Sola Scriptura? In what sense?

[romishpopishorganist]

Strictly speaking, at least as I understand it, the "Scriptures" no longer exist. The original inspired autographs on which the Scriptures were recorded do not exist. We have copies, but, as I understand it, most Protestants do not believe that copies are Theopneustos. Not only this, but my understanding is that translations of the copies are not that which are Theopneustos.

If we no longer have the original inspired autographs of Scripture, how can Protestants claim to go by the "Bible Alone?" There is no "sole infallible rule of Faith" that exists by which to norm doctrine, because according to Protestants, if it isn't Theopneustos, it, by definition, cannot be infallible.

Protestants are norming their doctrine on uninspired copies on which translations of Scripture are based; translations themselves that are also uninspired and thus, by definition fallible.

How can something that is uninspired and fallible be the supreme court of final appeal on all matters of Faith and doctrine, or otherwise manifest the supreme authority of God?

My understanding is that the King James Only advocates recognize the problem I have pointed out, hence why they believe the King James version to be the "authorized" version. They see this version as inspired. But many Protestants are not KJO advocates.

So if the Scriptures, technically speaking, no longer exist, in what sense are Protestants "Sola Scriptura?"

 

[Nondenom40]

Strictly speaking, at least as I understand it, the "Scriptures" no longer exist. The original inspired autographs on which the Scriptures were recorded do not exist. We have copies, but, as I understand it, most Protestants do not believe that copies are Theopneustos. Not only this, but my understanding is that translations of the copies are not that which are Theopneustos.

If we no longer have the original inspired autographs of Scripture, how can Protestants claim to go by the "Bible Alone?" There is no "sole infallible rule of Faith" that exists by which to norm doctrine, because according to Protestants, if it isn't Theopneustos, it, by definition, cannot be infallible.

Protestants are norming their doctrine on uninspired copies on which translations of Scripture are based; translations themselves that are also uninspired and thus, by definition fallible.

How can something that is uninspired and fallible be the supreme court of final appeal on all matters of Faith and doctrine, or otherwise manifest the supreme authority of God?

My understanding is that the King James Only advocates recognize the problem I have pointed out, hence why they believe the King James version to be the "authorized" version. They see this version as inspired. But many Protestants are not KJO advocates.

So if the Scriptures, technically speaking, no longer exist, in what sense are Protestants "Sola Scriptura?"

So if the Scriptures, technically speaking, no longer exist, in what sense are Protestants "Sola Scriptura?"

I see you still don't get it. We have the most accurate translations since the autographs. Thousands of copies of manuscripts, papyri, parchments. Then we have church fathers that cited the n.t. thousands of times like Origen and Tertullian. And from just those two alone we can reconstruct like 98% of the entire n.t. Then throw in Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and dozens of others and well, you know where i'm going. We have multiple sources to compile and compare. The doctrines in the n.t. are accurate and it is by these books of the n.t. that we 'test all things...' I don't have a shadow of a doubt about the reliability of the n.t. And its by this n.t. that i compare the teachings of rome and the lds, jw's and all the rest. And when they are found to be inconsistent with Gods word, its pitched. Sounds like you have a very low view of scripture. But a lot of catholics do.

 

[PeanutGallery]

...
So if the Scriptures, technically speaking, no longer exist, in what sense are Protestants "Sola Scriptura?"

Are you claiming RCC is the only alternate extant authority, since it couldn't preserve the Bible that the RCC claims to have supposedly given us; yet, RCC was able to preserve their uninspired unwritten Sacred Tradition?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

NT

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I see you still don't get it.

Do you now? So you think you see do you? I am reminded of a proverb: "I see" said the blind man. "No you don't" said the dumb man.

We have the most accurate translations since the autographs. Thousands of copies of manuscripts, papyri, parchments. Then we have church fathers that cited the n.t. thousands of times like Origen and Tertullian. And from just those two alone we can reconstruct like 98% of the entire n.t. Then throw in Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and dozens of others and well, you know where i'm going. We have multiple sources to compile and compare. The doctrines in the n.t. are accurate and it is by these books of the n.t. that we 'test all things...' I don't have a shadow of a doubt about the reliability of the n.t. And its by this n.t. that i compare the teachings of rome and the lds, jw's and all the rest. And when they are found to be inconsistent with Gods word, its pitched. Sounds like you have a very low view of scripture. But a lot of catholics do.

