Why I reject sola scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

It doesn't matter.
My denomination is not Authoritative.

This doesnt mean anything when the rubber hits the road.

So, you are just categorically dismissing the whole point without any response?

Sola Scriptura is a method for norming.
So is Sacred Tradition.
Therefore, a discussion of norming is kind of the point.
In a discussion of Sola Scriptura, norming IS where the rubber hits the road.
It's a principle of norming.

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

This thread isn't about the Canon.

Sola Scriptura is about norming, what is the Final Authority for Doctrine.
That's the whole point.

Sola Scriptura, per se, doesn't involve the Canon - it simply says that that Canon IS the final authority, the norm that norms.

To ME, I don't care if the DC books are included or not, that's not the issue. The question before us is what is the Final Authority in the evaluation of Doctrine. Sola Scriptura says it's the Bible. If your particular denomination wants to firmly embrace some OT books that some other denomination leaves as an open question, that doesn't impact the principle.

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

I'd invite you to read my post.


I never implied that Sola Scriptura is founded on circular arguements. What I said is that the accepted 'norma normata' cannot be PROVEN without circular arguements - the Protestant will like quote the Bible to support his view, which of course, is assuming the Authority and thus creating a circular argument. The Roman Catholic will likely quote from his Tradition (and his Tradition's interpretation of Scripture) to support his view, which of course, is assuming that Authority and thus creating a circular argument.

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?

I believe God inspired the words of the Bible.
I believe God preserved the books of the Bible.
I believe God collected them, working through His people - the church catholic - which was ultimately recognized by congregations and denominations, including yours. It's called Providence.

But, again, you are evading the discussion.
Sola Scriptura is not about the Canon.
Sola Scriptura is about norming.

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.

Again, that's not the subject.
Again, I addressed this in my post.

Sola Scriptura does not say anything about Tradition. It doesn't deny it or say anything about it at all. It simply implies that Tradition is NOT the Final Authority for Doctrine - thus in conflict with the norming process accepted by the Roman Catholic Denomination. Sola Scriptura says that we are to subject our Gods to God's Word - not the other way around.

That my Mommy and Daddy taught me the faith has nothing to do with how I am to Norm Doctrine. My Mommy and Daddy - bless their loving Christian hearts - are not the Final Authority in matters of theology (nor do they have the all surpassing ego to claim such). They taught me to "search the Scriptures daily to see if it is true" as the Bible states. After all, if Mommy and Daddy were the Final Authority or my Denomination was the Final Authority, there would be no need for Scripture, would there?

Bogus, the WCF was INVENTED via circular reasoning. Trent invented NOTHING, it only reaffirmed what was already believed IN LIGHT OF a new heresy. Your drawing false comparisons here. Trent had authorized Bishops in charge, WCF had men who put themself in charge via circular reasoning.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?

You TOTALLY missed my point (and here I tried to be clear and word things specifically for a Catholic). Before Luther, there was 1500 years worth of "tradition" - things Christians said, taught, believed, did, debated, argued, wrote, died for. YOUR DENOMINATION has chosen which to consider Tradition, which heresy, and which in the broad range in between. Your denomination has chosen what to call "Tradition." This is no different than Catholics and Protestants determining what to call "Scripture" (except that we ALL have the exact same NT and OT - and the others are in limbo for some, rejected by some and embraced by some). The Tradition that the Roman Catholic Denomination embraces is not the same as the Greek Orthodox Denomination embraces, you embrace more for one thing (just as you embrace a few more books in the Bible than most Protestants). Can you PROVE what your particular denomination calls "Tradition" and labels as the Final Authority, the "norma normata" actually is - no less, no more? Ah, the Roman Catholic Denomination calls MUCH "Tradition" and considers it EQUAL to the Bible in Authority, the Orthodox Denominations call less "Tradition" and it's relationship to the Bible is less definite, Protestants call even less "Tradition" and place it under the Bible.

You cant see past the basics here.

I think it's important to understand the basics.

The issue here is epistemology, especially the process of norming.
The issue here is what will serve as our agreed upon Norm?
The issue here is what will be our Final Authority in Doctrine?
The issue here is on what basis will we decide what is correct?

How do we decide if something our denomination teaches is true?
Sola Scriptura says we look to the Bible as the Final Authority.
The RC Denomination says we look to the Bible AND to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Denomination EQUALLY, none subject to the other, both being in complete agreement.

I think the norm of the Bible is less likely to be self-authenticating than the norm of our own teachings.

WHO DECIDES WHO IS INTERPRETING IT CORRCTLY???

