From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Sola Scriptura (was Re: Perfect Prophets?)
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 16:40:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.030338.19496@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>  
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.145252.22423@cbnews.cb.att.com>,  
wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith) writes:
> > 
> > To this Barry adds that perhaps if an OT prophet seems to have made a
> > false prophecy, then it is probably because something got left out (by
> > mistake).  Yes that is a possibility, but the same can be said of all
> > historical persons (including Joseph Smith) up through the 20th  
Century.
> 
> There is a problem with this. Determining untouched original ot
> documents is quite a problem. We have libraries burned, cities sacked
> and destroyed, stories given orally long before committed to hard
> copy and other problems I can't think of right now. I cannot honestly
> determine what is true and what is altered. The ot points to Yahweh
> and his people and what direction he intends for them in a general
> sense. I am forced to pick and choose.
>
>  [stuff about contemporary prophets deleted]
>
> The whole milieu is so distant as to be practically unrecoverable.
> Deut. 18:20-22 is something hard and fast that(in your case, on the
> surface things look ok, but deeper in presents problems)makes a lot
> of sense and a good measure for those who are more childlike:-)
> 
     This is one of the big problems I have with Protestant Christianity.  
Its foundation is built on the principle of "Sola Scriptura". For this to  
be meaningful, Scripture must be reliable. If, as Barry writes, it is true  
that one "cannot honestly determine what is true and what is altered" in  
Scripture, then Scripture becomes meaningless and arbitrary. And it does  
not help to try and save "Sola Scriptura" by saying (as many Protestants  
do) that Scripture "in the original autographs" was perfectly accurate.  
This is a non-sequiter. We don't have the original autographs (just like  
we don't have the original autographs of the BoM). So, if Scripture is  
meaningless and arbitrary, then "Sola Scriptura" is an empty principle,  
and Protestantism is built on a foundation of sand (recall the parable  
about this recorded in St. Matthew).

     Eastern Orthodox Christianity avoids this problem by rejecting the  
principle of "Sola Scriptura" entirely. Scripture is not something to be  
set up over the Church like a sword (one or two-edged). Rather, Scripture  
needs to be seen from within the Tradition of the Church, because it was  
the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that determined which books were in  
Scripture. While Scripture does serve as a measuring rod, a Christian's  
life on Earth cannot be determined only by Scripture. As far as I can  
tell, LDS Christianity also rejects the principle of "Sola Scriptura",  
which I think is part of the reason why so many Protestants on this group  
become frustrated by LDS lines of argumentation. Protestants argue from  
the perspective of "Sola Scriptura". LDS (and Eastern Orthodox too) do  
not.

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" -- the Jesus Prayer