Bible Alone?

[Starwarsfan2]

Tradition comes to us from Jesus through his Apostles, long before there was a NT

1.The books were written and inspired within a few decades after the resurrection of Christ 2. the books were widely held by the majority of the church to be scripture BEFORE the councils thus was a functioning canon
3. the apostles quoted from the New Testament books as canonical before the councils declared them as such .

To deny the above you are essentially making truth an evolving thing based on community not on God’s authority , and by denying any sort of functioning NT canon you are underestimating the Holy Spirit’s power to protect, build , and preserve His Scripture .
( btw don’t misunderstand this sentence, I accept the councils , I m merely arguing for a functioning canon before they made a list " official " )

Keep the faith Michael68 , Starwars

 

[Michael68]

1.The books were written and inspired within a few decades after the resurrection of Christ 2. the books were widely held by the majority of the church to be scripture BEFORE the councils thus was a functioning canon
3. the apostles quoted from the New Testament books as canonical before the councils declared them as such .

To deny the above you are essentially making truth an evolving thing based on community not on God’s authority , and by denying any sort of functioning NT canon you are underestimating the Holy Spirit’s power to protect, build , and preserve His Scripture .
( btw don’t misunderstand this sentence, I accept the councils , I m merely arguing for a functioning canon before they made a list " official " )

Keep the faith Michael68 , Starwars

Thanks!!! I really love the Catholic faith and sometimes I can’t explain it very well.

 

[DeusExMachina]

1.The books were written and inspired within a few decades after the resurrection of Christ 2. the books were widely held by the majority of the church to be scripture BEFORE the councils thus was a functioning canon
3. the apostles quoted from the New Testament books as canonical before the councils declared them as such .

To deny the above you are essentially making truth an evolving thing based on community not on God’s authority , and by denying any sort of functioning NT canon you are underestimating the Holy Spirit’s power to protect, build , and preserve His Scripture .
( btw don’t misunderstand this sentence, I accept the councils , I m merely arguing for a functioning canon before they made a list " official " )

Keep the faith Michael68 , Starwars

You know, despite my general dislike of Protestantism and the reformers (no offense) Ive always had a certain amount of respect for lutherans

 

[JonNC]

You know, despite my general dislike of Protestantism and the reformers (no offense) Ive always had a certain amount of respect for lutherans

Thank you

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Thanks!!! I really love the Catholic faith and sometimes I can’t explain it very well.

As do I , and I struggle to defend it also

 

[guanophore]

Finally, we are. not willing to cede that our practice has roots only in the Reformation era.

Jon

Clearly the Father’s were prolific about the value and primacy of the Scriptures in both the understanding of doctrine and as a weapon against heresies.

The Ancient Fathers on Scripture

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+c.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)

St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things…
(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)

St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)

St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)

 

[guanophore]

St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])

St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)

St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(Cap. 22, The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9 [Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962], p. 204.)

St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)

St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)

 

[theropod]

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura people insist if it isn’t in the bible then they don’t follow it. Yet, they follow Sola Scriptura and that is nowhere in the bible. They like to use the scripture about reproof and correction as a claim but that is easily disputed. I just wanted to know since these Protestants are adamant about bible only.

Location: S. E. Texas

That explains a lot, actually. If you are talking to people in your community, you probably aren’t dealing with the most educated group of Protestants. In fact, a lot of the “Protestants” you encounter, probably don’t even consider themselves as such, or at least, they don’t even think in those terms. “Restorationist” churches like the Church of Christ and fundamental Baptists have pretty big numbers in Texas, and view themselves really outside the whole Catholic-Protestant divide. And they do, in fact, hold to the version of SS that you have in mind. I know, I was one of them once.

 

[Michael68]

Location: S. E. Texas

That explains a lot, actually. If you are talking to people in your community, you probably aren’t dealing with the most educated group of Protestants. In fact, a lot of the “Protestants” you encounter, probably don’t even consider themselves as such, or at least, they don’t even think in those terms. “Restorationist” churches like the Church of Christ and fundamental Baptists have pretty big numbers in Texas, and view themselves really outside the whole Catholic-Protestant divide. And they do, in fact, hold to the version of SS that you have in mind. I know, I was one of them once.

Thank You for understanding!!!

 

[JustaServant]

I got it. I understand you have a position. I’m not going to tell you “so what?”

Actually my college professor used that ‘so what’ question quite a lot to force me beyond the walls of entrenched pronouncements. It forces one to think, reason, and explain. So Jon’s question is not out of bounds.