Again, a different issue.
Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermaneutics.
REGARDLESS of our 'norma normata," it still must be interpreted and applied as has been done here by my unseparated Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ with both Scripture and Tradition. Sola Scriptura has to do with the final norm, not how to interpret or apply that norm.

WHO DECIDES WHAT TRADITIONS TO ACCEPTS??

Well, since I don't consider ANY tradition to be "norma normata" it's completely a moot question on my part. I accept that Tradition which flows from Scripture - but even such ("norms which have been normed") are subject to the Norm that norms.

So, it's a question for YOU. How do you know that the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination is True because it says so? How do you know you are embracing the correct Authoritative Tradition rather than the Orthodox Christians the Pope excommunicated, or the Anglicans? Since you regard such Tradition as EQUAL to the Bible in Authority, since you are judging the what your denomination teaches on the basis of what your denomination teaches, it would be important to KNOW that the answer to your qeustion. But it's moot for me.

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 nice...


Should I expect you to quote Unam Sanctum next?
Don't bother, I know it VERY well...

HOW DO PROTESTANTS INTERPRET THE BIBLE JOSIAH????

More evasion?


The question of this thread is about Sola Scriptura, the process for norming theology embraced by many Protestants and rejected by Roman Catholics.


If you want to discuss how Roman Catholics and Protestants interpret (or should interpret) their Final Authority (Authorities for my unseparated brothers and sisters in your particular denomination), then start a thread on hermaneutics. That's not the issue here. We're discussing WHAT to interpret - not how. We're discussing what is our Final Authority when judging the teachings of our denominations, teachers, etc. I discribed those two systems in my post above.


Two different issues, my fully-embraced fellow Christian...

Bogus.
your no different than a bird with your head in the sand

Okay...
That moves our discussion along nicely...


If you decide you want to discuss Sola Scriptura or my post, I'd be very glad to do so. All in hopes of mutual understanding.


MY view...


- Josiah



.

 

[GraceInHim]

the one true church will come in Zion - when Jesus comes - we are all seeds of Abraham through Jesus Christ

 

[JimfromOhio]

Just another thread that directly divides between denominations. Not directly about theology at all.

Hey... This is my opinion !! Its my right !!

 

[A. believer]

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, you quoted it exactly, and then went on to misinterpret it by quoting almost verbatim from the CCC which says, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Your interpretation of the Westminster Confession reads, "the task of interpreting Scripture has been entrusted solely to Scripture itself." But this is not even close to what the Westminster Confession is communicating.

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

Do you understand what the Confession means by "the due use of ordinary means?" Do you think you might be acting just a tad presumptuous in thinking that it would not have occurred to the framers of the Confession that unlearned people can't read ancient languages? Perhaps this might clue you off to the possibility that you need to do a little more research to see what they meant by the due use of ordinary means.

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.

I just told you that this portion isn't even referring to the interpretation of Scripture, but to the Holy Spirit illuminating to the individual the divine authorship and self-authenticating authority of Scripture. Will you remain so arrogant that you'll refuse to be corrected? It's funny, because you started this thread with a request for correction, and yet when people even suggest that you might not have this all figured the way you thought you did, your responses exude an unteachableness that belies your OP.

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

Not sure what bets you're referring to, but I'm certainly saying that neither councils nor individuals are infallible. The quality of infallibility can be ascribed to God alone.

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

Not that they can't be binding, but that they aren't ultimate and that they're subject to Scriptural correction.

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.

Actually, it's precisely what Augustine was saying in the snippet I quoted, your gratuitous assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

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?

Surely you're not suggesting that each of these prooftexts, individually, must constitute a stand alone defense of sola Scriptura for them to be valid in conjunction with one another! I don't know whether it's a lack of charity or a lack of critical thinking skills that would cause you to so blatantly misrepresent your former Confession, but whichever it is, it isn't reflecting very well on you.

If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to try harder to correctly represent that which you seek to critique.

 

[Bulldog]

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.

What authenticates Christ?

 

[Catholic Dude]

CaliforniaJosiah-

So, you are just categorically dismissing the whole point without any response?

All you said was the Bible was the "norma normata...the Norm that norms".
There wasnt much to respond to. From what I have seen countless times is propositions like "norma normata" but when the followup questions are asked norma normata doesnt mean anything.

Sola Scriptura is a method for norming.
So is Sacred Tradition.
Therefore, a discussion of norming is kind of the point.
In a discussion of Sola Scriptura, norming IS where the rubber hits the road.
It's a principle of norming.

