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

[Thekla]

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

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." 1 Cor 14

 

[Hentenza]

There is a disparity in Scripture texts, thus per your argument all Scripture texts are wrong (none of them is "divine").

Thekla, the disparity in scripture texts are deutocanonical and more a matter of human ego than anything else. There is no disparity with the books of the NT since even the Syriac tradition now accepts Revelation and other books (I know there were a few but can not remember the rest now). All of today's mainstream churches accept the same NT.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Actually I have. The disparity of doctrine and beliefs among the apostolic churches now proves the point.

How?

If everyone all agreed, there would only be one, Catholic Church.

As it stands, there are multiple churches but only one of them is the Catholic Church, where the correct doctrine is found.

That there are multiple disagreeing churches does not prove anything.

 

[fhansen]

Today's apostolic churches holding to both scripture plus "T"radition are not in communion with each other simply because they disagree in matters of doctrine so having both as coauthoritative does not guarantee "proper" doctrine.

Yes, I agree with this.

BTW- That Arian heresy still alive and well now. The JWs that we were discussing earlier are a perfect example.

Agreed here too, except they're definitely not apostolic.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla, the disparity in scripture texts are deutocanonical and more a matter of human ego than anything else. There is no disparity with the books of the NT since even the Syriac tradition now accepts Revelation and other books (I know there were a few but can not remember the rest now). All of today's mainstream churches accept the same NT.

Nope - there are disparities between the MT and LXX OT (not including the Deuterocanon), and disparities between textual versions/source for the NT texts.

(Not to mention wide disparities in translations of any of these texts.)

 

[Hentenza]

Of course, but everyone claims to be aware of this - in fact, Paul figured it out without recourse to the New Testament.

But, the use of Sola Scriptura does not address this problem at all - it just claims that one or some of the many variant texts absent interpretation are "divine" or "the norm". So what ? If the Scripture isn't used, isn't lived, it's dead - or does it save ?

So if we start with variants of "T"radition which are inherently human and prong to error versus starting with scripture which is inherently divine is a better option? Mmm......

And essential to answer - after all, if Scripture is divine in itself (and I still think that smacks of a challenge to the person of Christ), those that vary from the one must be not divine.

I answered in the post before this one but to me what smacks of a challenge to the person of Christ is to make the very concept of "T"raditions as authoritative when he so argued passionately against them as coauthoritive with what we know to be from Him.

Is Sola Scriptura based on the right text, or one of the wrong texts ?

Is "T"radition based on the right ___________? Can't think of the word. lol

 

[Thekla]

So if we start with variants of "T"radition which are inherently human and prong to error versus starting with scripture which is inherently divine is a better option? Mmm......

Which version, and which translation is inherently divine ?

Or are all versions and all translations inherently divine ?

I answered in the post before this one but to me what smacks of a challenge to the person of Christ is to make the very concept of "T"raditions as authoritative when he so argued passionately against them as coauthoritive with what we know to be from Him.

Is "T"radition based on the right ___________? Can't think of the word. lol

Kinda skips the question.

So to say that text is 100% divine and 100% matter means that it is like God acting through water in healing and Baptism ?

 

[Thekla]

And the question still remains:

are all or some or just one of the textual variants and/or translations "inherently divine" ?

 

[Hentenza]

Nope - there are disparities between the MT and LXX OT (not including the Deuterocanon), and disparities between textual versions/source for the NT texts.

(Not to mention wide disparities in translations of any of these texts.)

There are disparities between the MT and the LXX with the LXX having the most disparities with the Hebrew text. Likewise there are many disparities among the apostolic churches so claiming disparity is not going to solve the problem. The translational disparities to be expected. Even today we have disparities between the same language translations as we see in English paraphrase translations versus literal translations. This is not the error of scripture but of man.

However, even with the disparities between the extant manuscripts the whole of the original text is discernible with an unparalleled level of accuracy. If you have not read "New Testament Documents: Are the they reliable?" by FF Bruce I would suggest it.

 

[Philothei]

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.

If God can work in some people "apart from their desires" that would mean that indeed there are are "set apart" to do just that? How can people do things apart from their desires? I cannot fathom that except if you are talking about predestination.

Also nothing was circulated by the end of the first the 1st century only OT writings and maybe one of two epistles of Paul... circulating does not mean that were already "validated" as Didache was also circulated but NOT part of the Bible; I am not diminishing the validity of the canon I am just saying that the council obviously was important to establishing a norm the norm of conciliarity so evident in the beginning of the establishment of the Church. Shown again the Acts of the Apostles. No one can deny the fact Christ had conciliarity through his Apostles as they were also a hand picked assembly of disciples for the evangelizaiton to work the great commision. Christ did not say "take my NT and OT canon " and spread it around. He said to go and baptize and evengelize the message through Apostolship. So the aim of Christinity is not in not on or around a book that was God inspired but rather an active faith through an established Apostolic Church(s) through witnessing the faith. A dynamic evangelical minded church community that has its praxis fixed on the great commision of Christ the "parakatathike" the convenant between the faithful and God. The focus is afixed on Christ and His Church. Ultimately the norma normans is Christ and His Church. The written and oral tradition breaths and testifies to that Truth of God's Kingdom to come all within the community of the faithful that is His bride the Church

 

[fhansen]

I find this comment quite curious. What exactly appears in the scriptures alone that would preclude you from believing in the works of Christ as your Lord and Savior?

