Best defense for sola scriptura?

[Thom18]

Before the format of the forum changes (which I’m not sure I’ll stick around for), I’m interested in hearing a protestant’s best defense for sola scriptura. I’m looking for a few things:
How do we know which books are inspired?
If you don’t accept the 73 book canon the Catholic Church uses, why not?
Who can correctly interpret Scripture?

Anything else you care to add would be appreciated.

(I thought of putting this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but thought I would get a better response if I put it here).

 

[JonNC]

Before the format of the forum changes (which I’m not sure I’ll stick around for), I’m interested in hearing a protestant’s best defense for sola scriptura. I’m looking for a few things:
How do we know which books are inspired?
If you don’t accept the 73 book canon the Catholic Church uses, why not?
Who can correctly interpret Scripture?

Anything else you care to add would be appreciated.

(I thought of putting this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but thought I would get a better response if I put it here).

When I was Lutheran…

How do we know which books are inspired?
This is not a question answered by* sola scriptura *. Ss is a hermeneutical principle for holding doctrine accountable to scripture. Under SS, scripture is the final norm for that purpose. The Church, which is given teaching authority in scripture (the Great Commission and other places) determines the canon, or more specifically, how the books of scripture are used based on their historical reputation.

If you don’t accept the 73 book canon the Catholic Church uses, why not?
Again, not a question for SS, but at least for Lutherans, it isn’t a matter of accepting or not accepting the 73 book canon. Luther’s translation has (yes, has) 74 books, the traditional western canon and the Prayer of Manasseh. Those 7 or 8 books are used for instruction and reading, but are not used in determining doctrine.
It is also important to point out that in Eastern Orthodoxy, there are canons that are larger than the western 73.

Who can correctly interpret Scripture?
The Church. For Lutherans, the symbols of the Lutheran tradition within the Church Catholic are, primarily, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and Luther’s Small Catechism, and of course, these are secondary to the three creeds.

Other traditions will have other views.

Hope that helps.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Travel in time, back to the year AD100.

Ask the same question.

Protestants seem to believe that Christianity only emerged around AD1500.

They ignore all of the previous 1500 years.

 

[MaryT777]

…interested in answers.

 

[JonNC]

Travel in time, back to the year AD100.

Ask the same question.

Protestants seem to believe that Christianity only emerged around AD1500.

They ignore all of the previous 1500 years.

Some who are uneducated might, but the fact that Lutherans, in their Book of Concord, place the 3 creeds first before any writing of the reformers would indicate that the reformers did not think the faith began in 1517.
The Lutheran confessions are filled with references to the ECFs, and Lutheran clergymen are well studied in Latin and the languages of the faith.

 

[adf417]

When I was Lutheran…

How do we know which books are inspired?
This is not a question answered by* sola scriptura *. Ss is a hermeneutical principle for holding doctrine accountable to scripture. Under SS, scripture is the final norm for that purpose. The Church, which is given teaching authority in scripture (the Great Commission and other places) determines the canon, or more specifically, how the books of scripture are used based on their historical reputation.

If you don’t accept the 73 book canon the Catholic Church uses, why not?
Again, not a question for SS, but at least for Lutherans, it isn’t a matter of accepting or not accepting the 73 book canon. Luther’s translation has (yes, has) 74 books, the traditional western canon and the Prayer of Manasseh. Those 7 or 8 books are used for instruction and reading, but are not used in determining doctrine.
It is also important to point out that in Eastern Orthodoxy, there are canons that are larger than the western 73.

Who can correctly interpret Scripture?
The Church. For Lutherans, the symbols of the Lutheran tradition within the Church Catholic are, primarily, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and Luther’s Small Catechism, and of course, these are secondary to the three creeds.

Other traditions will have other views.

Hope that helps.

Hi Jon and greetings!

It seems you have nuanced your position here on CAF over the years dealing with this question and the apology this position usually brings here.

I am curious how this position explains the commandment in Deut 4:2 -

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

If the bible is the word of God wouldn’t at least one or some of these canons you speak about be in violation of this commandment even though, as you say, they, the different canons, were established by “the church”?

