Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Algo1]

David T. King p.112 Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I

I must say, I just love the way he not only carefully twists Scripture to avoid any possible reference to a Living Tradition within his book’s pages

Pastor King actually does make reference to “a Living Tradition”:

**Gnosticism and Romanism

Oscar Cullmann:** Despite the deep gulf between them in other respects, is it not true to say that the Catholic Church, Gnosticism, and ancient and modern sects which claim a superior enlightenment, are at one in denying that scripture is a superior norm for the testing of the genuine activity of the Holy Spirit? The Church will examine every later revelation, individual or collective, but will always take as criterion this norm (scripture) of the apostolic witness. The Church will therefore not be a superior tribunal able to decree what must be added to this norm. Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, trans. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 83.
One wonders how many times Irenaeus’ own testimony must be brought forward to dispel the notion that he viewed the essence of apostolic tradition to be anything other than the substance of that which was deposited in Holy Scripture. Indeed, it was the very notion of an extrabiblical body of oral tradition that Irenaeus charges was first objected to the Church’s witness by certain Gnostic heretics. Refusing to be bound to the testimony of Scripture alone, the Gnostics, appealed to a living tradition. The similarities between the ancient heresy of the Gnostics and the claims of Roman Catholicism are brought into sharp focus in the following quotation from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: ANF: Vol. I, Book 3:2:1. See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Vol 1 (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 92-93, 115, where he discusses this passage from Irenaeus. See also the explanation of Martin Chemnitz on this passage from Irenaeus in his Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, pp. 233-234. Frances Turretin, likewise, drew attention to this similarity between the charges of Roman Catholic controversialists in his day and the Gnostic heretics of whom Irenaeus speaks in this passage. See his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 1, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), pp. 85-86, (II.vi.1).

Commenting on the same foregoing passage from Irenaeus, G. W. H. Lampe concurs that “According to Irenaeus the Valentinians (a Gnostic sect) claimed that the truth in Scripture cannot be discovered by those who are ignorant of tradition.” Coupled with this observation, the same writer then proceeds to make the same striking connection:
G. W. H. Lampe: In Gnosticism, therefore, we encounter for the first time the idea of unwritten tradition as an authority for doctrine. Unlike orthodox tradition, it is neither the raw material, as it were, of what is to become Scripture, nor the explication of what is contained in Scripture. It is wholly independent of Scripture and is even superior to it, since only in the light of the tradition can Scripture be understood. Doctrine and practice alike are founded upon it. It claims to be apostolic tradition, handed down in succession from the apostles. The Gnostic theory was reasonable enough, given the doctrinal principles of the movement. Having denied the historical basis of the gospel, the Gnostics seek to reinterpret it in alien terms with the aid of a spurious tradition. A similar theory of tradition, however, adopted from different motives, is by no means unknown today. Quoted from his essay in F. W. Dillistone, ed. Scripture and Tradition (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955), p. 41.
David T. King Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I p. 59ff.

continued.

 

[Algo1]

****continued:

Gerhard Maier: To summarize: enscripturated revelation maintains that it is accessible and sufficiently clear for every person to understand. True, it links comprehensive understanding and existential transformation to the gift of the Holy Spirit. But philological understanding and the essential content lie open to every person. The Christian community itself requires no special class of people “in the know” who alone are competent to open up Scripture’s meaning to the rest. Therefore, we abide by the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture in the double sense alluded to above.
The protest against the perspicuity of Scripture has traditionally come from three quarters: from Gnosticism, from the champions of the Catholic teaching office, and from historical-critical theologians Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 183.

E. Flesseman-Van Leer: For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce, is a Gnostic line of thought. E. Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen, 1954), pp. 133.

** Flesseman-Van Leer wrote concerning both Irenaeus and Tertullian: “They deny most decidedly the existence of extrascriptural tradition. To appeal exclusively to revelatory truth apart from Scripture is heretical gnosticism.” ** E. Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, p. 191.

