I don't get sola scriptura

[Richard_Kastner]

The scripture is reliably the Word of God. But as mackbrislawn explained meaning is something that occurs in the human mind. If there were no minds around nothing, not even words in a book, would have meaning. You need a mind to create something and a mind to interpret meaning.

There is only one correct meaning for all scripture and that is God’s meaning. It is man’s task to discern His meaning and that can only be done through a complete surrender to the Holy Spirit. The reason there are so many denominations is that some rely on their own meaning and understanding. This never works because we are looking at the perfect Word of God through the clouded lens of sin.

1Cor.2
9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I’d like to agree with you. I certainly think some pretty plain scripture is incredibly contorted. I think that most people lack the mental faculties, the wisdom, the knowledge and quite possibly the spirit to properly understand scripture on their own. If one read the Old Testament with no assistance from explanations of history and a knowledge of culture you’d miss half the meaning.

I think you almost have it here but you fall a little short. The spirit you talk about is the spirit of sinful man. It should be Spirit with a capital S or the Spirit of God.

Purpose, which is meaning, is something that is in the mind. You can write down your assertion of what your purpose is but still the true purpose only exists in the mind. I believe God to be truthful so I believe what purposes He has written in the Scripture are true, but purpose is not always given for each instruction or story.

I’m not quite sure what your point is here?

I accept Scripture as being inspired by God. But of what assurance is there that the reader will get the proper meaning? Given that so many people get different meanings out of the Scripture what is the explanation for this?

Ok, I think we are starting to hit the apex of this whole discussion. Take a look at Mark 10. You would do well to read the whole chapter, but for this purpose I will start at v. 25

Mark10
25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

V. 27 here can be applied directly to your question above. The reason there are so many denominations is that people are relying on theirselves instead of committing and submitting to God.

This is true that Scripture is so profitable. But Scripture is also profitable, improperly interpreted, for false doctrine and acceptance of that which is morally bad. If that were not so then what explains the success of those who have different ideas about what the Scripture says?

Define what you mean by “success”. Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world” Jn.18:36

But is God guaranteeing us to properly understand Scripture? If so how can so many people get so off track when reading Scripture?
That is what I want to know. It seems that all churches assert they have that. Every church says what we believe are what the first Christians believed. Obviously not everyone can be right.

I think that I have explained this.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You know, you’re right, that is what I’m saying! The oral tradition is understandable, but the meaning of the written word of God is always under dispute. The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not.

So that isn’t what you are saying?

No, I’m not kidding. I’ll say it again, written things need a mind to read them and to decide what they mean. This is obvious because different minds when they read the same thing don’t always agree on what it means.

Written things, whether they be scripture or not have only one correct meaning and that meaning is not decided by the reader.

You’re right, scripture was inspired by God, but written down by men, in human language. And, since we have already agreed that human communication is imperfect, scripture, even though inspired, is nonetheless in human language, and hence can be understood imperfectly. We must realize that although God communicated directly to the evangelist who wrote scripture, the evangelist is communicating to us through human communication, via the imperfect means of language.

Because the reader does not understand or understands imperfectly, in no way undermines the fact that God uses imperfect language to convey His will PERFECTLY.

Yes, Peter is warning us that ignorant people can read scripture and twist its meaning. Now, here is the danger. What parts of scripture are the ones hard to understand? Could it be that the ones seemingly the most obvious in meaning are in reality the ones hardest to understand?

This question becomes moot when we quit relying on our own understanding. See 1Cor2:9-14

A simple statement such as, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” on its surface seems easy to understand, but is it? Simple things are deceptive. The above simple statement is actually a shorthand for a lot more beneath it’s surface meaning. However, the untaught and ignorant will look only at the surface meaning and not know the true depth of meaning there. In consequence they will twist God’s words into something God did not intend to say.

What is there about that statement that you find so enigmatic?

Right, scripture’s meaning is set by God. Not by us. And, that is the problem, we humans want to set the meaning ourselves. So, how do we know God’s meaning? Through apostolic tradition, which was given by God.

