Sola Scriptura

[Montalban]

...which point was answered in the second sentence of that paragraph ("With that, we then have to decide if it's credible.").

How you decide has not been demonstrated.

No, I was referring to all the objective evidence. The Bible is, you know, probably the most scrutinized book in all of history and has withstood the doubts and objections of centuries of skepticism.

That's not objective evidence at all. That's circular logic. Those that believe the bible has withstood outside scrutiny believe the bible has done so (is also a truism)


The Koran also has similar circular challenges to 'find any other book like it'.

 

[Montalban]

1. As you know, the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule <snip>

I am uncertain just how many times this post has come up.

You haven't as yet shown about the times they didn't use scripture as a 'norma normans', such as in Acts 15 when they decided to alleviate the burden of circumcision from the Gentiles

 

[Albion]

That's not objective evidence at all. That's circular logic.

You love that phrase, don't you?

No, it's straightforward evidence used just as we use evidence to decide every other intellectual question. But I'm willing to hear your arguments against the credibility of the Bible if you wish to give them.

The Koran also has similar circular challenges to 'find any other book like it'.

I'm not talking about self-serving claims. That was YOUR "take" on the subject, but I answered you that credibility has to be established objectively.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am uncertain just how many times this post has come up.

... and yet, have you read it?

You haven't as yet shown about the times they didn't use scripture as a 'norma normans', such as in Acts 15 when they decided to alleviate the burden of circumcision from the Gentiles

1. The practice BY US of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as WE evaluate disputed dogmas among US applies to US and NOW. No one yet has indicated that those living in 52,342 BC did or should have used Scripture thusly.


2. Obviously, the Council of Jerusalem DID use Scripture normatively. Did it embrace that all those with positions are exempt from the issue of truth and accountability as those that object to the Rule of Scripture insist self alone should be? No. Did they look to RC or EO "Tradition" as the rule/canon/norma normans? No. To what did they hold up the position? Read it. It specifically says. Verses 15-19. The "THEREFORE" in verse 19 refers to SCRIPTURE, the arbitration was according to the Rule of Scripture. It's all right there, clear as can be, undeniable, obviously. Now, you MAY disagree with the arbitration but that's another issue for another day and thread... the issue here is what norma normans was used.





.

 

[SolomonVII]

I would say that ultimately accepting the credibility of the divine claims of any book must have to be based on the nature of the writings of that book. More than this, if the Spirit speaks from the words of the book and is understood by the indwelling Spirit in our hearts, that is when the claims of divinely inspired writings become credible.

WE also have to acknowledge though that much of what we hold to be true has been given to us and has not come about as a result of a completely independent analysis on our behalf. This holds as true for the church as for the bible. It would hold true for the Koran too if we were born or absorbed into that culture.

Ours is also a culture that has learned how to critically examine truth claims. This is to our great advantage.

So on the one hand we would have a group of sincere, educated, and dedicated gentlemen seeking out the religious texts that were the most widespread and deemed to be the authentic ideas of the apostles. On the other hand, we have the incredible claims that an angel appeared to a man in a cave, and the words of the angel were eventually written down verbatim, not a jot or iota out of place, on clam shells or other like materials, and then the original copy destroyed by Abu Akbar and his own version of the rapidly expandings transmissions of Mohammed arbitrarily made the authentic one. (And coincidentally, some of the stories are not unlike those available in the Christian apocrypha at the time as well).

To determine credibility then one must consider the superlative nature and content writings themselves, and consider the process through which those writings were authenticated as being from either an apostolic or angelic source, according to the varying claims about them.

The question arises then, do the people who authenticate the claims of Scripture thereby deserve special consideration and a special chrism as a result of a job well done?

Some claim that to be so. Likewise, some claim that scientists in white lab jackets also have the special charisma of truth now too as they have become the new priests of the modern era.

Nevertheless using credible methods for determining Scripture as authentic really does not distinguish the churchmen or the scientists themselves. It is their methods that are credible, and as such their methods are replicable by others too. There is no special powers involved, no special chrism at play here either. Good methods authenticate the texts just like they authenticate the discoveries of modern scientists. It is poor reasoning that if one believes in the result one must also believe in the divine authority of the people who gave us those results. The results are a product of the method and some divine authority handed down to the people who decided on which scripture in the first place need not be involved at all.

 

[Kepha]

1. Not that it matters. AT ALL. The RC Denomination doesn't permit itself to be regarded as accountable or responsible; it powerfully insists that ALL others are completely, absolutely, totally, immediately accountable - but it makes ONE remarkable, specific, absolute, specific, particular exception - itself.

Sounds like the early Apostles as they preached and proclaimed the Word of God. Unless you can show me one time where they had doubt regarding their preaching. And if you can do that, then you should equally doubt everything they say. So either way, there is no way out. Without a Body of such, you will have a bunch of tiny denominations proclaiming their own personal 'truths' then pretending they don't believe themselves infallible when doing such things. The many sS regulars on here seem to be in this category. Enough to keep themselves seperated from other Christians regarding the teachings of Christ.

