Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Church_Militant]

I feel like I am jumping in the middle of a discussion, but I thought I would put in my 2 cents. I think Catholics and Protestants agree that the final authority should be the Word of God. Protestants don’t believe that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, but Catholics do.
So I don’t see the debate so much about SS, or the definition of SS, but is Sacred Tradition the Word of God? If you can show a Protestant that ST is the Word of God, then the SS debate goes away. Conversely, if you can show a Catholic that Sacred Tradition is not the Word of God, all you have left is the Bible. Either way both sides will agree that the church has authority, but for the Catholic it is a sometimes infallible authority. But when not infallible it has the same kind of authority to the Catholic as the Protestants church does to the Protestant, that is an authority that must be tested by the Word of God.

Yet the Bible nowhere says that, and in fact, the New Testament straight off tells us…
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1st Timothy 3:15)

The Catholic Church and Protestant Church have no authority apart from the Word of God.

Really? Well then supply us with a citation of scripture that specifically says this because having read the word of God several times over, I don’t believe you can do so, since such a passage does not exist.

 

[justtryin]

History…history…His_Story. The proof against SS is history itself. We seem to forget that things were not always as they are now. When things appear to be at their most complex, look for the simple. How many saints were declared ignorant of worldly knowledge by society? Yet somehow they were the most wise when it came to the spiritual! Things aren’t always as they seem.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Response to Paul C

Paul, to the historical part of your previous post to me, I now return. You had said:

There are many very early writers that note the succession of Bishops in Rome.

“Many” might be an overstatement depending upon what you mean by “early writers.” Typically most historians point to Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas and Ireneaus when assessing whether or not there was a single monarchical bishop of Rome who is the direct and immediate successor of Peter.

It is probably safe to say that prevailing opinion among most mainstream scholars—Protestant and Catholic—is that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century at the earliest. If Peter Lampe’s thesis is correct (and it has gained wide acceptance), Peter in deed was in Rome, but the church itself was governed by a plurality of elders based out of house churches. This has in turn raised the issue of a “missing link” between Peter and his alleged successors.

Robert B. Eno, S.S., a Catholic, defends the idea of succession even though he endorses Lampe’s thesis. His solution is to suggest that “episkope” (that is episcopal oversight) was exercised by the elders collectively and that eventually this was concentrated in a single bishop who emerged as leader of the presbytery. Linus and Clement may very well have been examples of this kind of leadership among the presbyters even though there is no evidence that either man was “the bishop of Rome,” proper. Eno’s concern is to avoid the anachronistic attempt to see a single individual as “the bishop of Rome,” when the office of bishop—as distinct from elder—had most likely not yet developed in Rome.

Be that as it may, I’m not sure Eno’s solution is consonant with Vatican I’s theory of Petrine succession which not only insists that a single person stood in direct succession to Peter but also that this had “always” been the understanding of the universal church.

Your position against monarchical bishopics seems very inconsistent with your recognition of James as bishop of Jerusalem, after all.

My position is that of most historians such as Eno (a Catholic) and Kelly (a Protestant) all of whom agree that the monarchical episcopacy is a post New Testament development. I do not recognize James as the “bishop” of Jerusalem, if by “bishop,” you are using it in the precise, technical sense that only emerges in later theology. Most scholars of the New Testament believe that the terms “elder” and “bishop,” are used interchangeably in the New Testament and that they didn’t become separate “offices” until sometime after the NT was written. As I mentioned in my previous post to you, Acts 15:6 makes clear that Jerusalem was governed by the apostles and a plurality of elders. Of these, James stands out as one who presides. But it’s not at all clear that he has a higher pastoral authority than any of the others.

On the actual authorship of Clement’s lette [sic]…

I’m not disputing the authenticity of the letter. I’m disputing your assumption that Clement himself was the “bishop of Rome” and a direct successor to Peter.

Source: The Rise of the Papacy, Robert B. Eno., S.S., (see especially pages 18-40)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Hello friends.Ironically enough, ‘sola sciptura’ is simply not scriptural. Christ founded a Church, not a book; the Church came first.