Two words Commit and Submit. Commit your life to the sevice of God and submit your will to His will.

Excellent question. These passages were written to Timothy, who had known the holy scriptures from childhood. You see, he had been steeped in the scriptures, taught in them, since being a kid. He was not among the untaught or ignorant that Peter speaks about! Timothy having been taught scripture all his life, and having been taught the gospel personally by Paul, was definitely not ignorant and unstable! Therefore, Timothy knew the intrinsic meaning of the scriptures.

I think you are missing the point. V. 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, **which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ** If this doesn’t happen, if scripture doesn’t make us wise unto salvation we will never get it’s true meaning. It becomes merely an intellectual sparing match about whose right. We must allow scripture to speak to the heart. Make us wise unto salvation. Then we need to commit and submit.

Also, it is to be remembered, that the scriptures in question here are Old Testament scriptures. The Christian gospel tradition Timothy knew was taught to him by the apostle Paul, so Timothy also knew the apostolic tradition. So, when Paul wrote his letters, a person like Timothy would know what they meant, having already been steeped in apostolic tradition. He was not unlearned!!

Ok

Furthermore, Timothy was a man of God. Scripture is useful for a man of God, but not necessarily useful for someone else.

I don’t get what your point is here?

Uh, no, Peter is not warning us not to be deceived by the 'unlearned and unstable." On the contrary, he is saying that the unlearned and unstable deceive themselves. It is a warning to those who are untaught in the apostolic tradition.

Of course, we should be wary too. Should we follow someone who is untaught in the tradition of the apostles, even though they may use scripture convincingly? We must not be unsteady.

I was thinking of Jesus warning in Matt 24:4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

and in Ephesians 4 where the reason for the gifts of the HS is put forth.

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

No, I won’t say all of scripture is hard to understand. But, are we sure we know which parts are which? As I indicated above, the parts we think we understand may be the very parts we don’t.

Continued…

Give me an example of something that you don’t understand.

 

[exnihilo]

I have no idea what this means?

Meaning is not the word itself. If I say snow that is expressing the same ideas as der schnee. Der schnee is just the German word for snow.

My churches doctrinal tradition is based on the bible, the Word of God. Your churches doctrinal tradition appears to be the word of man. You don’t think there is somethin askew in this scenario?

Every church says it is following the Word of God. How do we know who is right?

This is all irrelevant to the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture.

It is contained but there is no promise we will get it out.

What about you ex? you have stated Should this not be a source of rejoicing that you can indeed be assurred of your salvation in Christ Jesus and that you can find out all about it in the bible?

I can find out about it in the Bible. But that is the most difficult way to learn about it. The more effective way is through teaching.

 

[exnihilo]

There is only one correct meaning for all scripture and that is God’s meaning. It is man’s task to discern His meaning and that can only be done through a complete surrender to the Holy Spirit. The reason there are so many denominations is that some rely on their own meaning and understanding. This never works because we are looking at the perfect Word of God through the clouded lens of sin.

I agree, there is only one meaning. I disagree that it is man’s task if by that you mean every man’s task to discern, from scripture the meaning. It is every man’s task to seek and obey God. Scripture is not absolutely necessary for that.

27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

V. 27 here can be applied directly to your question above. The reason there are so many denominations is that people are relying on theirselves instead of committing and submitting to God.

I entirely agree that with God all things are possible. I also agree as to the reason for so many denominations. But how does one know that they are relying on God and submitting themselves to him.

I agree with you on many points. I think sometimes we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives.

We certainly won’t resolve this old debate ourselves here. But I’ll add an observation I had. I’ve noticed that atheists will often engage in the exact same kind of dialog as what I observe between Protestants. Catholics may do the same. Not being one I cant say.

What I’ll see is some atheist pull some quote from Scripture and say that Jesus taught us to do this. For instance they’ll say that we should all give up our possessions because that is what Jesus told the rich man to do. I was taught this was directed to the rich man specifically because he claimed to keep all the commandments (who could save Christ?) and that what he was holding onto was his wealth. He needed to let go of it to truly follow Christ. But for another person what they cling to might not be wealth. The atheist will say that is what we are all to do and the fact that we dont do it means that we are not following Christ.