...which point was answered in the second sentence of that paragraph ("With that, we then have to decide if it's credible.").

Who has decided? Protestant Christians? How about those who are not Christians because they don't see this same 'objective' evidence you see? Your claim on an objective truth is a personal one only at best and carries no weight or authority behind it.

No, I was referring to all the objective evidence.

Again, which ones. Why are you so sure these Books haven't been mis-copied in the early Church or that certain Books not mentioned from the earliest of Fathers belong in the Canon. I'd be interested in hearing this 'objective evidence' you speak of.

The Bible is, you know, probably the most scrutinized book in all of history and has withstood the doubts and objections of centuries of skepticism.

Here's how this sounds to me: "Because my many individual Christian sects believe it has withstood scrutiny and because I personally omit any non Christian who may challenge it from being part of my Christian sect, then my case is sound". Wrong. You don't know except by faith and that's it unless you can show me that the early Church universally held to your 66 Book version, no more no less.

A practice doesn't define or teach anything, a practice does something, it doens't proclaim anything.

Except the problem with this is that your 'practice' is binded to your personal dogmas regarding what God has to say to us. Without your 'practice' you've got no church, no truths, hence your practice can be nothing other than your doctrine also.

This one is about norming (the evaluation of correctness, validity) and specifically what is most sound as the embraced rule/norma normans.

And this just backs up what I said above.

 

[Kepha]

Probably need to start a thread again on John 3. Born-again-water and Spirit. What's it mean?

No we don't.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, but it was compiled and canonized by a council of Bishops--ie., by the authority of the Church.

While that may be true for RC Church, it does not accurately reflect what happened for EO Church or P Church or OO Church. We know this because every Church's canon is different.

 

[Standing Up]

I believe the Bible has proven itself to be the words of God. That's all that matters to me.

Exactly.

Not sure why people think Tradition has proven itself to the same standard as the Bible. Tradition contradicts itself. For example, EO believes the Spirit made Mary pure right before conception. RC believes she was pure from her birth. Another one, some think Jesus was born normally, some think Jesus was born from Mary's side. Tons of contradictions in Tradition (and Councils).

 

[Albion]

Who has decided? Protestant Christians?

My apologies. I just tend to assume that Catholics and Orthodox also believe the Bible. Lord knows, they SAY they do...until it comes to a thread like this one in which the veracity of the Scriptures is raised by someone or other, and then they all begin arguing that it's only Protestants who do.

How about those who are not Christians because they don't see this same 'objective' evidence you see?

They've made a mistake. They've been raised in countries where access to the Bible is virtually impossible. Their cultures have led them to think of Christianity is only the religion of Westerners, Imperialists, enemies of whatever. There are many reasons, but the fact is that not everyone is going to believe ANYTHING, whether that's the shape of the Earth, whether there was a Holocaust, whatever. It doesn't prove anything in itself.

Your claim on an objective truth is a personal one only at best and carries no weight or authority behind it.

If you need to think that, go ahead. It's not hurting my feelings. But be sure that you also tell it to the millions of other people who have been persuaded by the same evidence available to me--and you. The suggestion that all this is unique to me is just discussion-board talk.

I'd be interested in hearing this 'objective evidence' you speak of.

I seriously doubt that, but you can find loads of evidence online if you are interested.

Here's how this sounds to me: "Because my many individual Christian sects believe it has withstood scrutiny and because I personally omit any non Christian who may challenge it from being part of my Christian sect, then my case is sound".

Here's how this sounds to me: "My mind was made up in advance so I'm only interested now in debunking anyone's belief in the Bible." Otherwise you couldn't mischaracterize so badly what I've written.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

When people say " the Bible says the Bible is true" it's really begging the question of how they know the books they are reading are actually the books that should be held to as Scripture in the first place. Is any book that claims authority automatically scripture? No one would say that yet they act as if this is the case by using exactly this circular logic to justify their selection of texts. They are also assuming that a statement found in one of the books about the general validity of "Scripture" also applies to all the other texts they happen to have bound in a book with the title "Bible". It may or may not. There has to be something prior to "sola scriptura". An inner certainty that allowed people to recognize texts worth accepting and those worth rejecting. This certainty itself can't be based on Scripture because what constitutes Scripture is exactly the question under consideration. You can't logically say "I read the Scripture and it helped me to decide what was scripture". Why? Because you are assuming knowledge that can only logically come after the decision has been made as to what constitutes Scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When people say " the Bible says the Bible is true" it's really begging the question of how they know the books they are reading are actually the books that should be held to as Scripture in the first place.

As you well know, the embrace of Scripture as the rule in norming does not declare what is and is not Scripture. A practice involves DOING things, a practice doesn't teach anything.

