Incarnation and Sola Scriptura

[Truthstalker]

To my mind SS is a self-sufficient presuppositional system, not subject to proof or in need of proof. It can handle paradox and enigma, it can handle interpreting any verse within its own confines, and it can handle tradition that is inconsistent with itself by the simple act of rejection of anything contradictory to it. If you operate on an SS basis, you cannot be dislodged. I’ve watched enough attempts at it from both sides to make that conclusion.

That paragraph is enough to draw some serious firepower on it all by its lonesome, but let me continue, as it is a precondition to what I would like to discuss.

Catholics operate out of a Scripture and Tradition mindset. It’s a consideration that it is NOT a presuppositional system but one logically arising from the doctrine of the incarnation. At this point I would, if pressed, argue that the recipe for apple butter arises from the doctrine of the incarnation, but I will spare us all that particular thread. We have revelation because of the incarnation. The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so it is soli verbum dei. Somehow the incarnation involves the bride of Christ, the Church, and the church speaks, and when the church speaks, it is the incarnate Word speaking, so the tradition is valid. I THINK that is the Catholic line of argument, but the Protestants will no doubt find a few holes in it.

The challenge to Protestants is to meet the Catholic argument on its own terms, rather than on SS terms, as instead of the SS presuppositional system being in play, an S+T system must be employed. Alternately philosophically you could step back and find the common ground on which either system, SS or S+T, can be evaluated as evaluative systems, but I am not convinced that ground exists. You have to start somewhere.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Truthstalker:

Of course, one has to assume your premises for the conclusion which you have reached about the not-too-old concept of Sola Scriptura.

That is presuming, of course, that the documents (the Scriptura) are the ones Jesus, Paul, and the OT and other NT authors knew and agreed to.

Sola Scriptura is based upon what Protestants euphemistically call Jewish retranslation of the Septuagint into Hebrew (from Jamnia) “the received version.”

However, TS, if you are basing your “defense” on the line of Protestant mistakes from the KJV, then that’s a horse of a different color.

You still have problems with other manuscripts. There is the alternative endings to Mark. The insertion in John 8 of the woman who committed adultery episode (written in Greek that is as different from John’s Greek as Shakespeare is from Dickens!).

Forget the quasi-dialectical approach. Study the Church history (that is, the Catholic Church from its early formation in Acts through the compilation of what we call the Bible for the next 300 years. I know it calls for some work and research on your part, but if you’re serious…

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker:

Of course, one has to assume your premises for the conclusion which you have reached about the not-too-old concept of Sola Scriptura.

That is presuming, of course, that the documents (the Scriptura) are the ones Jesus, Paul, and the OT and other NT authors knew and agreed to.

Sola Scriptura is based upon what Protestants euphemistically call Jewish retranslation of the Septuagint into Hebrew (from Jamnia) “the received version.”

However, TS, if you are basing your “defense” on the line of Protestant mistakes from the KJV, then that’s a horse of a different color.

You still have problems with other manuscripts. There is the alternative endings to Mark. The insertion in John 8 of the woman who committed adultery episode (written in Greek that is as different from John’s Greek as Shakespeare is from Dickens!).

Forget the quasi-dialectical approach. Study the Church history (that is, the Catholic Church from its early formation in Acts through the compilation of what we call the Bible for the next 300 years. I know it calls for some work and research on your part, but if you’re serious…

I think you totally missed the point here. Furthermore, you could theoretically totally destroy SS and discover someone believes in nothing rather than make a case for Scripture plus Tradition. For some reason Catholics assume if you destroy SS then Protestants will automatically become Catholic. Not so. You may destroy someone’s faith and leave them with nothing.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I think you totally missed the point here. Furthermore, you could theoretically totally destroy SS and discover someone believes in nothing rather than make a case for Scripture plus Tradition. For some reason Catholics assume if you destroy SS then Protestants will automatically become Catholic. Not so. You may destroy someone’s faith and leave them with nothing.

What is the point? You haven’t set your premises for your conclusions??!!

It sounds too much like that old chestnut:

1. God is Love
2. Love is blind
   ergo
3. God is Ray Charles.

Catholics I know do not assume “if you destroy SS then Protestants will automatically become Catholic.” That would be a flimsy basis for Faith. What Catholics contend (those whom I know, that is) is that Sola Scriptura is a red herring: the real issue is the false and (look to the proliferation of sects from the original Protestant groups) non-Christian tradition of personal interpretation of translations from translations of specific manuscripts. Go to the Septuagint. Argue from there. Go to the Vulgate or the Codex Vaticanus and make your case from there for Sola Scriptura.

