Sola Scriptura

[Montalban]

The historic position is not that Scripture is the only source of truth. Rather that in matters of Christian faith and practice Scripture is the sole final rule. In other words, the word of Scripture trumps everything else.

Where in scripture does it suggest to do that?

How did they authorise scripture in the first place (if scripture itself is the ultimate authority)?

 

[Montalban]

lets not forget all the invisible angelic ranks that have much authority over us!

Yes, let's not forget!

 

[Noxot]

I was just reading something and apparently, God is the head.

 

[Montalban]

So, how do we use scripture to identify what is scripture? If we say it's based on when other books refer to the specific books, then why are letters of Paul missing and why are some Old Testament books never quoted and Protestants removing books that Christ and the apostles quoted from?

I don't get how scripture 'trumps' tradition when it was tradition that determined what was scripture in the first place

 

[Fireinfolding]

ummm. Yeah. I'll repeat the question, why the random color changing? If there is a reason, it's understandable, otherwise, it's annoying and distracting

Get over it

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ViaCrucis The historic position is not that Scripture is the only source of truth. Rather that in matters of Christian faith and practice Scripture is the sole final rule. In other words, the word of Scripture trumps everything else.

Where in scripture does it suggest to do that?
How did they authorise scripture in the first place (if scripture itself is the ultimate authority)?

Originally Posted by sculleywr So, how do we use scripture to identify what is scripture? If we say it's based on when other books refer to the specific books, then why are letters of Paul missing and why are some Old Testament books never quoted and Protestants removing books that Christ and the apostles quoted from?

I don't get how scripture 'trumps' tradition when it was tradition that determined what was scripture in the first place

Does make one ponder a little bit on that

http://www.christianforums.com/t4592304-3/#post30756510
Catholic Theology Trumps Scripture

In Catholic theology, tradition trumps scripture. There is a reason for
this, as the following Catholic commentary explains:

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, how do we use scripture to identify what is scripture? If we say it's based on when other books refer to the specific books, then why are letters of Paul missing and why are some Old Testament books never quoted and Protestants removing books that Christ and the apostles quoted from?

Then again, how do we prove the scripturehood of the latest book, being Revelation? If it's not scripture, then any book or author John refers to might not be scripture, and then any books they refer to might not be scripture.

Never is the Scripture said to be THE guidebook of the Church. They are the center of Tradition, but they are still Tradition (II Thessalonians 2:15). The reason we know what is scripture is because of the Canons of the Church, which are Tradition. Protestants just pick and choose scripture buffet style. The Scripture was changed by Luther, who wanted to disclude James because he couldn't make it work with his doctrinal beliefs.

We receive what is Scripture from the Sacred Tradition of the Church as it's been passed down.

As I pointed out in my post, Sola Scriptura is not "Scripture is the only rule" or "the only source"; rather that it's final court of appeal. And because it states that only Scripture is that, then that means our interpretations aren't that either.

Scripture must then be read in the community of the Faithful, and proper interpretive work ought to be through the consensus of the Faithful.

I'm not suggesting an infallible method, I don't think the method is infallible or without its own problems. Only that the historic understanding of Sola Scriptura is not the modernistic "Bible-only" position that some adhere to (and again, which I suggest is both itself unbiblical and dishonest).

The very fact that what constitutes the Canon of Scripture is part of the received Tradition of the Christian Church demonstrates this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sculleywr So, how do we use scripture to identify what is scripture?

We receive what is Scripture from the Sacred Tradition of the Church as it's been passed down.

As I pointed out in my post, Sola Scriptura is not "Scripture is the only rule" or "the only source"; rather that it's final court of appeal. And because it states that only Scripture is that, then that means our interpretations aren't that either.

-CryptoLutheran

I thought our dear brother CaliforniaJosiah gave a good explanation of it here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221-74/#post56990406
The Rule of Scripture

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 doctrines) 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).

 

[Albion]

So, how do we use scripture to identify what is scripture?

To me, this popular put-down of Sola Scriptura is just a verbal game and nothing serious. HOW we came to identify our source, authority, or guidance system is something completely separate from the WORTH of that item, once available to us. You might as well argue that whatever the paper company tells you to believe is the ultimate answer since, after all, the Bible is printed on paper.

