Clarification on Sola Scriptura

[theCardinalbird]

The successors must teach what the apostles taught. Apostolic Succession was about the Apostolic teachings being preserved not Apostolic revelation, which all agree ceased when the last Apostle died (or the revelation to that last apostle ceased).

Agreed

The Biblical records are the only way to be sure of what the Apostles actually taught. Any tradition or teaching that deviates from that is no longer apostolic. The question then becomes, “How do we know if our tradition or teaching is apostolic or not”? The Catholic answer is “Because we say so”. The Protestant answer is because it is affirmed by Scripture.

Tell me, how do you define something that deviates from Apostolic teaching? If the Apostles/scripture didn’t say anything on one particular issue that was important to the Church, how should we proceed? Should we “deviate” from tradition and say something? Or say nothing because the Apostles said nothing on the subject. I think we should let the Church exercise her authority given to her by Christ and make a decision.

If you asked a hundred Evangelical Christians, “What is the sure norm by which Christians know the teachings of Christ?” the unanimous answers would be to look only to the Bible. However, Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul spoke to him (1 Tim. 1:13). Timothy knew that even if a particular teaching was not written down, Christians were still expected to abide by it (2 Thess. 2:15) and to defer to the authority of Church leaders (Heb. 13:17). The only way a person could know what these unwritten binding traditions were was to keep their ear to the mouth of the Church. If the Church were merely a collection of saved individuals-none with any real authority over the others-then Scripture would not tout her as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) whom we must listen to or be cut off (Matt: 18:17).

Nothing in scripture indicates what the canon of the New Testament should be, but this silence in no way hindered the Church from exercising the authority given to her by Christ (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:17-18) to decide the canon. Just as the fourth-century Church had authority to determine that twenty-seven books belonged in the New Testament, the nineteenth-century Church had the authority to dogmatically define Mary’s Assumption into heaven.

The question then becomes, “How do we know if our tradition or teaching is apostolic or not”? The Catholic answer is “Because we say so”. The Protestant answer is because it is affirmed by Scripture.

And how did the scriptures come about? Who gave the early Church fathers (not the apostles) authority to create the canon of scripture?

 

[lanman87]

So, again, how do we know which books constitute scripture? The Apostles didn’t leave us a list.

Because God revealed His scripture to the church and the Holy Spirit led the church to a consensus on the New Testament. You can’t overlook the sovereignty of God in the creation of the New Testament. It was God doing what God has always done, using a fallible people to deliver His message to the world.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Because God revealed His scripture to the church and the Holy Spirit led the church to a consensus on the New Testament.

and so God can’t reveal other important things such as doctrines and dogmas to the Church hierarchy outside of the Bible? If the Holy Spirit can guide the Church in composing the Bible without using the Bible, then why can’t he do the same with guiding his people to answer important questions outside of the Bible?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Correct! But vague. How do we know whose version of canon to accept, the Catholic, Orthodox, or that one German monk in the 1500s? How do we know which one was guided by the Spirit?

 

[lanman87]

If the Church were merely a collection of saved individuals-none with any real authority over the others-then Scripture would not tout her as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) whom we must listen to or be cut off (Matt: 18:17).

I didn’t say that. God calls men to be elders and overseers of the church and the church affirms those called. Those men are held at a higher standard of defending the apostolic faith.

Just as the fourth-century Church had authority to determine that twenty-seven books belonged in the New Testament,

The fourth century church didn’t so much decide what is and is not the New Testament as much as it affirmed what was already being used as the New Testament. It is not like the churches went and changed their copies of the Scriptures after they were canonized.

he nineteenth-century Church had the authority to dogmatically define Mary’s Assumption into heaven.

Not if the Apostles didn’t teach that Mary was assumed into Heaven.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Not if the Apostles didn’t teach that Mary was assumed into Heaven.

Why do the Apostles need to teach that Mary was assumed into Heaven?

 

[lanman87]

Why do the Apostles need to teach that Mary was assumed into Heaven?

If they didn’t then it is not Apostolic teaching, it is the teachings of theologians.

 

[theCardinalbird]

If they didn’t then it is not Apostolic teaching, it is the teachings of theologians.

So only the teachings of the Apostles are true? Not their successors?

Anyways about the Assumption:

Historians-Catholic and non-Catholic-agree that there is a great deal of ancient material on the Assumption that is unreliable. A prime example of this is the Transitus Mariae stories, which were written as homilies in the fifth and sixth centuries. These are often fantastic and legendary accounts, devoid of historical accuracy. Some examples include the Obsequities of the Holy Virgin, and the text of Pseudo-Melito. But these apocryphal writings have no bearing on the Church’s dogma of Mary’s Assumption.

The Church Fathers provide a much more balanced approach. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary’s earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

“Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires” ( Panarion , haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary’s miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine , Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary’s Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary’s unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary’s death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary’s entrance to heaven, “The Memory of Mary,” also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

cont’d

 

[theCardinalbird]

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary’s last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary’s remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ’s Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary’s Assumption. (Catholic Answers).