And when the rubber hit, eg "how do you define Scripture" you didnt have an answer.

This thread isn't about the Canon.

Sola Scriptura is about norming, what is the Final Authority for Doctrine.
That's the whole point.

Sola Scriptura, per se, doesn't involve the Canon - it simply says that that Canon IS the final authority, the norm that norms.

To ME, I don't care if the DC books are included or not, that's not the issue. The question before us is what is the Final Authority in the evaluation of Doctrine. Sola Scriptura says it's the Bible. If your particular denomination wants to firmly embrace some OT books that some other denomination leaves as an open question, that doesn't impact the principle.

This doesnt make sense. How can it not be about the Canon but the "canon is the final authority, the norm that norms". What you saying is "I have a book that norms, but what is inside this book is not the issue". You cant say something is the final authority if you dont define whats doing the norming. It would be like me saying a BingBang is the final authority without knowing what it was.

How can you not care if the DC included? That directly impacts the scope of Sola Scriptura, and thats why people have to side one way or the other.

I'd invite you to read my post.
I never implied that Sola Scriptura is founded on circular arguements. What I said is that the accepted 'norma normata' cannot be PROVEN without circular arguements - the Protestant will like quote the Bible to support his view, which of course, is assuming the Authority and thus creating a circular argument. The Roman Catholic will likely quote from his Tradition (and his Tradition's interpretation of Scripture) to support his view, which of course, is assuming that Authority and thus creating a circular argument.

This is unfounded. Catholic Tradition doesnt create a circular argument because it traces its path to a source from where it originated. Jesus said:

He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.
​

A person doesnt have to believe that source, just like people dont have to believe in Christ. SS has no source, just like you said above its origin and authority is assumed.

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.

You listed this earlier and I said "Thats NO different than the lds gospel of either you believe it because you believe it or you dont because you dont."

Catholics know what the canon is because the Catholic Church defined the Canon of the Bible. On the otherhand SS claims "its canonical because its canonical"

I believe God inspired the words of the Bible.
I believe God preserved the books of the Bible.
I believe God collected them, working through His people - the church catholic - which was ultimately recognized by congregations and denominations, including yours. It's called Providence.

I asked where did the Bible come from, you replied with the above.
Ok, so via Providence, men were inspired to write them, men preserved them, men gathered them. If you want to claim SS you would have to claim God commanded that men teach SS. But wait, how is man not the one in charge here (via Providence)? Or did God do away with the church leaving only the Bible remaining? I dont see how you believe in SS after what you just said.

But, again, you are evading the discussion.
Sola Scriptura is not about the Canon.
Sola Scriptura is about norming.

Canon defines Scripture. If you saw 2 boxes that both said "Scripture" on the top but underneath the cover one was the Bible and the other was the Book of Mormon then how can you say "Scripture is not about the Canon"?

Sola Scriptura does not say anything about Tradition. It doesn't deny it or say anything about it at all. It simply implies that Tradition is NOT the Final Authority for Doctrine - thus in conflict with the norming process accepted by the Roman Catholic Denomination. Sola Scriptura says that we are to subject our Gods to God's Word - not the other way around.

How can Tradition NOT be part of the equation when "God's Word" is determined by whats included in the Canon? LDS say that "God's Word" includes the Book of Mormon. Jews claim that "God's Word" is the OT only.

That my Mommy and Daddy taught me the faith has nothing to do with how I am to Norm Doctrine. My Mommy and Daddy - bless their loving Christian hearts - are not the Final Authority in matters of theology (nor do they have the all surpassing ego to claim such). They taught me to "search the Scriptures daily to see if it is true" as the Bible states. After all, if Mommy and Daddy were the Final Authority or my Denomination was the Final Authority, there would be no need for Scripture, would there?

When Mormon parents tell their children to "Search the Scriptures daily" they are talking about much more than the 66 books your used to. When the Jews as recorded in Acts decided to "search the Scriptures daily" the NT didnt exist yet. In otherwords "Scripture" is defined by what you make it because not everyone who picks up a book that says "Scriptures" is going to be reading the same thing.

