Why I reject sola scriptura

[chilehed]

I've been writing down my thoughts on why I abandoned Protestantism, and part of it is an analysis of sola scriptura as it’s taught in the Westminster Confession. I’m sure there’s nothing new here, but it was a good exercise and I’m more likely to remember it all now. I'd like to post it for others to review and comment on, especially for helpful bits about logical errors, clumsy phrasing or anything else I've missed.

There's a part me that hopes this will help my family understand why I did it. I'm afraid it's rather long. Thanks in advance.
-------------------------------
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) says that the entire revealed word of God is contained in scripture, and that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

(Clause 1) “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Clause 2) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; (Clause 3) therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; (Clause 4) and afterwards...to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary... (Clause 5)Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: (list of 66 books). (Clause 6)All which are given by inspiration of God, (Clause 7)to be the rule of faith and life....(Clause 8)The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...” (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 1/Article 2/Article 6)

Clause 1 summary: God’s existence and goodness is made known through nature. Catholics agree with this.

Clause 2 summary: That which we can know through nature about God and his will is insufficient to attain salvation. Catholics do not agree with this; insufficiency would be good grounds for an excuse. For purposes of this discussion we can let it pass.

Clause 3 summary: In various ways God revealed himself to us, and made it known that this revelation is his will for us. Agreed.

Clause 4 summary: God’s revelation was written down in its entirety, being completely contained in Sacred Scripture. We do not agree.

Clause 5 summary: The body of work (Sacred Scripture) that contains this revelation is comprised of 66 books. We do not agree, the correct number is 73.

Clause 6 summary: Sacred Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Agreed.

Clause 7 summary: Sacred Scripture is the rule of faith and life. We do not agree, the rule of faith and life is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which together comprise the full deposit of Gods revelation.

Clause 8 summary: The whole counsel of God concerning salvation is expressly written in Sacred Scripture or may be deduced from it. We do not agree.​

The WCF says that the task of interpreting Scripture has been entrusted solely to Scripture itself. The only authoritative source and infallible interpreter of God’s Word is the original, untranslated Hebrew and Greek texts.

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them...The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture...” (WCF Chapter 1, Article8/Article 10)​

And yet at the same time, the WCF proposes as an article of faith that the unlearned, using ordinary means, may attain a sufficient understanding of scripture.

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 7)​

The WCF says that in trying to understand the meaning of the text, the individual believer can ultimately rely only on his subjective intuition that the Holy Spirit is guiding him. The very councils that codify doctrines are fallible, and thus cannot declare a rule of faith nor be relied upon to promulgate true doctrine:

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture... yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts...All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” (Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF Chapter 1, Article 5; Chapter 31, Article 4)​

This is in opposition to the clear text of scripture, which warns of the perils of the ignorant trying to understand scripture without guidance.

“Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb. 13:17)

“We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2)

“In them (Paul’s letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Pet. 3:16)​

The list of the Canon is not given in scripture: no scriptural text contains a table of contents for the Bible. Thus WCF Ch.1, Art. 2, which proposes a specific list of books as an article of the faith, contradicts WCF Chapter 1 Articles 1, 6, 7 and 8, and Chapter 31 Article 4, which in total say that only scripture is authoritative and that a council cannot declare a rule of faith.

WCF Chapter 1, Articles 8 and 10, which in effect demand that each believer be fluent in ancient languages in order to understand scripture, contradicts WCF Chapter 1, Article 7, which states that even the unlearned can come to a sufficient understanding of scripture.

WCF Ch. 1, Art. 5, which leaves the individual believer to rely solely on his subjective sense that the Holy Spirit is working in his heart, contradicts WCF Ch. 1, Art 10, which demands that he rely solely on the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture.

The list of the canon is a matter of doctrinal dispute between Catholics and Protestants. According to the WCF, the ultimate authority in resolving this dispute can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, with each individual believer ultimately relying solely on his subjective sense that he correctly understands the meaning of texts written in a language he does not understand and has never read. After much study I’ve found that the Holy Spirit tells me that the Catholics are correct, and yet after much study Protestants find that the Holy Spirit tells them that the Catholics are wrong. So either God is a God of confusion, or sola scriptura is false. Given that sola scriptura is self-contradictory on at least three key points, and given that God is not a God of confusion, I find that sola scriptura is false.

