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

Thekla said:

Brief quotations, wrested from the context of the entirety of an author's corpus, praxis, ithos and life are not a viable support for a position.

Click to expand...

Actual quotations factored out of the life of an author are not viable arguments against a position.

heymikey80 said:

Actual quotations factored out of the life of an author are not viable arguments against a position.

Click to expand...

Yes.

But to my knowledge, that hasn't happened in this thread re: Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Jerusalem.

sunlover1 said:

Why not just skip the middleman? Jesus came and made it so we can
go directly to God now.

Click to expand...

The Holy Trinity have each other. Why do they need you?

GQ Chris said:

I see the EO and RCC then right along the same parallel with the Mormons since they do not have a high view of Scripture.

Click to expand...

If you're going to slander then provide proof.

GQ Chris said:

I don't believe the Roman Catholic church preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

That's assuming that your understanding of the Gospel is the true one, and that you can prove RCC don't preach it.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

4. The issue here is accountability - whether it matters to you (at all) if what is presented as Christian doctrine is true or not. IF you think it does, you have embraced accountability for Christian doctrines, you have embraced norming (the process of evaluating correctness/validity/truth) and you need to join with others in this process in embracing a sound rule/norma normans for this. IF you have an alternative rule that is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically (say by 50,000 denominations) and MORE historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced than is Scripture - please present it.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

Click to expand...

How does SS provide accountability? Doesn't it assume that a "rule of faith" is needed to norm the SS norm?

EO most definitely are all about accountability. We are like the centurion in our understanding.

Orthodox are guided by St. Vincent of Lerins:The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434 -- that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

"From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium
A.D. 434
[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation."

Internet History Sourcebooks

Fotina said:

How does SS provide accountability? Doesn't it assume that a "rule of faith" is needed to norm the SS norm?

Click to expand...

This is something that seems to be consistently missing in the description of Sola Scriptura ...

GQ Chris said:

I don't believe the Roman Catholic church preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

You would believe quite wrong then

ivebeenshown said:

Sola Scriptura -- the practice of using Scripture as the only rule in matters regarding the Christian faith... a practice that is difficult to start without using a source outside of Scripture to define what Scripture consists of... in fact, to say you practice 'Sola Scriptura' is somewhat self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

Your understanding of sola scriptura is lacking. The praxis of sola scriptura merely declares the scriptures as the supreme authority not as coathoritative with any man made "T"raditions. That's it. One can read outside sources, have "T"raditions and "t"raditions, etc.

Jesus Christ is the norm.

The sole norm.

He is the Head of the Church.

Hentenza said:

Your understanding of sola scriptura is lacking. The praxis of sola scriptura merely declares the scriptures as the supreme authority not as coathoritative with any man made "T"raditions. That's it. One can read outside sources, have "T"raditions and "t"raditions, etc.

Click to expand...

Why call it Sola Scripturat then if in reality it is not completely accurate though Just saying here.

Two problems I see:

1. SS uses a text about and not the actual revelation as its supreme authority.

Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God, our supreme authority. Christ gave us His own true, real, living, eternal Body, the Church. Christ wrote no words, except what he wrote in the dust with the adulterous woman.

2. SS is not authorized as sole rule in the Church for such. SS does not satisfy that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

Thekla said:

Yes.

But to my knowledge, that hasn't happened in this thread re: Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Then it'd take an explanation from the context why Gregory and Cyril said what they said in narrower terms. That's what knowledge would be useful to an exegete.

Fotina said:

Two problems I see:

1. SS uses a text about and not the actual revelation as its supreme authority.

Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God, our supreme authority. Christ gave us His own true, real, living, eternal Body, the Church. Christ wrote no words, except what he wrote in the dust with the adulterous woman.

2. SS is not authorized as sole rule in the Church for such. SS does not satisfy that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

Click to expand...

