Did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority?

[joe370]

Hey Nicea…

Nicea325;8556845]CalChristian:

The above is false. Show me the chapter and verse used to determine the canon of the NT,since according to you Scripture is the rule?

There is no such chapter and verse used to authoritatively determine the canon of the NT which is why every SS proponent, sadly, ignores you.

And, without a doubt, if I am expected to believe that scripture alone is to be my final authority, as opposed to any one person or church leadership, then it MUST say so some where in the Holy Bible, but it simply does not! It’s merely a non-Catholic claim that cannot be substantiated at all, unless one is willing to step outside the pages of scripture alone and defer to the 16th century reformers, who of course were the first folks to suggest such a practice, which in itself would violate the practice of SS. Don’t expect any direct and lucid answer to that particular question, but rather a continual evasive tactic, which was my only remonstration as a former protestant, which is one of the reasons why I said former…

 

[JonNC]

Hey Joe,
I found this post on a Lutheran blog regarding a book by one Robert W. Jenson entitled,
“Lutheran slogans - Use and Abuse.” The blog is written by Martin Yee, who says:

The Reformation has many slogans which are now frequently misunderstood and abused. This was pointed out by Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson in his new book, “Lutheran slogans - Use and Abuse.” Case in point - one of the Lutheran congregations in Singapore for its Reformation celebration recently, mindlessly copied from the Wikipedia for their poster the five solas - sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus and soli Deo gloria. The person doing so did not realise Lutheran normally use only four solas and not five - as they wish to dissociate themselves from the Calvinistic ideas of sovereignty, election, damnation and reprobation associated with “soli Deo gloria”.

Robert Jenson in chapter 10 of his book, highlighted that the slogan “sola scriptura” is also now used wrongly and has been abused. This slogan is often used by Biblicists mindlessly to support their simplistic and literal understanding of the sacred texts. Jenson noted that even the term “scriptures” is often misunderstood now. The concept of scriptures emerged within Judaism’s and Christianity’s tradition of reflection. The Church never accepted or adopted Israel’s scriptures. Instead Israel’s scriptures founded the Church.

**The first misuse of “sola scriptura” according to Jenson is by those who claim that they need no creed because they have scriptures. The second abuse is to use the slogan to exclude rival church authority. The third misuse is to denigrate traditions of the church claiming “sola scriptura”. ** Interestingly, Jenson pointed out that “sola scriptura” should not be taken together as a unit with “sola gratia” and “sola fide”. Reason is that doing so will imply that scriptures justify and saves, as grace and faith do. But that is not right.
So what is the right use of “sola scriptura”? Firstly, scripture’s role is that of a living voice of Gospel as it is read liturgically in the churches. Secondly, it has a legal role - in doctrinal and ethical argument, it is the norma normans non normata “the norm which norms and is not normed.” Such is the authority of scripture

I thought you’d find it interesting. It may be the wrong thread, but it was the first SS thread of yours I came across.

lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2010/07/lutheran-view-of-lords-supper.html#!/2010/07/lutheran-view-of-lords-supper.html

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Hey Nicea…

There is no such chapter and verse used to authoritatively determine the canon of the NT which is why every SS proponent, sadly, ignores you.

And, without a doubt, if I am expected to believe that scripture alone is to be my final authority, as opposed to any one person or church leadership, then it MUST say so some where in the Holy Bible, but it simply does not! It’s merely a non-Catholic claim that cannot be substantiated at all, unless one is willing to step outside the pages of scripture alone and defer to the 16th century reformers, who of course were the first folks to suggest such a practice, which in itself would violate the practice of SS. Don’t expect any direct and lucid answer to that particular question, but rather a continual evasive tactic, which was my only remonstration as a former protestant, which is one of the reasons why I said former…

Precisely why it is not difficult to rebuke the whole argument: Scripture is the rule or sole authority. More important,if scripture was to be the sole rule,then I am curious as to why most of the 12 Apostles did not write or where it is clearly taught by Christ or the 12?

 

[joe370]

Precisely why it is not difficult to rebuke the whole argument: Scripture is the rule or sole authority. More important,if scripture was to be the sole rule,then I am curious as to why most of the 12 Apostles did not write or where it is clearly taught by Christ or the 12?

I hear ya…

 

[Nicea325]

I hear ya…

 

[joe370]

Hey Joe,
I found this post on a Lutheran blog regarding a book by one Robert W. Jenson entitled,
“Lutheran slogans - Use and Abuse.” The blog is written by Martin Yee, who says:

I thought you’d find it interesting. It may be the wrong thread, but it was the first SS thread of yours I came across.