 

[rcwitness]

It certainly has the potential to be, which is why the Church discouraged it for so long. The Church wanted to prevent the fragmentation that now exists.

Anyone who reads and prays the scripture may enjoy the gift of the Holy Spirit revealing things to them about how it pertains to them personally (privately). But if the Scriptures are interpreted privately outside the mind of the Church, dangerous results can occur.

I agree that we should approach the Scriptures with the expectation that God will speak to us personally, but there is no need to be insulting to others. Assuming that not wanting divisions in the body of Christ amounts to “intimidating” is quite a leap!

It is also insulting to tell someone " I guess that’s why you need the church to explain everything - you don’t trust yourself". On the contrary, we are to trust the Church, who has the mind of Christ. This does not mean we do not trust ourselves, but that we all have the capacity to get lost.

I don’t think anyone was suggesting this. Reading the Scripture with the mind of the Church protects us from falling into heresies and other “dangerous” results.

Some of your personal interpretations seem to contradict the Teaching of the Church, which is problematic here on CAF because you have stated that you are a Catholic Catechist. Having responsibility for teaching the faith means you are held to a higher standard.

You don’t need a Ph.D to write a book Fran. Go right ahead!

If you are writing about your personal revelations and interpretations, then “right” is not required. People write books every day about their ideas. :yup:

The Doctors of the Church had their material sifted and measured by the Magesterium before it was recommended to the faithful. If you wish your book to be offered for guidance on that same level, you will have to submit to the same process.

I think your history is a bit out of order, Fran. Jesus committed His whole message to the Church before a word of the NT was ever written. “Doctrine” = Teachings of Jesus.

Doctrine has been “developed” after He and the Apostles died, but the deposit of faith does not change.

The NT reflects the faith that was committed to the Church. Our faith is not extracted from it. We are not “people of the book”. Our faith comes to us from Christ, through the Apostles.

I am not sure how you came up with such a simplistic view, Fran, but there is much more to it than this. The reason it was called The Way is because it encompassed a whole way of life. Christianity came out of Judaism, and the values and world view that belonged to the Jews was absorbed by the Christians.

I will agree that our 2000 year history has encountered many more complications, but the New Testament clearly teaches an entire lifestyle to which people are expected to commit themselves.

One only need to investigate or sojourn among our separated brethren to see this.

Or study the heresies of the early church, especially Arianism and Gnosticism.

I agree, there is no need to be afraid, but danger does exist. Only keeping with the mind of the Church can protect us from that danger.

Excellent post and insights

I have a very similar understanding of our veneration of Scripture and and Tradition. Scripture is a unique Tradition in itself! It has a certain “wholeness” about it. But we still need to assent to Scripture’s true meaning. I believe the Church (in the manner which She has described Magisterial Teaching) was given a role in Christ’s authority to Confirm/strengthen/Teach/bind/uphold what Jesus intends for us at any given time.

 

[Aslan10]

Are you familiar with the iota (Homoiousios vs Homoousios) that helped defined the Trinity at Nicaea, prior to the canonization of the bible? If you really wish not to be Catholic you might want to rethink being Trinitarian. I would.

Peace!!!

I wouldn’t. Trinitarian Christians were around long before nicea, just as scripture was around before the official canon was recognized.

 

[Aslan10]

Under whose authority do you have the right to tell us our traditions are wrong?

I mentioned what I use to determine truth, I will not restate it.

 

[PoorKnight]

Your entire post is wrong and I can’t really repeat what I’ve already said.

First of all SOLO AND SOLA are very different - guess you can’t understand the difference.

Second SOLA scriptura is not an individual understanding of scripture.

You really should try to understand both.

Fran

Your tone is uncalled for.

I was protestant for almost 10 years. I studied the Westminster confessional - the most in depth treatment of Sola Scriptura - under two Masters of Reformed Theology. I’ve also spent the last 5 years talking to Protestants, asking them what their definition of Sola - or Solo - Scriptura is.

As an aside, I’ve identified at least 4 different “groupings” of definitions of Sola Scriptura (one includes ‘Solo’).

All four are based on the two sub-pillars that 1) Scripture is perspicuous and 2) Scripture is completely self-interpreting (both as stated in the Westminster Confessional, again, the most in depth written treatment of Sola Scriptura). It is also based on the notion of what Martin Luther said was the unlimited right of private interpretation.

