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

[hedrick]

I think the term "sola scriptura" is so misleading as to be useless. Nobody really looks only at Scripture, and that's not what it was intended to mean.

The Reformers paid attention to tradition, and on many key doctrines left it alone. And they started new traditions which later Protestants follow. They did theology as a community, which inherently gives tradition a role.

The point of sola scriptura is simply that we can challenge tradition. This is based on the observation that tradition does sometimes go wrong. Given that all of us, Catholic, Protestant and EO agree that Scripture records the sources of our tradition, it's the only plausible place to go when we need to check current tradition.

I don't think the argument is really about Scripture at all. We pretty much agree about it. The argument is about whether tradition is inerrant. Vatican I is pretty much a reductio ad absurdum for that hypothesis. I think any Christian that sees a need to correct tradition would use Scripture. At least I've never heard a plausible alternative. So the real question is whether there's a need to correct tradition.

You don't need to accept sola scriptura to see whether Catholic (and EO) tradition needs correction. To compare current tradition with Scripture you only need to believe that Scripture records an earlier state of the tradition, and that it is authoritative. And we all agree on that.

 

[jckstraw72]

oh joy, we havent had one of these crap-fests in far too long!

 

[hedrick]

Is SS really more successful than what came before?

All of which makes me think that maybe as a method it isn't all it's cracked up to be.

That depends upon what is claimed for it. If you claim that looking to Scripture will bring agreement, that's amazingly naive. Now it may be that some of the early Reformers were that naive, but they were quickly disabused of that particular error.

The real question is whether the disagreements of Protestantism are a cure that's worse than the disease. I don't think so. Protestantism basically clusters around a few major traditions: Lutheran, Reformed, Arminian, and anabaptist. Mix in their variations, and combine them with differing worship styles and church organization, and you've got quite a variety of denominations. But they're not all independent theologically. Even the restoration movement churches have moved largely into either the evangelical or mainline traditions. And despite the weirdness of some of the early anabaptists, the current representatives of that tradition have adopted what is largely mainstream Protestant theology, although with some distinctives that I think are worth preserving. My evaluation is that any of those subtraditions is more reliable than the Catholic one.

That isn't to say that every non-Catholic is an improvement. E.g. I think the JWs combine the disadvantages of both the Catholics and Protestants. But the Catholics had their heretics too, which would still be with us if we hadn't stopped burning heretics (a change that I wholeheartedly support). You can't demand that the results of the Reformation be perfect when the alternative isn't either. Any careful reading of the NT and Church history would tell you that disagreement has always been with us. There's no methodology that's going to get rid of it, other than everyone agreeing on a single leader, and killing anyone who disagrees. While that brings agreement, there's no reason to think that it brings truth.

 

[Memento Mori]

Your denomination did not determine what is or is not Scripture (except for itself exclusively at the Council of Trent in the 16th century). The Israelites did not need the RCC to tell them that the Ten Commandments are Scripture. Jesus did not need the RCC to tell Him what is Scripture the 50+ times He referred to such (often with that very word). And the reality that no other denomination agrees with the RCC on what is or is not Scripture (since Trent anyway) does not mean that ergo it establsihed such for everyone.


Thank you very much!
.

The question of whether or not it was MY Church that determined the canon is secondary to my argument. I've phrased everything as generically as possible so that we could avoid that squabble. So again I will ask the question, and I respectfully ask that you address my argument apart from my particular Church.

It is clear that God used a community of believers to produce the canon. It is also clear that in this He must have preserved this community from picking the wrong books. After all, most of us believe that the books in the canon are in the canon because they are inspired; they are not inspired because they are in the canon.

Now, if God could preserve the community of believers in this particular thing, is it unacceptable to think that He could preserve the same community from error in all matters of faith and morals? We won't say whether this is what IS. Let's just go forward knowing that it's a possibility.