(continued)

 

[chilehed]

Furthermore, the scriptures that the WCF points to in support of sola scriptura do not support it at all.

“Your word is a lamp unto my feet, a light for my path...the revelation of your words sheds light, gives understanding to the simple” (Ps. 119:105, 130)

This verse does not say that all of God’s word is written, nor is such even implied.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
This verse does not say that it gives all understanding to the simple.
If this verse proves sola scriptura, it proves too much in saying that the entire word of God is contained in the works written prior to Psalm 119.​

“That your trust may be in the Lord, I make known to you the words of Amen-em-Ope. Have I not written for you the “Thirty”, with counsels and knowledge, to teach you truly how to give a dependable report to one who sends you? (Proverbs 22:19-21)

This verse refers to a collection of maxims (the “Thirty”) written by an Egyptian scribe, and specifies that it is given to teach how to give a report to a superior.
This verse doesn’t say that the collection contains the entire word of God, and in fact the collection is not canonical at all.
This verse does not say that the entire word of God is written, nor is such even implied.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
If this verse proves sola scriptura, it proves too much in saying that the entire word of God is contained in the work of a single Egyptian scribe.​

“And when they say to you, "Inquire of mediums and fortune-tellers (who chirp and mutter!); should not a people inquire of their gods, apply to the dead on behalf of the living?” --then this document will furnish its instruction. That kind of thing they will surely say.” (Isa 8:19-20)

I can’t make heads or tails of this passage or its context, but it sure doesn’t obviously say anything that supports sola scriptura.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.​

“He said in reply. ‘It is written: one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God’...Jesus answered him, ‘Again it is written, you shall not put the Lord your God to the test’...At this, Jesus said to him “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve’”(Mat 4:4, 7, 10)

The verse says it that we live by every word that God speaks.
This verse does not say that every word that comes forth from the mouth of God will end up in written form, nor is such even implied.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.​

“I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teaching you have received” (Luke 1:3-4)

The verse says that is an account of what happened. It does not claim that the account is comprehensive.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
If this verse proves sola scriptura, it proves too much in saying that the entire word of God is contained in the Gospel according to Luke.​

“For whatever was written previously was written for our instruction, that by endurance and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4)

The verse does not claim that all of God’s word is written.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
If this verse proves sola scriptura, it proves too much in saying that the entire word of God is contained in what was written prior to the Letter to the Romans (AD 56-58).​

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:8-9)

This verse does not claim that all of God’s word is written.
This verse refers to the gospel that was preached, which is oral transmission.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
If this verse proves sola scriptura, it proves too much in saying that the entire word of God is contained not in scripture but rather in the oral teaching that was not written.​

“See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition...” (Col 3:8)

This verse does not say that all oral tradition is of human origin.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.​

“...not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit”, or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand” (2 Thess 2:2)

This verse says to ignore to statements that the day of the Lord is at hand; it does not say to ignore verbal teaching.
If this verse proves sola scriptura, it proves too much in saying that one must ignore written teaching as well as oral.
This verse does not claim that all of God’s word is written.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.​

“...and that from infancy you have known sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God my be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17)

This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
The verse says that scripture is “useful”, which does not mean “sufficient”.
Reworded slightly, “All vegetables are designed by God and are useful for digestive health and for a balanced nutrition, so that one who eats them may have a complete diet”; this is true, but does not mean that one has a complete diet by eating nothing but vegetables.
Or again, “All dress shirts are useful for fancy occasions, so that one who wears them may be completely dressed”; this is also true, but does not mean that one is completely dressed when wearing nothing but a dress shirt.
In 2 Tim 3:17, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament writings, which is the only scripture that Timothy could have known from infancy. If this passage means that scripture is sufficient, it proves that all we need is the Old Testament.​

“Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” (2 Pet. 1:19)

The context shows that this verse is an assertion of Apostolic Authority.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
It does not support sola scriptura.​

“In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe” (Heb 1:1-2)

This verse does not say that all of God’s word is written.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.​

“I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19)

The book referred to in this verse is the Book of Revelation, not the entire collection of canonical works: the collection didn’t exist at the time.
This verse does not provide a list of what written works are authoritative.
This verse does not say that all of God’s word is written.
In fact, Revelation 10:4 specifically says that God’s words weren’t all written down.​

End.

