Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[BBAS 64]

I dont have to reread "it". This "version" of SS fails becasue it is up to "I". It is what "I" want to believe. It all has to do with the individual which IMO is silly. Christ was obedient, we should mirror Him, not Martin Luther or Henry VIII.
its all about interpretation. Take the Episcopal Community for example. Those in Communion with it have wildly different views of the Sacraments and Salvation. This group comprises a large cross section of mainline protestantism within the US. They can't agree on what the bible teaches. Seems so silly to me.

The Catholic Church has 1 Catechism. She teaches 1 faith, not 5 different versions of it. Of course you have people within the Church that do not follow the CCC, but that is a different topic.

Good Day, Concreatecamper

The issue for you and I are the same... growing up in the Roman church there are different interpretations of what the text of the Catechism means. I heard stuff like this a lot when it came to the documents that came out of Vatican II.

I am not saying that different interpretations do not exist , but they have no impact on the nature and authority of Scripture... the problem is not new in the Church:


Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.

In Him,

Bill

 

[concretecamper]

The issue for you and I are the same... growing up in the Roman church there are different interpretations of what the text of the Catechism means. I heard stuff like this a lot when it came to the documents that came out of Vatican II.

I dont have any issue growing up in the Church. Jot you what you HEARD but you should read the documents themselves.

I am not saying that different interpretations do not exist ,

they are the norm not the exception in the protestant world.

but they have no impact on the nature and authority of Scripture.

Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I've seen many SS enthusiasts interpret the Bible in a most sacrilege manner.

The Church is greater than any of the Church Father, or Pope, or saint. The Church guards the truth and opens the scriptures for His people. Without the Church, you have the mass confusion known as the protestant phenomenon.

 

[Albion]

Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I've seen many SS enthusiasts interpret the Bible in a most sacrilege manner.

Which...according to many opponents of Sola Scriptura...is supposed to mean that the word of God itself is untrustworthy.

How that line of thought even makes sense, regardless of which denomination any Christian belongs to, remains to be explained.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am talking about the Spirit's role in convicting (convincing) us

...and thus you are noting the irrelevant; that has NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - to do with Sola Scriptura.

Again..... yet again....


Sola Scriptura: The Definition:


The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). That's the official, historic, exact definition. One can argue and claim that "Sola Scriptura" is the preference of fish tacos over hamburgers, but that is not the historic or official meaning.


What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of the black-and-white words of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for US to USE for THIS process.


What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." Nor a teaching on what is and is not Scripture. It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

3. Hermeneutics. The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting. It is NOT the practice that MY feeling about what God SHOULD have stated in Scripture as I myself currently interpret things is the rule and norm. It subjects all the various feelings about things to the words of Scripture. Sola Scriptura does NOT employ invisible words.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon) is often needed. But this is also beyond the scope here; the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.


An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.


Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.


Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page 136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is objectively knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable - objectively and universally! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.




Why do some persons and denominations and cults so passionately reject this practice?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." So says self for self alone.

Others simply hold that THEIR current, personal "interpretation" of Scripture is above Scripture itself. Their interpretation "trumps" Scripture. Thus, if one argues that "in" means "out" then the reality that Scripture says "out" becomes irrelevant, what SELF currently says is MEANT supercedes what is stated. Self becomes the norma normans. For those who insist self alone is simply smarter or better than Scripture, then this practice will be rejected.





- Josiah




.

 

[concretecamper]

Which...according to many opponents of Sola Scriptura...is supposed to mean that the word of God itself is untrustworthy.

untrustworthy are the likes of Henry VIII, Ellen White and Joseph Smith. Scripture is reliable.

How that line of thought even makes sense, regardless of which denomination any Christian belongs to, remains to be explained

this is your train of thought, I hope you figure it out.

 

[Albion]

untrustworthy are the likes of Henry VIII, Ellen White and Joseph Smith. Scripture is reliable.
this is your train of thought, I hope you figure it out.