That is the point. Not some linguistic pyrotechnics.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Where is it in the Bible that it ALONE is the Only Source of Final Authority in all matters?

No where in the Bible does it teaches Sola Scriptura.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Right on, brother Grunt.

retired 0-5 (CAARNG) 11A, 42A

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you totally missed the point here. Furthermore, you could theoretically totally destroy SS and discover someone believes in nothing rather than make a case for Scripture plus Tradition. For some reason Catholics assume if you destroy SS then Protestants will automatically become Catholic. Not so. You may destroy someone’s faith and leave them with nothing.

Truthseeker-

Consider the following analogy of my own creation and tread gently upon it since it is new.

You have a glass filled partially filled with a combination of oil and vinegar. The oil represents truth while the vinegar represents falsehood. Have your seatbelt fastened? Here we go:

The glass represents each person who potentially has both of these liquids present in his thinking. The size of the glass represents the amount of time and energy each person has spent dwelling on the things of God along with how open that person has been to these things.

Some people may have very large glasses that are largely filled with vinegar. Others may have very small glasses that are largely or wholly filled with truth. The opposite of each of these examples is also possible.

Here’s the part that’s hard to hear:

1. Everything someone believes which is true is Catholic.
2. Everything someone believes which is false is not Catholic.
3. Nothing found within the faith of Catholicism is false.
4. Everything found outside the Catholic faith is false.

An example of (1) would include believing that the Bible is inspired by God. This is a Catholic thought held by both Catholics and Protestants. An example of (2) would include the idea that Mary should be worshipped as the fourth member of the Godhead. This is not a Catholic thought, and I have no idea who might possibly believe it - I wanted an absurd illustration.

Some glasses are found sitting in Prostestant congregations on Sunday morning; others are at a Catholic Mass on Saturday evening.

Good Catholic and Protestant glasses alike seek to eliminate the vinegar while increasing the oil they contain. This moves all glasses inevitably toward the Catholic faith.

+++

I do not assume that by destroying sola scriptura, I will convince you to become Catholic. The Holy Spirit will do that. My purpose is to drain the vinegar of misunderstanding from your glass so that the Holy Spirit has more room with which to fill you with the oil of truth.

Cling to the good of your faith. Add to it the good from ours.

 

[kleary]

The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture.

The Canon of the Scriptures- particularly the New Testament Scriptures- IS A VALID ORAL TRADITION that is NOT WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE.

I keep saying this in thread after thread after thread- but no one who defends Sola Scriptura seems to pay any attention to it- they IGNORE IT.

The Canon of Scripture is a truth revealed by God yet it is not in Scripture. Therefore the Canon of Scripture is Divine Revelation “not in Scripture”- what we Catholics call “Sacred Tradition”.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Not so. You may destroy someone’s faith and leave them with nothing.

I heard someone say at one time that you can prove to a man his faith is wrong but if his faith is strong no one can prove to him it is wrong.

All we have to see is where this “faith” started-

Is Sola Scriptura the original Christian Faith started by the Jesus Christ and then given to us by His Apostles? It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Sola Scriptura relies on an invention called the printing press which did not exist until the middle ages.

If Sola Scriptura was a truth revealed by God then Jesus would have written everything down and the Apostles would have copied it over and over again so many times so that every single layman had a copy of it.

Sola Scriptura is IMPOSSIBLE for the first 1500 or so years of Christianity.

Ken

 

[Truthstalker]

Newsflash, people:

Had you actually read the OP, you would have noticed that Sola Scriptura is not the point of debate here. Most of what’s been posted so far is regurgitated from other threads and is of no interest to me.

This thread is supposed to discuss the relationship between the doctrine of the incarnation and Scripture plus Tradition as the sole valid methodology of dealing with revelation.

 

[mark_a]

For some reason Catholics assume if you destroy SS then Protestants will automatically become Catholic. Not so. You may destroy someone’s faith and leave them with nothing.

Great point.

And we don’t want to destroy anyone’s faith. We genuinely want to clear up the nonsense that is spread by some people who hate the Catholic Church. What a person decides to do from that point is free will.

 

[mark_a]

Newsflash, people:

Had you actually read the OP, you would have noticed that Sola Scriptura is not the point of debate here. Most of what’s been posted so far is regurgitated from other threads and is of no interest to me.

