The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Fervent]

Isn't the question here asking whether Sola Scriptura is the authority...or not?

If it is so, just as the title of the thread suggests, our concern is with its authority, not how we came to have it. We all know that we have Holy Scripture available to us. That issue has already been settled, and what we're supposedly discussing is whether there might be something "better than" God's word.

I say "no" to that. There cannot, simply cannot, be any other alleged authority, real or imagined, that "beats" what God himself has revealed to us. Do you disagree??

To be fair, Catholics and protestants don't agree on the full body of Scripture. The question of its compilation and origin is worthy of consideration, as if it requires external authentication whatever provides that authentication is at least in some manner an authority over it.

 

[Albion]

To be fair, Catholics and protestants don't agree on the full body of Scripture.

Yes, there are a few, small differences, but the point was correct.

The denunciation of Sola Scriptura flies in the face of the truth that both Catholics and Protestants affirm that the Bible is divine revelation...and then one of these says that it cannot be trusted but that some human history is as good or better. That proposition is ridiculous.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, there are a few, small differences, but the point was correct.

The denunciation of Sola Scriptura flies in the face of the truth that both Catholics and Protestants affirm that the Bible is divine revelation...and then one of these says that it cannot be trusted but that some human history is as good or better. That proposition is ridiculous.

I agree, but since God didn't simply send the Bible down from the heavens fully intact but instead chose to reveal and affirm His word through the process of canonization we cannot simply dismiss the implications of that process.

 

[Albion]

I agree, but since God didn't simply send the Bible down from the heavens fully intact but instead chose to reveal and affirm His word through the process of canonization we cannot simply dismiss the implications of that process.

No one is doing that, from what I can see. We HAVE the Bible, don't we? And we know what it is, don't we?

Then all the talk in the world about how our predecessors assembled the books doesn't change anything about the value of the Bible once we have it in hand and know what it is! And that is what the discussion is about--the value and authority of Scripture as opposed to something else (most notably a trail of human history, folk religion, religious legends, and theological speculation that isn't continuous anyway!).

 

[Fervent]

No one is doing that, from what I can see. We HAVE the Bible, don't we? And we know what it is, don't we?

Then all the talk in the world about how our predecessors assembled the books doesn't change anything about the value of the Bible once we have it in hand and know what it is! And that is what the discussion is about--the value and authority of Scripture as opposed to something else (most notably a trail of human history, folk religion, religious legends, and theological speculation that isn't continuous anyway!).

I'm not sure it's quite that simple, especially when we enter contentious waters. While the history and theological speculation must be subordinated to Scripture there's considerable blur especially as issues like text criticism and other analytical approoaches gain traction and the delineation of Scripture comes into question. When people start dismissing books such as assigning them as pseudo-Pauline or other questions come about what is and isn't Scripture there must be some manner of establishing it. All the canonical questions come into play and if we hold too tightly we actually end up undermining the whole thing.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure it's quite that simple, especially when we enter contentious waters. While the history and theological speculation must be subordinated to Scripture there's considerable blur

especially as issues like text criticism and other analytical approoaches gain traction and the delineation of Scripture comes into question.

I hear that objection all the time, it seems, from people who want "Tradition" to be considered a mystery second revelation equal to the Bible, even though it's entirely a manmade theory.

BUT, here's what's immediately wrong with that theory: 1) no basis for it in God's word and 2) the beliefs aren't "traditional" anyway. The institutional church(es) simply pick out from history the opinions that they want to use when dogmatizing some belief and ignore similar ones that said the opposite or, if not that, ignore the absence from periods of history of any evidence for that belief being believed in by a significant part of the people of God.
.
Most of them are just what a handful or even a single Early Church Father opined, without there being any continuity or unanimity among ECFs, and without a trail of evidence from the Apostles forward or anything that would make whatever it is be actually "traditional."

...and now for your particular point in this post--

When people start dismissing books such as assigning them as pseudo-Pauline or other questions come about what is and isn't Scripture there must be some manner of establishing it.

All the canonical questions come into play and if we hold too tightly we actually end up undermining the whole thing.

All of that applies to "Holy Tradition" as well, but for some reason we are supposed to think it competes with the Bible that we all agree is divine revelation. That theory -- and that's all it is -- doesn't even make sense on a logical level.

The most that I can take from your message here is that we shouldn't believe anything--since there is disagreement over the meaning of whatever it is, over the interpretation of it, and over such things as you mentioned about textual criticism, etc. For sure, those reservations apply to every "authority" that we could possibly suggest.

 

[Fervent]

I hear that objection all the time, it seems, from people who want "Tradition" to be considered a mystery second revelation equal to the Bible, even though it's entirely a manmade theory.