**Vittorio Subilia: ** It would not be difficult to detect in the Roman concept of the charisma veritatis a threefold Gnostic idea at work. In the first place the notion that truth is known only to the hierarchy introduces into the Church the esoteric idea of there being ‘initiates who possess the gnosis, and non-initiates who do not possess it, but can receive it from the hierarchy’. Thus the gospel notion of truth is substituted by one which seems not unconnected with Gnostic ideas.
Secondly, there is the idea of the ‘living voice of the magisterium’ and the idea of truth committed by Christ directly to the apostles and passed on by word of mouth without ever being fixed in written form, constituting thus the secret key for interpreting the written traditions in the true sense intended by the Master. Here we cannot but think of that tradition so favoured by the Gnostics, that set the greatest store on that period between the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, which cannot be historically verified and in which he is alleged not only to have communicated to certain favoured disciples the secret knowledge necessary for the understanding of the words he had spoken during his public ministry, but also to have given them a series of special revelation reserved for the ‘perfect’.
In the third place one might note a Gnostic, as well as Jewish, influence, in the way of interpreting the apostolic succession as a succession both of doctrine and of persons from the apostles down, a chain of transmission through history, intended to guarantee the apostolicity both of the content and the origins of the message and of its interpretation. This seems to have been a device, used by both the Gnostic and Christian sides, to counter each other’s propaganda attacks, from Irenaeus, perhaps even from Hegesippus on. This concept is closely bound up with that of oral tradition, and it is to be recalled that the most ancient document known to us in which we first find the phrases ‘apostolic tradition’ and ‘succession’ is not a document of the Church, but a Gnostic one of Valentinian tendencies, the Epistle of Ptolomy to ‘sister’ Flora. Vittorio Subilia, The Problem of Catholicism, trans. Reginald Kissack (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 130-131.
David T. King Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I p. 59ff.

continued:

 

[paul_c]

I will agree with you, testimony is a better word.

Agreed, they were not sola scripurists. They also did not live in a time when the Church was in Great Schism, where the two “lungs” of the Church could not agree.
You guys fix that, and I’ll submit. I’ll completely trust in reconciled Magisterium.

Jon

Jon,
Honestly, Based on your posts here, you will cross the Tiber before the Orthodox. It will be an interesting witness story when you finally do so. I for one will be greatly interested to see what will finally drive you to take the plunge. Those Catholic posters here in the last few days weren’t discerning in the difference between your views and the other non-Catholics here.

I think the final thing for you will be to grow to trust the Catholic Church as authoritative. I know this can be difficult after perhaps many generations of distrust. And I know you have posted numerous times that you would trust the Church if the Orthodox do but really, what is not to trust. There is no motivation for the Pope to mislead the flock. Afterall, he knows that he is answerable to God and is responsible for the souls of a Billion plus people. What is to be gained by a Pope declaring falsely that Mary’s conception was immaculate? So why would he do it if it was’t the truth?

As we all know, Sola Scriptura is all about authority. The very essence of Sola Scriptura is replacing the Church’s teaching with private Bible interpretation You can describe it as the final normative value if you want, but that’s fallacious. If two people can interpret the same verse differently, its not normative at all. While Protestants in good conscience may believe their interpretations are correct and obvious (and at times they certainly are), the mere fact that there are doctrinal agreements makes the need for true authority paramount. No one has a better claim to be that authority than the Pope. Luther certainly did not.

 

[Algo1]

Peter Toon: Later in the history of the Church a need was felt to supplement Scripture by teaching from Tradition and this is the ‘supplementary view’. Gnostics adopted this position in the second century and it was the commonly held view in Roman Catholicism from the sixteeth to the nineteeth century Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), p. 138.

J. N. D. Kelly: Not only did the Gnostics exploit Scripture to their own ends, but one of their techniques was to appeal, in support of their speculations, to an alleged secret apostolic tradition to which they claimed to have access. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 4th edition (London: Adam & Charles Black, reprinted 1968), p. 36.

** J. N. D. Kelly: Did Irenaeus then subordinate Scripture to unwritten tradition? This inference has been commonly drawn, but it issues from a somewhat misleading antithesis. Its plausibility depends on such considerations as (a) that, in controversy with the Gnostics, tradition rather than Scripture seemed to be his final court of appeal, and (b) that he apparently relied upon tradition to establish the true exegesis of Scripture. But a careful analysis of his Adverus haereses reveals that, while the Gnostics’ appeal to their supposed secret tradition forced him to stress the superiority of the Church’s public tradition, his real defence of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture. Indeed, tradition itself, on his view, was confirmed by Scripture, which was ‘the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ ** J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 4th edition (London: Adam & Charles Black, reprinted 1968), pp. 38-39. Here Kelly directs the reader to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, 2:35:4, “But that I may not be thought to avoid that series of proofs which may be derived from the Scriptures of the Lord (since, indeed, these Scriptures do much more evidently and clearly proclaim this very point), I shall, for the benefit of those at least who do not bring a depraved mind to bear upon them, devote a special book to the Scriptures referred to, which shall fairly follow them out [and explain them], and I shall plainly set forth from these divine Scriptures proofs to [satisfy] all the lovers of truth.” Kelly also cites 3:5:1, where we read, “Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.”
David T. King Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I p. 63ff

continued:

 

[Algo1]

David T. King p.112 Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. I

but, in its title, also carefully avoids even allowing the visible Body of Christ, which Holy Scripture actually says is the “Ground and Pillar” not only “of Our Faith,” as he puts it, but moreover of “The Truth,” as the Bible actually puts it, to be mentioned in that same phrase that he so carefully excised from Scripture with a tweezer, so as to remove it safely from its dangerous, SS-uprooting, minefield of a biblical context: namely “the House of God, the Church of the Living God”.

