Sola Scriptura

[Montalban]

So, let me get this straight....

You're not past the circular reasoning.

Paul's name is on the Epistle. Therefore we know Paul wrote it because it has Paul's name on the Epistle.

How do you know it is Paul's?

Books that are not included in the canon also have names on them:

From the "Gospel of Thomas"

Here are the secret words which Jesus the Living spoke, and which Didymus Jude Thomas wrote down.

Gospel of Thomas Saying 0 - GospelThomas.com

Therefore by your circular logic (which StandingUp also recommends) this book was written by Thomas!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Montalban,


If you accept the OT as Scripture, and if you accept that it's the 21st and not 1st century, then what relevance does your comment have to the practice of Sola Scriptura?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So Paul had with him the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Revelations?

Scripture WAS spoken before written.
Who was to say that Timothy didn't hear the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Revelations? What was it about James, Peter and John's Epistles that Paul wouldn't know? As for Revelations, I'm not going there. Seeing as they were assembled together with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What did you think they did when the church got together on the first day of the week?

This seem strange, you make it sound like because a certain Apostle or Disciple wrote a certain Scripture it would mean they and they only preached it. I'm pretty sure they would be of one accord and of one mind. Truth be told, Paul was probably more complex. Some of the things that Paul wrote, I find Peter does a better job of explaining... Paul write more analytical, Peter, James and John write more "to the point".

You still haven't answered my question re: the Trinity, nor addressed the issue that your own bible excludes OT books Paul commended to Timothy

And I'm not going to in this thread because I don't want it.
You're going to learn something else, simply because someone doesn't want to doesn't mean they don't know how to. I spent 1 whole month--off and on-- showing a friend of mine the Scriptures that shows the Godhead and I have no desire to speak to it now, IT IS LONG.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You're not past the circular reasoning.

Paul's name is on the Epistle. Therefore we know Paul wrote it because it has Paul's name on the Epistle.

How do you know it is Paul's?

Books that are not included in the canon also have names on them:

From the "Gospel of Thomas"

Here are the secret words which Jesus the Living spoke, and which Didymus Jude Thomas wrote down.

Gospel of Thomas Saying 0 - GospelThomas.com

Therefore by your circular logic (which StandingUp also recommends) this book was written by Thomas!

You completely didn't read a single thing I wrote, so therefore this particular conversation is done if you're going to continue like that. I most definitely gave you a reason apart from "Paul's name is on the Epistle so therefore he wrote it" WHICH by the way was YOUR reasoning, I didn't say anything to that effect.

What I said about Paul's writing is that it was 100% because he wrote it and NOT because the church said he wrote it, but I did not give that as a reason of knowing that it was Paul's writings. I also said that I don't understand why I can't trust that Paul wrote it when he claimed he has but yet can believe Paul wrote it because other people said he has.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,


If you accept the OT as Scripture, and if you accept that it's the 21st and not 1st century, then what relevance does your comment have to the practice of Sola Scriptura?

We have different reasons for believing in scripture. Why I believe in it, you know, but don't accept as valid

You haven't shown from scripture why you follow sola scriptura (except insofar as highly selective quoting)

 

[Montalban]

You completely didn't read a single thing I wrote, so therefore this particular conversation is done if you're going to continue like that. I most definitely gave you a reason apart from "Paul's name is on the Epistle so therefore he wrote it" WHICH by the way was YOUR reasoning, I didn't say anything to that effect.

What I said about Paul's writing is that it was 100% because he wrote it and NOT because the church said he wrote it, but I did not give that as a reason of knowing that it was Paul's writings. I also said that I don't understand why I can't trust that Paul wrote it when he claimed he has but yet can believe Paul wrote it because other people said he has.

That is EXACTLY the reasoning that is circular argument which I addressed. I didn't ignore it at all. All you've done to address this is to re-state your position which is itself sounding like a circular approach. I ask for discussion and you simply re-state your position, because, apparently it just 'is'.

You know Paul wrote it because it says so, therefore you know it's Paul's writing.

 

[Montalban]

And I'm not going to in this thread because I don't want it.
You're going to learn something else, simply because someone doesn't want to doesn't mean they don't know how to. I spent 1 whole month--off and on-- showing a friend of mine the Scriptures that shows the Godhead and I have no desire to speak to it now, IT IS LONG.

You're entitled not to answer – and I did not speculate as to your reasons. However as you're asking me questions and I'm answering yours I would think it would be a courtesy to answer my questions.

 

[Thekla]

The OT in use among the diaspora (including northern Greece - Thesaloniki, Berea, etc.) at that time was the LXX with Deuterocanon; why is this not used by Sola Scriptura adherents ?

