Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Ani–I honestly think he gets the point. He did apologize to me (maybe others are also deserving of a little charity). But let’s not take it too far…either he gets it or he doesn’t.

Hi felicity. I had written my response in Word. When trying to post it to the board, it got cut off because it was too long. So I had to divide what I was saying into chunks. You appeared in the inter-chunk openings.

When I was finished posting my chunks, I noticed michaelp had apologized to you. I also noticed the discussion had drawn new posters and had become quite interesting again. Things are looking up now. We’re in the Post-Chunk Era.

 

[Mickey]

Ani Ibi:

We’re in the Post-Chunk Era.

You are a hoot Ani!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_210.gif

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jphilapy:

Ani I keep seeing you load into Mikes words things that he didn’t say.

michaelp used the word ‘must’ while demonstrating neither necessity nor obligation. He said must. I pointed out that he said must. Your claiming that he did not say it, does not make it so.

jphilapy:

This attitude you point out is clearly your own. You are the one who is very condescending.

My statements were set out clearly, supported by argumentation, and evidence. Your statement is not and merely serves to perpetuate the problem.

jphilapy:

And quite simply you don’t allow Mike the dignity of disagreeing and for that fact the dignity of being persuaded.

Several of us, as I have pointed out supra, have been extraordinarily patient with michaelp. You chose to ignore the evidence presented. What we have objected to has nothing to do with michaelp’s disagreement.

You would have understood that, however, had you taken the care to read what has been posted. What we have objected to is michaelp’s behaviour not his disagreement. All this has been carefully explained supra by not only myself but by several other people.

People who post here are at liberty to disagree. They are not, however, at liberty to disregard the following two rules of conduct for this board:

**4. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda. **
**5. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. **

jphilapy:

You instead resort to attacking him personally.

Here you resort to exactly the behaviour objected to in the first place. You have presented an opinion which is supported neither by argumentation nor by evidence. Moreover you do so while utterly ignoring previous posts. Those previous posts set out reasons for objecting to michaelp’s behaviour. Objecting to someone’s behaviour does not constitute a personal attack.

Making a statement like “You instead resort to attacking him personally” (without giving support or evidence for that statement) is an attack. Mote? Log?

jphilapy:

So this is the way of peace? Fabrication?

This latter comment by you is a rhetorical question, obviously not intended to draw an answer. However, I will answer it. Fabrication is not the way of peace. Vern has already objected to fabicration (supra). Fabricating what the Church teaches and then disagreeing with the fabrication is one of the things which we objected to in the first place. We most particularly object to the fabrication and the levity with which the Magisterium has been treated.

 

[jphilapy]

Ani Ibi:

michaelp used the word ‘must’ while demonstrating neither necessity nor obligation. He said must. I pointed out that he said must. Your claiming that he did not say it, does not make it so.

I never denied that he used the word must, I just said that he wasn’t being condescending. See this is my point, you have just construed me to say something I didn’t and I am saying that you are doing the exact same thing to Mike, you are construing him to be doing things he isn’t.

Jeff

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hey Everyone! Thanks for the replies!

They would have passed this to their successors, etc., etc.

Also, look at the evidence. With all the sinners of the Church and even a few wicked popes, the deposit of faith has been preserved (haha, you may argue this, but that’s for another thread).

You are only proving my point. You have admitted yourself that this is disputable and something that is only evidence. I gave evidence for the canon from Dan Wallace, Bruce M. Metzger, and F.F. Bruce. Granted, it is not certainty, but it is evidence. However, so is what you gave. That was my point. Since we only have evidence and not absolute certainty for your ultimate authority, why do we need certainty and not just evidence for the protestant ultimate authority?

Of course there are different views, but not different orthodoxies.

The nature of Scripture and tradition is not an orthodoxy? Some Catholics are pro-choice, and some Catholics believe that the Bible is only inspired * when it speaks on matters of salvation.

Now this a false analogy because you are not comparing like with like. You have stated the Catholic view of authority so broadly that is encompasses non-Catholic organisations, and the Protestant view so narrowly that it coincides solely with your own local denomination.

