Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

jphilapy · Mar 11, 2005

vern humphrey:

Don’t you just love it when someone comes up with dreck like this, and then tells us we don’t now about the Deutrocanonical books or the Psudegraphia?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

He didn’t say it was a magical practice. He was refuting that idea.

Jeff

vern_humphrey · Mar 11, 2005

jphilapy:

He didn’t say it was a magical practice. He was refuting that idea.

Jeff

Now THAT’S typical!!

Refuting WHAT idea? Advanced by whom?

The old strawman, attacking his own false constucts.

Mickey · Mar 11, 2005

Martin Luther:

I do want to thank you, Mickey, becuase you understand the argument I am putting foward. Thank you for addressing it.

Dear Martin,

You appear to be a very efficient protestant apologist, and I will not attempt to refute your lengthy dissertation because I am not an experienced apologist. (I’ll leave that to others on this board)

However, I am secure in my faith. I do not agree with your exegesis of the scriptural passages pertaining to oral traditions. I also do not agree with your interpretation of the church fathers. I am obedient to the authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. I am confident that the Church, through Christ, is the living teacher, and Her teachings are guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from corruption.

God Bless You,
Peace

Philthy · Mar 11, 2005

Gottle of Geer said:
## To a great degree, the excluded books have excluded themselves. If Catholics knew the OT and NT Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha, this would be much plainer than it is, for they would then be better able to taste & compare the books for themselves.

You mean now that we’re all familiar with the “real books” we’d spot a fraud from a mile away? There may be some truth to what you say,but unfortunately that’s backwards. What you’d need to demonstrate, in order to make a meaningful statement, is that with complete ignorance of what books actually comprise the Old and New Testaments that we would be able to separate them as being the inspired books from all the others. History says it wasn’t as easy as you propose. Hindsight is 20/20.
In addition, as a Catholic I read Sirach in complete ignorance that it wasn’t included in other “traditions” and didn’t have the slightest idea that it was in any way controversial.
Gottle of Geer:

All the authority of the Church does, is to sanction long-continued custom;

This is no small job as you seem to imply. This alone is more than any other organization can claim.
Gottle of Geer:

the Church can only recognise canonicity, not confer it.

Once again, I diagree with your characterization. To “only” recognize canonicity is incredibly important. And,again, no other organization can claim that gift. For us, recognizing is actually more important than “conferring” canonicity. Unless the books that are confered can be recognized as such, we wouldn’t know which books to put our faith in. Again, no other organization can claim that gift.
Gottle of Geer:

The books that were canonised by Christians, were those that had stood the test of time and usage - that had been read and had been found both edifying and in conformity to the faith of the Churches. God is well able to authenticate His own work.

Christians didn’t canonize, the Church did.Some books are not “edifying” at all and would scarcely be recognized as worthwhile. Philemon comes to mind.
Yes He is - but He chose his Church to be his instrument. The self-revelation of Scripture is simply a farse.
You nor I would have the slightest clue if a fraud were introduced into Scripture. How would we know?

Gottle of Geer:

The idea that the authority of the Church could wave a wand and canonise any old books it felt like canonising, seems to be what is lurking behind the idea that but for the Church’s authority, we could not possibly know which books were canonical. It was not so. ##

Agreed. No wands were waved. And of course you would have no idea other than through the Tradition of the Church - how could you possibly? How could anyone? It all happened 2000 years ago. We are completely at the mercy of the Tradition of the Church. We’ve never heard a word from Christ or a prophet and don’t know anyone who’s seen him - exactly how do you suppose we would know which books belong in Scripture? Direct revelation from God? That would have to happen before your conversion, correct? I mean, you can’t come to faith in Christ apart from Scritpture can you? So what exactly is going to be leading to you to look for the “books” of God?

Phil

Contarini · Mar 12, 2005

marineboy:

people who cares how you put it–the bottom line is this–in either view of sola scriptura the Protestant cant interpret scripture infallibly.

Agreed. What evidence do you have that God intended us to be able to interpret Scripture infallibly?

marineboy:

so how does he know if his interpetation is correct?

