The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Andrew12]

MOD HAT ON

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT OFF TOPIC POSTS WILL BE REMOVED.



GT STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOUND HERE.​

CHRISTIAN FORUMS RULES FOUND HERE​

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION & UNDERSTANDING ON THIS MATTER.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, how does this relate to your comparison of the RCatholics to a group which is not considered Christian

And if you understand what "logos" means, and are aware that SS is not commanded by God nor stated in Scripture, why would you support Sola Scriptura ?

This thread is not about Sola Scriptura per se, but about its use as Luther and Calvin called it. That, as I understand it from earlier posts by our esteemed brother, CaliforniaJosiah, was as the norma norms for determining faithfulness and accuracy of doctrinal teaching. I do not think that either Luther or Calvin ever stated that SS was commanded by God or stated in Scripture; nevertheless they firmly believed in the sole use of scripture as the norma norms for doctrine.

If one chooses other documentation as the norma norms for Christian doctrine then their orthodoxy should be called into question. For example, if I find the poetry of T.S. Eliot to be quite inspired and, therefore, on an equal plane with the Bible I think you would find me to be unorthodox in my belief. However, if Mr. Eliot, in his poetry, informed us that an ancient Christian oral tradition had informed him, then would you accept his poetry as of equal value to Scripture?

 

[Thekla]

This thread is not about Sola Scriptura per se, but about its use as Luther and Calvin called it. That, as I understand it from earlier posts by our esteemed brother, CaliforniaJosiah, was as the norma norms for determining faithfulness and accuracy of doctrinal teaching. I do not think that either Luther or Calvin ever stated that SS was commanded by God or stated in Scripture; nevertheless they firmly believed in the sole use of scripture as the norma norms for doctrine.

Actually, the OP is the Rule of Scripture and the mention of Luther and Calvin is not central but a part of a descriptive in giving a synonym for the "rule of Scripture".

So Luther, Calvin, and others made a tradition (formed a custom).

If one chooses other documentation as the norma norms for Christian doctrine then their orthodoxy should be called into question. For example, if I find the poetry of T.S. Eliot to be quite inspired and, therefore, on an equal plane with the Bible I think you would find me to be unorthodox in my belief. However, if Mr. Eliot, in his poetry, informed us that an ancient Christian oral tradition had informed him, then would you accept his poetry as of equal value to Scripture?

Here again, you are holding the graphe above logos, when the graphe contains some of the logos.

As for your illustration re: TS Eliot, this does not make sense.
Perhaps you could explain further ?
(Eliot was Anglican, iirc, not LDS)

 

[fhansen]

This thread is not about Sola Scriptura per se, but about its use as Luther and Calvin called it. That, as I understand it from earlier posts by our esteemed brother, CaliforniaJosiah, was as the norma norms for determining faithfulness and accuracy of doctrinal teaching. I do not think that either Luther or Calvin ever stated that SS was commanded by God or stated in Scripture; nevertheless they firmly believed in the sole use of scripture as the norma norms for doctrine.

If one chooses other documentation as the norma norms for Christian doctrine then their orthodoxy should be called into question. For example, if I find the poetry of T.S. Eliot to be quite inspired and, therefore, on an equal plane with the Bible I think you would find me to be unorthodox in my belief. However, if Mr. Eliot, in his poetry, informed us that an ancient Christian oral tradition had informed him, then would you accept his poetry as of equal value to Scripture?

No, Elliot would have no standing historically speaking to make such a claim whereas the “pillar and foundation of truth” should have such standing. The problem with the bible taking that position of authority is that the individual reading it actually becomes the authority-because the bible can’t tell us how to interpret or understand it-only a living authority can do so.

Meanwhile there are all kinds of denominations with often widely diverse teachings for that very reason, because the individual who started them differed in interpretation in some manner from the church they were in originally. There’s no other possibility, just speaking logically alone, than that the faith of the church, itself, is the norma normans-it must be or there can be none at all IMO.