Yes, it is scriptural. I’ll cite just one verse that illustrates the principle. 1 Corinthians 4:6. Here Paul tells the Corinthians “nothing beyond what is written.” He is making a point of doctrine and clearly states a principle that he expects them to follow. Since “what is written” is a common expression for “scripture,” and “nothing beyond” states a limitation, then in effect Paul is telling them that the need to return to the scriptural norm–something they had gone beyond by elevating individual leaders (such as Apollos, Cephas, and Paul himself) to a position of superiority. I’ve argued this in depth on my blog. (See my profile to access it.)

What is instructive about this verse is not that Paul is directly teaching sola scriptura, but rather that he is assuming sola scriptura as the principle by which he will derives other doctrines–especially the Wisdom of God and the supremacy of Christ in all things.

Further, in juxtaposing the Bible to the Church you are creating false dilemma. But we don’t have to choose between the the normative authority and the Church, unless the church is teaching doctrines that are not found in the Bible. In your case, as a Catholic, you have to make precisely this choice. But I don’t.

Protestants wouldn’t even HAVE a Bible if not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

That’s highly misleading. It is true that Protestants broke communion with Rome and so in that sense much of what we believe is defined vis-a-vis Rome. But this naive notion that Rome “gave the world” the Bible simply isn’t true. Rome merely canonized what was already believed. With respect to the Old Testament debate persisted in Rome into the Council of Trent itself where not an insignificant number of bishops wanted to follow the Protestant lead in excluding the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books from the category of “scripture.” Since Rome had not yet definitively defined it’s own canon after the Reformation began, how does it make sense to say that they gave Protestants the Bible en toto?

Ultimately Protestants must admit that they believe the books of the Bible are divinely inspired for the same reason Catholics do – because the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined that they were inspired (most of the books of the Bible do not even claim to BE inspired).

That’s not why I believe the Bible is inspired. I believe the Bible was recognized by the church, who is Christ’s body and not any single or particular communion, such as Rome. The divine character of the Bible derives from its divine origins. It is God, therefore, who makes his scriptures known to His church and therefore scripture is recognizable to those whom God reveals his word. If you say otherwise, then how do you know that it is specifically the Catholic Church that has been authorized to determine which books are inspired and which are not? On what basis do you make this assumption/deduction?

You won’t find adherents to ‘sola scriptura’ in the early centuries of the Church…

Oh yes, you will. The example par excellence is Cyril of Jerusalem, whom even Catholic scholars admit as having taught a doctrine of “scriptura sola.” I’d refer you to the following book: Cyril of Jerusalem, by Fr. Edward Yarnold, S.J.

“Cyril subscribed to a form of scriptura sola doctrine stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures…”

Source: Yarnold, Edward, SJ, Cyril of Jerusalem, The Early Church Fathers, (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 56.

Similar statements from the Fathers and even the scholastics could be multiplied which show that the Fathers regarded scripture has having the highest normative authority. That’s what sola scriptura means.

 

[Tomster]

Miguel,

There are a whole host of problems with the extra-biblical, man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura. I hope you are up to addressing them.

(1) The Philosophical problems of Sola Scriptura
(2) The Problems of Coherence
(3) It is unbiblical
(4) It is logically inconsistent
(4) It’s problems of historicity
(5) It’s improbability
(6) It is inconsistent with the practice of the New Testament Church
(7) It overlooks extrabiblical influences on its adherents
(8) It overlooks the extrabiblical historical influence on itself
(9) It leads to a misrepresentation of the Church Fathers
(10) It leads to unhistorical understandings and distortion of facts
(11) It leads to hermeneutical anarchy
(12) It leads to denominational factionalism
(13) It leads to the undermining of pastoral authority and discipline

Miguel,

Care to respond?

11 looks very interesting.​

 

[Tomster]

Response to Paul C

Paul, to the historical part of your previous post to me, I now return. You had said:

“Many” might be an overstatement depending upon what you mean by “early writers.” Typically most historians point to Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas and Ireneaus when assessing whether or not there was a single monarchical bishop of Rome who is the direct and immediate successor of Peter.

It is probably safe to say that prevailing opinion among most mainstream scholars—Protestant and Catholic—is that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century at the earliest. If Peter Lampe’s thesis is correct (and it has gained wide acceptance), Peter in deed was in Rome, but the church itself was governed by a plurality of elders based out of house churches. This has in turn raised the issue of a “missing link” between Peter and his alleged successors.

