Does Sola Scriptura lead to Moral Relativism?

[steido01]

Strictly speaking, it does not. We (and by we I mean Lutherans) do not argue that Jesus or the apostles taught that all doctrine must come from a written record of revelation or a collection we call the Bible. What we do argue is that all doctrine must come from the word of God. Catholics will argue that this includes oral tradition, not written down, passed on by the apostles. We don’t disagree. What we do disagree about is whether the content of that oral teaching can also be found in Scripture, and whether it was even taught by the apostles to begin with. Since we know that Scripture comes from the apostles, we know that it is an accurate rendition of God’s word and thus, is supreme in its authority. We both agree that church teaching is subject to the apostolic kerygma. It’s in the locus where there is disagreement.

Precisely.

 

[christus_vincit]

Strictly speaking, it does not. We (and by we I mean Lutherans) do not argue that Jesus or the apostles taught that all doctrine must come from a written record of revelation or a collection we call the Bible. What we do argue is that all doctrine must come from the word of God. Catholics will argue that this includes oral tradition, not written down, passed on by the apostles. We don’t disagree. What we do disagree about is whether the content of that oral teaching can also be found in Scripture, and whether it was even taught by the apostles to begin with.

I don’t know what your stance is on this, but it must be mentioned that oral traditions predate the Scriptures and are responsible in large part for determining the canon of Scripture. So without oral traditions that are not found in the Bible, but were indeed handed on by the Apostles, there would have been no way to determine which books belonged in the canon and which did not. It is a fact that divinely inspired Tradition compiled the inspired canon of the New Testament.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am confused on your “birth control without limits” can you explain what exactly you mean and or how it applies to scripture? Also are you saying that same-sex marriage is immoral or are you saying that they should not have the same right to be married as heterosexuals do.? Clarification all around, please

Sure. I agree that all forms of artificial contraception are sinful. So I would be referring to the Catholic take on the subject, since I agree with it.

I am referring to the morality of homosexual behavior. Generally, churches which believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful will also believe it’s acceptable to marry them. So I mean both, ultimately. Since we are talking about churches, I am not referring to secular institutions.

 

[marywarfield]

So what do you think on this subject?

Nearly all Christian denominations accepted artificial contraception as morally licit. After that you have the subject of Divorce,Some even accepted homosexuality as “part of God’s plan” even going to the point of celebrating homosexuality, blessing gay-marriages and ordaining
homosexuals to the clergy.

I believe it was Acquinas who said true knowledge rests
in faith AND reason. It seems to me to upset the balance
between the two when one downgrades Tradition to
a subordinate position to Scripture, much like standing
on one leg instead of two.
And of course there are the obvious slippery slopes
SS slides down like personal interpretations, Bible only.

It is something of a truth that Tradition, coming from an
educated reasoning process, must provide much of the
complement to the blind faith found in strong SS
type thinking. While Tradition itself requires a leap
of faith, I.e. Immaculate Conception, it is also as in
the IC a product of not just history but firm evolved
theological reasoning.

One MUST have both. Faith and reason, Scripture
AND Tradition.

 

[christus_vincit]

I am confused on your “birth control without limits” can you explain what exactly you mean and or how it applies to scripture? Also are you saying that same-sex marriage is immoral or are you saying that they should not have the same right to be married as heterosexuals do.? Clarification all around, please

The OP was citing examples of how traditional moral values have seemed to change/morph with the times, and was trying to determine whether the concept of Sola Scriptura has contributed to this phenomenon. The moral issues he cited were for centuries held to be immoral, and have only recently been deemed permissible by certain Christian denominations.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I don’t know what your stance is on this, but it must be mentioned that oral traditions predate the Scriptures and are responsible in large part for determining the canon of Scripture. So without oral traditions that are not found in the Bible, but were indeed handed on by the Apostles, there would have been no way to determine which books belonged in the canon and which did not. It is a fact that divinely inspired Tradition compiled the inspired canon of the New Testament.

What do you mean exactly by your statement that “divinely inspired Tradition compiled the inspired canon of the New Testament”? Do you mean that the inspired canon contains oral Tradition written, or that Tradition determined what the canon of the NT was?

 

[christus_vincit]

What do you mean exactly by your statement that “divinely inspired Tradition compiled the inspired canon of the New Testament”? Do you mean that the inspired canon contains oral Tradition written, or that Tradition determined what the canon of the NT was?

Well both are true, but I meant that Tradition determined the canon of the New Testament.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I mean that Tradition determined the canon of the New Testament.

How did the teachings of the apostles passed on (oral Tradition) determine which books are inspired?

 

[christus_vincit]

How did the teachings of the apostles passed on (oral Tradition) determine which books are inspired?

The Church determined which books were inspired by, among other factors, whether the book or letter was used during the liturgy and whether or not it was from the Apostolic age. The Apostolic faith is not confined to the Apostles themselves but to their successors, the Bishops, also.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The Church determined which books were inspired by, among other factors, whether the book or letter was used during the liturgy and whether or not it was from the Apostolic age. The Apostolic faith is not confined to the Apostles themselves but to their successors, the Bishops, also.

Okay. How do you see this as a function of oral Tradition taught by the apostles? Also, what do you mean the apostolic faith is not confined to the apostles themselves? Do you mean the Bishops were receiving new revelation like the apostles were, or do you mean that the Bishops inherited the apostolic faith?

 

[Nicea325]

What you are describing is Private Interpretation, which is most definitely not Sola Scriptura (At least how Lutherans define it, anyway. We can’t do much about those who’ve taken ‘our’ term Sola Scriptura and used it to describe a different mode of thinking).