We don’t know for absolute certain. That’s why we need to be humble and charitable toward those with whom we disagree. But we can be relatively certain, just as we are certain about many other things in life about which we don’t have infallible knowledge.

marineboy:

the bottom line is u need an infallible interpreter, at times, to determine definitively what scripture means–

No, we just need confidence in the Holy Spirit’s ability to lead the Church.

marineboy:

with all due respect —the position, even the historical(historical meaning the Reformers) position is terribley wrong and either position cannot answer how we know what scripture means?

Epistemology is not part of the Faith. We don’t have to explain how we know what we believe. That’s a job for philosophers. The Church’s job is to confess the truth handed down to it and to apply it faithfully to the contemporary world. Infallibility would certainly be handy in this task, but you have yet to show that it is necessary.

marineboy:

the Protestant cannot infallibly interpret scripture and prove if his interpretation is correct over anohte rperson’s–including others in other Protestant Churches.

Right. And that means that we are reduced to the horrible exigency of actually listening humbly to those with whom we disagree. Apparently this is a dreadful prospect to you. Be happy then that you don’t have to do it–that you can cavalierly dismiss the views of other Christians. If that’s your idea of the Church being led into all truth, then by all means charge away. But don’t be surprised if we aren’t all convinced that this is the best way to follow Christ.

In Christ,

Edwin

Contarini · Mar 12, 2005

Sir William,

In intially responding to your post 13, I see that I didn’t respond to the interlinear remarks that you put after each of my comments, but only to your arguments at the end. This is because you included your response within mine, and the way the “quote” function works on this server, when I hit “quote” my original comments did not appear (which meant that many of your comments were also lost).

Here are your comments with my reply. I’ve kept your comments in red.

:The bible was not written directly by God. It was written by God through men. Men have written many things. It is logical that we have a basis for knowing which of these writings are, in fact, the inspired writings of God.:

Not necessarily an infallible basis, though.

I wrote: :But that leads to infinite regress, and you responded: This is non-sequitur.:

If an infallible authority has to be known and recognized by another infallible authority, then this does lead to infinite regress, unless we ourselves, simply as human beings, are infallible. In other words, at some point the fallible human agent is making the judgment that a given text or church or whatever is infallible. That’s probably a better way of putting it than “infinite regress.” You can keep piling up infallible authorities forever, but they will still need to be accepted and recognized by fallible human beings. (And, to some degree, interpreted by them–I think Michael has a much better point here than you are willing to admit. Even a “living” source does not always speak infallibly, and Catholics argue endlessly about just which Papal statements are infallible and just what they mean. Most of your “living magisterium” does not speak infallibly. If you had to depend only on infallible statements you’d be in very bad shape.)

: Here is where you fail to make your case. Yes, we all believe that the accepted canon includes only infallible writings. However, what you fail to address is who or what determined what is in the canon of writings that we agree are infallible. How do you know that the New Covenant is revealed in its 27 books?:

Because the early Church made this decision, and it has been the constant witness of the Church ever since. The early Church, of course, had a number of criteria for making this decision. It wasn’t based on one single factor. I think you think I’m trying to make a case I’m not making. I’m not trying to argue that we know the canon of Scripture independently of the Church. I’m arguing that the Church does not have to have a formal power of infallibility in order for us to have confidence in her historic decisions. Theoretically, it would be possible to convince me that one of the 27 books wasn’t really canonical–just as theoretically it would be possible to convince me that Jesus’ body had been found in a tomb in Jerusalem (though of course the latter is far more central to my faith than the former). But in both cases I can’t think of any evidence that would possibly convince me, so it’s not something I lie awake at night worrying about.

Contarini · Mar 12, 2005

The corollary you propose is the circular argument that we know that scripture is the inspired word of God because God inspired it.

I don’t follow you at all. How am I making a circular argument? (I’m not sure circular arguments are always bad, BTW. I’m not a classical foundationalist.) I’m not saying that we know Scripture is inspired because God inspired it. I’m saying that we believe Scripture to be without error (in some sense–for me it’s a fairly qualified sense) because it is divinely inspired, not because we need an infallible authority in order to know something. Again, I think you thought I was arguing something I wasn’t arguing.

We know Scripture is the inspired word of God because of the testimony of the Church, which is confirmed by the witness of the Spirit in our own hearts.

Once again this is not logical. You must believe two things decreed by the Church. Firstly, that the actual written words are in fact inspired by God. Secondly, that some subsequent group was able to tell us which writings fit this criteria and which don’t.

