Bible being the Sole Authority??

[aidanbradypop]

I ran across an interesting site this morning that relates to this thread. One question it addresses is the different things people might mean by sole authority:

Sola Scriptura is the view held by Protestants with this short definition:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian.

Protestants often misunderstand the intent of the Reformers believing that sola Scriptura is defined this way:

The Scriptures are the only authority for the Christian. reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/can-catholics-affirm-sola-scriptura/

We believe that the Scriptures are our final and only infallible authority, but not that they are our only authority. For example, we believe that our pastors and church leaders have authority in our lives. Hebrews 13:7 says that we are to obey our leaders. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:2). People are to obey the government (1 Pet. 2:13). Children are to do what their parents say (Eph. 6:1). There can be no excuse like, “Dad, the Bible does not say I have to clean my room, so I choose not to.” Or “Officer, it says nothing specific about running red lights in the Bible.”

As well, tradition (church history) is an authority in our lives. Those who have gone before us in the faith must be respected. Their collective and unified influence creates an authority which, I believe, is second only to Scripture. reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/10/what-sola-scriptura-does-not-mean/
​

Mr. Patton also has some interesting quotes on scripture from some early Christian writers.

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“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.”

Notice how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. They proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and “at a later period” handed it down “in the Scriptures” which is now the “ground and pillar of our faith.” Sounds very Protestant. reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-sola-scriptura-part-10-a-historical-defense/

Like advocates from a Catholic perspective, Mr. Patton may be giving these quotes out of context and with his own interpretation overlaying them. I really need to take time to find and read more of the early church writings in their entirety.

Interesting and I will reserve my thoughts until I have read more about it. Thanks

 

[aidanbradypop]

Jr…That site is ran by people from Dallas Seminary which is the “Free Grace Doctrine” I mentioned in my PM. They are the other side of OSAS. Just thought I would point that out really fast. Thanks for the link. Nice coffee shop. I wanna cup of Joe from there.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

@ JrTrent
I think its wrong to suggest Iraneaus is a sola scripturist in line with the protestant. Selectively quoting (as the source you have quoted does) saint Iraneaus and then from single extracts declaring he was a sola scripturist. As someone who has read the first three books in against heresies Iraneaus does not solely argue from the scripture to refute the gnostics. For Iraneaus scripture is the great authority, there is no doubt about this, he quotes it constantly, but also for Iraneaus the church is the great authority.

Essential to Iraneaus is not just scripture, he unlike the protestant would maintain truth can be delievered without the scripture and by the oral tradition and knowledge of the church. Of course he would also maintain that the scripture contains the truth, the absolute truth which governs the church.This is more effectively established In the begining of book three where Iraneaus lays out the see of rome and that every good church ought be in communion wtih this church of Rome ( a decisively non biblical teaching ), but it is present throughout his work. Namely in the first book.

Chapter 10

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

 

[rfournier103]

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

And where might that be in the Bible, Sir? What did Christians have to guide them before c.393 AD? And while we’re at it, where in the Bible is the list of “inspired books”? How do we know they are inspired?

Don’t give me any stuff about some ‘strawman’ baloney… If you believe this, you will have an answer for us; or be able to find an answer for us and get back to us.

Protestants ask Catholics all the time; “where is ______ in the Bible”. Surely, we may do the same of you.

Thank you for your time.

Your welcome rfournier.

The New Testament was written letter by letter roughly during the first 35 years of Christianity, though the Apocalypse of John was written around 96 AD. These letters would be copied over and over, and passed. Those that got warned down were copied anew and passed around. There was a real hunger by peoples to read the Gospels and Letters of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, so they were copied and copied and so on.

The Copies that formed the NT are so many, that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament today from quotations of the NT letters from the early Church Fathers, only a few sentences from John’s third letter.

BTW, most early Churches rejected the Revelation of John, but it was included in the NT in the 4th century AD. It beat out the Revelation of Peter by two votes.

Are you referring to the Council of Nicea? Who had the authority to call the Council and who decided the Council’s participants? I would be interested in reading what you got this info from; particularly about the actual vote-count. Could you tell us what the source is?