The Catholic Church is not the only ones who deny Sola Scriptura. When people are left up to trying to find an extrabiblical ultimate authority, the same thing happens that you are alleging happens when people embrace Sola Scriptura. The problem is that you are assuming that all people who call themselves protestants actually hold to protestant doctrines. I don’t care what definition one takes of Sola Scriptura, but will someone really suggest that pentacostal churches really hold to Sola Scriptura in any existing sense of the definition? Of course not! I am saying, let us take a group that we can all agree holds to sola scriptura and compare that with those who deny Sola Scriptura.

I agree that people can’t know things with infallible certainty because we are all fallible. But I am recognising the Church partly as an intellectual act and partly as an act of faith. It’s infallibility doesn’t become mine, it merely forms the foundation on which I can base my faith.

First of all, no one reasons as part intellect and part faith. Our reasoning and our intellect is based upon the faith that we presuppose. That is, I am going to reason a certain way because I accept the authority of the Scriptures alone, and you are going to reason a certain way because you accept the ultimate authority of the Catholic church. This is why we need to deal with each side’s presuppositions. Granted, I know this is a tad bit unusual way of looking at it, but this must be understood. If someone believes that sugar is poisonious, then how is that going to effect his beliefs about what he should eat and what he should buy? Our faith presuppositions do effect the way we reason, and that is what I was talking about.

But I don’t see why this would cast a special onus upon Catholics to prove certain claims but not Protestants to prove their own claims. You also appear to have misinterpreted certain Catholic claims, most notably the idea that magisterial teachings are claimed to be “an additional God-Breathed revelation”. I don’t agree with that claim. I suspect many Protestant scholars wouldn’t either.

Well, the reason when we start dealing with each other’s presuppositions, we can both agree that the scriptures have divine authority. The difference between us is that you say that we should also embrace tradition has having divine authority. Now, I cannot examine every claim to tradition ever put foward and show that it is not apostolic. That would take me the rest of my life. Since Catholics make the positive assertion, they must first define what this tradition is, and then show that is has apostolic authority.

Now, as far as the God-Breathed revelation, I think we need to understand what the nature of God breathed revelation is. First of all, we know and agree that anything that comes from God is the ultimate authority, since God himself is the ultimate authority. We both agree that the scriptures have that perrogative. However, if something comes from God having the ultimate authority of God, how can it not be God breathed? I recognize that he is a protestant, but B.B. Warfield did an explaination on the meaning of Theopneustos in 2:Timothy 3:16 and got the same definition I presented. Hence, if you want to say that tradition is not God-Breathed then you have to explain how something can be divine in origin having the authority of God, and yet not be God Breathed. I am not saying you can’t, but that is what I was going on.

God Bless,
Martin Luther*

 

[Ignatius]

The false man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Faith Alone) is found nowhere in the early Church. This doctrine does not appear until after the 1530’s.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jphilapy:

I never denied that he used the word must, I just said that he wasn’t being condescending.

Consider the following:

1. Can we agree that…
2. You must understand that…

The first clause (1) attempts to find common ground; a common understanding, from which both people can proceed with the discussion.

The second clause (2) has a the first person attempting to compel a second person to understand the first person’s point of view. ‘Must’ connotes necessity or obligation. To use the word ‘must’ instead of ‘can we agree’ is to have one person attempting to usurp a position of dominance over another person.

Perhaps I should give you some information which might help you to understand the distinction I make: michaelp is a pastor in his own life. michaelp is not a pastor on this board. He is not our teacher. We are not his students. His use of the word ‘must’ was misplaced.

If you want to be michaelp’s student that is your choice. You can allow michaelp to use the word ‘must’ with you. I choose not to be michaelp’s student. Therefore I take issue with his choice of the word ‘must.’

 

[jphilapy]

Ignatius:

The false man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Faith Alone) is found nowhere in the early Church. This doctrine does not appear until after the 1530’s.

Ignatius, first I believe that we do need to learn from other sources. God has not created each one of us with all knowledge, nor has he created each one of us in a vaccum.

However I do believe there is suffient proof that the early church did hold to a view that scripture had higher authority than any man and tradition. If you want proof then I will have to point you to folks who have done the research and let you see what they find. However I already know where this will go. You will say they are taking their information out of context. So it would be fruitless and weighty for us to discuss this. All I can say is that you should consider both sides of the coin and make your own informed descision. I likewise am taking the time to consider the argument from both sides.