According to Pastor King, he and William Webster derived the sub-title of their series from the following early witness:

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in **the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ** ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:1:1.

That carefully twisted title just declares, from the outset, exactly how straightforward and honest he plans to be about the Holy and Immutable (that’s unchangeable a.k.a. un-mix-up-able, for those who don’t have their dictionaries handy) Word of God (i.e. not very).

If you want to accuse someone of twisting a title, maybe you can start with Irenaeus.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Funny, I thought it was dialogue. That seems to be the approach our two communions have mutually decided to venture into since Vatican II.
How do you know if I ignore the Church Suffering? The fact that I see no scriptural evidence of an intermediate state/place of purgation, doesn’t mean I reject purgation. The fact is I don’t. Perhaps a question on a subject, framed in dialogue, instead of an assumption, would be more conducive to good dialogue.

Please forgive me, Jon, for the inadvertant/lazy use of the word “debate” (which I, in my haste, hadn’t considered can sound unnecessarily argumentative) instead of “discussion.” You are correct that our two communions, and I believe both of us as individuals, prefer discussion to argumentation.

Again, regarding Purgatory, I am likewise sorry; I presumed, erroneously, that you excluded the Church Suffering because a) you did not mention it when agreeing that Christ cannot be seperated from His Body, the Church, and b) because it is my understanding that Luther rejected Purgatory and you call yourself a Lutheran. Granted, I have not studied Luther specifically, being born Calvinist, so I probably shouldn’t have made that assumption either. (Boy am I screwing up today! Since we’re on this subject momentarily and I’d like to know, did Luther reject it? I thought that was part of the reason he didn’t accept the Maccabees, but that could just be a rumor I heard somewhere…)

Regarding our disagreements and agreements, don’t you believe that starting with and rejoicing in that which we agree is a good thing? I’m quite willing to discuss in charity with any Catholic here what our disagreements are (I’ve been here for 7,000 posts, afterall). A good place to start is to ask what we each believe, not tell the other what they believe.

How did I do with that asking thing? (See above)

I emphatically agree that we should rejoice in our agreements. Again, I concede that I overzealously saw what seemed to be ending the dialogue at them as avoiding them. That was definitely my mis-apprehension. So, yet again, I apologize.

((To Be Continued…))

 

[Tiberius1701]

((Continued…))

This thread is about sola scriptura. I participated initially to state the Lutheran understanding of the practice, which is, the practice of the Church to use scripture as the final norm in holding all teachers and teachings accountable. It is not an exclusion of Tradition, but in fact embraces Tradition that is in keeping with scripture.

If you wish to dialogue regarding this, and not the more recent morphing of it into solo scriptura, then lets dialogue. Don’t ask me to defend the practices of those who have never agreed with Lutherans regarding this, or other doctrines, as they are irrelevent to such a discussion.

I fully accept that the Lutheran conception of SS is different than many other conceptions (I dislike using the term “solo” simply because it’s… well, I was going to say “bad” Latin, but really it’s just not Latin. Prehaps we should just go ahead and pick a new language - say Spanish - and say solo Scripturo, so at least the conjugation matches? Anyway… that’s just the linguist in my fussing.), giving a relatively high place to Tradition and the Magisterium. I can’t quite concede, though, that the more… completely anti-authoritarian variety is completely irrelevant because I do think that there’s a distinct connection to… (how do I put this?) …the spirit of the initial use of SS, a spirit that reaches is fullest expression in the, shall we say, “Spanish” versions. I think it’s important not just to recognize the intended purpose of thoughts and teachings, but also the end results, the logical conclusions, of those thoughts. And, while I may be wrong, I do think that the logical consequence of even the Lutheran conception of SS is the eventual degeneration into the “Spanish” conception of SS, even to the extremes of Mormonism, the JWs, etc. After all, many, many, many things throughout history have been intended for good, but shown themselves, in the end, to be radically flawed and disastrous. I believe SS is one of those things…

So, how is the Church headless? Christ is the head of His bride, the Church, just as the husband is the head of the family.

See above. Perhaps I didn’t respond because of the polemic nature of the question. If, instead, you wish to ask me if Christianity would be better off under one leader, I shall be happy to dialogue with you regarding that, as well.

As I tried to clarify (perhaps poorly) in my last post, referring to the “headless body” is not meant to say that Lutheranism is severed from Christ, but is a metaphor of sorts regarding the historical fact that it has severed itself from the visible Steward of the Headship of Christ on Earth, the Pope. I trust you will at least agree that the Lutheran communions are all dis-united from that visible, unitive authority.