So if He can do this, why can't this community of believers, being preserved from error in all matters of faith and morals, become: 1) a source of accountability (everything would have to be weighed against the teaching authority of this community) and 2) a source of norming (the truthfulness of a position would have be determined by the degree to which it lines up with the unchanging teaching authority of this community).

It seems that this community of believers could itself meet all the criteria of being the "norma normans."

Now, if this community of believers which is being preserved from error in all matters of faith and morals actually exists, it is not my intention to identify it here. However, I think if we can agree that a community of this nature is possible and that it can do what a "norma normans" must do, I would propose that our next question be: Was it God's intention to do this? If not, then perhaps we can establish our own "norma normans" like Sola Scriptura. But I think prudence requires us to make sure God hasn't already included it in His plan.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The question of whether or not it was MY Church that determined the canon is secondary to my argument.

1. Is it relevant to your "argument" that your denomination has a unique canon that none - past or present - agrees with?

2 IMO, your argument is moot to the issue before us. I suggest you read the opening post. The issue before us is this: accountability for doctrines and the resulting evaluating of validity (norming) and the most sound rule in such. If you have something MORE inspired, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE historically (say to 1400 BC) and ecumenically embraced than Scripture - then please suggest it and we can discuss that. Thanks.

It is clear that God used a community of believers to produce the canon. It is also clear that in this He must have preserved this community from picking the wrong books. After all, most of us believe that the books in the canon are in the canon because they are inspired; they are not inspired because they are in the canon.

Now, if God could preserve the community of believers in this particular thing, is it unacceptable to think that He could preserve the same community from error in all matters of faith and morals?

1. What "community" is that? What community embraced the Ten Commandments as Scripture in 1400 BC when Moses came down the mountain? What "community" embraced Scripture as such when Jesus and the Apostles referred to such over 75 times (as recorded in the NT)? Is it relevant that your denomination since the 16th century agrees with no community but itself exclusively in this regard?


2. Yes, we can embrace that the writings we embrace as Scripture are Scripture. There is a very,very broad and historic embrace of 39 OT books and 27 NT books. Yes, there are 4 denominations a bit out of "sync" on this: the OO, EO, RC and LDS - but that's largely moot.


3, One can be correct at one point and wrong at one point. Just because President Obama likely thinks there are 50 states does not mean ergo he is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming so that when he says that abortion is a natural right for all women - ergo, that MUST be true. As a Catholic, you likely agree with me (as a Lutheran) say 95% of the time, but you'd likely NOT say that ergo I'm right at EVERY point.


4. But, honestly, I fail to see your point. The issue here is accountability for doctrines and the most sound rule for US to evaluate those doctrines in dispute among US. You likely embrace the Rule of Law when you drive; it is critical to the practice of embracing the Rule of Law who or when or where those laws were inacted? I work in the realm of science (research). Our norma normans is largely math and observable laborative evidence - no one so much as thinks about who or what developed those - the issue is, they are regarded by all parties involved in the norming as reliable for this purpose and they are above, beyond and outside all parties, objectively knowable by all and alterable by none (well....).

So if He can do this, why can't this community of believers, being preserved from error in all matters of faith and morals

ALL conditional statements (no matter how absurd) are true if the condition is true. It's a pure circular argument.

Again, the issue here is accountability for the doctrines of dispute among us. If it's embraced, then so is norming (the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of positions) and the issue of what best serves as the rule ("straight edge"), canon ("measuring stick") or norma normans ("the norm that norms") is also embraced. It seems to ME what you are suggesting is that a certian group among us today should be regarded as exempt from the issue of truth, honesty, validity and ergo accountability.

I would propose that our next question be: Was it God's intention to do this? If not, then perhaps we can establish our own "norma normans" like Sola Scriptura. But I think prudence requires us to make sure God hasn't already included it in His plan.

1. Read the last section of the opening post, "Why Some So Passionately Reject the Rule of Scripture" You might want to skim LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie's short book "On the Authority of the Church."


