How sufficient is the Scripture?

[mtr01]

michaelp:

These teaching were a summary of the Biblical message called in the early Church the regula fidei.

Michael

Actually, you’re working from a backwards perspective. The Bible is merely a summary of Oral Tradition, which was the regula fidei.

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

Actually, you’re working from a backwards perspective. The Bible is merely a summary of Oral Tradition, which was the regula fidei.

I don’t agree. Your position would be an interesting assumption since all direct references to the regula fidei contain only a small portion of the teachings of Scripture. Take the Apostle’s Creed for example. It contains only that which is already in Scripture in summary form.

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I don’t agree. Your position would be an interesting assumption since all direct references to the regula fidei contain only a small portion of the teachings of Scripture. Take the Apostle’s Creed for example. It contains only that which is already in Scripture in summary form.

Michael

I am not following your thinking here. Can you explain?

You say:

michaelp:

I don’t agree.

Then you say:

michaelp:

Your position would be an interesting assumption…

What is there about being an interesting assumption which constitutes something with which you disgree?

michaelp:

since all direct references to the regula fidei contain only a small portion of the teachings of Scripture

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with mtr01 who says:

mtr01:

Actually, you’re working from a backwards perspective. The Bible is merely a summary of Oral Tradition, which was the regula fidei.

It seems to me that you are attempting to disagree with mtr01 while laying down further support for his conclusion. This seems self-contradictory to me. Can you set out your thinking in steps, please, and in more detail so that I can follow it, please? There must be something I am missing.

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

I don’t agree. Your position would be an interesting assumption since all direct references to the regula fidei contain only a small portion of the teachings of Scripture. Take the Apostle’s Creed for example. It contains only that which is already in Scripture in summary form.

Michael

“It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. Still, in the first two centuries after Christ, though we often find mention of the Creed under other designations (e.g. regula fidei, doctrina, traditio)” From newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

Since it is well known that Scripture as we know it wasn’t cannonized until the 4th century, the use of the Creed in the first 2 centuries AD cannot be based on anything but Tradition (hence regula fidei and traditio being used as synonyms). Scripture grew out of Tradition, not vice-versa.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp: How do you interpret what mtr01 is saying? How can Scripture be sufficient when, in fact, it is available to a very very few members of the Early Church and then only in dribs and drabs and never as a comprehensible whole?

mtr01:

Since it is well known that Scripture as we know it wasn’t cannonized until the 4th century, the use of the Creed in the first 2 centuries AD cannot be based on anything but Tradition (hence regula fidei and traditio being used as synonyms). Scripture grew out of Tradition, not vice-versa.

Moreover, how can Scripture be sufficient when it relies on COMMUNITY and on HISTORY for its interpretation? It is in the realm of INTERPRETATION that the theory of scriptural sufficiency falls down. There is no point in Scripture being sufficient if it then can be interpreted to mean just about anything the reader decides on.

Even the term ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not useful. Terms such as ‘Author Context’ or ‘Reader Context’ must be recognized as playing their parts in interpretation and understanding. Once you recognize the partnership of author, reader, and form (scriptural language), then you must recognize the existence of exegetical community. Once you recognize the existence of exegetical community then the real questions become

1. What was the reason a text was written (then),
2. What is the reason a text is read (now), and
3. What is the reason for the formal characteristics of the text in its own right?

Now you are dealing with History and the question becomes ‘how long is History for you’? Are you bringing only your 21st century (presumably) western (presumably) middle class point of view to what you are reading? Or do you cede to the understandings of those readers who have gone before you? Particularly those whose readings have been formed by rigorous scholarship and lives of faith and who cede to the whole of (Christian) History, not to part of it.

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Thanks Millitant,

I agree with you. Here is how I see it. The Bible itself is a collection of words on paper. Its message it what matters. That is how the early Chuch had at least decent doctrine, because they has the summary of the biblical message in the regula fidei (“rule of faith”) and the Old Testament message. Being close to the Apostles, they could have had more reliable info concerning that which Scripture contained, even if they did not have access to all of it. Although they did have access to most of it by mid second century (Gospels, Acts, and Pauline courpus).

I don’t know about you, but Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and John alone would keep the average Church busy for fifty years. In total, they had access to 95% of the entire Scripture (Old and New). But the words and letters on a page don’t really matter. They had access to the message of the Bible through the teachings that were being carried on. These teaching were a summary of the Biblical message called in the early Church the regula fidei.

Michael

Pretty much works for me.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

But the words and letters on a page don’t really matter. They had access to the message of the Bible through the teachings that were being carried on. These teaching were a summary of the Biblical message called in the early Church the regula fidei.

Michael

Would you explain how this statement supports the claim that the Bible is sufficient?–it seems to say that one must rely on tradition and teaching (also) which are the two portions of Divine Revelation that Protestants deny.