Now, I clearly think the atheist is wrong. But on what strong foundation can I tell him that? He, being an atheist, is clearly wrongly motivated. The only way he could actually read the Bible and the come to the proper conclusion is knowing what the text is supposed to mean already. He is not likely to come to the proper understanding through reading because he is not properly oriented. So is there a way for him to know the meaning prior to reading. Of course there is. And that would be by having the traditional knowledge of the church. So you really have to start with the church. That is where knowledge of the meaning comes from.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I agree, there is only one meaning. I disagree that it is man’s task if by that you mean every man’s task to discern, from scripture the meaning. It is every man’s task to seek and obey God. Scripture is not absolutely necessary for that.

I entirely agree that with God all things are possible. I also agree as to the reason for so many denominations. But how does one know that they are relying on God and submitting themselves to him.

I agree with you on many points. I think sometimes we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives.

We certainly won’t resolve this old debate ourselves here. But I’ll add an observation I had. I’ve noticed that atheists will often engage in the exact same kind of dialog as what I observe between Protestants. Catholics may do the same. Not being one I cant say.

What I’ll see is some atheist pull some quote from Scripture and say that Jesus taught us to do this. For instance they’ll say that we should all give up our possessions because that is what Jesus told the rich man to do. I was taught this was directed to the rich man specifically because he claimed to keep all the commandments (who could save Christ?) and that what he was holding onto was his wealth. He needed to let go of it to truly follow Christ. But for another person what they cling to might not be wealth. The atheist will say that is what we are all to do and the fact that we dont do it means that we are not following Christ.

Now, I clearly think the atheist is wrong. But on what strong foundation can I tell him that? He, being an atheist, is clearly wrongly motivated. The only way he could actually read the Bible and the come to the proper conclusion is knowing what the text is supposed to mean already. He is not likely to come to the proper understanding through reading because he is not properly oriented. So is there a way for him to know the meaning prior to reading. Of course there is. And that would be by having the traditional knowledge of the church. So you really have to start with the church. That is where knowledge of the meaning comes from.

What church? You yourself have said that there are many denominations. Which one do we choose. As I have shown you, there is only one way to know the true meaning of scripture and that is not from the church, but from the Spirit of God and that is done through commitment and submission. I explained all this to you. Do you disagree? Study 1Cor.2:10-14 I really don’t see the point in continuing to answer the same question. The answer lies within yourself ex and that is to the extent that you are willing to accept Jesus as not only your savior but your Lord and submit yourself to the movement of His Spirit.

 

[patricius79]

Because that’s what Lutherans do. We accept the confessions as a right reflection of scripture, just like we do the creeds, and the first 7 councils.

I know that. BUt then I think you aren’t following Scripture since the Bible doesn’t teach what you are saying about Purgatory (i.e. that it is not in Scripture)

It isn’t there.

the Bible doesn’t say that. your appeal is to the Lutheran tradition.

(I do think that Lutheranism has much good in it)

And again, I’m not saying it isn’t possible

.

glad to hear it, brother.

Come now, what’s your point?

Jon

I asked a simple question: how can you show that from Scripture? (e.g. your idea that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine and does not need to be in Scripture)

as to the post-Apostolic practice of the Church…an appeal to this in a matter of faith violates Sola Scriptura. it is an appeal to Tradition

moreover the fathers didn’t believe Sola Scriptura in the Protestant sense but in the Tradition of the Catholic Church, including the Scriptures written in pen and ink (and orally–2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13).

catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8042741]I know that. BUt then I think you aren’t following Scripture since the Bible doesn’t teach what you are saying about Purgatory (i.e. that it is not in Scripture)

Of course we are.

the Bible doesn’t say that. your appeal is to the Lutheran tradition.

(I do think that Lutheranism has much good in it)

Yes, my appeal is to how Lutherans use scripture as the final norm.
Thank you. I feel much the same way about Catholicism.
Luther himself said that all that we know about the faith comes from the CC.

glad to hear it, brother.