Now if we agree that the church has been guaranteed authority in discerning truth, then we must still determine which church, with what interpretation, but at least we’ve made a step by recognizing we can’t arrive at the full gospel truth via scripture alone.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, scripture refers to oral tradition that wasn't written down. You've apparently made the determination that God should've done otherwise and recorded everything in written form but the Church maintains that the gospel was written in her heart at the beginning of Christianity, which coincides with scriptural testimony from 1Tim3:15 that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". The following are some references to the RC position on revelation. The Church teaches that revelation can and should be understood more clearly, not that it can be added to:


66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.


67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.


Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

I am pleased that we are in agreement at this juncture concerning any idea of on-going revelation by God.

There are two difficulties as I see it in your post. The first is that oral Tradition, by definition, is undefined and, therefore, open to abuse. One can easily state without contradiction that they have true oral Tradition and need not offer any form of proof for it. That seems to be one of the reasons there is such a variety of oral Traditions afloat today.

The second difficulty is that in your scenario the church is answerable to itself only. There is no accountability. As a result there is no definitive means of ascertaining whether or not it is true. This is not a unique situation as other denominations share the same ethic, but who is to say which one of these denominations is really true?

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, Elliot would have no standing historically speaking to make such a claim whereas the “pillar and foundation of truth” should have such standing. The problem with the bible taking that position of authority is that the individual reading it actually becomes the authority-because the bible can’t tell us how to interpret or understand it-only a living authority can do so.

Meanwhile there are all kinds of denominations with often widely diverse teachings for that very reason, because the individual who started them differed in interpretation in some manner from the church they were in originally. There’s no other possibility, just speaking logically alone, than that the faith of the church, itself, is the norma normans-it must be or there can be none at all IMO.

Now if we agree that the church has been guaranteed authority in discerning truth, then we must still determine which church, with what interpretation, but at least we’ve made a step by recognizing we can’t arrive at the full gospel truth via scripture alone.

Therein lies your difficulty. You have living authorities who are humans who claim to be the sole interpreters of the Bible for you and you, as a loyal Catholic, must follow their interpretation with complete docility. It then behooves you not to read the Bible lest you find in it things which may contradict the interpretations of your living authorities. In the process all responsibility is shifted from your shoulders to that of your Church for any and all spiritual matters. At least that is what is hoped for, in theory. In reality, each individual will give an account to God. If that individual thinks that his church will stand in for him at the judgment, then he is woefully wrong. Ignorance is no excuse in the sight of the Law, nor in the sight of God.

I have a living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has freely given me a Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, to guide me into all truth. You can have your Chuch if you will. As for myself I will stand on the written Word of God and the Living Word of God who freely gives wisdom and understanding through His Spirit to those who seek it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, the OP is the Rule of Scripture and the mention of Luther and Calvin is not central but a part of a descriptive in giving a synonym for the "rule of Scripture".

So Luther, Calvin, and others made a tradition (formed a custom).

Here again, you are holding the graphe above logos, when the graphe contains some of the logos.

As for your illustration re: TS Eliot, this does not make sense.
Perhaps you could explain further ?
(Eliot was Anglican, iirc, not LDS)

Yes, I know that Mr. Eliot was Anglican and chose him for an example rather than the more obvious heretics such as the LDS. Not that Mr. Eliot was a heretic, but those who might contend that his inspired poetry is on the same plane as that of the Bible would be heretics by any definition of that word.

The illustration was intended to point out the absurditiy of those who make claims as to having an authority such as an Oral Tradition which has no means of verification. It comes down to one person's word against another's as to what was said. After the passage of a few centuries any sort of oral tradition becomes highly suspect, does it not?

 

[fhansen]

I am pleased that we are in agreement at this juncture concerning any idea of on-going revelation by God.

OK, I'm not really sure what changed, tho.

There are two difficulties as I see it in your post. The first is that oral Tradition, by definition, is undefined and, therefore, open to abuse.

Yes, but scripture is easily abused also. Arians past and present have quite plausible arguments for the non-deity of Jesus for example. And people have used the bible to justify all kinds of wrong acts down through time.

