Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?

[michaelp]

This “common consensus” is among PROTESTants…the common consensus tosses out Catholic commentaries to arrive at their own exegesis. If the consensus is among those who have already decided not to hear the voice of the Church that was solely responsible for carrying the Scripture to Christ’s flock for over a thousand years…how is that being unbias?

Actually, it does not. There are many good Catholic scholars who are exegetes even in Protestant led commentary series such as the Anchor Bible Commentary. Brown is a Catholic exegete that is very well respected. These scholars simply do not accept commentaries with a preset agenda, Catholic or Protestant. Otherwise you simply because a lawyer attempting to prove your case about which you have already made up your mind.

I don’t doubt that to be true–however, I reassert, they are chopping off their nose to spite their face by ignoring Catholic exegesis in favor of their “better way.” I’m not saying embrace it whole-heartedly…just allow Catholic perspective equal footing and credence when considering issues in your historio-grammatical exegesis. Currently, something being called “Catholic” carries with it the baggage of 2000 years and that overshadows the significance of the theology.

Not sure what this means, but it may have been coved in the statement above.

I think such study is important, but does this call into question any of the “esentials?”

Exactly, and this is what we are talking about. Accountability.

**

How does this scientist lawyer analogy work with Biblical verses that say such things as:

Mark.10

1. 
   *]15] Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
   God’s kingdom is not merely for the well educated. IMHO–education can sometimes be a stumbling block.
   
   I have not ever heard anyone who interprets this in the way you suggest. I don’t think Christ is asking people to come to him with ignorance, but humility. Compare with Matt. 18:4:
   
   **Matthew 18:4 **"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
   
   I believe the way in which many exegetes approach these issues, so long as they are not in the confirmation of prejudice business, is the essence of humility.
   
   Thanks for the fruitful dialogue.**

 

[AngelicDoctor]

This is a good question and I by no means want to suggest that this is not a serious weakness in most branches of Protestantism. But I think there are two:

1. Historical-grammatical exegesis: When you have as many Protestant commentaries as I and converse with so many Protestant exegetes, you find that their is common consensus about most issues of Scripture, just not in particulars that are part of the main thrust of the individual authors argument. As well, there is a great deal of respect, accountability, and fear among those who are truly committed to understanding the text. These guys are not in the business of confirming their prejudice.

I suppose that this could be the case. Why then, however, do some Protestant communities make different interpretations over:

• whether infants or only those of age or reason can be baptized
• what is the nature of baptism (symbol or sacrament)
• can one’s salvation be lost
• the relationship between faith and works [of charity, that is]
• whether women can preach/be ‘ordained’
• proper leadership structure: hierarchical with bishops, presbyters, or completely autonomous, etc.
• whether charismatic gifts are necessary to be a Christian
• the moral validity of homosexuality (this is becoming a hot topic among some exegetes).
• what is authentic Christian worship (is it liturgical, is it preaching, what role does the Lord’s Supper have in relation to the proclaimed Word–how often celebrated, etc., is speaking in tongues during worship appropriate)
• etc.
  Another question: would exegetes be considered the leaders of some Protestant churches in the sense that their interpretation of the Scriptures bears more weight and authority?

 

[michaelp]

Is it the same thing to say that Scripture has a certain priority over Tradition, AND that “Scripture by itself contains sufficient information to bring about salvation.” ?

Well, these are two different issues that, from my understand, can be affirmed by Catholics.

For example, a Catholic would say that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (at least, as the ordinary means through which God works). They would also say that the sacraments were instituted by Christ and that there is a basis for them in Scripture (that is, they are present, at least in seminal form, in Scripture). However, the liturgy of the Church, as it has developed in time and as it is authoritatively exercised, is part of Tradition (that is, it is inseparable from the living Tradition of the Church)?

Yes, from the Catholic perspective, you are correct (at least I think). Thanks.

Secondly, can we ever speak of Scripture as having a sufficiency when Scripture apart from its accurate and authoritative interpretation (Tradition) is meaningless? In other words, Scripture itself is not sufficient, because its proper interpretation is also needed… and that requires a Church.

Well, I think the issue is material sufficiency of the Scriptural information (for lack of a better word). I agree, however, that the Scriptures must be interpreted by an authoritative source. That is why we need good exegetes who know what they are doing, not simply people who are attempting to confirm what they already believe, Catholic or Protestant!

Thanks for the comments. They are great.