None of this is found in Scripture. Scripture does not say it is either the “final” or “only” authority. Scripture says that the Scriptures are HARD to understand, not perspicuous (2 Pet 3:16). Scripture shows that it is not COMPLETELY Self-Interpreting (chapter and verse for the two different genealogies of Christ please?) Scripture shows that it is the Church which is the Final Arbitrator, not the Bible (Mt 18:15-18). Scripture also shows that there is NOT an unlimited right to private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20).

Logic also shows that neither Sola or Solo Scriptura is possible. The Bible cannot be either the final or only authority in determining what makes up Scripture. At least in the compellation of Scripture there had to be another infallible authority to say what the content of that Scripture would be. The Law of Cause and Effect says you cannot have more in the effect than the cause.

If you cannot believe that, then you are stuck saying what Protestant Theologian R.C. Sproul says which is “at best” Scripture is made up of “a FALLIBLE list of Infallible books.” [emphasis added]. Why does he say this? Because he’s studied enough to realize that it was the Catholic Church who determined the content of Scripture and there’s no Scriptural reason for the publishing company in the 19th Century to edit out 7 books and parts of two others.

So to cling to his man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura, he has to eliminate the Church, which, he knows, eliminates his basis for claiming an Infallible list of Infallible books. Bottom line is he followed the logic of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura to it’s conclusion: without another infallible authority, WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT MAKES UP SOLA (or Solo) SCRIPTURA. Which is another death knell to Sola - or Solo - Scriptura.

“Solo” Scriptura is a phrase most Protestants of one flavor call the belief of Protestants of another flavor. It was created after the Reformation to try to show the “error” in one group’s interpretation of the Bible over the other.

Both are self-refuting. They are, in the end, a distinction without a difference.

In the Protestant world the attempt to show the unity clearly called for by Christ and His Apostles is done by arbitrarily creating two lists: “Essentials” and “non-Essentials”. When something is disagreed upon - no matter how serious the ramifications, like the necessity of Baptism - it is considered a non-Essential.

But the definition of Sola (or Solo) is a disagreement. The mere fact that some Protestants here try to distinguish between the two proves my point - maybe I should have pointed that out as well. So, by everything I was taught as a Protestant, and supported by what I continuously hear from many flavors of Protestantism, this would then make Sola (or Solo) Scriptura a “non-Essential.”

So I want to know if the Protestants in this discussion think Sola (or Solo) Scriptura is a Non-Essential.

I hope that shows you that I do understand the difference, and why, to the bigger question, it doesn’t make a difference.

Does that help you better understand why I posted my question?

 

[Michael68]

I mentioned what I use to determine truth, I will not restate it.

Fine, if you don’t want to be part of the conversation, OK

 

[frangiuliano115]

Your tone is uncalled for.

I was protestant for almost 10 years. I studied the Westminster confessional - the most in depth treatment of Sola Scriptura - under two Masters of Reformed Theology. I’ve also spent the last 5 years talking to Protestants, asking them what their definition of Sola - or Solo - Scriptura is.

As an aside, I’ve identified at least 4 different “groupings” of definitions of Sola Scriptura (one includes ‘Solo’).

All four are based on the two sub-pillars that 1) Scripture is perspicuous and 2) Scripture is completely self-interpreting (both as stated in the Westminster Confessional, again, the most in depth written treatment of Sola Scriptura). It is also based on the notion of what Martin Luther said was the unlimited right of private interpretation.

None of this is found in Scripture. Scripture does not say it is either the “final” or “only” authority. Scripture says that the Scriptures are HARD to understand, not perspicuous (2 Pet 3:16). Scripture shows that it is not COMPLETELY Self-Interpreting (chapter and verse for the two different genealogies of Christ please?) Scripture shows that it is the Church which is the Final Arbitrator, not the Bible (Mt 18:15-18). Scripture also shows that there is NOT an unlimited right to private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20).

Logic also shows that neither Sola or Solo Scriptura is possible. The Bible cannot be either the final or only authority in determining what makes up Scripture. At least in the compellation of Scripture there had to be another infallible authority to say what the content of that Scripture would be. The Law of Cause and Effect says you cannot have more in the effect than the cause.

If you cannot believe that, then you are stuck saying what Protestant Theologian R.C. Sproul says which is “at best” Scripture is made up of “a FALLIBLE list of Infallible books.” [emphasis added]. Why does he say this? Because he’s studied enough to realize that it was the Catholic Church who determined the content of Scripture and there’s no Scriptural reason for the publishing company in the 19th Century to edit out 7 books and parts of two others.

