Sola Scriptura

[daydreamergurl15]

Completion as in "finished/fulfilled" is telos; the term Paul uses here is artios - fitted or fit.

So yes, Scripture is a gift from God, and prepares and informs us, but it does not complete us as in telos.

Nor do Tradition Churches argue against the use of Scripture; quite the opposite ! In my Church, it is called the "crown of Tradition". We reverence (cross ourselves and kiss) the Gospels, and in those Churches with pews, we stand when it is read in the Liturgy. We are exhorted to read the Scriptures daily, with the aim to live them. (There are still homilies extant from at least the 5th century on this.) In leaner times, families have been encouraged to fast from food in order to save to own a copy of the Bible.

Adequate, perfect, complete...whichever way you want to use it, it still says, that Scripture is enough.

 

[Thekla]

Adequate, perfect, complete...whichever way you want to use it, it still says, that Scripture is enough.

If Scripture were enough, then the term "telos" would be used, not artios.
Christ said from the cross, "It is finished/telos", not 'it is artios'.

Scriptures inform and equip, but they do not complete.

(And of course, reading them is not enough even for the equipping; if so, anyone who even reads them, regardless of belief, would be saved.)

 

[daydreamergurl15]

If Scripture were enough, then the term "telos" would be used, not artios.
Christ said from the cross, "It is finished/telos", not 'it is artios'.

Scriptures inform and equip, but they do not complete.

(And of course, reading them is not enough even for the equipping; if so, anyone who even reads them, regardless of belief, would be saved.)

If you want to argue that Scripture does not complete, please be advised that you're contradicting what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. It says
"MAY BE COMPLETE" if you disagree, you can, but please don't tell me what the Scripture does not do when it flat out says it does.

And I'm pretty sure that if one reads they will realize that the "doing" is also part of Scripture,

Mark 7:24-26
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”​

 

[Thekla]

If you want to argue that Scripture does not complete, please be advised that you're contradicting what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. It says
"MAY BE COMPLETE" if you disagree, you can, but please don't tell me what the Scripture does not do when it flat out says it does.

And I'm pretty sure that if one reads they will realize that the "doing" is also part of Scripture,

Mark 7:24-26
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”​

Not contradicting Scripture, no. The Scripture says what it says, and the sense complete as in finished is not the sense of 'artios'; artios is the sense of furnished/equipped, and here towards (pros) something, that is towards telos.

Saul knew the Scriptures well; he was a Pharisee. Was he telos ? By no means. That required a great deal more than Scripture. He was equipped, but not complete. Did he "do" Scripture, as in live it ? Yes, but he was not completed, just equipped, and though equipped/artios still he persecuted the body of Christ.

And Paul, who even advised the Scriptures for equipping, also noted that seeing nature and in thankfulness one may know of God (Romans 1, and reflecting the teaching of the Psalmist), says: For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

 

[Standing Up]

Why indeed?

Whenever I have asked my Prot. friends I have never received an answer supported by irrefutable scriptural and historical evidence for SS.

Where in scripture and tradition did they begin to maintain that a bishop's opinion was equivalent to God-breathed scripture? The opposite is true. The apostles and early tradition constantly say, "it is written".

 

[Standing Up]

If you want to argue that Scripture does not complete, please be advised that you're contradicting what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. It says
"MAY BE COMPLETE" if you disagree, you can, but please don't tell me what the Scripture does not do when it flat out says it does.

And I'm pretty sure that if one reads they will realize that the "doing" is also part of Scripture,

Mark 7:24-26
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
​

For folks who think that a man may fall away from the faith, not sure why they don't get the point. IOW, you're right.

 

[steve_bakr]

If you want to argue that Scripture does not complete, please be advised that you're contradicting what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. It says
"MAY BE COMPLETE" if you disagree, you can, but please don't tell me what the Scripture does not do when it flat out says it does.

And I'm pretty sure that if one reads they will realize that the "doing" is also part of Scripture,
Mark 7:24-26
24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 "But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."

I understand what you are saying, and I certainly wouldn't say that you are "wrong," but we who recogize Tradition would point out that it is in the light of sacred Tradition and Church authority that the Scriptures--the NT in particular--were compiled and canonized. And at the time of Paul's writing there was no NT canon; Paul was referring to what we now call the Old Testament. So it is an artificial distinction to break off the Scriptures from the Tradition and Church authority which compiled and canonized it. Nevertheless, as I said, if you feel that you need for the sake of your faith, to rely on Scripture alone, I would not take that away from you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

At the time of Paul's writing there was no NT canon; Paul was referring to what we now call the Old Testament.

1. No one debates that.


2. There is no such practice as "Solum Novum Testamentum."


3. Do you reject the OT as Scripture? IF not, then it's also Scripture - and embracing such as the norma normans would be The Rule of Scripture (aka "Sola Scriptura"). Do you reject the NT as Scripture? IF not, then it's also Scripture - and embracing such as the norma normans would be the Rule of Scripture (aka "Sola Scriptura"). When the Hebrews used the Ten Commandments normatively, that was just as much embracing Scripture normatively as when we do so today - only the size of the corpus of Scripture is different, NOT THE PRACTICE.

