Honest Question: How does Sola Scriptura not REQUIRE tradition?

[Cinette]

Hi again In_servitude,

We see here the difficulty trying to compact lengthy ideas into a box!

Was it not your private interpretation of this verse that led you to conclude Rome was the true church? This is the issue I see now… This doesn’t solve the problem, you have to use private interpretation to conclude Rome is right, and then must still keep using to interpret what it the infallible authority has said. Why is Romans unclear and Vatican documents not unclear? Those are my honest questions, hope I don’t sound aggressive

Now to (try to) answer your question I don’t think from my perspective that in the past for a long time no one had any idea what was scripture, then out of the blue some people got together and said its x y and z… The position I stand by is one of early development, first century development for the majority of the NT (1). See my post no. 54 in this thread. There is evidence in the New Testament that the first century church already considered certain works scripture, they came to them with apostolic authority after all.

There is some debate of course; Hebrews for example(2). But the church does not appear to appeal to a centralised authority to ask what’s what. Rather it uses discernment, history, to conclude on books(3). This seems to be sufficient for the church for the majority of its history. Local councils such as Hippo or Carthage make decisions regarding canon, but its not discussed in what is now known as an ecumenical council. This seems to show us the Church knew they had the right books, not because of an infallible decision, for such a thing never came until Trent, but rather they knew they had the right books as they had always possessed them, going right back the the first century AD (4). I think this view best fits the historical evidence available to us. So really it’s not a question of ‘who has the authority to decide what’s canon’ The scripture is authoritative as it is God Breathed, it carries the authority of Jesus Christ, who himself has all authority.

Peace

Lincs.

(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 95
(2) - daveblackonline.com/origen_on_the_authorship_of_hebr.htm
(3) - daveblackonline.com/origen_on_the_authorship_of_hebr.htm
(4) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway 2010, pg 101

*How do you interpret Mat:16:18-19? By what authority?

Cinette*

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure who you are referring to as “privileged”. But I’ll try to answer your points.

=in_servitude;9126595]I’m still struggling to grasp something, and it might be that I have a giant blind spot. But, I see this sentence as one that invalidates itself. Here’s my reasoning on this:

1. God did not print a Bible. Rather, He chooses to go through people. The person(s) He chooses are, therefore, inspired. These people necessarily have more privilege than others.

Agreed. He inspired those who wrote scripture.

1. There is disagreement about which books are inspired and which books are not inspired amongst men today. Who has the privilege to decide which books are inspired (today)?

this has always been the case, from Eusebius to St. Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan and Luther, to today. Therefore we have many variations of belief regarding which are inspired, from the East which has various canons, to the west - including the Catholic Church - where the accepted books are fewer in number. From a Lutheran perspective, the confessions do not indicate a list, and therefore, in a technical way, leave the canon open. I can’t speak for other communions, but Lutherans view the books of scripture, in part, based on the historic Church’s view of them - accepted, disputed, rejected - and treat them accordingly.

1. There is disagreement about the interpretation of scripture today. Who has the privilege to decide who is right?

This, too, is a good question, whether it is EO, Catholic, Lutheran or others. It is probably the nature of our current division.

The reason that I say that the sentence invalidates itself is because it assumes that “scripture” is a given while it says that the interpretation is not a given. The aspect of privilege is not acknowledged.

Again, the nature of the divisions within His Church, sad as they are. In the early Church, decisions of doctrine were empowered in the great ecumenical councils, of which the East and Lutherans, and Anglicans accept 7.

So, my question is:* where (in history, I presume) are the privileged ones that a Protestant would choose to submit themselves to* - saying those privileged people of history defined what all people must later accept as scripture? What is the mechanism by which those special people became privileged?

Continuing from the councils, one must assume that each communion looks to the councils (at least those who do), and to scripture, and within each communion, makes that determination. For example, Catholicism has declared the Immaculate Conception, while the EO has not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

*Protestants do not acknowledge the veracity of Jesus’ words in Mat 16:18-19. Their interpretation is that Jesus was not addressing Peter but someone else! Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail - that we would be guided by the H Spirit into all truth. Protestants do not believe this was the case. The H Spirit only became involved at the Reformation! That is how this works for them.

Perhaps someone can enlighten us.

*

Who said Jesus was not addressing Peter, and later the entirety of the apostles regarding binding and loosing?

Who said the gates of Hell will prevail against His Church. A source, please. I can’t think of any Lutheran who thinks that the gates of Hell will prevail against His Chirch - The Church Militant, The Church Triumphant, and if you choose, The Church Suffering. If someone actually believes that, why believe in Christ at all?