 

[michaelp]

I suppose that this could be the case. Why then, however, do some Protestant communities make different interpretations over:

• whether infants or only those of age or reason can be baptized
• what is the nature of baptism (symbol or sacrament)
• can one’s salvation be lost
• the relationship between faith and works [of charity, that is]
• whether women can preach/be ‘ordained’
• proper leadership structure: hierarchical with bishops, presbyters, or completely autonomous, etc.
• whether charismatic gifts are necessary to be a Christian
• the moral validity of homosexuality (this is becoming a hot topic among some exegetes).
• what is authentic Christian worship (is it liturgical, is it preaching, what role does the Lord’s Supper have in relation to the proclaimed Word–how often celebrated, etc., is speaking in tongues during worship appropriate)
• etc.
  Another question: would exegetes be considered the leaders of some Protestant churches in the sense that their interpretation of the Scriptures bears more weight and authority?

Not to make this a simple answer by any means, but the differences in these issues are more significant from the pulpit than they are from exegetes.

But I would never suggest that there are not obscurities in the Bible that are harder to interpret than others. What I would say at this point is that was must have liberty as Paul tells the Romans in chapter 14. Let us not judge people too harshly on obscurities and let us recognize that there is the adiaphora (things indifferent).

Michael

 

[djrakowski]

When asked why their INTERPRETATION of scripture trumps anyone elses, they fall back on “the Holy Spirit told me” even when we can show that Catholic, Lutheran, Anglicans all believe in infant baptism, we are all wrong and they are right. The historical Tradtion of infant baptism is thrown away in preference for their interpretation of scripture.

Maria,

This is one of the most frustrating elements in discussions between Catholics and Protestants who insist that all orthodox non-Catholics agree on the essentials. The problem is that, when you dig deeper, no such agreement exists.

Your mention of baptism brings up one of the most striking examples of this reality. I would think it would be essential belief to know which of the following propositions about baptism is true, since some of them involve eternal salvation:

1. Should infants be baptized, or is baptism to be withheld until an individual specifically requests it?
2. Is it a sacrament that imparts grace to the one baptized, or is it merely a symbolic public ordinance intended to announce a new-found faith to the Christian community?
3. Is baptism a requirement of salvation, or can one ordinarily be saved without being baptized?

This is just one of the essentials (here, narrowly defined as actions mentioned in scripture upon which salvation depends) upon which Christians of different theological traditions cannot agree.

How is it at all possible that Protestants can claim there’s any agreement on essentials. Even if such an agreement existed, it would be difficult to get them to agree on how those essentials should be interpreted.

 

[st_felicity]

Actually, it does not. There are many good Catholic scholars who are exegetes even in Protestant led commentary series such as the Anchor Bible Commentary. Brown is a Catholic exegete that is very well respected. These scholars simply do not accept commentaries with a preset agenda, Catholic or Protestant. Otherwise you simply because a lawyer attempting to prove your case about which you have already made up your mind.

Will you link me to such a commentary that demonstrates this? I will search also.

**

I have not ever heard anyone who interprets this in the way you suggest. I don’t think Christ is asking people to come to him with ignorance, but humility.

I was talking about humility too–to whom much is given, much is expected. **

********Matthew 18:4 ********"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

I believe the way in which many exegetes approach these issues, so long as they are not in the confirmation of prejudice business, is the essence of humility.

There is reason to question the humility of those that believe they can establish an authoritative teaching outside of the Word of God–(not just the Scriptures). Jesus was very plain on many occasions in both his words and parables, and his actions concerning authority and who has it.

Just as an example, would you post a historio-grammatical exegesis of this verse and explain how it does NOT point to an autharitative, hierarchical ecclesial structure that is supreme and successive? I’m certain there is something that you have come across that addresses this. It would help me, and I’m sure others, understand how you arrive at authoritative teaching to see it in action.:
**Matt.16

1. 
   *]19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
   **

 

[st_felicity]

BTW–Raymond Brown died in 1998…

 

[st_felicity]

This is an interesting article on what I think is your particular method of exegesis:

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/HCSSCF.TXT

 

[michaelp]

BTW–Raymond Brown died in 1998…

Yes, I know. While he was not always looked upon well by some Catholics, he wrote a very good commentary on John.

 

[michaelp]

Actually, this is a very good summary of exegesis as I am talking about it:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I want to continue this dialogue and focus on a specific and get your opinions. I posted a slighly longer version of this tonight on the Parchment and Pen blog, but so that you understand that I am not trying to lead the discussion there, I created it with the intention of posting it here as well.