Never is the Scripture said to be THE guidebook of the Church. They are the center of Tradition, but they are still Tradition (II Thessalonians 2:15).

Now we're getting into fantasy. The Scriptures certainly DO testify to their origin and worth; and that verse from Thessalonians doesn't say a thing about what is proposed as the repacement for Scripture, i.e. Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition.

The reason we know what is scripture is because of the Canons of the Church, which are Tradition.

They are not Tradition. They just were created long ago

Protestants just pick and choose scripture buffet style.

No more or less than Catholics do.

The Scripture was changed by Luther, who wanted to disclude James because he couldn't make it work with his doctrinal beliefs.

But Luther did not exclude James, so when I read this, I think that the whole post was little more than a rendition of favorite denominational slurs picked up on some website or other.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[Albion]

The problem with using Scripture as the only Ruler is that you get into the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture, hence schism after schism.

Aside from the fact that the suggested replacement for Scripture--Tradition--has produced similar schisms, I have to wonder what the point of such a comment is?

The pursuit of truth is naturally going to result in some people disagreeing and holding to another POV. That doesn't make the truth less truthful. Unless, of course, everyone formally believing the same thing is more important to you than them believing the truth.

 

[HisKid1973]

I think the words tend to be dividing lines ie church, traditions. Just like the church
around the first century was just called christian or the way. It was groups of followers of Christ, those who were reborn into new life in Christ. Sure there divisions, "I'm of Peter, I'm of Paul, but they were all christian sealed with the same Holy Spirit. Penned letters authored the Holy Spirit and assembled those letters together which is like a boy scout manual to the church. This contained the gospel message and the truths needed to walk in that way. I don't think ANY deny that. What you want to call scripture and tradition seems to have different meaning.Wouldn't everything that was oral from the original apostles be in letter form by the first century? Wouldn't the complete truth of the faith once delivered be complete for the first groups what became sees? Should ideas given from those once removed from the apostles be put up with the same authority as the faith once delivered ? Then the word "catholic" shows up around the turn of the century. What was now just a descriptor of the christian church or the way eventually becomes a name of a branch from the trunk and on we go.

 

[Albion]

Wouldn't everything that was oral from the original apostles be in letter form by the first century?

Yes.

The "big deal" of the Traditionists' argument is that when that truth is read by generation after generation, it's traditional to read that truth, the Word of God...so why not add a little to it along the way and say that it's just as good as the Word of God? In other words, the one is handed on through the generations so handing on something, the process, is made more important than what is handed on. That's what is called Holy Tradition.

 

[HisKid1973]

Originally Posted by steve_bakr

"The problem with using Scripture as the only Ruler is that you get into the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture, hence schism after schism."

What I find ironic is all the blame to hoisted on the schismatic children when it was the parents fault.

As for the various interpretations, how many are there ? Sure we don't use a verse that makes the church built on Peter when we see the church built on all the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. We all believe we each need to be reborn in Christ to go to heaven. It never really changed much from "I'm of Peter", "I'm of Paul", "I'm of Apollos". We are either "In Christ" or not all bound by the same Holy Spirit only divided because of man's ideas.



​

 

[HisKid1973]

Yes.

The "big deal" of the Traditionists' argument is that when that truth is read by generation after generation, it's traditional to read that truth, the Word of God...so why not add a little to it along the way and say that it's just as good as the Word of God? In other words, the one is handed on through the generations so handing on something, the process, is made more important than what is handed on. That's what is called Holy Tradition.

So what is wrong with sticking to the basics? Peter preached Christ and 3,000 were added to the church within one 24 hour period. That same message still goes out today..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"The problem with using Scripture as the only Ruler is that you get into the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture, hence schism after schism."​

As for the various interpretations, how many are there ?​

OF COURSE, no matter what is embraced as the rule in norming, it would often need to be interpreted. The RCC and LDS both freely admit this about their own unique Tradition, too. Since it applies to ALL choices and alternatives, it cannot be used to dismiss or reject one.