Now another way to look at this is, Tradition is being formed after scripture. Scripture cannot be changed. Since this is true it means that Tradition must always be formed in such away that it is compatible with scripture. What happens if Tradition contradicts scripture, which do you modify? You modify Tradition right? But of course you will argue that Tradition never contradicts scripture. Well if that is really true then why? Well because the catholic church would make sure they established tradition that agreed with scripture. If that is the case then you accept that scripture has higher authority.

Now one more thing about your comment regarding what the early christians believed. Why does it matter to you that they didn’t believe something? I mean the catholic church introduces things that cannot be found in scripture or in the writings of the earliest church. Likewise if earlier is better, then doesn’t that credit gnosticsm?

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

Ani Ibi:

Consider the following:

1. Can we agree that…
2. You must understand that…

The first clause (1) attempts to find common ground; a common understanding, from which both people can proceed with the discussion.

The second clause (2) has a the first person attempting to compel a second person to understand the first person’s point of view. ‘Must’ connotes necessity or obligation. To use the word ‘must’ instead of ‘can we agree’ is to have one person attempting to usurp a position of dominance over another person.

Perhaps I should give you some information which might help you to understand the distinction I make: michaelp is a pastor in his own life. michaelp is not a pastor on this board. He is not our teacher. We are not his students. His use of the word ‘must’ was misplaced.

If you want to be michaelp’s student that is your choice. You can allow michaelp to use the word ‘must’ with you. I choose not to be michaelp’s student. Therefore I take issue with his choice of the word ‘must.’

Mike is not a forceful person. What you attribute to him is untrue.

Want evidence? Don’t read into his post. Us protestants don’t often understand the ettiqute of catholics nor the teachings. Not trying to be rude, I just think you need to leave the personal aspect out of the discussion and discuss the issue.

Jeff

 

[Mickey]

Martin Luther:

Since Catholics make the positive assertion, they must first define what this tradition is, and then show that is has apostolic authority.

This is a very good article from Catholic Answers. Hope it helps you to understand.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

The Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Mark Shea)

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Now another way to look at this is, Tradition is being formed after scripture. Scripture cannot be changed. Since this is true it means that Tradition must always be formed in such away that it is compatible with scripture.
Jeff

Then where did Scripture come from?

Did Jesus personally write the New Testament?

No, He did not. Christians began to write about His message some years after the Resurection. And voluminously – you can find more “scripture” outside the New Testament than inside. Some appears perfectly sound, some not so sound, some is forged or edited.

Who chose the documents that make up the New Testament? Based on what criterria?

Clearly the choices were based on TRADITION. The Church fathers chose those documents that were in accord with tradition and rejected (or simply did not include) those which were not.

Who rejects tradition must willy-nilly reject scripture as well.

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

Then where did Scripture come from?

Did Jesus personally write the New Testament?

No, He did not. Christians began to write about His message some years after the Resurection. And voluminously – you can find more “scripture” outside the New Testament than inside. Some appears perfectly sound, some not so sound, some is forged or edited.

Where did tradition come from? How do we know?

And where did the old testament come from? Who chose those books?
vern humphrey:

Who chose the documents that make up the New Testament? Based on what criterria?

Clearly the choices were based on TRADITION. The Church fathers chose those documents that were in accord with tradition and rejected (or simply did not include) those which were not.

Who rejects tradition must willy-nilly reject scripture as well.

Evidence is sufficent to show that christians already accepted all the writings of the new testament before any final ruling was given.

So how did they know they were inspired writings before any council ruling?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Where did tradition come from? How do we know?

From Jesus Christ, of course!

He WAS a real person, you know, walked among us and taught us. His Apostles carried His message – and that is what we call Tradition.

jphilapy:

And where did the old testament come from? Who chose those books?

It came from the writings of the early Christians – specifically Matthew (an Apostle), Mark (Peter’s amaneuensis), Luke (a follower of Paul), John (An apostle, althhough the Gospel of John we now have may have been redacted from his oral teachings.

The Epistles of Paul (an Apostle) make up almost half the New Testament – and clearly Paul did not know he was writing the New Testament when he wrote.

The Catholic Letters (the epistles of John, James, Peter, and Jude) some or all of which may be redacted from the oral teachings of these Apostlse.