I also can’t think of a Lutheran who thinks the Holy Spirit waited until the Reformation to be involved in the Church. We accept the great ecumenical councils of the ealy Church, and the Creeds.

So, Cinette, a t least from my view, the charge is polemic nonsense.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Dear friend,
Grave matters taken to Rome does not equate to universal jurisdiction, and canon 5 says the following;

The Metropolitan mentioned is each metropolitan in his own jurisdiction. No mention of Rome having universal jurisdiction in these matters.
I am a teacher, and recently I had a colleague come to me with a student who was not behaving as he should, and not fulfilling his responsibilities as a student. She brought him to me for help. This was not an indication on her part that I now had jurisdiction in her classroom. While I have many more years of experience than her, we are still equals in our status as classroom teacher, even though she came to me with this “grave matter”.
Now, you know I am certainly not comparing the two, but I think the analogy of bringing grave matters is similar.

I would also mention that Christ warned the disciples not to have a pecking order, so to speak. And it is also true that in Acts, it seems Peter is not in charge of the council. All that said, my good friend, I would wish nothing more than for Orthodoxy and Rome to come to an agreement on this issue, as it would makes things clearer for me, a simple Luheran.

Jon

Yes, I actually think it is a good analogy. Who, btw, has the power of the purse?

Jon

And Peace also with you. Our virtual friendship, and the way we discuss our differences, is always a blessing for me. Thank you for your charity.

Jon

Again my friend,but why need to have to mention it or write in stone to make it legit? Do all traditions need to be written down to be considered valid? Where is the written notice of using and wearing wedding rings at marriage ceremony? As I stated, it is very plausible the Bishop of Rome having the primacy was already a practice and tradition known and no one felt compelled to confirm it as legitimate. The fact there is no mention of it on any specific canon does not render it null or void either. Is it any different than the canon? Is it not based on Apostolic origin or is it merely a late innovation?

God Bless Jon

 

[JonNC]

Again my friend,but why need to have to mention it or write in stone to make it legit? Do all traditions need to be written down to be considered valid? Where is the written notice of using and wearing wedding rings at marriage ceremony? As I stated, it is very plausible the Bishop of Rome having the primacy was already a practice and tradition known and no one felt compelled to confirm it as legitimate. The fact there is no mention of it on any specific canon does not render it null or void either. Is it any different than the canon? Is it not based on Apostolic origin or is it merely a late innovation?

God Bless Jon

Greetings, my friend.

We both agree that there is a difference between traditions and Tradition. from a Lutheran perspective, traditions can vary depending on culture, etc. but on the pope’s primacy, I would not argue against the pope having a primacy as desribed as first among equals. I believe that unity of the Church goes through Rome, particularly as a western Christian.
However, I don’t believe that the primacy (supremacy?) as we see it described today, was practiced or even intended in the Early Church.

As Passion week approaches, I wish you all of His blessings as we receive Him in word and sacrament.

Jon
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Greetings, my friend.

We both agree that there is a difference between traditions and Tradition. from a Lutheran perspective, traditions can vary depending on culture, etc. but on the pope’s primacy, I would not argue against the pope having a primacy as desribed as first among equals. I believe that unity of the Church goes through Rome, particularly as a western Christian.
However, I don’t believe that the primacy (supremacy?) as we see it described today, was practiced or even intended in the Early Church.

As Passion week approaches, I wish you all of His blessings as we receive Him in word and sacrament.

Jon
Jon

Likewise my friend. Here is where I have terrible time with the “first among equals” position. How can one be first among equals,when first means first? Even if it is based on honor,he is still first. Second,if you believe primacy as we see it today was not practice or intended in the early church,where is the mention,notion or ascribing to “first among equals” anywhere in Tradition or any canon? Third, the papacy like all offices develops over time and the fact it may not resemble it now,it certainly does not mean it did not exist.

Peace and blessings too

 

[fbl9]

Hi again In_servitude,

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
As Passion week approaches, I wish you all of His blessings as we receive Him in word and sacrament.

Jon
Jon

Amen! Amen!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Likewise my friend. Here is where I have terrible time with the “first among equals” position. How can one be first among equals,when first means first? Even if it is based on honor,he is still first. Second,if you believe primacy as we see it today was not practice or intended in the early church,where is the mention,notion or ascribing to “first among equals” anywhere in Tradition or any canon? Third, the papacy like all offices develops over time and the fact it may not resemble it now,it certainly does not mean it did not exist.