Nothing in scripture. It's the inability to come to a firm consensus and agreement on its' meaning due to divergent views.

 

[Thekla]

There are disparities between the MT and the LXX with the LXX having the most disparities with the Hebrew text. Likewise there are many disparities among the apostolic churches so claiming disparity is not going to solve the problem. The translational disparities to be expected. Even today we have disparities between the same language translations as we see in English paraphrase translations versus literal translations. This is not the error of scripture but of man.

However, even with the disparities between the extant manuscripts the whole of the original text is discernible with an unparalleled level of accuracy. If you have not read "New Testament Documents: Are the they reliable?" by FF Bruce I would suggest it.

This still does not negate the fact that there are disparities; to claim that the through the disparities are discernable is reliant on academic theory and speculation.

1. This claim is in itself interpretive.

2. The claim that the original can be discerned through the disparities is interpretive.

So it seems that you claim that be using the tradition of men, we discern the divine text (which is no longer extent).

Thus, all existing texts are not the divine text, and as that one is no longer in existence, we rely on academics (which espouses ever shifting method, theory, and standards).

Are these academics part of the infallible tradition ?

And, I thought discernment was a gift from God, not a theoretical stance.

(Why am I supposed to read some guy, and find him credible ? Isn't he subject to error ?)

 

[Hentenza]

Which version, and which translation is inherently divine ?

Or are all versions and all translations inherently divine ?

My contention is that the only inherently divine text is the original text. Copies, while extremely accurate, do have errors. But I am not understanding your argument. Do you don't believe in the inerrancy and divinity of scripture?

Kinda skips the question.

So to say that text is 100% divine and 100% matter means that it is like God acting through water in healing and Baptism ?

To say that a church is 100% divine with no errors is unparalleled simply because it is composed of errant men. The scriptures, as originally rendered, are 100% inerrant. The origin is divine. The mechanism of writing is divine (even if men wrote the words). One can not say the same thing of any church since all churches have erred. Also, one can not say the same thing about councils since councils have erred. But this is probably a discussion for another thread. lol

 

[Thekla]

So is it "the Virgin" in Matthew, or "virgin" ?

Which text on this one ?

 

[Thekla]

My contention is that the only inherently divine text is the original text. Copies, while extremely accurate, do have errors. But I am not understanding your argument. Do you don't believe in the inerrancy and divinity of scripture?

So you are saying that no existing text is the divine text ?

To say that a church is 100% divine with no errors is unparalleled simply because it is composed of errant men. The scriptures, as originally rendered, are 100% inerrant. The origin is divine. The mechanism of writing is divine (even if men wrote the words). One can not say the same thing of any church since all churches have erred. Also, one can not say the same thing about councils since councils have erred. But this is probably a discussion for another thread. lol

So only the writers of the divine Scripture, that no longer exists in any form (as God was not able to preserve this special thing), are capable of agreeing with God.

We're back in the same boat.

The divine Scripture does not exist, God was not able to preserve it, or one of the existing texts is a copy of the divine Scripture, but we don't know which one.

 

[razeontherock]

.



St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)




.

Excellent examples! I think that for some to say these do not represent SS, they use a different definition of that than I do.

 

[Philothei]

This still does not negate the fact that there are disparities; to claim that the through the disparities are discernable is reliant on academic theory and speculation.

1. This claim is in itself interpretive.

2. The claim that the original can be discerned through the disparities is interpretive.

So it seems that you claim that be using the tradition of men, we discern the divine text (which is no longer extent).

Thus, all existing texts are not the divine text, and as that one is no longer in existence, we rely on academics (which espouses ever shifting method, theory, and standards).

Are these academics part of the infallible tradition ?

And, I thought discernment was a gift from God, not a theoretical stance.

(Why am I supposed to read some guy, and find him credible ? Isn't he subject to error ?)

All great points.

 

[Philothei]

Excellent examples! I think that for some to say these do not represent SS, they use a different definition of that than I do.

Why would the Fathers agree with a concept that was not evidently in "use" at the time and they opposed it regarding the ARian controversy?

 

[Hentenza]

(Why am I supposed to read some guy, and find him credible ? Isn't he subject to error ?)

Am I supposed to follow the "T"raditions of one church above the "T"raditions of others and find them credible? Are they subject to error?

Sister, there is only one scripture. All Christians agree with the 27 books of the NT and all of the books of the OT (some with variations). There is little discrepancy. However, there is a very large discrepancy between the "T"radition of the churches that use "T"radition plus scripture.

The same argument that you are attempting to make against the sole authority of the scripture is even worse when we apply the same premises of your syllogism to "T"raditions. There is no record of comparison. No bar. No source of objective proof to compare.

 

[Thekla]

Excellent examples! I think that for some to say these do not represent SS, they use a different definition of that than I do.

Raze, the quotes are taken completely out of context, and betray an ignorance of the full corpus of the author's works, as well as the facts of the lives they lived.

There is a tendency for many SS adherents to dichotimize; thus implying that if one is not a SS adherent, one does not value Scripture. This is just plain false. Also, to take it the other direction, to dichotimize thusly: if one truly values Scripture, one must be a SS adherent. This is also false.

In point of fact, the ECFs dearly valued Scripture, and were also not SS adherents; the EO continues this.