Sola Scriptura

[Anoetos]

There are two Sacred Traditions on a variety of dogmatic claims, and have been for a long time before 1054.

The Sacred Traditions just keep growing further and further apart, and yet we are expected to receieve the assurance of certainty by holding fast to Sacred Tradition,

Which one?

This is a superb point. I anticipate that we will hear from representatives of each "Sacred Tradition" that their church is the proper custodian with the other one having gone off the rails.

 

[SolomonVII]

This is a superb point. I anticipate that we will hear from representatives of each "Sacred Tradition" that their church is the proper custodian with the other one having gone off the rails.

Since the different variations of Sacred Tradition preceded the schisms, neither would be a valid testimony. Problems with the variations only arise after the schisms, thereby demonstrating that pre-schism that different accounting of truth were perfectly acceptable for both.
That that is now not the case, that in itself indicates change from what was taught before.

 

[Albion]

I am going to post this until a 'Sola Scriptura' proponent can answer this for me:

No one thinks that interpreting the word is unimportant, but neither do we have any reason to admit that if someone interets it wrongly, that there is something wrong or lacking in the word. The lack is in the interpreter.

And what of the alternative that is presented to us all the time--go blindly with customs and human opinions that THEMSELVES are subject to the same difficulties, but for which we can't have the same assurance (as we have with Holy Writ) that it is of God?

Yes, it takes study and understanding to properly appreciate Scripture, but none of that is absent when "Tradition" is substituted for it! Just the knowledge that what is being studied and understood is actual revelation.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

To Josiah (or anyone who can answer):

Using Scripture to evaluate a doctrine necessarily entails interpretation of Scripture and of the doctrine. Why do you insist that, in a thread about 'the practice of using Scripture as the sole rule in evaluating doctrine', interpretation is irrelevant or off-topic, considering interpretation is a very component of the practice?


​

It's just the agreement to use scripture first and foremost.

For example, if we use scripture alone, (forget tradition for a moment), how would everyone understand who the brothers are?

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
​

But it's very hard not to read/hear without tradition.

 

[Anoetos]

Standing,

Yes, and there is a very old and strong tradition of liberty where such texts are concerned. One is free to believe they are biological half-brothers, cousins or peers. There is no extra-biblical dogma underlying which requires going to the text with a preconception, although it is certainly true that doing so is not an exclusively Catholic problem.

 

[Standing Up]

Since the different variations of Sacred Tradition preceded the schisms, neither would be a valid testimony. Problems with the variations only arise after the schisms, thereby demonstrating that pre-schism that different accounting of truth were perfectly acceptable for both.
That that is now not the case, that in itself indicates change from what was taught before.

Yes they did precede the schism. Important fact.

Moreover, they still claim that each and self is apostolic. What became the new accounting standard? Sacerdotalism.

 

[Standing Up]

Standing,

Yes, and there is a very old and strong tradition of liberty where such texts are concerned. One is free to believe they are biological half-brothers, cousins or peers. There is no extra-biblical dogma underlying which requires going to the text with a preconception, although it is certainly true that doing so is not an exclusively Catholic problem.

I'm not trying to derail. Just an example. But you bring up tradition; the point is what does scripture say? IOW, SS is just the argeement to use scripture as the rule of faith, regardless of how tradition came to interpret it. IOW, in this example you are right---RC-cousin, EO-step brother. Those conflict. Tradition conflicts. What does SS say? Mary/Joseph had children. IF we stay with SS, that's the conclusion from SS. But conflicting tradition enters the picture and then scripture is blamed for being confused.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Strawman: no one has said that interpretation is "irrelevant or off-topic".

On the contrary, CaliforniaJosiah constantly insists that interpretation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura, and that anyone who wants to discuss hermeneutics must do so in their own thread.