The authority of Rome, and the bishops in communion with him, (i.e. the Magisterium) acts in persona Capitis Christi over the universal Body of Christ in matters of faith and morals. My assertion, firstly, was that I believe I have greater assurance of Truth specifically because I remain linked *not only *to the invisible Head of the Church (i.e. Christ in Heaven), but also particularly and importantly to the current and perpetual, visible line of unitive Apostolic Authority in the Chair of Peter. The thrust of my (unintentionally, though far too harshly and zealously phrased, polemical) questions was that I’m curious to understand how you can feel more or equally secure in your knowledge of the Truth as I, when you do not have a single, unitive authority to which to bring disagreements. I have heard many Lutherans on this forum and in testimonies that I’ve read online, say that within the Lutheran communion(s) it is not uncommon for serious differences of interpretation to arrise. After all, are there not even multiple, seperate synods of Lutheranism? If even those with, presumably, the same conception of SS, cannot find unity in it, how can you be sure?

The other point of using the analogy/metaphor, of course, was to say that the Body of Christ was simply not meant to do the job of the Magisterium (aka the visible Head)…

Live long and prosper ,
Jon

Peace and long life.
Jack
(P.S. Again, I’m sorry that I let my zeal for the discussion run away with me there…)

 

[justtryin]

((continued…))

(p.s. Sorry to my fellow catholics who’ve been asking the protestants to prove that ss was believed before the reformation… I think i just proved that for them. :bigyikes

absolutely amazing!!!

 

[justtryin]

I would like to know more about the sola scriptura argument as it relates to historical context.
When was this argument first proposed?
Was it ever argued prior to the invention of the printing press?

((Continued…))

See how very fond Satan is of SS?

(P.S. Sorry to my fellow Catholics who’ve been asking the Protestants to prove that SS was believed before the reformation… I think I just proved that for them.)

As was mentioned earlier, satan used (twisted through omission) Scripture to tempt Christ in the desert. There has got to be more to this than meets the eye.

 

[inkaneer]

I will agree with you, testimony is a better word.

Agreed, they were not sola scripurists. They also did not live in a time when the Church was in Great Schism, where the two “lungs” of the Church could not agree.
You guys fix that, and I’ll submit. I’ll completely trust in reconciled Magisterium.

Jon

So what makes you think that the “two lungs” are not in agreement? I say they are in agreement. The proof of this is the Byzantine Catholic Church which shares the same understanding of theological doctrines as do the Orthodox yet are united with the Pope. The Orthodox do not view the Pope as universal bishop as do the Byzantine. On this point I believe the Orthodox have no theological ground to stand on. Scripture is quite clear that Jesus entrusted his flock to Peter [John 21:15-17].

The Orthodox position has no basis in scripture or in Apostolic Tradition but rather is born of geo-political issues with a sinful dose of self pride. Case in point the Orthodox loathe anything Latin. Ask them if they believe in purgatory and they will say no. Purgatory is of course derived from a Latin word. But then ask them what is Final Theosis and they will give you the Catholic definition of purgatory. Constantine may have moved the political capital of the Empire to Byzantium [Constantinople] but the Church remained rooted in Rome. Caesaropapism was alive and well in the Eastern Church until the end of the Byzantine Empire. But don’t think for one moment that the Islamic conquest of lands of the Eastern Church was not divine retribution for the actions of the emperor and his stooge Photius that was at the heart of causing the schism.

Unity with the Orthodox is the same as with the protestants. You left us; we did not leave you. You want unity then you come back to us. We will not compromise on Truth. The Pope is the successor to Peter, the universal bishop and chief steward of the Church and sola scriptura is a doctrine from the depths of hell seeking to divide and fracture the unity of the Church that Jesus prayed for.

 

[TobyLue]

For the most part I seldom post on CA anymore and just do reading. However, I don’t think the following has been asked of Miguel Sastre where he quoted

Protestants counter that because Tradition–**as defined by Rome–**includes doctrines that contradict scripture–and because Tradition has been thus errantly defined by the magisterium–that scripture is the only access we have to God’s word today.

I would like to know, Miguel, what your understanding of the bold part is. Explain to us Catholics how Rome has defined “Tradition” which YOU saycontradicts scripture and give us a few scriptures that you know definitely, and proven without a doubt that CC doctrines contradict scripture. Maybe five, or four, or maybe even one.

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[JonNC]

As I tried to clarify (perhaps poorly) in my last post, referring to the “headless body” is not meant to say that Lutheranism is severed from Christ, but is a metaphor of sorts regarding the historical fact that it has severed itself from the visible Steward of the Headship of Christ on Earth, the Pope. I trust you will at least agree that the Lutheran communions are all dis-united from that visible, unitive authority.

Peace and long life.
Jack
(P.S. Again, I’m sorry that I let my zeal for the discussion run away with me there…)

Hey Jack,
I truly believe we both got a bit “excited”. In our other conversations, we’ve had many agreements, and as I mentioned regarding the Eucharist, you made a very powerful witness. Bygones are indeed bygones, and I respect and honor your strong faith and winess here.