In other words: "We have Tradition!"

Please explain to me how your answer is anything but an appeal to the very Tradition you deny?

Part of the Catholic understanding of Tradition is that Tradition includes but is not limited to the mechanism by which the Word of God is transmitted in the Church. In your answer, you are appealing to the reliability of said mechanism. That is fine---but you did not answer my question: In what sense are you Sola Scriptura?

In order to appeal to the reliability of the translations and copies, you have to appeal to the reliability of the mechanism in which they came to you in the first place. If that mechanism is reliable, again, how are you Sola Scriptura? I thought only Scripture is guaranteed to be infallible?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Are you claiming RCC is the only alternate extant authority, since it couldn't preserve the Bible that the RCC claims to have supposedly given us; yet, RCC was able to preserve their uninspired unwritten Sacred Tradition?

I asked a simple question and would like a simple straight answer to the question.

Most Protestants, at least the ones who are not the Jack Chick types, readily grant that the charism of "Theopneustos" applies only to the original inspired autographs on which Scripture is recorded. They also readily grant that these original autographs no longer exist. We have copies, but those copies are not Theopneustos.

What that means--is that---there is no God Breathed standard that continues to exist by which doctrine can be normed. Translations and copies might be accurate--but in order to defend their reliability, you have to defend the reliability of the mechanism by which they were preserved and transmitted. If that mechanism is reliable, then you are essentially asserting that you only know what the original autographs of Scripture contained because the mechanism (Tradition) in which they were transmitted and preserved in the Church is reliable.

 

[PeanutGallery]

...
Most Protestants, at least the ones who are not the Jack Chick types, readily grant that the charism of "Theopneustos" applies only to the original inspired autographs on which Scripture is recorded. They also readily grant that these original autographs no longer exist. We have copies, but those copies are not Theopneustos....

I believe God has preserved his inspired words; I have a copy.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I believe God has preserved his inspired words; I have a copy.

Is that copy Theopneustos? (God Breathed)

 

[Mike McK]

Strictly speaking, at least as I understand it, the "Scriptures" no longer exist. The original inspired autographs on which the Scriptures were recorded do not exist. We have copies, but, as I understand it, most Protestants do not believe that copies are Theopneustos. Not only this, but my understanding is that translations of the copies are not that which are Theopneustos.

Your posts just get sillier and sillier. No Christian has ever said scripture wasn't inspired by God because it is not written on the original document. All scripture is inspired by God because of the authority it represents.

If we no longer have the original inspired autographs of Scripture, how can Protestants claim to go by the "Bible Alone?"

Thirty+ years as a Christian, twenty-five as an elder, degrees from two prominent seminaries, a very large Christian library, and tons of Christian podcasts, and have never heard a Christian say they believe in "Bible alone".

There is no "sole infallible rule of Faith" that exists by which to norm doctrine, because according to Protestants, if it isn't Theopneustos, it, by definition, cannot be infallible.

Correct. If it is not God breathed, it cannot be inerrant (inerrant is what we believe, not infallible). However, we do not believe scripture is not God-breathed, as you insist we do.

Protestants are norming their doctrine on uninspired copies

Please show your evidence that scripture must be "uninspired" because it's a copy.

How can something that is uninspired and fallible be the supreme court of final appeal on all matters of Faith and doctrine, or otherwise manifest the supreme authority of God?

That it is allegedly "uninspired" is your straw man, not our belief. So why are you asking us?

So if the Scriptures, technically speaking, no longer exist, in what sense are Protestants "Sola Scriptura?"

Again, that the scriptures allegedly no longer exist is your straw man, not our belief. So, it's not our responsibility to answer that.

We believe in the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura because we believe God's Word, revealed to us through scripture, is the highest authority to which all other authorities must defer.

 

[Nondenom40]

Do you now? So you think you see do you? I am reminded of a proverb: "I see" said the blind man. "No you don't" said the dumb man.



