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

[Philothei]

I understand that you disagree with what these several Orthodox Church Fathers and Saints herein wrote. That doesn't surprise me all that much. As noted, they are herein quoted only and solely to note additional definitions and descriptions (I purposely looked for them from sainted, esteemed EO Church Fathers); IMO they rather well match the definition and description in the opening post and as defined and described by Protestants. But yes - you disagree with what they wrote in these quotes, I know. Thank you for once again making that clear! It has been well noted.

What you understand is NOT what I said but what you want to understand. I do not disagree with the fathers as you are implicating what they truly say. You cherry pick them to prove your point. In that sense you are saying what you are saying. It still does not negate the facts. Riiiiight if they externally "match" then it must be true It is what they "internally" say though not externally. It takes years for people to study the fathers to see what they truly say... It has been duly noted also that the quotes are taken out of their context. Until you can provide decisions of the Councils that declare that SS is an acceptred method (norma normans) you have not proved any of your points. The Church never accepted to go on SS alone.

 

[Philothei]

So is "norming" sort of a majority vote? How does one determine what the norm is, to judge norming by? Also, what if, as in the case of Luther and Calvin, one determines that baptism is essential for salvation while the other doesn't?

It think that would make a good opening post for another thread though and very interesting

 

[MrPolo]

Until you can provide decisions of the Councils that declare that SS is an acceptred method (norma normans) you have not proved any of your points. The Church never accepted to go on SS alone.

Josiah will never prove this because such data never exists. As you can also see, his "understanding" of the Early Church is the same as his view of Scripture---the ECFs and Scripture say whatever Josiah says they do. So it is a fruitless endeavor.

Definitions of sola scriptura which exclude an authoritative, visible hiearchy descending from the Apostles is simply false and alien to the early Church as documented herein.

And you referenced back in post 226 Josiah's claims to have a Catholic background. Josiah's "Catholic" background is sketchy at best. He was known to cite a "deacon" as his source of doctrine and was a member of a Catholic "youth group" in his "Catholic" days. And in 2009, he indicated he was never "formally" Catholic. Here's his post from October 16, 2009 (emphasis mine)

IN A SENSE, I converted TO Catholicism from a liberal, mainstream, Protestant denomination.

Then FROM Catholicism to Lutheranism (LCMS).

But each of these was "informal" in that the first time I was OFFICIALLY a Confirmed member anywhere was in the LCMS (about two years ago).

So unless he was leaving information out of that 2009 post, Josiah has never been a formal member of the Catholic Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by fhansen So is "norming" sort of a majority vote? How does one determine what the norm is, to judge norming by?
Also, what if, as in the case of Luther and Calvin, one determines that baptism is essential for salvation while the other doesn't?

It think that would make a good opening post for another thread though and very interesting

What about a thread on the overall differences between those 2, including communion/eucarist, baptism, the nature of Christ etc........

http://www.christianforums.com/t7487719/
Martin Luther vs. John Calvin

Recently I have found myself reading about Martin Luther and consequently I want to know more about John Calvin. They both were around at the same time yet, they ended out in disagreement and formed two different churches which have grown quite large and are large in church society today. But how do these two churches differ in theology?

I know some say Martin Luther believed in Sacramental Union and These same say Calvin argued the Eucharist is spirit and not Jesus' Body and Blood. When Jesus said "This is my Body" we have Luther claiming that it is a literal interpretation and Calvin argued it is spirit only.

These two stand out in history but in the little reading I have done there appears to be more. Salvation and how it is attained (Faith alone). And other things I did not realize.

So, with as closely related as these two are what are their differences?

 

[fhansen]

This thread is about WHAT is embraced as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm used to norm) for norming.

Well, I don't see this as materially different from sola scriptura, since the rule claims that scripture is the norm for determining Christian truths. And in any case what good does it do us if people still disagree on the meaning of scripture after employing this rule? Even JWs believe they follow it, for all practical purposes, and yet arrive at a completely different set of beliefs.

 

[Hentenza]

Well, I don't see this as materially different from sola scriptura, since the rule claims that scripture is the norm for determining Christian truths. And in any case what good does it do us if people still disagree on the meaning of scripture after employing this rule? Even JWs believe they follow it, for all practical purposes, and yet arrive at a completely different set of beliefs.

Actually JW's believe that the scriptures are corrupted so they have rewritten many passages to meet and support JW theology in their NWT translation. A good example is John 1:1. They do not follow the same bible that the rest of Christianity follows.

Also, there is quite a bit disagreement on the meaning of "T"raditions so if we follow your logic then nothing should be authoritative since people disagree on the meaning of both scripture and "T"raditions.