2. I have a hunch that the absolute exemption of self from the issue of truth would not extend beyond self. At least, that's MY experience in studying the early LDS and several "Christian" cults (all of which take the approach you suggest). But yes, I agree with you - if accountability is rejected (for self anyway), then the Rule of Scripture will be rejected (as will any and all other rules - for self anyway). The issue of truth will be replaced with the issue of the power self alone claims that self alone has. "Accountability" is replaced with a demand for "submission."




Thank you for your respectful, insightful and intelligent post!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[hedrick]

The question of whether or not it was MY Church that determined the canon is secondary to my argument. I've phrased everything as generically as possible so that we could avoid that squabble. So again I will ask the question, and I respectfully ask that you address my argument apart from my particular Church.

It is clear that God used a community of believers to produce the canon. It is also clear that in this He must have preserved this community from picking the wrong books. After all, most of us believe that the books in the canon are in the canon because they are inspired; they are not inspired because they are in the canon.

Now, if God could preserve the community of believers in this particular thing, is it unacceptable to think that He could preserve the same community from error in all matters of faith and morals? We won't say whether this is what IS. Let's just go forward knowing that it's a possibility.

Again, the details of the canon aren't really critical. If we were talking about subtle differences in opinion it might be. But the differences between the Catholic Church in the 16th Cent and the 1st are sufficiently glaring that a few books more or less just aren't an issue.

You're trying to get Protestants to construct some kind of theory about 1st Cent tradition that's like your own theories of continuing Catholic Tradition. It's not an approach we're interested in, and it isn't necessary. We want to base our faith on Jesus' life, death and teachings. The NT is a reasonably good source, as we both agree. Whether you add the Didache or remove Jude just doesn't change the picture enough to matter, as long as we approach the sources reasonably. You can throw around as much rhetoric as you like. You're not going to convince anyone reasonable that Catholic traditions from more than 1000 years later are as reliable as the NT.

These arguments are like trying to wade in quicksand. The only sane approach is to stay away.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You're trying to get Protestants to construct some kind of theory about 1st Cent tradition that's like your own theories of continuing Catholic Tradition. It's not an approach we're interested in, and it isn't necessary. We want to base our faith on Jesus' life, death and teachings. The NT is a reasonably good source, as we both agree. Whether you add the Didache or remove Jude just doesn't change the picture enough to matter, as long as we approach the sources reasonably. You can throw around as much rhetoric as you like. You're not going to convince anyone reasonable that Catholic traditions from more than 1000 years later are as reliable as the NT.

These arguments are like trying to wade in quicksand. The only sane approach is to stay away.

QFT.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

This looks like a good thread for protestants to argue amonst themselves what 'sola scriptura' actually means...

 

[Memento Mori]

I don't know how I can make it any more clear that I am not interested in defending the Catholic Church in this thread. I'm not attempting to argue that any Church is actually infallible. Nor am I arguing for my own Church's determination of the canon. My interest is in defending the theoretical underpinning of any denomination that claims its teaching authority has some special charism which enables its teaching authority to be the "norma normans" of faith and morals. My goal is to show that these claims do not undermine our search for "accountability and truthfulness" any more than the fact that we rely on the consensus of history for knowing the inspired canon of the Bible (whatever the correct canon is).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My interest is in defending the theoretical underpinning of any denomination that claims its teaching authority has some special charism

Yes, as I saw in all the cults I studied and in the early LDS (all passionately rejecting the Rule of Scripture because norming is rejected because accountability is rejected - all in the sole case of self alone), each alone claimed that self alone has some special "charism" (as you put it)- typically because Jesus founded it and because Jesus promised that IT would alone be inerrantly lead and IT would alone infallibly follow - and that IT would be particularly "protected" - thus making IT alone exempt from accountability and rather making the issue the power (or authority or charism) of SELF the issue - not truth. Of course, this is NOT an alternative rule - it's self exempting self from the whole issue of truth, truth being subverted by the issue of power (of self alone, according to self alone).