But this “group” does not need to be infallible. That’s all I’m saying. Furthermore, it isn’t “some subsequent group.” It’s the tradition of catholic Christianity from which all living Christians come. It’s not something external to us. It’s the community within whom we were formed as believers–whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.

If you accept that the 27 books of the New Testament are in fact the infallible word of God, then you are in deed depending on an ‘organ or structure of the Church’ to be infallible in declaring that canon.

You just keep asserting this. But you have not proven it, or addressed my arguments to the contrary. Why does an infallible authority need another infallible authority to recognize it? How does this not (as I argued earlier) lead to infinite regress (since we know we ourselves are not infallible)? What infallible authority declares which Church is the true one? The Church itself? But that’s worse than circular. You believe the Church is infallible simply because the Church says so? Then you have no reason to accuse Protestants of being “illogical” or lacking a firm basis for their faith! Your position reduces itself to absurdity. (This is not an argument against Catholicism, only an argument against a bad argument for Catholicism.)

:In short, why do you think we need to know things with infallible certainty in the first place? Because otherwise we could end up in Utah getting baptised for our ancestors.:

I don’t find Mormonism convincing. If you do, then that’s between you and your conscience. Of course without an infallible authority people can go wrong. But since people clearly don’t have an infallible way of identifying the infallible authority, they go wrong anyway. Many people do end up in Utah. They aren’t convinced that the Catholic Church is infallible–and this includes many people brought up in all the blessings of Catholicism. An infallible authority doesn’t do the job that you claim it is supposed to do. Of course it does if you accept it. But the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture does the job it is supposed to do for those who accept it. In other words, if you accept that Scripture is self-authenticating and self-interpreting and that it obviously teaches Calvinism, then you won’t wind up in Utah any more than if you accept Catholicism. How are you any better off?

In Christ,

Edwin

Contarini · Mar 12, 2005

teajay:

Perhaps I should define what I mean by maximal certainty. I mean the greatest certainty that we are humanly capable of having in the circumstances.

And I don’t see how I would know what the greatest certainty possible might be, and I have no business with such a strange, speculative entity. I know the certainty that I have been given. Why should I presumptuously ask for more? My point is that arguing for any doctrinal position on the grounds that without it one lacks some kind of certainty is a flimsy argument, because it assumes all sorts of things we can’t possibly know about what kind of certainty God intends us to have. Our only knowledge of this comes from what God has chosen to give us. To argue that God must have given us Authority X because Authority X is necessary for maximal certainty is a presumptuous way of arguing.

teajay:

The historical events of the Old and New Testament, as well as the inspired text itself, are evidence enough for me that God does want us to have the maximum certainty possible of our salvation. Why do all these things if not to inform us of the necessary pre-conditions of our salvation?

But maximum certainty possible and “necessary pre-conditions” are two different things. God has given us the Scriptures and the historic Church because He wanted us to know Him. I’m not disputing that. The Scriptures and the historic Church lead to a certain degree of certainty. The Church witnesses that Scripture cannot err, which leads to a greater degree of certainty. The Church also witnesses that it cannot err, in the sense that the whole Church will not apostasize. Up to that point we can all agree. Beyond that, you are depending on particular traditions developed in the Western Church about the authority of the papacy and the bishops in communion with the Pope. We Protestants stand in a tradition that rejects those developments. If we are wrong, then it needs to be shown on grounds other than a presumption of “maximum possible certainty.” In other words, just because your tradition leads to greater certainty than ours doesn’t prove you right and us wrong. Neither of us have the maximum certainty imaginable. Which of us has the degree of certainty that God intended must be decided on grounds other than presumptuous speculation.

teajay:

External to the Bible itself. Church testimony is an example. We both agree on the necessity of external evidence of the identity of Scripture then.

Absolutely.

teajay:

Edwin, I’m not a scholar and this isn’t a thesis that I’m writing. I apologize if I incorrectly used certain academic terms. I’m really just a simple Catholic posting on a message board in a casual manner.

I’m also posting in a casual manner! I am an academic of sorts (I’m still trying to finish my Ph.D.), but I’m a church historian, not a philosopher. I wasn’t looking for academic accuracy in the use of the term “relativism,” only for clear communication. I’m not sure what the correct usage of the term is–if there is any such thing. All I know is that the term can mean a lot of things, and I have no idea just what you meant by it. So don’t apologize or get sensitive–just explain what you mean by a lack of infallibility leading to “relativism.” (I wrote something about this subject a few weeks ago on my blog Ithilien.)

teajay:

My point was that we need some foundation to reason upon.