Why did you post the link if you did not expect us to go there? I hope folks from here do not swarm that blog, because that upsets the mods over here. If folks from that blog want to come on over here, I am sure that would be fine.

Have you posted our link on that blog, Pastor Mike? If any folks from that blog are lurking here, please feel free to register and post your views here, having read the forum rules and banned topics first. Thank you.

michaelp:

My thoughts are that we should consider the possibility that both sides have been talking past each for quite some time.

And what reasons do you set forth for that happening?

michaelp:

It would seem to me that both sides are changing (progressing), softening in their language, compromising, and becoming more tolerant of each other.

OK it seems to you that way. It seems to me that you started a new thread claiming that both sides are changing, softening, etc directly after James White and his overly simplistic characterization of Catholicism was introduced into your previous thread. White’s language was not softening, not compromising, not becoming more tolerant of Catholicism at all.

… 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

Notice the difference?

No. I do not notice the difference. Why? Because there is no difference.

You claim there is a difference because you are equivocating between the concept ‘sources’ and the concept ‘authority.’

Yes, certainly folks may seek out sources for information; sources such as parents, husbands, the government, creation or natural revelation. Any number of sources, however, may not be authoritative.

An authoritative source is final.
An authoritative source is infallible.
A final and therefore infallible source is the only authority.

michaelp:

… the common slogan sums it up well, “If its not in the Bible, I don’t believe it.” It must be stated emphatically that historic Protestantism does not recognize the second as a legitimate definition of sola Sciptura…

It doesn’t matter whether historic Protestantism recognizes “if it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” as a legitimate definition of Sola Scriptura or not. Why?

1. Because historic Protestantism is not an authoritative source on the matter.
2. Because “if it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” is not a logical position.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.

Ah, another equivocation. You start out by talking about authority. You end up by talking about salvation. Neither do you show the connection between the two nor do you admit that you are blurring the distinction between the two.

Authority is not salvation.

michaelp:

For you, the Catholic, on the other hand, the options are different. It would seem to me that Catholicism holds to the view that both Tradition and Scripture are infallible authorities for the Christian.

False.

Authority is not vested in an impersonal vessel. There are teachings in Tradition. There are teachings in Scripture. The authority to determine the truth of a teaching resides in the Magisterium, the Church, which is personal. This authority was given from one Person to another person. From Jesus to Peter. And since then from the Holy Spirit to each pope.

michaelp:

This is called the “dual source theory.”

The dual source theory could be called the caramel popcorn theory for all its lack of applicability here.

michaelp:

Catholics have two options when it comes to this issue.

But here is the point you are missing: according to who? You say that Catholics have two options. But who are you to say that about Catholics? Catholics in fact have more than two options.

michaelp:

First, they can say that Tradition and Scripture each have essential elements that are needed for salvation.

Salvation is possible for folks who have never heard a word of Tradition nor read a word of Scripture.

michaelp:

Therefore, in order to have a sufficient knowledge base for salvation to be possible, one must have the information from both Scripture and Tradition, neither of which will do alone.

Salvation is possible for folks who have never heard a word of Tradition nor read a word of Scripture.

michaelp:

The second option is called the “material sufficiency” view. This option says that all that is necessary for salvation is present within the Scriptures by themselves.

You talk as though Salvation was in the Bible itself. As though touching the Bible, holding the Bible, reading the Bible, knowing the Bible, thumping the Bible, owning the Bible will necessarily give you Salvation. It may. It may not. To believe that it will as a necessity; to believe that the Bible has this kind of God-like power to impart Salvation as a necessity is to bow down before the Bible and worship it as an idol.

The rest of your ‘options’ are peripheral to what is really going on here. Salvation and Authority to determine Who is the Truth are two different things. I think you have these two different things hopelessly entangled. As a result you have come up with a labarynthine nest of ‘options’ all of which miss the mark.

michaelp:

I am still learning here so I look forward to your comments.

Learning is good. Let’s start with this: Did Jesus say:

I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you. Jn 14:18.

? Yes?

When was the Bible first compiled? About 400 years after Jesus walked on Earth? Yes? Granted, books existed before then among hundreds of other books – all of them claiming to record the Truth. Did all those books record the Truth? No. Only the books finally chosen by the Church recorded the Truth.