What we've said is that authority is primary to its interpretation; in much the same way that however many de fide, ex cathedra, pronouncements the magisterium may see fit to hand down, those receiving them must still understand and implement them rightly (given the record on Vatican II alone, this clearly gets messy): Their authority is seen to be in their nature, not in their interpretation.

I would agree; however, an authoritative interpreter or teacher may converse with a layperson so that the two parties may come to a mutual understanding. In the case of reading text in isolation from other individuals, one has no way to ensure that their understanding is in agreement with that of Christ.

The distinction is that Scripture, being His very own God-breathed Word, is different in nature to such magisterial statements: the same Holy Spirit Who inspired the human authors indwells believers, giving them a guarantee of at least eventual correction and right interpretation.

In Scripture, Jesus assured the Apostles that "whoever hears you, hears me." In other words, Jesus designated a certain authority to those persons he appointed and the words they spoke on his behalf. What of the people who drew heresy from scripture (Peter records some twisting Paul's letters) yet refused to obey the authority designated to the Apostles who sought to correct them?

 

[Standing Up]

ivebeenshown: I would agree; however, an authoritative interpreter or teacher may converse with a layperson so that the two parties may come to a mutual understanding. In the case of reading text in isolation from other individuals, one has no way to ensure that their understanding is in agreement with that of Christ.

​

That is a point well-taken and frankly it's why I have agreed to use very early tradition to confirm from scripture alone. What I find is the tradition today almost never matches with tradition c100-200.

 

[Harry3142]

Over the years I have had four different denominations/sects tell me in the 'real world' that I need to quit reading Scripture and instead let them tell me what it 'really' says. In each and every case they were attempting to circumvent the barrier that the epistles of St. Paul had put in their way. Their personal agenda was to convince me that I needed to let them tell me what I was allowed to say and/or do, and see obeying them as necessary for my salvation.

But Scripture is quite clear concerning what is necessary for salvation, and obeying a group of leaders who have set themselves up as the spiritual gurus for all mankind is not in that Scripture:

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:5-13,NIV)

This is why Scripture is important (and by 'Scripture' I mean all Scripture, but especially the Scripture found in the New Testament). If we have a firm base in Scripture rather than in doctrines and agendas, and accept Scripture as the primary means of learning of salvation, obtaining that salvation, and then living our lives in such a manner as to be a credit to the God who chose to give us our salvation, Scripture will protect us from those who would deliberately conspire to lead us astray in order to fulfill their own agendas. It makes no difference whether those agendas are the obtaining of personal wealth and power for their own group or the strengthening of an organization that they are in reality 'fronting' for (I knew one minister in the 1960's who was actually a 'front man' for the Ku Klux Klan, and attempted to pick-and-choose Scripture in order to promote their doctrine of hate). By studying Scripture for direction we can recognize who these people are, and also recognize what their true motives are.

 

[Albion]

On the contrary, CaliforniaJosiah constantly insists that interpretation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura, and that anyone who wants to discuss hermeneutics must do so in their own thread.

Hmmm. Well, HOW TO interpret scripture is a different issue from WHAT DO WE interpret, wouldn't you agree? I mean, there's no point in arguing over whose interpretation is correct before we decide on the merits or worth of that which we are interpreting.

In Scripture, Jesus assured the Apostles that "whoever hears you, hears me." In other words, Jesus designated a certain authority to those persons he appointed and the words they spoke on his behalf. What of the people who drew heresy from scripture (Peter records some twisting Paul's letters) yet refused to obey the authority designated to the Apostles who sought to correct them?

Alll right. It was the Apostles he said that to, not other people coming a few or many years later who were NOT among the Twelve Apostles.

 

[Standing Up]

Hmmm. Well, HOW TO interpret scripture is a different issue from WHAT DO WE interpret, wouldn't you agree? I mean, there's no point in arguing over whose interpretation is correct before we decide on the merits or worth of that which we are interpreting.



Alll right. It was the Apostles he said that to, not other people coming a few or many years later who were NOT among the Twelve Apostles.

