Sola scriptura?

[Albion]

The transmission is essentially the same.

Traditions and "Sacred Tradition" both deal in past history, but are not the same, nor do they play the same role in the churches. Traditions are guides to our understanding, but "Sacred Tradition" is a method for establishing, determining, essential doctrine apart from Scripture.

I may have misunderstood your previous post but either way, yes, Sacred Tradition is what I've been referring to.

Ok, the authority is God, who revealed Himself down though man's history in various ways, most exhaustively through the words and deeds of Christ, some written and some unwritten.

That's not helping. Of course we may answer "God" to almost any question, but here we are discussing how God has revealed his will and intentions to us. That's what doctrine is all about--doing or believing what is essential for us to do or believe.

He has spoken to us in this way and these revelations must be understood and conveyed accurately, for which He established a church to carry out.

So we are back to identifying what "this way" refers to.

 

[fhansen]

Traditions and "Sacred Tradition" both deal in past history, but are not the same, nor do they play the same role in the churches.

And I didn't say otherwise.

Traditions are guides to our understanding, but "Sacred Tradition" is a method for establishing, determining, essential doctrine apart from Scripture.

In the sense that Sacred Tradition is simply one of the two streams or sources of revelation.

That's not helping. Of course we may answer "God" to almost any question, but here we are discussing how God has revealed his will and intentions to us. That's what doctrine is all about--doing or believing what is essential for us to do or believe.

Yes, and that's exactly what I answered. It doesn't help only if one disagrees.

So we are back to identifying what "this way" refers to.

"most exhaustively through the words and deeds of Christ, some written and some unwritten."

 

[Albion]

And I didn't say otherwise.

All right. If they are NOT the same, what is the difference? Do you agree with how I explained it?

In the sense that Sacred Tradition is simply one of the two streams or sources of revelation.

There has to be some basis for saying such a thing, not just that it is something that a denomination invented. The Holy Scriptures, on the other hand, are believed to be God's revelation by just about everyone, the Sola Scriptura people and the Sacred Tradition people alike.

 

[fhansen]

All right. If they are NOT the same, what is the difference? Do you agree with how I explained it?

As I said before, tradition deals with practices that are not concerned with de fide doctrine or dogma-and that can be changed-priestly celibacy is an example.

There has to be some basis for saying such a thing, not just that it is something that a denomination invented. The Holy Scriptures, on the other hand, are believed to be God's revelation by just about everyone, the Sola Scriptura people and the Sacred Tradition people alike.

Ok?- so it's entirely possible for anyone to be half right. Look, if we're trying to determine if Baptism is necessary for salvation, or if Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, or whether or not our day of rest and worship should be observed on the 7th or the 1st day of the week, going by Scripture alone is a strictly intellectual enterprise; may the "better" exegete win. But these are simply the beliefs and practices, upheld by Tradition and/or tradition, that the ancient churches have experienced from the beginning. Not having written proof is like saying that I didn't have a girlfriend named Linda in the first grade simply because there's no clear empirical proof anywhere to be found dating back to that time. Maybe no one ever thought it would ever be questioned?? As it is today, mainly due to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

Ok?- so it's entirely possible for anyone to be half right. Look, if we're trying to determine if Baptism is necessary for salvation, or if Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, or whether or not our day of rest and worship should be observed on the 7th or the 1st day of the week, going by Scripture alone is a strictly intellectual enterprise; may the "better" exegete win. But these are simply the beliefs and practices, upheld by Tradition and/or tradition, that the ancient churches have experienced from the beginning. Not having written proof is like saying that I didn't have a girlfriend named Linda in the first grade simply because there's no clear empirical proof anywhere to be found dating back to that time.

Who has said anything about "written proof?" And where is any defense of the church's invention that is called "Sacred Tradition" even when it isn't traditional?

And there has never been an acknowledgement of the fact that if Sola Scriptura has resulted in different interpretations, so has "Sacred Tradition?" Yet the idea that the latter was free of that shortcoming was where your defense of it began.

 

[fhansen]

Who has said anything about "written proof?"

You seem to trust only written revelation.

And there has never been an acknowledgement of the fact that if Sola Scriptura has resulted in different interpretations, so has "Sacred Tradition?" Yet the idea that the latter was free of that shortcoming was where your defense of it began.

God's revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the proper designated entity to interpret them. All necessary components if misinterpretation and misunderstanding is to be avoided.

 

[Albion]

You seem to trust only written revelation.

I seem to trust only divine revelation.

 

[fhansen]

I seem to trust only divine revelation.

As you should. And hopefully you can trust yourself to discern between any claims for revelation. It can take time tho.

 

[Albion]

Is there someone of our faith who DOESN'T consider the Bible to be divine revelation? Other than a few Unitarians or really really freethinkers, that is.

 

[Concord1968]

Is there someone of our faith who DOESN'T consider the Bible to be divine revelation? Other than a few Unitarians or really really freethinkers, that is.

Theological liberals typically don't.

 

[Lost4words]

1,000s of protestant denominations, all using 'Sola Scritura', with 1,000s of different interpretations/opinions/views on what Scripture is actually saying!

 

[Concord1968]

1,000s of protestant denominations, all using 'Sola Scritura', with 1,000s of different interpretations/opinions/views on what Scripture is actually saying!

Unless you want to admit there are hundreds of "Catholic" denominations, you might was to put that whole "1,000s" of Protestant denominations to rest. The same methodology produced both figures.

 

[concretecamper]

Unless you want to admit there are hundreds of "Catholic" denominations

wishful thinking and far from truth. You are listening to our Anglican friend too much.

