E
EricFilmer
Guest
Thanks RC, and âback at 'cha!âVery well written.
God bless
- Status
E
EricFilmer
Guest
As a side note - good joke! This one made me laugh out loud.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well done, Yeoman Eric!
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Well said guanophore. I think it is fair to say that Martin Luther witnessed some actual abuses among the clergy, but (as you said) what was truly needed was a change in discipline rather than doctrine. Herein we see a difference between Lutherâs idea of reformation and that of people like St. Bonaventure.Indeed. And this is the main reason it was not appropriate to change the doctrines of the faith, just because clerics in Europe had become corrupt.
Men are always in need of Reform, but the One Faith, deposited once for all to the Church by the Aposltes, did not need any reform.
Sola Scriptura is one of those unneeded reforms.
Thanks. I wish I could take credit for this elaboration on 2Timothy 3:16. Concerning the part about what St. Paul also says equips us for every good work, I saw it worked out by a Catholic apologist on the internet several years ago. I have since lost the link to that webpage, but I remembered how the argument went. For some reason, I seldom see it come up in debates over 2Timothy 3:16. Therefore, I try to present this position whenever I can in order to give it more exposure. Anyway, I likewise appreciate the material you have brought into this discussion (and others).Well done, Yeoman Eric!
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I partially agree with you. There can be no doubt that every one of us comes to the text with certain assumptions based on our tradition. I think thatâs inescapable just as any one who shoots a basketball has to be coming from some angle. That said, I think you overstate the liability that our own subjectivity causes. Truth has both a subjective (or perspectival) pole, but also an objective one. In other words, the truth isnât simply in the eye of the beholder; itâs really âout thereâ to be grasped.
I disagree. I was NOT predisposed to seeing this in 1 Cor 4:6 when I was a Catholic. I came to that text with the idea that, whatever Paul had in mind, it couldnât have been the sufficiency of scripture. So I came to the text with a bias that predisposed me to finding away around what Paul clearly said. But there are two truths in Paulâs statement that cannot be denied with intellectual honesty. 1. That âit is writtenâ is always a reference to scripture. 2. That ânot beyond,â states a limitation and therefore establishes a boundary beyond which the Corinthians were expected not to go. The only remaining questions are these: 1. Can Paulâs expectation for the Corinthians be generalized into a principle that is normative for the church in every age? 2. Can âwhat is writtenâ include scriptures that, at the time, had not been written yet?
I think the answer is yes to both questions, and so this is why I think Paul really is presupposing a view of scriptural authority that is no different in substance from what the Reformers meant by âsola scirptura.â
I am glad you acknowledge your own bias here.
And here we get to the crux of the issue. I agree that this is, finally, the Catholic view. Scripture obtains its meaning in and according to Catholic Tradition, which in turn is defined by the Magisterium. This meansâat the end of the dayâthat your ultimate rule of faith isnât Scripture + Tradition, but rather sola ecclesiaâor to be more precise, what I like to call, âsola Roma.â
Protestantism says at least in principle, (but certainly not always in practice), that it is our traditions that must conform to scripture. Thus we are supposed to read our tradition in light of scripture and not the other way around. Iâm afraid that this polarity is often reversed in even Protestantism. But thatâs the fault of Protestants, not the principle itself.
That is false. Many of your traditions cannot be traced back to authors of scripture. This is why your church has had to add the âdevelopment of doctrineâ theory to the equation, since not even Tradition is sufficient to prove a number of your dogmas.
This is also false. Both Luther and Calvin would have burned me at the stake for any number of issues, especially my position on baptism. But at least my view on baptism can be traced back to the New Testament itself. Theirs and yours cannot.
P
paul_c
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
Illogical? Yes!
T
Tomster
Guest
Miguel,
In regards to # 9: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Clement_I%2C_Saint
Scroll down to paragraph # 3 if you would for some historical evidence.
Some time back on this thread you questioned whether Pope St. Clement was ever in Rome. The above link should help you out.
In regards to his âEpistle to the Corinthiansâ this document is among the most important documents of subapostolic times, the earliest piece of Christian literature outside of the New Testament for which the name, position and date of the author are historically attested.
The document is precious from the dogmatic viewpoint. It may well be called the manifesto of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Here for the first time we find a clear and explicit declaration of the doctrine of apostolic succession. The fact is stressed that the presbyters cannot be deposed by the members of the community because authority is not bestowed by them. The right to rule derives from the Apostles, who exercised their power in obedience to Christ, who in turn was sent by God.