 

[st_felicity]

Church Militant:

Pretty much works for me.
Pax vobiscum,

“He is not fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose” --Jim Elliott

So True…:bounce:

 

[Mickey]

“It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. Still, in the first two centuries after Christ, though we often find mention of the Creed under other designations (e.g. regula fidei, doctrina, traditio)” From newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

Since it is well known that Scripture as we know it wasn’t cannonized until the 4th century, the use of the Creed in the first 2 centuries AD cannot be based on anything but Tradition (hence regula fidei and traditio being used as synonyms). Scripture grew out of Tradition, not vice-versa.

Right again mtr01! Let me expand on that. This is from Stephen Ray’s book “Crossing The Tiber”…

“It is not commonly realized that, until the late fourth century, there was no final list of canonical books, no established New Testament…In the early Church, books, epistles, and writings were disputed; no sure list of canonical books was agreed upon. How did the Christians survive without a leather-bound New Testament under their arms?How did they blossom and spread throughout the inhabited world? How did they convert the whole Roman Empire? Was their foundational and operative principle sola scriptura? What sufficient rule of faith did they have to govern the Church, teach the catechumens, and resist heresy, all of which they did so well? The answer to these questions is, in short, the apostolic tradition, preserved through apostolic succession within the Catholic Church. The apostolic writings were an integral part, but only a small part, of the entire deposit of faith.”

 

[michaelp]

“It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. Still, in the first two centuries after Christ, though we often find mention of the Creed under other designations (e.g. regula fidei, doctrina, traditio)” From newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

Since it is well known that Scripture as we know it wasn’t cannonized until the 4th century, the use of the Creed in the first 2 centuries AD cannot be based on anything but Tradition (hence regula fidei and traditio being used as synonyms). Scripture grew out of Tradition, not vice-versa.

I agree with much of this but the main point of disagreement is the last point. Neither grew out of each other since they are both the teaching of the apostles. Tradition was their teaching in unwritten form and Scripture is their teaching in written form.

They are both the same, although unwritten tradition did not contain as much as Scripture being a summary of the essential elements of their teaching that was in Scripture. Remember 90% of all of Scripture was accepted as such by the middle of the second century.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

Pretty much works for me.
Pax vobiscum,

Me and you are going to be the cause of the Great Reuniting if we keep it up!

 

[michaelp]

Ani Ibi:

michaelp: How do you interpret what mtr01 is saying? How can Scripture be sufficient when, in fact, it is available to a very very few members of the Early Church and then only in dribs and drabs and never as a comprehensible whole?

Moreover, how can Scripture be sufficient when it relies on COMMUNITY and on HISTORY for its interpretation? It is in the realm of INTERPRETATION that the theory of scriptural sufficiency falls down. There is no point in Scripture being sufficient if it then can be interpreted to mean just about anything the reader decides on.

Even the term ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not useful. Terms such as ‘Author Context’ or ‘Reader Context’ must be recognized as playing their parts in interpretation and understanding. Once you recognize the partnership of author, reader, and form (scriptural language), then you must recognize the existence of exegetical community. Once you recognize the existence of exegetical community then the real questions become

1. What was the reason a text was written (then),
2. What is the reason a text is read (now), and
3. What is the reason for the formal characteristics of the text in its own right?

Now you are dealing with History and the question becomes ‘how long is History for you’? Are you bringing only your 21st century (presumably) western (presumably) middle class point of view to what you are reading? Or do you cede to the understandings of those readers who have gone before you? Particularly those whose readings have been formed by rigorous scholarship and lives of faith and who cede to the whole of (Christian) History, not to part of it.

Hello,

The entire assumption upon which this thread is based is on a the normal Catholic and Fundementalist understanding of sola Scriptura that was not ascribed by the reformers and is not now by Evangelicals. Here is a reference to a thread on this. Just read the first post and it will help with these misconceptions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23902&highlight=michaelp

Also, concerning the not having Scripture until the 4th century, see the first post here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=27722&highlight=michaelp

And concerning the interpretation of Scripture, you also have to answer the problem of who interprets the church

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890&highlight=michaelp

Michael

 

[AndyF]

michaelp:

Hey all. I was wondering if Catholics believe if the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation. Help me out here.

No, revelations that the Church recieved post NT and revealed in Dogma is just as important. The Pope gives us messages of hope and warns us of dangers, carrying forward to this day messages from his brother apostle Peter himself. The Blessed Mother has assisted us by her presence at Fatima and elsewhere since it's writing. We get inspiration from the Saints in our time. These things prove Christ is working with us in our struggle even today.  Also we need proper interpretation of scripture that the Church provides otherwise we can be led astray. 

We also need graces to sustain us in our exile. As well as some basic graces such as existance, some can only be received through our expression of love and charity and open dialogue with our Creator through prayer. Some graces can only be attained by following obligations of our Faith. We get assistance through God's gifts of the Sacraments, self sacrifice through fasting,communion, confession and attendance at the celebration of the Mass. These are only a few of our requirements. 