His peace,

Jon

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

So just to lay it out in chronological order how our faith comes to be

1. The existence of the person of Christ, his life, and his resurrection has been handed down by eye-witnesses to others and so forth till the church has handed it down to me

With some qualifications, I think any Eastern Orthodox or Protestant could say the same. That said, the only access that we have today to the eyewitness testimony you speak of is what we read in scripture. So, yes, I quite agree. What we know about Christ today has been handed down from the beginning. And we read about this in scripture.

1. I believe that Christ was real because under extreme persecution, and extreme novel nature and absurdity of their position, these first eye-witnesses stood by their claim.

So did the followers of Joseph Smith. But that didn’t make Smith a prophet. If I’m following you, I think you may be simply stating a variation on the argument from history: i.e., that against all the odds, the church flourished and so if the Resurrection were only a myth, then the church should have gone out of existence a long time ago. If that’s your position, then I would agree.

I do not believe that Christ was real because he was self-evident. I don’t think anyone can claim that the existence of Christ is self-evident.

I don’t think anyone does make this claim. Jesus’ existence is a matter of historical fact. No one seriously disputes this even among secular historians. What isn’t self-evident, however, was his divinity. That was something he had to reveal.

So I know it from the Church, not because of its authority (at this point in time, I would not know the church has any authority) but because of the testimony it has guarded.

You could also know that Christ existed from sources external to the church. But would you believe that he rose from the dead or that he was divine based on those sources? Probably not.

1. Then I use the Bible, merely as a historical text together with other manuscripts (Tradition) of that time to understand how the early church looked like and how Jesus’ closest followers interpreted Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There’s a lot going on in this premise. First, notice that you’re the one using the Bible-as-history, which at the very minimum means that you’re approaching the Bible as a fallible interpreter, right? This means that any interpretation you make of the Bible, at this point in your argument, can be subject to error. So, assuming that the Bible gives us accurate history about the life of Christ, you could still be wrong in your interpretation of what that history is saying about Jesus and the church he founded. (For surely you’re not presupposing your own infallibility here, right?)

So your claim here seems to be that you are able to isolate your pre-existing beliefs about biblical inspiration and authority, and the infallibility of the church and its tradition, in order to objectively and dispassionately come to the text on the neutral ground of “history,” and thereby conclude that Jesus is who he said he was, that the church he founded thereby has his authority, and thus you can take it on the authority of the church that the Bible that you were reading as simple history, can now be read as inspired scripture. Right?

Let me just point out one thing that you said that calls into question whether or not you’re being as objective as you claim. You said above that Jesus’ closest followers interpreted Scripture, “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” But I’m not sure you can appeal to the Holy Spirit yet if you’re merely reading the Bible-as-history. In other words, I don’t think you’re sufficiently aware of your own pre-existing bias here.

Continued next post…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued from previous post…

But assuming for the sake of argument that your argument is sound so far, this leads to…

1. Then I see that there was indeed a church, with hierarchy who always preached and defended the faith. I also see that the position of Bishop and Papacy for an example continues on and does not end with the apostles. The apostles themselves replaced Judas with a new apostle. So whoever else they appointed next must have the same authority as well and so forth.

Amazing. So you came to this conclusion in your diligent reading of scripture (as mere historically accurate book), and quite independently of your prior beliefs in (or willingness to believe in) an infallible, hierarchical church? And there’s not the slightest chance that your prior beliefs or bias may have influenced your reading of the “not-yet-inspired-Bible-as-pure-history” so as to predetermine the outcome of your interpretation?

Assuming this amazing feat of objectivity, I would ask you what I did before. Is there any chance—at this point in your argument—that you may be wrong in your interpretation? For example—what would you say to the non-Catholic who comes to the same text (merely as history) and concludes that there is no papacy, who might have a different take on apostolic succession? It seems to me that about all you could do at this point is simply disagree with them. You couldn’t appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church or the inspiration of scripture because—at the point in your argument—you don’t yet know these things are true.

1. So now I know the Catholic Church represents the apostles.

That’s a huge leap. I don’t see how you went from 4 to 5. Suddenly you went from the apostles mentioned in the Bible-as-history, and jumped to the conclusion that they were Catholics. But that’s not in the Bible, whether you take it as mere history or also as God’s word.

1. Therefore I trust the Catholic Church because if I trace it back all the way, it carries the authority give by Jesus himself to the first apostles, handed down by them to their successors and whoever else they appointed.

1. Thus, I put my full trust in the Catholic Church as being guided by the holy spirit infallibly with respect to matters of teaching, just like the first apostles were after Pentecost.