"Figure it out?" I take the Bible to be God's revealed word. So does the Roman Catholic Church.

There's no "figuring" in that stance. And Sola Scriptura is not about interpreting Scripture; it is about the reliability, the truth, of Scripture.

The question, therefore, was about how some opponents of Sola Scriptura can reject as authoritative what they also agree is the word of God.

Anyone who can answer that question is welcome to do so.

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture is reliable.

well at least we can get agreement on one thing

 

[BobRyan]

concretecamper said: ↑
Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I've seen many SS enthusiasts interpret the Bible in a most sacrilege manner.

Which...according to many opponents of Sola Scriptura...is supposed to mean that the word of God itself is untrustworthy.

How that line of thought even makes sense, regardless of which denomination any Christian belongs to, remains to be explained.

two opposing ideas.

1. Read the Bible and accept it... but be warned that someone else might read it and get a different understanding.
2A. Accept whatever the leadership in your own denomination's magisterium tells you to think.
2B. Tell others to pick a magisterium from an entirely different denomination than their own even though they know certain ones of the doctrines don't align with the Bible -- then believe whatever the other denomination tells them to anyway -- because if everyone does that then everyone is on the same page.

On the face of it no one would pick option 3 -- but sometimes that is the "solution" that gets handed out by those arguing that the Bible is too difficult and people too unreliable for sola scriptura to work.

 

[Albion]

Scripture is reliable.

well at least we can get agreement on one thing

So it would seem--with emphasis upon "seem."

Despite that statement we both read, there are many who denounce Sola Scriptura, saying that it is insufficient for us to know God's will for us. If it is insufficient, it is deficient and not, therefore, the whole truth.

We ask, therefore, HOW it can be that this revelation is from Almighty God...but is inadequate?

 

[concretecamper]

"Figure it out?"

yes, the post I responded to exhibited confusion.

I take the Bible to be God's revealed word. So does the Roman Catholic Church.

that is not the topic now is it.

And Sola Scriptura is not about interpreting Scripture

I never said it was.

it is about the reliability, the truth, of Scripture.

this IS NOT only a SS position. Therein lies the error.

The question, therefore, was about how some opponents of Sola Scriptura can reject as authoritative what they also agree is the word of God.

I hope you figure it out.

Anyone who can answer that question is welcome to do so.

since it is YOUR hypothesis, we shouldn't have to figure it out.

 

[concretecamper]

Despite that statement we both read, there are many who denounce Sola Scriptura, saying that it is insufficient for us to know God's will for us. If it is insufficient, it is deficient and not, therefore, the whole truth.

this is an example of the confusion I have already noted.

 

[concretecamper]

two opposing ideas.

1. Read the Bible and accept it... but be warned that someone else might read it and get a different understanding.
2. Accept whatever the leadership in your own denomination's magisterium tells you to think.
3. Pick a magisterium from an entirely different denomination than your own where you know certain ones of their doctrines don't align with the Bible -- then believe whatever they say anyway so if everyone does that then everyone is on the same page.

On the face of it no one would pick option 3 -- but sometimes that is the "solution" that gets handed out by those arguing that the Bible is too difficult and people too unreliable for sola scriptura to work.

I've seen SS believers do all three.

 

[Albion]

this is an example of the confusion I have already noted.

All right. I've already admitted that some, but not all, opponents of Sola Scriptura mistakenly think SS is about how to interpret the word of God, rather than about it being true.

The question asked how anyone can agree that Scripture is reliable...but nevertheless oppose Sola Scriptura? If it is of God, and God is infallible, and we all think that's what Scripture IS, what is the reason for anybody to argue that it isn't good enough?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

untrustworthy are the likes of Henry VIII, Ellen White and Joseph Smith.

See post 204.

Yes, I agree, any person, church, denomination that simply appoints SELF as the infallible one, the authoritative one, the reliable one - is very likely one to avoid.