Robert B. Eno, S.S., a Catholic, defends the idea of succession even though he endorses Lampe’s thesis. His solution is to suggest that “episkope” (that is episcopal oversight) was exercised by the elders collectively and that eventually this was concentrated in a single bishop who emerged as leader of the presbytery. Linus and Clement may very well have been examples of this kind of leadership among the presbyters even though there is no evidence that either man was “the bishop of Rome,” proper. Eno’s concern is to avoid the anachronistic attempt to see a single individual as “the bishop of Rome,” when the office of bishop—as distinct from elder—had most likely not yet developed in Rome.

Be that as it may, I’m not sure Eno’s solution is consonant with Vatican I’s theory of Petrine succession which not only insists that a single person stood in direct succession to Peter but also that this had “always” been the understanding of the universal church.

My position is that of most historians such as Eno (a Catholic) and Kelly (a Protestant) all of whom agree that the monarchical episcopacy is a post New Testament development. I do not recognize James as the “bishop” of Jerusalem, if by “bishop,” you are using it in the precise, technical sense that only emerges in later theology. Most scholars of the New Testament believe that the terms “elder” and “bishop,” are used interchangeably in the New Testament and that they didn’t become separate “offices” until sometime after the NT was written. As I mentioned in my previous post to you, Acts 15:6 makes clear that Jerusalem was governed by the apostles and a plurality of elders. Of these, James stands out as one who presides. But it’s not at all clear that he has a higher pastoral authority than any of the others.

I’m not disputing the authenticity of the letter. I’m disputing your assumption that Clement himself was the “bishop of Rome” and a direct successor to Peter.

Source: The Rise of the Papacy, Robert B. Eno., S.S., (see especially pages 18-40)

By the end of the first century, i.e. the end of the Apostolic age, both the hierarchical terminology and the offices themseves were everywhere and definitely determined and established. This very rapid developement throughout the Church shows that it took place by virtue of Apostolic ordinances, the Apostles having made provision, according to the essential constitution of the Church delivered to them by Christ Himself, for the monarchical bishops to rule the Churches in succession to themselves.

 

[Tomster]

Response to Paul C

Paul, to the historical part of your previous post to me, I now return. You had said:

“Many” might be an overstatement depending upon what you mean by “early writers.” Typically most historians point to Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas and Ireneaus when assessing whether or not there was a single monarchical bishop of Rome who is the direct and immediate successor of Peter.

It is probably safe to say that prevailing opinion among most mainstream scholars—Protestant and Catholic—is that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century at the earliest. If Peter Lampe’s thesis is correct (and it has gained wide acceptance), Peter in deed was in Rome, but the church itself was governed by a plurality of elders based out of house churches. This has in turn raised the issue of a “missing link” between Peter and his alleged successors.

Robert B. Eno, S.S., a Catholic, defends the idea of succession even though he endorses Lampe’s thesis. His solution is to suggest that “episkope” (that is episcopal oversight) was exercised by the elders collectively and that eventually this was concentrated in a single bishop who emerged as leader of the presbytery. Linus and Clement may very well have been examples of this kind of leadership among the presbyters even though there is no evidence that either man was “the bishop of Rome,” proper. Eno’s concern is to avoid the anachronistic attempt to see a single individual as “the bishop of Rome,” when the office of bishop—as distinct from elder—had most likely not yet developed in Rome.

Be that as it may, I’m not sure Eno’s solution is consonant with Vatican I’s theory of Petrine succession which not only insists that a single person stood in direct succession to Peter but also that this had “always” been the understanding of the universal church.

My position is that of most historians such as Eno (a Catholic) and Kelly (a Protestant) all of whom agree that the monarchical episcopacy is a post New Testament development. I do not recognize James as the “bishop” of Jerusalem, if by “bishop,” you are using it in the precise, technical sense that only emerges in later theology. Most scholars of the New Testament believe that the terms “elder” and “bishop,” are used interchangeably in the New Testament and that they didn’t become separate “offices” until sometime after the NT was written. As I mentioned in my previous post to you, Acts 15:6 makes clear that Jerusalem was governed by the apostles and a plurality of elders. Of these, James stands out as one who presides. But it’s not at all clear that he has a higher pastoral authority than any of the others.

I’m not disputing the authenticity of the letter. I’m disputing your assumption that Clement himself was the “bishop of Rome” and a direct successor to Peter.