Hebrews references Maccabees (in fact there are many NT references to the Deuterocanon) the understanding of logos/sophia (utilized by John) has its bridge/precursor in the "intertestament" writings, Christ goes to the Temple at the time of Channukah, there are prophecies re: Christ in the writings of the deuterocanon ...

When Paul says the Scriptures are useful/profitable for equipping, why is it assumed that he was not speaking of the Scriptures then in use ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The OT in use among the diaspora (including northern Greece - Thesaloniki, Berea, etc.) at that time was the LXX with Deuterocanon; why is this not used by Sola Scriptura adherents ?

As you know, what is and is not Scripture is not an aspect of the Rule of Scripture, anyone than what is and is not law is not an aspect of the Rule of Law. Practices DO things, they don't teach anything.

As you know, there are 4 main denominations that disagree with all but self on what is and is not Scripture: The OOC, EOC, RCC and LDS. All have a unity of one on this: self. We all know that. It's sad, perhaps, but it's a discussion for another day and thread.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to include Psalm 151 in what you regard as Scripture - I have no problem with that vis-a-vis the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in our evaluation of disputed dogmas among us. Frankly, I don't think it will make a huge difference (which is pretty much how I feel about these DEUTERO books).

Let's see if we can return to the issue: the most sound norma normans as all of us today evaluate the correctness/truth of disputed dogmas among us. If you have something more inspired, more true, more God's inscripturated word, more knowable to all parties, then please suggest it. But "the views of me as the rule for the views of me" isn't one I accept as such.





.

 

[Montalban]

As you know, what is and is not Scripture is not an aspect of the Rule of Scripture, anyone than what is and is not law is not an aspect of the Rule of Law. Practices DO things, they don't teach anything.

This is again your norma normans post re-stated.

If you could state why you believe it, not what you believe, that would be great.

 

[Montalban]

The OT in use among the diaspora (including northern Greece - Thesaloniki, Berea, etc.) at that time was the LXX with Deuterocanon; why is this not used by Sola Scriptura adherents ?

Hebrews references Maccabees (in fact there are many NT references to the Deuterocanon) the understanding of logos/sophia (utilized by John) has its bridge/precursor in the "intertestament" writings, Christ goes to the Temple at the time of Channukah, there are prophecies re: Christ in the writings of the deuterocanon ...

When Paul says the Scriptures are useful/profitable for equipping, why is it assumed that he was not speaking of the Scriptures then in use ?

It undermines the Protestants here arguing that scripture alone is complete

 

[Thekla]

As you know, what is and is not Scripture is not an aspect of the Rule of Scripture, anyone than what is and is not law is not an aspect of the Rule of Law. Practices DO things, they don't teach anything.

As you know, there are 4 main denominations that disagree with all but self on what is and is not Scripture: The OOC, EOC, RCC and LDS. All have a unity of one on this: self. We all know that. It's sad, perhaps, but it's a discussion for another day and thread.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to include Psalm 151 in what you regard as Scripture - I have no problem with that vis-a-vis the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in our evaluation of disputed dogmas among us. Frankly, I don't think it will make a huge difference (which is pretty much how I feel about these DEUTERO books).

Let's see if we can return to the issue: the most sound norma normans as all of us today evaluate the correctness/truth of disputed dogmas among us. If you have something more inspired, more true, more God's inscripturated word, more knowable to all parties, then please suggest it. But "the views of me as the rule for the views of me" isn't one I accept as such.

The question of what comprises the Norma Normans is a valid, on-topic, question.

US Sola Scriptura Christians seem to have decided that their Scripture is not the same as the one Paul referred to in his letter to Timothy.

If Scripture is the rule or norm for SS adherents, which Scripture (the Scripture of Paul and Timothy, or a truncated Scripture held by US SS adherents) without regard for what is stated in their Scripture, then this is indeed relevant to the discussion.

It indicates a failure to adhere to the Scripture they do embrace.

 

[Montalban]

It indicates a failure to adhere to the Scripture they do embrace.

That's right. Unless they can show FROM scripture that this particular scripture is the set of scriptures to follow.

It's like saying "I'm going to have an over-arching rule of faith - sola scriptura - that scripture will be my principal guide to truth"

When in fact the 'over-arching rule of faith' is that rule!

That rule itself ; that one will use scripture alone is itself based on what???

That's what I keep asking.

I accept that some scripture suggests we look at scripture. I just haven't seen any scripture that suggests we should only look at scripture or to hold scripture above anything else.

