Christian Forums and Message Board

I was pondering something today concerning Sola Scriptura, and I was thinking I would pose this question here.

If God intended for the Bible to be the sole final authority then...

1) Why were the autographs (original copies) not miraculously preserved?  Why did God leave it up to men, who could make errors, to copy the text over and over and possibly make mistakes?

2) Why did God rely on men to write down the inspired writings?   We know that God can write, after all, he wrote the 10 commandments, made the writing on the wall for Daniel, wrote in the sand before the pharisees. 

3) Do you believe that the biblical authors were performing an infallible act?  That is, do you believe that they were able to accurately put to pen, without error, exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write?  Correspondingly, do you have a problem with saying that other men also transmitted the faith without error (infallibly) in non-written forms?  If so, why?

This is not an attack on the Bible nor its inerrancy as we have it today.  I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible.  I'm just wondering if those who adhere to Sola Scriptura have considered these questions, and I would like to understand how you deal with these issues in your own understanding.

Andre

Hi Josiah.  I know what sola scriptura is, though thanks for your clarification.

Since you accept the reliability and even inerrancy of Scripture, then I wonder if you have an alternative BETTER rule?  One you insist is MORE true, MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced, one MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE above all parties involved?

Please stay on topic.  I really want to know how adherents to sola scriptura answer these questions.  This thread is not about my Catholic beliefs.

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 13:58:42

Hi Josiah.  thanks for your clarification.

Quote from: Josiah on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 13:52:22

Since you accept the reliability and even inerrancy of Scripture, then I wonder if you have an alternative BETTER rule?  One you insist is MORE true, MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced, one MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE above all parties involved?

  I really want to know how adherents to sola scriptura answer these questions. 

1.  The questions seem MOOT since you admitted your faith that Scripture is inerrant.   You don't care that God inscripturated His Scripture via a pens of men or that we don't have the original copies, so why would you think Protestants would?

2.  It is not generally regarded that the penmen of Scripture were inerrant.  In MOST cases, we don't even know who the penmen was - so how could we determine if such was inerrant?  We DO know that at least TWO books were penned by an errant man because Peter was OFTEN corrected by Jesus, denied Jesus on oath and was called "Satan" by Jesus.  But it's MOOT.  Why?  Read your Catechism # 105.  We all agree - the Author of the Bible is not all the various (mostly unknown) secretaries, the Author of the Bible is God.

3.  Your Catholic beliefs ARE central, because if truth doesn't matter (it's been replaced by the issue of submission to the one so requiring it of you), then why do you care if anything is true?

Josiah, all you ever do is try to make conversations about your view points.  You never ever answer the questions, but simply try to derail threads and make them into an argument.  At least, that is my experience with your postings.

I think Protestants should care if their scriptures are inerrant because they are like the "measuring tape" you mentioned before.  The claimed final authority on which everything you believe rests is a little more important than a six-foot measuring tape though.  So these questions should be critical to Protestants, in my mind.

I believe scripture is inerrant because I believe that God powered men to act infallibly, which is not the same as never making mistakes.  I thought you knew this, after all, you know more about Catholicism than 95% of Catholics.  Well here's part of the additional 5%: proclaiming the faith infallibly is not the same as never making mistakes, never sinning.  Persons who act infallibly at one time can make mistakes at others.   I can infallibly say that 1 + 1 = 2 but I cannot infallibly state the position of an electron.

Truth matters to me, but my beliefs don't matter to this thread.  I want to know about your beliefs, and how others who actually adhere to Sola Scriptura deal with these issues.

If you are not going to answer the questions, please stay off the thread, please stop attempting to derail.

Quote from: Josiah on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 13:52:22

Since you accept the reliability and even inerrancy of Scripture, then I wonder if you have an alternative BETTER rule?  One you insist is MORE true, MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced, one MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE above all parties involved?



1.  The questions seem MOOT since you admitted your faith that Scripture is inerrant.   You don't care that God inscripturated His Scripture via a pens of men or that we don't have the original copies, so why would you think Protestants would?

2.  It is not generally regarded that the penmen of Scripture were inerrant.  In MOST cases, we don't even know who the penmen was - so how could we determine if such was inerrant?  We DO know that at least TWO books were penned by an errant man because Peter was OFTEN corrected by Jesus, denied Jesus on oath and was called "Satan" by Jesus.  But it's MOOT.  Why?  Read your Catechism # 105.  We all agree - the Author of the Bible is not all the various (mostly unknown) secretaries, the Author of the Bible is God.


.

I think Protestants should care if their scriptures are inerrant because they are like the "measuring tape" you mentioned before.