Before Luther, there was 1500 years worth of "tradition" - things Christians said, taught, believed, did, debated, argued, wrote, died for. YOUR DENOMINATION has chosen which to consider Tradition, which heresy, and which in the broad range in between. Your denomination has chosen what to call "Tradition." This is no different than Catholics and Protestants determining what to call "Scripture" (except that we ALL have the exact same NT and OT - and the others are in limbo for some, rejected by some and embraced by some). The Tradition that the Roman Catholic Denomination embraces is not the same as the Greek Orthodox Denomination embraces, you embrace more for one thing (just as you embrace a few more books in the Bible than most Protestants). Can you PROVE what your particular denomination calls "Tradition" and labels as the Final Authority, the "norma normata" actually is - no less, no more? Ah, the Roman Catholic Denomination calls MUCH "Tradition" and considers it EQUAL to the Bible in Authority, the Orthodox Denominations call less "Tradition" and it's relationship to the Bible is less definite, Protestants call even less "Tradition" and place it under the Bible.

Is there one Gospel or multiple? If there is only one Gospel then one of the groups listed above is correct in its teachings and the others must be wrong to one degree or another. The one holding to the Truth is the one that DECIDES how much of this or that was Authoritative. By comparing the key elements of the groups we can draw conclusions and see what makes sense. In this thread specifically the Protestant notion of SS does not hold water, infact it relys on pre-protestant Christians for what they do have.

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

I asked if Christianity was about playing the odds, in this case you seem to say it is "safer" to go SS.

How do we decide if something our denomination teaches is true?
Sola Scriptura says we look to the Bible as the Final Authority.
The RC Denomination says we look to the Bible AND to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Denomination EQUALLY, none subject to the other, both being in complete agreement.

And how do you know who is right when two protestant groups teach contradictory things and both point to the Bible? Right here your saying what is true is true because your group said its true and find passages that you consider to be saying what you believe.

Whats wrong with claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that both are in complete agreement? That sounds like an ideal anyone would want to hold to.

I think the norm of the Bible is less likely to be self-authenticating than the norm of our own teachings.

Again, you seem to be playing dice instead of putting yourself on solid ground. Christianity is not about playing the odds.

Again, a different issue.
Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermaneutics.
REGARDLESS of our 'norma normata," it still must be interpreted and applied as has been done here by my unseparated Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ with both Scripture and Tradition. Sola Scriptura has to do with the final norm, not how to interpret or apply that norm.

It has everything to do with SS. Your church believes what it wants to believe even if it doesnt come out and say it. Why? Because the power of interpretation is the bottom line. Each group interprets the Bible how THEY want, but in the case of protestantism they pretend its not them deciding. Look at my signature, even if we both said SS was the Final Authority we would still disagree with what those quotes are saying.

Well, since I don't consider ANY tradition to be "norma normata" it's completely a moot question on my part. I accept that Tradition which flows from Scripture - but even such ("norms which have been normed") are subject to the Norm that norms.

Basically you decide what Traditions you want to accept, for example what books belong in the Bible. And you turn around and say "Im subject to these books" alone. Circular reasoning on your part.

So, it's a question for YOU. How do you know that the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination is True because it says so? How do you know you are embracing the correct Authoritative Tradition rather than the Orthodox Christians the Pope excommunicated, or the Anglicans? Since you regard such Tradition as EQUAL to the Bible in Authority, since you are judging the what your denomination teaches on the basis of what your denomination teaches, it would be important to KNOW that the answer to your qeustion. But it's moot for me.

First of all one thing that is a huge factor is that the Catholic Church OPENLY claims to be the sole holder of the Truth, most protestant groups dont dare say they are the one and only or that they know for 100% sure they are correct in their teachings. You said earlier that your denomination was "not authoritative." That is NOT something that I would consider to be the foundation and pillar of truth or where to look for my answers. I said above, Jesus said to the Apostles "he who hears you hears Me", that indicates whomever is preaching the Gospel had better come out and say they are the one true church and that they claim to be teaching the correct things. Right there I know not to put any trust in anyone who doesnt claim to be the one true Church. In terms of "how do I know", that would take a long time to fully explain, but in general I have many sources of information to look to and compare and draw conclusions.

Also I asked: "WHO DECIDES WHAT SCRIPTURE IS??". In otherwords Scripture doesnt say what belongs in it, SO the deciding depends on what each individual group decides Scripture to be.

Conclusions:

ANYONE CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER NORMING PROCESS THEY WANT.

They not only can, but must.

And how do I respond to this? Does that mean that one gospel is as good as the next?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just another thread that directly divides between denominations. Not directly about theology at all.

Hey... This is my opinion !! Its my right !!

Jim -


I entered this discussion because I've found that Protestants and Catholics often misunderstand each other and "talk past" each other because we don't appreicate how each constructs and evaluates theology.