I asked a simple question: how can you show that from Scripture? (e.g. your idea that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine and does not need to be in Scripture)

as to the post-Apostolic practice of the Church…an appeal to this in a matter of faith violates Sola Scriptura. it is an appeal to Tradition

Not if one views sola scriptura, not as solo scriptura, but as scriptura being the final norm in holding all doctrine and teachings accountable. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet.”

moreover the fathers didn’t believe Sola Scriptura in the Protestant sense but in the Tradition of the Catholic Church, including the Scriptures written in pen and ink (and orally–2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13).

You are correct, that, while no Catholic would say that any Catholic doctrine violates scripture, the CC uses scripture and Tradition. I think that, in all honesty, in light of what the reformers saw as contradictions between councils and popes, but also contradictions between the two “lungs” of the Church, both claiming Tradition and scripture and yet not agreeing, they felt scripture was the only sure norm. It may not the best practice, considering how it is often abused, but until Rome and the East reconcile, how is a simple Lutheran such as myself to know who is right? Who is right about the primacy of the pope, etc.?

Jon

 

[amber_lux]

All churches rely on some tradition of understanding to form their basis of beliefs.

Don’t confuse Tradition with tradition.

Luke 10:41 Jesus tells Martha that she is careful. Careful here does not mean avoiding mishap. It means she is full of care or anxious. If you just read the KJV you’d likely be puzzled or get the wrong idea.

Citing L Ron Hubbard:

A misunderstood definition or a not-comprehended definition or an undefined word can thoroughly block one’s understanding of a subject and can even cause one to abandon the subject entirely.

If people are too lazy to pick up a dictionary or two, and explore what a word or phrase means, so that they understand that word or phrase, then you will have people who get the wrong idea. A trait that is found in orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, and Protestant Christians.

Most people who read the Bible also read other people’s commentary on it. If reading it by yourself was sufficient then there would be no need for that commentary.

The Confessional Lutheran position is that Scripture explains Scripture. Commentaries are usually discussions on how other parts of Scripture explain the pericope in question.

The Landmark Baptist position is that only the Bible is necessary. Commentaries are a distraction best thrown away.

The* Unitarian* position is that Commentaries exist as a means for an individual to dialogue with those not present.

The *Jewish *position is that commentaries are a means to explore what one thinks a passage means. One reads other commentaries, to shed light on the unobserved shadows within one’s theology.

For that matter there would be no need for teaching through preaching.

Teaching qua preaching, is simply a rephrasing of what the Bible says. Sometimes it is a very bad paraphrase. Other times it is a thunk on the head to wake up the congregation.

Also remember that most people don’t bother to read their Bible. That lack of reading means that if weren’t for the preacher giving a sermon every Sunday, the congregation would have no idea what the Bible says. And even with that sermon they don’t know what the Bible says.

Amber

 

[patricius79]

Of course we are.

I don’t see that. I’ve never met someone who seems to actuallly be following their preferred definition of Sola Scriptura. the people who hold S.S. in my experience insist on oral traditions which go beyond Scripture as a matter of course in their arguments against the Catholic Church. they are intelligent and well-meaning, I think, but have a blind spot

their claim always boils down to something like this extra-Biblical claim: “my oral traditions are Biblical and yours are not”

that their distinctive oral traditions are much less historical (i.e. patristic) than the Catholic ones doesn’t seem to matter. maybe that is not the case so much with Lutherans, though

Not if one views sola scriptura, not as solo scriptura, but as scriptura being the final norm in holding all doctrine and teachings accountable. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet.”

your idea was that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine and does not need to be in Scripture. my question is: how is this oral tradition accountable to Scripture?

You are correct, that, while no Catholic would say that any Catholic doctrine violates scripture, the CC uses scripture and Tradition. I think that, in all honesty, in light of what the reformers saw as contradictions between councils and popes, but also contradictions between the two “lungs” of the Church, both claiming Tradition and scripture and yet not agreeing, they felt scripture was the only sure norm. It may not the best practice, considering how it is often abused, but until Rome and the East reconcile, how is a simple Lutheran such as myself to know who is right? Who is right about the primacy of the pope, etc.?