The Epistle of St. Clement is also of supreme importance for another point of dogma, the primacy of the Roman Church, of which it furnishes unequivocal proof.
You really should brush up on your history. Misrepresenting the Church Fathers is one of the many problems you have regarding our current discussion
I
inkaneer
Guest
To add to the above, in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 Paul refers to the âman of Godâ This is not a believing layman as protestants would think. Rather the âman of Godâ is a clergyman. Recall that Timothy was a bishop of Ephesus and this letter was a personal letter written to him directly. With that understanding, Paulâs message becomes clear. He is not endorsing sola scriptura but urging Timothy to continue in what Paul taught him so that Timothy would be complete for his work as a bishop.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Iâm not exactly sure what your stance is concerning the concept of the development of doctrine is, but your use of the term âtheoryâ seems to questions its validity. If that is the case then I would like to point two things out.
First of all, I think it would be good to clarify what is meant by âdevelopment of doctrine.â All doctrines have their origins in the Deposit of Faith given to us from the Apostles, but our understanding of these doctrines can develop over time. We can clearly see something similar at work in the Old Testament. For example, the Jews of the early Old Testament period did not have the same understanding of resurrection and heaven that the Jews of the later Old Testament period had.
Secondly, Protestants have to believe in this concept of the development of doctrine as well. For example, the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity cannot be proven by a purely exegetical examination of Scripture (portions of it can, but not all of it). The existence of a number of heresies in the Early Church (which attacked one or more aspects of the nature of the Holy Trinity) show that many people read the same Scriptures and yet came up with different conclusions. The formulation of the Nicene Creed was an official Church response to such heresies and its statements concerning the Holy Trinity and the eternal divine nature of Christ is an example of the development of doctrine.
T
Tomster
Guest
Thanks Eric and if I may add that the developement of doctrine is the process, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, by which the contents of the Deposit of Faith are explicitly drawn out. That all the truths of the Deposit should be thus explicitly taught from the beginning was not humanly possible. Jesus, Himself, taught us near the end of His earthly ministry that He would send us the Paraclete to lead us to all truth. Some were contained implicitly or obscurely in the primary truths. Others were enshrined in the practice of the Church rather than in formularies. In the course of time these might be questioned or denied. Theological discussion would follow. Finally they would be defined by the infallible Church as of divine faith and part of the original deposit.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Your claim, then, is that when Paul says âIt is written,â that he has only in mind the passages he cited up to this point in his letter and that the phrase itself, (âIt is writtenâ) has no wider application. How would you even begin to prove this? I, on the other hand, can show you that âIt is writtenâ is a formula that means âscripture says.â Therefore Paul really is appealing to a general principle and not only to the specific texts he cites. If you doubt this, simply ask yourself the question. Does Paul mean to tell the Corinthians âGo no further than the specific texts I cited, but feel free to go beyond all the texts I did not citeâ? To ask such a question is to answer it.
Bare assertion on your part, no matter how many times you assert it, isnât a substitute for argumentation. How do you know that âNot beyond what is writtenâ can be so restricted to only the passages Paul has cited thus far? In other words, on what basis would you argue that such a saying is not in fact a general principle, but only an idiosyncratic statement?
Well Iâm glad Iâve moved you this far. All that is left to demonstrate is that Paulâs concept of scriptural authority is no different is substance from what the Reformerâs meant by sola scriptura. I would go about it this way:
- First, sola scriptura implies material sufficiency for matters of doctrine. Translation: Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation and scripture is sufficient to equip the believer for living the Christian life. Does Paul believe this about scripture? Of course he does. In fact, even the Old Testament is sufficient in this regard, as Paul clearly spells out in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
- Second, sola scriptura implies formal sufficiency in that it is clear enough (perspicuity) for the stable-minded believer to understand what is in its pages. Note well. This is not the claim that everything in scripture is intelligible to everyone all the time. Nor is it the claim that scripture needs no interpretation and explanation. It is simply the straightforward claim that God speaks sufficiently clearly in its pages to be understood. The main things are the plain things.