Lutherans do understand a Divinely-instituted teaching office to exist within the church - that’s why we ordain our pastors after they have completed at least 4 (and often 8) years of Greek, Hebrew and theological study at one of our seminaries (which have incredibly stringent acceptance standards!). The responsibility to administer Word and Sacrament is not lightly conferred to any ol’ layman. The difference between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, in this regard, is that Lutherans don’t think their pastors or bishops are infallible - they’re human. They sin and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else. We rely on the church, in general, to keep our teachers in line. That is certainly not a personal relativism like you describe.

Sola Scriptura simply means that our doctrines cannot contradict or come from outside of Holy Scripture, and that traditions must not contradict with Scripture. In practice, this means that the clearest portions of Scripture are afforded more “weight.” So the four, universally-accepted Gospels are the core of our canon and we build from there.

But that is the issue with SS. Scripture is Tradition penned. SS gives the impression Scripture came first and Traditions after. Scripture and Tradition go hand-in-hand and both compliment each other. SS presents a Scripture verus Tradition atmosphere.

 

[christus_vincit]

Okay. How do you see this as a function of oral Tradition taught by the apostles? Also, what do you mean the apostolic faith is not confined to the apostles themselves? Do you mean the Bishops were receiving new revelation like the apostles were, or do you mean that the Bishops inherited the apostolic faith?

It is a function of oral Tradition because it predates the compilation of the New Testament and was a key factor in determining which books were and which books were not inspired. What I am trying to convey is that the canon of the Bible that we have today did not compile itself. We agree that the all the books of the Bible are inspired. But it was through Sacred Tradition that these books were compiled.

I mean that the Apostolic faith is inherited and passed on by and through the bishops. Public Revelation ceased at the end of the Apostolic era upon the death of St. John.

 

[Per_Crucem]

But that is the issue with SS. Scripture is Tradition penned. SS gives the impression Scripture came first and Traditions after. Scripture and Tradition go hand-in-hand and both compliment each other. SS presents a Scripture verus Tradition atmosphere.

I wouldn’t say that, Nicea. I would say it is one of validation, not which came first. That would largely be irrelevant. OT Scripture came before NT revelation. OT revelation came before OT Scripture. NT revelation came before NT Scripture. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[Nicea325]

What do you think “infallible” means, steido? Our Pope goes to confession every week. Surely he has to do something even remotely sinful!

On the other hand, do you believe your teachers - bishops and priests - can ever err in their teaching? If so - and I do, sincerely want to understand - what makes your bishops’ authority superior to your own (if, say, you studied just as much as them, but never became a bishop)?

To which I ask: if a doctrine must come from within the Scriptures, where does it say doctrine must come from the Scriptures alone?

Probably an old, worn, tired out question. But if any new light can be shed on it.

We would probably agree that if a tradition clashes with Scripture, the tradition would fall. (Thus we are not Arians, Aquarii, Gnostics, Cathars, or Calvinists.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is a function of oral Tradition because it predates the compilation of the New Testament and was a key factor in determining which books were and which books were not inspired. What I am trying to convey is that the canon of the Bible that we have today did not compile itself. We agree that the all the books of the Bible are inspired. But it was through Sacred Tradition that these books were compiled.

I mean that the Apostolic faith is inherited and passed on by and through the bishops. Public Revelation ceased at the end of the Apostolic era upon the death of St. John.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I would agree with the methodology you present of how Scripture was determined. I wouldn’t call it a function of oral tradition because I would say the function of tradition is to communicate dogma. That is, what revelation contains rather than the form that it takes.

 

[Nicea325]

Strictly speaking, it does not. We (and by we I mean Lutherans) do not argue that Jesus or the apostles taught that all doctrine must come from a written record of revelation or a collection we call the Bible. What we do argue is that all doctrine must come from the word of God. Catholics will argue that this includes oral tradition, not written down, passed on by the apostles. We don’t disagree. What we do disagree about is whether the content of that oral teaching can also be found in Scripture, and whether it was even taught by the apostles to begin with. Since we know that Scripture comes from the apostles, we know that it is an accurate rendition of God’s word and thus, is supreme in its authority. We both agree that church teaching is subject to the apostolic kerygma. It’s in the locus where there is disagreement.

haha on the Calvinists.

And where Scripture teach an oral Tradition must be within the pages of a specific Scripture to confirm it as Truth?

 

[christus_vincit]

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I would agree with the methodology you present of how Scripture was determined. I wouldn’t call it a function of oral tradition because I would say the function of tradition is to communicate dogma. That is, what revelation contains rather than the form that it takes.

You are probably familiar with this document, but if not, it outlines far more clearly and succinctly what the Catholic Church teaches about the relation of Tradition and Scripture. It even touches on our discussion of the role of Tradition in assembling the canon of Scripture.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[St_Francis]

The Church determined which books were inspired by, among other factors, whether the book or letter was used during the liturgy and whether or not it was from the Apostolic age. The Apostolic faith is not confined to the Apostles themselves but to their successors, the Bishops, also.

Oral Traditional is also the standard by which the truth of the document in question was evaluated.

 

[steido01]

But that is the issue with SS. Scripture is Tradition penned. SS gives the impression Scripture came first and Traditions after. Scripture and Tradition go hand-in-hand and both compliment each other. SS presents a Scripture verus Tradition atmosphere.

And where [does] Scripture teach an oral Tradition must be within the pages of a specific Scripture to confirm it as Truth?

Uh, no. Did you read any portion of my response? Or any of what Per Crucem posted? Sola Scriptura is not the same thing as the caricatured “MY King James Bible Alone” nonsense.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And where Scripture teach an oral Tradition must be within the pages of a specific Scripture to confirm it as Truth?

No where. It would be a function of logic and how we determine truth. You don’t expect to validate a tradition by itself do you? That’s called circularity.