That is the source of the conflict, isn't it. Bishops thought they were apostles and they could introduce new stuff, even stuff that contradicted with other bishops. But the bishops thought they were apostles. Endless roundabout.

SS is the agreement to use apostles (scripture). Not conflicting bishops. After all, even if scripture does lead to different interpretations, we end up in the same place as Tradition.

PS. I don't think it leads to different interpretations, but we bring 2000 years of tradition to it.

 

[Anoetos]

I don't think it matters how many infallible interpreters you interpose between the authority and it's audience, you always end up with the epistemological problem of faulty reception.

Standing, I chose the word "tradition" there deliberately...

 

[Anoetos]

On the contrary, CaliforniaJosiah constantly insists that interpretation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura, and that anyone who wants to discuss hermeneutics must do so in their own thread.

I am pretty sure that "irrelevant and off-topic" we're not his words, and I am certain they weren't his intent considering that every datum requires interpretation, divine or not. But he can answer for himself.

I would agree;however, an authoritative interpreter or teacher may converse with a layperson so that the two parties may come to a mutual understanding. In the case of reading text in isolation from other individuals, one has no way to ensure that their understanding is in agreement with that of Christ.

I think this is another straw man; we don't read scripture in a vacuum. We read it in church and in history...we too have tradition. But it isn't equal to the Bible.

In Scripture, Jesus assured the Apostles that "whoever hears you, hears me." In other words, Jesus designated a certain authority to those persons he appointed and the words they spoke on his behalf. What of the people who drew heresy from scripture (Peter records some twisting Paul's letters) yet refused to obey the authority designated to the Apostles who sought to correct them?

This is true, but there isn't any reason to believe that this same authoritative charism is transmittible to others, or that this was our Lord's intent. Only a view which requires an enduring infallible authority other than scripture necessitates it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To Josiah: Using Scripture to evaluate a doctrine necessarily entails interpretation of Scripture and of the doctrine.

It MIGHT. LOTS of things MIGHT be involved, but that doesn't mean that the practice of Sola Scriptura IS all those things. If you typically drive on the right hand side of the road in the USA, you might stop at a gas station. But that doesn't mean that driving on the right hand side of the road IS filling up the car with gas.


As has been explained over and over and over, norming typically (although not always or necessarily) involves 3 things - SEPARATE things, but often involved. 1) Accountability. 2) The embraced rule/canon/norma normans. 3) Arbitration.


Let's return to the illustration: You and your neighbor decide to have a brick wall built on your property line, a wall six feet tall. You both hire Bob the Builder, with instructions to built it 6 feet tall. Follow? Understand?

Bob is finished. Bob claims the wall is 6 feet tall. Now - yes, Bob COULD insist, "whatever I do is exempt from accountability because I claim that what I do is infallible and the equal of God - thus I do not permit my claims to be held accountable." In which case, you can choose to either just docilicly submit to his insistence on being exempt from truth, accountability and responsibility - or not. But let's say that Bob the Builder things truth matters, and so do you, and so does your neighbor. Thus, it MATTERS whether the wall is what is claimed. IF so, you have embraced accountability (this is where the RCC and Protestants part company, read my post "Why Some So Passionatey Reject This Rule?" This is the first part: an embrace of truth, responsibility, accountability. This is NOT Sola Scriptura, it is the step before it.

2. Bob, you and your neighbor must mutually agree on some rule ("straight edge") or canon ("measuring stick") or as it's called in epistemology, the norma normans ("the norm that norms") - something KNOWABLE, OBJECTIVE, UNALTERABLE that is OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties - you, your neighbor, Bob the Builder. WHATEVER that embraced rule is becomes the norma normans for the norming (evaluation of validity, truth, correctness) of this sitiuation: is the wall 6 feet tall? Perhaps you all embrace a standard Sears measuring tape. You have one. Bob has one. Your neighbor has one. You all embrace it as reliable for this purpose. It's objective. It's knowable to all. It's alterable by none. It's outside and beyond all of you. IT will be the plumbline, the standard, the rule ("straight edge") the canon ("measuring tape") for the norming (evaluation of validity, correctness) of Bob's claim. Follow? THIS is the SOLE issue in Sola Scripture: WHAT is to serve as the rule, canon, norma normans in the norming of disputed dogmas among us.