Jon

the first thing I would note is that I think your argument again has not been shown from Scripture and is appealing to something besides Scripture in matters of faith.

so again your appeal is not to Scripture alone as the rule of faith but to Scripture and Lutheran oral traditions as to Church history.

moreover it would also undercut Sola Scriptura logically, since the Sola Scriptura leaders (the reformers) bitterly disagreed with each other as to Scriptural interprretation. e.g. Luther vs. Calvin as to Holy Communion. Luther himself said that the divisions of the Sola Scriptura communities were so great that they would have to return to the Catholic Councils

in other words, your argument is going beyond Scripture, as it did as to Purgatory.

as to a specific response to that issue of the Eastern Orthodox: we can’t discuss that here

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8046626]I don’t see that. I’ve never met someone who seems to actuallly be following their preferred definition of Sola Scriptura. the people who hold S.S. in my experience insist on oral traditions which go beyond Scripture as a matter of course in their arguments against the Catholic Church. they are intelligent and well-meaning, I think, but have a blind spot

their claim always boils down to something like this extra-Biblical claim: “my oral traditions are Biblical and yours are not”

I think you have an argument who claim that sola scriptura is supposed to operate in the way you claim it is supposed to.

that their distinctive oral traditions are much less historical (i.e. patristic) than the Catholic ones doesn’t seem to matter. maybe that is not the case so much with Lutherans, though

For this Lutheran, the historic teachings of the undivided Church is very important, and does influence what I am willing to consider.

your idea was that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine and does not need to be in Scripture. my question is: how is this oral tradition accountable to Scripture?

What is accountable to scripture is doctrine and teachings and teachers. That is the intent of sola scriptura.

the first thing I would note is that I think your argument again has not been shown from Scripture and is appealing to something besides Scripture in matters of faith.

I wasn’t making a statement of faith. I was offering an opinion.

so again your appeal is not to Scripture alone as the rule of faith but to Scripture and Lutheran oral traditions as to Church history.

Why would this be a problem?

moreover it would also undercut Sola Scriptura logically, since the Sola Scriptura leaders (the reformers) bitterly disagreed with each other as to Scriptural interprretation. e.g. Luther vs. Calvin as to Holy Communion. Luther himself said that the divisions of the Sola Scriptura communities were so great that they would have to return to the Catholic Councils

in other words, your argument is going beyond Scripture, as it did as to Purgatory.

See, I’m just not connecting to what you are saying, here. Perhaps you need to describe, specifically, what you think sola scriptura means. Is it your position that, anything I say regarding faith - “my parish needs to hold VBS this summer”, for example - must be supported by scripture?

as to a specific response to that issue of the Eastern Orthodox: we can’t discuss that here

Sure we can, as they reject SS as much as Rome does.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
But Richard, is not fair to say many may mis-interpret SS because there is no one strict understanding or definition of SS? I am not trying to argue with you or change your beliefs,but I myself as a Catholic have heard the same argument amongst non-Catholics.

Sola means alone, Scriptura means scripture. Taken together they mean scripture or the bible alone. And this for me means that the bible has that all the information we need for our salvation. Now if someone is saying that SS means something different than this. They are just playing semantics gymnastics and there probably is no reason to engage them. Unless you just enjoy that sort of game.

But Richard,unfortunately your statement is not true,because as I have stated,not all so-called SS Christians adhere to your position. In fact, your statement is a living example how it can vary because you said:

And this for me means that the bible has that all the information we need for our salvation. Now if someone is saying that SS means something different than this.

Precisely why there does not seem to be one strict or absolute definition of SS across the board for all who adhere to SS,which is my point and why many state SS is self-refuting.

Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

But Richard,unfortunately your statement is not true,because as I have stated,not all so-called SS Christians adhere to your position. In fact, your statement is a living example how it can vary because you said:

*And this for me means *that the bible has that all the information we need for our salvation. Now if someone is saying that SS means something different than this.