The second difficulty is that in your scenario the church is answerable to itself only. There is no accountability. As a result there is no definitive means of ascertaining whether or not it is true. This is not a unique situation as other denominations share the same ethic, but who is to say which one of these denominations is really true?

But there's really no definitive means of ascertaining whether scripture is true or not either-or of coming to complete consensus of the specific truths it holds even if we could definitively prove somehow that it contains truth. Both are a matter of faith IMO, enabled by grace.

 

[fhansen]

Therein lies your difficulty. You have living authorities who are humans who claim to be the sole interpreters of the Bible for you and you, as a loyal Catholic, must follow their interpretation with complete docility.

No, a mature Catholic-an "authentic" one, IMO-has simply come to agree with the Church.

It then behooves you not to read the Bible lest you find in it things which may contradict the interpretations of your living authorities.

No, I became Christian by reading the bible, It was later -much later- that I was led to the CC.

In the process all responsibility is shifted from your shoulders to that of your Church for any and all spiritual matters. At least that is what is hoped for, in theory. In reality, each individual will give an account to God.

Yes, each person will give an account to God based on what they did with what they knew.

I have a living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has freely given me a Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, to guide me into all truth.

You have yourself, another living authority interpreting scripture as you understand it- sometimes disagreeing with others who're doing the same thing, and also relying, consciously or not, on other authorities such as pastors and writers and denominational teachings, and creeds, and even the RCC since Protestant history traces its roots through her, too.

 

[ivebeenshown]

...in your scenario the church is answerable to itself only. There is no accountability. As a result there is no definitive means of ascertaining whether or not it is true. This is not a unique situation as other denominations share the same ethic, but who is to say which one of these denominations is really true?

The very Scriptures you adore state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, so of course the Church is right. The problem you have is in discerning which Church is the one that Jesus started.

We know that the Church was started in the first century, and the only two churches which meet that criteria are the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Do note, however, that for many centuries afterward, the only church mentioned by name is the Catholic Church. And after the schism in 1054, and after the Protestant movement, there is still only one Church that is known worldwide as the Catholic Church.

Therein lies your difficulty. You have living authorities who are humans who claim to be the sole interpreters of the Bible for you and you, as a loyal Catholic, must follow their interpretation with complete docility. It then behooves you not to read the Bible lest you find in it things which may contradict the interpretations of your living authorities.

Actually, the Church that we are to follow with docility exhorts us to study the Scriptures -- and all of us find that the bible and the Church are in complete agreement.

In the process all responsibility is shifted from your shoulders to that of your Church for any and all spiritual matters. At least that is what is hoped for, in theory. In reality, each individual will give an account to God. If that individual thinks that his church will stand in for him at the judgment, then he is woefully wrong. Ignorance is no excuse in the sight of the Law, nor in the sight of God.

God will reward men with eternal life or wrath according to their works (Romans 2), and the Church does not teach that it will stand in any individual's place on the day of judgment.

You appear to be quite ignorant of what the Church teaches, and of what Catholics believe.

 

[Standing Up]

OK, I'm not really sure what changed, tho.

Yes, but scripture is easily abused also. Arians past and present have quite plausible arguments for the non-deity of Jesus for example. And people have used the bible to justify all kinds of wrong acts down through time.

But there's really no definitive means of ascertaining whether scripture is true or not either-or of coming to complete consensus of the specific truths it holds even if we could definitively prove somehow that it contains truth. Both are a matter of faith IMO, enabled by grace.

FYI, Arianism was born out from a tradition (it began from a man who denied God. He then decided Jesus is not God, hence he didn't deny God). Arianism didn't come out from scripture. Arius and the others then used scripture to try to bolster his argument.

Athananasius however was sola scripture. No where that I've found does he ever cite a Tradition for his argument. He only cites scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, the Church that we are to follow with docility exhorts us to study the Scriptures -- and all of us find that the bible and the Church are in complete agreement.

