Sola Scriptura

[Anoetos]

And what about when they didn't use scripture?

Depends on what you mean.

 

[Montalban]

Depends on what you mean.

We know that the Apostles met (Acts 15) in a manner not based on scripture to decide a matter of truth.

 

[Anoetos]

We know that the Apostles met (Acts 15) in a manner not based on scripture to decide a matter of truth.

The apostles were apostles, their practice in church government becomes normative because of who they are.

Also, who says there wasn't precedent? Didn't the tribes of Israel meet by leaders and captains to determine how the nation would proceed?

 

[Montalban]

The apostles were apostles, their practice in church government becomes normative because of who they are.

Therefore they didn't use scripture as a precedent.

Also, who says there wasn't precedent? Didn't the tribes of Israel meet by leaders and captains to determine how the nation would proceed?

You asking me to find evidence for you?

 

[steve_bakr]

Therefore they didn't use scripture as a precedent.

You asking me to find evidence for you?

It is clear that there was a Holy Tradition that began with the original apostles--a tradition on which decisions were made and from which guidance was sought alongside Scripture, and that the Church is the repository of that Tradition.

 

[Montalban]

It is clear that there was a Holy Tradition that began with the original apostles--a tradition on which decisions were made and from which guidance was sought alongside Scripture, and that the Church is the repository of that Tradition.

That's what I believe.

One poster had actually already evidenced earlier (on another thread) an OT 'forum' and tried to extrapolate a link between this and the Apostle's "Council" in Acts 15 but they were very much different.

For one the council in Moses' day was like a standing committee, whereas we know that the seven Ecumenical Councils are always 'reactive' -that is, they arise in order to combat a heresy. The Council in Acts 15 is like this - reactive.

 

[Anoetos]

Therefore they didn't use scripture as a precedent.


You asking me to find evidence for you?

No, the question was rhetorical. They did.

 

[Anoetos]

It is clear that there was a Holy Tradition that began with the original apostles--a tradition on which decisions were made and from which guidance was sought alongside Scripture, and that the Church is the repository of that Tradition.

If all this were "clear" we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Albion]

It is clear that there was a Holy Tradition that began with the original apostles--a tradition on which decisions were made and from which guidance was sought alongside Scripture, and that the Church is the repository of that Tradition.

Gosh, if you only knew how much others would appreciate it if the functional myths belonging to certain denominations were not stated routinely as if they were facts. There are traditions dating from early times, it's true, but you can't just say that every legend or theory that anyone advanced at any time in the first several centuries of church history "began with the original apostles" or that the denomination you prefer was, ipso facto, "the repository of that Tradition." What, for instance, are the even older churches of the East supposed to be--heretics? non-Traditional? Non-existent?

And what are we supposed to answer to such unsupportable propositions? Put some of our own in the face of our RC friends in order to balance the scales of debate? OK then, *Jesus lived in Britain while he was a teenager and the Church of England is the first Christian church, sorrry 'bout yours.*

No, we don't do that to you.

And yet we are virtually dared to let pass, unchallenged, equally fabulous claims that are purely self-serving. It's like we're being invited to take issue with such claims or else they'll be deemed correct.

 

[Anoetos]

A corollary for me to this line of "argument" is that we must be complete idiots not to see what is so "clear"...I don't think that's Steve's intention, but it is definitely implied when he says things like this.

 

[Albion]

A corollary for me to this line of "argument" is that we must be complete idiots not to see what is so "clear"...I don't think that's Steve's intention, but it is definitely implied when he says things like this.

I think I'm with you there. But what is the purpose of anyone throwing up such highly debatable, controversial, points of history or doctrine as though "everybody knows"--while understanding full well that the reader does NOT agree. It reminds me of a time when we were all younger and thought that we could win an argument just by saying what we thought longer and louder than the other fellow.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We know that the Apostles met (Acts 15) in a manner not based on scripture to decide a matter of truth.

1. There are some 70 examples of the practice of Sola Scripture just in the NT alone. Not that it matters at all, but consider how many examples you can state where a teacher among us was regarded as exempt from the issue of Truth or where RC Denominational "Tradition" was used normatively, as the rule/canon/norma normans? If you consider that, you'll realize which practice is exampled in Scripture.


2. Sola Scriptura is given as a sound practice FOR US. For disputed Dogmas among us. No one is saying that Abraham should have used (although Adam would have been wise to use what God said as the rule in evaluating what the snake said, lol)


3. Acts 15 is a wonderful example of Sola Scriptura. Although you may disagree with the ARBITRATION (another issue for another day and thread), what do we see in Acts 15? ACCOUNTABILITY! (the very point where the RCC disagrees with all others). And what rule/canon/norma normans is employed? RC Tradition? No, that's not so much as even mentioned - much less used (for anything). What is used? Read verses 15-19. Yup. It's SCRIPTURE. The "therefore" in verse 19 refers to SCRIPTURE. There was a position that they concluded was normed by Scripture. Do you know what using Scripture normatively is called, that practice? Yes, that's right. It's called Sola Scriptura.


May God's blessings be yours during this Holy Week.


Thanks.


- Josiah




.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is clear that there was a Holy Tradition that began with the original apostles--a tradition on which decisions were made and from which guidance was sought alongside Scripture, and that the Church is the repository of that Tradition.