BUT, here's what's immediately wrong with that theory: 1) no basis for it in God's word and 2) the beliefs aren't "traditional" anyway. The institutional church(es) simply pick out from history the opinions that they want to use when dogmatizing some belief and ignore similar ones that said the opposite or, if not that, ignore the absence from periods of history of any evidence for that belief being believed in by a significant part of the people of God.
.
Most of them are just what a handful or even a single Early Church Father opined, without there being any continuity or unanimity among ECFs, and without a trail of evidence from the Apostles forward or anything that would make whatever it is be actually "traditional."

...and now for your particular point in this post--
All of that applies to "Holy Tradition" as well, but for some reason we are supposed to think it competes with the Bible that we all agree is divine revelation. That theory -- and that's all it is -- doesn't even make sense on a logical level.

The most that I can take from your message here is that we shouldn't believe anything--since there is disagreement over the meaning of whatever it is, over the interpretation of it, and over such things as you mentioned about textual criticism, etc. For sure, those reservations apply to every "authority" that we could possibly suggest.

You've reached the heart quicker than I anticipated. To begin, it's bad form to assign something the authority when what's at issue is the measure of its authority(it's rather circular to say we must reject an auxillary authority to the canonized texts based solely on those canonized texts). I in no way intend to prop up "Tradition" for the very reasons you lay out, especially as you point out the same criticism leveled at the Bible may be leveled at "Tradition" so it doesn't solve the dilemma. Ultimately, there is only one trustworthy authority but He vests it in a multitude of sources. Sola Scriptura is an excellent rebuff to ecclesial abuse of the trust placed in them but the communal nature of faith and the multifaceted views of exegesis proves much difficulty in treating it as a positive declaration rather than a critical statement.

 

[Albion]

Ultimately, there is only one trustworthy authority but He vests it in a multitude of sources.

Well, that isn't really the issue when the discussion turns to Sola Scriptura (or why we supposedly must not subscribe to that principle ), is it?

The issue with Sola Scriptura isn't that some people and churches deny that it's divine revelation.

It's that they want that "multitude of (other) sources" to play the role of Holy Scripture, which is to say, God's ultimate guide to matters dealing with His will and intentions for us.

 

[Fervent]

Well, that isn't really the issue when the discussion turns to Sola Scriptura (or why we supposedly must not subscribe to that principle ), is it?

The issue with Sola Scriptura isn't that some people and churches deny that it's divine revelation.

It's that they want that "multitude of (other) sources" to play the role of Holy Scripture, which is to say, God's ultimate guide to matters dealing with His will and intentions for us.

That's just it, God's guide isn't the Scriptures. They're a tool for edification, but without the Holy Spirit it's just the writings of fishermen and shepherds. Too much of the discussion focuses on the human element and ignores the 300 pound gorilla in the room.

 

[Albion]

That's just it, God's guide isn't the Scriptures.

Hmmm.

They're a tool for edification, but without the Holy Spirit it's just the writings of fishermen and shepherds. Too much of the discussion focuses on the human element and ignores the 300 pound gorilla in the room.

Well, now I realize that we weren't as much in synch with each other as I'd thought, and now we're also apparently moving in the direction something like Unitarian Universalism or New Age religion.

If the Bible isn't anything special but whatever the individual wants, from do-it-yourself "prophets," to interpretations of dreams, to "all religions lead to the same God," or whatever else takes the place of Scripture, Christianity becomes a matter of nothing but what the individual wants to believe.

Would that be about right?

 

[Fervent]

Hmmm.

Well, now I realize that we weren't as much in synch with each other as I'd thought, and now we're also apparently moving in the direction something like Unitarian Universalism or New Age religion.

If the Bible isn't anything special but whatever the individual wants, from do-it-yourself "prophets," to interpretations of dreams, to "all religions lead to the same God," or whatever else takes the place of Scripture, Christianity becomes a matter of nothing but what the individual wants to believe.

Would that be about right?

No, not at all. It's not that the Bible isn't special, it contains the self-revelation of God. But that content is only made accessible through the incorporation of the Holy Spirit. The documents themselves contain the ordinary foibles of other human endeavors, though they stand as the most trustworthy "natural" standard. It is the presence of God in the reading of the Bible that makes it special, not the texts themselves.

 

[Albion]

No, not at all. It's not that the Bible isn't special, it contains the self-revelation of God. But that content is only made accessible through the incorporation of the Holy Spirit. The documents themselves contain the ordinary foibles of other human endeavors, though they stand as the most trustworthy "natural" standard. It is the presence of God in the reading of the Bible that makes it special, not the texts themselves.

If that's so, there's no reason to think it's defective or lacking.

And if the "come back" is to say that people hold different views of the meaning of Bible passages, well, so do all the other "authorities" that people think and claim are equal to the Bible or even superior to it.