Peace and blessings too

You probably can’t find first among equals in the canons of the Ancient Church, nor can you find anything about the primacy of the bishop of Rome. One truly does have to wonder why such a supposedly critically important concept as the universal primacy of the papacy was never codified by the fathers in the canons, when they took the time to codify the related concept of the primacy of a metropolitan bishop over the bishops within his metropolis.

 

[Nicea325]

You probably can’t find first among equals in the canons of the Ancient Church, nor can you find anything about the primacy of the bishop of Rome. One truly does have to wonder why such a supposedly critically important concept as the universal primacy of the papacy was never codified by the fathers in the canons, when they took the time to codify the related concept of the primacy of a metropolitan bishop over the bishops within his metropolis.

I agree believe it or not and I also would say the same about first among equals,if it was the “tradition” from the get-go? But as I have said,did anyone really feel it needed to be codified? I know we will go back-and-forth on this issue,but it is not impossible?

God bless my brother in Christ

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well we only know what we know which is oral and written Tradition and the Early Chruch Fathers and Councils.

Council of Ephesus

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

And of course we have Bible

Acts 1:15-26 St Peter presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas.

Acts 2:14-42 St Peter preached the First public Sermon.

Acts 3:6-8 St Peter performs the first Miracle after Pentacost.

Acts 5:1-11 St Peter inflicts the first punishment.

Acts 10-44-48 St Peter Baptizes the first Gentiles.

Matthew 10-2-4 Mark 16-19 Luke 6:14-16 Acts 1:13 St Peter is always mentioned First. In fact He is mentioned more than any other Apostle in the Bible.

And rightfully so He is the one whom Christ stated Upon You [St Peter] I will buld my church. And its is ONLY St Peter who holds the Keys to the Kingdom. Which all the Early Church Father agee with. As does the Council of Ephesus.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And well the Early Church Father? Abundant in their words, Heres from CAF on the Primacy and St Peter. Oh and the Keys of the Kingdom.

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . .a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

Pope Innocent I

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Peace*

 

[jericho777]

AmbroseSJ;9121099:

SS uses tradition too. Like the Trinity not found in Scripture and determined by the Patristic Fathers to be doctrine. Most of our common doctrine was founded via councils and the bishops speaking under the guidance of the Holy spirit and thus infallibly, without error. Almost everyone accepts the first 7 councils. Jay*

Actually in Gen 1:1 the ground work for the Trinity was laid because the word “God” is Eloheim which is plural. But God is always refered to as being One. In Deut. 6:4 there is the declaration of God being plural but yet one. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are fully revealed in the NT as being God.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

johnjay01;9123044:

Actually in Gen 1:1 the ground work for the Trinity was laid because the word “God” is Eloheim which is plural. But God is always refered to as being One. In Deut. 6:4 there is the declaration of God being plural but yet one. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are fully revealed in the NT as being God.

I wasn’t the author of your quote. Although you can find allusions to the Trinity in the Bible, you will not find it explicitly defined or declared. For you to see the Trinity in the Bible, presupposes your belief in the Tradition of the Trinitarian doctrine. The definition of the Trinity hinges on Tradition, although it is not explicitly contradicted by the Bible. I think Jews would hotly contest your seeing a Trinity in the Old Testament.

The Church, around the same time it was defining the canon of the Bible, was also defining the Trinity.

It’s important to remember that NOT EVERYTHING that was taught by the Apostles was written down in our canonized Scripture. Much of it was ASSUMED, being the very foundation of Christian belief. That is why something as important as the Trinity is not explicitly defined. Christians were already familiar with this doctrine, even as the Scriptures were first being written down.

The Gospels and the Acts were written to give Christians a proof for their doctrines. The Epistles were concerned with various topics of the day, based on the needs of those early Christians. But the oral tradition, first begun by the Jesus Christ, then the Apostles who were sent by Jesus, and their successors continued the teaching of these Doctrines. That is why the True Authority of Teaching the Word of God rests with the Church. It was always thus.

The reason the Trinity NEEDED to be defined in those early days, was because of people that would interpret the Scripture in contrary ways to Church teaching. They boldly claimed that in Scripture the trinity was NOT explicitly defined, nor was Jesus ever explicitly said to be God, the way the Father is God. It was always heresies that caused the Church to respond by carefully defining these beliefs so as to prevent her flock from eventually losing Faith in the original doctrines of Jesus Christ.

If the Church had failed to respond to these heresies, then no one today would know about the Trinity or that the Son of God, was God just as the Father is God, and that they are one,with the Holy Spirit, in a Trinity of persons.