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

[Thekla]

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.

Can you at least answer my questions ?

What is the bar of objective proof if we don't know which version if any is the bar ?

Did God fail to preserve the one bar of proof, the divine Scripture ?
Or is one of the variant texts "it" ?

One of the texts of Matthew reads "the Virgin" which basically means ever-virgin.

One reads "virgin", which could go either way.

Which one is true ?

 

[razeontherock]

Jesus Christ is the norm.

The sole norm.

He is the Head of the Church.

I have heard Jesus referred to by many names, but so far "Norm" hasn't been one of them! (Point taken though)

 

[razeontherock]

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.

You are familiar with the term "straw man," right?

 

[razeontherock]

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

The Life of Brian would have been SO much more satisfying if they had included this!

 

[ivebeenshown]

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

This entire paragraph is based on a strawman representation of what the Catholic and the Orthodox churches believe.

We do not believe the Church is inherently 'free of error' in all regards -- we believe it is free of error but only in the regards of proclaiming doctrine concerning faith and morals.

The difference between these two churches is that the Catholic Church believes that infallible teachings are proclaimed through ecumenical councils by all of the bishops in communion with each other (Matthew 18) as well as from the seat of Peter by the successor of his office in certain circumstances (Matthew 16), while the Orthodox church believes this infallible capacity was only given in the former case and not the latter.

Members of the Church are capable of erring.

 

[Thekla]

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

Is Sola Scriptura a command of God ?

 

[Hentenza]

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

I am saying that we have copies of the divine text which is falsifiable using in comparisons with the extant manuscripts.

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.

You have scripture because God was able to preserve it. One only has to look at the historical peril of the scriptures to understand that we have them because He wills it.

We're back in the same boat.

Not really.

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.

We have them sister. We always have. What we do not have is a set of "T"raditions that agree with each other. We can not even quantify or qualify existing "T"raditions. I hear arguments from many here that justify their "T"raditions with scripture but do not consider scripture to be the authority by which their "T"raditions can be justified by. In practice individual "T"raditions have become the authority by which to judge scripture. Just because "my" church believes so is not an argument for their "T"radition's authority.

 

[Thekla]

I am saying that we have copies of the divine text which is falsifiable using in comparisons with the extant manuscripts.

Which extant manuscripts (which is the issue here).

You have scripture because God was able to preserve it. One only has to look at the historical peril of the scriptures to understand that we have them because He wills it.

Which of extant manuscript variations
is the one that God preserved ?

We have them sister. We always have. What we do not have is a set of "T"raditions that agree with each other. We can not even quantify or qualify existing "T"raditions. I hear arguments from many here that justify their "T"raditions with scripture but do not consider scripture to be the authority by which their "T"raditions can be justified by. In practice individual "T"raditions have become the authority by which to judge scripture. Just because "my" church believes so is not an argument for their "T"radition's authority.

With apologies to CaliforniaJosiah - back to the subject of the thread, which is not which "T"raditions, but Sola Scriptura.

Which of the extant variants is the divine text preserved by God ?

 

[Hentenza]

This entire paragraph is based on a strawman representation of what the Catholic and the Orthodox churches believe.

We do not believe the Church is inherently 'free of error' in all regards -- we believe it is free of error but only in the regards of proclaiming doctrine concerning faith and morals.

The difference between these two churches is that the Catholic Church believes that infallible teachings are proclaimed through ecumenical councils by all of the bishops in communion with each other (Matthew 18) as well as from the seat of Peter by the successor of his office in certain circumstances (Matthew 16), while the Orthodox church believes this infallible capacity was only given in the former case and not the latter.

Members of the Church are capable of erring.

And the ecumenical councils have erred in the past so the argument is moot. Secondly, your church believes to be right so you believe that it is right because it agrees with itself. Your church's "T"raditions do not agree with the EO's "T"raditions nor do they agree with the Anglican "T"raditions or with the OO "T"raditions, etc, etc, ad infinitum. There are no set of "T"raditions that agree with each other nor is there even a mechanism by which to compare each. One has to simply rely on the statement that their individual "T"raditions are the correct ones.

To make a strawman argument one must misrepresent the argument posed by the opponent. I have done no such thing.

 

[Fotina]

You are familiar with the term "straw man," right?

You mean the posts by the SS'ers?

 

[razeontherock]

Of course we refer to Scripture, and of course Scripture is extraordinarily important.

In fact, in my experience discussing Sola Scriptura here, it is often the conclusion of Sola Scriptura adherents that to deny SS as defined means that one does not value Scripture.

It is an either/or dichotimizing - it seems to be a way of thinking among SS adherents that refutes any sense of moderation (its Scripture is the thing or nothing) and the reality that Christianity is a way of living.