 

[Tonks]

 

[Isaiah 53]

PAX CHRISTI

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY RESPONSE:


I'm not Reformed, but I do support Sola Scriptura. Since the original poster took up a lot of space to make his case, perhaps I can request a long attention span, too?? LOL



Norming:


What's being discussed here is Norming. The process of norming.
In every discipline, there is the epistemological question of how will we know?
How will we determine who/what is correct?
In every discipline, such is deliberately decided - even if the Norm is fuzzy.
The Final Authority, the "Standard," the "Judge" is the "norma normata"
The "norma normata" is the Norm that norms.
"Sola Scriptura" simply means that the Bible is the sole "norma normata."


That's ALL Sola Scripture means. Those that hold to the position may have passionate, strong views about inerrancy, infallibility, etc. (all views I reject, BTW) but this has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura per se, they are just reasons some give for choosing this norma normata. What Sola Scriptura means is that the Bible is the Final Authority in matters of Doctrine.


The norma normata is ALWAYS an agreed upon assumption that cannot be 'proven' without a circular arguement. Those that embrace the Bible as the "Norma Normata" will look to the norm that norms to provide the support - that is, of course, the Bible - creating the circular arguement the OP illustrated. But the same is true for the Roman Catholic who also accepts Tradtion as their norma normata, they use that Tradition (including how that Tradition interprets the Bible) to support it - creating EXACTLY THE SAME circular argument. The Norma Normata is ALWAYS an agreed upon assumption that cannot be proven.


The OP made a point that Protestants can't "prove" what is or is not canonical - which is, in fact, the Authoritative Bible. Yup. No one I know of denies this; the "norma normata" is ALWAYS an agreed upon assumption that cannot be proven. But, what some of our unseparated Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ fail to immediate acknowledge, the same is true for their Tradition. How can you "prove" what is and is not Authoritative Tradition? For example, you don't accept the Tradition of the Westminister Confession, I don't accept the Tradition of the Council of Trent. How can you "prove" that the Council of Trent IS a "norma normata" but not the Westminister Confession? You accept some things from Origen and consider them Tradition, and other things, not. How can you "prove" that you've embraced the right things? Same issue...


Generally in epistemology, the BEST NORM is considered to be the least likely to be subjective, the least likely to be self-authenticating.





Sola Scriptura:



Sola Scriptura simply accepts that the Final Authority, the "norma normata" for Doctrine is the Bible alone.

Sola Scriptura does NOT say a thing about Tradition or it's importance. Indeed, every Protestant I know embraces Tradtion (although perhaps not as narrowly defined as those in the Roman Catholic Denomination). Sola Scriptura does NOT say Tradition or reason or whatever cannot be used. It simply says that all such is subject to the Final Authority, such is not the "norm that norms."

Sola Scriptura says that we are to subject our words to God's Word, not the other way around. That no matter what human being said something - even if some denomination put a "St." in front of their name, even if the person happens to be the founder of our particular denomination, such is NOT the Final Authority but is subject to the Final Authority which is the Bible.



Bible + Our Tradition:




Our unseparated brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Denomination have decided that the "norma normata" for them, the Final Authority for deciding Doctrine in their denomination is the Bible + their denomination's Tradition (essentially embraced teachings).


This means that they have selected TWO Final Authorities, they have TWO "norms that norms." They embrace these two Final Authorities EQUALLY. One is not subject to the other, one is not above or below the other.


Since these two are BOTH equally Authoritative - either subject to the other - they therefore must be in agreement. Therefore, the Tradtion of the Roman Catholic Denomination is what the Bible teaches, even if not explicity. The Tradtion of the Roman Catholic Denomination is the "lense" through which the Bible is to be read and understood since these TWO EQUAL Final Norms are both Authoritative and in full agreement.


The result is that the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination MUST be both biblical and true, since it has been declared to be the "norma normata" equally with the Bible. The result is completely circular and self-authenticating. Thus, Protestants (like me!) who engage in studies with our unseparated RC brothers and sisters in Christ, our fellow catholics, often feel we're on a merry-go-round. Round and round we go...