No, i do not know what the position of the Catholic Church is on this question. I thought you may know that as well, please share if so.

Peace!!!

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Jon and greetings!

It seems you have nuanced your position here on CAF over the years dealing with this question and the apology this position usually brings here.

I am curious how this position explains the commandment in Deut 4:2 -

If the bible is the word of God wouldn’t at least one or some of these canons you speak about be in violation of this commandment even though, as you say, they, the different canons, were established by “the church”?

No, i do not know what the position of the Catholic Church is on this question. I thought you may know that as well, please share if so.

Peace!!!

 

[po18guy]

There is absolutely no defense for placing the ego in charge of proclaiming the good news. Sola scriptura is the ego and nothing more. The ego is the very DNA of all “solas.”

 

[Thom18]

When I was Lutheran…

How do we know which books are inspired?
This is not a question answered by* sola scriptura *. Ss is a hermeneutical principle for holding doctrine accountable to scripture. Under SS, scripture is the final norm for that purpose. The Church, which is given teaching authority in scripture (the Great Commission and other places) determines the canon, or more specifically, how the books of scripture are used based on their historical reputation.

If you don’t accept the 73 book canon the Catholic Church uses, why not?
Again, not a question for SS, but at least for Lutherans, it isn’t a matter of accepting or not accepting the 73 book canon. Luther’s translation has (yes, has) 74 books, the traditional western canon and the Prayer of Manasseh. Those 7 or 8 books are used for instruction and reading, but are not used in determining doctrine.
It is also important to point out that in Eastern Orthodoxy, there are canons that are larger than the western 73.

Who can correctly interpret Scripture?
The Church. For Lutherans, the symbols of the Lutheran tradition within the Church Catholic are, primarily, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and Luther’s Small Catechism, and of course, these are secondary to the three creeds.

Other traditions will have other views.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for responding.

How do we know which books are inspired? If the Church has the say on it, why don’t Lutherans accept the deuterocanon? I would assume (maybe wrongly) they believe it was “their church” that canonized the Scriptures (and that church included them)- but if not, how would they explain that the Church back then got it all right except for seven? Luther’s translation, you say, had 74 books, but that’s not what Lutherans use today, I’m sure.

 

[exnihilo]

Who can correctly interpret Scripture?
The Church. For Lutherans, the symbols of the Lutheran tradition within the Church Catholic are, primarily, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and Luther’s Small Catechism, and of course, these are secondary to the three creeds.

Some who are uneducated might, but the fact that Lutherans, in their Book of Concord, place the 3 creeds first before any writing of the reformers would indicate that the reformers did not think the faith began in 1517.
The Lutheran confessions are filled with references to the ECFs, and Lutheran clergymen are well studied in Latin and the languages of the faith.

What or who would Lutherans, or early Lutherans, say comprised the Church?

It seems to me that the early reformers did say the Church interpreted Scripture and that there was an identifiable Church. However the more common view now is that the Church is something like the community of people who have the right beliefs. This would beg the question. To be clear I’m not saying that is the modern Lutheran view. But for the majority of those who do advocate SS it seems to me they have no identifiable Church to interpret for them.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon and greetings!

It seems you have nuanced your position here on CAF over the years dealing with this question and the apology this position usually brings here.

I am curious how this position explains the commandment in Deut 4:2 -

If the bible is the word of God wouldn’t at least one or some of these canons you speak about be in violation of this commandment even though, as you say, they, the different canons, were established by “the church”?

No, i do not know what the position of the Catholic Church is on this question. I thought you may know that as well, please share if so.

Peace!!!

I don’t think my understanding is more nuanced. Maybe my wording more precise? But this has always been my understanding of SS.
As to your question, it mind depend on what one means by canon. Cajetan talks about a canon that includes books used for instruction and reading. That’s essentially the View of the Anglican Church I attend. And is, effectively, the Lutheran approach since they technically don’t have a closed canon. But yes, at some point, a set canon is a good thing.

 

[adf417]

I don’t think my understanding is more nuanced. Maybe my wording more precise? But this has always been my understanding of SS.