- Did Paul believe that scripture was sufficient to establish the case he was arguing at this point in the letter? Yes. As you noted, Paul is preaching humility. I think that may be a little too broad to function as an adequate summary of his teaching thus far. I would simply add that Paul is teaching the supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom of God in order to combat divisions, which most certainly entails a call to humility so as not to get âpuffed up one against the otherâ (v. 6).
- Did Paul believe that scripture was clear enough to be understood by the Corinthians in order to make the points he was making? Again, yes. Paul is taking for granted that Godâs word is intelligible to those with functioning faculties and that no other authority is required in order to know what it says because God Himself is the authority for his own word.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I just did. So did you. The Corinthians are forming personality cults around individual leadersânot unlike your church does with Peter and his alleged successors. The practice stems from at least two false doctrines that are implicit in Paulâs indictment of their behavior. First, the Corinthians are positing a poly-cephalous church. But for Paul there is only one head of the churchâChrist. They are also dividing the church. But for Paul there is only one body of Christ. It may be that their lack of humility or pride or whatever that is problematic. But to reduce the entire issue to merely this, isâwellâoverly reductionist, in my opinion.
That said, sola scriptura isnât only about doctrine. The Word of God also norms our behavior and not just our beliefs. So your objectionâthat Paul isnât correcting false doctrineâreally isnât relevant anyway, since Protestants appeal to the sola scriptura principle in matters of morals, not just faith.
I should think the answer is obvious from the context of the letter. What were the Corinthians doing when they were saying, âI am of Apollos,â or âI am of Cephas,â etc.? They were elevating an individual to a position of authority on par with that of Christ himself. On what basis does Paul rebuke/correct this error? He does so solely on the basis of scripture. He says, âIt is written,â to make his case. He does not say, âAs the Church has always taught.â Further, the mere fact that Paul rejects the Corinthiansâ attempt to elevate the apostles beyond their station, shows that Paul rejects the idea that his own authority was equivalent to that of scripture. In other words, Paul holds his own teaching to the standard of scripture. Letâs put it this way. The mere fact that Paul said, ânot beyond what is writtenâ and did not say ânot beyond scripture, tradition and the magisterium,â ought to say something.
That may be the case. But this does not imply that tradition is on par with scripture. For example: The divinity of Christ is taught in both scripture, the Nicene creed, the Westminister Confession of Faith, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But the reason why the NC, WCF and CCC are all correct in this regard is because what these documents teach are grounded in scripture. Scripture, therefore, has final normative authority here, and we accept those other documents only insofar as they conform to the norm of scripture.
But he didnât neglect to teach it. So there is no âglaring omission.â In fact, the fact that he wants the Corinthians to learn the saying, ânot beyond what is written,â is a simple reminder to them that scriptureânot Apollos, not Paul and not Peterâis the standard to which their own faith and morals must conform.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Sola scriptura in historical context was a slogan of the Reformation. Behind the slogan, however, is a principle that has been believed by the people of God in both Testaments and by many of the church fathers. So your attempt to exclude the principle of the sufficiency of scripture from the historical record is not only inaccurate, itâs dishonest.
Sorry, but âGod-breathedâ is far from âshakyâ as a translation for θξĎĎÎ˝ÎľĎ ĎĎÎżĎ. But Iâm not certain why this is relevant to your assertion that Paulâand I quoteââdoes not directly teach sola scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16.â For the sake of argument, letâs assume that âinspiredâ is a better translation. How has the equation changed? The point Paul is making is that scripture has its origin in God. Paul uses no equivalent term to describe anything else like a body of unwritten traditions to which we are bound. In other words, the claim to pedigree that scripture makes for itself is on an order of magnitude higher than any claim that scripture makes for other competing authorities such as the church or tradition.
Yes. And did you know that we Protestants believe that the Old Testament is also sufficient? In fact, the canon at any point in its history is sufficient, even when the canon itself is incomplete. That surprises a lot of Catholics. This is because they are confusing the difference between the authority of scripture and the extent of scripture. No Protestant denies that Paul has the Old Testament in mind here. What we deny is that only the Old Testament is inspired simply because that is Paulâs most immediate referent. Once again, Paul is stating both a general principle (i.e., âall scripture is inspired,â) and a specific referent (âthe scriptures of your infancy.â) You, however, are trying to drive a wedge between the two.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I wonder, however, if you would be willing to be consistent with your own principle. Consider this argument. Catholics argue that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 teaches the general principle of âSacred Scripture and Sacred Traditionâ as normative for the Church (see Dei Verbum, 8). Of course Paul taught no such thing in this passage. For in context, Paul is simply giving the Thessalonians a way to distinguish his genuine teaching from that of imposters or deceiving spirits passing off false teaching as if it were from Paul. But what teaching does Paul have in mind? 2 Thessalonians 2:5 tells us that Paul is speaking of the teaching that he once taught them in person. Interestingly, it is probably that very teaching that we read about in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Be that as it may, there is no difference in content between Paulâs oral teaching and what we read about in 2 Thessalonians itself.