Scripture is a much better repository of Apostolic Tradition than the various churches with their various traditions.
It is unclear how the churches tie many of their dogmas back to the apostles, and in certain cases it is frankly unknown and unknowable. Brothers of Jesus is one case in point. EV of Mary is another. Assumption of Mary is frankly impossible to do so.
Tying some of these things back to pagan practice, pseudoepigraphia and apocrypha, and the myths and legends that arose out of the popular imagination or the pens of heretics is much easier to do and gives the clearer picture of what the probable source of certain dogma are.
Then there are the doctrines and practices that do not even pretend to be from the apostles and consciously go against apostolic practice. Celebration or Easter on other than Nisan 14, which was the apostolic practice handed down from John, is the case in point here. Church council chose to go against the apostolic practice in order to make clear distinctions between Christian practice and the practices of the 'judaizers' in this instance.

So what is clear is that you have either been misinformed, or are misrepresenting the historic record on behalf of your faith icon.

 

[Kepha]

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

Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.

This is the crux of the argument and still easily fails by way of individual interpretations. There is no 'measuring stick' to be found like that of the one you've shown in your example so it's an unfair one from the start. One who is trained in understanding measurements, cannot fail when looking at the same ruler everyone else is looking at. Yet time and time again, the Protestant sects fail one another when looking at their 'own' measuring sticks to discern the truth from this 'norming' originated with a question and they never achieve success. They merely start over from the beginning with every birth of every sS believer never reaching the goal of understanding what Christ taught 2000 years ago. Your belief will continue without unity, with more sects to be added. That is one truth I hope we all can agree on.

And when the Apostles used Scripture, they could not err. When you use it, you can. So please don't continue to equate how they used it with how you are using it in being the same. They are not. Not even close.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Paul shows an unwise way of measuring here

2Cr 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of ((the number)) or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: ((but they)) measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, ((are not wise))

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is the crux of the argument and still easily fails by way of individual interpretations.

As you know, Sola Scripture is a practice in norming (the evaluation of disputed positions among us), not in hermeneutics.


I CAN (and frankly do) agree with you that self designating self as the sole, authoritative/unaccountable interpreter is both unsound and dangerous. But take that up with the only one that does that (the RC Denomination) and in a thread about interpretation. Okay?

There is no 'measuring stick' to be found

Then we disagree.

And when the Apostles used Scripture, they could not err. When you use it, you can.

I'm not sure I agree with the first statement, but it's entirely irrelevant to anything anyway since the last Apostle died over 1900 years ago. I agree with the second, but that's an issue for a thread about arbitration - not here.







.

 

[Abrahamist]

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.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread because I've been busy with other things for the last few days. I just just skimming through and thought I would answer this one and the post it was referring to.

I've attended services at Jewish synagogues and learned of their their history and traditions.

My theory is that any religion with the same historical roots as Rabbinical Judaism will have much of the same practices, traditions, organization, etc. and will read the Bible much the same way.

I predict that any Church that can trace the history of it's practice all the way back to first generation of apostles will observe a religion that is noticeably similar and in many ways identical to the Jewish religion. I also predict that churches that claim to descend from the apostles by cannot historically verify their claim will not have a practice that is similar to the Jews. On the flip side, I predict that those that do not have a practice similar to the Jews will not be able to historically verify their claim to apostolic succession.

I have observed the similarities I was looking for on all levels at both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I have observed fewer similarities in the reformation churches and even fewer in the protestant churches.

Some Baptists claim that the Baptist practice has line of descent that goes all the way back to the beginning and they were never part of the ranks of the Catholic but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. And there are little or no similarities between Baptist practice and Jewish practice.

 

[Standing Up]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread because I've been busy with other things for the last few days. I just just skimming through and thought I would answer this one and the post it was referring to.

I've attended services at Jewish synagogues and learned of their their history and traditions.

My theory is that any religion with the same historical roots as Rabbinical Judaism will have much of the same practices, traditions, organization, etc. and will read the Bible much the same way.

I predict that any Church that can trace the history of it's practice all the way back to first generation of apostles will observe a religion that is noticeably similar and in many ways identical to the Jewish religion. I also predict that churches that claim to descend from the apostles by cannot historically verify their claim will not have a practice that is similar to the Jews. On the flip side, I predict that those that do not have a practice similar to the Jews will not be able to historically verify their claim to apostolic succession.

I have observed the similarities I was looking for on all levels at both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I have observed fewer similarities in the reformation churches and even fewer in the protestant churches.

Some Baptists claim that the Baptist practice has line of descent that goes all the way back to the beginning and they were never part of the ranks of the Catholic but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. And there are little or no similarities between Baptist practice and Jewish practice.

Yep, there are numerous examples of Judaistic extensions into what is known as RC or EO or some P as it came to be (sacrifice, priest, praying to the dead, purgatory). That's not to say it's right, just that they do.

To find the other, one has to look at the other tradition. But a different thread.

 

[Standing Up]

Paul shows an unwise way of measuring here

2Cr 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of ((the number)) or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: ((but they)) measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, ((are not wise))

Good point. Renew the mind also comes to mind

 

[Fireinfolding]

Good point. Renew the mind also comes to mind

Yeah, and thinking

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

I am not so infallible