I've completed a pretty extensive Confirmation class in my Protestant church, and also a Catechism Class in my Catholic parish - one designed mostly for Protestant converts. I'm a PK who was homeschooled (in religion by my father, who used his seminary books as my textbooks since I was 14). But I'm also very involved with my Catholic youth group and a Catholic Bible Study group. Often, as a Protestant, I kinda went "TILT" when some things were said and often found myself very frustrated when Catholics would ask me (the resident Protestant guest in their midst) questions. I finally discovered - the problem is in how we do theology. It's two different approaches, and each tends to assume the other does it like they do. We don't. We'd be far more apart than we are except that we have the same Bible (well, there are those pesky DC books), mostly the same Tradition, and the same Holy Spirit! The result, we agree probably 95% of the time. But where we don't, the different ways we construct and evaluate viewpoints explains it fairly well. That and a bit of church history and appreciation for the ego in us all...


Jim, I'm trying to share something that's been extremely helpful to me in understanding the various ways we develop theology, and hopefully correct some very common misunderstandings of Sola Scriptura that I've very frequently encountered among my unseparated Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. My purpose here is NOT to "stir the pot" (although disagreements can result in such - we ARE discussing our faith, and our faith tends to be passionate!!!).


MY view...


Keep the faith! Share the love!


- Josiah


.

 

[CCWoody]

Woody, just a personal side question, It doesn’t bother you that you feel you have to be the one decide, figure out what is true and what isn't?

My Roman Catholic sister, you act as if this is suppose to be a BAD thing.

Look, here is the rub: Roman Catholics, just like we Sola Scriptura Protestants must decide for ourselves what is true and what is not. You see, the Roman Catholic must decide that what you are told by your Magesterium is true and infallible. We Sola Scriptura Protestants have the responsibility to read and understand the Bible with the whole Church.

Unfortunately, whereas Roman Catholics deny that they have any infallible ability to determine true, you must still determine at least ONE truth. This means that you cannot be certain that you have chosen correctly. How am I suppose to react to your witness when you say that the Roman Catholic church is the true administrator of the sacraments when you cannot testify that you infallibly know this to be true?

I, OTOH, do believe that I can infallibly learn and know the Truth. When I give my witness I can say infallibly that I know. My life is actually committed to certain truths of which I declare that I know them.

But, we have both decided on what we believe to be the truth. We did that. Nobody decided for us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CaliforniaJosiah-
This doesnt make sense. How can it not be about the Canon but the "canon is the final authority, the norm that norms". What you saying is "I have a book that norms, but what is inside this book is not the issue". You cant say something is the final authority if you dont define whats doing the norming. It would be like me saying a BingBang is the final authority without knowing what it was.How can you not care if the DC included? That directly impacts the scope of Sola Scriptura, and thats why people have to side one way or the other.

Yes, I KNOW that Sola Scriptura is a difficult thing for Roman Catholics to understand. That's why I'm trying here...


Again, Sola Scriptura has to do with norming.
It has to do with how teachings will be constructed and especially evaluated.
How do we know what is true or false?
What will serve as the Final Authority, the norma normans?
That's the subject here.


Issues of the Canon, Tradition and hermanuetics are all relevant, but different issues. The question before us is this: What is our Final Authority? To what is our teachings subject? Sola Scriptura is about norming.



A thread about the Canon would be interesting. We all know the story and we all know there are a few DC books about which not all Christians agree. We all know that. Regardless of how a person regards them, the principle of Sola Scriptura is the same. The issue is norming. The issue is what will serve as the norma normans? The issue is by what will we evaluate what is and is not true? Sola Scriptura says by the Bible. It's a principle.


Yes, not all Christians 100% agree on exactly what the Bible should or should not contain. Having studied the books in question, having learned that the contexts of which almost never come up in Catholic or Orthodox theology, realizing that with the possible exception of two verses and Purgatory (very, very weak ones in my opinion), it's pretty moot. Frankly, in terms of theology, I doubt it would make any difference whether these books are "in" or "out." And the point about the LDS is also moot, the LDS does not consider the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price or D&C to be a part of the Biblical Canon, they consider them to be additional and equal to the Bible - rather like Roman Catholics consider their denomination's Tradition. And the LDS books are not historic ones ever regarded to be a part of the Bible.


But again, all this is off topic.
We're discussing norming here.
What is the "norma normans?"
By what will we evaluate teachings?
What is the Final Authority?
THAT'S the issue before us.

This is unfounded. Catholic Tradition doesnt create a circular argument because it traces its path to a source from where it originated.

