Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?

[One Bad Pig]

I almost said, "As much as he rest of the Old Testament (Tanach)", but in point of fact--
Roman Catholics themselves implicitly downgrade our Apocrypha by classifying the seven as "deutero-canonical" (secondary canon)
And
By never naming their churches after the Maccabean heroes nor even "St. Judith", "St. Tobit" and certainly not "St. Sirach"! Robrecht, have you heard of such? I don't even know of a "Wisdom Church". (On the other hand, how many Catholic (or Protestant) churches are named after any Patriarchs nor the prophets Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or certainly not "Zechariah"--ever heard of a St. Zeke's, even in Dixie?.)

There is an Orthodox Church dedicated to the Maccabean martyrs in Poland. There are two OCA parishes dedicated to Elijah the Prophet. Parishes are typically named after people (or events, such as the Resurrection), not books of the Bible.

[Adrift]

There is an Orthodox Church dedicated to the Maccabean martyrs in Poland. There are two OCA parishes dedicated to Elijah the Prophet. Parishes are typically named after people (or events, such as the Resurrection), not books of the Bible.

I was under the impression (by way of a recent theology podcast I listened to) that the Orthodox church considered the deuterocanonical books as secondary in authority (and thus the name), and that the RCC does not consider the deuterocanonical works secondary in authority, but that they mean "deutero" in a chronological sense, in that the deuterocanon was recognized and considered canonical later. Is that your understanding as well?

[One Bad Pig]

I was under the impression (by way of a recent theology podcast I listened to) that the Orthodox church considered the deuterocanonical books as secondary in authority (and thus the name), and that the RCC does not consider the deuterocanonical works secondary in authority, but that they mean "deutero" in a chronological sense, in that the deuterocanon was recognized and considered canonical later. Is that your understanding as well?

I suppose you could say that informally; the canon has never been dogmatically established. Historically speaking, there's a definite core of 22 books (=39 as counted today), with many fathers quoting a varying set including some deuterocanonical books as authoritative. There is no OT lectionary, although various portions of the OT are included in the rubrics (primarily for Vespers); Wisdom is the only deuterocanonical book in the set, but the Prayer of Azariah/Song of the Three Holy Youths (Greek addition to Daniel) are two of the nine canticles around which a canon is constructed.

[shunyadragon]

Good. I like Calvin. But I don't want to be a Calvinist. I never got my head wrapped around presuppositionalism enough to be any good at arguing from it. So I would be presup at it's worst.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a Red Letter only bible. I love all 66 books.

The view of presuppositionalism has no logical argument supporting it, and it claims that there is no logical argument. It considers it beliefs and the Bible simply as fact and true without question.

[GoBahnsen]

The view of presuppositionalism has no logical argument supporting it, and it claims that there is no logical argument. It considers it beliefs and the Bible simply as fact and true without question.

I think it claims God is the author of logic and one cannot know anything logically without presupposing the existence of the Triune God. For the Atheist to use logic, he must borrow from the Christian worldview. Stuff like that is what I recall. It certainly isn't some hillbilly point of view. It does go over my head for sure.

[37818]

The view of presuppositionalism has no logical argument supporting it, and it claims that there is no logical argument. It considers it beliefs and the Bible simply as fact and true without question.

Presuppositional apologetic argues from what are held by it as true. Any opposing views agreement are not required. A mere denial does not prove that anything is not true. Personally, I am of the view point that every view point comes from a set of presupposions whether acknowledged as such or not.

[shunyadragon]

I think it claims God is the author of logic and one cannot know anything logically without presupposing the existence of the Triune God. For the Atheist to use logic, he must borrow from the Christian worldview. Stuff like that is what I recall. It certainly isn't some hillbilly point of view. It does go over my head for sure.

I believe the belief that presuppositionalist do not even consider the laws of logic in any context.



An inactive member Mr. Black was a classic 'Van Til' presuppositionalist.

I believe it is the Classical Apologists that propose God is the author of the Laws of Logic.

[37818]

Logic has its basis from God. ". . . All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." And that includes logic.

[shunyadragon]

Logic has its basis from God. ". . . All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." And that includes logic.

I was not giving my view of the relationship between the Laws of Logic and God. I was simply describing the difference between presuppositionalism and Classical Apologists. You are taking the view of the Classical Apologists.

I do not agree with either position, but that is the subject of another thread.

[One Bad Pig]

I suppose you could say that informally; the canon has never been dogmatically established. Historically speaking, there's a definite core of 22 books (=39 as counted today), with many fathers quoting a varying set including some deuterocanonical books as authoritative. There is no OT lectionary, although various portions of the OT are included in the rubrics (primarily for Vespers); Wisdom is the only deuterocanonical book in the set, but the Prayer of Azariah/Song of the Three Holy Youths (Greek addition to Daniel) are two of the nine canticles around which a canon is constructed.

I stand corrected: A passage from Baruch is read on Christmas Eve.

[The Remonstrant]

37818:

Regarding the question of whether the concept of sola scriptura may be derived from Scripture, I will simply say this: if one should become convinced of the falsity of sola scriptura, he/she will likely find him-/herself drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (assuming he or she remains a believer).

[Adam]

Probably true, as though raised Protestant I always doubted the 66 convention. By 1964 I was inclined to go Eastern Orthodox and in 1969 got baptized Roman Catholic. After seeing internal contradictions within RC I still saw no reason to settle on 66 books and joined the Episcopal Church in 1992 (with about 75 books in the canon in the Thirty-Nine Articles). In 2004 I remained outside sola scriptura in holding to the Nicene Creed when I converted to Lutheran. We basically hold to 66 books, but sometimes read on Sundays from Wisdom or Sirach. But Luther himself accepted less than 66.

[The Remonstrant]

Probably true, as though raised Protestant I always doubted the 66 convention. By 1964 I was inclined to go Eastern Orthodox and in 1969 got baptized Roman Catholic. After seeing internal contradictions within RC I still saw no reason to settle on 66 books and joined the Episcopal Church in 1992 (with about 75 books in the canon in the Thirty-Nine Articles). In 2004 I remained outside sola scriptura in holding to the Nicene Creed when I converted to Lutheran. We basically hold to 66 books, but sometimes read on Sundays from Wisdom or Sirach. But Luther himself accepted less than 66.

[Adam]

Mossy says so, because I believe that current evil beings, demons and such derive from an original Evil, uncreated by our God, but whom God has foreborn obliteration, out of His great mercy. I consider myself fully orthodox with the unusual plus of a theodicy that solves the Problem of Evil.
(The Bible nowhere states that God created Satan or even the angels.)

(Regarding Martin Luther, I should have added that he translated all 66 books of the Bible in spite of his reservations about Esther, James, and perhaps others.)

[JonathanL]

Mossy says so, because I believe that current evil beings, demons and such derive from an original Evil, uncreated by our God, but whom God has foreborn obliteration, out of His great mercy. I consider myself fully orthodox with the unusual plus of a theodicy that solves the Problem of Evil.
(The Bible nowhere states that God created Satan or even the angels.)

I'm pretty sure postulating anything other than God as being eternal puts you squarely outside orthodoxy, no matter what your own opinion on the matter might be.