... no, Bob you and I are NOT the measuring tape, the measuring tape is the measuring tape - obviously.   In my illustration, the POSITION under review is Bob's statement that the wall is 6 feet tall.  ALL of us employed a Measuring Tape as our rule/canon/norma normans.  Re-read the post.


To your other issues...


1.  You already yeilded the point that Scripture is inerrant.  There's no disagreement.  You said yes, we said yes.  Point closed.

2.  Actually, of course, a rule/canon does NOT have to be inerrant to be the most useful and sound.  In the USA, we operate under the epistemological rule/canon of the Law, we call it "The Rule of Law."  Does ANYONE believe that the law is divine or inerrant?  NO WAY!  And yet, we embrace it as the rule/canon/norma normans for behavior among us.  As you and I drive down a narrow two-lane road, we keep to the right (typically in the USA, lol) of the center line.  Do we KNOW it's in the EXACT center (inerrantly so) or that the law so stating is inerrant?  No, but it's still a good idea.  Bob, you and I use a Sears Measuring Tape, so we believe it's inerrant?  No.  But it's still a sound rule/canon for this purpose (in fact, we can embrace none better).  But all that is MOOT since you already agreed that Scripture is inerrant.   IF you know of some other rule MORE inspired, MORE objective, MORE knowable to all and alterable by none, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE above and beyond all parties - then propose it.  

I answered all your questions.  You've not answered mine.






.

.


Let me TRY again....


Sola Scriptura is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule ("straight edge")/ canon ("measuring stick") or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans ("the norm that norms") in the evaluation of the doctrines among us. 



Example:   

You and I are neighbors and we desire a wall built on our property line.  We hire Bob the Builder with instructions that the wall is to be 6 feet tall.  Bob is done and presents the finished work to us, claiming that the wall is indeed 6 feet tall.  Got it?

IF you care about whether such is true or not (and THAT is the point of disagreement between the RCC and Protestants), then that issue - the wall being 6 feet tall - is accountable and subject to "norming" (the word used in epistemology for investigating the correctness/truth/validity of a position). 

There are two main issues in norming.  The first is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans, the Standard, the Plumbline, the WHAT we will use to determine if this wall is indeed what Bob the Builder says it is.  In all disciplines, the norma normans is regarded as best if it is the most objective, the most OUTSIDE/ ABOVE/ BEYOND all parties involved, the most knowable by all and alterable by none, the post universally regarded by all involved as reliable for this purpose.  Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape.  We all have have one, they are reliable enough for us to determine if the wall is 6 feet tall, it's objective, knowable, unalterable.  Ah, so you, I and Bob all agree to use our measuring tapes.  In that case, such would be the rule/canon/norma normans.

In Sola Scriptura (aka 'The Rule of Scripture'), Scripture is the embraced rule in the norming of the positions among us (especially doctrines). 

Again, the RCC rejects it NOT because it has a better alternative (It doesn't) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn't) but because it itself rejects the norming of the teachings of it itself alone - rejecting the whole question of whether what it itself alone says is true or right, replacing that with the demand of self alone of "quiet docilic submission" to self alone.

Since you accept the reliability and even inerrancy of Scripture, then I wonder if you have an alternative BETTER rule?  One you insist is MORE true, MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced, one MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE above all parties involved?




.

God bless Catholica.

I said, "The scriptures are not a norm or rule per say..." The kingdom of God is not a matter of talk...but of power...God has given us a Spirit of power...

I have read some translations of scripture that read more like a story book and have removed all meaning from them. So how can someone full of the Holy Spirit say, that story book is to be used as a norm?

God is Spirit and the Spirit gives life! The scriptures do not give us life! John 5:39

Now everyone born of the Spirit of God has this testimony in his heart because it is the testimony of God which I shared with you earlier in my original post. 1John 5:11,12

However, How do people listen? and what do they see? How do they receive? Did they receive it as the word of men? or as it actually is?  : The testimony of God!

The one who has accepted it certifies that God is truthful-That one has the Spirit and hears what God says.

Jesus said, if anyone receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophets reward. 1Corinthians 14:32

And anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. James 5:13-18

Josiah, now I have to bring the discussion back on track, because you continually and belligerently started your own discussion about your own topic.  The bottom line, real question I have is this:

To people who hold that Sacred Scripture is the sole final authority upon which your understanding of something as critical as your salvation rests, a practice sometimes called "Sola Scriptura",

1. Realizing that as FACT the actual words of scripture were physically penned by men, inspired by God but not physically recorded by God, do you find it possible to believe that scripture is inerrant WITHOUT acknowledging that the authors were performing an infallible act, that is, a perfect transmission into written words the revelation that the Holy Spirit intended?