 

[lanman87]

So only the teachings of the Apostles are true? Not their successors?

Only when they are true to the teaching of the Apostles.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Only when they are true to the teaching of the Apostles.

So what happens if the Apostles didn’t teach something about a particular issue and it isn’t in scripture? What do we do?

 

[theCardinalbird]

Anyways I would love to sit and chat all day but unfortunately I have important things I must tend to. I will be back to answer anymore questions

 

[Hodos]

So only the teachings of the Apostles are true? Not their successors?

Depends. Where the successors of the Apostles teach what is in accord with what was revealed before them, their teachings would be true. Where successors of the Apostles teach what is not in accord with what we received, this would not be true or at very least suspect. We are not saying that the patristic fathers are all wrong, we are saying they should be evaluated with the same critical examination of what they say as you would apply to people writing about scripture today.

 

[Vonsalza]

theCardinalbird:

So only the teachings of the Apostles are true? Not their successors?

Only when they are true to the teaching of the Apostles.

Ridiculous position found absolutely nowhere in scripture…

On the other hand, we see in a few places where apostolic succession is transmitted in scripture.

The election of Mattias.
The confirmation of Paul.
Paul’s warning to Timothy to be choosy about who he transmits this power to…

This is important because these men didn’t have a bible-centered understanding of their faith. Why would they?

This was and is a living Church where the ability to authoritatively make new decisions wasn’t going to stop when the last of the original apostles died.

And that’s exactly what Church history and secular history reflect. This bizarre notion of “bible only” and Christian Liberty wouldn’t be materially represented until the rise of Evangelicalism in the expanding and individualist United States, almost two millennia after Christ’s sacrifice.

The power to authoritatively answer a spiritual question lies with a bishop - an apostolic heir. It does not lie with what you personally think an English translation of a 5th century BC Jewish text says.

If you suggested to the Apostles that the true faith was going to be primarily transmitted textually rather than via apostolic succession - particularly given the fact that very few could even read the letters in that day - you’d have them laughing in stitches. It would be such a nonsensical idea…

 

[theCardinalbird]

Depends. Where the successors of the Apostles teach what is in accord with what was revealed before them, their teachings would be true. Where successors of the Apostles teach what is not in accord with what we received, this would not be true. We are not saying that the patristic fathers are all wrong, we are saying they should be evaluated with the same critical examination of what they say as you would apply to people writing about scripture today.

I agree, and the assumption of Mary is a tradition passed on from the early Church to present day. What bothers me is when people start acting as if the successors of the Apostles can only speak about things that the Apostles spoke of and not develop doctrine or settle disputes on faith and morals that would not have existed in the Apostolic age

 

[theCardinalbird]

We need to think realistically and understand that not everything the Apostles dealt with in their time will be the same in our time. Christ knew this, which is why, with scripture and tradition, the Apostolic heirs guided by the Holy Spirit can develop doctrines and speak authoritatively on faith and morals

 

[Hodos]

I agree, and the assumption of Mary is a tradition passed on from the early Church to present day. What bothers me is when people start acting as if the successors of the Apostles can only speak about things that the Apostles spoke of and not develop doctrine or settle disputes on faith and morals that would not have existed in the Apostolic age

If you say so. I see no credible evidence of this, nor do I see a need for a de fide dogma on penalty of anathema to be declared on an issue not spoken of in the Bible.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I see no credible evidence of this

of what?

nor do I see a need for a de fide dogma on penalty of anathema to be declared on an issue not spoken of in the Bible.

Are you talking about the Assumption?

 

[Vonsalza]

Hodos:

Depends. Where the successors of the Apostles teach what is in accord with what was revealed before them, their teachings would be true. Where successors of the Apostles teach what is not in accord with what we received, this would not be true. We are not saying that the patristic fathers are all wrong, we are saying they should be evaluated with the same critical examination of what they say as you would apply to people writing about scripture today.

I agree, and the assumption of Mary is a tradition passed on from the early Church to present day. What bothers me is when people start acting as if the successors of the Apostles can only speak about things that the Apostles spoke of and not develop doctrine or settle disputes on faith and morals that would not have existed in the Apostolic age

It’s a genuinely dumb idea.

The fact that apostolic authority was going to continue is exactly why NT writing is as limited as it is. In John’s epistles, he opens by talking about how much he dislikes writing… I imagine if they understood that their writing was going to be the only source of doctrine for the Church for eternity, they’d probably 1. have written more and 2. we’d not have lost Paul’s letter to Laodicea…

It’s exactly why Paul wrote through Timothy. He wanted to display that “The Show Will Go On”. It’s why Mattias was picked after Judas killed himself. It’s why Timothy was appointing other bishops.

The ability of an authoritative Church to answer questions wasn’t going to end at the death of the last Apostle… What a truly silly idea plucked directly out of individualist, revisionist fantasy…

 

[theCardinalbird]

The ability of an authoritative Church to answer questions wasn’t going to end at the death of the last Apostle… What a truly silly idea plucked directly out of individualist, revisionist fantasy…

EXACTLY!!! (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)​