Clarification on Sola Scriptura

[Hodos]

In the great commission of Matthew 28, Christians are told to baptize in the name (singular) of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 5:3-4, Ananias and Sapphira lie about the money they presented to the Church. In verse 3 Peter declares that Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit, and then tells him that by doing so he has lied to God.

In Hebrews 2:4 we receive gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His (God’s) will.

 

[theCardinalbird]

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then how is it that an authoritative Church had to settle a matter of whether Christ was God or a created being during the Council of Nicaea? If the Bible is the sole rule of faith then how is it that people take the Bible out of context when heresy erupts? After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith then shouldn’t it be able to solve this problem for each and every Christian without appealing to some holder of church tradition?

I don’t know any Evangelicals who are startlingly consistent in advocating the modest interpretation of sola scriptura .

A Catholic would not use the term sola scriptura —which is historically contentious and highly prone to misunderstanding—but he certainly can agree that the basic facts of the gospel and how to respond to it can be derived from Scripture. A Catholic would add that these facts need to be understood in the light of Sacred Tradition and that the Church’s intervention may be necessary to make sure they are understood correctly.

Indeed, Peter warns that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:21) and says of Paul’s writings that “there are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (3:16).

 

[theCardinalbird]

This is a nice article:

Ten Deficiencies of Sola Scriptura as a Rule of Faith | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[theCardinalbird]

and one last thing from Catholic Answers

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

 

[Gorgias]

So if they only teach what the apostles taught then how do you explain the things like the Assumption and Papal Infallibility that were obviously not taught by the apostles.

“Clarify and explain”. The Church clarified its understanding of Mary’s role in the Incarnation of Christ. The Church clarified its understanding of Christ’s proxy to Peter in Mt 16. I get it that your interpretation varies… but nevertheless, the successors to the Apostles have clarified and formalized what had been being taught since Pentecost.

the church teaches that all new revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle.

You’ve got that right!

But History shows that those teachings started showing up at a later date.

No… history shows that people began to ask for clarification at a later date, and the Church responded when it was requested to respond. Big difference.

And in the case of Papal Infallibility, we can actually show the where and why that doctrine came into being.

No… you can show “the where and why that doctrine was formally declared.” That, too, is a critical distinction.

I believe history shows several instances of the church creating a new doctrine (even though it claims it hasn’t)

OK… such as? (And please remember, in order to demonstrate your case, you’re going to have to address the magisterium’s claims demonstrating that it actually had been part of the belief of the Church for all time!)

 

[Gorgias]

It is about how to determine the truth.

I prefer to look to Christ, and His declaration of proxy of authority to Peter in Mt 16. How about you?

 

[lanman87]

OK… such as? (And please remember, in order to demonstrate your case, you’re going to have to address the magisterium’s claims demonstrating that it actually had been part of the belief of the Church for all time!)

I’m going to address Papal Infallibility just because I have been reading about how it developed. Keep in mind, history doesn’t tell us what didn’t happen. It only tells us what happened.

Most of what is below can be attributed to Brian Tierney The first part is a summary that I wrote, at the bottom is a quote from his book.

If you go back to the 12th and 13th century Canon lawyers taught that “in matters of faith a general council was greater than a pope” The canon lawyers never taught the Pope was infallible.

The first recorded person to assert a doctrine of Papal Infallibility was Peter Olivi. Who was a Franciscan Monk. He lived under the fear that a future Pope would overturn the Franciscan way of life and the Papal Privileges given to Saint Bonaventure by Pope Nicholas III. Olivi wrote that the decrees of true popes “should be regarded as, not only authoritative for the present, but immutable, irreformable for all time to come”". Ironically, Olivi wanted to limit the power of future Popes by making them subject to the rulings of previous Popes. Olivi’s new theory of Papal power was ignored until 1322 when Pope John XXII actually revoked the pro-Franciscan provisions. After the Fanciscans appealed to Pope John, Pope John issued the Bull Ad Conditorem where John said he had the right to change any decisions of his predecessors. Well the Franciscans weren’t happy and condemned the Popes Bull and denounced John XXII as a heretic for attacking their doctrine of poverty. “In this work (of the Franciscans) was the first time the ancient teaching that one of the keys conferred on Peter had been a “key of knowledge” was used to support a doctrine that the pope was personally infallible when he used this key to define truths of faith and morals”

Pope John responded with the Bull Quia quorundam which said that the father of lies had led his enemies to maintain the erroneous thesis that “what Roman pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals with the key of knowledge stands so immutably that is not permitted to a successor to revoke it”.

“There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it” Origins of Papal Infallibility, Brian Tierney page 274

***I noticed on his wikipedia page the following quote
“Most scholars recognize that Tierney correctly located in the late 13th and early 14th centuries the first discussions of papal infallibility” . The quote is attribute to the New Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Hodos]

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then how is it that an authoritative Church had to settle a matter of whether Christ was God or a created being during the Council of Nicaea?

