC 87 for example).

our own private interpretation which may or may not be any more valid than anyone else's.

Click to expand...

As you well know, Sola Scriptura is a praxis of norming, it has nothing to do with hermeneutics.

If you disagree with self appointing self as the sole, authoritarian, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, I understand. But take that up with the only one on the planet that does that - the RCC. Let's try to stay on topic here, okay?

Josiah said:

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).

Click to expand...

Except for the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops ARE the teachings of Christ.

Click to expand...

Of course, you are just cooperating with the RCC's attempt to exempt itself alone from accountability and the whole issue of this thread: Norming. You are simply agreeing that self alone can exempt self alone from the issue of truth. What happened to your call for some rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND self? If truth is irrelevant to you, then yes - any and all canons will be too - which is why your denomination rejects Sola Scriptura, it rejects accountability in the sole, singular, particular, unique case of it itself alone alone.



.

When a person says "Bible alone" they are actually implying at least two things. The book and their own subjective understanding of the book. If they add the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that would imply a third element beyond the book itself.

Many of these threads seem to begin with a Catholic defining Sola Scriptura, a Protestant correcting them and the Catholic continuing with the erroneous definition, occasionally even having admitted their error and accepting the correction.

But, really, this makes sense, for them to internalize the correct understanding would mean modifying their argument to accommodate it which would, in turn, mean having to jettison the argument. Where's the fun in that?

Because if SS means what we say it does (as opposed to what the Catholic tells us it means), the argument that it is self refuting since SS is not stated in the Bible crumbles since, according to our understanding of it as a norm, it doesn't have to be.

Abrahamist said:

More specifically, in Sola Scriptura, God's Word is defined as spefically as scripture at the exclusion of Oral Tradition.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not what sola scriptura is at all.

I am no more convinced of it's validity.

Click to expand...

You didn't have an open mind in the first place and you weren't here to have a sincere dialogue. The fact that you've been corrected several times by different people in the thread and continue to spout the same claims is evidence of this.

But it is tradition that establishes that the book is the word of God.

Click to expand...

Actually, the scriptures state that the book is the Word of God.

Again, the argument I am presenting here is NOT that the scriptures are not an authority but that the scriptures are incomplete without the guide of tradition.

Click to expand...

So, God's Word is insufficient?

I see nothing hear that contradicts my position.

Click to expand...

Then you're not reading what I posted because each one of these men is writing in favor of the ruling authority of the Word of God (aka "sola scriptura").

the oral tradition is doctrine not found explicitly in scripture but derived from scripture, for example the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Trinity is found explicitly in scripture.

That's the way it was applied at the church I used to attend as a child.

Click to expand...

Then your argument is not with the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, but with individuals who misunderstood sola scriptura and practiced it wrongly.

They taught that God communicated directly to the individual through the Bible.

Click to expand...

And you don't believe this?

I'm gaining a greater understanding of what sola scriptura means

Click to expand...

Based on what you're describing sola scriptura to be, I don't believe you are.

I don't know and don't really care.

Click to expand...

So, you made an accusation not knowing whether or not it's true and not even caring whether or not its true?

I don't know the specifics anymore

Click to expand...

So then, you're making accusations without even knowing whether or not what you're accusing is true?

I've yet to here an explanation of the Protestant Christian that made any sense at all.

Click to expand...

But if you did, your behavior in this thread indicates that you wouldn't listen.

Again, the way that I have seen Sola Scriptura applied as at the exclusion of this, except for the authority of the particular church I attended.

Click to expand...

Then, again, your argument should be with individuals who misunderstood the Biblical doctrine of sola scripture and practiced it wrongly, not with the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, itself.

My old church had no creeds, confessions or catechisms that were tied to any historical roots.

Click to expand...

I find that extremely hard to believe.

It was a nondenominational church.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Even non-denominational churches have creed, confessions, and catechisms.

What if it is the spirit that is telling you how to read the scripture?

Click to expand...

That's subjective. We read objectively, using proper hermeneutic principles.

Then how do test the spirit against the scripture?

Click to expand...

You collect the things you believe the "spirit" is saying and compare them to scripture.

You are appear to be assuming a history with scripture beside tradition (Like catechisms, confessions, etc) instead of at the exclusion of tradition.

Click to expand...

Sola scriptura is not at odds with the idea of traditions, catechisms, confessions, etc.

In many protestant churches, people apply sola scriptura at the exclusion of tradition to interpret the Bible to mean whatever they want to.

Click to expand...

Then your argument should be against the individuals who have misunderstood the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura and not the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, itself.

In any event, this will be my last post to you. Like many Catholics, you're just not interested in a sincere dialogue. You need a boogeyman to represent Protestants and so you've chosen sola scriptura. And as long as that's you're attitude, we're just going to go 'round and 'round. Thanks, but I just don't see how that's honoring to God or edifying to the Body.

anoetos said:

Many of these threads seem to begin with a Catholic defining Sola Scriptura, a Protestant correcting them and the Catholic continuing with the erroneous definition, occasionally even having admitted their error and accepting the correction.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much how it goes. If you ever look at the Catholic forums on CARM, you'll see multiple threads started by the Catholics, then, when the Christians there correct them, they just ignore everything the Christians said and just start a new thread making the same accusations.