Conclusions:

ANYONE CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER NORMING PROCESS THEY WANT.
They not only can, but must. Every discipline needs an agreed upon Final Authority to which they are subject. Protestants can choose Sola Scriptura - subjecting themselves to a norma normata OUTSIDE themselves, Roman Catholics to the same Bible PLUS their own denomination's teachings EQUALLY.


The only question is which Final Authority is less likely to be self-authenticating in determining the correctness of our teachings? The Bible Alone, or the Bible + our denomination's teachings equally?




MY view...



- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Any responses?

 

[Catholic Dude]

You might want to check out this thread as well:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2288808-the-westminster-confession-ch1-the-bible.html



True SS requires the Deuterocanonical OT books, for St Paul says ALL Scripture is inspired.

 

[chilehed]

Any responses?

I disagree with your assessment of the circularity of the argument for Sacred Tradition, but that's a different topic. This thread is about sola scriptura, and it sounds like you agree with my conclusion that it's incoherent.

Please bear with me if I don't reply quickly or often, my schedule makes it hard to post as much as I'd like. It also helps for me to think for a while if I want to say something substantive (which I do in this thread). My initial post took me a couple of months to compile.

 

[GraceInHim]

PAX CHRISTI

hey give me some popcorn!!!! LOL

 

[Catholic Dude]

CaliforniaJosiah-

MY RESPONSE:

Instead of "your" response, what does your denomination OFFICIALLY say, as in what is their webpage and what are their central teachings.

Norming:

What's being discussed here is Norming. The process of norming.
In every discipline, there is the epistemological question of how will we know?
How will we determine who/what is correct?
In every discipline, such is deliberately decided - even if the Norm is fuzzy.
The Final Authority, the "Standard," the "Judge" is the "norma normata"
The "norma normata" is the Norm that norms.
"Sola Scriptura" simply means that the Bible is the sole "norma normata."

This doesnt mean anything when the rubber hits the road.

That's ALL Sola Scripture means. Those that hold to the position may have passionate, strong views about inerrancy, infallibility, etc. (all views I reject, BTW) but this has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura per se, they are just reasons some give for choosing this norma normata. What Sola Scriptura means is that the Bible is the Final Authority in matters of Doctrine.

Define "Scripture". Simple question. Is it the OT, NT, DC books? What? WHAT led you to conclude that Scripture is this instead of that.

The norma normata is ALWAYS an agreed upon assumption that cannot be 'proven' without a circular arguement.

So you admit the foundation of your faith is founded on circular arguments?

Those that embrace the Bible as the "Norma Normata" will look to the norm that norms to provide the support - that is, of course, the Bible - creating the circular arguement the OP illustrated. But the same is true for the Roman Catholic who also accepts Tradtion as their norma normata, they use that Tradition (including how that Tradition interprets the Bible) to support it - creating EXACTLY THE SAME circular argument. The Norma Normata is ALWAYS an agreed upon assumption that cannot be proven.

Lets look at this in terms of creation. Did the Bible just appear out of thin air? Did men write the books of the Bible before it became "The Bible"? It would appear that the Bible has origin. WHERE did it come from? So far no circular anything here. Jesus said to the Apostles "16 He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"(Lk10) There is a linear procession here, NOTHING circular. Catholics believe in Jesus because the Apostles who were sent spread the news and they speak for Christ.

The OP made a point that Protestants can't "prove" what is or is not canonical - which is, in fact, the Authoritative Bible. Yup. No one I know of denies this; the "norma normata" is ALWAYS an agreed upon assumption that cannot be proven.

And how do we argue with this logic? Thats NO different than the lds gospel of either you believe it because you believe it or you dont because you dont.

But, what some of our unseparated Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ fail to immediate acknowledge, the same is true for their Tradition. How can you "prove" what is and is not Authoritative Tradition?

Succession. Where did you hear the Gospel from? Did you randomly take a book of the shelf at the library and read it and say "I believe this is the truth" OR was the Gospel PRESENTED to you from someone who had it PRESENTED to him?
There are many ways to look into the facts, many historical records, church Fathers, Councils, etc.

For example, you don't accept the Tradition of the Westminister Confession, I don't accept the Tradition of the Council of Trent.