Once again: chosen by who? Chosen by the Church. Chosen how? By the authority vested in the Church by Jesus Himself. But that’s half the story. Let’s look at the other half.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Once again, did Jesus say:

I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you. Jn 14:18.

? Yes?

We now know that there was not a Bible defined by the authority of the Church for 400 years after Jesus walked on Earth.

If Salvation resided (only) in the Bible, then those folks who lived during those 400 years were plumb out of luck, weren’t they? Even if the information necessary to choose Salvation resided (only) in the Bible, they were still plumb out of luck. Why? Because there wasn’t any Bible as such for the first 400 years of Christian history.

Let’s look at the next 1100 years of Christian history, which brings us more or less up to the invention of the Guttenberg Press. So now folks had a Bible. Hand printed, hand illustrated, hand bound. So expensive that Bibles were chained to pulpits to prevent their theft.

How many Christians do you think could hold a Bible? Turn the pages of a Bible? Study a Bible?

Not very many. Why?

1. Most folks were too poor to afford their own Bibles.
2. Most folks (over 90% of the Church) could not read.
3. Most folks worked from dawn to dusk and didn’t have the time to read.

Were there picture Bibles? Yes. So that took care of folks who could not read. But there was still the question of who had the money to buy picture Bibles and who had the leisure time to read them.

We are still stuck with not very many people having access to the Truth contained in the Bible.

So if the only source of Salvation or of information which could help someone ask for Salvation resided in the Bible, then a whole lot of people were left as orphans for at least 1500 years, if not longer. And Jesus was not telling the truth.

But we know that Jesus was telling the truth.

Did He mean to leave some folks orphans then and save others? That line of thinking would certainly give the warm and fuzzies to Calvin.

But what kind of God would create humans with free will and then take it back? Does God revoke his Covenants? Are the folks who cannot choose Salvation then animals who cannot choose – not humans who can choose?

Well you see, the more one argues for Sola Scriptura – no matter how imaginatively it is defined – the more one argues for specialness and elitism among human beings: some folks I guess feel that they are better human beings than others. Or even richer: some folks feel that they are human beings and that their neighbours are animals.

Now the next questions are for lurkers: Is that what you want? To feel better than your fellow humans? Better than the poor? Better than the illiterate? Better than those who do not form part of the leisure class?

Is that what Salvation means to you? To feel better than someone else? If so, then show me in the Bible where it says that Salvation is not a personal matter between each of you alone and God the Almighty Judge of your heart and soul.

Let me say once again what I said on Pastor Mike’s previous thread. If any of you are thinking about crossing the Tiber, think long and hard. Because you will be giving up a lot, sacrificing a lot, and you will end up being a very little person in a very big Church. So why would anyone want to become Catholic with such a big disadvantage right up front?

Good question. I guess Francis J Beckwith figured it out.

end of post

 

[michaelp]

Why did you post the link if you did not expect us to go there? I hope folks from here do not swarm that blog, because that upsets the mods over here. If folks from that blog want to come on over here, I am sure that would be fine.

Have you posted our link on that blog, Pastor Mike? If any folks from that blog are lurking here, please feel free to register and post your views here, having read the forum rules and banned topics first. Thank you.

And what reasons do you set forth for that happening?

OK it seems to you that way. It seems to me that you started a new thread claiming that both sides are changing, softening, etc directly after James White and his overly simplistic characterization of Catholicism was introduced into your previous thread. White’s language was not softening, not compromising, not becoming more tolerant of Catholicism at all.

No. I do not notice the difference. Why? Because there is no difference.

You claim there is a difference because you are equivocating between the concept ‘sources’ and the concept ‘authority.’

Yes, certainly folks may seek out sources for information; sources such as parents, husbands, the government, creation or natural revelation. Any number of sources, however, may not be authoritative.

An authoritative source is final.
An authoritative source is infallible.
A final and therefore infallible source is the only authority.

It doesn’t matter whether historic Protestantism recognizes “if it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” as a legitimate definition of Sola Scriptura or not. Why?

1. Because historic Protestantism is not an authoritative source on the matter.
2. Because “if it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” is not a logical position.

continued…

Ani, thanks for the insights and your opinions. They are helpful.

 

[michaelp]

Once again, did Jesus say:

? Yes?

We now know that there was not a Bible defined by the authority of the Church for 400 years after Jesus walked on Earth.