2. If the persons recording scripture WERE performing an infallible act when recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, is it not also possible that men were also capable of infallibly orally handing on revelation that was inspired by the Holy Spirit?  And that whatever teachings of the Holy Spirit that were infallibly handed on orally, the Holy Spirit would continue to enable to be infallibly handed on orally throughout the ages, so that we would always know this revelation?

3. If the persons recording scripture WERE NOT performing an infallible act when recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it IS possible that the writers wrote error into the Bible, and so is it not possible that the very foundation of what you believe is somewhat, largely, or completely false or even to some extent critically corrupted in such a way that could endanger your very salvation if you base your faith on those same scriptures as the final authority?

Finally, I note that if man was meant to have their faith based on Sola Scriptura, then it is strange that God did not miraculously preserve the autographs (original records) of scripture, but rather left them in the hands of men who had to painstakingly (and perhaps, in an error-prone way) copy them over, by hand, many, many times, until a time when paper technology produced a type of paper that would not crumble and be destroyed within a relatively short period of time.  He could have waited to come (or, inspired men to innovate) until better paper technology could produce the exact written words of God without having to be copied over and over.

Now everyone born of the Spirit of God has this testimony in his heart because it is the testimony of God which I shared with you earlier in my original post. 1John 5:11,12

Yes, I agree, that God resides in the heart of the believer and so he can believe the truths of the faith.  But that is not the same thing as understanding something that no one has taught to you.  The Bible says that faith comes through hearing.  Still a corrupted Bible would create confusion, as would a deceiving spirit.  So it is important if we rely so heavily on the Bible that our understanding is founded in the truth, and especially important that the Bible is inerrant.

2Th. 2:11-12
Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.

However, How do people listen? and what do they see? How do they receive? Did they receive it as the word of men? or as it actually is?  : The testimony of God!

It depends!  They may look to teachers to teach them what is truth, and receive his words as the truth of God, but in reality they are a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the Bible.  I think this happens all the time!  Look how many people teach so many different things...

The one who has accepted it certifies that God is truthful-That one has the Spirit and hears what God says.

Jesus said, if anyone receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophets reward. 1Corinthians 14:32

And anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. James 5:13-18

Did you mean Matthew 10:41?  I'm not following why you wrote this, so if you would, please expound.

To people who hold that Sacred Scripture is the sole final authority upon which your understanding of something as critical as your salvation rests, a practice sometimes called "Sola Scriptura",

Let me try just one more time....


Sola Scriptura is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule ("straight edge")/ canon ("measuring stick") or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans ("the norm that norms") in the evaluation of the doctrines among us. 



Example:   

You and I are neighbors and we desire a wall built on our property line.  We hire Bob the Builder with instructions that the wall is to be 6 feet tall.  Bob is done and presents the finished work to us, claiming that the wall is indeed 6 feet tall.  Got it?

IF you care about whether such is true or not (and THAT is the point of disagreement between the RCC and Protestants), then that issue - the wall being 6 feet tall - is accountable and subject to "norming" (the word used in epistemology for investigating the correctness/truth/validity of a position). 

There are two main issues in norming.  The first is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans, the Standard, the Plumbline, the WHAT we will use to determine if this wall is indeed what Bob the Builder says it is.  In all disciplines, the norma normans is regarded as best if it is the most objective, the most OUTSIDE/ ABOVE/ BEYOND all parties involved, the most knowable by all and alterable by none, the post universally regarded by all involved as reliable for this purpose.  Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape.  We all have have one, they are reliable enough for us to determine if the wall is 6 feet tall, it's objective, knowable, unalterable.  Ah, so you, I and Bob all agree to use our measuring tapes.  In that case, such would be the rule/canon/norma normans.

In Sola Scriptura (aka 'The Rule of Scripture'), Scripture is the embraced rule in the norming of the positions among us (especially doctrines). 

Again, the RCC rejects it NOT because it has a better alternative (It doesn't) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn't) but because it itself rejects the norming of the teachings of it itself alone - rejecting the whole question of whether what it itself alone says is true or right, replacing that with the demand of self alone of "quiet docilic submission" to self alone

1. Realizing that as FACT the actual words of scripture were physically penned by men, inspired by God but not physically recorded by God, do you find it possible to believe that scripture is inerrant WITHOUT acknowledging that the authors were performing an infallible act, that is, a perfect transmission into written words the revelation that the Holy Spirit intended?