Precisely why there does not seem to be one strict or absolute definition of SS across the board for all who adhere to SS,which is my point and why many state SS is self-refuting.

Peace

Ok

 

[amber_lux]

This can’t be true–and the Church obviously sees the Scripture as important (which was part of the point I was trying to make about all the time and effort the Church went to to make sure it was preserved and its information spread to others , especially in the Middle Ages).

If Paul Couch (Trinity Broadcasting) can be trusted to provide historically accurate statements, The Bible was translated into 400 different languages by 400 AD.

bible-media.com/history/timeline-english-bible-history.php#timeline claims the Bible had been translated into 500 languages by 500 AD. By 600 AD, in the west, the Bible was available in only one language, Latin.

In 1199 Pope Innocent III banned the translation of the Bible into any language, without papal authorization…

In 1409, The Synod of Canterbury prohibited the translation of the Bible into any language. This synod also prohibited the reading of any Bible more recent than Wycliffe’s 1388 translation.

In 1800, the Protestant Canon was available in 40 languages. Parts of the Bible were available in another 26 languages.

It was only with the formation of the first Bible Society in 1804 that translating the Bible into native languages started to be taken seriously by Christians. Even then, it was was Low Church Christians that did the translations.

In 2002 United Bible Society (UBS) reported that the Protestant Bible had been translated into 392 languages, and either the complete NT or complete OT had been translated into another 1,012 languages.

In 2007, UBS announced that the Protestant Bible was available in 423 languages, with the deuterocanonical books available in 123 languages. For another
1168 languages, either the complete OT, or complete NT was available.

In 2010, Wycliffe Translators announced that the Protestant Bible was available in 457 languages, with the NT available in another 1211 languages. No data on number of languages that the Orthodox Canon was available in.

At best, you are looking at 123 translations of the Catholic Canon in the same time period that Protestant Christianity did, at worst, 240 translations of the Protestant Canon.

ubs-translations.org/about_us/#c165 has a nice graph showing the growth of the number of languages the Bible has been translated into, between 1800 and 2000.

If scripture is so important, why haven’t Catholics done as much translation of the Bible as Protestants have? (The orthodox position is easy to understand — they prohibit the transmission of the text in anything but Greek – not realizing that the Greek they use a is a back translation from Jerome’s Vulgate.)

Amber

 

[Nicea325]

If Paul Couch (Trinity Broadcasting) can be trusted to provide historically accurate statements, The Bible was translated into 400 different languages by 400 AD.

bible-media.com/history/timeline-english-bible-history.php#timeline claims the Bible had been translated into 500 languages by 500 AD. By 600 AD, in the west, the Bible was available in only one language, Latin.

In 1199 Pope Innocent III banned the translation of the Bible into any language, without papal authorization…

In 1409, The Synod of Canterbury prohibited the translation of the Bible into any language. This synod also prohibited the reading of any Bible more recent than Wycliffe’s 1388 translation.

In 1800, the Protestant Canon was available in 40 languages. Parts of the Bible were available in another 26 languages.

It was only with the formation of the first Bible Society in 1804 that translating the Bible into native languages started to be taken seriously by Christians. Even then, it was was Low Church Christians that did the translations.

In 2002 United Bible Society (UBS) reported that the Protestant Bible had been translated into 392 languages, and either the complete NT or complete OT had been translated into another 1,012 languages.

In 2007, UBS announced that the Protestant Bible was available in 423 languages, with the deuterocanonical books available in 123 languages. For another
1168 languages, either the complete OT, or complete NT was available.

In 2010, Wycliffe Translators announced that the Protestant Bible was available in 457 languages, with the NT available in another 1211 languages. No data on number of languages that the Orthodox Canon was available in.

At best, you are looking at 123 translations of the Catholic Canon in the same time period that Protestant Christianity did, at worst, 240 translations of the Protestant Canon.

ubs-translations.org/about_us/#c165 has a nice graph showing the growth of the number of languages the Bible has been translated into, between 1800 and 2000.