3. IF it is necessary (and sometimes it is, sometimes it's not), IF it is necessary, some arbitration may be needed. It MAY be that Bob and you and your neighbor - each using the SAME objective, knowable, unalterable rule - nonetheless don't agree on whether the wall measures up to the measuring stick. IF so, you may need some arbitration. This is not the rule/canon, it is the arbitration according to IT - the specific markings on the Sears Measuring Tape. This is not Sola Scriptura, this is not the embraced rule/canon - but it MAY be a part of the norming process.

These 3 things MAY be involved in norming, but these 3 things are not Sola Scripture, only the second one is related to embracing Scripture as the Rule. Consider the Rule of Law. In this, all parties are held as accountable. to what? To the law, the written objective knowable unalterable law. Occasionally (rarely, actually), some valid dispute arises - not from things the law does NOT says ("implied" or "between the lines") but in what it DOES say. The courts MAY then need to be involved. IF that's the case in our example, you and your neighbor and Bob will all be able to present your view - but none of you get a vote, and the rule will be that objective, knowable, unalterable, standard plumbline - the canon, the norma normans will be the embraced rule. In the Rule of Law, the Law is the embraced rule - not what I may wish is unwritten between the lines, "implied" in the opinion of myself, but the words written.

interpretation is a very component of the practice?

No, it's not. It is specifically EXCLUDED from the practice. Note the definition, what it IS - and WHAT IT IS NOT! One of those is "it is NOT hermeneutics."

That MAY be a factor in arbitration - maybe - but not in the embrace of Scripture as the embraced rule/canon/norma normans.

But it's very hard not to read/hear without tradition.

Might be. Another issue for another day and thread.


But if we embrace SCRIPTURE as the rule, then the rule is SCRIPTURE. Those specific, written, objective, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white words. If you want to replace that rule with "what I think/feel" or "what I see as invisible words between the lines" okay - but that's a different rule/canon/norma normans.

In Scripture, Jesus assured the Apostles that "whoever hears you, hears me." In other words, Jesus designated a certain authority to those persons he appointed and the words they spoke on his behalf.

1. No. Jesus never said that to ANY Apostle (much less to the RC Denomination).


2. "In OTHER words" simply means you are substituting OTHER words for what Jesus said, substituting yourself.


3. You are simply getting to my point of "Why Some So Passionately Reject This Practice?" The RCC's "problem" is with accountability is the sole, singular, exclusive, unique case of it itself alone - it giving itself a "pass" on the issue of truth and thus exempting self from the whole subject of norming (the evaluation of truthfulness, correctness, validity) since self simply declares that submission to self is the issue. The substitution of the power self claims for self for the issue of correctness.

I hope that helps...



Pax



- Josiah


​

 

[Montalban]

1. Who are "they?"

The people you're referring to re: Norma Normans.

2. What other inscripturated words of God?

I'm talking about the where Paul commends people to keep to lessons other than that written, or he himself quotes unwritten lessons.

3. What relevance does that have to US - living in 2012 - as WE evaluated DISPUTED dogmas among US?

I don't know. What?

 

[ivebeenshown]

As has been explained over and over and over, norming typically (although not always or necessarily) involves 3 things - SEPARATE things, but often involved. 1) Accountability. 2) The embraced rule/canon/norma normans. 3) Arbitration.

Alright, I think I get it. You are saying that Sola Scriptura is not the practice of using Scripture as the only rule in norming (which necessarily includes interpretation) but rather the practice of embracing of Scripture as the only rule to be used in norming.