I don’t see where you’re getting infallibility from either. It’s one thing to say that you believe, as a matter of history, that the churches that the apostles founded around the Roman empire eventually called themselves “catholic.” It’s quite another to say the Catholic Church is infallible. There seem to be several missing steps in your argument.

Let me try:

1. The Bible has enough history in it to be reasonably certain about the claims Jesus of Nazareth made.
2. One such claim is that he claimed to be God.
3. He proved this by rising from the dead. All attempts to discredit the Resurrection run headlong into plausibility problems. Why would people die for what they knew was a lie? What explains the rapid growth of the church better than their claim to have seen him? If 500 plus witnesses say they saw him after he was crucified, should we not at least consider the possibility that he made good on his claim? So make your choice: Is it more likely that, A., the church is bluffing or, B, that he in deed is risen?
4. Good. Assuming you went with B, then you can believe whatever Jesus says on the authority of God himself.
5. He said he would establish a church, endow it with a papacy, the charism of infallibility, etc.
6. His church says the Bible you’re reading is also inspired.
7. So now you can read your Bible secure in the knowledge that it is God’s word—not because the Bible says so—but because God says so through the church.

This is just my take on the so-called spiral argument, which I think is what you may have been getting at. But even in this version, the same problem remains. Premise 5 depends entirely upon fallible human interpretation of the not-yet-authoritative-Bible-as-history. So any conclusion I make about the infallibility of the church is only as good as the fallible arguments I can muster. It is here—however—that there is quite a bit of latitude for interpretation. What if the church doesn’t have a papacy? What if it isn’t structured in the way I may have supposed? What if Jesus only promised that it would be indefectible? What if passages such as “he who hears you, hears me,” apply broadly to all believers and not narrowly to the Roman Magisterium?

It is also at this point of the argument where there exists the most potential to read into scripture exactly what we hope to find there. If you wish to conclude that everything you believed before you came to this argument is true, I would suggest to you that you didn’t really need this argument at all. What you’re really doing is starting with the Church of Rome as true, and then reasoning in such a way as to confirm what you already believe about the church of Rome.

In other words, your starting point isn’t scripture; it’s Rome. Instead of sola scriptura you believe in sola Roma. All well and good. But do save us the time and just state your principle at the outset: Sola Roma.

If that is your principle, as seems pretty obvious from your argument, then rather than pretend like you’ve come to your position through unbiased deductive reasoning, why don’t you instead tell us why the church of Rome is a better starting point than the Bible. I’m sure you could come up with all kinds of good reasons.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Are you saying that “Bible is the word of God” is self-evident? Even that is obviously false because there’s a huge amount of non-Christians (Muslims for an example) who believe otherwise.

The fact that millions of people do not believe that the Bible is inspired doesn’t mean they’re right. Keep in mind the analogy. If you leave out the “we hold” part, you miss it completely. The founders of our country didn’t say that it is self-evidently obvious to all human beings that all men are created equal. For clearly most of the world at the time would not have agreed with that. But if you asked them to prove that all men are created equal, they had no proof to show you. The could only offer this as a principle. This is why they said, “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” knowing full well that all kinds of people did not hold these truths to be self-evident at all. Likewise historic Protestants “hold that” the Bible is from God and so it’s divine character is it’s own authentication. Since we can’t push back further that God, we’ve reached the starting point. God’s word has its origin in God. We hold this truth to be self-evident. Now if this is the case, then we assume that God is able to make what he has revealed known to those whom he has revealed it.

Um, maybe you are forgetting that at the time of canonization, there were many other “commonly” accepted canons.

And when exactly was “the time of canonization” in your opinion? What were these other canons to which you are referring? Perhaps you’re thinking of the time when the church of Rome rejected the letter to the Hebrews. It is during this time when the bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius) was holding the fort for Christian orthodoxy while Arianism was running rampant. When Athanasius learned that Rome had rejected Hebrews as canonical, he corrected their error and informed them that the letter was widely regarded as scripture, and due largely to his influence, the letter began to be read. In time it was recognized in Rome as a genuine apostolic letter, even if doubts remained about whether or not Paul was its author.

I hope now you’ll understand why the rest of Christendom (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism) simply doesn’t buy Rome’s claims to determine the canon for everyone else, having once shown itself to be a poor discerner of inspired scripture.

I am afraid self authentication IS NOT the problem.

Splendid. I’m glad I’ve moved you this far. It really is the only reasonable position to hold. God reveals scripture and the church recognizes what God has revealed. The church can only make official what it has already recognized. It’s not that people read a book not knowing that it is inspired until a council comes along and says, “hence forth you should now regard what you’ve been reading all these years as the word of the lord;” rather the church first inquires, “which books are those that we call the word of the Lord?” and then it codifies these in canonical lists—usually because some fringe group either want to add to or detract from what has already been received by the church as a whole. This does not mean there are no gray areas. Some books that we now regard as scripture were controversial for a time, and some that we do not now regard as scripture may have been read as scripture for centuries. But the process for deciding what is scripture and what is not is the same. Revelation, then recognition, then official decree. Many Catholic apologists seem to reverse the second and third steps so that recognition only comes after the official decree. But that begs the question as to how the decree could have come about if the books in question we’re already known to be scripture. That’s my only point here.