If Salvation resided (only) in the Bible, then those folks who lived during those 400 years were plumb out of luck, weren’t they? Even if the information necessary to choose Salvation resided (only) in the Bible, they were still plumb out of luck. Why? Because there wasn’t any Bible as such for the first 400 years of Christian history.

Let’s look at the next 1100 years of Christian history, which brings us more or less up to the invention of the Guttenberg Press. So now folks had a Bible. Hand printed, hand illustrated, hand bound. So expensive that Bibles were chained to pulpits to prevent their theft.

How many Christians do you think could hold a Bible? Turn the pages of a Bible? Study a Bible?

Not very many. Why?

1. Most folks were too poor to afford their own Bibles.
2. Most folks (over 90% of the Church) could not read.
3. Most folks worked from dawn to dusk and didn’t have the time to read.

Were there picture Bibles? Yes. So that took care of folks who could not read. But there was still the question of who had the money to buy picture Bibles and who had the leisure time to read them.

We are still stuck with not very many people having access to the Truth contained in the Bible.

So if the only source of Salvation or of information which could help someone ask for Salvation resided in the Bible, then a whole lot of people were left as orphans for at least 1500 years, if not longer. And Jesus was not telling the truth.

But we know that Jesus was telling the truth.

Did He mean to leave some folks orphans then and save others? That line of thinking would certainly give the warm and fuzzies to Calvin.

But what kind of God would create humans with free will and then take it back? Does God revoke his Covenants? Are the folks who cannot choose Salvation then animals who cannot choose – not humans who can choose?

Well you see, the more one argues for Sola Scriptura – no matter how imaginatively it is defined – the more one argues for specialness and elitism among human beings: some folks I guess feel that they are better human beings than others. Or even richer: some folks feel that they are human beings and that their neighbours are animals.

Now the next questions are for lurkers: Is that what you want? To feel better than your fellow humans? Better than the poor? Better than the illiterate? Better than those who do not form part of the leisure class?

Is that what Salvation means to you? To feel better than someone else? If so, then show me in the Bible where it says that Salvation is not a personal matter between each of you alone and God the Almighty Judge of your heart and soul.

Let me say once again what I said on Pastor Mike’s previous thread. If any of you are thinking about crossing the Tiber, think long and hard. Because you will be giving up a lot, sacrificing a lot, and you will end up being a very little person in a very big Church. So why would anyone want to become Catholic with such a big disadvantage right up front?

Good question. I guess Francis J Beckwith figured it out.

end of post

Ani, I must say again, I am not really here to debate. Not saying you are necessarily trying to draw me into one, but please understand that I don’t want to.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Again, I believe that historic Protestantism and Catholicism is much closer on this issue than most realize.

Whether most realize it is not relevant. You have not yet demonstrated the ‘closeness’ of Protestantism and Catholicism on whatever it is you feel that they are close on.

 

[michaelp]

Whether most realize it is not relevant. You have not yet demonstrated the ‘closeness’ of Protestantism and Catholicism on whatever it is you feel that they are close on.

OK, thanks for your opinion.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, let me restate this then. I think it does to far in saying that the Catholic church is the sole inheritor of the catholic church. In other words, as you know, we see ourselves, along with you, as those who have inherited the succession of the apostles.

It is interesting that you claim that Evangelicals recognize the authority of the Catholic Church and of Her popes. As for the apostolic succession of Evangelicals: how did that happen?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…As I said, the Bible is sufficient in that it indicates you need to rely on the other two also–Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church…

Ah! So few words, yet so much clarity. Nice.

 

[michaelp]

It is interesting that you claim that Evangelicals recognize the authority of the Catholic Church and of Her popes. As for the apostolic succession of Evangelicals: how did that happen?

Again, not here for debate, but if you want me to clarify, I will. Evangelicals see themselves as part of the catholic Church, but not necessarily the Roman Catholic church (and, yes, I know…you disagree with this distinction). But, I also see the Roman Catholic church as being part of the catholic church.

If you want to read some real evangelical scholarship that represents where we are at on many issues, I suggest you go here: reclaimingthemind.org/taxonomy_dhtml. These are all papers from the Evangelical Theological Society. Most of them should be somewhat readable.

Remember, just as I don’t always look to lay Catholicism to represent the theology or practice of their faith, so, I ask you, don’t look to popular Evangelicalism. You can get information form our scholars, and I can get information from your documents and those who interpret them well. Deal?