 

[MamaZ]

Can you point to where in the Epistle to the Galatians it shows 100% to be Paul's Epistle?

Although it begins
Gal:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

How do you know this is Paul and not someone else of the same name? What gaurantees it's real?

The Holy Spirit quickening the written word of God to our hearts as the true teacher. Some act as if God is not in the protecting of His written word and powerful enough to lead His true Children in all truth as promised to us via Scripture. We read in scripture that we may know we have eternal life and yet so many say we cannot know. Things like this shows faith in mens teaching rather than faith That Gods word means what it says.

 

[Montalban]

The Holy Spirit quickening the written word of God to our hearts as the true teacher. Some act as if God is not in the protecting of His written word and powerful enough to lead His true Children in all truth as promised to us via Scripture. We read in scripture that we may know we have eternal life and yet so many say we cannot know. Things like this shows faith in mens teaching rather than faith That Gods word means what it says.

Thanks for that. I don't know how it answers the question.

 

[MamaZ]

We read in scripture that God laughs. Jesus being the Human image of the Father must laugh too. I would think. We know He weeps.. Anguishes deepley. We know that He is moved by faith. Not tradition. He is the living breathing and most Powerful God. His word the scripture is His letter to us His children. He is forever faithful.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you could state why you believe it, that would be great.

Can one "believe" in a practice? Generally, a practice is what one regards as good to DO. Do you "believe in" typically driving on the right hand side of the road in the USA? Do you "believe in" drinking coffee in the morning? I'm not sure I follow you. But let me TRY to refresh your memory on some points. Since you ask

But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

... the basis of Sola Scriptura and the very point where the RCC so passionately disagrees with it.

It will not permit itself to be tested - with Scripture or anything else for that matter. Rather, all are to "quietly" and "with docility" embrace whatever it and it itself alone says (CCC 87 for example). The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects testing (of itself anyway) - by Scripture or anything else. Take up 1 John 4:1 with the only denomination on the planet that rejects it: Yours. I did. It's one of the reasons I left the RCC.

What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test ideas.

BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...


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 disputed 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 moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).


I hope that helps, brother!


May all God's blessings be yours...


- Josiah


.

 

[steve_bakr]

Let me post it yet again, to refresh your memory:


But in 1st John 4:1, the author writes, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

... the basis of Sola Scriptura and the very point where the RCC so passionately disagrees with it. It will not permit itself to be tested - with Scripture or anything else for that matter. Rather, all are to "quietly" and "with docility" embrace whatever it and it itself alone says (CCC 87 for example). The RCC rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects testing (of itself anyway) - by Scripture or anything else. Take up 1 John 4:1 with the only denomination on the planet that rejects it: Yours. I did. It's one of the reasons I left the RCC.

It's circular reasoning that allows an individual to justify whatever interpretation the individual wishes. What is needed is an objective, outside standard by which a person can test their own ideas.



BINGO! Thus, it's circular for the RCC to appoint itself as the individual interpreter and then argue that self is right cuz self claims that self is (but only self). We need some OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE STANDARD. Not self looking in the mirror at self and declaring "I say I can't be wrong" as the RCC does. Something OBJECTIVE and knowable and unalterable. Something OUTSIDE of self. Scripture seems to apply...

Yet it is Tradition and Church authority that compiled and canonized Scripture, so that separating those canonized Scriptures from its Tradition and Church authority is to make an arbitrary and artificial distinction.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's right. Unless they can show FROM scripture that this particular scripture is the set of scriptures to follow.

Ergo, I'm sure you reject the Rule of Law as well as the Rule of Scripture for the exact same reason: There is no law that states what is the law at this moment in every jurisdiction of the world. Okay.


Embracing Scripture as the rule does not teach what is Scripture. It doesn't teach anything, it is an ACTION, not a TEACHING.


As I said, if you really want to include Psalm 151 in Scripture as you invite all to regard all the disputed teachings of the EOC to the Rule of Scripture (including Psalm 151), I really have no grave issues with that. Do you think that embracing Psalm 151 will do the trick - confirming the teachings of your denomination to the level claimed? Okay. We'd be disagreeing on the canon but not on the practice.

I accept that some scripture suggests we look at scripture. I just haven't seen any scripture that suggests we should only look at scripture or to hold scripture above anything else.

Perhaps. So, if the examples of Scripture are what matters to you, could you count the number of times that folks specifically (by name) use EOC Tradition as normative? Or that the RCC was given a pass on truthfulness and exempted from accountability? I can't think of any. Can you?




.

 

[Thekla]

But how can one claim to be accountable to Scripture and not use the Scripture referenced by one who wrote Scripture