Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[PRmerger]

Can you provide us with Irenaeus’s canon of scripture then?

It was that which proclaimed the paradosis, which was deposited, once for all to the saints.

Now, 'tis true that I cannot provide you with a list which he considered theopneustos, however it’s clear from his writings that he often quoted the Gospels, the epistles, as well as the OT.

I thought that the common claim of this web-board was that the canon did not exist until about 200 yrs after Irenaeus’s time.

I don’t believe any (knowledgeable) Catholic has claimed that it “did not exist” until the Magisterium of the Church “canonized” it in the 4th century.

This is a common misconception among non-Catholics. They seem to be under the misapprehension that teachings “did not exist” until the Magisterium proclaimed such.

Not true at all. Let’s look at the dogma of the Trinity: was it only believed and professed at the point of its infallible declaration in the 4th century?

 

[Algo1]

Very well, can you provide us with the content of the “Sacred Tradition” that is not in Scripture that Irenaeus “gives equal value to”?

You are creating a false dichotomy, Algo. ST does not refer to what is “not in Scripture”.

It’s obvious that you firmly believe in (a) “material sufficiency view” however there is no official Roman Catholic position on Scripture’s material sufficiency or insufficiency.

The fact remains that no ecclesiastical definition has been offered to resolve or adjudicate the much controverted issue, though many have felt strongly that Trent was an official decree that Scripture is, in fact, materially insufficient.
David T. King Holy Scripture p. 187

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this:

**Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. **

source:

Peter Stravinskas, S.J. - “(a study of the debates at the Council of Trent) will demonstrate that no single theory of divine Revelation dominated the catholic landscape prior to Trent and indeed that none really did afterwards, either. Granted, all the Catholic apologists were united in asserting that both Church and Scripture carried weight, but they were far from unanimous in explaining the relationship between the two” (Not By Scripture Alone, Robert Sungenis, editor).

Karl Keating - “It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the NT. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing - the part that is outside of the NT and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition - that part of revelation Catholics also accept, and in this they follow the apostle Paul’s injunction…” (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 1988, p 151).

Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI - “…no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine” (Joseph Ratzinger, “The Transmission of Divine Revelation”, commenting on article 9 of Dei Verbum. Found in Vorgrimler, ed, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol 3, p 195).

The view known as “partim-partim” was very popular from the time of Trent onward and in fact without knowing it most Roman Catholics who appeal to 2Thess. 2:15 to defend extra-Biblical doctrines are actually engaging in “partim-partim”.
continued:

 

[Algo1]

On the contrary, it is the lens through which we understand Scirpture.

Patristic Scholar E. Flesseman-Van Leer

**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 (Assen, 1954), p. 191.

**Unclear passages of Scripture are to be interpreted according to the clear passages.
**

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god, but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god, weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less important question. ** For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and clear.** ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:10:1.

No mention of an infallible Magisterium required to interpret Scripture.

** Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. ** We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; **but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries. ** And there is no cause for wonder if this is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly, and such as require to be made known to us by revelation, since many even of those things which lie at our very feet (I mean such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with) transcend our knowledge, so that even these we must leave to God. For it is fitting that He should excel all [in knowledge]. For how stands the case, for instance, if we endeavour to explain the cause of the rising of the Nile? We may say a great deal, plausible or otherwise, on the subject; but what is true, sure, and incontrovertible regarding it, belongs only to God. Then, again, the dwelling-place of birds—of those, I mean, which come to us in spring, but fly away again on the approach of autumn—though it is a matter connected with this world, escapes our knowledge. What explanation, again, can we give of the flow and ebb of the ocean, although every one admits there must be a certain cause [for these phenomena]? Or what can we say as to the nature of those things which lie beyond it? What, moreover, can we say as to the formation of rain, lightning, thunder, gatherings of clouds, vapours, the bursting forth of winds, and such like things; of tell as to the storehouses of snow, hail, and other like things? [What do we know respecting] the conditions requisite for the preparation of clouds, or what is the real nature of the vapours in the sky? What as to the reason why the moon waxes and wanes, or what as to the cause of the difference of nature among various waters, metals, stones, and such like things? On all these points we may indeed say a great deal while we search into their causes, but **God alone ** who made them can declare the truth regarding them. ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:28:2.