Bogus, the WCF was INVENTED via circular reasoning. Trent invented NOTHING, it only reaffirmed what was already believed IN LIGHT OF a new heresy.

How can you "prove" that the Council of Trent IS a "norma normata" but not the Westminister Confession?

Your drawing false comparisons here. Trent had authorized Bishops in charge, WCF had men who put themself in charge via circular reasoning.

You accept some things from Origen and consider them Tradition, and other things, not. How can you "prove" that you've embraced the right things? Same issue...

The main way is to take things as a whole, what did Origen say specifically that your worried about? Was it an off the wall comment, an opinion, what?? Does this compare to what the Church has believed in the past?

Generally in epistemology, the BEST NORM is considered to be the least likely to be subjective, the least likely to be self-authenticating.

Totally bogus. This isnt about who holds the better odds, Christianity is not about playing the odds.

Sola Scriptura simply accepts that the Final Authority, the "norma normata" for Doctrine is the Bible alone.

Sola Scriptura does NOT say a thing about Tradition or it's importance. Indeed, every Protestant I know embraces Tradtion (although perhaps not as narrowly defined as those in the Roman Catholic Denomination). Sola Scriptura does NOT say Tradition or reason or whatever cannot be used. It simply says that all such is subject to the Final Authority, such is not the "norm that norms."

Sola Scriptura says that we are to subject our words to God's Word, not the other way around. That no matter what human being said something - even if some denomination put a "St." in front of their name, even if the person happens to be the founder of our particular denomination, such is NOT the Final Authority but is subject to the Final Authority which is the Bible.

You cant see past the basics here.
WHO DECIDES WHAT SCRIPTURE IS???
WHO DECIDES WHO IS INTERPRETING IT CORRCTLY???
WHO DECIDES WHAT TRADITIONS TO ACCEPTS??

Bible + Our Tradition:

Our unseparated brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Denomination have decided that the "norma normata" for them, the Final Authority for deciding Doctrine in their denomination is the Bible + their denomination's Tradition (essentially embraced teachings).


This means that they have selected TWO Final Authorities, they have TWO "norms that norms." They embrace these two Final Authorities EQUALLY. One is not subject to the other, one is not above or below the other.


Since these two are BOTH equally Authoritative - either subject to the other - they therefore must be in agreement. Therefore, the Tradtion of the Roman Catholic Denomination is what the Bible teaches, even if not explicity. The Tradtion of the Roman Catholic Denomination is the "lense" through which the Bible is to be read and understood since these TWO EQUAL Final Norms are both Authoritative and in full agreement.

Maybe when your older you will see what were talking about. Even though what you just said is not quite accurate, right here you mention the means by which Catholics INTERPRET the Bible but you left that out of your SS section above.

HOW DO PROTESTANTS INTERPRET THE BIBLE JOSIAH????

The result is that the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination MUST be both biblical and true, since it has been declared to be the "norma normata" equally with the Bible. The result is completely circular and self-authenticating. Thus, Protestants (like me!) who engage in studies with our unseparated RC brothers and sisters in Christ, our fellow catholics, often feel we're on a merry-go-round. Round and round we go...

Bogus.

Conclusions:

ANYONE CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER NORMING PROCESS THEY WANT.

They not only can, but must.

WHAT ON EARTH are you saying. Pick and choose? Thats the Gospel?

The only question is which Final Authority is less likely to be self-authenticating in determining the correctness of our teachings? The Bible Alone, or the Bible + our denomination's teachings equally?

Bogus conclusion and unChristian. There is no odds to play here, this is concerning our souls. Until you answer the above questions your no different than a bird with your head in the sand.

 

[QuantaCura]

Tradition is not self authenticating; it is authenticated by the Apostles who were authenticated by Christ. Just as the Bible is authenticated by Traditon which is in turn authenticated by the Apostles.


Here's an example: St. Ignatius of Antioch authenticated Tradtion by talking to Sts. Peter and John. St. Polycarp authenticated Tradition, by talking to St. Ignatius, who had talked to Apostles; and on and on until today.

Even "sola scriptura" believers must appeal to Sacred Tradition in order to even make the claim that all those books in the Bible are inspired by God and authoritative. The problem is that the "sola scriptura" doctrine is not authenticated by Tradition and the Apostles.