Where in scripture and tradition did they begin to maintain that a bishop's opinion was equivalent to God-breathed scripture? The opposite is true. The apostles and early tradition constantly say, "it is written".

Amen!


Nearly 70 times in just the NT alone, we see Scripture used normatively. Over and over and over, we read the phrase "It is written...." "The Scriptures teach...." Etc. How many references are there to RCC or OOC or EOC or LDS "Tradition?" As anything? For anything?



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why's sola scriptura the basis for discerning 'truth' when it's not based in scripture?

You seem to be entirely unaware of the topic. Let me try to help you...


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




The Definition:


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).




What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this process.


What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

3. Hermeneutics. The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). This is also beyond the scope here, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.




An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.


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.



Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.



Why do some so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes irrelevant (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).



ECF on Sola Scriptura:


St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)


St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)

St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...
(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)

St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)


St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)


St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])


St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)

St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)


St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)


St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)



Some REALLY don't like what these "Fathers" said, but....



I hope that helps.


.

 

[Thekla]

In the interest of accuracy, quotations from the ECFs demonstrating their fuller view (on Tradition), and their lives (demonstrating this) should be quoted as well.

If one cannot be trusted to represent the thought of others accurately, what says this about reliance on anything that is written, including Scripture ?

 

[steve_bakr]

1. No one debates that.

2. There is no such practice as "Solum Novum Testamentum."

3. Do you reject the OT as Scripture? IF not, then it's also Scripture - and embracing such as the norma normans would be The Rule of Scripture (aka "Sola Scriptura"). Do you reject the NT as Scripture? IF not, then it's also Scripture - and embracing such as the norma normans would be the Rule of Scripture (aka "Sola Scriptura"). When the Hebrews used the Ten Commandments normatively, that was just as much embracing Scripture normatively as when we do so today - only the size of the corpus of Scripture is different, NOT THE PRACTICE.

FYI, no I do not reject the OT as Scripture; it is part of the canon.
When you talk about "practice," I think I understand your point of view, but I still believe that it is a somewhat artificial distinction to separate Scripture from the Tradition and Church authority that compiled and canonized it. Nevertheless, as I said, if someone's faith stands or falls on Sola Scriptura, then I would not take that away from them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

FYI, no I do not reject the OT as Scripture; it is part of the canon.

I'm glad you disagree with other Catholics - and do embrace the OT as Scripture. Thus, you'll agree with me that using the OT normatively would be enmbracing Scripture normatively, and thus that's Sola Scriptura.

if someone's faith stands or falls on Sola Scriptura, then I would not take that away from them.

Esteemed friend, this has nothing to do with faith. It as to do with truth. It has to do with evaluating the truthfulness of disputed dogmas among us. You and I may not be in total agreement on the teaching AND status of The Assumption of Mary. IMO, that has NOTHING to do with your faith in Christ. Or mine. We are brothers in Christ, we will spend eternity together in Heaven. But we don't cognatively fully agree on the teaching AND status of this dogma in your denomination (exclusively). I hope you see the difference....





.

 

[Thekla]

Tertullian:

16. Do not suspect me of raising this objection from want of
confidence or from a desire to enter upon the issues in some
other way. My reason is primarily the obedience which our
faith owes to the Apostle when he forbids us to enter upon
questionings, to lend our ears to novel sayings, to associate
with a heretic after one correction33-not, observe, after one
discussion. In designating correction as the reason for meeting a
heretic, he forbade discussion, and he says one correction
because the heretic is not a Christian. He is to have no right to
a second censure, like a Christian, before two or three wit-
nesses,34 since he is to be censured for the very reason that
forbids discussion with him. Besides, arguments about Scripture
achieve nothing but a stomach-ache or a headache.
17. Any given heresy rejects one or another book of the Bible.
What it accepts, it perverts with both additions and subtrac-
tions to suit its own teaching, and if, in some cases, it keeps
books unmaimed, it none the less alters them by inventing
different interpretations from ours. 35 False exegesis injures truth
just as much' as a corrupt text. Baseless assumptions naturally
refuse to acknowledge the instrument of their own refutation.
They rely on passages which they have put together in a false
context or fastened on because of their ambiguity. What will
you accomplish, most learned of biblical scholars, if the other
side denies what you affirmed and affirms what you denied?
True, you will lose nothing in the dispute but your voice; and
you will get nothing from their blasphemy but bile.
18. You submit yourself to a biblical disputation in order to
strengthen some waverer. Will he in fact incline to the truth
any more than to heresy? He sees that you have accomplished
nothing, the rival party being allowed equal rights of denial
and affirmation and an equal status. As a result he will go away
from the argument even more uncertain than before, not know-
ing which he is to count as heresy. The heretics too can retort
these charges upon us. Maintaining equally that the truth is
with them, they are compelled to say that it is we who introduce
the falsifications of Scripture and the lying interpretations.
19. It follows that we must not appeal to Scripture36 and we
must not contend on ground where victory is impossible or
uncertain or not certain enough. Even if a biblical dispute
did not leave the parties on a par, the natural order of things
would demand that one point should be decided first, the point
which alone calls for discussion now, namely, who hold the
faith to which the Bible belongs, and from whom, through
whom, when and to whom was the teaching delivered by which
men become Christians? For only where the true Christian
teaching and faith are evident will the true Scriptures, the true
interpretations, and all the true Christian traditions be found.