But if we embrace SCRIPTURE as the rule, then the rule is SCRIPTURE. Those specific, written, objective, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white words. If you want to replace that rule with "what I think/feel" or "what I see as invisible words between the lines" okay - but that's a different rule/canon/norma normans.

Scripture is not so black-and-white though. Canonical differences aside, there are insertions in some manuscripts, differences in phrasing between translations, and differences even between the single words chosen by translators.

The Word of God is indeed objective and true, but the writings that represent the Word of God are subject to human alteration.

1. No. Jesus never said that to ANY Apostle (much less to the RC Denomination).

In my understanding, Luke 10:16 parallels Mark 6:11 in meaning.

2. "In OTHER words" simply means you are substituting OTHER words for what Jesus said, substituting yourself.

Actually, I was offering my interpretation of what Jesus said. I may take his words to mean something different than what you take his words to mean.

3. You are simply getting to my point of "Why Some So Passionately Reject This Practice?" The RCC's "problem" is with accountability is the sole, singular, exclusive, unique case of it itself alone - it giving itself a "pass" on the issue of truth and thus exempting self from the whole subject of norming (the evaluation of truthfulness, correctness, validity) since self simply declares that submission to self is the issue. The substitution of the power self claims for self for the issue of correctness.

I see. We believe the Church is exempt from 'the whole subject of norming' as you put it, but only as far as the charism of infallibility extends.

I hope that helps...
Pax
- Josiah

Actually, Josiah, it really did. I think I finally 'got somewhere' today in terms of understanding you and your line of thought. I am glad that you are on this forum, where we can converse.

 

[Albion]

Scripture is not so black-and-white though. Canonical differences aside, there are insertions in some manuscripts, differences in phrasing between translations, and differences even between the single words chosen by translators.

I'm not getting your point. Your church claims to hold to scripture, too. Why would it do so under the conditions you've outlined here?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Alright, I think I get it. Sola isthe practice of embracing of Scripture as the only rule to be used in norming.

As stated many times. Yes.

Scripture is not so black-and-white though.

Actually, it is. Black words on a white page. Knowable. Objective. Unalterable.

Canonical differences aside, there are insertions in some manuscripts, differences in phrasing between translations, and differences even between the single words chosen by translators.

It's not Sola Translatia (word? LOL), it's Sola Scriptura.

Actually, while I'm very aware of textual issues - I'm not aware of a single debate over a single dogma where that's ever been an issue.

I may take his words to mean something different than what you take his words to mean.

True. And if this thread had a THING to do with interpretation, that would be interesting to pursue.

We believe the Church is exempt from 'the whole subject of norming' as you put it, but only as far as the charism of infallibility extends.

Not exactly. The RCC does NOT teach that the church is exempt from accountability, only that it itself alone is. ALL OTHER Christian teachers (persons, denominations, etc.) are fully, complete, immediately, wholly accountable for all they teach and claim. I know of few (if any) that embrace accountability more fully than the RCC does. It has excommunicated people, declared whole groups to be heretics, even dispatched souls to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke - all powerfully embracing accountability. It's just that it makes ONE remarkable, complete, full, particular, unique, exclusive, singular exception: itself.

Actually, Josiah, it really did. I think I finally 'got somewhere' today in terms of understanding you and your line of thought. I am glad that you are on this forum, where we can converse.

I'm glad.


It is never my intent to "convert" or "convince" anyone (I don't have the ego for that), but if understanding can be advanced - I'm willing to work hard to accomplish that. I KNOW you can't accept Sola Scriptura (you'd need to leave Catholicism to do so), and I have no desire for you to leave Catholicism. It's good if you come to understand that the typical Catholic pitch in this regard is simply a total misunderstanding. Happens. On both "sides"



May Holy Week be filled with rich blessings for you...


- Josiah

 

[Montalban]

As stated many times. Yes.

And what about when they didn't use scripture?