The problem is how one knows which interpretation of a biblical text is correct. Do you have an answer to that question?

Yes I do. In most cases the meaning of a text is easily determined. In many cases we must choose among plausible interpretations. In some cases we really don’t know which way to go and must be humble about what we do not know.

The idea that Rome can settle these questions is hardly convincing. Proponents of infallibility are constantly reminding us that the church can only define what it knows to be true. To date, the Catholic Church doesn’t know whether divine election is conditional (so Molina) or unconditional (so Thomas). It accordingly allows for a number of solutions to the freewill/divine sovereignty issue. There is at least as much diversity on this issue in Catholicism as there is in Protestantism. Were the pope to simply weigh in and pick an option—the matter would be settled for all intents and purposes. But the pope mostly likely will never do this for the simple reason that no one ultimately knows whatt the answer is to this vexing theological problem. The Catholic Church cannot define what it doesn’t know. Likewise the Catholic Church can’t eliminate exegetical ambiguities simply by decree. It has to do its exegetical homework, like everyone else. And thus your “infallible interpreter,” largely sits on the sidelines doing no interpretation at all. How many specific texts of scripture has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted? Can you list them?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

That is not the matter in dispute. The issue is not whether the Bible is the Word of God, it’s how you know which books belong in the Bible.

Then, unfortunately, the matter is still in dispute. You’re not recognizing the assumption that lies behind your question. If you ask, “how do you know which books belong in the Bible,” then you are assuming that someone/something has to make this known to us. My guess is that you think it’s the Catholic Church that has this role. I think it’s the Holy Spirit. For if the Holy Spirit has inspired scripture, then He has revealed it, for divine inspiration is a form of divine revelation. If so, then the very nature of what God has revealed must be recognizable to those to whom God wishes to make known his word. If you accept this, then your question cannot possibly arise in the first place. If you believe scripture is God’s word, then it makes no sense to ask how you know this. This would start us down the path of infinite regress. For if you say, “I know this because X has told me,” then we would need to ask again, “How does X know?” And if X replies, “because Y told me,” then we’d have to ask Y and so on. At some point, someone has to say, “because God revealed it.” If scripture is what it is, then the answer is the Holy Spirit.

I have yet to receive an answer from a person advocating that all Christian beliefs are to be found in the Bible,

Wait a second. Did you know that all those in Catholic Church who hold to the “material sufficiency” of scripture believe precisely this? Probably the majority of Catholic apologists today would argue that all Catholic beliefs are at least implicit in scripture.

There was controversy when the canon was originally formed; in fact, there was dispute over whether James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 3rd John, Hebrews, and Revelation belonged in the Bible (source: Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham).

Yes. There was dispute. The same is true about Old Testament books during and after the time Jesus lived. The Rabbis continued to debate the canonical status of books such as the Song of Songs and Ezekiel well after the time of Jesus. But it’s an erroneous assumption to conclude that the presence of controversy and debate implies that there is no closed canon. Were that the case, then there would still be no closed OT canon as there continue to be differences between Christians on these issues.

Sorry, but history debunks that idea. As Graham points out, there was indeed controversy. It was not at all “self-evident.”

You and/or your source are confusing “self-evident” with “obvious to everyone.” That isn’t the claim.

The belief that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is, well, a belief. So, when somebody claims all Christian beliefs are to be found within its pages, I have the right to ask where that particular belief is in the Bible.

Yes, you have that right. But you also have an obligation to understand and represent your opponent fairly. If you understand what a principle is, then you’d have to agree that it’s either contentious or ignorant to ask someone to prove their principle by using the principle itself. Here’s an analogy. If you argue that the universe must have had a beginning (because it makes no philosophical or scientific sense to say it is eternal), and if you posit God as that beginning, then you know the following question is bogus: “Ah yes, but what created God?” Why? Because God is the starting point. God is first. If there were something prior to God, then God wouldn’t be first—and whatever that was would be first. So we start with God. Sola scriptura is the claim that our beliefs have their origin in God’s word, along with the claim that our only access to that word is in scripture. If, therefore you ask, “ah yes, but can you prove this from scripture?” then clearly you still don’t understand what a principle is, or you’re just being contentious.

If fact, I can show multiple places in scripture where Jesus and the apostles assume the sola scriptura principle in matters of faith or morals. But that’s not “proof” in any formal sense. For here I’d be using the Bible to prove the Bible is the sole rule of faith, with the underlying assumption that the Bible is the only rule of faith. So your question is nothing more than an attempt to get your opponent to argue in a circle.

