Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

Of course ... SS isn't a tradition of any kind, and is found clearly spelled out in Scripture (as it must be if it's to be believed) ... where was that verse again?

2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This is why, imo, it might be kind of helpful to have some sort of central, literally Apostolic body of interpretation and theology that's been handed down along side the Canon. To help us understand and sort these things out, and to keep things in line.

I, as a Protestant, agree; however, that presents all sorts of different problems.

 

[Albion]

This is why, imo, it might be kind of helpful to have some sort of central, literally Apostolic body of interpretation and theology that's been handed down along side the Canon. To help us understand and sort these thing out, and to keep things in line.

Well, we do not have some single central source of interpretation that's been handed down alongside the canon.

It would have been helpful, I agree, if that had been the case, but we do not have such a thing. That, however, doesn't make Scripture any less the word of God than it is or elevate something manmade into an addendum to the Bible.

It just makes us rely upon linguists, Bible scholars, reason, and perhaps some other aids in order to properly understand God's revelation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Yes, I'm aware that's what's usually quoted.

But seriously, what does it say?


It says all Scripture is profitable. But that is not the same thing as saying Scripture is the only thing that is profitable.

Honestly, Orthodoxy agrees with certain iterations of SS.

But that verse does not say to jettison everything not in Scripture, that all doctrine must come from Scripture, or anything else. One could argue sufficiency from that passage. But sufficiency can be found in much less than the entire Bible - it would be possible to pull out a few verses that in themselves would be "sufficient" meaning salvation is possible.

Not to mention, that passage does not and cannot refer to the New Testament. Would you argue SS based on the OT canon only?

I'm not trying to be snide, but in carefully and honestly evaluating Scripture, SS isn't there. And by many people's understanding of SS, that fact alone would automatically invalidate a doctrine.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, we do not have some single central source of interpretation that's been handed down alongside the canon.

It would have been helpful, I agree, if that had been the case, but we do not have such a thing. That, however, doesn't make Scripture any less the word of God than it is or elevate something manmade into an addendum to the Bible.

It just makes us reply upon linguists, Bible scholars, reason, and perhaps some other aids in order to properly understand God's revelation.

We did have something like that at one time ... there is still the very great deposit of the ECFs, who individually of course are not infallible, but we CAN see how Scriptures in general were interpreted, historically, as the canon was developing.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I'm aware that's what's usually quoted.

Then your question has been answered.

But that verse does not say to jettison everything not in Scripture, that all doctrine must come from Scripture, or anything else.

So, is that open ended -- latter day prophets, the Book of Mormon, palm reading, what? To me, the idea that the Bible declares itself but does not also explicitly say "now do not consider all these other things that are not from me to be the equal of my word: 1. 2. etc." to be a ridiculous demand.

God says this is his word; we have no basis for saying in reply, "So? Maybe something else is, too. It could be just about anything." To take that position is to reject what God has revealed to us. It is to "second guess" it.

 

[Albion]

We did have something like that at one time ... there is still the very great deposit of the ECFs, who individually of course are not infallible, but we CAN see how Scriptures in general were interpreted, historically, as the canon was developing.

Still man's opinions. That cannot be the equivalent of divine revelation. The importance of the ECFs is that they were witnesses to church history and, in a few cases, Apostolic teaching.

 

[ripple the car]

Well, we do not have some single central source of interpretation that's been handed down alongside the canon.

It would have been helpful, I agree, if that had been the case, but we do not have such a thing. That, however, doesn't make Scripture any less the word of God than it is or elevate something manmade into an addendum to the Bible.

It just makes us rely upon linguists, Bible scholars, reason, and perhaps some other aids in order to properly understand God's revelation.

Whose reason, though? The reason of a 21st Century lesbian feminist theologian? The reason of Saint Maximilian the Confessor? If my reason tells me that trangenderism is a God-given reality that needs to be respected, honored, and celebrated with naming ceremonies and processions, and your reason kind of balks at the idea, whose reason prevails?

And truly, Sir, the Anglican Church has really, really, really seemed to rely more heavily on human reason / wants / vision than on a serious, contrite reading of what Scripture says and doesn't say in the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[ripple the car]

It's not just the Anglican Church, obviously. Lutheran churches, Presbyterians, Baptist, it's very widespread. Everyone feels they get it right. Most "feel lead" to change with the times, or claim that certain parts of Scripture that clash with contemporary cultural norms were merely cultural, and can be prayerfully ignored, or inverted.

It's a mess, Sir.

 

[Albion]

Whose reason, though?

reason, not rationalizations.

This means that we are not to abandon all common sense when reading Scripture. For example, if we read the Bible to say that Jesus taught that we are to be of one accord, we are not on good ground to interpret that as meaning we are all to get into a Honda. That would defy reason.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Still man's opinions. That cannot be the equivalent of divine revelation. The importance of the ECFs is that they were witnesses to church history and, in a few cases, Apostolic teaching.

The ECFs erred as all do. We should look to them no more than we should look even to the apostles. Peter had to be smacked upside the head by Paul, for instance.