 

[Sentry]

I too had to abandone SS. When you know the undeniable FACTS of history you cannot escape the conclusion that SS is a farce. This does not mean that one does not accept the veracity truth and authority of Scripture. It means one realizes that the practice of SS is a ridiculous untenable concept when all the facts are known.

First, because it is a Protestant doctrine it means "MY 66 book Bible alone and not any other books we consider Apocryphal." A 66 book Bible did not exist for the first 1500 years of the church. How were any Christians supposed to practice SS for 15 centuries then? Much less the fact that few people could obtain a Bible before printing presses, or even read for that matter.

Secondly, no canon at all, 66 books or otherwise, existed for the first 350 years of the church. The books existed but a canon did not. You cannot practice SS without a canon of any kind, much less a 66 book canon which did not show up until 1529. So then how were Christians supposed to practice such a doctrine before there was any canon? They couldn't! And worse, how were Christians supposed to practice SS with a 66 book canon when such a thing did not exist until 1529. The proposition is totally absurd.

The truth is that Luther needed something to replace the authority of the Pope. So he created a fallacious paper pope.

But it gets even worse. NO ONE has the slightest bit of evidence that God ever wanted ANY KIND of a canon.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

PAX CHRISTI

YUMMY--popcorn! I think I'll have some too

Oh, and wash it down with some Pepsi

DIANE


Alright-why am I ALWAYS post #13???

 

[livingproofGM]

You might want to check out this thread as well:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2288808-the-westminster-confession-ch1-the-bible.html



True SS requires the Deuterocanonical OT books, for St Paul says ALL Scripture is inspired.

Never thought of that....great point...

 

[chilehed]

PLEASE don't turn this into a discussion of Sacred Tradition. I wanted to discuss sola scriptura. Trust me, I have a similar thread on the sucession of Apostolic Authority waiting in the wings.

Are there any substantive comments of my analysis of the structure and logical failure of sola scriptura? So far we have one Protestant agreeing with me and a lot of Catholics complaining about the way he agreed!

 

[A. believer]

I'm not going to go too in depth in my response saying a lot of things I and others have already said many times in the past, but I do want to address a few points that immediately stood out to me.

The WCF says that the task of interpreting Scripture has been entrusted solely to Scripture itself. The only authoritative source and infallible interpreter of God’s Word is the original, untranslated Hebrew and Greek texts.

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them...The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture...” (WCF Chapter 1, Article8/Article 10)​

​

This doesn't say anything like what you said it does. You're taking words from the Catholic Catechism and replacing church with Scripture, and then acting as if Protestants must be silly for subscribing to your nonsense. Keep in mind that the Westminster Confession wasn't written to prop up "just me and my Bible" Christianity and that Reformed Christianity doesn't deny the authority of the church and of councils and creeds. It does recognize, as California Josiah pointed out, that their authority is subordinate to the authority of Scripture--that they are normed by Scripture.

and yet at the same time, the WCF proposes as an article of faith that the unlearned, using ordinary means, may attain a sufficient understanding of scripture.

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 7)​

​

Yes, this acknowledges that Scripture was written to be understood by people, not by itself. Again, of course that's nonsense.

The WCF says that in trying to understand the meaning of the text, the individual believer can ultimately rely only on his subjective intuition that the Holy Spirit is guiding him. The very councils that codify doctrines are fallible, and thus cannot declare a rule of faith nor be relied upon to promulgate true doctrine:

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture... yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts...All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” (Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF Chapter 1, Article 5; Chapter 31, Article 4)​

​

You seem to be interpreting this to be saying that councils are fallible but individuals who feel they're being guided by the Holy Spirit are infallible. Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but that's way off the mark. The portions of the Confession prior to the second set of ellipses is referring to the illumination of the Holy Spirit authenticating the Word of God in our heart. In other words, it takes the Holy Spirit to confirm to us Scripture's ontological nature--the Theopnuestos Word of God.







The portion after the ellipses, from another chapter entirely, refers to the limits of authority of church councils. It's saying basically the same thing Augustine was when he said,

"But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" - Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)




​

You then go on to confuse and conflate the two separate issues of the nature of Scripture and the identity of the canon, which of course will lead to incoherence.



