Sola Scriptura

[PaulSacramento]

A very interesting 23 part from Edward Feser on the subject of Sola Scriptura:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/07/ ... art-i.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/07/ ... rt-ii.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/07/ ... redux.html


An exert:

You’ll recall that the early Jesuit critique of sola scriptura cited by Feyerabend maintains that
(a) scripture alone can never tell you what counts as scripture,
(b) scripture alone cannot tell you how to interpret scripture, and
(c) scripture alone cannot give us a procedure for deriving consequences from scripture, applying it to new circumstances, etc.

[Jac3510]

Haven't read the article, but agree with all three statements. What they have to do with sola scriptura, though, is beyond me.

[Kurieuo]

Agree with those statements.
And also agree with Jac's statements.

Often a strawman is made against Scripture alone, that actually ignores the fuller context of sola scriptura.
So it is an easy knock-down to those who misunderstand the full thrust of it all.

To quote Luther:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

Note, Luther and in the Protestant reformation, Scripture was never divorced from reason.
And the thrust of the concept, was aimed at no one authority today having a privileged position on Christ or Scripture, whether you're talking the RCC, The Watchtower, Luther himself or some other form of denomination.

And so, hence, the interesting debates more free thinking Christians can have on this or that issue.

[PaulSacramento]

I think the points is that simply saying that all you need is the bible (sola scritura) does NOT address the very real issues that come with that view.
The RCC has a set of books that they view as canonical, so do Protestants and The Orthodox lurch and the Coptic and so forth.
Which is right? WHO decided?
If someone decides then it isn't just "sola Scritura" anymore, is it?
What about interpreting scripture ?
Scripture can't tell us how to interpret itself ( well it kind of can...) so who tells us? and what qualifies them?

In short, that is the issue and why the RCC ( for example) follows that not only is scripture indispensable, so is tradition.

[Kurieuo]

So which of the 66 canonical books do the RCC or Orthodox churches reject?

[Philip]

All one has to do is look at some of the unScriptural/contradicting of Scripture and outright nonsense some of the edicts and teachings of the popes and the RCC have put out over the centuries. "Papal Infailability?" Indulgences? Purgatory? PLEASE!!! Of course, Protestants have had their own share of monkey business, too. So, what is our standard if not unequivocally GOD'S standards and Word. And note that the criteria for affirming the 66 books of the Protestant canon come from the whole of Scripture itself. Research some of mysticism and nonsense in the Apocrypha.

[abelcainsbrother]

The reason why is because we cannot look into the future like God can so unless he gives us a prophecy we cannot see it yet and even if he gives us a future prophecy at the time he gives it the things that are going on now causes us to wonder how it could happen.This I think has been the church's problem no matter what denomination,is that all too often we cannot see into the future and yet God's word is revealed true over time but so many times we get out ahead of God's word and this causes wrong interpretations of God's word.Then once God's word is revealed true it is hard to let go of what we have believed and taught for so long but God's word overtime comes along and wipes out some of the things we thought were true.This is why I say often we need to read and study God's word but at the same time let it be revealed in God's time and be willing to change when it does.

[Jac3510]

Saying "all you need is the bible (sola scritura)" is NOT sola scriptura. That's a straw man.

Sola Scriptura says that articles of faith are grounded in Scripture alone. Articles of reason don't need Scripture, although some articles of reason may also be proved by Scripture.

The extent of the canon is an article of reason, not at artice of faith.

[PaulSacramento]

And I rest my case, LOL.

[Kurieuo]

You know, they're Jewish books so we can always look to what they traditional regard themselves as accepting.

In any case, re: the books of the canon, what we have isn't necessarily different, but rather some accept more than others.
Re: the NT however, all accept the 27 books as was comprised of writings that were accepted by early Christians and adopted by the Church.

It's not like we're left to navigate blind. As as for what is rejected and forms the Apocrypha -- there were reasons behind why they are not included other than an I don't like them.

Re: the New Testament, it received such a status and became canonised not because someone or a council decided upon it, but rather it is because the books which comprise it amongst other things had gained such wide acceptance within Christianity and had "apostolic authority."

One theologian I like to quote from an assignment I had is Morwenna Ludlow who summarised the situation in these words:

"With regard to most books it was a question of [the church] explaining why it had what it had, rather than deciding on what it should have. No council sat down to choose the texts according to some pre-established set of criteria, just as a selection committee might decide on the sort of person they want to fill a post, before interviewing the candidates. Rather, there is some sense in which the canon chose (or formed) the Church, rather than the Church chose (or formed) the canon….[W]hat seems to be happening…is that the Church is formulating reason or explanations for why it has what it had, not criteria for choosing what it should have in the future."

(Morwenna Ludlow, "'Criteria of Canonicity' and the Early Church" in John Barton and Michael Wolter (eds), Die Einheit der Schrift and die Vielfalt des Kanons /The Unity of the Scripture and the Diversity of the Canon (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 69-93)

As for Scripture alone, I agree with Jac too, and what I perceive him getting at.
But, would add that it important to note the difference between a "source" and "how a source is mined".
Here's a paper I wrote ages ago re: accepted sources of theology and their interactions.