It's POSSIBLE that you and I aren't alive at all but are only experiencing an entertainment program while plugged into some electronic device on Mars.  But that seems MOOT to our discussion here....

IF truth matters to you (and AGAIN, that is the point of disagreement between Protestants and the RCC, and the reason why the Rule of Scripture is rejected by the RCC - NOT because the RCC regards Scripture as a fallible, human book), then you've embraced the need for norming.  You thus need to embrace a norma normans for such.  The Rule of Scripture is embracing Scripture as the Rule.  You've already agreed that it is inerrant and that GOD is the Author of it.   Again, IF (unlike the RCC) you have a MORE sound rule, something MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objective, MORE embraced as relible to all involved in the norming, MORE above and beyond all parties, MORE knowable to all and alterable by none THEN LET'S HEAR IT!  PROPOSE IT!   

2. If the persons recording scripture WERE performing an infallible act when recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, is it not also possible that men were also capable of infallibly orally handing on revelation that was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Yes.  ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE FOR GOD.  What part of that proclaimation - made in those exact words twice in Scripture - don't you understand?  But just because it's POSSIBLE doesn't make it true.  I AGREED WITH YOU, yes - you have a theoretical point - Joseph Smith and the LDS could be faithfully proclaiming what Jesus taught but the Holy Spirit never recorded in the Bible.  YES, I agree with you, it's theoretically possible.  It's also theoretically possible that Mary now lives on the Moon of Endor, has 821 children and lives entirely on fish tacos.  Could we return to the practical issue before us? 

And, as pointed out to you, the LDS embracing the "tradition" of the LDS as the rule for the evaluation of the tradition of the LDS CAN only have one result: they agree.  But that's MOOT as to whether such is true.  It's worthless as a rule in norming.

3. If the persons recording scripture WERE NOT performing an infallible act when recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it IS possible that the writers wrote error into the Bible

Yes, and if there was no air, they'd be nothing to blow up basketballs with, either.  But your point is MOOT.   You embrace that Scripture is inerrant!   You embrace that GOD is the Author of the Bible.  You embrace that it is the enscripturated words of God Himself.  Everyone "at the table" does.   

Again, IF you have some alternative, better norma normans for norming, something MORE authored by God, MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE embrace by all of us, MORE objective, MORE knowable to all and alterable by none, MORE above and beyond and outside all of us - THEN SUGGEST IT!   DO WHAT THE RCC AND LDS HAVE NOT DONE, PRESENT IT! 

Finally, I note that if man was meant to have their faith based on Sola Scriptura, then it is strange that God did not miraculously preserve the autographs (original records) of scripture

1.  Moot to the issue of the embraced rule in norming.

2.  READ the definition of Sola Scriptura.

3.  What is ODD to me is that IF the RCC is the one teacher that is the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, and is the singular, exclusive, sole, absolute, total exception to the issue of truth but rather correctness is to be waved in the singular, unique, particular case of the RCC alone and replaced with docilic, quiet submission to it and it itself alone, then isn't it strange that Jesus, God, all the Apostles, the Holy Spirit - none of them so much as even MENTIONED it?  For anything?  About anything?  Concerning anything.  In any context whatsoever?  Didn't Jesus know about this 2000 year period of the church befroe His Return?  Didn't He know about 451, 1054, 1521?  Didn't He know that the RCC denomination would be one of thousands and would have that name?  Didn't He know the RCC would be making all these HUGE, remarkable, foundational, critical, highly divisive, accountability/truth evading claims - SO important?  Didn't He know that for most of these 2000 years, the church would be divided right down the middle by the claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone?  IF He did and IF He regarded the RCC as exempt from truth and the final authority, ODD He never mentioned it.  AT ALL.  Never authorized it anything.  Never promised it anything.  INSTEAD, some 50 times, He directed people to Scripture.  INSTEAD, He told us to beware of teachers (hold them accountable!), promised that teachers would arise teaching falsely, praised the people for not waving the issue of truth, for holding teachers accountable, for testing/norming them (Rev. 2:2 for example) - NEVER ONCE exempting the RCC from these things.   ODD, don't you think - if the remarkable, accountability/truth evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone have any validity, any credibility?   Ah, but another discussion for another day and thread.


The issue of this thread is the embraced rule in the norming of the doctrines among us.





.

Andre, "This is not an attack on the Bible nor its inerrancy as we have it today.  I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible.  I'm just wondering if those who adhere to Sola Scriptura have considered these questions, and I would like to understand how you deal with these issues in your own understanding."