The Reformation has many slogans which are now frequently misunderstood and abused. This was pointed out by Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson in his new book, “Lutheran slogans - Use and Abuse.” Case in point - one of the Lutheran congregations in Singapore for its Reformation celebration recently, mindlessly copied from the Wikipedia for their poster the five solas - sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus and soli Deo gloria. The person doing so did not realise Lutheran normally use only four solas and not five - as they wish to dissociate themselves from the Calvinistic ideas of sovereignty, election, damnation and reprobation associated with “soli Deo gloria”.

Robert Jenson in chapter 10 of his book, highlighted that the slogan “sola scriptura” is also now used wrongly and has been abused. This slogan is often used by Biblicists mindlessly to support their simplistic and literal understanding of the sacred texts. Jenson noted that even the term “scriptures” is often misunderstood now. The concept of scriptures emerged within Judaism’s and Christianity’s tradition of reflection. The Church never accepted or adopted Israel’s scriptures. Instead Israel’s scriptures founded the Church.

The first misuse of “sola scriptura” according to Jenson is by those who claim that they need no creed because they have scriptures. The second abuse is to use the slogan to exclude rival church authority. The third misuse is to denigrate traditions of the church claiming “sola scriptura”. Interestingly, Jenson pointed out that “sola scriptura” should not be taken together as a unit with “sola gratia” and “sola fide”. Reason is that doing so will imply that scriptures justify and saves, as grace and faith do. But that is not right.
So what is the right use of “sola scriptura”? Firstly, scripture’s role is that of a living voice of Gospel as it is read liturgically in the churches. Secondly, it has a legal role - in doctrinal and ethical argument, it is the norma normans non normata “the norm which norms and is not normed.” Such is the authority of scripture

Jon

I had to read that whole normata thing twice. LOL… Thanks Jon. Good stuff.

 

[CalChristian]

Precisely why it is not difficult to rebuke the whole argument: Scripture is the rule or sole authority.

I know 2 or 3 Protestants that think Scripture is “the sole authority.” I’m not sure what they mean by that. I addressed the “Sola Scriptura” point (since THAT was raised instead in this thread), but I can’t address the “sole authority” thing since I don’t have a clue what they mean by that.

More important,if scripture was to be the sole rule,then I am curious as to why most of the 12 Apostles did not write or where it is clearly taught by Christ or the 12?

Of course, none of them so much as mentioned The Catholic Church, either. As, for or about anything. I’m not sure it’s wise for you to go down that path…

Of course, they did embrace Scripture as normative (Sola Scriptura). They never used The Catholic Church for or concerning anything. I’m not either point has anything to do with “authority” (sole or otherwise), however. But yes - Jesus and the Apostles did mention Scripture (about 70 times, by my count) - typically as an embrace of Sola Scriptura, but they never mentioned The Catholic Church. Ever. For anything. Not sure that proves anything but that does seem to be the reality.

.

 

[CopticChristian]

Indeed, I am fallible. I can only pray that the HS will guide me to the truth. Similarly though, your final authority made up of fallible men also interprets in the same manner and you trust the HS to guide them to the truth. I have always failed to see the difference.

You wrongly conclude your biased observation of fallible men. The pillar and foundation of truth is the Church and has guided us infallibly into truth. The Magesterium men, Sacred Tradition…acts of men…and Scripture written by men lead to all truth.

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course, one could just declare self alone to be infallible/unaccountable.

Or one could just declare self alone to be the sole authoritative interpreter.

Or both.

In which case, self looks in the mirror at self.

But, of course, that’s a very different subject. I think there ARE some that do that. Some officially (perhaps even stating thus in their Catechism), some just by their action. PERSONALLY, I’m pretty uncomfortable with that. It often leads to a POWER issue: “I say I have the POWER to __________ and thus you must be docilicly and unquestionably obedient to ME.” The power claimed by self simply displaces the issue of whether self is correct. Makes me uncomfortable (just speaking for me). Whether that’s a person, a congregation or a church body.

But yes, if accountability is embraced - then so is norming. And the issue then becomes, “WHAT serves as the most sound norma normans for that norming?” But if accountability is rejected, if whatever self says is simply to be embraced because self says it, then accountability is irrelevant, isn’t it?

Just MY perspective…

I already gave quotes of several between 33 AD and 1000 AD affirming the embrace of accountability and the practice of looking to Scripture as that norma normans]

Thank you!

.

Your propositions does not dispel the fact that you are fallible and can only render fallible interpretation whether alone, in a congregation, or in a stadium. Even if all agree with you then you have a stadium filled with fallible opinions agreeing with you…even if you get every Protestant on earth to agree with you the proposition is fallible.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian:

And I reminded him that embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines. It’s not self designating self as the sole, authoritative (unaccountable?) intepreter of … anything.

CalChristian: The above is false.

Um, no.

I DID remind him that embracing Scripture in the norming of disputed doctrines is embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines. It IS what I said and it IS what that is. I DID so remind it, it is false that I did not. You’re mistaken.