Source: The Rise of the Papacy, Robert B. Eno., S.S., (see especially pages 18-40)

Try this on for “mainstream” Catholic scholars.

St. Ignatius of Antioch and his letters to:

The Ephesians

The Magnesians

The Trallians

The Smyrnians

Polycarp

The Philadelphians

When you have finished reading them would you please come back to your above listed post and defend what you have published?

 

[inkaneer]

Response to Paul C

Paul, to the historical part of your previous post to me, I now return. You had said:

“Many” might be an overstatement depending upon what you mean by “early writers.” Typically most historians point to Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas and Ireneaus when assessing whether or not there was a single monarchical bishop of Rome who is the direct and immediate successor of Peter.

It is probably safe to say that prevailing opinion among most mainstream scholars—Protestant and Catholic—is that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century at the earliest. If Peter Lampe’s thesis is correct (and it has gained wide acceptance), Peter in deed was in Rome, but the church itself was governed by a plurality of elders based out of house churches. This has in turn raised the issue of a “missing link” between Peter and his alleged successors.

Well I disagree. As early as the first century we find the bishop of Rome being sought for advice and guidance. To wit; the church at Corinth in about 80 AD writes to Clement, Bishop of Rome seeking his advice on a matter that cannot be settled locally. Why do they write to Clement and not to the Apostle John who is in Ephesus. Clement was no Apostle. Here the Corinthians recognize the bishop of Rome as having authority over that of an Apostle.

But there is more, In 170 AD, approximately 90 years later Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, writes to the Bishop of Rome who is Pope Soter. He writes:

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

Dionysius then adds this verifying the earlier letter from Clement:

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

So the Bishop of Rome was seen as an authority over that of the Apostle, of whom it is said that He was the one that Jesus loved. WHY? What did they know that you don’t? And please note, this was no second century development as you claim. Rather this was present in the Apostolic Age.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Yes, it is scriptural. I’ll cite just one verse that illustrates the principle. 1 Corinthians 4:6. [etc…]

Miguel, Rather than quoting a quote within I Cor. 4:6, perhaps you should have quoted the actual verse in context. I Cor 3:1-4:7…
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephasc or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?
Here Paul does not tell the Corinthians that they should adhere to “nothing beyond what is written,” as you mean it according to SS. He is instead responding to the fact that some people are trying to push devicive principles and that, as a result, there are factions of Christians bickering against one another. Sound familiar? That’s exactly what is happening today, right here on this thread and throughout the world because of Sola Scriptura. And, wouldn’t you know it, that’s exactly what Satan wants: Christians devided against one another, saying, “I follow Calvin” and “I follow Wesley” and “I follow Luther” and “I follow Zwingli” and “I follow this collection of Calvinists who re-define Calvinism to rule out Double-Predestination” and on and on and on…

Paul isn’t saying, “Please, throw off the Apostolic authority of the Church and bicker endlessly with one another based on the saying ‘Do not go beyond what is written’.” Rather, he is saying, “We Apostles are not divided. We are all teaching you Christ. So if what one teaches leads to the Christ, praise God and follow Him, not the individual teacher.”

The foundation of my faith was lain by Calvinists, but as I followed God to the Fullness of Truth in the Eternal, Apostolic Teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, whatever in Calvinism was not of God - including, obviously, SS - was burned up, but that which was the Truth remained. For those things and for all others, I thank God not Calvin, as Calvin would have me do (at least, now that he has passed from death to… wherever he ended up… and can see the Catholic Church for what it is, rather than for what he wrongly believed it to be).

If you boast that you have the wisdom to interpret for yourself, God will declare you a fool. But if, in humility, you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, He will declare you wise.

That, Miguel, is the message of this passage. To instead use it to perpetuate the vain division that was and continues to be caused by SS is to go directly against the intent of the Holy Spirit in insipiring Paul to write this. As you, yourself, revealed to us,* Satan is the author and patron demon of SS*, not Paul and not the Holy Spirit.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by B79
Hello friends.Ironically enough, ‘sola sciptura’ is simply not scriptural. Christ founded a Church, not a book; the Church came first.