Revelations or the Apocalypse of John, written from prison on Patmos and probably sent to Polycarp when finished.

A brief and readable account of how the concept of a New Testament emerged, and how the documents were selected for inclusion in the Canon is “The New Testament Canon; It’s Making and Meaning” by Harry Y. Gamble, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1985. Gamble is a Protestent, and concludes that Scripture cannot be separated from the Tradition from which it sprang.

jphilapy:

Evidence is sufficent to show that christians already accepted all the writings of the new testament before any final ruling was given.

That’s called “Tradition” – what was accepted and taught by the Church!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

jphilapy:

So how did they know they were inspired writings before any council ruling?

Jeff

Through the traditional acceptance of these documents as suitable to be read at Mass, of course!

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

It came from the writings of the early Christians – specifically Matthew (an Apostle), Mark (Peter’s amaneuensis), Luke (a follower of Paul), John (An apostle, althhough the Gospel of John we now have may have been redacted from his oral teachings.

Vern,

Where did the Old Testament come from? Who chose the books to be included in the Old testament? What tradition was responsible for that?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Vern,

Where did the Old Testament come from? Who chose the books to be included in the Old testament? What tradition was responsible for that?

Jeff

The oldest books of the Old Testament were originally composed orally and passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation. You can see multiple oral traditions in places like the Creation Story, bringing the animals into the Ark, and Abraham’s claim that Sarah was his sister – each of these stories is told twice, in slightly different versions (the last of these, three times – with Issac claiming his wife is his sister.)

The redactors (those who wrote the books down) are unknown. For the Torah or Pentateuch (the first five books), three different redactors are identifiable by style, the Yawehist, the Elohist (from their use of different names for God, “Yaweh” and “Elohim” and The Priestly Source.

Other writers are known by name – for example Joshua (Jesus) the grandson of Ben Sirach wrote down his grandfather’s wisdom sayings.

There were in the time of Christ, three main sects of Judaism – Saducees, Pharasees and Essenes. The Saducees accepted only the first five books (the Torah or Pentateuch.) You will note in the Gospel that Jesus only quotes from these 5 books when speaking to Saducees. The Essenes, if the documents found in the caves of Qumran are in indicator, accepted some books that no modern eyes had seen until the the caves were discovered.

Ptolomy I and II of Egypt built the Library of Alexandria, and the Library became a family tradition of that dynasty. They wanted the Scriptures for the library and commanded the Jewish community of Alexandria (which was quite large) to produce it. A committee of 70 (or 72) translated the Jewish scriptures into Greek. This version of the Bible is called the Septaugent (meaning “70” and sometimes written “LXX.”)

Heberw was a dead language, but virtually all educated people in the Eastern Mediterranian spoke Greek – it was the Lingua Franca of the day. Jews in Judah (the remaining Jewish nation) spoke Aramaic, and Jews in most of the rest of the world spoke and could read the language of the land where they lived – usually Greek. But only Hebrew scholars could read Hebrew.

The LXX was therefore the most widely -used verision of the Bible in the time of Christ – and all of the direct quotes from the Old Testament attributed directly to Christ come from the LXX.

Christians used the LXX (and later Latin translations of the LXX) and accepted it completely. Pope Damascus I proclaimed both the Canon of the Old and New Testaments in the late 4th Century – based on Church Tradition, since the LXX was the version of the Old Testament used throughout the Church.

After the destruction of the Temple, Jews began a process to establish their own Canon. Despite claims made for the “Council of Jamnina” in 90 AD (which was actually a school) a general consensus was not reached until the time of the Masorites, several hundred years later.

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

The oldest books of the Old Testament were originally composed orally and passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation. You can see multiple oral traditions in places like the Creation Story, bringing the animals into the Ark, and Abraham’s claim that Sarah was his sister – each of these stories is told twice, in slightly different versions (the last of these, three times – with Issac claiming his wife is his sister.)

Vern I believe we are missing each other here. I know where the bible came from historically. However I do appreaciate your taking the time to write it out, it is always enjoyable to hear someones summary of bible history. So no wasted effort on your part here.

However your point is that since the scripture was produced by the church so the churches authority is greater than or equal to scripture.

If that is the case then shouldn’t we all convert to the traditions of the Jews considering they gave us the old testament? I mean if they gave us the old testament, then based on your logic their authority must be greater than or equal to that of the old testament.