The foundation for Paul's argument was that Peter was not walking inline with the gospel. It was not, I'm in a higher position of authority than you, because Paul wasn't. Peter was the superior in terms of authority, yet Paul was able to correct him. That completely undermines all argument for papal authority, IMO.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

reason, not rationalizations.

This means that we are not to abandon all common sense when reading Scripture. For example, if we read the Bible to say that Jesus taught that we are to be of one accord, we are not on good ground to interpret that as meaning we are all to get into a Honda. That would defy reason.

Love it! You are in top form today. Extra cup of java?

 

[Albion]

And truly, Sir, the Anglican Church has really, really, really seemed to rely more heavily on human reason / wants / vision than on a serious, contrite reading of what Scripture says and doesn't say in the 20th and 21st centuries.

I disagree. For one thing, you're using the term "Anglican Church" as though it were a single entity. If you mean to refer to the Church of England, that would be correct. But I don't belong to the Church of England.

If not that, then you're loosely referring to 115 million Christians belonging to a variety of churches descended from the CofE and no generalization about their 'sincere contrite' reading of Scripture is appropriate.

 

[Albion]

The ECFs erred as all do.

That is true. And they disagreed with each other. And they do not actually represent a continuous stream of thought from the beginning of the church era forward--although the claim that there is continuity is supposedly why Tradition is to be accepted.

But I was giving them as much credit as possible. Some were witnesses to church doings in an early time and that may be of some value to us, that's all.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes, I'm aware that's what's usually quoted.

But seriously, what does it say?


It says all Scripture is profitable. But that is not the same thing as saying Scripture is the only thing that is profitable.

Honestly, Orthodoxy agrees with certain iterations of SS.

But that verse does not say to jettison everything not in Scripture, that all doctrine must come from Scripture, or anything else. One could argue sufficiency from that passage. But sufficiency can be found in much less than the entire Bible - it would be possible to pull out a few verses that in themselves would be "sufficient" meaning salvation is possible.

Not to mention, that passage does not and cannot refer to the New Testament. Would you argue SS based on the OT canon only?

I'm not trying to be snide, but in carefully and honestly evaluating Scripture, SS isn't there. And by many people's understanding of SS, that fact alone would automatically invalidate a doctrine.

Not to mention that Scripture of the NT wasn't complete then, or even considered Scripture.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That is true. And they disagreed with each other. And they do not represent a continuous stream of thought from the beginning of the church era--which is supposed to be why Tradition is accepted.

But I was giving them as much credit as possible. Some were witnesses to church doings in an early time and that may be of some value to us, that's all.

I should have been more clear. I was in full agreement with you.

If we think that those with histories closest to the earliest church are automatically correct, we fail to remember just how screwed up the early church was.

 

[All4Christ]

reason, not rationalizations.

This means that we are not to abandon all common sense when reading Scripture. For example, if we read the Bible to say that Jesus taught that we are to be of one accord, we are not on good ground to interpret that as meaning we are all to get into a Honda. That would defy reason.

Comparing being of one accord (agreement of one understanding of scripture) to getting into a Honda? Not a great comparison and doesn't help your argument.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Then your question has been answered.


So, is that open ended -- latter day prophets, the Book of Mormon, palm reading, what? To me, the idea that the Bible declares itself but does not also explicitly say "now do not consider all these other things that are not from me to be the equal of my word: 1. 2. etc." to be a ridiculous demand.

God says this is his word; we have no basis for saying in reply, "So? Maybe something else is, too. It could be just about anything." To take that position is to reject what God has revealed to us. It is to "second guess" it.

You haven't really engaged with my reply, Albion.

I'm not demanding that you do, by any means. But that verse you quote doesn't say what many seem to expect it to support, nor does it refer to NT as Scripture ...

And of course I'm not suggesting latter day prophets or the Book of Mormon. This is Traditional Theology, I'm an Orthodox Christian, so what I mean should be easy enough to guess. The way the Church interpreted Scripture is what should be understood to be true, since Scripture didn't fall out of heaven in a bound volume at the Ascension, but rather came to be THROUGH the Church, their lived practice, letters written to and by them, recognized to be inspired BY them, by virtue of their BEING the Church.

The history of how the Scriptures cane to be is essential to understanding them.

 

[All4Christ]

This discussion seems to be devolving now. It seems like people aren't trying to understand eachother now but are just throwing around the same arguments that we've heard before.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The ECFs erred as all do. We should look to them no more than we should look even to the apostles. Peter had to be smacked upside the head by Paul, for instance.

The foundation for Paul's argument was that Peter was not walking inline with the gospel. It was not, I'm in a higher position of authority than you, because Paul wasn't. Peter was the superior in terms of authority, yet Paul was able to correct him. That completely undermines all argument for papal authority, IMO.

Who is arguing for papal authority?

Part of the point is that individuals can be fallible - even St. Peter.

St. Paul rebuked him, yes. St. James prevailed in the council. But how did they do this? By quoting Scripture? No - it didn't exist. They did it because they were part of the Body of Christ, and recognized the Truth. Which is how Scripture later came to be recognized as well ...