I DID remind him that the embrace of Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is not self designating self as the sole authoritative (unaccountable) interpreter of anything. That IS what I said. It is not false that I did. You’re mistaken.

Show me the chapter and verse used to determine the canon of the NT,since according to you Scripture is the rule?

Um, what I said is that embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is the embracing of Scripture for that purpose.

The PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the rule doesn’t declare what is and is not Scripture, practices (my friend) CANNOT declare anything - they are ACTIONS. Embracing the Rule of Law for the courtroom does not declare what is and is not the law in every jurisdiction of the world (EMBRACING that doesn’t teach ANYTHING).

.

 

[CalChristian]

Hey Joe,
I found this post on a Lutheran blog regarding a book by one Robert W. Jenson entitled,
“Lutheran slogans - Use and Abuse.” The blog is written by Martin Yee, who says:

I thought you’d find it interesting. It may be the wrong thread, but it was the first SS thread of yours I came across.

lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2010/07/lutheran-view-of-lords-supper.html#!/2010/07/lutheran-view-of-lords-supper.html

Jon

Thank you. I agree with every word.

So, are you indicating that you reject the definition of Sola Scriptura in the Solid Declaration of the Lutheran Confessions?

I accept that - as the historical definition. And I’ve yet to find any Protestant that disagrees with it. Do you?

.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As I have mentioned, those quotes simply confirm what every catholic believes. My question was:

Did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority?

I’m sure they didn’t, since nobody from 1000 AD to the present moment does either. There are only three belief systems relative to the bible. One is the Catholic belief, which is that the Church has the authority to interpret and derive additional teachings that are biblically-based or supported.

The Second is the usual Protestant belief that the individual has the authority to interpret and derive additional teachings from the bible as they seem correct to him.

The third, held by many Protestant groups, that is a mixture of the two, but without quite acknowledging it. They held onto many of the Church’s teachings and don’t particularly question them, but also believe they can decide what else the bible might be teaching them.

In the second and the third group, they also accept the teachings of those pastors and ministers whose teachings they choose to accept as valid.

 

[joe370]

Hey Cal…

CalChristian;8557158]I know 2 or 3 Protestants that think Scripture is “the sole authority.”

I know of very few people, other than you and my good friend JonNC, who don’t view scripture alone as the Christians final authority, to the exclusion of catholic and protestant church leadership, catholic council and creed. Of course I will wait for you to define the practice of SS and tell me who or what, in your opinion does in fact possess the God given authority to interpret scripture or settle doctrinal disputes when they arise. Remember, you have implied that scripture alone via individual interpretation, (people like myself) - can do neither, definitively speaking.

 

[joe370]

I’m sure they didn’t, since nobody from 1000 AD to the present moment does either. There are only three belief systems relative to the bible. One is the Catholic belief, which is that the Church has the authority to interpret and derive additional teachings that are biblically-based or supported.

The Second is the usual Protestant belief that the individual has the authority to interpret and derive additional teachings from the bible as they seem correct to him.

The third, held by many Protestant groups, that is a mixture of the two, but without quite acknowledging it. They held onto many of the Church’s teachings and don’t particularly question them, but also believe they can decide what else the bible might be teaching them.

In the second and the third group, they also accept the teachings of those pastors and ministers whose teachings they choose to accept as valid.

Exactly…

 

[KathleenGee]

Another take is that we are taught in Catholic spiritual asceticism…the walk in perfection, that it is a lifelong walk of dying to self and allowing Christ to enter and transform us more and more into Himself…perfection really not attained in this life, but in union with God in heaven…

There are sayings down through the ages how our own psychology so many times can cloud our discernment.

We have the Church and its guides to help guide us along in our path Christ has given us, and to help us avoid self-deception.

So if people are believing that they alone with the Holy Spirit can discern Sacred Scripture, people are likewise placing themselves on unsure grounds…

What criteria do you use then, that you are understanding the Word of God without bias and with the Holy Spirit?

Likewise, what are your standards to help you discern when you are not following the Holy Spirit?

 

[joe370]

Another take is that we are taught in Catholic spiritual asceticism…the walk in perfection, that it is a lifelong walk of dying to self and allowing Christ to enter and transform us more and more into Himself…perfection really not attained in this life, but in union with God in heaven…

There are sayings down through the ages how our own psychology so many times can cloud our discernment.

We have the Church and its guides to help guide us along in our path Christ has given us, and to help us avoid self-deception.

So if people are believing that they alone with the Holy Spirit can discern Sacred Scripture, people are likewise placing themselves on unsure grounds…

What criteria do you use then, that you are understanding the Word of God without bias and with the Holy Spirit?

Likewise, what are your standards to help you discern when you are not following the Holy Spirit?

Well said. It really comes down to 2 possibilities:

1. The holy spirit guides each and every baptized Christian into all truth, regarding the truths revealed to the apostles and their successors.