It would likewise be disingenuous of me to require you to prove your principle from your principle. Prove that the Catholic Church is the sole rule of faith. (For that is your principle, given that Tradition is determined by the Catholic Church and that Scripture is merely a subset of Tradition.) Any way you slice it, at the end of the day your argument would reduce to this: The Catholic Church is the sole rule of faith because the Catholic Church says so. (Something you’ve been assuming all along anyway.)

Sorry, but Parker’s claim in the very first post was
“Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture.”

And he’s absolutely correct. Scripture is sufficient. It is not exhaustive. If you were on a desert island and all you had was a Bible, the truths it contain would be enough to make known what God requires of your for salvation. It wouldn’t be enough to know everything you need to know about other matters of importance.

 

[guanophore]

Funny, I thought it was dialogue. That seems to be the approach our two communions have mutually decided to venture into since Vatican II…
… Perhaps a question on a subject, framed in dialogue, instead of an assumption, would be more conducive to good dialogue.

Live long and prosper ,
Jon

In reading this thread, I find it necessary to stop and commend you for your charity, perspicacity, and generous responses. You are being hammered pretty hard here do defend beliefs you have never espoused, that have been inaccurately and sometimes accusatively assigned to you.

I beleive the resolution of our differences will be facilitated by mutual attitudes akin to those you have demonstrated here. May God bless your forebearance.

 

[guanophore]

According to Pastor King, he and William Webster derived the sub-title of their series from the following early witness:

If you want to accuse someone of twisting a title, maybe you can start with Irenaeus.

I recognized that quote of Irenaeus that was used for the title of the book.

I think you have misunderstood Irenaeus, though.

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:1:1.

To understand this correctly, it helps to remove the parenthetical:

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us… to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:1:1.

He is referencing here “the plan of our salvation”. That plan was contained in two equal threads:

…" which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures…"

It is also clear from the rest of Irenaes writings that he is a strong believer in both Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.

I don’t have a problem with referencing the Scriptures, along with the Church, as a pillar and ground of the Truth. They both come from the same Source, and compliment one another.

 

[guanophore]

Unity with the Orthodox is the same as with the protestants. You left us; we did not leave you. You want unity then you come back to us. We will not compromise on Truth. The Pope is the successor to Peter, the universal bishop and chief steward of the Church and sola scriptura is a doctrine from the depths of hell seeking to divide and fracture the unity of the Church that Jesus prayed for.

This seems like a myopic and Romanocentered perspective to me. It is clear from studying the factors involved in the Great Schism and the Reformation that there is plenty of arrogance, disobedience, and petty behavior on both sides. Asking those who have been alienated by Roman Catholicism to do all the travel toward unity is just not appropriate or helpful. We all are obligated to “be reconciled to one another”.

A Brief or Succinct Account of What the Ambassadors of the Holy Roman and
Apostolic See Did in the Royal City attributed to Cardinal Bishop Humbert of
Silva Candida.

“Acta et Scripta Quae de Controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae Saeculo Undecimo Composita Extant”
Leipzig & arburg 1861, Documents VIII-X, pp. 150-4.

acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded
(among many others is included)

… and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

Reducing unity to a matter of customs such as haircuts that are diverse across humanity and the Body of Christ is an indication of how petty the successor of Peter in Rome had fallen.

 

[ZDHayden]

This seems like a myopic and Romanocentered perspective to me. It is clear from studying the factors involved in the Great Schism and the Reformation that there is plenty of arrogance, disobedience, and petty behavior on both sides. Asking those who have been alienated by Roman Catholicism to do all the travel toward unity is just not appropriate or helpful. We all are obligated to “be reconciled to one another”.

A Brief or Succinct Account of What the Ambassadors of the Holy Roman and
Apostolic See Did in the Royal City attributed to Cardinal Bishop Humbert of
Silva Candida.

“Acta et Scripta Quae de Controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae Saeculo Undecimo Composita Extant”
Leipzig & arburg 1861, Documents VIII-X, pp. 150-4.

acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Excommunication with which Michael Kerularios and his Followers were wounded
(among many others is included)

… and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

Reducing unity to a matter of customs such as haircuts that are diverse across humanity and the Body of Christ is an indication of how petty the successor of Peter in Rome had fallen.

My final project in my composition class last year was a research project concerning the Schism. My professor, who had grown up around the Orthodox and who knew quite a bit about the Schism, notified me that she had learned quite a bit from my paper. By the time I had finished my project, I had come to the conclusion that, while the East should not have separated from the West, both are to blame for the Schism. Multiple factors including arrogance, politics, and even language, made the Schism seem almost inevitable, however. I noticed though that, contrary to popular thought on the matter, the Schism had little or nothing to do with doctrine.