Paul was not asserting an open-ended doctrinal carte blanche called âSacred Traditionâ that the Catholic Church would later populate with unbiblical beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception (1854), papal infallibility (1870) and the Assumption of Mary (1950). On the contrary, Paul had specific teachings in mindâthe very ones he already explained to them in person. Keeping the context in mind, we know exactly what those teachings wereânamelyâall the conditions that must be fulfilled before the Parousia can take place.
But Catholics are universalizing Paulâs particular into a general principle of authority for the churchâi.e. that both written tradition (sacred scripture) and oral tradition (sacred tradition) have the same level of authority. That, however, is not what Paul asserted. Paul was simply telling the Thessalonians how tell the difference between Paulâs teaching and someone pretending to be Paul. To wit, either they could believe what Paul taught them in person (oral statements), or they could go by his genuine letters, which is why he signed them in large letters (2 Thes. 3:17) lest their be any doubt as to who composed the letter.
This is the context in which âhold fast to the traditions,â obtains its meaning. If youâre going to take this command and generalize it into a principle, then whatâs to prevent you from doing the same with 2 Timothy 4:13: âWhen you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.â What is the principle here? Should we bring cloaks, parchment, and books with us every time we ask Paul to intercede for us in prayer? Or does this apply only if weâre doing this in Troas? Does it have to be parchment? Or can we substitute paper in its place?
This silly example reminds us of the obvious. There is a difference between texts that assert or presuppose a timeless, universal principle while having a specific historical reference, and those texts that merely have a specific historical reference. Call it intuition, but something tells me that ânot beyond what is writtenâ applies in a way that âbring the cloak I left back in Troas,â does not.
Paul was not asserting an open-ended doctrinal carte blanche called âSacred Traditionâ that the Catholic Church would later populate with unbiblical beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception (1854), papal infallibility (1870) and the Assumption of Mary (1950). On the contrary, Paul had specific teachings in mindâthe very ones he already explained to them in person. Keeping the context in mind, we know exactly what those teachings wereânamelyâall the conditions that must be fulfilled before the Parousia can take place.
But Catholics are universalizing Paulâs particular into a general principle of authority for the churchâi.e. that both written tradition (sacred scripture) and oral tradition (sacred tradition) have the same level of authority. That, however, is not what Paul asserted. Paul was simply telling the Thessalonians how tell the difference between Paulâs teaching and someone pretending to be Paul. To wit, either they could believe what Paul taught them in person (oral statements), or they could go by his genuine letters, which is why he signed them in large letters (2 Thes. 3:17) lest their be any doubt as to who composed the letter.
This is the context in which âhold fast to the traditions,â obtains its meaning. If youâre going to take this command and generalize it into a principle, then whatâs to prevent you from doing the same with 2 Timothy 4:13: âWhen you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.â What is the principle here? Should we bring cloaks, parchment, and books with us every time we ask Paul to intercede for us in prayer? Or does this apply only if weâre doing this in Troas? Does it have to be parchment? Or can we substitute paper in its place?
This silly example reminds us of the obvious. There is a difference between texts that assert or presuppose a timeless, universal principle while having a specific historical reference, and those texts that merely have a specific historical reference. Call it intuition, but something tells me that ânot beyond what is writtenâ applies in a way that âbring the cloak I left back in Troas,â does not.
Yes. This means it is âsufficientâ for doing all of these things.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Apples and oranges. But I think I see the problem. First, Catholics routinely assume that âsola scripturaâ means âonly scripture is profitable,â or that âscripture is all we have to equip us for every good work,â as you have admirably illustrated here. The problem, however, is that this is not the claim. Remember, sola scriptura is sixteenth century shorthand for the idea that âscripture alone,â or âonly scriptureâ as opposed to the Catholic Church and its traditions, are binding upon the conscience of the believer. Itâs a pithy protestânot a full-blown doctrine. The principle that stands behind âsola scriptura,â however, is the sufficiency of scriptureâboth material and formal.