As I stated before the argument of interpretation is inherently human while the scriptures are inherently divine. The problem is not with the scriptures but in the natural human nature to err. This inherent quality permeates not just individuals but synods and councils since they are inherently composed of errant humans. Only scripture is inherently divine. Nothing else can make that claim.

 

[fhansen]

Actually JW's believe that the scriptures are corrupted so they have rewritten many passages to meet and support JW theology in their NWT translation. A good example is John 1:1. They do not follow the same bible that the rest of Christianity follows.

JWs used to use the King James and take pride in "reasoning from" other translations as well. The point is that widely divergent views can often be supported quite plausibly from scripture.

Also, there is quite a bit disagreement on the meaning of "T"raditions so if we follow your logic then nothing should be authoritative since people disagree on the meaning of both scripture and "T"raditions.

People do, yes.

As I stated before the argument of interpretation is inherently human while the scriptures are inherently divine. The problem is not with the scriptures but in the natural human nature to err. This inherent quality permeates not just individuals but synods and councils since they are inherently composed of errant humans.

But what we know for sure is that, with scripture alone, huge, significant disagreement occurs. What we don't find is that same level of disagreement in, for example, the early church councils where many doctrines Christians hold today we're hammered out.

Only scripture is inherently divine. Nothing else can make that claim.

But what good is the claim if we have a problem "in the natural human nature to err" in interpreting it.

 

[heymikey80]

But what good is the claim if we have a problem "in the natural human nature to err" in interpreting it.

Yeah, what good is it for God to actually tell us something.

It doesn't have to solve the philosophical or authority issues that we have. It's intended to accomplish what God intends.

 

[Philothei]

As I stated before the argument of interpretation is inherently human while the scriptures are inherently divine. The problem is not with the scriptures but in the natural human nature to err. This inherent quality permeates not just individuals but synods and councils since they are inherently composed of errant humans. Only scripture is inherently divine. Nothing else can make that claim.

If all scripture is divine then we will have the following problems:
1. How can divine writings been 'written" down? If you are saying that the 10 commandments are indeed inspired or "scribed" from God (that indeed they are) where in the NT you see a similar "command" from God that he indeed told us to go and
"write" the "word of God" ? We see that all evangelists talk about writing "testimony" of God or of evens about God. Testimonies are accounts but still human accounts of/about God. Furthermore the Bible itself says that "not all that was done or said" by Christ at least are written down. Not even if we include Oral Tradition plus Written is ALL that could be said about God. I said it before that we cannot put ALL divinity of God in a book. It won't fit

2. I understand that Scripture has the ultimate authority among other writtings thus the fathers declared it a cannon for that reason so it will be a determining factor for instruction and edification. The councils cannot be "measured" up to scripture as even the heretics used the scripture to prove their point. So since the canon of the NT was radified through a council it would be inconsistant to say that the bible came first and it "validated" itself.... It could not. The council came first to determine the scripture based on that then we cannot say the Bible came first

 

[fhansen]

Yeah, what good is it for God to actually tell us something.

It doesn't have to solve the philosophical or authority issues that we have. It's intended to accomplish what God intends.

But it can't do so when we disagree about what God intends-because human error has thwarted the endeavor.

 

[heymikey80]

The council came first to determine the scripture based on that then we cannot say the Bible came first

So with that last sentence -- to get this straight -- the New Testament wasn't written by Christ's appointed, Apostolic ministry groups?

 

[Philothei]

So with that last sentence -- to get this straight -- the New Testament wasn't written by Christ's appointed, Apostolic ministry groups?

Who determined which book to be included in the canon? Or do you accept all writtings of Christian written as inspired even the ones that are not included in the canon? So I can understand this...

 

[heymikey80]

But it can't do so when we disagree about what God intends-because human error has thwarted the endeavor.

Human error is not overridden by God, as became flatly clear when Apostolic Successionist groups began excommunicating each other over minor issues or practice in 180 AD, and of course even later on with the Great Schism in the 1000's.

Scripture's inspiration and inerrancy accomplishes everything God intends. It does so despite our disagreement about what God intends, because God intends what God intends. Human error has not thwarted the omnipotent God.

 

[Hentenza]

JWs used to use the King James and take pride in "reasoning from" other translations as well. The point is that widely divergent views can often be supported quite plausibly from scripture.

Charles T Russell started using the KJV but quickly stopped using any bible after he wrote his 6 volume "Scripture Studies". His works became the go to text that the Russellites would use instead of scripture.

In fact, in the Sept. 15, 1910 issue of Watchtower Russel wrote "The six volume of Scripture Studies are practically the bible, totally arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes the Bible in an Arranged Form. That is to say, they are not mere comments on the bible but they are practically the bible itself.

Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the "scripture studies" aside, even after he has used them. after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for 10 years, if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his bible for 10 years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness "

Widely divergent views are supported by both "T"radition and scripture. Cults, such as the JWs and Mormons, support their divergent views with both "T"radition and scripture. The divergent views among the apostolic churches is a perfect example of divergence by "T"radition instead of solely by scripture. Belonging to an apostolic church or even the RC does not grant one immunity from error.

But what we know for sure is that, with scripture alone, huge, significant disagreement occurs. What we don't find is that same level of disagreement in, for example, the early church councils where many doctrines Christians hold today we're hammered out.

I think you omit history. The 1054 chism ultimately occured because of divergent views of both scripture and "T"radition. Scripture is the only absolute truth via God's special revelation.

But what good is the claim if we have a problem "in the natural human nature to err" in interpreting it.

There is no solution. Man errs. This IS undeniable. Your church interprets scripture and "T"radition a certain way while the EO interprets it their way while the OO interprets it their way while the Anglicans interprets it their way while the Baptist interprets it their way, and so on............

 

[heymikey80]

Who determined which book to be included in the canon? Or do you accept all writtings of Christian written as inspired even the ones that are not included in the canon? So I can understand this...

Neither.

No council changed reality about who wrote the New Testament. They only witnessed to what had happened previously -- that is, what preceded.

And so the precedent: New Testament.

 

[Hentenza]

Who determined which book to be included in the canon? Or do you accept all writtings of Christian written as inspired even the ones that are not included in the canon? So I can understand this...

God decided which books. It is His special revelation and He is perfectly capable of maintaining it.

 

[Philothei]

Neither.

No council changed reality about who wrote the New Testament. They only witnessed to what had happened previously -- that is, what preceded.

And so the precedent: New Testament.

Councils determined which books will be included in the canon not what was written in the books they approved. BUT determining which books they are included or not was indeed an act of the Holy Spirit as that was in itself a counciliar and had to be not through consensus but "uniformed agreement". Determining the books of the Bible was NOT an act of one person but MANY and in the way that the first council took place (it is in Acts) in Jerusalem. So the Apostolic Tradition was and indeed is active in our times through our counciliar ecclesiology. That is actually the inate factor that kept the Ancient Church going in determining heresy NOT the scripture as no where in the history you will find that.

 

[fhansen]

There is no solution. Man errs. This IS undeniable. Your church interprets scripture and "T"radition a certain way while the EO interprets it their way while the OO interprets it their way while the Anglicans interprets it their way while the Baptist interprets it their way, and so on............

Which is why we need to look for another place where the buck stops-otherwise we're hopelessly mired in a state of partial ignorance.

 

[Philothei]

God decided which books. It is His special revelation and He is perfectly capable of maintaining it.

How God decided how many books? God did not "write" people did and yeah they were God inspired indeed the same with the ones who gave us the NT they were inspired but the Holy Spirit does not 'retire" and God's revelation is not dead in our times it is alive and works in us. Scripturist do seem to imply that God acted only in giving us the Bible. On the contrary God never stoped inspiring us or guiding his people and will not stop doing so until the end of times. The Holy Spirit was is and will be active in our world until the end of times. We the people are His mouthpiece and if we accept that then we have to accept that the Bible def. did not came out of nothing but people wrote it and people radified it. Of course God maintains scripture as he maintains the whole world.

The Bible is the sacred writting of God yet it is not again ALL that God is and definately we will see greater things than what is in the Bible in our next life "things that cannot be uttered " as St. Paul says.

 

[Hentenza]

Councils determined which books will be included in the canon not what was written in the books they approved. BUT determining which books they are included or not was indeed an act of the Holy Spirit as that was in itself a counciliar and had to be not through consensus but "uniformed agreement". Determining the books of the Bible was NOT an act of one person but MANY and in the way that the first council took place (it is in Acts) in Jerusalem. So the Apostolic Tradition was and indeed is active in our times through our counciliar ecclesiology. That is actually the inate factor that kept the Ancient Church going in determining heresy NOT the scripture as no where in the history you will find that.

Unfortunately to make your argument work you would have to remove the indewlling of the Holy Spirit from everyone else and impart it strictly to those that participated in the councils. That position is untenable. The HS indeed guided the council participants in choosing the books but it was in spite and apart from their desires.
The majority of the NT books were already considered scripture from their writing by the many congregants of the many churches that they circulated through. The council merely adopted what Christianity corporately already knew would be adopted. Sure there was debate but ultimately the books are what they are simply because they are those chosen by God not by the council participants alone.