As I said, I’m no philosopher. But there is a technical term called “foundationalism”–more strictly “classical foundationalism”–which seems to correspond to what you are arguing. Namely, that one must be able to prove some sort of solid premise from which all one’s other beliefs follow. An alternative view is that all that is necessary is that one’s beliefs be coherent with each other (that is, I think, one way to define “relativism”). I’m getting near the limits of my knowledge here, but I understand that some recent philosophers have proposed a form of modified foundationalism. I need to read more about this. But I do know that I’m not entirely convinced either of classical foundationalism or the more “relativistic” coherentist position. So I’m open to other options.

Contarini · Mar 12, 2005

st_felicity:

So what is your assertion? That the Church (the Catholic Church) is correct without infallibility?

The Church as a whole is correct when it so commits itself to a doctrine that it would cease to be the Church if it was wrong (the Trinity is a good example). But most things are at least to some degree up for grabs. What is important is that we live in communion with one another and don’t go splitting off because we think we have figured out “the Truth.” That is where we need the Magisterium–because otherwise the alternative to schism becomes a “lowest common denominator.” In the absence of full union with Rome, then, we Protestants need to take the Magisterium very seriously even though we are not fully bound by it.

st_felicity:

That she’s right about some things and not right about others?

Yes.

st_felicity:

If she’s not infallible, and we “dislike” a particular teaching or we “don’t agree” for one reason or another, we can decide that she’s wrong on that count, though she may be right on other things.

Yes, but we should be very cautious in doing so.

st_felicity:

Where is the guidance in that? I become my own authority and I am making the decision as to what is correct. I have no guidance; I am left to my own devices.

No. This is the either/or that conservative Catholics keep resorting to, but it doesn’t make sense to me. We don’t argue this way in any other part of life. We have all sorts of authorities in our lives which are very real even though we know they may make a mistake, and in rare cases may even need to be resisted (if the mistake is serious enough and is being forced on us). Why can’t the Church be the same kind of authority? (Let’s postpone the question of whether it is or not–I’m simply asking you to consider that it theoretically might be, without ceasing to have authority.) We are guided by all sorts of non-infallible things.

st_felicity:

God gave small children parents, for the same reason He gave us the Church.

This analogy defeats your point. Parents are not infallible. In rare cases it may even be right for children to disobey them (if the parents command something evil).

st_felicity:

Yes, there are bad parents, but the Catholic Church is a good Mother. She is consistent and reasonable

Well, I don’t see that. I’m astounded that anyone could even make that claim. The Catholic Church, as a visible institution, has frequently behaved as a bad and abusive parent. Can you seriously deny this? The only way you can claim that the Catholic Church is consistently a “good parent” is by appealing to some sort of invisible church–which defeats the whole point. There have been many bad popes and bad bishops. Since the Church is not an invisible entity but a visible organization, you can’t escape the conclusion that bad popes/bishops mean that the Church is, at those times and in those ways, being a bad mother. At at such times she must be resisted–but respectfully and lovingly.

In Christ,

Edwin

st_felicity · Mar 12, 2005

Contarini:

The Church as a whole is correct when it so commits itself to a doctrine that it would cease to be the Church if it was wrong (the Trinity is a good example). But most things are at least to some degree up for grabs. What is important is that we live in communion with one another and don’t go splitting off because we think we have figured out “the Truth.” That is where we need the Magisterium–because otherwise the alternative to schism becomes a “lowest common denominator.” In the absence of full union with Rome, then, we Protestants need to take the Magisterium very seriously even though we are not fully bound by it.
Yes.

I see where your point of view on this. I do agree with your statement “What is important is that we live in communion with one another and don’t go splitting off because we think we have figured out ‘the Truth,’” but I don’t agree that Non-Catholics “are not fully bound” by the Magisterium. I also appreciate that you respect the Magisterium.

At the risk of being “Black and White” about it…I believe there is objective Truth and that is conveyed in part through the infallible Magisterium which is the Pope and the body of Bishops in union with him as most evidently shown in the inerrant Biblical passage where Jesus established His Church and said “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against it."

