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.
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.