Also, did every Christian community have every letter that formed the NT? Or even some of the letters?

I also stumbled across something last night in my evening Bible-study… (Acts 8:26-40)

Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, “Get up and head south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert route.”

So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,

and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, **“Do you understand what you are reading?”

He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. **

This was the scripture passage he was reading: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth."

Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?”

Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?”

Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.

When they came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but continued on his way rejoicing.

Philip came to Azotus, and went about proclaiming the good news to all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

NOTE: The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit verse 37, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ "

Why in this passage does the Ethiopian need Philip to interpet Isaiah? Clearly the Ethiopian can read, so literacy is not an issue. Yet, this man needs his scriptures interpeted for him. Also, can you cite where in the Bible we may find the passage that tells us that the Bible is the SOLE authority? I know Philip was one of the twelve, and taught by Christ (there are many threads about Apostolic Succession), but Philip is NOT Christ, and certainly NOT the Bible. What authority does HE have, if the Bible is the ONLY authority? AGAIN… where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the SOLE authority, and EVERYTHING we need for salvation is written in it’s pages?

Thanks.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’ve had protestants tell me that the Ethiopian was basically a heretic. Not really a Christian. No joke.

 

[rfournier103]

I’ve had protestants tell me that the Ethiopian was basically a heretic. Not really a Christian. No joke.

Un-bleeping-believable. I honestly believe there are people in this life who will say ANYTHING, no matter how outlandish, to defend the most undefendable positions. Plilip and the Holy Spirit certainly seemed to think the Ethiopian was worth explaining the Scriptures to.

As I quoted in another semi-related post; “haters gonna hate”.

We can talk, and witness 'till we’re blue in the face, but people have to want to understand. YOU MAY LEAD A MAN TO TRUTH, BUT YOU CAN’T MAKE HIM THINK. (Just made that up )

 

[jrtrent]

@ JrTrent
I think its wrong to suggest Iraneaus is a sola scripturist in line with the protestant.

I think you are likely correct. I found the complete document at CCEL, and on the very next page after the one Mr. Patton quoted about scripture, there was a similar tribute by Iraneaus to what I presume to be unwritten tradition:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

Iraneus’s point, as his chapter heading indicates, being that “heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.”

At Mr. Patton’s site, he also has quotes from Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose, and Augustine. I wonder if those are similarly out-of-context.

I really hate reading anything of length on a computer monitor, but it looks like Kindle versions of Philip Schaff’s various collections of the church fathers are available at a cost of just under $4.00 per volume. It’s really amazing what we have access to these days, and at such low prices.

 

[pablope]

I think you are likely correct. I found the complete document at CCEL, and on the very next page after the one Mr. Patton quoted about scripture, there was a similar tribute by Iraneaus to what I presume to be unwritten tradition:

Correct.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches

 

[rfournier103]

Are you referring to the Council of Nicea?

I meant to say, "are you referring to the Council of Nicea or the Council of Carthage?

I forgot to include Carthage. Sometimes I get distracted. Sorry.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.

I agree with your post and points! Scripture is final authority but not the only source of authority for discerning spiritual truth. As a Reformed Christian, I embrace and receive quite a bit of sources found throughout church history because they are consistent with Scripture revelation. I receive the doctrinal truths proclaimed in the Nicene Creed and Apostles’ Creed. From a Protestant perspective, I receive the same doctrines that Catholics believe which are consistent with Scripture correctly understood. I think Catholics believe certain doctrines because the Magestrium tells you that they are true. I believe certain doctrines are true because God reveals these truths confirmed in Scripture revelation.

 

[Porknpie]

I agree with your post and points! Scripture is final authority but not the only source of authority for discerning spiritual truth. As a Reformed Christian, I embrace and receive quite a bit of sources found throughout church history because they are consistent with Scripture revelation. I receive the doctrinal truths proclaimed in the Nicene Creed and Apostles’ Creed. From a Protestant perspective, I receive the same doctrines that Catholics believe which are consistent with Scripture correctly understood. I think Catholics believe certain doctrines because the Magestrium tells you that they are true. I believe certain doctrines are true because God reveals these truths confirmed in Scripture revelation.