No. This is the either/or that conservative Catholics keep resorting to, but it doesn’t make sense to me.

Your right. It is an either/or thing when it comes to obedience. Either I am willing to submit myself to that authority that Jesus established here on earth to shepherd His flock, or I’m not. In reference to the characterization of this point of view as that which “conservative Catholics keep resorting to” I must again quote you…“What is important is that we live in communion with one another and don’t go splitting off because we think we have figured out ‘the Truth.’” It’s not “conservative”–it’s just Catholic. If one doesn’t agree with the infallibility of the Magesterium and that we are to submit to that authority–that’s not “liberal” --it’s just NOT Catholic. One can go to any Church he like–receive any rite he chooses–call himself anything he wants–but still not “act” as he should. Personally, I find “Catholics” like that to be guilty of scandal for the very reason that their behavior reflects badly on what the actual religion is about and because it causes such deeply seated misunderstandings in those who are not well educated in the Catholic religion they practice and in those who have never been exposed to “authentic” Catholic teaching.

CONTINUED…

st_felicity · Mar 12, 2005

We don’t argue this way in any other part of life. We have all sorts of authorities in our lives which are very real even though we know they may make a mistake, and in rare cases may even need to be resisted (if the mistake is serious enough and is being forced on us). Why can’t the Church be the same kind of authority?

The Church ISN’T like any other institution on earth–it is OF GOD and therefore to compare it to any other authority is an arguement without foundation–it is unique.

(Let’s postpone the question of whether it is or not–I’m simply asking you to consider that it theoretically might be, without ceasing to have authority.) We are guided by all sorts of non-infallible things.

OOPS–…I did consider it for a moment…but…

This analogy defeats your point. Parents are not infallible. In rare cases it may even be right for children to disobey them (if the parents command something evil).

Well…that’s the problem with analogies…they are NEVER perfect…

I had hoped you would understand the insight I was going for, but…we’ll get to that…

I’m astounded that anyone could even make that claim. The Catholic Church, as a visible institution, has frequently behaved as a bad and abusive parent. Can you seriously deny this?

I am aware that individuals (and groups of individuals) within the institution have behaved badly (to understate some of it) but as an “institution” would you please name an instance where the intent of Mother Church was “abusive” in her efforts to guide her children to God’s Truth.

The only way you can claim that the Catholic Church is consistently a “good parent” is by appealing to some sort of invisible church–which defeats the whole point. There have been many bad popes and bad bishops. Since the Church is not an invisible entity but a visible organization, you can’t escape the conclusion that bad popes/bishops mean that the Church is, at those times and in those ways, being a bad mother.
At at such times she must be resisted–but respectfully and lovingly.

It is incorrect to reduce the Church to the Popes and Bishops. The Church is much more and thus CAN be called a good Mother.

As the Catechism says it
CCC770 The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only "with the eyes of faith"183 that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.

The Church - both visible and spiritual

So again, I have to say that to insist it is something that it is not and to discuss it as such would be to tacitly accept an argument without foundation.

Ani_Ibi · Mar 12, 2005

st_felicity:

The Church … CAN be called a good Mother.

teajay · Mar 12, 2005

Contarini:

And I don’t see how I would know what the greatest certainty possible might be, and I have no business with such a strange, speculative entity. I know the certainty that I have been given. Why should I presumptuously ask for more? My point is that arguing for any doctrinal position on the grounds that without it one lacks some kind of certainty is a flimsy argument, because it assumes all sorts of things we can’t possibly know about what kind of certainty God intends us to have. Our only knowledge of this comes from what God has chosen to give us. To argue that God must have given us Authority X because Authority X is necessary for maximal certainty is a presumptuous way of arguing.

But maximum certainty possible and “necessary pre-conditions” are two different things. God has given us the Scriptures and the historic Church because He wanted us to know Him. I’m not disputing that. The Scriptures and the historic Church lead to a certain degree of certainty. The Church witnesses that Scripture cannot err, which leads to a greater degree of certainty. The Church also witnesses that it cannot err, in the sense that the whole Church will not apostasize. Up to that point we can all agree. Beyond that, you are depending on particular traditions developed in the Western Church about the authority of the papacy and the bishops in communion with the Pope. We Protestants stand in a tradition that rejects those developments. If we are wrong, then it needs to be shown on grounds other than a presumption of “maximum possible certainty.” In other words, just because your tradition leads to greater certainty than ours doesn’t prove you right and us wrong. Neither of us have the maximum certainty imaginable. Which of us has the degree of certainty that God intended must be decided on grounds other than presumptuous speculation.