Unlike modern Roman Catholicism, Irenaeus tells us that God, not the Church, gave us the Scriptures, and that if a matter concerning God is not revealed in Scripture, it is because it is beyond the scope of extant revelation.

Irenaeus (c. 130-200): (Scripture to be interpreted by Scripture) If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and ** all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.** If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world? ”we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things. ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:28:3

continued:

 

[guanophore]

Can you provide us with Irenaeus’s canon of scripture then?
I thought that the common claim of this web-board was that the canon did not exist until about 200 yrs after Irenaeus’s time.

The closing of the canon of Scripture in 382 AD is not a “claim of this web-board” but a matter of historical record.

The holy writings were collected and preserved from the time they were written. Irenaeus, following the Apostles, used the Alexandrian Septuagint, along with what he called “the memoirs of the Apostles and the prophets”. He may have had the collection of Paul’s letters.

The canon is a product of sacred Tradition. It exists because the Word of God, preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit, brought it into existence through the Chruch. Irenaeus preserved all of the Sacred Tradition not just the holy writings that were in his care.

 

[guanophore]

It’s obvious that you firmly believe in (a) “material sufficiency view” however there is no official Roman Catholic position on Scripture’s material sufficiency or insufficiency.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this:

source:

The view known as “partim-partim” was very popular from the time of Trent onward and in fact without knowing it most Roman Catholics who appeal to 2Thess. 2:15 to defend extra-Biblical doctrines are actually engaging in “partim-partim”.

This may come as a shock to you, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an infallible compendium of the Catholic faith.

I recommend Dei Verbum.

Trent reiterated what the Church has always believed and taught, what we have from the Apostles, and what you have represented here in the Fathers. The terms “material and formal sufficiency” are modern, but the concepts, as you have shown, are ancient. The Church has always taught what we call “material” sufficiency from Scripture, and “formal” sufficiency from Scripture and Tradition together.

 

[guanophore]

**Patristic Scholar E. Flesseman-Van Leer**

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 (Assen, 1954), p. 191.

I am not sure here what he means by “extrascriptural tradition”. To me that does not equate to something that is revelatory truth “apart from Scripture”. You see, the Apostles left the Word “by word of mouth and writing”. They are not separate from one another, but entwined.

**Unclear passages of Scripture are to be interpreted according to the clear passages.
**

No mention of an infallible Magisterium required to interpret Scripture.

Do you consider this man to be an infallible source? You quote him like he was writing scripture. Of course unclear passages are to be interpreted according to clear passages. This is the Teaching of the infallible Magesterium.

Then, there are some passages that have no clarifying source, or that seem clear to one group in opposition to another, such as John 6 having nothing to do with the Eucharist. When that happens, the Magesterium explains how the clear interprets the unclear.

In Chapter II of Book III, after saying in paragraph 1 that the heretics reject the authority of the Bible, St. Irenaeus goes on to say:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition (AH, III, 2, 2)

Irenaeus holds Scripture and Tradition equal.

Unlike modern Roman Catholicism, Irenaeus tells us that God, not the Church, gave us the Scriptures

The two are not separate, Algo. God chose to work through the Catholic Church. Why is that so difficult for you?

Eph 3:9-11
to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10** that through the church **the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. …

 

[jnpl1185]

I have not read the entire thread, but it seems to me from what I’ve seen so far, that there is a misunderstanding of the historical basis of the Sola scriptura teaching by the first reformers by both RCs and Protestants here. I even saw the typical accusation that the first reformers threw out books of the Bible which they did not agree with. Not true–Martin Luther translated and published all of the Bible, with Deuterocanonical texts–at that time (before Trent), there was still much debate about the apostle-originating canon among Catholic Humanists (Erasmus among others) and many still saw some certain texts as apocryphal, both some in the New and some in the Old Testament. Luther still always claimed that they were important books to read, regardless of their status, official or not. It was only later that printers began not including them for reasons of cost and a declining valuation of them as being “Catholic” after Trent reaffirmed their status, as I understand.