God will reward men with eternal life or wrath according to their works (Romans 2), and the Church does not teach that it will stand in any individual's place on the day of judgment.

You appear to be quite ignorant of what the Church teaches, and of what Catholics believe.

Again, how does this work in real time? For example, who is right? EO--use leavened bread like Christ at the Last Supper. RC--use unleavened bread like Christ at the Last Supper.

Each has their Tradition. But the fact is Scripture provides one answer.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Again, how does this work in real time? For example, who is right? EO--use leavened bread like Christ at the Last Supper. RC--use unleavened bread like Christ at the Last Supper.

Each has their Tradition. But the fact is Scripture provides one answer.

The Catholic Church uses both leavened and unleavened bread -- it depends on the rite.

The more you know!

The fact is that Scripture is ambiguous between the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John as to whether the 'last supper' took place on passover night, or the night before.

 

[fhansen]

FYI, Arianism was born out from a tradition (it began from a man who denied God. He then decided Jesus is not God, hence he didn't deny God). Arianism didn't come out from scripture. Arius and the others then used scripture to try to bolster his argument.

Well, I never read anywhere that Arius denied God-he was a bishop who, like many others, believed the Father was greater than the Son, and therefore the Son was not God. This belief has persisted for centuries and, in any case, everyone uses scripture to bolster their argument.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well, I never read anywhere that Arius denied God-he was a bishop who, like many others, believed the Father was greater than the Son, and therefore the Son was not God. This belief has persisted for centuries and, in any case, everyone uses scripture to bolster their argument.

John 14:28, when Jesus said 'My Father is greater than I.'

Pretty cut and dry words, right?

 

[Standing Up]

Well, I never read anywhere that Arius denied God-he was a bishop who, like many others, believed the Father was greater than the Son, and therefore the Son was not God. This belief has persisted for centuries and, in any case, everyone uses scripture to bolster their argument.

Again, Arius was born out from a tradition. The tradition started from a man who denied God. You may begin your research:

Look for the clue word, adoptionism:

Arius c320
Lucien of Antioch c300
Paul of Samasoto c250
Theodotus of Byzantium (originator) c190ad

" Hippolytus stated that Theodotus was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ in time of persecution—a fact which accounted for his heresy, since he could thus maintain that he had only denied man, not God. "
Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So, from that denial, he would later use scripture to bolster his claim.

The first known exponent of Adoptionism in the 2nd century is Theodotus of Byzantium.
Adoptionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" Paul was an early forerunner of Adoptionism. ...
Paul's pupil Lucian of Antioch is considered to have had a major influence on Arius the founder of Arianism. "
Paul of Samosata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adoptionism was a Tradition, developed over time from Theodotus of Byzantium to Paul of Samosata to Lucian of Antioch to Arius. God "adopted" Jesus at baptism. Scripture, however, says otherwise (John 1, etc).

Again, these men (Arius) also used scripture to bolster their theology born from tradition.

What was used to counter Arius' claim?

Tradition was rebuked because their Tradition didn't tie out to apostles. The teaching was not old. Was not believed early on.

Scripture was used.

PS. Even though those men (Arius, Paul, Lucius) were ordained bishops, they did not carry the day. IOW, what was important was scripture, teaching the same as apostles.

 

[fhansen]

Again, Arius was born out from a tradition. The tradition started from a man who denied God. You may begin your research:

Look for the clue word, adoptionism:

Arius c320
Lucien of Antioch c300
Paul of Samasoto c250
Theodotus of Byzantium (originator) c190ad

" Hippolytus stated that Theodotus was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ in time of persecution—a fact which accounted for his heresy, since he could thus maintain that he had only denied man, not God. "
Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So, from that denial, he would later use scripture to bolster his claim.

The first known exponent of Adoptionism in the 2nd century is Theodotus of Byzantium.
Adoptionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" Paul was an early forerunner of Adoptionism. ...
Paul's pupil Lucian of Antioch is considered to have had a major influence on Arius the founder of Arianism. "
Paul of Samosata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adoptionism was a Tradition, developed over time from Theodotus of Byzantium to Paul of Samosata to Lucian of Antioch to Arius. God "adopted" Jesus at baptism. Scripture, however, says otherwise (John 1, etc).