Agreed!

As to your question, it mind depend on what one means by canon. Cajetan talks about a canon that includes books used for instruction and reading. That’s essentially the View of the Anglican Church I attend. And is, effectively, the Lutheran approach since they technically don’t have a closed canon. But yes, at some point, a set canon is a good thing.

Do you not think the church, the body of Christ, can know definitively what this canon is and is not? Can the body of Christ, however one defines this term, not know definitively what the complete word of God is and be able to have a way of communicating this to its/His followers that is not confusing as to wonder if 1, 7, or 8 books is part of it or not?

Peace!!!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There is absolutely no defense for placing the ego in charge of proclaiming the good news. Sola scriptura is the ego and nothing more. The ego is the very DNA of all “solas.”

Well, I’d actually call SS an assumption since the bible doesn’t tell tell us bible alone. It also points to councils and Church authority and tradition.

Non-Catholics see it as a safety net.

 

[JonNC]

[quote="exnihilo, post:10, topic:448514, full:true"]


What or who would Lutherans, or early Lutherans, say comprised the Church? 

It seems to me that the early reformers did say the Church interpreted Scripture and that there was an identifiable Church. However the more common view now is that the Church is something like the community of people who have the right beliefs. This would beg the question. To be clear I’m not saying that is the modern Lutheran view. But for the majority of those who do advocate SS it seems to me they have no identifiable Church to interpret for them.

The Augsburg Confession says that the Church is the congregation of saints (believers) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

As for others, you’d have to get a response from them.

 

[exnihilo]

The Augsburg Confession says that the Church is the congregation of saints (believers) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

As for others, you’d have to get a response from them.

Glad you made it through the transition!

Would Lutherans say the Catholic Church preaches the word and administers the sacraments? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that the Catholic Church’s teaching is at odds with Lutheran teaching? How is it the voice of the more numerous Catholic Church is ignored on some matters and the voice of a smaller group heeded?

 

[JonNC]

Glad you made it through the transition!

Would Lutherans say the Catholic Church preaches the word and administers the sacraments? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that the Catholic Church’s teaching is at odds with Lutheran teaching? How is it the voice of the more numerous Catholic Church is ignored on some matters and the voice of a smaller group heeded?

Lutherans would say that the CC preaches the word and administers the sacraments with some errors, as the CC would say about Lutherans. One difference would be that Lutherans generally recognize the validity of Catholic priests. I don’t know of any that would deny the real presence in the Catholic Eucharist, for example, though there may be some

 

[JonNC]

There is absolutely no defense for placing the ego in charge of proclaiming the good news. Sola scriptura is the ego and nothing more. The ego is the very DNA of all “solas.”

So, if a non-Catholic came on and said that there is no defense for placing ego ahead of any ecumenical council and that papal supremacy is the ego of one bishop and nothing more?

Personally, I find neither argument particularly compelling

 

[po18guy]

“If” is hypothetical. What about atheists who deny not only the Church, but God? That has zero effect on the truth. I think your argument is a construct. Acts 15. That is the Church as it was, as it is and as it will be until the Parousia.

What a Christian must seek is not only Christ, but Christ in the manner which the Lord Himself prescribed. He spoke nothing of what is written - except Him being the fulfillment of it. He directs us to the Apostles and Church, not to what is written.

 

[JonNC]

“If” is hypothetical. What about atheists who deny not only the Church, but God? That has zero effect on the truth. I think your argument is a construct. Acts 15. That is the Church as it was, as it is and as it will be until the Parousia.

I have no disagreement with Acts 15. It doesn’t show supremacy as currently claimed. Again, your rhetorical comment that SS is of the ego is as lacking as the one that says the claim of supremacy is of the ego. They are both polemical

 

[JonNC]

What a Christian must seek is not only Christ, but Christ in the manner which the Lord Himself prescribed. He spoke nothing of what is written - except Him being the fulfillment of it. He directs us to the Apostles and Church, not to what is written.

Not what is written?
Galatians 3:10, Romans 15:4
That sounds as narrow as when a “Protestant” says we should ignore the ECFs and early councils