In other words: "We have Tradition!"

Please explain to me how your answer is anything but an appeal to the very Tradition you deny?

Part of the Catholic understanding of Tradition is that Tradition includes but is not limited to the mechanism by which the Word of God is transmitted in the Church. In your answer, you are appealing to the reliability of said mechanism. That is fine---but you did not answer my question: In what sense are you Sola Scriptura?

In order to appeal to the reliability of the translations and copies, you have to appeal to the reliability of the mechanism in which they came to you in the first place. If that mechanism is reliable, again, how are you Sola Scriptura? I thought only Scripture is guaranteed to be infallible?

Its very different from your 'sacred tradtion'. And its easy to prove. We've asked for years here for one catholic to show us the exhaustive list of your sacred tradition. As some of it is necessary for salvation and some isn't. So far its been an epic failure on the part of the catholic. Oh we get answers but its never 'the' list. Someone says the canon is sacred tradition. Okay, wheres the rest? We never get that answer. Or someone says, look it up or its all in church history....yada yada. Well, ask me to show you the bible. I can do that easy. I can show you what i believe and from where i believe it. You can't. The bible is Gods word, not some vague phantom your church has created to get around having to prove to us where your teachings come from. And its a great tool too. When asked where in sacred tradition, no one knows....'its just there.' You never have to prove anything. If catholic doctrine and dogmas were really, clearly spelled out in the bible you guys would be first in line to support sola scriptura. But they aren't, so your are vehemently against it.

God saw that men penned His word guided by the Holy Spirit. I hope you don't deny that. THAT, isn't tradition. Its God conveying His word to us through men of God. That same word was copied, translated and preserved. Pretty simple huh? And none of it is what i'd call tradition. Its His canon, His word and its highly accurate and reliable. If you want to relegate it to tradition of men then go for it. Part of trusting God is trusting His word, not 'the church'.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Your posts just get sillier and sillier. No Christian has ever said scripture wasn't inspired by God because it is not written on the original document. All scripture is inspired by God because of the authority it represents.

Is it your assertion that the copy/translation you have is Theopneustos? (God Breathed)

Thirty+ years as a Christian, twenty-five as an elder, degrees from two prominent seminaries, a very large Christian library, and tons of Christian podcasts, and have never heard a Christian say they believe in "Bible alone".

What is the reformed doctrine of Scripture alone from your view?

Correct. If it is not God breathed, it cannot be inerrant (inerrant is what we believe, not infallible). However, we do not believe scripture is not God-breathed, as you insist we do.

What is Scripture? Is Scripture every translation and copy, or is Scripture the original inspired autographs, or is it both?

In other words--is it your assertion that translations and copies are actually Scripture?

Please show your evidence that scripture must be "uninspired" because it's a copy.

So then it is your assertion that copies and translations are, in fact, Theopneustos?

That it is allegedly "uninspired" is your straw man, not our belief. So why are you asking us?

So then, you are, in fact, asserting that every translation of Scripture is, in fact, Theopneustos?

Again, that the scriptures allegedly no longer exist is your straw man, not our belief. So, it's not our responsibility to answer that.

So you are also asserting that the original autographs on which the Scriptures were written exist?

We believe in the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura because we believe God's Word, revealed to us through scripture, is the highest authority to which all other authorities must defer.

And what from your view constitutes Scripture? It is your assertion that translations of Scripture are, in fact, not just translations, but are actual Scripture? It is your assertion that copies of Scripture are, in fact, actual Scripture? All translations and copies are, in fact, Theopneustos--in the exact same sense as the original autographs on which the Scriptures were written? That is your assertion?

 

[mica]

Do you now? So you think you see do you? I am reminded of a proverb: "I see" said the blind man. "No you don't" said the dumb man.

...

Ask the Blind Man He Saw it All

 

[Nondenom40]

Is it your assertion that the copy/translation you have is Theopneustos? (God Breathed)


What is the reformed doctrine of Scripture alone from your view?


What is Scripture? Is Scripture every translation and copy, or is Scripture the original inspired autographs, or is it both?