Again, these men (Arius) also used scripture to bolster their theology born from tradition.

What was used to counter Arius' claim?

Tradition was rebuked because their Tradition didn't tie out to apostles. The teaching was not old. Was not believed early on.

Scripture was used.

PS. Even though those men (Arius, Paul, Lucius) were ordained bishops, they did not carry the day. IOW, what was important was scripture, teaching the same as apostles.

Again, Arius was born out from a tradition.

In my understanding Paul of Samosata is considered the father of this kind of heresy.
But none of these men denied God; they all denied that Jesus is God. To call Arianism a Tradition is a straw man because either way there are traditions of men and there is revealed Tradition-Tradition of God, so to speak, just like there are the genuine revealed gospels and then there are other, false ones, such as Gnostic gospels. In this case it could be said that Tradition won over tradition at Nicea.

But regardless of who has the truth in this case, what's the point anyway-and what's this have to do with the OP? Are you denying my point in post #508-were you denying that people abuse scripture?

 

[Thekla]

Yes, I know that Mr. Eliot was Anglican and chose him for an example rather than the more obvious heretics such as the LDS. Not that Mr. Eliot was a heretic, but those who might contend that his inspired poetry is on the same plane as that of the Bible would be heretics by any definition of that word.

But how does this relate to your comparison of the RC to the LDS - it's a non sequitur.

And, for your illustration on its own terms, Eliot used a great many non-Christian sources in his poetry (the Bhagavad Gita comes to mind).

Is Eliot an "ECF" in your Church ? What is the actual relevance of your illustration Has anyone called the ECFs or Mr. Eliot [- "How unpleasant to meet Mr. Eliot ! (Whether his mouth be open or shut.)"] the same plane as Scripture ?

The illustration was intended to point out the absurditiy of those who make claims as to having an authority such as an Oral Tradition which has no means of verification. It comes down to one person's word against another's as to what was said. After the passage of a few centuries any sort of oral tradition becomes highly suspect, does it not?

Your illustration points out the absurdity of your illustration.

Can you explain why you used T.S. Eliot as an illustration ? Why not Johnny Rotten, another notable Brit.

There is a great difference between revelation from God and textual analysis as a tool to "discover doctrine".

Jude is clear - the faith paradotheisē; the term for tradition.
Not text. Your argument here is with God, and His method.

 

[Standing Up]

In my understanding Paul of Samosata is considered the father of this kind of heresy.

Keep digging.

But none of these men denied God; they all denied that Jesus is God. To call Arianism a Tradition is a straw man because either way there are traditions of men and there is revealed Tradition-Tradition of God, so to speak, just like there are the genuine revealed gospels and then there are other, false ones, such as Gnostic gospels. In this case it could be said that Tradition won over tradition at Nicea.

But regardless of who has the truth in this case, what's the point anyway-and what's this have to do with the OP? Are you denying my point in post #508-were you denying that people abuse scripture?

The point is people bring up Arius as if to show that scripture alone isn't sufficient to determine truth or the faith once delivered. They do this to try to support some combination of scripture/tradition.

The fact is Arius was born out from tradition and not out of scripture. But he then used scripture to bolster his idea (Jesus was adopted/became God at baptism).

Arius--tradition first, scripture second.

Arius actually proves the point SS argues. So does Athanasius. Again, no where does Athanasius mention a tradition. He uses scripture alone to prove his point.

Arius is a simple example. There are many others. The assumption of Mary doctrine, for example, is the same thing. It was born out of tradition and then scripture is used to bolster the claim.

 

[Thekla]

I have a living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has freely given me a Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, to guide me into all truth. You can have your Chuch if you will. As for myself I will stand on the written Word of God and the Living Word of God who freely gives wisdom and understanding through His Spirit to those who seek it.

So God directly guides you, but no-one else
Or do the RC not seek understanding and wisdom like you do ?