Yes, it is scriptural. I’ll cite just one verse that illustrates the principle. 1 Corinthians 4:6. Here Paul tells the Corinthians “nothing beyond what is written.” He is making a point of doctrine and clearly states a principle that he expects them to follow. Since “what is written” is a common expression for “scripture,” and “nothing beyond” states a limitation, then in effect Paul is telling them that the need to return to the scriptural norm–something they had gone beyond by elevating individual leaders (such as Apollos, Cephas, and Paul himself) to a position of superiority. I’ve argued this in depth on my blog. (See my profile to access it.)

What is instructive about this verse is not that Paul is directly teaching sola scriptura, but rather that he is assuming sola scriptura as the principle by which he will derives other doctrines–especially the Wisdom of God and the supremacy of Christ in all things.

Boy you cherry picked that verse. First of all the verse does not say, “nothing beyond what is written.” 1Cor 4:6 states as follows:

“6 I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” 1 Cor 4:6 [RSV]

The KJV has the verse thusly:

“6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”

Now let’s look at the context. What is Paul telling the Corinthians? Is he telling them to be sola scripturists? If so then why is Paul telling the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15 something totally different? Is the Holy Spirit talking out of both sides of His mouth or what? The answer is simple. Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for their actions. He offers them, in writing, advice. It is this advice that Paul is referring to when he tells them that they are **“not to go beyond what is written” **. Paul is referring to his own written advice and not to scripture in its entirety. Otherwise scripture will contradict itself with 2 Thess 2:15

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Boy you cherry picked that verse. First of all the verse does not say, “nothing beyond what is written.”

It says “not beyond what is written.” That’s a literal translation from the Greek. The words “Not to go,” aren’t in the text, but are often supplied by English translations to get the sense. Whether or not it was a “saying,” as some translations argue, depends on whether or not the neuter article “to” in Greek is taken to set off a formal quotation, as it sometimes is in the NT. Probably the best English language translation I’ve seen is the Catholic, New Jerusalem Bible, which avoids the addition of words that aren’t there. Again, I’d recommend that you take a peek at my blog article on this verse and then perhaps reconsider your position here.

Now let’s look at the context.

Again…my article. I deal with the context.

What is Paul telling the Corinthians? Is he telling them to be sola scripturists?

Not directly. As I argue, he’s making a different doctrinal argument based mostly around the five or six citations he has made from the OT up to this point in his letter… But the basis for his doctrinal assertion presupposes sola scriptura. Not only is scripture materially sufficient to make his point (witness all the “it is written” statements he’s made so far), but he also believes such statements are sufficiently clear so that even the Corinthians ought to be able to understand their meaning (which is the formal sufficiency of scripture).

If so then why is Paul telling the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15 something totally different?

Why don’t you take a closer look at the context. First, Paul is very concerned that the Thessalonians have been influenced by deceiving spirits or those writing pseudonymously in Paul’s name:

2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."

Paul will then go on to explain again all the conditions that must be fulfilled before the Lord can come again. (verses 3-4; 6-12). Notice especially verse 5: “Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?”

What things? Obviously the “things” that Paul has just mentioned in verses 3-4 and will elaborate upon further in verses 6-12.

Now keep reading to verse 15, which you and your church mistakenly assume to be teaching the principle of scripture and tradition as the rule of faith for the church. “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

In context, however, we can see that the “traditions” Paul refers to are the very same teachings that he has already explained to the Thessalonians. He first did this in person as verse 5 indicates. And Paul is also explaining them again in this very letter (the burden of verses 3-4 and verses 6-12.) There is therefore no reason to suppose that Paul is thinking of tradition as a separate category from his own teachings that we find in scripture and no reason to suppose that oral tradition differs in content from written tradition (i.e., what would soon after be recognized as scripture).

So why then does Paul enjoin both oral and written tradition upon them? The answer is found back in verses 1-2. Deceiving spirits and false teachers were impersonating Paul or passing their own teaching off as that of an apostle. So Paul tells them only to believe what he (and those with him) have taught them, whether in person (the spoken word) or by his letter (the written word). It is for this reason that Paul ends his letter this way: 3:17 “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.”

In other words, Paul wants the Thessalonians to be sure that the letter they are reading is genuinely from Paul and not from someone writing in his name.

If you leave this context out of the equation when you come to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, then you are engaging in proof-texting, just as your church did in Vatican II, (Dei Verbum, 8), when it cited this text as evidence for the claim that the certainty of what we believed is not based on scripture alone, but also on oral tradition.