Absolutely.

I’m also posting in a casual manner! I am an academic of sorts (I’m still trying to finish my Ph.D.), but I’m a church historian, not a philosopher. I wasn’t looking for academic accuracy in the use of the term “relativism,” only for clear communication. I’m not sure what the correct usage of the term is–if there is any such thing. All I know is that the term can mean a lot of things, and I have no idea just what you meant by it. So don’t apologize or get sensitive–just explain what you mean by a lack of infallibility leading to “relativism.” (I wrote something about this subject a few weeks ago on my blog Ithilien.)

As I said, I’m no philosopher. But there is a technical term called “foundationalism”–more strictly “classical foundationalism”–which seems to correspond to what you are arguing. Namely, that one must be able to prove some sort of solid premise from which all one’s other beliefs follow. An alternative view is that all that is necessary is that one’s beliefs be coherent with each other (that is, I think, one way to define “relativism”). I’m getting near the limits of my knowledge here, but I understand that some recent philosophers have proposed a form of modified foundationalism. I need to read more about this. But I do know that I’m not entirely convinced either of classical foundationalism or the more “relativistic” coherentist position. So I’m open to other options.

I knew that your name was familiar. I already had your blog on my Bookmarks list and enjoy reading it. Well, whenever you update it that is!

Just as a brief response, I’ll make a few points. You are correct in saying that this whole issue of certainty is not an intellectually sophisticated basis for the argument that “God must have intended it”. I don’t see certainty as the test by which I judge something as coming from God. But where I have already decided, for many reasons, that something must have come from God, or that it is His intention that it occur, the certainty that arises from it can make me more sure that it was the right choice. In other words, certainty of knowledge is not the sole or primary criterion on which I assess whether something is within God’s plan, but it is one of many relevant factors. Even the certainty of angels or the voice of God requires faith to accept because they might be a delusion.

michaelp · Mar 12, 2005

teajay:

I knew that your name was familiar. I already had your blog on my Bookmarks list and enjoy reading it. Well, whenever you update it that is!

Just as a brief response, I’ll make a few points. You are correct in saying that this whole issue of certainty is not an intellectually sophisticated basis for the argument that “God must have intended it”. I don’t see certainty as the test by which I judge something as coming from God. But where I have already decided, for many reasons, that something must have come from God, or that it is His intention that it occur, the certainty that arises from it can make me more sure that it was the right choice. In other words, certainty of knowledge is not the sole or primary criterion on which I assess whether something is within God’s plan, but it is one of many relevant factors. Even the certainty of angels or the voice of God requires faith to accept because they might be a delusion.

Teajay,

I know I have already said this, but your way of thinking is refreshing coming from a Catholic. It gives your beliefs more validity because it makes me truly believe that you believe that, at least to some degree, they are falsifiable. Admission of falseifiability does not make the truth less certian, but more certian since you arrive at it under the assumption that you could be wrong.

It is an epistological thing for me. Even though I strongly disagree with your ultimate conclusions, I sure do appreciate the way you think.

Michael

Thanks.

Susan_LeMay · Mar 18, 2005

Genesis315:

Well, here’s the thing: it would not be truly “sola” scriptura if you added in Church Tradition. Once you add in Church Tradition, the argument becomes easy. Which Church’s Tradition is the right one? Well, which Church is the only one with Tradition? Why the Catholic Church (I guess the orthodox would have a claim too, but Catholic v. Orthodox is a whole other argument). I’m sure I’ve oversimplified things .