This thread is not about principles of hermeneutics. Nor is it about arbitration. It's about WHAT is embraced as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. Of course, the whole thing is predicated on the embrace of ACCOUNTABILITY - that when there is a dispute in dogma, it's at least possible that one (or even both) could be wrong, hence the need for norming. THIS is where the dispute lies vis-a-vis the Rule of Scripture. The two primary protestors of this known to me (the RCC and LDS) passionately object to the practice NOT because they reject Scripture or because both agree with none on what is and is not Scripture but RATHER because both reject accountability (in the sole, singular, exclusive, unique, particular case of self alone - both passionately insist upon it for all OTHER teachers); it is seen by them as "flying in the face" of the insistence of self that self cannot be wrong, self is infallible (in dogma, anyway), since self (each self insists) CAN'T be wrong, norming is inappropriate in the sole case of self. Thus, the "rebuttles" are all defenses of how self is infallible rather than some attack on Scripture or some suggestion of some MORE inerrant, inspired, objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced alternative. But, I'd add this: interpreting a known entity, black and white objective words all human beings can know and can't change is preferrable to self insisting that self alone is the sole interpreter (CCC 87) of the Tradition of self (OOC Tradition or EOC Tradition or RCC Tradition or LDS Tradition) hidden in the heart of itself (CCC 113, etc.) known only to self and embraced as reliable only by self.

stick to the basics

Haha. Right now, I'm looking at my two Catechisms right here on the shelf. My Lutheran one (12 pages long) and my Catholic one (752 pages long). And I'm thinking.... all the RCC "distinctives" - the dogmas that make the RCC the RCC, are all things I think most would agree are abiblical, amazingly irrelevant and of only it's OWN very late "Tradition").

But back to the topic...



.





​

 

[Albion]

So what is wrong with sticking to the basics? Peter preached Christ and 3,000 were added to the church within one 24 hour period. That same message still goes out today..

It's a question that probably deserves to be asked more often when these prepackaged objections to the rule of Scripture are raised. If what "Holy Tradition" has given us is the likes of Mary being physically unchanged after giving birth, a legend of her flying bodily into the heavens, and bread changing into Jesus' arm when a religious alchemist says the right words, how could any reasonable person think that believing them is necessary for salvation? Believing the unbelievable makes some people feel devout or otherworldly. That much we know. But the idea that unless a person literally believes these Medieval tales, his salvation is in jeopardy? Really?

 

[Standing Up]

Aside from the fact that the suggested replacement for Scripture--Tradition--has produced similar schisms, I have to wonder what the point of such a comment is?

The pursuit of truth is naturally going to result in some people disagreeing and holding to another POV. That doesn't make the truth less truthful. Unless, of course, everyone formally believing the same thing is more important to you than them believing the truth.

I get the sense that deep down, folks who reject SS, know their Traditions contradict Scripture. They simply cannot use scripture alone. They'd be forced to reject so much of "who they are that isn't Scripture".

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by steve_bakr

"The problem with using Scripture as the only Ruler is that you get into the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture, hence schism after schism."
​

What I find ironic is all the blame to hoisted on the schismatic children when it was the parents fault.

As for the various interpretations, how many are there ? Sure we don't use a verse that makes the church built on Peter when we see the church built on all the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. We all believe we each need to be reborn in Christ to go to heaven. It never really changed much from "I'm of Peter", "I'm of Paul", "I'm of Apollos". We are either "In Christ" or not all bound by the same Holy Spirit only divided because of man's ideas.



​

Indeed. Firmilian said (and others) Rome does not abide apostolic teaching as regards easter and other divine sacraments. Anyone may know.

 

[Albion]

I get the sense that deep down, folks who reject SS, know their Traditions contradict Scripture. They simply cannot use scripture alone. They'd be fcrced to reject so much of "who they are that isn't Scripture".

I have that feeling, too. Scripture is cited by them, but it's for our benefit. That is to say, it is presented to us to show that the authority we believe in has feet of clay and can't be depended upon. Meanwhile, although they say that their Tradition includes Scripture, they couldn't be more dismissive of Scripture most of the time in their posts.