This, however, was not Paul’s point at all. Rather, Paul was giving the Thessalonians several means by which they could discern Paul’s genuine teaching from that of imposters. To generalize this verse so that it now becomes evidence for a two-fold rule of faith–scripture and tradition–is to commit the fallacy of universalizing the particular. Clearly Paul isn’t teaching that there would always be a body of oral tradition “out there” that is on par with scripture and that the church ought to always consult both scripture and tradition when formulating doctrine.

 

[john_aurelius]

The point that the Church preceeds the NT Scriptures has been abundantly clear so a church based on SS could only come from the point of view of a scismatic (or reformer) church.

We all agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So what happened to Protestant Ecclesiology? Don’t they believe that the Church was a divine institution? Breathed in the Holy Spirit? Taught by the Holy Spirit into all truth? And this before the NT writings?

The only Scriptures the original Church had were the Hebrew Scriptures and their Greek translation (LXX) what was necessary for understanding them is the Apostolic Kerugma and interpretation.

This is the Oral tradition which we believe has a co-equal authority. After all, Isa 53 is “sufficient” but only if interpreted by Philip, who had been laid hands upon by the Apostles:hug1:

 

[PRmerger]

It says “not beyond what is written.” That’s a literal translation from the Greek. The words “Not to go,” aren’t in the text, but are often supplied by English translations to get the sense. Whether or not it was a “saying,” as some translations argue, depends on whether or not the neuter article “to” in Greek is taken to set off a formal quotation, as it sometimes is in the NT. Probably the best English language translation I’ve seen is the Catholic, New Jerusalem Bible, which avoids the addition of words that aren’t there.

To what was St. Paul referring when he wrote “what is written”? Was he referring to the entire OT? To the decalogue? To the Septuagint?

Clearly, Paul could not be referring to the NT, which was not yet written.

And, of course, Peter, James, the author of Hebrews seem to be disobeying Paul’s injunction, yes? Do you not consider the epistles of Peter and James to be theopneustos?

 

[Tomster]

Miguel,

Care to respond?

11 looks very interesting.​

I didn’t think you would.

Par for the course.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Well I disagree. As early as the first century we find the bishop of Rome being sought for advice and guidance. To wit; the church at Corinth in about 80 AD writes to Clement, Bishop of Rome seeking his advice on a matter that cannot be settled locally.

That goes well beyond the evidence. First, you don’t even know if there was a “bishop” in Rome at the time. For one, the “bishop of Rome” is not specified as the person from whom the Corinthians sought counsel and the letter back to them is written from the perspective of a plurality of elders, not a single bishop. Of course, communities do not write letters—and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that one among them did the writing. But the idea this one person is more authoritative than the other elders simply cannot be substantiated from the text itself. Second—as mentioned in my previous post—the scholarly consensus is that Rome was governed by a plurality of elders at the time, not a single monarchical bishop. Perhaps the consensus view is wrong. But that has to be argued, not assumed.

Most scholars believe Rome was consulted at the time because the church as a whole was preeminent in love—not because it’s bishop had a universal authority over all the other churches. Nevertheless, I think you are correct to ask the question as to whether the letter indicates at least a nascent Roman Primacy in the making.

Why do they write to Clement and not to the Apostle John who is in Ephesus.

I think that’s a great question. One possibility is that John was on Patmos and not in Ephesus and therefore inaccessible. This, however, presumes that only living apostles could be consulted rather than those whom the apostles had appointed. Further, ever since Paul’s letter to the Romans, the church in Rome had always been praised for its faith and love. Apparently this fame continued into Clement’s day. Since both churches could claim Petrine and Pauline heritage (cf 1 Cor. 1:12), we might suppose that there was an affinity between them on this basis as well. Further, Rome may have had some experience in the matters that troubled the Corinthians. All these factors, coupled with Rome’s fame as being “preeminent in love,” may very well have explained why the Corinthians sought their counsel rather than that of a living apostle, assuming that John was still accessible to them in the first place. Even so, I will grant you the possibility that they sought Rome’s counsel simply because they believed Rome to be in charge. But that, in my view, is highly unlikely and would need to be argued, not simply assumed.

Clement was no Apostle.

Not one of the twelve, no. But neither were Timothy and Silvanus. And yet Paul indirectly calls them “apostles” in 1 Thessalonians 2:6. The point here is that by the time Paul wrote, pastoral authority had already been delegated well beyond the scope of the original twelve, and so the idea that one would necessarily have to appeal to a living apostle rather than to those who were taught directly by the apostles doesn’t seem likely.