Salvation comes by proving we are justified in receiving it.  While we are alive, we can never know if we are saved. Rather than to concern ourselves with when at any given time we are saved, it is better to focus on attitudes,activities and involvement that please God and keeping ourselves clean. Salvation will then be a guaranteed *sure thing*.

 Andy

 

[Mickey]

michaelp:

Tradition was their teaching in unwritten form and Scripture is their teaching in written form.

They are both the same, although unwritten tradition did not contain as much as Scripture
Michael

Think again Miguel!

**John 21:25 **But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_16.gif

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

The entire assumption upon which this thread is based is on a the normal Catholic and Fundementalist understanding of sola Scriptura that was not ascribed by the reformers and is not now by Evangelicals.

How does this address my specific wording; to wit: “available to a very very few members of the Early Church and then only in dribs and drabs and never as a comprehensible whole?” I would prefer that you set out your thinking in clear steps (as I have requested) rather than throwing links at me.

michaelp:

And concerning the interpretation of Scripture, you also have to answer the problem of who interprets the church

The question of who interprets the church is a red herring. The deposit of the faith was to the community of faithful known as the Church. At that time the Church was Catholic.

What is your response to my line of thinking as to literacy and salvation?

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Would you explain how this statement supports the claim that the Bible is sufficient?–it seems to say that one must rely on tradition and teaching (also) which are the two portions of Divine Revelation that Protestants deny.

Sola Scriptura does not say that the words and the letters of the Bible are sufficient, but the message that it communicates. It could be communicated in many different ways: Drama (i.e. Passion of Christ, preaching, summaries of the Gospel (Creeds, etc), etc.).

The Bible is the preservation of the Gospel and God’s words. But its message can be communicated in whatever way is culturally acceptable.

We agree with the Eastern Church on this. We deny that tradition is a separate source of the communication of the message of the Gospel, but a parallel source that is true to the degree that it adheres to the message of Scripture.

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.”

—Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984
​

(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 50–51

​

Having said this, all of the objections that I have seen that Catholics have to sola Scriptura is based on a faulty notion of sola Scriptura that the Reformers never held. Therefore, you may be unwittingly creating staw men.

Here is a good book that accurately represents the evangelical position. I encourage anyone who is interested in accurately understanding the Reformed position to read it.

The Shape of Sola Scriptura
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767749/qid=1108411164/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4799633-1097447?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hope everyone is doing well today. I am actually teaching on this tonight.

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Having said this, all of the objections that I have seen that Catholics have to sola Scriptura is based on a faulty notion of sola Scriptura that the Reformers never held. Therefore, you may be unwittingly creating staw men./QUOTE/

Quite true in theory. Quite untrue in practice. Nevertheless, I withdraw my use of the term ‘sola scriptura’ from my response.

 

[mtr01]

Mickey:

Think again Miguel!

**John **21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_16.gif

Right on target Mickey. Scripture wasn’t an expansion of oral Apostolic Tradition, it was a basic summary. I think the logical conclusion of Michael’s position is that in three years of public ministry, our Lord said nothing more than what is recorded in the Gospels (check a red-letter Bible to see how absurd this is).

In fact, in Acts 20, St. Paul lists a saying of our Lord’s which doesn’t appear in any of the Gospels, yet is assumed to be well known:

35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to **remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than **to receive.

Now, if our Lord said this and it was only recorded later, how many things did he say that did not make it into Scripture?

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Sola Scriptura does not say that the words and the letters of the Bible are sufficient, but the message that it communicates. It could be communicated in many different ways: Drama (i.e. Passion of Christ, preaching, summaries of the Gospel (Creeds, etc), etc.).

The Bible is the preservation of the Gospel and God’s words. But its message can be communicated in whatever way is culturally acceptable.

We agree with the Eastern Church on this. We deny that tradition is a separate source of the communication of the message of the Gospel, but a parallel source that is true to the degree that it adheres to the message of Scripture.

Michael

Ok…so from this portion of your argument one could claim that “the Last Temptation of Christ” is an interpretation of Scripture–yes? So who decides that it is a “proper” or “improper” interpretation. Many would argue the interpretation to be “culturally acceptable” but not sound Christian theology. You say something must “adhere to the message of Scripture” --Who decides what message is correct?

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

.

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.”

—Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984​

(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 50–51

Having said this, all of the objections that I have seen that Catholics have to sola Scriptura is based on a faulty notion of sola Scriptura that the Reformers never held. Therefore, you may be unwittingly creating staw men.

Here is a good book that accurately represents the evangelical position. I encourage anyone who is interested in accurately understanding the Reformed position to read it.

The Shape of Sola Scriptura
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767749/qid=1108411164/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4799633-1097447?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hope everyone is doing well today. I am actually teaching on this tonight.

Michael

Now on this part–I don’t disagree so much as say it’s missing the “interpreting body”–the Magesterium. The quote you have above is very similar to what the Catechism says, sans the teaching offices of the Church.

CCC 95:
“It is clear therefore that , in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that** one of them cannot stand without the others. **Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

(my emphasis)