I think you can see the "speck" in the eye of the Protestant and not the "log" in your own. As I pointed out, as is always the case, our norma normans is always an agreed upon assumption that can't be PROVEN without an appeal to your norma normans, thus creating a circular arguement. You just did it to support your view of the Authority of Tradition - you simply used the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination to substantiate the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination. You ASSUMED it true and then, using that understanding and interpretation, revealed such.


The Roman Catholic Denomination has decided what teachings, etc. it regards as Tradition (Orthodox Christians, Anglican Christians, Protestant Christians don't always agree). The Roman Catholic Denomination has created this Tradition and then has declared that this Tradition is the norma normans - the norm that will norm their Tradition. Sure seems self-authenticating to me.

I know, I see it consistently, this Tradition is very, very engrained into Catholic theology and thinking, so much so that it's "seen" everywhere - it's just imputed into lots of Scriptures and historical statements. It's just I've found few Catholics seem to be aware that the "lenses" they are proud to say they wear are 1) Their creation, and 2) They've made it the "rule," the norma normans, by which they evaluate their own teachings. There's a very obvious reason why Catholic theology is seen as so true by Catholics!!!!!

I asked where did the Bible come from, you replied with the above. Ok, so via Providence, men were inspired to write them, men preserved them, men gathered them.

It's "off topic" and I tried to address it quickly and get back to the subject of the thread, but again, yes, I believe the Bible is from God, not the institution of the Roman Catholic Denomination. I agree with Roman Catholic Denomination did, at a historical point in time, acknowledge this (as have many other denominations) but that's not the issue at hand.

If you want to claim SS you would have to claim God commanded that men teach SS. But wait, how is man not the one in charge here (via Providence)? Or did God do away with the church leaving only the Bible remaining? I dont see how you believe in SS after what you just said.

Ah, I'm not assuming all that Tradition the Roman Catholic Denomination has declared to be True and the Final Authority for norming the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination.

Again, the principle of Sola Scriptura does not depend on whether the DC books are included or not. The principle of norming we are discussing here is the same either way.

What IS important is if our own particular Denomination's teachings are used as the norma normans for our own particular Denomination's teachings - EQUAL to the Bible (whether that includes the DC books or not). Sola Scriptura has to do with norming. It deals with the issue of what is our norma normans.

Canon defines Scripture. If you saw 2 boxes that both said "Scripture" on the top but underneath the cover one was the Bible and the other was the Book of Mormon then how can you say "Scripture is not about the Canon"?

All this diversion about the DC books is contributing to the problem I suspect you are having in understanding the norming process.

Again, the LDS doesn't accept Sola Scriptura, they firmly reject it - they share the same basic epistemology that Roman Catholics have. And the LDS does not consider the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price or D&C as a part of the Bible.

Again, the norma normans is an agreed upon assumption that can't be proven without an appeal to one's own norma normans. Yes, the world's two billion Christians (including the LDS, if so considered, since you seem obsessed with them) accept exactly the same OT and NT - EXACTLY; although about half of Christians accept some additional ones. And the LDS considers their Tradition (found in part in those books) to be equal in Authority to the Bible, just as Roman Catholics so consider their Tradition. Alright. Can we get back to the issue of this thread?

How can Tradition NOT be part of the equation

I accept Sola Scriptura as my norma normans. That does not mean that I discount Tradition at all!! In my testimony (link in the signature line in all my posts), I begin my statement of faith with the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I totally appreciate that my understanding of the Trinity, Two Natures of Christ and much more are largely issues of Tradition which I share with my unseparated brothers and sisters, my fellow catholics, who happen to belong to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations.

Sola Scriptura simply says that teachings are normed by the Bible. I disagree with the Roman Catholic Denomination that has decided that the teachings of their particular denomination are to be normed by the teachings of their own particular denomination; it just seems a tad self-authenticating to me. I see it even more in the LDS (funny you keep bringing them up since they object to Sola Scriptura as loudly as the RC denomination does; and evaluate their own teachings in the same manner).

I asked if Christianity was about playing the odds, in this case you seem to say it is "safer" to go SS.

Lost me there...


What I think I said is that in epistemology, the question of the value of a "norma normans" is in what is least likely to be self-authenticating. Usually, a norma normans is sought that is OUTSIDE oneself. It is MY personal opinion that subjecting our teachings to the Bible is less likely to be self-authenticating than subjecting our teachings to the Norm of our teachings.

And how do you know who is right when two protestant groups teach contradictory things and both point to the Bible? Right here your saying what is true is true because your group said its true and find passages that you consider to be saying what you believe.