Christian,

What doctrines do you believe to be true that the Catholic Church believes to be false?

Interesting because God reveals that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, guided by the Holy Spirit to all Truth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From a Protestant perspective, I receive the same doctrines that Catholics believe which are consistent with Scripture correctly understood. I think Catholics believe certain doctrines because the Magestrium tells you that they are true.

Sigh… brother, do you understand how these sentences come across?

First, you claim to speak from a Protestant perspective. Do you no know how many different perspectives there are in Protestantism? I don’t think there is one person alive who is able to understand them all…

Second, you claim to judge and correctly determine what Catholic doctrines are correct and consistent with Scriptures… Oh my, the affront and arrogance from these words just bleeds a need for humbleness.

Third, you claim to speak for all Catholics and our doctrinal understanding.

Do you know how hard one has to pray in order to not just explode by these comments?

Now please,

1. Please list the doctrines we correctly believe:
2. Please list the doctrines we incorrectly believe:

Let’s keep it at this for now.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Christian,

What doctrines do you believe to be true that the Catholic Church believes to be false?

Interesting because God reveals that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, guided by the Holy Spirit to all Truth.

Thanks for asking. I’m sure we agree that God is always the final authority over all things because God is sovereign. I would never tell a Catholic that your understanding of Apostolic Succession is false and Sola Scriptura is true. We are siblings in Christ who see things quite differently based on our understanding of how God reveals His final authority. I hold to a forensic view of justification as understood by the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation and also hold to the 5 points of Calvinism; yet I would never tell Catholic siblings in Christ that your understanding of infused grace through the seven Catholic sacraments are false. We do have a different understanding of the Church; therefore, we understand that verse you posted quite differently… coming up with different viewpoints and perspectives. We all know in part… but God saves sinners through the person and work of Christ in-spite of not having all our doctrines correct. I believe Christians should be able to live out their conscience before God without a need to make everyone believe exactly how you do. It’s okay to disagree agreeably on many issues that people try to use to divide Catholics from Protestants. There is only one body of Christ which is made up of Christians from the various branches of Christianity. - Peace

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for asking. I’m sure we agree that God is always the final authority over all things because God is sovereign. I would never tell a Catholic that your understanding of Apostolic Succession is false and Sola Scriptura is true. We are siblings in Christ who see things quite differently based on our understanding of how God reveals His final authority. I hold to a forensic view of justification as understood by the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation and also hold to the 5 points of Calvinism; yet I would never tell Catholic siblings in Christ that your understanding of infused grace through the seven Catholic sacraments are false. We do have a different understanding of the Church; therefore, we understand that verse you posted quite differently… coming up with different viewpoints and perspectives. We all know in part… but God saves sinners through the person and work of Christ in-spite of not having all our doctrines correct. I believe Christians should be able to live out their conscience before God without a need to make everyone believe exactly how you do. It’s okay to disagree agreeably on many issues that people try to use to divide Catholics from Protestants. There is only one body of Christ which is made up of Christians from the various branches of Christianity. - Peace

Well, this is because of your own personal belief that states “This {fill in the blank} is the line in the sand that I have drawn.”

But others cannot draw a different line in the sand. When we do that, it is objectionable to you.

One has to wonder why you feel you have the right to do this for yourself but remove this right from Catholics.

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks for asking. I’m sure we agree that God is always the final authority over all things because God is sovereign. I would never tell a Catholic that your understanding of Apostolic Succession is false and Sola Scriptura is true. We are siblings in Christ who see things quite differently based on our understanding of how God reveals His final authority. I hold to a forensic view of justification as understood by the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation and also hold to the 5 points of Calvinism; yet I would never tell Catholic siblings in Christ that your understanding of infused grace through the seven Catholic sacraments are false.** We do have a different understanding of the Church**; therefore, we understand that verse you posted quite differently… coming up with different viewpoints and perspectives. We all know in part… but God saves sinners through the person and work of Christ in-spite of not having all our doctrines correct. I **believe Christians should be able to live out their conscience before God without a need to make everyone believe exactly how you do. **It’s okay to disagree agreeably on many issues that people try to use to divide Catholics from Protestants. There is only one body of Christ which is made up of Christians from the various branches of Christianity. - Peace