So to cling to his man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura, he has to eliminate the Church, which, he knows, eliminates his basis for claiming an Infallible list of Infallible books. Bottom line is he followed the logic of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura to it’s conclusion: without another infallible authority, WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT MAKES UP SOLA (or Solo) SCRIPTURA. Which is another death knell to Sola - or Solo - Scriptura.

“Solo” Scriptura is a phrase most Protestants of one flavor call the belief of Protestants of another flavor. It was created after the Reformation to try to show the “error” in one group’s interpretation of the Bible over the other.

Both are self-refuting. They are, in the end, a distinction without a difference.

In the Protestant world the attempt to show the unity clearly called for by Christ and His Apostles is done by arbitrarily creating two lists: “Essentials” and “non-Essentials”. When something is disagreed upon - no matter how serious the ramifications, like the necessity of Baptism - it is considered a non-Essential.

But the definition of Sola (or Solo) is a disagreement. The mere fact that some Protestants here try to distinguish between the two proves my point - maybe I should have pointed that out as well. So, by everything I was taught as a Protestant, and supported by what I continuously hear from many flavors of Protestantism, this would then make Sola (or Solo) Scriptura a “non-Essential.”

So I want to know if the Protestants in this discussion think Sola (or Solo) Scriptura is a Non-Essential.

I hope that shows you that I do understand the difference, and why, to the bigger question, it doesn’t make a difference.

Does that help you better understand why I posted my question?

You said there was no difference between the two. Or that it was of no importance.

I just replied that you should know the two since they’re so different. yoiu don’t seem to think so. Will have to reread the above when there’s more time since there’s a lot. In my understanding there\s a big difference. If I can’t understand it, I’ll be asking more. I do like to understand.

It’s good that you posted both for myself and for the readers.

Fran

 

[HelenRose]

Well you can make the same argument the other way. Where is the biblical support for tradition in churches like the Catholic and Anglican?

This is a valid argument and any defense would be circular.

I grew up as a very happy Protestant girl but no one could or would answer the first question. Where did the Bible come from? Who decided which books would be in the Bible? Why these particular books in the first place? I loved the Bible and still do.

For a long while this love was not based on faith, but on the literature, the history, the archeology, the life of Christ and the message of hope. Simply put: the grandeur of the Bible itself. I trusted the writers of these books in that I believed they were writing what they believed to be true. I trusted the intellect of the writers. Just as I read Tolstoy, Charles Dickens and other great authors, I recognized the genius of what I read in the Bible. The reality of the people, the land, the customs was striking.

When I began studying Catholicism, I finally learned that it was the leaders of the Catholic Church who were responsible for deciding which books best told the history of Christianity up to that point. They were responsible for deciding which books of the Jewish Scriptures, should be carried forward to the Christian tradition.

I made an intellectual decision to put my faith in their hands. Faith, Hope and Love. This is my circular reasoning. When I lose my Faith, I can Hope, If I lose Hope and can Love. Nothing can take away my Love so… When I Love, my Faith returns, and with Faith I can Hope. It is a beautiful circle I often make.

 

[Michael68]

Well you can make the same argument the other way. Where is the biblical support for tradition in churches like the Catholic and Anglican?

Paul told Timothy to adhere to all their teaching, whether by letter or word of mouth. This oral tradition is biblical and why we can prove it with the bible.

 

[steido01]

Your tone is uncalled for.

I was protestant for almost 10 years. I studied the Westminster confessional - the most in depth treatment of Sola Scriptura - under two Masters of Reformed Theology. I’ve also spent the last 5 years talking to Protestants, asking them what their definition of Sola - or Solo - Scriptura is.

As an aside, I’ve identified at least 4 different “groupings” of definitions of Sola Scriptura (one includes ‘Solo’).

All four are based on the two sub-pillars that 1) Scripture is perspicuous and 2) Scripture is completely self-interpreting (both as stated in the Westminster Confessional, again, the most in depth written treatment of Sola Scriptura). ** It is also based on the notion of what Martin Luther said was the unlimited right of private interpretation.**

I stopped reading after that last sentence. It doesn’t sound like the two Masters of Reformed Theology knew much about Luther or what he believed. Not surprised. Reformed theologians tend to make him (and Scripture) say what they want it to say.

Sola Scriptura, to Lutherans, does not mean what it does to Reformed folks.

 

[JustaServant]

Sola Scriptura, to Lutherans, does not mean what it does to Reformed folks.

…or what how the fundamentalist views SS.