Following that, you misinterpret the point the Westminster Confession is making with the Scripture quotes referring to the unique, self-authenticating authority of direct oral communication from God.

 

[Ragamuffins]

Maybe when your older you will see what were talking about. Even though what you just said is not quite accurate, right here you mention the means by which Catholics INTERPRET the Bible but you left that out of your SS section above.

Personal attacks still the norm around here I see...

From what I have read from this young man he seems to know a lot more than you are willing to give him credit for. Perhaps when YOU are older you will find that "when you are older" types of comments are never helpful when trying to relate your position to someone. Not to mention it is insulting, degrading, and rude behavior unbecoming a person of your age.

CJ did not insult you personally but you hinted that when he personally was older he would see things more clearly as if his age was hindering his aptitude in this matter. Was that appropriate? No.

 

[chilehed]

This doesn't say anything like what you said it does. You're taking words from the Catholic Catechism and replacing church with Scripture, and then acting as if Protestants must be silly for subscribing to your nonsense. Keep in mind that the Westminster Confession wasn't written to prop up "just me and my Bible" Christianity and that Reformed Christianity doesn't deny the authority of the church and of councils and creeds. It does recognize, as California Josiah pointed out, that their authority is subordinate to the authority of Scripture--that they are normed by Scripture...

Well, no, the WCF says exactly what I said it says: I quoted it exactly. The words speak for themselves: only the original Greek and Hebrew texts are authoritative; councils can be a help but they can and do err so there's no guarantee that they won't be a hinderance.

Yes, this acknowledges that Scripture was written to be understood by people, not by itself. Again, of course that's nonsense.

So you agree, the WCF says that the ignorant can understand the meaning of texts written in ancient languages. Indeed, that truly is nonsense.

You seem to be interpreting this to be saying that councils are fallible but individuals who feel they're being guided by the Holy Spirit are infallible. Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but that's way off the mark. The portions of the Confession prior to the second set of ellipses is referring to the illumination of the Holy Spirit authenticating the Word of God in our heart. In other words, it takes the Holy Spirit to confirm to us Scripture's ontological nature--the Theopnuestos Word of God.

Again, the words of the WCF speak for themelves: Councils are fallible, and the believer must rely only on his subjective sense that he's being guided to a correct understanding of scripture. The only way this does the believer any good is if he's infallible in his subjective sense.

Unless you're saying that neither councils nor the believer are infallible, in which case all bets are off.

The portion after the ellipses, from another chapter entirely, refers to the limits of authority of church councils. It's saying basically the same thing Augustine was when he said...

And that limit, according to the WCF, is that church councils err and thus cannot make binding rules of faith.

Which is not at all what Augustine was talking about, but I think that that's better discussed in a thread about the sucession of Apostolic Authority.

You then go on to confuse and conflate the two separate issues of the nature of Scripture and the identity of the canon, which of course will lead to incoherence.

Following that, you misinterpret the point the Westminster Confession is making with the Scripture quotes referring to the unique, self-authenticating authority of direct oral communication from God.

Not at all, on either point, but perhaps you can explain? The WCF references those passages of scripture in support of sola scriptura, so I think it reasonable to examine them. If you have a specific rejoinder to my assessment of any passage, I'd be interested in hearing it. Why not start with Ps. 119:105, 130 and work your way through the list one at a time?

I'm about to start my long commute and evening with house chores, I'll be away until late this evening at the earliest.

 

[chilehed]

Personal attacks still the norm around here I see...

Was that appropriate? No.

Yeah, Catholic Dude, that really wasn't called for. I'm guilty of it on occasion as well - but methinks you owe CaliforniaJosiah an apology.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Personal attacks still the norm around here I see...

From what I have read from this young man he seems to know a lot more than you are willing to give him credit for. Perhaps when YOU are older you will find that "when you are older" types of comments are never helpful when trying to relate your position to someone. Not to mention it is insulting, degrading, and rude behavior unbecoming a person of your age.

CJ did not insult you personally but you hinted that when he personally was older he would see things more clearly as if his age was hindering his aptitude in this matter. Was that appropriate? No.

Ok, I wasnt thinking when I responded, and shouldnt have said some stuff that was uncalled for.

I went off topic on some points as well.