This thread is supposed to discuss the relationship between the doctrine of the incarnation and Scripture plus Tradition as the sole valid methodology of dealing with revelation.

That’s way too deep for me. Revelation shmevelation. What we simple folk need is someone to guide us in how to live a good life and get to heaven.

The gospels give us the examples we need. The Catholic Church tells us how to apply these examples.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Newsflash, people:

Had you actually read the OP, you would have noticed that Sola Scriptura is not the point of debate here. Most of what’s been posted so far is regurgitated from other threads and is of no interest to me.

This thread is supposed to discuss the relationship between the doctrine of the incarnation and Scripture plus Tradition as the sole valid methodology of dealing with revelation.

Newsflash, TS-

What I wrote about oil and vinegar is original material composed today just for you.

I hope you feel special.

If you want answers to questions this complex, why not post it at envoymagazine.com/Forum/default.asp ?

Some of the “big boys” over there will be happy to take up the subject with you.

 

[apophasis]

We have revelation because of the incarnation. The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so it is soli verbum dei. Somehow the incarnation involves the bride of Christ, the Church, and the church speaks, and when the church speaks, it is the incarnate Word speaking, so the tradition is valid. I THINK that is the Catholic line of argument, but the Protestants will no doubt find a few holes in it.

NONE of us saw Jesus. NONE of us heard Him speak. NONE of us were at His crucifixion. NONE of us saw Him after His bodily resurrection. NONE of us saw Him ascend back to heaven. All WE have is written testimony regarding these events.

NONE of us heard Paul speak, or Peter and any of the Apostles. All WE have is their teachings preserved in HOLY SPIRIT inspired writings. And “All Scripture is inspired (theopneustos, God breathed) by God…” (2 Tim. 3:16).Jesus spoke many truths to His generation. But He wrote no Scriptures. What truths He spoke concerning Himself and salvation were subsequently written by men the Holy Spirit Himself chose to pen His “God-breathed” Scriptures.

Yes, divine revelation came through the incarnate Son, but this revelation is preserved FOR US in “God breathed,” preserved, hard-copied Scriptures. Without them all that Christ and the Apostles said, did and taught would have been corrupted and lost. Oral tradition has absolutely no power to preserve divine truth. In fact, one cannot even prove its origin.Then the Lord said to me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over My Word to perform it."

 

[Verita]

Oral tradition has absolutely no power to preserve divine truth. In fact, one cannot even prove its origin.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Of course you can prove its origin. It’s origin is Jesus. Jesus came and taught orally. He passed on His oral teachings to the Apostles who in turn passed on His oral teachings to their followers, specifically to those who they appointed as Church leaders after them, the Bishops. From there is goes on and on to today. You can find this formula all over in the writings of the ECFs.

 

[mikeledes]

NONE of us saw Jesus. NONE of us heard Him speak. NONE of us were at His crucifixion. NONE of us saw Him after His bodily resurrection. NONE of us saw Him ascend back to heaven. All WE have is written testimony regarding these events.

NONE of us heard Paul speak, or Peter and any of the Apostles. All WE have is their teachings preserved in HOLY SPIRIT inspired writings. And “All Scripture is inspired (theopneustos, God breathed) by God…” (2 Tim. 3:16).Jesus spoke many truths to His generation. But He wrote no Scriptures. What truths He spoke concerning Himself and salvation were subsequently written by men the Holy Spirit Himself chose to pen His “God-breathed” Scriptures.

Yes, divine revelation came through the incarnate Son, but this revelation is preserved FOR US in “God breathed,” preserved, hard-copied Scriptures. Without them all that Christ and the Apostles said, did and taught would have been corrupted and lost. Oral tradition has absolutely no power to preserve divine truth. In fact, one cannot even prove its origin.Then the Lord said to me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over My Word to perform it."

I apologize if this may sound “regurgitated” to some, but by what authority was Scripture put together? Who decided what books belonged in the Bible? Why wasn’t the Book of Enoch included in the Bible, despite the fact that it is quoted in the Epistle of Saint Jude as written by Enoch? Last time I checked, there was no divinely inspired table of contents. Moreover, why did it take nearly 300 years before the New Testament as we know it became the official/approved canon?

If oral tradition was so unreliable, why didn’t Jesus directly write His own words? Why did it take several decades before the Evangelists wrote down His sayings (Read opening of the Gospel of Luke).

How are you so sure the text of the Bible was not tampered with later in history? How do you know if things were taken out or added?