Scripture is reliable.

See post 204 especially sections "Why Scripture"? and "Why Some Reject this Rule?"

I agree. Scripture is reliable. So, that makes it a good norm. If 10 people/churches/denominations are in disagreement about a dogma, each simply insisting each self is exclusively right has no possiblity of resolving the conflict, the only possibility is an egotistical shouting match of which is the greatest.





.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Absolutely. However, whatever we may receive from God as revelation today will not contradict the written word. It is our safety net to protect us from heresy, lying signs and wonders and the like.

But this raises the problem when over 30,000 denominations can’t agree on what is being revealed to them by God and their “perceived revelations” are contradictory to each other. Obviously God’s word does not contradict God’s word so if this were true then no one should be receiving different revelations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That doesn’t make any sense given that the Bible was and is a Liturgical book, the Bible was never made for personal devotion, although you could use it as such that was not its historic purpose. The Church not only formed the canon it also wrote the Bible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, all the writers of the New Testament were part of the same Apostolic Church. Given that, how does your statement make any sense the Bible is a product and part of Apostolic tradition, it is not the tradition itself. The Bible itself a development of that same oral Apostolic tradition tradition.


You know that even Protestant scholars admit that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist before Martin Luther which technically makes all the Church Fathers heretics. The irony in all this is even Protestant scholars have to use and appeal to early Apostolic tradition to actually study the history of the Bible and its authors, that in of itself pretty much proves that Sola Scriptura never existed before the “reformation” and is erroneous. There is no single verse in the Bible that says we trust in scripture alone or anything alike to it and when we actually appeal to the Bible as a whole we will see a constant appeal of the scriptures to inspired oral tradition both in the Old and New Testament.

Im a bit puzzled about Martin Luther’s claim to sola scriptura when he removed 7 books from it.

 

[Albion]

But this raises the problem when over 30,000 denominations can’t agree on what is being revealed to them by God and their “perceived revelations” are contradictory to each other.

The question of the thread asked how Sola Scriptura works.

How it "works,"is simply that it delivers to us all that God has revealed to mankind as what we must know.

If there were 30,000 denominations, and each one had its own, different, interpretation of the meaning of that diviner revelation, that would mean the following--

1. The source of all necessary doctrine is agreed to. It's just a matter of correctly understanding it, NOT replacing it or supplementing it.

and

2. What if some church or people does replace or supplement the word of God? The result is right in front of us also.

The churches which posit that there is something else--the churches which oppose Sola Scriptura--have produced as many or more disagreements on how to understand their alternative sources of authority and guidance as they claim happens with Sola Scriptura!

In other words, their reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura magnifies the problem they think they have identified, if anything.

 

[Albion]

Im a bit puzzled about Martin Luther’s claim to sola scriptura when he removed 7 books from it.

Obviously, if those books are not part of Holy Scripture, they ought not to be treated as if they are Holy Scripture. But that doesn't affect the principle we refer to as Sola Scriptura.

 

[concretecamper]

All right. I've already admitted that some, but not all, opponents of Sola Scriptura mistakenly think SS is about how to interpret the word of God, rather than about it being true.

you tried to label me that way despite the fact I made no such claim.

The question asked how anyone can agree that Scripture is reliable.

the question IS NOT whether scripture is reliable.

but nevertheless oppose Sola Scriptura

becasue SS is a man made presumption not found in scripture.

If it is of God, and God is infallible, and we all think that's what Scripture IS, what is the reason for anybody to argue that it isn't good enough?

this again highlights the same fundamental confusion in the other posts.

 

[concretecamper]

If 10 people/churches/denominations are in disagreement about a dogma, each simply insisting each self is exclusively right has no possiblity of resolving the conflict, the only possibility is an egotistical shouting match of which is the greatest.

or we could just do as Paul commanded Timothy to do. "Listen to the Church" the "bulwark of truth"