Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where in scripture does it suggest to do that?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.
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?
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
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 sculleywrSo, 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?
Does make one ponder a little bit on thatI don't get how scripture 'trumps' tradition when it was tradition that determined what was scripture in the first place
In Catholic theology, tradition trumps scripture. There is a reason for
this, as the following Catholic commentary explains:
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.
I thought our dear brother CaliforniaJosiah gave a good explanation of it here: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
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).
So, how do we use scripture to identify what is 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.
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.
Yes.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.
steve_bakr said:"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 ?
stick to the basics
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..
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.
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.
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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?