Read the last section of the opening post, "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some"



Thanks again for your respectful and articulate post.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This looks like a good thread for protestants to argue amonst themselves what 'sola scriptura' actually means...

Perhaps the EOs and RCs could learn something from it

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Yes, as I saw in all the cults I studied and in the early LDS (all passionately rejecting the Rule of Scripture because norming is rejected because accountability is rejected - all in the sole case of self alone), each alone claimed that self alone has some special "charism" (as you put it)- typically because Jesus founded it and because Jesus promised that IT would alone be inerrantly lead and IT would alone infallibly follow - and that IT would be particularly "protected" - thus making IT alone exempt from accountability and rather making the issue the power (or authority or charism) of SELF the issue - not truth. Of course, this is NOT an alternative rule - it's self exempting self from the whole issue of truth, truth being subverted by the issue of power (of self alone, according to self alone).

Read the last section of the opening post, "Why the Rule of Scripture is Rejected by Some"

Well said, CJ. Good post.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For those interested in parallel universes, one can go to the Unorthodox Theology board here at CF and read various Mormon threads where various Mormon authorities are quoted as placing their authority and that of their Church over and above all other authority, including the Bible, except, perhaps, the authority of "free agency."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Perhaps the EOs and RCs could learn something from it

Well, from my Catholic years and from years of discussing truth and accountability at websites like this one, I know that the practice of the Rule of Scripture is widely misunderstood in Catholicism and often mischaracterized by Catholics. My HOPE is that the opening post will serve to advance understanding.

But, yes, the "issue" quickly reveals itself: it's not Scripture or even norming, it's accountability (the reason for the practice) - some embrace it, some reject it (for self anyway).

Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[GQ Chris]

For those interested in parallel universes, one can go to the Unorthodox Theology board here at CF and read various Mormon threads where various Mormon authorities are quoted as placing their authority and that of their Church over and above all other authority, including the Bible, except, perhaps, the authority of "free agency."

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.

 

[GQ Chris]

That leaves your average Congregation member of the Mormon, EO, and Roman Catholic church leaving their trust to mere Men. And unfortunately all too often, Men with nefarious proclivities.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

Coolio! You know what they say about opinions...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


MY experience is that Catholicism has the same Doctrine of Scripture and the same very, very high esteem for Scripture as is common in conservative, traditional Protestantism. THIS, in my opinion, CONTRIBUTES to the soundness of the Rule of Scripture. Read the opening post, the last two sections: Why Scripture? and "Why Some Reject it?"

I'm FAR less knowledgable about the LDS. I studied that - pretty extensively - but only for about a year. The LDS puts ENORMOUS emphasis on Tradition, it's Fathers and on the Leadership of the denomination - under a firm embrace of Apostolic Succession. The LDS officially has a very conservative/traditional view of Scripture, but only "in the original documents." It holds that what we have TODAY is not too reliable, and thus especially looks to the Scriptures IN ADDITION TO the Bible (these are written Tradition) which are simply less corrputed as well as later, fuller revelations. But the LDS's objection to the Rule of Scripture is indentical to the RCC's - it's not because of any "problems" with Scripture, it's because an enormous, passionate "problem" with accountability - in the case of self. Accountability is the "problem" not Scripture.


Thank you for your contribution to the discussion!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[GQ Chris]

Coolio! You know what they say about opinions...

I'm merely summarizing what you confirm, Scripture is less important than trusting mere men.

 

[ivebeenshown]

That leaves your average Congregation member of the Mormon, EO, and Roman Catholic church leaving their trust to mere Men. And unfortunately all too often, Men with nefarious proclivities.

Perhaps we trust not in the men themselves, but the men we believe to be working by the power of the Holy Spirit, that is, God. Did the Israelites not have to trust Moses? Does the New Testament not contain information regarding bishops?