 

[pescador]

That's just it, God's guide isn't the Scriptures. They're a tool for edification, but without the Holy Spirit it's just the writings of fishermen and shepherds. Too much of the discussion focuses on the human element and ignores the 300 pound gorilla in the room.

They're not mutually exclusive. The Bible never has been, isn't, and never will be just the writings of fishermen and shepherds. It is the word of God, written by inspired men regardless of their human occupations.

Too much of your post focuses on the human element and ignores the 300 pound gorilla in the room.

 

[Fervent]

If that's so, there's no reason to think it's defective or lacking.

And if the "come back" is to say that people hold different views of the meaning of Bible passages, well, so do all the other "authorities" that people think and claim are equal to the Bible or even superior to it.

Interpretation isn't really an issue, but historical evidence can be. Any perspective on the Bible that leads to denialism or otherwise inflexible inability to respond to text criticism or historical reconstruction is deficient and an over reliance on sola scriptura will lead to such a position. Special exemptions get carved out in doctrines of inerrancy to allow for clear errors of transmission and the notion of infallible autographs is unsustainable since we know that the current forms and manuscripts are not the same as the autographs so even if such a thing exists we don't know what's in them.

 

[Albion]

Interpretation isn't really an issue, but historical evidence can be. Any perspective on the Bible that leads to denialism or otherwise inflexible inability to respond to text criticism or historical reconstruction is deficient and an over reliance on sola scriptura will lead to such a position.

Not at all. That's just another example of how people attack Sola Scriptura by attributing to the term all manner of ideas and perceived problems that have nothing to do with what the term means.

 

[Fervent]

Not at all. That's just another example of how people attack Sola Scriptura by attributing to the term all manner of ideas and perceived problems that have nothing to do with what the term means.

My concern isn't with the doctrine itself, but the main way it is expressed in protestant churches. As I said earlier, as a critical point it is exceedingly useful but when it is given a positive quality it tends to lead to an ahistorical view that is overly simplistic and doesn't track with what the Bible actually is. After all, which manuscript families are we talking when we say Scripture alone? LXX? Masoretic texts? Old Greek? If only modern translations are being considered which one do we rely on in English? KJV? NET? NLT? How do we settle these issues with Scripture alone?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My concern isn't with the doctrine itself, but the main way it is expressed in protestant churches. As I said earlier, as a critical point it is exceedingly useful but when it is given a positive quality it tends to lead to an ahistorical view that is overly simplistic and doesn't track with what the Bible actually is. After all, which manuscript families are we talking when we say Scripture alone? LXX? Masoretic texts? Old Greek? If only modern translations are being considered which one do we rely on in English? KJV? NET? NLT? How do we settle these issues with Scripture alone?

... I agree, which is why I tend to be (more or less) in the Prima Scriptura vein of thought rather than in one of the various Sola Scriptura veins.

At the same time, I rather hate duking it out with my brethren over this issue.

 

[Albion]

My concern isn't with the doctrine itself, but the main way it is expressed in protestant churches.

I might agree with that if the doctrine itself were ever acknowledged, if only for the sake of having a serious conversation about its merits.

What I always get is something along the lines of "Yes, there's Sola Scriptura, but different people interpret parts of Scripture differently, so Sola Scriptura is invalid." In other words, a deflection masquerading as a reason why Sola Scriptura might not be correct.

EVERY Christian belief can be debunked if that standard were applied to them, and that includes all the alternatives to Sola Scriptura that the mind of man has come up with.

 

[Fervent]

I might agree with that if the doctrine itself were ever acknowledged, if only for the sake of having a serious conversation about its merits.

What I always get is something along the lines of "Yes, there's Sola Scriptura, but different people interpret parts of Scripture differently, so Sola Scriptura is invalid." In other words, a deflection masquerading as a reason why Sola Scriptura might not be correct.

EVERY Christian belief can be debunked if that standard were applied to them, and that includes all the alternatives to Sola Scriptura that the mind of man has come up with.

None of my criticisms involve interpretive issues, but issues of defining what Scripture even is. To say we all agree on that is simply untrue, if we did there wouldn't be factions like KJVO. I accept sola scriptura as a negative doctrine(i.e. there exists no authority over the words of Scripture and Scripture has the final say in disagreements) but I do not agree with a positive formulatiion(Scripture stands alone in issues of faith and practice). When Jan Hus articulated the doctrine it was an excellent check on ecclesial abuse, but today it tends more to facillitate a destructive isolationist streak and causes far more divisions than serving useful purposes.

 

[Albion]

None of my criticisms involve interpretive issues, but issues of defining what Scripture even is.

I'd consider that to be one of the many ways of avoiding a direct evaluation of the merits of Sola Scriptura.