Again, this has nothing to do with the principle we're discussing.
What you are bringing up here is hermaneutics, a different subject.


Catholics also must interpret the Bible - as well as their own Tradition that they have declared to be equally the norma normans. They are BOTH interpreted and applied, just as Protestants do. But Sola Scriptura embraces that we are to subject own teachings to the Bible, not place them equal to the Bible (thus insuring their confirmation).


But, yes, this does seem to be a major issue for many Roman Catholics. They see Protestantism as choatic ("God is not a God of confusion"). They want to be TOLD what is True and false by Someone who claims for themselves to just "know." I can appreciate that. And someone can certainly choose that. And in a day when few people could read and all they knew about religion is what the preist told them, this worked well. Now, I hear Catholics wondering why God have us a Bible at all, if the RC Denomination just "knows."

It has everything to do with SS. Your church believes what it wants to believe even if it doesnt come out and say it. Why? Because the power of interpretation is the bottom line. Each group interprets the Bible how THEY want, but in the case of protestantism they pretend its not them deciding. Look at my signature, even if we both said SS was the Final Authority we would still disagree with what those quotes are saying.

Again, this issue here is not hermaneutics, it's epistemology.
Again, Catholics must interpret Scripture and Tradition, too.


Protestants struggle because we can't claim to be correct just 'cuz we are. We have to answer to an Authority OUTSIDE ourselves, thus the debate. Thus how Protestants keep driving each other back to the Word of God - not to just blindly accept what we said 'cuz we just know.

Another thing. One of the issues for Protestants is how Roman Catholics seem to them to make stuff Doctrines. For example, in another forums, I discussed at length several issues relating to Mary in the RC Denomination. I personally have no real problem with any of them (although I consider little of it to be biblical) - I could discuss as "it's possible, it's not unbiblical." My Protestant unseparated brothers and sisters in Christ, my fellow cathoics in whatever denominations they may or may not be a part of, mostly objected not to the opinion but do it being Doctrine. This is something Catholics fail to appreciate. Oh, and when my father (a pastor) preaches, we ALL believe that the only Authoritative part of that is when he is quoting the Bible - verbatum, the rest is HIS intepretation and application and is subject to the Bible. When I was taking religion from my dad (my homeschool religion teacher), he would tell me much - and demand that I challenge it all. VERY, VERY different than what I encountered in my Catholic Catechism class...

First of all one thing that is a huge factor is that the Catholic Church OPENLY claims to be the sole holder of the Truth

Exactly...


Thus the self-authenticating...
And the opinion many Protestants have of supreme ego and power grabs...


And it kinda makes you wonder why God bothered with the Bible at all...



Thanks for the discussion...
It is totally NOT my interest if you accept Sola Scriptura or not - as a unseparated catholic that has chosen to be a part of the Roman Catholic Denomination, I totally doubt that you will.
My ONLY goal is that you understand the principle. I've found few Catholics do.
And after 4+ years being involved in BOTH a Protestant and Catholic church, I've found that understanding our different epistemologies is key to understanding how we talk past each other and often fail to understanding each other.


Thanks.


- Josiah



.

 

[Benedicta00]

My Roman Catholic sister,

No, I'm American, not Roman, half Italian though.

you act as if this is suppose to be a BAD thing.

When you’re fallen, imperfect and prone to errors you will never know if you are correct or not so I wouldn’t say reading a book and having to be the one who has to decide what commentaries written about the book you just read is true and which ones aren’t is a good thing.

I would rather believe that God worked that out, gave us His Church who teaches us and protects that Church from being wrong.

 

[Benedicta00]

PS Woody, no I don’t have to decided if the Church is wrong or not. The Church was given to us for this purpose- to teach and guild us to and in all truth. The only reason why we have to ‘decided’ now days is because of the reformation challenged the Church, putting doubt in ppl's minds.

 

[CCWoody]

When you’re fallen, imperfect and prone to errors you will never know if you are correct or not so I wouldn’t say reading a book and having to be the one who has to decide what commentaries written about the book you just read is true and which ones aren’t is a good thing.

I would rather believe that God worked that out, gave us His Church who teaches us and protects that Church from being wrong.

To quote an observation: "When you’re fallen, imperfect and prone to errors you will never know if you are correct or not...."

How am I suppose to believe your testimony about your church when you yourself don't and can't know if you are correct? So, I wouldn't say reading a book and having to be the one who has to decide what testimonies of men about the book you just read is true or not is a good thing. It is a sauce of the goose thing. It is a self-defeating witness.