In other words--is it your assertion that translations and copies are actually Scripture?


So then it is your assertion that copies and translations are, in fact, Theopneustos?


So then, you are, in fact, asserting that every translation of Scripture is, in fact, Theopneustos?


So you are also asserting that the original autographs on which the Scriptures were written exist?


And what from your view constitutes Scripture? It is your assertion that translations of Scripture are, in fact, not just translations, but are actual Scripture? It is your assertion that copies of Scripture are, in fact, actual Scripture? All translations and copies are, in fact, Theopneustos--in the exact same sense as the original autographs on which the Scriptures were written? That is your assertion?

What does the word canonical mean? Its been used since the earliest days of the church. What did Jerome think it meant?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Thirty+ years as a Christian, twenty-five as an elder, degrees from two prominent seminaries, a very large Christian library, and tons of Christian podcasts,

Who passed authority on to you?

 

[Mike McK]

Is it your assertion that the copy/translation you have is Theopneustos? (God Breathed)

I believe scripture is God-breathed. I believe the ESV is an accurate translation of that scripture. So, yes.

What is the reformed doctrine of Scripture alone from your view?

First, it's not a doctrine. It's a praxis. There's a difference. Second, as I've explained to you ad infinitum, it means that scripture is the highest authority to which all other authorities must submit.

What is Scripture? Is Scripture every translation and copy, or is Scripture the original inspired autographs, or is it both? In other words--is it your assertion that translations and copies are actually Scripture?

It's my assertion that translations and copies contain scripture, but are not, themselves, scripture.

So then it is your assertion that copies and translations are, in fact, Theopneustos?

The scripture contained in them is, yes.

So then, I'm going to claim that you are, in fact, asserting that every translation of Scripture is, in fact, Theopneustos?

Well, you go right ahead and claim whatever you like. I've explained to you numerous times now that the translations we have contain God-breathed scripture.

So you are also asserting that the original autographs on which the Scriptures were written exist?

Nope. Never said any such thing. Any other stupid claims you want to make?

And what from your view constitutes Scripture?

From a Christian point of view, those writings that are considered to be the 66 books of the Biblical canon.

It is your assertion that translations of Scripture are, in fact, not just translations, but are actual Scripture? It is your assertion that copies of Scripture are, in fact, actual Scripture?

It is? That's odd. I can't find where I've ever said or believed such a thing. Please show where I have ever said that or admit that you're lying and purposely misrepresenting my beliefs and stated opinions.

All translations and copies are, in fact, Theopneustos--in the exact same sense as the original autographs on which the Scriptures were written? That is your assertion?

One would have to be pretty dishonest to think I believe that after I've explained my belief to you numerous times now.

 

[Mike McK]

Who passed authority on to you?

I'm a Christian. Not a Catholic. We don't share your cult's views on authority.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Its very different from your 'sacred tradtion'.

So Protestants actually DO have an infallible Tradition?

And its easy to prove. We've asked for years here for one catholic to show us the exhaustive list of your sacred tradition.

Yes. What is it with you people and lists?

While we are at it, I could ask you to provide an exhaustive list of what the Scriptures teach.

There is no exhaustive list of what is in the Tradition just as there is no exhaustive list of what is in the Scriptures.

But I can say that what Tradition teaches and hands on, the Scriptures teach and hand on. What the Scriptures teach and hand on is what the Tradition teaches and hands on.

As some of it is necessary for salvation and some isn't. So far its been an epic failure on the part of the catholic. Oh we get answers but its never 'the' list. Someone says the canon is sacred tradition. Okay, wheres the rest? We never get that answer. Or someone says, look it up or its all in church history....yada yada. Well, ask me to show you the bible. I can do that easy.

You can, can you?

My understanding is that what you will actually produce is a translation of the Scriptures. Is it your assertion that said translation is inspired?

I can show you what I believe and from where I believe it.

You can, can you? My understanding is that you will show me what the translation of the Scriptures says and you are basing what you believe on said translation. Is it your assertion, sir, that the translation is inspired?

You can't.