In order for them to give us the old testament then wouldn’t that require them to have traditions that are authoritive on the same level as scripture?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Vern I believe we are missing each other here. I know where the bible came from historically. However I do appreaciate your taking the time to write it out, it is always enjoyable to hear someones summary of bible history. So no wasted effort on your part here.

However your point is that since the scripture was produced by the church so the churches authority is greater than or equal to scripture.

No, my point is scripture is a product of tradition (after all, the oldest scripture is redacted tradition – as is much of the New Testament.) Without tradition there can be no scripture.

As John says in 21, 25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

The early Christians had a rich tradition of oral teachings that cannot be ignored.

jphilapy:

If that is the case then shouldn’t we all convert to the traditions of the Jews considering they gave us the old testament? I mean if they gave us the old testament, then based on your logic their authority must be greater than or equal to that of the old testament.

How do you get that? The Jews DID produce the Old Testament. Do you wish to reject it? That’s Marcionism!

Christians formed their Canon of the New Testament by listing those books they had traditionally used – which were those found in the LXX. Jesus Himself may have used the LXX – Paul and other early Christians certainly did.

jphilapy:

In order for them to give us the old testament then wouldn’t that require them to have traditions that are authoritive on the same level as scripture?

Indeed – do you wish to drop Christianity and become a Jew?

With Christ, the old covenent was fulfilled. His Church had the authority that had formerly rested with the Prophets – and it used its own tradition to form the Canon.

 

[Sir_William]

What a waste of time this thread has become. Just for fun, I went to Michael’s site and poked around.

thetheologyprogram.com/

Under the section on Catholic Theology I noted the following as sources:

James McArthy and Lorraine Boettner. I think I see where Micahel is coming from now. Here’s what Karl Keating has to say about those two fine scholars:

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea2.asp (scroll down to Case #3)

catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp

Enjoy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sir_William:

What a waste of time this thread has become. Just for fun, I went to Michael’s site and poked around.

thetheologyprogram.com/

Under the section on Catholic Theology I noted the following as sources:

James McArthy and Lorraine Boettner. I think I see where Micahel is coming from now. Here’s what Karl Keating has to say about those two fine scholars:

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea2.asp (scroll down to Case #3)

catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp

Enjoy.

Always be wary of the old “appeal to authority” ploy, and check out any authority offered very carefully.

 

[Contarini]

Madaglan:

Hence, the limitation of Aquinas’ proof of God through efficient causes. Of course there is the problem of “infinite regress”; I agree with you there. However, I think that the issue really boils down to presuppositions. We build our infallibility on a series of presuppositions. Catholics presuppose the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church with infallibility–that the early Church records are veracious. Catholics likewise presuppose that Christ is a reality, and that the writings of the Tanakh are the Word of God. However, Catholics do not presuppose that the New Testament is inspired, but that it is shown to be inspired because the infallible Church demonstrates it is so. Protestants, on the other hand, before anything else, seem to presuppose the Tanakh and the New Testament Writings as the Word of God.

I would say that I presuppose the apostolic testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus. This comes to me from the Church (in my case from Protestantism, since that’s the form of Christianity in which I was raised–and behind Protestantism from medieval and patristic Catholicism), which is a strong reason for trusting the Church. However, the consistent witness of the pre-Reformation Church is that Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. (And yes, I know of course that this went along with the view that only the Church could interpret Scripture. I don’t dissent from this view–I just don’t believe that the Church is to be defined solely in terms of Pope and bishops.) Furthermore, Vatican II explicitly teaches that the Church is the servant of the Word and not its master. Of course that goes along with the view that the Word is preserved in Scripture and Tradition. But if we are speaking of the authority of the Church over against the authority of Scripture, we have both the constant teaching of the patristic/medieval Church and the clear definition of Vatican II (quoted in the Catechism) in favor of the view that Scripture (as part of Sacred Tradition) has greater authority than the Church.

There is no contradiction in a lesser authority pointing to a greater. Any teacher does it all the time, as C. S. Lewis pointed out. The Church has given us Scripture and told us that it is a reliable deposit of Apostolic Tradition. It is therefore self-defeating to try to exalt the authority of the Church over that of Scripture.

In Christ,

Edwin