If scripture is so important, why haven’t Catholics done as much translation of the Bible as Protestants have? (The orthodox position is easy to understand — they prohibit the transmission of the text in anything but Greek – not realizing that the Greek they use a is a back translation from Jerome’s Vulgate.)

Amber

No offense,but what makes you believe the Catholic Church did not translate into different languages long before the Reformation? You seem to make conclusions strictly from one side of the fence? Gotta be on both sides to truly see if the grass is more green than the other side.

Peace

 

[amber_lux]

but what makes you believe the Catholic Church did not translate into different languages long before the Reformation?

What languages was the Bible translated into, between 1054 and 1536?
Who did those translations?
What happened to the individuals that made those translations?

Wycliffe Bible Translators is the source for the statement that the Bible was available in whole in or in part in 66 languages, in 1800.

If Paul Couch and Bible-Media are correct, with their claim that the Bible was available in 400 languages and 500 languages, then you are looking at the loss of 300+ language translations in 1400 years, and 400+ language translations in 1300 years.

The following are considered to be “Biblical languages”, because they have extant Biblical manuscripts from the first millennium.
o Arabic
o Aramaic
o Armenian
o Coptic
o Ethiopic
o Georgian
o Gothic
o Greek
o Hebrew
o Latin
o Old Church Slavonic
o Old Latin
o Syriac

If Paul Couch is wrong, you are still looking at only 53 languages in 800 years, most of which can be directly traced to translations done by non-Catholics.

You seem to make conclusions strictly from one side of the fence?

All the available evidence suggests that Catholics did translations into the vernacular, only after being prodded to do so.

Amber

 

[patricius79]

I wasn’t making a statement of faith. I was offering an opinion

.

aren’t the Lutheran Confessions a statement of faith which violate Sola Scriptura as to Purgatory?

(do the Lutheran Confessions confess that Purgatory is false?)

Why would this be a problem?

there is a problem if your appeal is not to Scripture alone as the rule of faith but to Scripture and Church History. then your argument would violate Sola Scriptura

See, I’m just not connecting to what you are saying, here. Perhaps you need to describe, specifically, what you think sola scriptura means. Is it your position that, anything I say regarding faith - “my parish needs to hold VBS this summer”, for example - must be supported by scripture?

that’s just it. I don’t know what “Sola Scriptura” means because I’ve never met anyone who defines it–the various Protestant groups sometimes disagree on its definition–and then follows the definition in discussion of the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

moreover nobody has ever shown me where it is in Scripture;-- or where Scripture says or implies that 2 Thes 2:15 and so many similar verses are said to be no longer active or reliable

the Catholic Church—the only historic source of the N.T. Canon-says upfront that pen and ink Scripture does not stand alone

but everyone else seems to believe that also yet does not acknowledge it. perhaps you can see that in regard to the Protestant Evangelical oral traditons about Communion and Baptism e.g. which disagree with the Lutheran interpretation

.

peace of Christ,

pat

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8052513].

aren’t the Lutheran Confessions a statement of faith which violate Sola Scriptura as to Purgatory, and the other points of disagreement with the Catholic Church?

No.

ther is a problem if your appeal is not to Scripture alone as the rule of faith but to Scripture and Lutheran oral traditions as to Church history. then your argument would violate Sola Scriptura

No. Since the Confessions, like the creeds and early councils are rigtht reflections of scripture, it is not a violation of SS to appeal to them. And as I said before, I don’t practice SS, the Church does, for the purpose of herneunetics.

that’s just it. I don’t know what “Sola Scriptura” means because I’ve never met anyone who defines it–the various Protestant groups sometimes disagree on its definition–and then follows the definition in discussion of the Catholic Church’s beliefs

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

moreover nobody has ever shown me where it is in Scripture;-- or where Scripture says or implies that 2 Thes 2:15 and so many similar verses are said to be no longer active or reliable

Now Pat, you’ve spent the last number of posts questioning why I would appeal to the creeds or councils, or as a Lutheran, to our confessions. That’s what I’m doing - 2 Thes 2:15

the Catholic Church—the only historic source of the N.T. Canon-says upfront that pen and ink Scripture does not stand alone

See above.

but everyone else seems to believe that also yet does not acknowledge it. perhaps you can see that in regard to the Protestant Evangelical oral traditons about Communion and Baptism e.g. which disagree with the Lutheran interpretation

I can only say they are wrong, but let me expand on Communion. In the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon says the following regarding the docrtine of the real presence:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper.