What do you mean "I can't?" Tradition is the Word of God as it is collectively lived and experienced within the Church today and throughout time. Hence, if you want to see Tradition, just immerse yourself in the life, prayer, worship and culture of the RCC.

The bible is Gods word, not some vague phantom your church has created to get around having to prove to us where your teachings come from.

"Vague phantom?" No, Tradition is not some "vague phantom." Tradition is seen, felt, touched, and heard. Again, just immerse yourself in the life, prayer, worship, culture and worship of the RCC. That is Tradition--and it is anything but vague.

And its a great tool too. When asked where in sacred tradition, no one knows....'its just there.' You never have to prove anything. If catholic doctrine and dogmas were really, clearly spelled out in the bible you guys would be first in line to support sola scriptura. But they aren't, so your are vehemently against it.

I don't know what Catholics you are talking to sir. But Tradition is very public and very obvious. Again, if you want to know it, if you want to see it, if you want to experience it---just immerse yourself in Catholicism. It will be impossible to miss.

God saw that men penned His word guided by the Holy Spirit. I hope you don't deny that.

Well of course God did! Of course I do not deny this!

What I am asking is what you believe with regard to the extent of inspiration. Do you believe that inspiration applies only to the originals, or do you believe that copies and translations are inspired?

THAT, isn't tradition. Its God conveying His word to us through men of God. That same word was copied, translated and preserved. Pretty simple huh?

Well, yes, I suppose it is, if you are Catholic.

Is it your assertion, sir, that the copies and translations are inspired?

And none of it is what i'd call tradition. Its His canon, His word and its highly accurate and reliable. If you want to relegate it to tradition of men then go for it. Part of trusting God is trusting His word, not 'the church'.

Again, is it your assertion that the translations and copies of the original Scriptures are inspired?

 

[Arch Stanton]

I'm a Christian. Not a Catholic. We don't share your cult's views on authority.

You would need to take that up with Matt Slick.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I believe scripture is God-breathed. I believe the ESV is an accurate translation of that scripture. So, yes.

Sir, understand what I am asking and what I am not asking.

I did not ask, sir, whether or not the ESV or any other translation of Scripture is "accurate." What I asked, sir, was whether or not you believe that the ESV or any other translation of Scripture is God Breathed.

You just told me above that you believe the ESV is accurate. Do you believe that the ESV is God Breathed?

First, it's not a doctrine. It's a praxis. There's a difference.

The official definition of praxis is: "practice, as distinguished from theory" "accepted practice or custom."

So, Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, but a practice, a custom? Is that what you are saying? If so, fine--but in my mind it is a distinction without difference. Either way, it all amounts to the same thing.

Second, as I've explained to you ad infinitum, it means that scripture is the highest authority to which all other authorities must submit.

Yes, sir, I know this. But I am not asking this, sir. Please understand what I am asking and what I am not asking.

I am asking, sir, "What are the Scriptures?"

Scripture is that which is God Breathed. So---are translations God Breathed? are copies God Breathed?

It's my assertion that translations and copies contain scripture, but are not, themselves, scripture.

Well, now we are getting somewhere, aren't we, sir?

So--you are saying---translations and copies contain that which is God Breathed, but are not, themselves God Breathed?

Can you please explain how something can contain that which is God Breathed, but not itself be God Breathed? Put another way: what in the translations or copies is God Breathed?

The scripture contained in them is, yes.

Contained in the translations? Where? Please produce what is God Breathed in the translations. I would like to examine it, see it, touch it.

Well, you go right ahead and claim whatever you like. I've explained to you numerous times now that the translations we have contain God-breathed scripture.

Good. Please produce that which is God Breathed in the translations.

From a Christian point of view, those writings that are considered to be the 66 books of the Biblical canon.

I am not asking about Canon. But, while we are on the subject, how do you know what books constitute Scripture and which do not?

Is the Canon open or closed? How do you know? How do you know there aren't other books we have not yet found that are God Breathed?

Only a complete moron or a Catholic liar would think I believe that after I've explained my belief to you numerous times now.

I do not recall every corresponding with you on this site since I joined.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Ask the Blind Man He Saw it All

And the deaf man who heard everything.