If I may add:

it attempts to avoid tradition by creating a tradition
(and the tradition of Sola Scriptura seems to posit an authority which exceeds the authority of God)

it contains no mention of the role of faith

it does not address the problem of interpretation (all texts are subject to interpretation)

it does not admit assessment of the use of Sola Scriptura based on outcome in "real life", yet Christianity is in part about its "living out"
(thus called "the Way")

heymikey80 said:

Then it'd take an explanation from the context why Gregory and Cyril said what they said in narrower terms. That's what knowledge would be useful to an exegete.

Click to expand...

Christianity is a "living" - the interpretive context exceeds your frame for analysis.

Further, the context of writing for consideration is the corpus of works beyond the particular text from which the citation is pulled.

Fotina said:

1. SS uses a text about and not the actual revelation as its supreme authority.

Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God, our supreme authority. Christ gave us His own true, real, living, eternal Body, the Church. Christ wrote no words, except what he wrote in the dust with the adulterous woman.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Jesus learned to write by doing, long before He wrote in the dust with the adulterous woman.

I'm also pretty sure Jesus had organized His ministry in such a way that He knew what would be produced by His Apostles.

I'm also quite sure that what's represented in the Gospels is what Jesus instructed.

So you're saying these words aren't actual revelation -- counter to a couple of millenia and many, many church fathers?

Fotina said:

2. SS is not authorized as sole rule in the Church for such. SS does not satisfy that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

Click to expand...

I think it could be pretty quickly established that if the Apostles didn't practice it and instruct about it, that their lack of practice would quickly constitute a veto under the "by all" preposition.

I would additionally say that it's quite clear now, that with mutual bulls of excommunication having been issued by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic -- and more particularly by their now-cordial relationship -- that "everywhere, always" are particularly offended. In other words, the phrase is reduced to rubble by the Great Schism and attempts to patch it.

The fact is, this isn't a reasonable criterion for the faith, and hasn't been since well before the Protestant Reformation.

The Coptic Church might even explain that the break happened far, far earlier.

Ultimately, what the Apostles left us is going to form the core of Christian faith and practice. Additions don't satisfy the "by all" test; and the splits in all churches break the "everywhere" and "always" tests.

I also think Jesus is much more forceful about what He intended His disciples to reject and accept when it came to the "everywhere practice" in their day.

6And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." Mark 7:6-8

The question of authoritativeness might be argued in different church structures. But the question of where that authority comes from seems settled in Jesus' explanation. It's a derivative authority that must not offend the commands of God.

So what's the ultimate rule or measure of a doctrine? The Church that claims authority? Or the commands of God?

Thekla said:

Christianity is a "living" - the interpretive context exceeds your frame for analysis.

Further, the context of writing for consideration is the corpus of works beyond the particular text from which the citation is pulled.

Click to expand...

If a Church Father can't explain his reasoning plainly through his writings, I wouldn't dare anyone else to. I think it would be quite rash.

So on the lack of evidence to the contrary, the quotes continue to stand.

Thekla said:

Christianity is a "living" - the interpretive context exceeds your frame for analysis.

Further, the context of writing for consideration is the corpus of works beyond the particular text from which the citation is pulled.

Click to expand...

My same response here. Just because someone thinks their view of a Church Father (or, put to extremes, Jesus, or an Apostle) is right, that doesn't make it right. Attributing to someone a viewpoint they don't have -- well, Christians are notorious for doing this, and there are numerous examples even in "interpreting" contemporary scholars.

Of all the places where fallibility is obvious, this is one that is most clear to me. I've no reason to take the viewpoint of another fallible Christian "on faith".

Let God be true, and every man a liar. "In God we trust -- all others pay cash."

heymikey80 said:

If a Church Father can't explain his reasoning plainly through his writings, I wouldn't dare anyone else to. I think it would be quite rash.

So on the lack of evidence to the contrary, the quotes continue to stand.

Click to expand...

Christianity is not a collection of texts, it is a way of life - "the Way".

In order to understand more fully the texts, one must consider also what is done.

Note that the Gospels include not only teachings, but also actions - which in fact interpret the teachings.