 

[Lost4words]

Unless you want to admit there are hundreds of "Catholic" denominations, you might was to put that whole "1,000s" of Protestant denominations to rest. The same methodology produced both figures.

There is only one true Catholic church.

 

[Albion]

Many people believe that there is only one true Protestant church also.

Catholics often look at Protestantism and think that there are "1,000s" of them while Protestants often look at Catholicism and think that there are dozens or hundreds of them.

Each of these people--on either side--may also think that their own denomination/church is the only one that "has it right" and all the others are divided and fighting among themselves.

 

[faroukfarouk]

There is only one true Catholic church.

It began in Acts 2; and Acts 2.41-42 is what its adherents practise..

 

[Lost4words]

Many people believe that there is only one true Protestant church also.

Catholics often look at Protestantism and think that there are "1,000s" of them while Protestants often look at Catholicism and think that there are dozens or hundreds of them.

Each of these people--on either side--may also think that their own denomination/church is the only one that "has it right" and all the others are divided and fighting among themselves.

Totally wrong and you know it

 

[Albion]

In addition, the whole range of premises concerning these claims is erroneous.

1. Any comparison of a single denomination to a bunch of others is of course going to look like the one is united while the others are not. Let's call the one 'A' and the others B, C, D, and E. It looks like A is united for being only one entity and its followers then say that B, C, D, and E obviously are not!

But we can take any particular church out of the formula, move it, and then make the same claim. Ergo, 'B' is united (and therefore right), while A, C, D, and E are obviously disunited as a group! It is the same every time we pit a single church--any one--against all the others at once.

But that's not all.

2. Almost none of these churches is internally united anyway. While the denomination itself may have a definite position on some doctrine, every study shows that the people who belong to it are not. They believe all sorts of things that their own church disavows. Most Catholics, for instance, do not actually believe in Transubstantiation, many consider their church's teaching about an all-male priesthood to be wrong, and it is no secret that many think the church is absolutely wrong when it comes to homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and other such teachings, none of which the church itself says is left to the individual to decide..

There are only a handful of Christian denominations whose members are 100% in agreement with their church on doctrine, or close to that, and some of these are considered cults by the mainstream denominations.

3. The notion that Protestantism is a giant grab-bag and every individual is expected to believe whatever he wants is another fable. Most Protestant churches are even more dogmatic than the Catholic ones and almost none teach that the individual is right to believe just whatever he thinks best. Further, it's less likely that you'll be expelled from a Catholic church for not following the church's beliefs than is the case with most Protestant churches.

4. The idea that choosing to suit is somehow inherent in Protestantism but not in Catholicism is refuted by the fact that everybody is free to make an individual selection about what is the truth in either case!

If you say that all Protestant churches are about the same (which is not true in the first place), but argue that in Catholicism you do not put the individual's judgment ahead of the church's beliefs, the truth is otherwise. You make an individual choice merely becoming a Catholic!

The difference is only that in one situation you choose a church that agrees with you while in the other you make the individual choice to let one of them choose what's true for you. Membership in any church is the result of a personal decision, whether the person actually follows it's teachings or not.

 

[JAL]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

Sola Scriptura is nonsense, as I discussed here, as it contradicts an incontrovertible principle that I like to call the rule of conscience: If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I should opt for choice B. As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof.

Conscience, then, is my only final authority, contrary to the claim that Scripture is my only final authority. Anyone who denies this fact merely needs to supply one cogent exception to the rule. Certainly I haven't seen an exception to date - despite having debated this point several times over the years on CF.

Tons of people have objected to my conclusion - but none of them provide an exception to the rule of conscience.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

All very true, but let's not conclude that church tradition is inherently authoritative. It is authoritative only indirectly, that is, only insofar as it persuades your conscience. And if you're fully wise, your conscience won't be FULLY persuaded by church tradition alone. Look, if God exists, ultimately He must take it upon Himself to irrevocably persuade your conscience of the key-truths such as:
(1) Is the Bible inspired?
(2) Is Jesus God?
(3) Did He die for my sins?
This divine persuasion of the conscience is known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit. Calvin formalized it as a doctrine and, since then, probably 99% of evangelical theologians accept it. For me, it all translates into the absolute primacy of direct revelation in all matters, but unfortunately the evangelical church still clings to the primacy of exegesis in all matters.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition?

I'm not sure. You might be overstating the point. The Inward Witness can persuade instantaneously. When that happens, I don't think there need be any conscious reflection on the history of church tradition. For example Charles Finney said that the pages of his Bible seemed LITERALLY ablaze with physical Light. (Actually he was correct in my view, although it's off-topic here). The point is that God can witness to the human heart directly, that is, without recourse to an apologetic argument based on church tradition.

For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical).

But He need not do this book-by-book. He need only persuade you that the book, as a whole, is reliable. Don't get me wrong, we should always aim for a higher specificity, clarity, and intensity of direct revelation. But even a small dosage is often enough for entrance into the church.

Again, I'm not denying that God used church scholars as an instrument for the collection, preservation, publication, and dissemination of the Bible.

That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority.

Precisely.

The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

Valid points but, once again, possibly overstated.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura is nonsense, as I discussed here, as it contradicts an incontrovertible principle that I like to call the rule of conscience: If I feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I should opt for choice B. As I can find no exceptions to this rule, I cannot controvert it, hence it needs no proof.

Conscience, then, is my only final authority, contrary to the claim that Scripture is my only final authority.

You are talking about two different things there, misrepresenting the meaning of "authority" in the case of Scripture. So, the rest of the explanation is moot.