As you know Andre, being a scholar of the Word of God that Mark 16:9-20 are considered additions to the text and has been "established" by "scholars." I suppose one might ask if inerrancy is denied by those who add the variant to the inspired text.

My thoughts on your question: I believe that God inspired His messangers to reveal and record His will: once delivered, the understanding, preservation, and transmission of the message rested upon the devotion and fidelity of those who chose to do His will. (Note Matthew 25:1ff).

When men failed of accurate preservation, or of intelligent interpretation, or of faithful proclamation to all men, God did not intervene by a miracle; else every time a translation of the Scripture was made to another language, every time a sermon was preached, immediate miraculous guidance would have been necessary. God delivered divine truth to man; the responsibility is man's for the fulfillment of its purpose.

We today, owe a profound debt of gratitude to the long line of martyrs and scholars who have preserved and transmitted the sacred text. The more one studies in the field of textural criticism, the stronger the conviction that the church was moved from the beginning by a profound devotion to the Word of God, and that the written Word has been preserved for us intact in every important phase of the gospel.

Hear again the words of Jesus in his parable of the talents: "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his servants, and delivered unto them his goods, and unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one: to every man according to his ability."

Will we today, be held accountable of our "ability" on what we teach about "the kingdom of heaven" with the "goods delivered"?   

Will our defense of lack of ability fall on the fact that Mark 16: 9-20 has been omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanius, one important manuscript of an Old Latin, and Syriac and Aethiopic versions? A shorter conclusion is found in L. 274, the margin of a manuscript of an Old Latin and Harclean manuscript and an Aethiopic text.

The Syriac Peshito, Old Italic, and Coptic all contain Mark 16: 9-20. These versions were made very early when a great number of Greek manuscripts much older than we have, were available. The evidence from these translations is therefore very powerful.

Andre, I will address your underlying question on "Sola Scriptura" as "final authority."
The authority of the Scripture is not subsidiary to the church, for both the New Testament and the church alike arose at the direction of the Holy Spirit. The church is divine in origin and constitution, but human and fallible in its membership, and its character has been changed and corrupted through the years.

Our absolute assurance of the nature of the church of Christ as it was originally established is to be found in the records of the New Testament and not apart from it; even as our guide for the conduct of the church is to be found therein.

A study of the New Testament will show that the books claim to have been written to form and correct the faith of the church, and instead of there being the slightest suggestion that the church is to correct the New Testament, exactly the opposite is true.

The books of the New Testament were accepted as the miraculously inspired Word of God immediately when they were received from the hands of apostles and leaders whom the early Christians knew to be inspired. The proof of this declaration is written large across the pages of the New Testament itself.

Yes, there is a crux between the moderate and the Christian views The one denies the unique inspiration of the Scriptures and affirming the books of the New Testament were canonized by the church through a long process in which their intrinsic merit prevailed. The other affirms the divine inspiration of these books and that the inspiration was recognized by the first Christians, and hence led to the immediate acceptance of these books by the Christians to whom they were originally written and sent. All later discussions by church and council were of the validity of an acceptance already made.

 The bottom line, real question I have is this:

To people who hold that Sacred Scripture is the sole final authority upon which your understanding of something as critical as your salvation rests, a practice sometimes called "Sola Scriptura",

1. Realizing that as FACT the actual words of scripture were physically penned by men, inspired by God but not physically recorded by God, do you find it possible to believe that scripture is inerrant WITHOUT acknowledging that the authors were performing an infallible act, that is, a perfect transmission into written words the revelation that the Holy Spirit intended?

2. If the persons recording scripture WERE performing an infallible act when recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, is it not also possible that men were also capable of infallibly orally handing on revelation that was inspired by the Holy Spirit?  And that whatever teachings of the Holy Spirit that were infallibly handed on orally, the Holy Spirit would continue to enable to be infallibly handed on orally throughout the ages, so that we would always know this revelation?

3. If the persons recording scripture WERE NOT performing an infallible act when recording the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it IS possible that the writers wrote error into the Bible, and so is it not possible that the very foundation of what you believe is somewhat, largely, or completely false or even to some extent critically corrupted in such a way that could endanger your very salvation if you base your faith on those same scriptures as the final authority?

Finally, I note that if man was meant to have their faith based on Sola Scriptura, then it is strange that God did not miraculously preserve the autographs (original records) of scripture, but rather left them in the hands of men who had to painstakingly (and perhaps, in an error-prone way) copy them over, by hand, many, many times, until a time when paper technology produced a type of paper that would not crumble and be destroyed within a relatively short period of time.  He could have waited to come (or, inspired men to innovate) until better paper technology could produce the exact written words of God without having to be copied over and over.