The Church didn’t “settle” the matter as if it didn’t know that Christ was divine. This was revealed in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, and was confessed by the Church fathers from the beginning. We see it in the scriptures, and we see it in the writings of the earliest sub-apostolic fathers such as Clement and Ignatius, and we see it consistently in the patristic writings of the Church all the way up to Nicaea. So I reject the presupposition this red herring of an argument is based upon. What the Council of Nicaea did was actually give hearing to the teachings of Arius in front of an ecumenical gathering of bishops to expose his doctrines, and it overwhelmingly recognized on the basis of what had already been revealed in Christ, and documented in the scriptures, the fact that Arius’ teachings were in complete contradiction to the Bible. Alexander countered these false teachings through exegesis of scripture, demonstrating the errors of Arius for all to see. It then created a creed, that confessed what was already believed and taught by the Church to provide a concise means of teaching what the Church already confessed about Christ. In fact the Nicene Creed was based upon an earlier creed used within the church in Caesarea. Your viewpoint that the Church made up the divinity of Christ at the Council of Nicaea is both ahistorical and actually accepts the skeptical arguments of the agnostic and atheists of today!

 

[theCardinalbird]

The Church didn’t “settle” the matter as if it didn’t know that Christ was divine.

Nor did I presume that the Council Fathers such as Athanasius had no understanding of Christ being divine and nor is my viewpoint, which you have wrongly assumed, is that the Church made up the divinity of Christ. I know what went down at Nicaea @Hodos. The Church was faced with a problem of another interpretation of scripture. All I am saying is that we need to have Sacred Tradition (which held that Christ was divine from the beginning), Sacred Scripture (which holds the words of the Holy Apostles), and a hierarchal Church (which settles disputes on erroneous personal interpretations of the Bible).

Your viewpoint that the Church made up the divinity of Christ at the Council of Nicaea is both ahistorical and actually accepts the skeptical arguments of the agnostic and atheists of today!

MY VIEWPOINT? You are haste in your judgement of what I tried to say. I know the Holy Apostles knew Christ was divine. I know the Council of Nicaea didn’t make up the divinity of Christ. What do you take me as? I literally read a book on Nicaea. I would never accept any of those skeptical arguments. My words, which you quoted, did not say anything along the lines of Christ’s divinity being created at Nicaea. What I was saying that the Church was faced with a problem of explaining the error of this idea that, (in the words of Arius) “There was a time when the son was not.” My point was that we can’t just have scripture as a sole rule of faith because people like Arius will end up using it to spread heresy (which occurred but thankfully stopped).

Look at my words carefully:

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then how is it that an authoritative Church had to settle a matter of whether Christ was God or a created being during the Council of Nicaea? If the Bible is the sole rule of faith then how is it that people take the Bible out of context when heresy erupts? After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith then shouldn’t it be able to solve this problem for each and every Christian without appealing to some holder of church tradition?

“Had to settle” meaning there was a dispute in the Church, among the faithful, whether there was a time when the son was not and this was orchestrated by Arius who produced this heresy. If the Bible is the sole rule of faith then why did Arius get it wrong? How do we avoid more Arius’ in the future? We need Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Church to preserve truth. One on its own cannot solve the problem.

Good day

 

[lanman87]

So I reject the presupposition this red herring of an argument is based upon

I also reject the premise that someone(or a group) given the Bible without any “preconditioning” wouldn’t reach the same conclusions as the early church.

Church of Christ churches are very prevalent in the area where I live. They are one of the most Solo Scriptura groups I’ve ever seen. One of their rallying cries is “No Creed but the Bible”. They believe that not only should the church have the same doctrine as the 1st century church but exactly the same practices as well. They will not use the word Trinity because it is not in the Bible.

However, if you sit them down and question them about their beliefs you will find that they actually do believe in the Trinity, they just will not use that word.

My point is, this particular group chunked all of the early councils and creeds and relied on the Bible Only and still came to a functional understanding of the Trinity.

 

[Hodos]

So…if they agree in doctrine on your creed, what’s your beef? I am not understanding your objection here. You just stated that using the Bible they justify and agree with the teaching that is contained within the doctrine of the Trinity. You actually just proved the point I made before. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[lanman87]

So…if they agree in doctrine on your creed, what’s your beef? I am not understanding your objection here. You just stated that using the Bible they justify and agree with the teaching that is contained within the doctrine of the Trinity. You actually just proved the point I made before. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I don’t have a beef and was supporting you in your point.

I often see post on this board that you can’t come to the conclusion of the Trinity by using the Bible alone. When in fact, the vast majority Sola Scriptura and even Solo Scriptura Christian groups have done just that.

If you look at the “Christian” groups who have rejected the Trinity you find Mormons, who have another Testament (which I believe is a false Testament), you have Jehovah’s Witnesses who have changed the language of the Bible to suite their doctrine, and a list of groups who reject the Primacy, accuracy, and authority of Scripture.

The only group (that I can find) that even comes close to being Sola/Solo Scriptura and rejecting the Trinity is Oneness Pentecostals and from what I can attain, they have a wrong definition of “Person” in their Theology.

Edit to add:

To me the fact that Non-Catholic Christianity, including many groups who are very anti-Catholic, has examined the evidence of the Trinity and reached the same conclusions shows the strength and orothodoxy of the Trinitarian position.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

My point is this, we cannot rely on the Bible solely as the rule of faith. We need Sacred Tradition and the visible Church as well. Think of it like a three legged stool. One leg is scripture, the other is Sacred Tradition, and the last one is the Church. All three of these legs are needed to explain the truth of things relating to faith and morals, doctrines and dogmas, remove one of these legs and everything falls on its face. My point on Arius is that he used scripture alone with his own interpretation and caused a big problem in the Church.

The Bible is inspired, no one questions that. But we have to look at it in light of sacred tradition and the through the guidance of the visible Church which Christ set up and has the Holy Spirit guiding it.

 

[Hodos]

I don’t have a beef and was supporting you in your point.

Gotcha. I wasn’t sure.