The Bible says the Bible is true. But how do we know which texts constitute scripture to begin with? How do we know the text we quote to prove scriptural trustworthiness is actually talking about all the other books we happen to have bound together under the title "Bible"? Christians have never exactly agreed on this issue. There has to be some criteria with which books can be judged as scripture or not scripture. It can't be scripture itself because that presupposes knowledge of what constitutes scripture which is precisely what is under question. In the end we all have to bring in some sort of authority that isn't scripture. Me personally I use intuition and my own conscience. Others have faith in the authority of certain church councils in which certain lists of book were decided upon as having been scripture. Some go based on the tradition of their denomination. None go on scripture because scripture can't decide what constitutes scripture.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

As you well know, Sola Scriptura is a praxis of norming, it has nothing to do with hermeneutics. [...] Let's try to stay on topic here, okay?

Click to expand...

It is impossible to use Scripture as your only 'rule' in evaluating doctrines without interpretation, so I have no clue why you continue to insist on declaring interpretation irrelevant to the practice of using Scripture as the only 'rule' in evaluating teachings.

Would you care to fill me in?

Publius said:

Actually, the Trinity is found explicitly in scripture.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in a verse of dubious origins, which is only extant in certain manuscripts and translations.

ivebeenshown said:

Yeah, in a verse of dubious origins, which is only extant in certain manuscripts and translations.

Click to expand...

Is there anything else besides the Trinity that is of dubious origin? And is that your opinion or RC?

ivebeenshown said:

Yeah, in a verse of dubious origins, which is only extant in certain manuscripts and translations.

Click to expand...

That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit also is God; this is not found in the Bible?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

While SOME believe in the "all-sufficiency" of Scripture, that's not to be confused with Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

What about the scripture that says that they used other than scripture?

Montalban said:

What about the scripture that says that they used other than scripture?

Click to expand...

1. Who are "they?"
2. What other inscripturated words of God?
3. What relevance does that have to US - living in 2012 - as WE evaluated DISPUTED dogmas among US?






.

.

Anoetos said:

Many of these threads seem to begin with a Catholic defining Sola Scriptura, a Protestant correcting them and the Catholic continuing with the erroneous definition, occasionally even having admitted their error and accepting the correction.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY.



... and the eventual admission that their "problem" with the actual practice is that it would make the RCC accountable. THAT'S the problem. It's the rejection of accountability/responsibility in the sole, singular, unique, exclusive, particular case of the RCC alone that is so objectionable - thus the rejection of ANY norma normans (that is not simply itself looking in the mirror of itself - it's own understanding of it's own "Tradition" and it's own Magisterium and it's own interpretation of the Scripture in the heart of itself - AT MOST, irrelevant since it itself alone claims that it itself alone is incaptable of error -conditionally). THAT'S the objection, they eventually admit. Accountability for the RCC's distinctive, disputed dogmas. And the insistence instead that it's distinctive, disputed dogmas just be embrace "with docilic submission" exempt from accountability and the issue of truth.





.

Montalban said:

What about the scripture that says that they used other than scripture?

Click to expand...

This is a good point because Scripture also says to follow the oral traditions of the apostles. Not only that, Holy Scripture does not exist in a vaccuum independently of Holy Tradition. On the contrary, it was Holy Tradition which determined what books and letters were to be followed and eventually canonized. Honestly, Sola Scriptura is a rather artificial concept.

What about the scripture that says that they used other than scripture?

Click to expand...

steve_bakr said:

This is a good point because Scripture also says to follow the oral traditions of the

Click to expand...

This may be a good time to reiterate something that seems to obvious to us but which may need to be said every once in awhile.

When you say "Scripture," you're referring to the word of God, divine revelation. Your church believes that as well as the reformed churches do.

If one of us describes the fact too carelessly, Catholics here are quick to say that their church believes in Scripture within Tradition. IOW, believes Scripture. Yet we read references made to Scripture that make it seem that the Bible is just another piece of history. The answer to your question about things mentioned in Scripture and unidentified items that may be in Scripture (the "traditions) is that if they are contained there, they are part of God's revelation! That settles any question about their worth. They cannot be seen as something fallible or incidental.

Anoetos said:

That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit also is God; this is not found in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Those three truths are found throughout the bible, but not explicitly as one statement regarding the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity had to be clarified by the Church though. Some were saying the Son and the Spirit were lesser in authority than the Father, some were saying the Son was not truly God, so on.

ivebeenshown said:

Those three truths are found throughout the bible implicitly. The doctrine of the Trinity had to be clarified by the Church though. Some were saying the Son and the Spirit were lesser in authority than the Father, some were saying the Son was not truly God, so on.

Click to expand...

Meaning that, as you said, the institutional church moved to reinforce and clarify with a human explanation--a truth that was already in the Bible--even if many common people didn't understand it. In the Nicene Creed, the Scriptures are mentioned as a basis for the doctrines explained and asserted by it...but nothing about traditions.

Albion said:

This may be a good time to reiterate something that seems to obvious to us but which may need to be said every once in awhile.

When you say "Scripture," you're referring to the word of God, divine revelation. Your church believes that as well as the reformed churches do.

If one of us describes the fact too carelessly, Catholics here are quick to say that their church believes in Scripture within Tradition. IOW, believes Scripture. Yet we read references made to Scripture that make it seem that the Bible is just another piece of history. The answer to your question about things mentioned in Scripture and unidentified items that may be in Scripture (the "traditions) is that if they are contained there, they are part of God's revelation! That settles any question about their worth. They cannot be seen as something fallible or incidental.

Click to expand...

Yes, Holy Tradition is what has been revealed by God along with Holy Scripture.