I am only occupied with one issue in all this debate.  God gave us His truth in His written Word by His servants, so no other word of men is acceptable as adding to it written or spoken.  From this written Word we learn all that God wants us to know about Himself, His plan and purposes, His great salvation, etc.  I can trust what He says rather than what other voices and writers say.  He thereby gave us all that He holds us accountable for.  I suppose that is what you all mean by "sola scriptura".

Now, I have come by the truth of God's Word to find the new spiritual birth, whereby I know I am saved for all eternity.  The Word confirms this experience so I praise and thank God, and continue to conform to His Word and live by it.  Why should I debate the matter or worry?  I am saved forever and can trust God to keep my soul, and show me what is true and what is only doubting ideas.  Should I change something?

- Seriousseeker

I was pondering something today concerning Sola Scriptura, and I was thinking I would pose this question here.

If God intended for the Bible to be the sole final authority then...

Sola Scriptura is the PRAXIS of using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluating of the correctness of doctrines.

While it is the only embraced rule/canon illustrated in Scripture itself, although Jesus used this praxis some 50 times, no one says that GOD established it.  We'll say what I just did and we'll say it's the most sound praxis - and we'll note that those who reject it (RCC, LDS, all cults, etc.) do so NOT because they have a better alternative but because they reject accountability (and thus norming/evaluating correctness) in the sole, singular, exclusive, unique, particular case of self alone.

1) Why....

IF the RC denomination was intended by God to be..... anything AT ALL, then

1.  Why didn't God, Christ, or any Apostle so much as even MENTION it?  For anything.  About anything.  Concerning anything.  In any regard whatsoever?

2.  Why didn't God, Jesus, any Apostle or anyone else in the First Century point to it - for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any regard or manner? 

Ah, I know the trick.  A verse that says "church" is quoted.  The word is capitolized in violation of English grammar but in hopes of intentionally misleading people into thinking this is a part of a proper name, then, just inserted into the text, is placed the word "Catholic" (capitolized so as to be a proper name, a moniker of a corporation) and, with this two CHANGES to the text, "Ahha!   See!  Jesus was talking about the RCC!!!"   Well, anyone can prove anything if they entirely CHANGE the text.   Of course, the one CHANGING it knows - yes, they KNOW - they are wrong and have to resort to this trickery, this disception.  Sad, really.




That's my perspective....


Pax


- Josiah






.

The "Rule of Law" is a popular political concept nowadays.  Sola Scriptura is basically Rule of Law made ecclesiastical.  It was a natural response to curb the abuses of the clergy of earlier centuries, when the paradigm for authority was essentially autocratic.  Sola Scriptura has accomplished its purpose well.

Now the pendulum swings back the other direction - the clergy have mostly abandoned their autocratic tendencies, and re-cast themselves as lawyers, here to interpret the law for us.

It only goes to show - whatever priests perceive power to be, they will gravitate towards it, and try to obtain it.

Jarrod

Priests wrote the New Testament and compiled the books that comprise it.

Now you want to tell them they don't understand it but you do!?

Hi, Andre . . . I am Bill . . . here we go >

1) Why were the autographs (original copies) not miraculously preserved?  Why did God leave it up to men, who could make errors, to copy the text over and over and possibly make mistakes?

He is able to make sure people copying do not make mistakes, and/or make us able to sort out true copying from false; in His Holy Spirit, we can tell the difference (Philippians 1:9, John 10:1-31, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Also, the true original is not the written words, but all that God means, in His heart where His words come from. So, "therefore", in His own love (Romans 5:5), we discover the original meaning, where His message came from; and this is deeper and better than any words can tell us, by themselves. It is not in His words, but in His love, where we begin to discover His infallible meaning > "to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19) We submit to how He rules us in His peace, then *He* does in us all that *He* knows His words really mean > "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

2) Why did God rely on men to write down the inspired writings?

He did not rely on men; but holy men relied on God! And God is able to make sure we get things right > "But He said, 'The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.'" (Luke 18:27) "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God," (2 Corinthians 3:5)  

We know that God can write, after all, he wrote the 10 commandments, made the writing on the wall for Daniel, wrote in the sand before the pharisees.

God can write in men's hearts, so then out of the abundance of our hearts (Matthew 12:34) we speak and write what God's love has written in us > "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart." (2 Corinthians 3:2-3) So, we are God's canon love message, "known and read by all men" . . . living His meaning, more and better as we grow in Christ. So, God who "is love" (1 John 4:8&16); and love is sharing, so therefore God is sharing with us, including us, like a father includes his children in what he is doing so they can enjoy sharing love together: we are *Family* with Him, sharing in how He is spreading His message in His love.