I have read this whole document last night. Somehow the book itself which Magdelan presented has been lost in the shuffle. How does a genuine interest become paralyzed by one person? THis person is not interested in truth. He is adept at diversion and disruption. He doesn’t want you all to do what you do best and he is succeeding.
First of all, where can one find the book?
Then, no one should take part in the thread without first having read it. Then, discussion should center around the book. THis thread as it now reads is a travesty. I could give my opinion based on a state university education with a major in English and history of the Reformation. I feel the Reformation as I studied it from the secular point of view left Protestants outside the Apostolic Succession. Thus their “pastors” or “bishops” were not propertly ordained. They were thus left by virtue of their “divorce” with the Word of God (Scripture) without the Church founded by Jesus Christ during his four years of public teaching. They were forced out of tradition and have spent centuries trying to justify themselves by seeking to negate the role of tradition. I assert that the Lord Jesus did not create an imperfect Church. Nor did he abandon his Church until Martin Luther and Calvin, Swengli, Henry VIII and others discovered their “way” fifteen hundred years later and declared it truth. What does this infer about Jesus’ work on earth? He always intended us to be one Body. It is no accident that all Protestants disagree about one thing or another and continue to fractionalize to the point where they can no longer be acurately numbered. Imagine the confusion when their missionaries pull into a new camp and try to start explaining who they are–today.

De_Maria · Mar 29, 2005

**The question is: Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

Shouldn’t we start with what Sola Scriptura means. No amount of redefining the term will remove the fact that Sola means “only” and Scriptura means “Scripture”. Therefore, Sola Scriptura can not mean that the Bible and Church tradition both contain the rule of faith. Otherwise, Sola Scriptura would be a misnomer. It would have to be admitted that Sola Scriptura does not really exist and can’t exist.

And of course, it is true. When Luther broke from the Catholic Church and established his own church, he expected everyone to submit to his authority and become members of his church. To his dismay, he didn’t form a second church in contrast to the first, but gave license to anyone with a Bible to form their own church. Before he knew what had happened, Swingli and Calvin had formed their own congregations and the dividing has continued ever since.

So, are we attacking the wrong Sola Scriptura? In my opinion, Sola Scriptura does that all by itself. It is a self contradicting doctrine. First, it doesn’t exist in Scripture. Scripture teaches that we must believe the Church (Matt 18:17) and that the Church is the pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Second, even those who believe in and expound Sola Scriptura don’t practice it. I have rarely met a Bible Alone Christian who will simply hand you a Bible and say, “go to it.” They will usually give you their interpretation of the Bible as well. Even they don’t believe that the Bible alone is enough. They add themselves into the equation just as Luther did.

Bible alone Christians are beginning to realize the shortcomings of believing in Sola Scriptura. In my opinion, that is why the book being discussed in this thread has been written. CARM, an anti-Catholic apologetical group has also re defined of the term:

** Sola Scriptura
The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.

http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm#Sola Scriptura

**Note that the word “Sola” or "Only " has been left out of the defnition. The definition here is not of Sola Scriptura but of the Sufficiency of Scripture. Sufficiency of Scripture is a doctrine with which the Catholic Church has no quarrel.
**

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

From James Akin “this rock” magazine,
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

“It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.”

** It seems that in the end Protestants will abandon Sola Scriptura and recognize that they need a form of tradition to reign in the outrageous interpretations that many nonCatholic Theologians lapse into. At that point, I hope they recognize that the only truly Sacred Tradition exists within the Catholic Church. There is no need to invent another.

Sincerely,

De Maria
**

Catholic29 · Mar 29, 2005

De Maria,

That is just **AWESOME!!!

**

plakamhil · Mar 31, 2005

Gottle of Geer:

The books that were canonised by Christians, were those that had stood the test of time and usage - that had been read and had been found both edifying and in conformity to the faith of the Churches.

Which books were canonised when and by what authority, that is the question.

vern_humphrey · Apr 1, 2005

plakamhil:

Which books were canonised when and by what authority, that is the question.

The New Testament emerged in the late 4th Century, when the Church identified those books which were sanctified by tradition and which taugh the message the Church had traditionally taught. There were several non-ecumenical councils which debated the issues, and the canon was finally proclaimed by Damasus I (who proclaimed the canons of both the Old and New Testament.)

The Council of Trent (which was, of course ecumenical) re-affirmed the Canon proclaimed around 392 AD.

Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

jphilapy

Guest

vern_humphrey

Guest

Mickey

Guest

Philthy

Guest

Contarini

Guest

Contarini

Guest

Contarini

Guest

Contarini

Guest

Contarini

Guest

st_felicity

Guest

st_felicity

Guest

Ani_Ibi

Guest

teajay

Guest

michaelp

Guest

Susan_LeMay

Guest

De_Maria

Guest

Catholic29

Guest

plakamhil

Guest

vern_humphrey

Guest