Or

1. The holy spirit, beginning on Pentecost, continues to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, regarding the truths revealed to the apostles and their successors.

Only #2 seems workable to me if the command of Jesus, in John 17 is to be accomplished.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

More important,if scripture was to be the sole rule,then I am curious as to why most of the 12 Apostles did not write or where it is clearly taught by Christ or the 12?

CalChristian:

Of course, none of them so much as mentioned The Catholic Church, either. As, for or about anything. I’m not sure it’s wise for you to go down that path…

U-huh…and none mention Sola Scriptura,denominations,once saved always saved,a canonized Bible with 66/73 books,churches,wedding rings,etc,etc.

So I am very sure you are wise enough not go down your own path of charges-or do you?

Of course, they did embrace Scripture as normative (Sola Scriptura).

Really? Show me where they taught scripture as the normative rule?

They never used The Catholic Church for or concerning anything.

And they never used a canonized Bible either or mention a Bible or mention any doctrine.

I’m not either point has anything to do with “authority” (sole or otherwise), however. But yes - Jesus and the Apostles did mention Scripture (about 70 times, by my count) - typically as an embrace of Sola Scriptura, but they never mentioned The Catholic Church. Ever. For anything. Not sure that proves anything but that does seem to be the reality.

So simply because they mention Scripture 70 times equates into empirical evidence they embraced Sola Scriptura? Pure conjecture on your part. So show me where they mention SS? Last time I checked they never ONCE mention SS as the rule…for ANYTHING. That also seems like a reality to me.

 

[Nicea325]

Um, no.

I DID remind him that embracing Scripture in the norming of disputed doctrines is embracing Scripture as **the rule **in the norming of disputed doctrines. It IS what I said and it IS what that is. I DID so remind it, it is false that I did not. You’re mistaken.

Okay,then answer my question proposed to you specifically:

Chapter and verse where the NT canon was determined by scripture?

I DID remind him that the embrace of Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is not self designating self as the sole authoritative (unaccountable) interpreter of anything. That IS what I said. It is not false that I did. You’re mistaken.

Circular reasoning.

Quote:
Show me the chapter and verse used to determine the canon of the NT,since according to you Scripture is the rule?

Um, what I said is that embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines is the embracing of Scripture for that purpose.

Ahhhh…the NT canon is a doctrine,which cannot be changed or altered. So kindly tell me what scripture was used to determine its canonicity?

The PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the rule doesn’t declare what is and is not Scripture, practices (my friend) CANNOT declare anything - they are ACTIONS. Embracing the Rule of Law for the courtroom does not declare what is and is not the law in every jurisdiction of the world (EMBRACING that doesn’t teach ANYTHING).

Exactly! Then tell me BY WHOSE AUTHORITY had the power or ACTION to determine the NT canon?

 

[joe370]

Nicea

Then tell me BY WHOSE AUTHORITY had the power or ACTION to determine the NT canon?

Exactly. All one has to do is locate the one church built on Cephas against which the gates of hell will never prevail (to which the apostles belonged) - in the world today, that existed when the following occurred, for that is the church of John 14:16 and John 16:13 - that was endowed with the Holy Spirit, enabling them to teach with authority and pass on what they believed and taught - to successors who in turn continued to do the same via the guidance of the same holy spirit, and this will not stop until Jesus’ return at which point the great harvest will begin:

*When the day of Pentecost came, they (Jesus’ fledgling church leadership, scared to death) - were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them (each fledgling church leaders). All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. *

 

[CalChristian]

Okay,then answer my question proposed to you specifically:

Chapter and verse where the NT canon was determined by scripture?

You seem to be getting posters confused (it’s okay, no offense taken). The point OTHERS have taken (and I’ve disagreed with) is that the way it is known what is and is not Scripture is via The Catholic Church. That’s the position of OTHERS, I’ve disagreed with it.

Obviously, I never said that Scripture tells us what is and is not Scripture.
Where is it said that The Catholic Church is to tell us what is and is not Scripture? And if so, why did Moses, all the Prophets, Jesus, St. Paul, St. John, St. James all ignore that - referring to Scripture (specifically) CENTURIES before The Catholic Church said or did anything, in some centuries many CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself claims that itself came into existance?

I gave the quotes of several Church Fathers (3 posts worth) affirming Sola Scriptura (in a couple of cases, using the verbatim identical definition of such). ALL of the lived and wrote between 33 AD and 1000 AD.

Exactly! Then tell me BY WHOSE AUTHORITY had the power or ACTION to determine the NT canon?

Odd that you limit Scripture to the NT; this is not in keeping with what I learned in Catholicism. Where is your affirmation that only the NT is Scripture?

What do you say? What authority did King Josiah point to? What authority did Moses point to? Was it The Catholic Church? Was it The Council of Trent?

.