So, though God is able to do it all by Himself, God is not about such independence like how worldly people can be competitive and independent, then unable to know how to love in marriage and other relationships. We humans can be so into how we can do things by ourselves; and this cancels us out from how we could be sharing . . . depending on and trusting and including one another, so we can have sharing in love together, instead of worshiping and glorifying our idol of independence! God can handle including us and still succeed He shares:

"'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
  It shall not return to Me void,
  But it shall accomplish what I please,
  And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.'"
                                      (Isaiah 55:11)

So, God's word is unconditionally guaranteed to do all that God Himself pleases . . . God's own meaning, and not limited by how humans can misunderstand His word and make it look as though we can't get straight about what His words mean

3) Do you believe that the biblical authors were performing an infallible act?  That is, do you believe that they were able to accurately put to pen, without error, exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write?  Correspondingly, do you have a problem with saying that other men also transmitted the faith without error (infallibly) in non-written forms?  If so, why?

By "other men", would you mean Buddhists, for example Or do you mean Christian people who are obeying how God leads us? I'd say we can be led by God so we are being coordinated by Him with all that God knows is really true - - - what He knows is really going on in circumstances and in people's hearts. So, we can be led infallibly so we marry the ones God knows we belong with, for example. Is this what you mean by doing what is infallible "in non-written forms?"

I was pondering something today concerning Sola Scriptura, and I was thinking I would pose this question here.

If God intended for the Bible to be the sole final authority then...

1) Why were the autographs (original copies) not miraculously preserved?  Why did God leave it up to men, who could make errors, to copy the text over and over and possibly make mistakes?

2) Why did God rely on men to write down the inspired writings?   We know that God can write, after all, he wrote the 10 commandments, made the writing on the wall for Daniel, wrote in the sand before the pharisees. 

3) Do you believe that the biblical authors were performing an infallible act?  That is, do you believe that they were able to accurately put to pen, without error, exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write?  Correspondingly, do you have a problem with saying that other men also transmitted the faith without error (infallibly) in non-written forms?  If so, why?

This is not an attack on the Bible nor its inerrancy as we have it today.  I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible.  I'm just wondering if those who adhere to Sola Scriptura have considered these questions, and I would like to understand how you deal with these issues in your own understanding.

Andre

I suspect we differ in our understanding of Sola Scriptura. What it means to me is that the necessary information for the revelation of God, and human "salvation" is contained in what you accept as inerrant. As a result, the message is less about church structure and more about life with God. While it is nice to know that the church at Rome did things differently than the church at Jerusalem, those differing practices are not normative.

To answer your questions:

1. They didn't need to be.
2. Because God has relied on humans to do most of his talking. While God may have written on a wall, he used some guy to record the fact that he wrote on the wall.
3. Depends on what you mean by infallible. Does Paul know how many people he baptized or not? The message is important; details are not necessarily so. Quite frankly, I think people transmit the message today under the guidance of the Spirit so that it makes sense to the people hearing or reading it.

Hi HRoberson,

Quote from: HRoberson on Wed Jan 12, 2011 - 22:20:58

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 22, 2010 - 13:22:56

I was pondering something today concerning Sola Scriptura, and I was thinking I would pose this question here.

If God intended for the Bible to be the sole final authority then...

1) Why were the autographs (original copies) not miraculously preserved?  Why did God leave it up to men, who could make errors, to copy the text over and over and possibly make mistakes?

2) Why did God rely on men to write down the inspired writings?   We know that God can write, after all, he wrote the 10 commandments, made the writing on the wall for Daniel, wrote in the sand before the pharisees. 

3) Do you believe that the biblical authors were performing an infallible act?  That is, do you believe that they were able to accurately put to pen, without error, exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write?  Correspondingly, do you have a problem with saying that other men also transmitted the faith without error (infallibly) in non-written forms?  If so, why?

This is not an attack on the Bible nor its inerrancy as we have it today.  I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible.  I'm just wondering if those who adhere to Sola Scriptura have considered these questions, and I would like to understand how you deal with these issues in your own understanding.

Andre

I suspect we differ in our understanding of Sola Scriptura. What it means to me is that the necessary information for the revelation of God, and human "salvation" is contained in what you accept as inerrant.

The question I might ask is, why do you accept the Bible as inerrant?  Just saying that it is inerrant and that one believes it inerrant doesn't make it inerrant.