And, even as it is an indictment by you against my practice of Sola Scriptura, it is also by orders of magnitude greater an indictment by you against you. You see, on an uncertain unknowable claim, you have rested the entirety of your faith on the proposition that you did not make a mistake. What if the old Reformers were right in their beliefs regarding the Popes in Rome and their theology? You have no way of knowing for certain one way or the other.

That is not the way that I see in the Bible nor is it the path that I follow.

 

[CCWoody]

PS Woody, no I don’t have to decided if the Church is wrong or not. The Church was given to us for this purpose- to teach and guild us to and in all truth. The only reason why we have to ‘decided’ now days is because of the reformation challenged the Church, putting doubt in ppl's minds.

And you know this how exactly?

Did you decide that this is true or did someone decide it for you?

 

[CCWoody]

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.

False. This is merely YOUR interpretation of what the WCF says.

Ok, carry on with your creation of Straw Dummies to burn.

 

[QuantaCura]

False. This is merely YOUR interpretation of what the WCF says.

Alright, what's the correct interpretation?

 

[A. believer]

Alright, what's the correct interpretation?

I already corrected chilehed on this point twice. Why are you asking again? And more pertinently, what makes you Roman Catholics so confident that you can't be wrong in your interpretation of Protestant beliefs and Confessions, but that you need an interpreter to tell you what Scripture means?

 

[A. believer]

PS Woody, no I don’t have to decided if the Church is wrong or not. The Church was given to us for this purpose- to teach and guild us to and in all truth. The only reason why we have to ‘decided’ now days is because of the reformation challenged the Church, putting doubt in ppl's minds.

How do you know why the Church was given to us? How do you know that the Church was given to us? How do you even know what the Church is?

 

[QuantaCura]

I already corrected chilehed on this point twice. Why are you asking again? And more pertinently, what makes you Roman Catholics so confident that you can't be wrong in your interpretation of Protestant beliefs and Confessions, but that you need an interpreter to tell you what Scripture means?

That's why I asked your interpretation. Well, let me ask you this: when you read the Bible and you see a discrepancy between what you read and what the council or confession says, do you go with the council, or do you go with your reading of th Bible?

 

[A. believer]

That's why I asked your interpretation. Well, let me ask you this: when you read the Bible and you see a discrepancy between what you read and what the council or confession says, do you go with the council, or do you go with your reading of th Bible?

But why didn't you consider the interpretation I already gave, consider it, and then, if you still for some reason think that chilehed's must be correct, defend it? Why did you just ask what it really means?

I ascribe a great deal of weight to the wisdom of long established tradition in the form of councils and confessions, and if I find that my interpretation of Scripture doesn't line up, I very seriously consider the support given by the councils who framed the confessions. I esteem my own presumed understanding lightly, and the wisdom of the ages highly. I'm also perfectly reconciled to the lack of certainty I feel in many areas. My own understanding of theology is constantly evolving, and although I believe that I'm much more theologically correct now than I was when I first believed the gospel, I have no problem with the possibility that I may be quite wrong on some things. Ultimately, though, my faith is not in my intellectual understanding, but in Christ.

 

[seekingpurity047]

That's why I asked your interpretation. Well, let me ask you this: when you read the Bible and you see a discrepancy between what you read and what the council or confession says, do you go with the council, or do you go with your reading of th Bible?

The 66 books of the Bible, for it is the only authority under God that we should follow. ANYWAYS....

Onto the real issue. Let me explain to you why sola scriptura makes perfect sense....

Around Martin Luther's time.... there was this little thing called "Indulgences". Funny... this thing ISN'T in the bible. Buy your way to heaven... hooray! Now... this problem would have never occurred IF everyone held the doctrine of sola scriptura, because people could see that INDULGENCES ARE NOT FROM THE BIBLE, for instance. It's so that nobody can tell me a horrible lie about God. This way i can learn about God myself, without some foolish pope telling me that i have to pay with money for my sins. Funny.. if someone were allowed to read scripture back then, they would know that "The wages of sin is death (NOT MONEY), and the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 6:23. Anyways... that's the real issue. Whenever we hear a pastor/priest speak on something, we should ALWAYS look at the scripture that would go along with it, that way he doesn't make a mistake. For scripture is our FINAL authority.

Tradition, i agree, is important. However... that tradition MUST be based on the bible. For example: baptism, eating of the bread (the representation of the body of Christ) and the drinking of the wine (the representation of the blood of Christ), etc etc. Tradition is important so long as it is based on Scripture.

To the glory of God ALONE do I say these things,

Randy