So the Bishop of Rome was seen as an authority over that of the Apostle,

That has yet to be established. Again, you still haven’t established that Clement was the bishop of Rome in the first place. Second, even if he were the bishop of Rome, it still would not follow that he had authority over a living apostle simply because Corinth had sought his counsel and not that of John. The Corinthians may have had other reasons for doing so, including the possibility that John had already been exiled to Patmos.

The mere fact that one church seeks the advice from another or gives advice to another does not, in and of itself, prove anything. According to Eusebius, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote letters of advice to many churches (e.g., Athens and Nicomedia), and apparently such advice was completely unsolicited. (See Ecclesiastical History IV.23). Does that mean the bishop of Corinth had “a primacy of universal jurisdiction” over the entire church? Of course not. And when we also take into consideration the fact that the bishop of Corinth could also name both Peter and Paul as founders, one could make the case that the bishop of Corinth—on the basis of apostolic pedigree and the practice of exhorting and giving advice to other churches—has a much right to claim universal jurisdiction as Rome’s bishop does.

 

[Tomster]

This post is for everyone contributing to this thread except Miguel who seems to have some type of blockage between his ears.

St. Clement of Rome in his first epistle to the Corinthians (about 95 A.D.) writes: “Our Apostles knew through Our Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise about the name of the episcopate. Wherefore, endowed with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid, and then issued an ordinance that when they had passed away, other well-tried men should succeed to the sacerdotal offfice.”

Some years later, the letters of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in 107 A.D., reveal the the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons in full working order.

St. Ignatius is a very important and valuable witness to Apostolic tradition. His writings totally debunk Miguel’s claims.

 

[Tomster]

That goes well beyond the evidence. First, you don’t even know if there was a “bishop” in Rome at the time. For one, the “bishop of Rome” is not specified as the person from whom the Corinthians sought counsel and the letter back to them is written from the perspective of a plurality of elders, not a single bishop. Of course, communities do not write letters—and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that one among them did the writing. But the idea this one person is more authoritative than the other elders simply cannot be substantiated from the text itself. Second—as mentioned in my previous post—the scholarly consensus is that Rome was governed by a plurality of elders at the time, not a single monarchical bishop. Perhaps the consensus view is wrong. But that has to be argued, not assumed.

Most scholars believe Rome was consulted at the time because the church as a whole was preeminent in love—not because it’s bishop had a universal authority over all the other churches. Nevertheless, I think you are correct to ask the question as to whether the letter indicates at least a nascent Roman Primacy in the making.

I think that’s a great question. One possibility is that John was on Patmos and not in Ephesus and therefore inaccessible. This, however, presumes that only living apostles could be consulted rather than those whom the apostles had appointed. Further, ever since Paul’s letter to the Romans, the church in Rome had always been praised for its faith and love. Apparently this fame continued into Clement’s day. Since both churches could claim Petrine and Pauline heritage (cf 1 Cor. 1:12), we might suppose that there was an affinity between them on this basis as well. Further, Rome may have had some experience in the matters that troubled the Corinthians. All these factors, coupled with Rome’s fame as being “preeminent in love,” may very well have explained why the Corinthians sought their counsel rather than that of a living apostle, assuming that John was still accessible to them in the first place. Even so, I will grant you the possibility that they sought Rome’s counsel simply because they believed Rome to be in charge. But that, in my view, is highly unlikely and would need to be argued, not simply assumed.

Not one of the twelve, no. But neither were Timothy and Silvanus. And yet Paul indirectly calls them “apostles” in 1 Thessalonians 2:6. The point here is that by the time Paul wrote, pastoral authority had already been delegated well beyond the scope of the original twelve, and so the idea that one would necessarily have to appeal to a living apostle rather than to those who were taught directly by the apostles doesn’t seem likely.

That has yet to be established. Again, you still haven’t established that Clement was the bishop of Rome in the first place. Second, even if he were the bishop of Rome, it still would not follow that he had authority over a living apostle simply because Corinth had sought his counsel and not that of John. The Corinthians may have had other reasons for doing so, including the possibility that John had already been exiled to Patmos.