Tertullian : The prescriptions against the heretics, tr. Greenslade, 1956

 

[steve_bakr]

I'm glad you disagree with other Catholics - and do embrace the OT as Scripture. Thus, you'll agree with me that using the OT normatively would be enmbracing Scripture normatively, and thus that's Sola Scriptura.

Esteemed friend, this has nothing to do with faith. It as to do with truth. It has to do with evaluating the truthfulness of disputed dogmas among us. You and I may not be in total agreement on the teaching AND status of The Assumption of Mary. IMO, that has NOTHING to do with your faith in Christ. Or mine. We are brothers in Christ, we will spend eternity together in Heaven. But we don't cognatively fully agree on the teaching AND status of this dogma in your denomination (exclusively). I hope you see the difference....

.

That is a very nice post, Brother, and I appreciate that.

You obviously have more experience in theology/philosophy than I, and I want to have an understanding of your viewpoint, although I must profess to you that I am bound by the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Your Brother in Christ,
Steve

 

[Montalban]

1. No one debates that.

Then your definition of 'complete' is unique.

If the OT was/is complete for us to know God, then the NT is superfluous.

 

[Standing Up]

Then your definition of 'complete' is unique.

If the OT was/is complete for us to know God, then the NT is superfluous.

CJ:

"1. No one debates that.


2. There is no such practice as "Solum Novum Testamentum."


3. Do you reject the OT as Scripture? IF not, then it's also Scripture - and embracing such as the norma normans would be The Rule of Scripture (aka "Sola Scriptura"). Do you reject the NT as Scripture? IF not, then it's also Scripture - and embracing such as the norma normans would be the Rule of Scripture (aka "Sola Scriptura"). When the Hebrews used the Ten Commandments normatively, that was just as much embracing Scripture normatively as when we do so today - only the size of the corpus of Scripture is different, NOT THE PRACTICE."

 

[Montalban]

You seem to be entirely unaware of the topic. Let me try to help you...

[/FONT] Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

Your analogy is flawed.

In your case Bob is hired and he builds a wall at 6ft and your mate Paul declares to Timothy "This wall is complete and nothing needs to be added"

But then you accept the letter Paul wrote to Timothy in addition to the completed Wall. Furthermore you accept other books in addition to that too. You add another 4ft onto the wall and then say "This wall is complete". What then happened to the 6ft wall? How was it 'complete'

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.

You still have not shown why you choose to follow this process. It's not based on scripture

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

And this is further flawed reasoning – at best it is a straw-man. No one says not to embrace scripture.

ECF on Sola Scriptura:

This is actually a gross misrepresentation of the ECFs. That's leaving aside the fact it's highly ironic to cite as an authority those you reject as an authority!

This is, like your scripture mining a half-truth.

It continues the same method, which is to simply cite that part of them that can be shaped into agreeing with your stance. That is, if an ECF praises using scripture that is quoted. It ignores all the times they support tradition.

It's the exact same method as when you quote-mine scriptures. Your posts show where they use scriptures but ignores where they don't – such as in Acts 15.

In short you have no reason based on scriptures for following sola scriptura

You say "X" is complete. And then add books to it and then say "X+y" is complete – which completely undermines your notion of the word 'complete'.

(leaving aside the OT books your church removed),

You have shown scripture and ECF to support using scripture. No one denies we should use scripture. You have shown NO evidence that we should ONLY use scripture.

Your best efforts here have been highly selective quoting or to undermine the meaning of 'complete'.

 

[Montalban]

That is a very nice post, Brother, and I appreciate that.

You obviously have more experience in theology/philosophy than I, and I want to have an understanding of your viewpoint, although I must profess to you that I am bound by the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Your Brother in Christ,
Steve

And there's as yet no reason to show why scripture alone should be used.

 

[Montalban]

After weeks of this topic I am still no closer to a reason for why people follow sola scriptura the best argument is that it simply is a process because it is, and that this is based on selected quotes from either scripture or ECFs that ignores any evidence that praises tradition.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

After weeks of this topic I am still no closer to a reason for why people follow sola scriptura the best argument is that it simply is a process because it is, and that this is based on selected quotes from either scripture or ECFs that ignores any evidence that praises tradition.

Same could be said that after weeks of this topic no one presented clear evidence on why Holy Traditions and the Catechism is needed to fill the holes that some believe the Scripture has.--And someone is going to argue that "that wasn't the topic" but if you didn't read all the posts, then you won't know why I said what I said. A lot of things were presented but like everything else, we pick and chose and justify what we want to.