Notice he first references scripture. He then references in defense of the doctrine the universal Church, east and west. Finally, he appeals to the ECF’s. This is exactly how SS works.

peace of Christ,

And also with you, Pat.

Jon

 

[patricius79]

No.

No. Since the Confessions, like the creeds and early councils are rigtht reflections of scripture, it is not a violation of SS to appeal to them.

it seems it is a violation of Sola Scriptura since the Bible doesn’t say that the Lutheran Confessions are a right reflection of Scripture. I think you are appealing to the Confessions or the Lutheran Magisterium in a matter of faith rather than to Scripture Alone

]Notice he first references scripture. He then references in defense of the doctrine the universal Church, east and west. Finally, he appeals to the ECF’s. This is exactly how SS works.

I don’t think that is how it works with reference to the distinctive Protestant oral traditions

e.g. Luther’s points of dispute with the Catholic Church cannot be defended based on Sola Scriptura

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-ways-in-which-luther-had-departed.html

e.g. Luther’s oral tradition that the Lord’s Supper is not a Sacrifice, in contradiction to Scripture and all the fathers

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone.

I don’t think that the Bible says that.

And also with you, Pat.

Jon

thanks

I hope I am not coming off in a disrespectful way. I don’t think I am better than your or anyone. there is much that is Catholic in Lutheranism, including belief in the Real Presence as you noted

later, brother,

pat

 

[JonNC]

it seems it is a violation of Sola Scriptura since the Bible doesn’t say that the Lutheran Confessions are a right reflection of Scripture. I think you are appealing to the Confessions or the Lutheran Magisterium in a matter of faith rather than to Scripture Alone

I don’t think that is how it works with reference to the distinctive Protestant oral traditions

e.g. Luther’s points of dispute with the Catholic Church cannot be defended based on Sola Scriptura

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-ways-in-which-luther-had-departed.html

e.g. Luther’s oral tradition that the Lord’s Supper is not a Sacrifice, in contradiction to Scripture and all the fathers

I don’t think that the Bible says that.

thanks

I hope I am not coming off in a disrespectful way. I don’t think I am better than your or anyone. there is much that is Catholic in Lutheranism, including belief in the Real Presence as you noted

later, brother,

pat

Disrespectful? Oh, goodness no. I’ve enjoyed our dialogue. I would only say that it seems you want my understanding of SS to conform to that of others who express it differently, and I would say outside its intent. Other than that, I feel blessed by our conversation. Think of it, 15 years ago we would never have known the other existed. By God’s grace, and the gift of technology, you and I can have an interesting dialogue about our faith. One can only speculate how differently things might have worked out had Dr. Luther and Pope Leo X had instant communication.

Jon

 

[patricius79]

Disrespectful? Oh, goodness no. I’ve enjoyed our dialogue. I would only say that it seems you want my understanding of SS to conform to that of others who express it differently, and I would say outside its intent. Other than that, I feel blessed by our conversation. Think of it, 15 years ago we would never have known the other existed. By God’s grace, and the gift of technology, you and I can have an interesting dialogue about our faith. One can only speculate how differently things might have worked out had Dr. Luther and Pope Leo X had instant communication.

Jon

perhaps. thank you for your cordiality

I really don’t get why people respect the idea of Sola Scriptura–except in the patristic, Catholic sense–because for it to have any objective meaning it would have to mean interpreting Scripture as the Church Jesus founded always has interpreted it.

but none of the conflicted traditions which came out of the reformation comes close to the overal interpretation of anyone in the first millenium.

these versions of S.S. are not in Scripture. and Scripture itself says “I have much to write to you but would rather not write with pen and ink” 2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13, 2 Thes 2:15