Please point out where in the Bible does it says that oral tradition has no power to preserve divine truth? How was the prophecy of Enoch preserved for several millenia before it was commited to writing in the 2/1st century B.C.?

God Bless,
Michael

God Bless,
Michael

 

[exiled]

From my conversations with a protestant friend, it is my understanding that the apostles were the only men who had some degree of “infallible” authority, and that it is the teachings of the apostles only that are authoritative teachings we have.
So my question is, on what authority do protestants not include letters of Thomas, Jude, and any other apostles? And by what authority do they include letters from men who were not apostles, for instance, Luke?
It is my understanding that none of the original apostles’ letters are in extant today, so our protestant brethern are trusting men to have passed down accurate translations, because while the original letters were “God-breathed”, there was not such a guarantee on copies.
I guess this is kinda off topic…sorry.

 

[exiled]

To my mind SS is a self-sufficient presuppositional system, not subject to proof or in need of proof. It can handle paradox and enigma, it can handle interpreting any verse within its own confines, and it can handle tradition that is inconsistent with itself by the simple act of rejection of anything contradictory to it. If you operate on an SS basis, you cannot be dislodged. I’ve watched enough attempts at it from both sides to make that conclusion.

That paragraph is enough to draw some serious firepower on it all by its lonesome, but let me continue, as it is a precondition to what I would like to discuss.

Catholics operate out of a Scripture and Tradition mindset. It’s a consideration that it is NOT a presuppositional system but one logically arising from the doctrine of the incarnation. At this point I would, if pressed, argue that the recipe for apple butter arises from the doctrine of the incarnation, but I will spare us all that particular thread. We have revelation because of the incarnation. The challenge to the Catholic on this thread is to demonstrate that because of the incarnation we necessarily have a valid oral Tradition today as well as the written Scripture. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so it is soli verbum dei. Somehow the incarnation involves the bride of Christ, the Church, and the church speaks, and when the church speaks, it is the incarnate Word speaking, so the tradition is valid. I THINK that is the Catholic line of argument, but the Protestants will no doubt find a few holes in it.

The challenge to Protestants is to meet the Catholic argument on its own terms, rather than on SS terms, as instead of the SS presuppositional system being in play, an S+T system must be employed. Alternately philosophically you could step back and find the common ground on which either system, SS or S+T, can be evaluated as evaluative systems, but I am not convinced that ground exists. You have to start somewhere.

God created man out of Love.
Man disobeys his good and Almighty God.
Man is exiled.
God establishes a people, a nation, which is built up by one family and provides a system of laws/ordinances to draw men back to Himself.
Man messes that up through continued disobedience, and mis-interpretation.
God becomes man to reconcile the world to Himself.
God the Son establishes a people, a family of grace, united through Him.
As in a family, there is a Father (God), and a Mother (the Church), and the Son, who is perfectly obedient, and our example.
We are adopted children, sharing Flesh and Blood, and sharing a Mother.
As is a human family (an ideal human family) Father is at the head, and Mother teaches the children as the Father wills. She is One Flesh with Him, and there is no disunity.
As Scott Hahn says, the church is a family, with the objective of living fully united with God the Holy Trinity.
Jesus did not order anyone to write a book, but He did refer to marriage as the model for the Church.
This is pretty simple stuff, but it means a whole lot to me to see my Father, Mother and Brother in this light.

 

[Truthstalker]

I am really dissatisfied with this thread and the way it is being treated, so I am unsubscribing. There is a valid topic here but it is being ignored in favor of a cheap and quickie apologetic that has been debated ad infinitum to no resolution.

 

[apophasis]

You’ve got to be kidding me. Of course you can prove its origin. It’s origin is Jesus. Jesus came and taught orally. He passed on His oral teachings to the Apostles who in turn passed on His oral teachings to their followers, specifically to those who they appointed as Church leaders after them, the Bishops. From there is goes on and on to today. You can find this formula all over in the writings of the ECFs.

According to Catholic theology the “oral traditions” are those teaching by the Apostles that were not passed down via the written Scriptures. Which of course begs the question, how do you prove such teachings originated with the Apostles?

Take your doctrine of the “Bodily Assumption of Mary.” This is suppose to be based on “oral tradition” since there is no word of it found in the Scriptures. Which Apostles taught this doctrine? Which Apostles witnessed it? How do you even prove that they taught such a doctrine? And how come there’s no mention of this alleged event until centuries AFTER the Apostolic age?