This is why I donât think you can make the comparison between the two passages. In saying that scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, correcting etc., Paul is clearly saying that scripture is sufficient to equip the believer for those tasks. Since those tasks have to do with the teaching of doctrine and morals, it follows that scripture is sufficient to teach both doctrine and morals.
Your mistake here is a common one. Youâre failing to distinguish between sufficiency and exhaustiveness. Sola scriptura is not, nor ever has been the claim that scripture is the only thing that equips the believer to do the work of God, but rather that it is sufficient to do so. Likewise sola scriptura is not the claim that only the Bible has authority in the church. It is the clam that it has final authority and that scripture is the ground of all other authorities, including that of the church and its traditions.
If and when a particular church or a tradition differs with scripture, the principle says to use scripture to correct and reprove that church and its tradition, no matter how old that church may be. When a church or tradition agrees with scripture, the principle is to conclude that that church and tradition are indeed authoritative and rightly to be obeyed. This is exactly the presupposition of Jesus when he corrected the Phariseesâ use of the Corban rule.
No, no. Listen. You made the point that if Paul had taught S.S., then everyone would have believed it. My reply is that by that reasoning, we could substitute any belief for SS and make a similar conclusion. For example, If Paul had taught the Trinity, then everyone would have believed it.â Well, at the time of Athanasius contra mundum, probably two-thirds of the world, including the bishop of Rome, denied the Trinity. Does that mean Paul didnât believe the substance of the doctrine (even if he lived prior to its exact formulation)? Of course not.
How so, exactly? If you acknowledge that ânot beyond what is written,â could have a âbroaderâ application, then it would seem this would a boon for me, and a bane for you.
Then this commits you to the absurd position that Paul would not be opposed to the Corinthians going beyond any passage of scripture that he did not cite. In other words, âdonât go beyond Isaiah, Job and the Psalm, but by all means ignore Genesis, Exodus and any other scripture that I did not cite.â Is that really the view you wish to defend?
Would you apply this same reasoning to John 10:35, when Jesus asserted that âScripture cannot be brokenâ (citing Psalm 86:2). Are we to conclude that Jesus intended to tell us that only Psalm 86:2 is unbreakable scripture? Or is it not more likely that Jesus is saying that scripture in general cannot be broken while citing a particular example of the unbreakable scriptures?
But if we were to apply our obtuse reasoning to John 10:35, then all kinds of absurdities follow. After all, since Jesus was citing the Old Testament, then one could argue that only the Old Testament cannot be broken. But would you really want to argue that the New Testament can be broken?
I think itâs time we mention the elephant in the room here. At the end of the day, all of your attempts to universalize particulars and particularize universals is nothing more than an attempt to make scripture conform to your real rule of faith, which is neither scripture nor tradition, but rather Rome itself. If you would just be up front about that, then we could begin to deal with the real issueânamely, that there is a fundamental choice to be made between sola scriptura (the rule of faith of Jesus and the apostles) and sola Roma (the rule of faith of the Catholic Church).
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Again, Iâm glad Iâve moved you this far. This is progress in deed if only in the fact that youâre now allowing for a broader application of the passage. But I remain undaunted. I really do think if you look at the passage as is, you will see that Paul himself is asserting a principle of authority and not only the particular application of that principle. In other wordsâthe argument I am making is not, âso just like the Paul urged the Corinthians not to go beyond 5 or so OT passages, so we ought to not go beyond an passage in scripture.â Rather, I am saying that Paul himself is asserting ânot beyond what is written,â as a slogan that the Corinthians are to learn and this therefore means, ipso facto, that he is teaching the very principle that stands behind the slogan.
To review, âNot beyond,â states a limitation. âWhat is written,â means scripture in general. Let me quote from the New Jerusalem Bible here: âI have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that you can learn how the saying, âNothing beyond what is writtenâ is true of us: no individual among you must become filled with his own importance and make comparisons, to anotherâs detriment.â Notice that the NJB opts to call ânot beyond what is written,â a âsaying.â This is justified on the grounds that the neuter article âtoâ often sets off a formal quotation. But what are sayings, if not pithy summaries of abiding principles?