The mere fact that one church seeks the advice from another or gives advice to another does not, in and of itself, prove anything. According to Eusebius, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote letters of advice to many churches (e.g., Athens and Nicomedia), and apparently such advice was completely unsolicited. (See Ecclesiastical History IV.23). Does that mean the bishop of Corinth had “a primacy of universal jurisdiction” over the entire church? Of course not. And when we also take into consideration the fact that the bishop of Corinth could also name both Peter and Paul as founders, one could make the case that the bishop of Corinth—on the basis of apostolic pedigree and the practice of exhorting and giving advice to other churches—has a much right to claim universal jurisdiction as Rome’s bishop does.

At the Council of Chalcedon the Fathers of the Council on receiving “The Tome of Leo” acknowledged its author as the “interpreter of Peter.” They summarised in a phrase the traditional belief of Christians in the position of the Pope.

It is true that in an earlier age the great Patriarchs and Bishops acted with less frequent reference to Rome than is now the case, but they were none the less fully conscious of their subordination to the Apostolic See, " mother and mistress of all the churches."

 

[Tomster]

Miguel,

There are a whole host of problems with the extra-biblical, man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura. I hope you are up to addressing them.

(1) The Philosophical problems of Sola Scriptura
(2) The Problems of Coherence
(3) It is unbiblical
(4) It is logically inconsistent
(4) It’s problems of historicity
(5) It’s improbability
(6) It is inconsistent with the practice of the New Testament Church
(7) It overlooks extrabiblical influences on its adherents
(8) It overlooks the extrabiblical historical influence on itself
(9) It leads to a misrepresentation of the Church Fathers
(10) It leads to unhistorical understandings and distortion of facts
(11) It leads to hermeneutical anarchy
(12) It leads to denominational factionalism
(13) It leads to the undermining of pastoral authority and discipline

Miguel,

Since you were unwilling or unable to address # 11 in my previous post, let’s take a look at #'s 4, 6, 9 and 10 especially # 9.

By your previous posts you have shown us your inability to grasp what the ECF’s had to say regarding Apostolic Succession.

I have refuted your position on this matter quite succinctly if I do say so myself.
I encourage you, though, to keep trying to put forward your own contradictory positions regarding the topic at hand.

I, for my part, will continue to refer to the above list to show you, in all charity, the errors of your ways.

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

The historical facts speak for themselves - why anyone would argue in favor of sola scriptura at this point is beyond me.

A quick question to Protestants? If sola scriptura is all that is needed and every individual is capable of private interpretation through the Holy Spirit, as Protestants claim, then why do you have Sunday school, bible studies, bible camps, or even sermons for that matter? Isn’t all of that the same as saying, “my interpretation is better than yours and if you don’t comply you jeopardize your salvation?” Isn’t the message also saying that, “the bible isn’t sufficient and you need our guidance to understand it correctly?”

The actions of Protestants seem to betray the very notion of sola scriptura.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The historical facts speak for themselves - why anyone would argue in favor of sola scriptura at this point is beyond me.

I think I’d use the same reasoning to draw the opposite conclusion. What happens when unbiblical traditions are elevated to the level of doctrine? What happens when the church begins to call its own traditions the word of God? What happens when the church sees itself as the norm by which the meaning of scripture is determined and not the other way around?

A quick question to Protestants? If sola scriptura is all that is needed and every individual is capable of private interpretation through the Holy Spirit, as Protestants claim, then why do you have Sunday school, bible studies, bible camps, or even sermons for that matter?

I’m not sure I understand the question. How does holding that God’s word is the norm to which our teaching and practice ought to conform obviate the need for the things you mentioned above? I don’t get it.

Isn’t all of that the same as saying, “my interpretation is better than yours and if you don’t comply you jeopardize your salvation?” Isn’t the message also saying that, “the bible isn’t sufficient and you need our guidance to understand it correctly?” The actions of Protestants seem to betray the very notion of sola scriptura.

This, I think, is a fair criticism in many cases. But the abuse of a principle doesn’t deny the correct use of a principle. One might just as well argue that marriage is wrong simply because most people who attempt it in this country end up failing. After all, what could be more divisive than marriage? And yet somehow I think you’d agree that it isn’t marriage per se that is the problem–but the people who attempt it. Protestantism is full of people–so it doesn’t surprise me that the principle has been abused.