What of Christ, what of worship, what of faith, what of the spiritual struggle, the spiritual life, what of prayer, what of what was received, and more ?

All these need to be ignored in order to posit the "Scripture only or nothing"; imo, this is symptomatic of "textism".

"And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Even in the verse you cite from Paul, it is clear that it is in the "power energized" that is the core. And indeed, here he undermines the role of human wisdom to refocus them on what is received from God. Is what is received from God only a text which we intellectually analyze, without the living ? Can we understand this text through intellect alone ? Perhaps, but then we risk by full resort to the intellect that the heart of the Scripture is not known (and recall that 'rightly divide' indicates to cut through to the heart as it were).

This is a very thoughtful contribution here! I just want to point out that in my very non-RC non-EO little Church, just last week the Pastor preached very simply that to ask God what to do when you haven't been doing what He's already clearly shown you to do is ... frustrating the Grace of God, the Holy Spirit, and Pastoral efforts. So this aspect of rightly dividing is very much alive and well among those who embrace Scripture rather than Tradition!

And while some may not agree, I think think Jesus speaks very succinctly to this point here:

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,"

 

[razeontherock]

Is this a sort of mysticism, to say that there are 5 "alones" ?

This always baffled me

 

[Thekla]

This is a very thoughtful contribution here! I just want to point out that in my very non-RC non-EO little Church, just last week the Pastor preached very simply that to ask God what to do when you haven't been doing what He's already clearly shown you to do is ... frustrating the Grace of God, the Holy Spirit, and Pastoral efforts. So this aspect of rightly dividing is very much alive and well among those who embrace Scripture rather than Tradition!

And while some may not agree, I think think Jesus speaks very succinctly to this point here:

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,"

Indeed !

 

[Hentenza]

Which extant manuscripts (which is the issue here).

Between the OT and NT there are well over 25,000 extant manuscripts and fragments. But then, you know that.

Which of extant manuscript variations
is the one that God preserved ?

Do you understand the nature of the copyist discrepancies? Do you understand that the discrepancies between the extant manuscripts and fragments are less than 2% of the total text of scripture?

By the same token, do you understand the discrepancy between the different "T"raditions that many scripture plus "T"radition churches elevate as co-authoritative with the word of God?

With apologies to CaliforniaJosiah - back to the subject of the thread, which is not which "T"raditions, but Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis that places scripture as the sole authority and not coauthoritative with "T"raditions. The discussion of "T"raditions is an inherent part of the discussion of sola scriptura. No apologies to CJ are necessary.

 

[Hentenza]

You mean the posts by the SS'ers?

lol. Generalize much?

 

[Hentenza]

Time to go to bed. Good night and blessings.

 

[Fotina]

And the ecumenical councils have erred in the past so the argument is moot.

Which Ecumenical Council erred? The one about the Holy Trinity, or the canon of the NT, or the divine/human nature of Christ? Btw, do all SS hold to these Christian dogma?

 

[razeontherock]

From "On Not Three Goods; To Ablabius",

Is the name of that actually "On Not Three Gods?"

 

[ivebeenshown]

And the ecumenical councils have erred in the past so the argument is moot.

I don't know that for sure. Which councils erred, and in which ways?

Secondly, your church believes to be right so you believe that it is right because it agrees with itself.

I don't believe that it is right because it agrees with itself. I believe it is right because the Church Jesus founded must have existed since the time of the Apostles, and churches such as the Lutheran and Anglican churches cannot effectively make this claim.

Your church's "T"raditions do not agree with the EO's "T"raditions nor do they agree with the Anglican "T"raditions or with the OO "T"raditions, etc, etc, ad infinitum. There are no set of "T"raditions that agree with each other nor is there even a mechanism by which to compare each. One has to simply rely on the statement that their individual "T"raditions are the correct ones.

Each church has its own tradition, yes. But only one Church can have Holy Tradition, as handed down by the Apostles themselves. Such Tradition can only be found in the Church that Christ established on the day of Pentecost. Remember, the Church is the pillar and support of the truth. If the church you belong to was not founded in Pentecost (such as the Lutheran or Anglican churches, or any other churches that have appeared only since after the second millenium) then you better look for the Church that was.

To make a strawman argument one must misrepresent the argument posed by the opponent. I have done no such thing.

You based that entire paragraph I previously cited on the notion of a church that is 100% free of error. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox church do not teach that the Church Christ founded would be 100% free of error. Read the very sentence you posted:

To say that a church is 100% divine with no errors is unparalleled

We do not say that the Church is "100% divine with no errors."

 

[Sieben]

Isn't it a bad thing to belong to a church that isn't 100% free from error?