If you are correct, then Paul would be asserting, âlearn the saying, ânot beyond what is written,â meaning nothing beyond the five citations Iâve made so far.â That hardly seems likely. Far more likely is the claim that he means by ânot beyond what is written,â exactly what the Reformers meant by âsola scriptura,â i.e., that scripture is the final norm to which our teaching most conform. Your attempts to get around the obvious are, well, just thatâobvious.
Thank you. I appreciate your candor in conceding me this point. Let me respond to the last part of your objection as follows: When Jesus said that âscripture cannot be broken,â in John 10:35, most of the New Testament had not have been written yet. So can we safely conclude that all the scriptures that came after the fact can be broken? I donât think that would be a safe assumption at all. But if not in John 10:34, then not in 1 Cor. 4:6 either.
Ah. Interesting. So from your point of view, Tradition allows us to read meaning into a text that may not have been what the author had in mind.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
This may be an accurate description of some Jews, but not all. Jews had various ways of distinguishing the relative authority of scripture to other scriptures and oral tradition to other traditions and to scripture. The books of Moses, for example were âcore canonâ for all Jews. The prophets likewise were considered inspiredâbut not quite as core as Moses. The Sadducees, for example, seem not have regarded the books of the prophets as canon, which is why Jesus makes his case for the Resurrection the basis of God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacobâthe God of the living, not the dead. (Notice too that scripture was sufficient to correct their error, even though the extent of scripture was limited here.) Then there were the writings, which were of a lesser authority. But all of these âwere written,â and therefore could trump oral Torah. Jesus demonstrates this in refuting the Corban rule, which for the Pharisees was part of the word of God since they thought tradition was needed understand the Law and the Prophets correctly. Jesus makes the exact opposite point by correcting their errant tradition by appealing directly to scripture.
But there was scripture. And it was sufficient to function as their rule of faith. âNot beyond what is written.â âScripture cannot be broken.â Is there a comparable statement about âSacred Tradition?â Is there even such a concept as âSacred Traditionâ mentioned in scripture?
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Miguel, you amuse me to no end, you know that? What you just said here is, essentially, that the only way for anyone to âcorrectlyâ understand the passages that give evidence for your brand of SS is for the reader to first assume the correctness of your brand of SS, and then to practice eisigesis when reading them. If thatâs not some of the most horrifically misguided advice about biblical interpretation Iâve ever heard, I donât know what is. In much the same way that your offering of Satan as the model-SS-interpreter was a far better argument against your version of SS than I could ever have come up with myself, youâve again given us another perfect example of why not to subscribe to your theology. Perhaps if you keep writing to us, weâll be able to just stop responding and let you talk yourself out of SSâŚ
T
Tiberius1701
Guest
Eric, I think itâs important to point Miguel to a third incident of development of doctrine to which it cannot be denied he ascribes: namely the âdevelopmentâ of SS. Clearly, when reading the Bible and the Early Church Fathers, thereâs a profound reliance on Apostolic teaching authority in the interpretation of Scripture. The ECFs, and indeed the Catholic Church today, assert the material sufficiency of Scripture - the idea that the Bible contains or implies everything that is needed for salvation - but deny the formal sufficiency of Scripture - the idea that the Bible is so abundantly clear on all things necessary for salvation that no outside information nor interpretive authority is necessary for all these things to be correctly understood by everyone. However, in order to believe in SS, Miguel has to accept the âmore developedâ understanding that the ECFs were wrong and that it was later formulated, 1500 years after the Bible was written, that the Bible is actually much clearer than previously understood regarding matters pertaining to salvation.
So, unless Miguel accepts the concept of development of doctrine, which I agree he seems rather to despise than to accept, he in fact must deny SS along with the denial of the Catholic concept of the development of doctrines. Of course, if Miguel chooses to accept SS via the acceptance of the development of doctrines, he must also assert that the development of doctrines has, since the 16th Century, been taken out of the hands of the Magisterium and given instead to the laity, but Iâm sure heâd just chawk that up to yet another âdoctrinal developmentâ⌠Of course, the inherent difficulty in all of these âdevelopmentsâ that Miguel must accept in order to establish SS is that, unlike the developments of Catholic doctrine, which all find complete and utter harmony with previous understandings of the same doctrines, Miguelâs âdevelopmentsâ actually contradict the previous understandings of the doctrines they are perported to âdevelopâ⌠I wonder if he finds that at all problematic?
- Status