I can understand (I really can) why Catholics would be so deeply troubled by the reality that their denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture. It has unity with NONE. It stands entirely alone. Yes, I can appreciate how that would disturb and trouble them. But my counsel is for them to take that to their denomination. Or to discuss that, to a thread about what is and is not Scripture.

There has to be something prior to "sola scriptura".

I suppose. There was likely something before "the Big Bang" too - but I'm not sure what practical difference that makes to you and me today as we discuss disputed dogmas among us, here in 2012. Sola Scriptura addresses the issue of WHAT is the most sound norma normans for US to use as WE evaluate disputed dogmas among US. It might be interesting to discuss how this best could have been done in 23,456 BC but since we don't live then, it probably is irrelent for us. It CERTAINLY is for the issue of this thread.







.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Why? Because you are assuming knowledge that can only logically come after the decision has been made as to what constitutes Scripture.

A chicken and the egg scenario? I think there is an escape from the closed circle with the appearance of the Holy Spirit . He guided His people and quickened their judgment. Over the centuries the question became settled and closed. We living thousands of years later have been handed the Book on a silver platter. Why reopen a debate regarding what books make up the Bible now? I don't believe in Sola Scripture myself, nor do I believe the Bible teaches it, but this seems like a possibly harmful avenue of critique.

 

[Tzaousios]

No one here is arguing against the bible.

You may find people arguing against the 'reasons' in your posts. They are not the same thing!

And that's your opinion.

Just as I predicted and pointed out earlier. Here we have yet another example of conflating (whether on purpose or unwittingly) one's personal interpretations (whether admitted or not to be interpretation) of the Bible with "only repeating what the Bible plainly says."

 

[Tzaousios]

Ours is also a culture that has learned how to critically examine truth claims. This is to our great advantage.

Who is "ours" and what is the "culture"? If anything, you seem to be describing the bankruptcy of the post-Enlightenment, post-Scientific Revolution positivism which characterizes the methods of Evangelical biblical interpretation and ignores the cultures and methods which preceded it as "ignorance and mysticism."

Good methods authenticate the texts just like they authenticate the discoveries of modern scientists. It is poor reasoning that if one believes in the result one must also believe in the divine authority of the people who gave us those results. The results are a product of the method and some divine authority handed down to the people who decided on which scripture in the first place need not be involved at all.

Here is this mentality at work right here.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Why reopen a debate regarding what books make up the Bible now?

I wasn't. I think you are missing the point of my post.

 

[Kepha]

When people say " the Bible says the Bible is true" it's really begging the question of how they know the books they are reading are actually the books that should be held to as Scripture in the first place. Is any book that claims authority automatically scripture? No one would say that yet they act as if this is the case by using exactly this circular logic to justify their selection of texts. They are also assuming that a statement found in one of the books about the general validity of "Scripture" also applies to all the other texts they happen to have bound in a book with the title "Bible". It may or may not. There has to be something prior to "sola scriptura". An inner certainty that allowed people to recognize texts worth accepting and those worth rejecting. This certainty itself can't be based on Scripture because what constitutes Scripture is exactly the question under consideration. You can't logically say "I read the Scripture and it helped me to decide what was scripture". Why? Because you are assuming knowledge that can only logically come after the decision has been made as to what constitutes Scripture.

That was actually very well said.

My apologies. I just tend to assume that Catholics and Orthodox also believe the Bible.

You said 'we know' implying that 'we' all agree which we don't as even you said. My question therefore was a valid one in who this 'we' is which must mean only the protestants who agree with your conclusion.

They've made a mistake. They've been raised in countries where access to the Bible is virtually impossible. Their cultures have led them to think of Christianity is only the religion of Westerners, Imperialists, enemies of whatever.

I'm talking about valid historians out there who are not Christians yet who have the same information available to you. Not the ignorant ones who can't get a hold of this information.

I can understand (I really can) why Catholics would be so deeply troubled by the reality that their denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture. It has unity with NONE. It stands entirely alone. Yes, I can appreciate how that would disturb and trouble them. But my counsel is for them to take that to their denomination. Or to discuss that, to a thread about what is and is not Scripture.

Interesting how you conclude we are saddened, and our troubles as to why we aren't in disunity like yourselves on doctrine is because of this infallibility within the Church. And this should give us reason enough to change because we'd prefer an unbalanced/unsure understanding of God's Word. Well I can assure you that is no reason to deter anybody from the Catholic Church especially the Church itself. As a matter of fact, this has the very opposite effect with the outsiders who because of it alone, are moved toward the Church itself.

 

[Montalban]

Just as I predicted and pointed out earlier. Here we have yet another example of conflating (whether on purpose or unwittingly) one's personal interpretations (whether admitted or not to be interpretation) of the Bible with "only repeating what the Bible plainly says."

People in Protestantism become their own infallible pope.

 

[SolomonVII]

 

[Tzaousios]

To whom are you refering?