Christian, we have unity in agreeing that we have different understandings of ‘Church’. It’s interesting when disunity firsts occurred in this area…it’s hard to believe that the Truth can vary from Church to church. Where does one go for the Truth…which Church? Scripture says that Church is the Truth…the Church then says the bible is inerrant and inspired…

 

[guanophore]

The New Testament was written letter by letter roughly during the first 35 years of Christianity, though the Apocalypse of John was written around 96 AD. These letters would be copied over and over, and passed. Those that got warned down were copied anew and passed around. There was a real hunger by peoples to read the Gospels and Letters of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, so they were copied and copied and so on.

This is quite true. It is also true that there were 300-400 documents produced during that time all claiming to be inspired, or written by the Apostles. The Gnostic Gospels and other letters were attributed to Jesus or the Apostles.

The Copies that formed the NT are so many, that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament today from quotations of the NT letters from the early Church Fathers, only a few sentences from John’s third letter.

Therefore one has to wonder, if you are willing to listen to the Fathers on the content of the NT, why do you reject the other elements of the faith committed to them by the Apostles?

BTW, most early Churches rejected the Revelation of John, but it was included in the NT in the 4th century AD. It beat out the Revelation of Peter by two votes.

I am glad you are learning about the history of your faith. To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[guanophore]

Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.

We debate it because it is contrary to the Teachings of the Apostles, and it is our duty to defend the faith that was once for all committed to the saints.

Writings, however Holy, cannot exercise authority, which is an activity that requires a will, discernment, and the ability to act. Authority is a function of persons, not writings. When the Reformers attempted to replace the authority Jesus gave to the Church with the writings produced by them, they inadvertantly made themselves the authorities. To this day, each person that reads the authoratative Scriptures interprets and applies them according to their own conscience, which is why there are so many divisions in Christendom.

 

[joe370]

We debate it because it is contrary to the Teachings of the Apostles, and it is our duty to defend the faith that was once for all committed to the saints.

Writings, however Holy, cannot exercise authority, which is an activity that requires a will, discernment, and the ability to act. Authority is a function of persons, not writings. When the Reformers attempted to replace the authority Jesus gave to the Church with the writings produced by them, they inadvertantly made themselves the authorities. To this day, each person that reads the authoratative Scriptures interprets and applies them according to their own conscience, which is why there are so many divisions in Christendom.

:yup:

 

[joe370]

Christian, we have unity in agreeing that we have different understandings of ‘Church’. It’s interesting when disunity firsts occurred in this area…it’s hard to believe that the Truth can vary from Church to church. Where does one go for the Truth…which Church? Scripture says that Church is the Truth…the Church then says the bible is inerrant and inspired…

One of the reasons why I now belong to the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, is qualified to call the Holy Bible the inerrant/inspired word of God because the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Truth is preserved and transmitted via Jesus’ Catholic Church. Jesus, as per scripture, said that He would be with His Church forever. Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to His church to guide His church into all truth. The only thing left to do, I had thought long ago: find Jesus’ one church in a world with so many autonomous churches i.e. locate the church to which Ignatius (student of the apostles) belonged: “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, ** wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”**

The Holy Spirit continues to be with Jesus’ church, guiding the bride of Christ into all truth, if in fact John 14 can be trusted as truth:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever…John 14

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you… John 16

 

[aidanbradypop]

One of the reasons why I now belong to the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, is qualified to call the Holy Bible the inerrant/inspired word of God because the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Truth is preserved and transmitted via Jesus’ Catholic Church. Jesus, as per scripture, said that He would be with His Church forever. Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to His church to guide His church into all truth. The only thing left to do, I had thought long ago: find Jesus’ one church in a world with so many autonomous churches i.e. locate the church to which Ignatius (student of the apostles) belonged: “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, ** wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”**

The Holy Spirit continues to be with Jesus’ church, guiding the bride of Christ into all truth, if in fact John 14 can be trusted as truth:

Nicely stated Joe