If by inerrant, you mean "sufficiently descriptive," then that works for me. I accept Scripture as sufficient because what it describes resonates with what I see in it. Yes, that's a reflexive response. What it means is that the whole tells a single, cohesive story and has a consistent theme about what God is and has been after from the beginning of the record. Further, that consistent theme agrees with what we know about human nature, about human psychology, about wellness. Simply, it makes sense on a number of levels.

Quote from: HRoberson on Wed Jan 12, 2011 - 22:20:58

As a result, the message is less about church structure and more about life with God. While it is nice to know that the church at Rome did things differently than the church at Jerusalem, those differing practices are not normative.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here.  What do you mean by the "church at Rome did things differently than the church at Jerusalem"?

A number of things, especially prior to and after the Great Schism. There is a significant difference between how Orthodox churches "do" church and the way Western Christians do. Scripture is clear that not every congregation described did things the same say, faced the same challenges, or even wanted to do things the same way. My point is that the imposition of church structure and norms from one congregation to another is somewhat off the mark and largely unwarranted. Scripture's message is a spiritual one that reflects in the life of believers. It is not primarily about what church looks like from outside.

Quote from: HRoberson on Wed Jan 12, 2011 - 22:20:58

To answer your questions:

1. They didn't need to be.

I assume that you are answering the first part of the question, about scripture preservation.  But what about the rest, where God let fallible men make copies upon copies, possibly introducing errors.  Even some men tried to introduce heresy into the text, a la Martin Luther with his addition of the word "alone" after faith.

Doesn't that bring into question whether the scriptures are really inerrant?

Luther's insertion of "alone" is not sustainable because Scripture is clear that there is more involved than anything "alone." The story itself is self-sustaining because it is as broad as it is.

Quote from: HRoberson on Wed Jan 12, 2011 - 22:20:58

2. Because God has relied on humans to do most of his talking. While God may have written on a wall, he used some guy to record the fact that he wrote on the wall.

I agree with this.  Men are an absolutely essential part in the plan of salvation.  That is why these same men had to perform infallible acts to ensure inerrancy.

I agree to some degree, although I don't think we need to push this too far. What is infallible is the overall story, not necessarily specific passages or words. For example, Paul says first that he didn't baptize anyone and then he adds "well except for Joe and Bill. And oh yes, Sally and Warren." Other than those, I didn't baptize anyone." It would seem to me that Paul's first writing was inaccurate and he had to correct himself. However, none of that impact the point of his writing. Similarly, we're not really sure how long Israel was in captivity but that period of time isn't important to the story. The revelation of God (and Man's intended character) within the story is what is important.

Quote from: HRoberson on Wed Jan 12, 2011 - 22:20:58

3. Depends on what you mean by infallible.

That is a very important point.  By infallible I do not mean that a person never says anything that is untrue, that a person never sins, that a person never makes a mistake. It specifically means that, with regard to issues regarding faith and morals, a person is protected by the Holy Spirit from officially teaching and promulgating error.  The Biblical authors had to be infallible (performing an infallible act) when they recorded scripture, otherwise we cannot know that scripture is inerrant.

Again, I'm not sold on necessarily the same definition of "inerrant," and so can't necessarily use that as a basis for infallibility. Scripture is consistent even if the details from time get confused. We have to interpret the application of faith and morals in our situation. I would more quickly agree that a believer's faithful behavior is more apt to be inerrant rather than any specific promulgation. For instance, lying is clearly described in Scripture as a bad thing. However, given the choice of telling the Nazi that there are or are not Jews in my attic, I'm going to say "no, no Jews." I believe that behavior, that statement, made by a God follower is inerrant even if it seems to go against conventional Scriptural interpretation.

Quote from: HRoberson on Wed Jan 12, 2011 - 22:20:58

Does Paul know how many people he baptized or not? The message is important; details are not necessarily so. Quite frankly, I think people transmit the message today under the guidance of the Spirit so that it makes sense to the people hearing or reading it.

A teacher may teach error when speaking informally, or a teacher may teach truth.  But in order to safe-guard the deposit of faith, an act must be infallible if truth were to remain on the earth.  Paul's inability to remember how many people he baptized was not a matter of faith or morals. With regard to the things that matter (those parts of the Bible which do not specify that the author could not remember and are necessary for the faith, which is nearly all the rest) the person writing them must be writing infallibly if they are to be considered inerrant.

Well then, let's ask this question: how many fruit of the Spirit are there? We have multiple lists of Spirit effects. Which writer was inerrant? Or again, we have at least two lists of "qualifications" for elders/shepherds/bishops. Which list is inerrant, and why do some churches seem to ignore them in various aspects?