The basis for Sola Scriptura is not “biblical” in the sense that the Bible tells us which books are true and that only the Bible is the authority. Rather, New Testament canon and authority was based by Martin Luther on what was considered through detailed biblical scholarship to be the apostolic origin (written by an apostel or a close disciple of an apostle) and gospel-affirming character (salvation through belief in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ) of the individual texts. Old Testament canon was decided on tradition and what was historically accepted universally by the very first Christians, as I understand it.

I have my doubts that anyone will read it, but the following is a great article, regardless of whether or not you agree with the teaching:

wikichristian.org/index.php/Luther’s_view_on_the_canon_of_scripture_(J.S.)

 

[guanophore]

I have not read the entire thread, but it seems to me from what I’ve seen so far, that there is a misunderstanding of the historical basis of the Sola scriptura teaching by the first reformers by both RCs and Protestants here.

It would be a good thread for you to read, jnp. If you start at the top, you can work your way through the posts a little at at time. Just note where you left off. I think you will find that the discrepancies in definition is the main focus of the thread.

Welcome, BTW.

I even saw the typical accusation that the first reformers threw out books of the Bible which they did not agree with. Not true--Martin Luther translated and published all of the Bible, with Deuterocanonical texts--

He did, but he moved them to the back of his Bible, and stated that they were not on par with the rest of the Scriptures. However, if one researches this topic, one will find that there are NO Bibles produced from 382 when the Catholic Church closed the canon, and Luther’s Bible that did not contain the Deuterocanonicals. The idea that the canon was not closed until Trent is false. The Church received the Septuagint as the authoritative canon from the Apostles, and that is what has always been used.

at that time (before Trent), there was still much debate about the apostle-originating canon among Catholic Humanists (Erasmus among others) and many still saw some certain texts as apocryphal, both some in the New and some in the Old Testament.

Not only at that time, but since the beginning when the Scriptures have been penned there has been “much debate” about which books belong in the inspired collection. The debate, however, was closed in 382 AD, when the Church authoritatively pronounced which books belonged, and which did not. Luther and other scripture scholars seemed to believe that their opinons were just as authoritative as the Teaching Authority installed byu Christ.

 Luther still always claimed that they were important books to read, regardless of their status, official or not.

And by what authority does he make such a claim? From the point of view of the Apsotolic churches, it is his opinion. They are as common as belly buttons.

It was only later that printers began not including them for reasons of cost and a declining valuation of them as being “Catholic” after Trent reaffirmed their status, as I understand.

Yes, the publishers were trying to save money by extracting some books from the canon. What a motive for butchering the SAcred Scripture!

I am not sure what you mean by “declining valuation of them as being Catholic”. In fact, they were too “Catholic”. Trent affirmed what we received from the Apostles, that what constitutes Holy 'Scripture comes from God, not the publisher.

The basis for Sola Scriptura is not “biblical” in the sense that the Bible tells us which books are true and that only the Bible is the authority.

I think you will find that this has been acknowleged in the thread.

Rather, New Testament canon and authority was based by Martin Luther on what was considered through detailed biblical scholarship to be the apostolic origin (written by an apostel or a close disciple of an apostle) and gospel-affirming character (salvation through belief in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ) of the individual texts.

And if it had been up to Luther, he would have left out “the epistle of straw” (James). It is a testimony about how wrong it is for any one man, based on his own scholarship, to presume to define or change the Revelation of God to mankind. This presumption (hubris) is the primary wedge between Luther and the Church founded by Christ.

Luther claimed he had authority to do such things “because professor Martin says so”, which seemed to the successor of Peter to be the height of hubris.

Old Testament canon was decided on tradition and what was historically accepted universally by the very first Christians, as I understand it.

If this were true, then Luther would not have rejected the Deuterocanonicals, since they were used by Jesus and the Apostles.

I have my doubts that anyone will read it, but the following is a great article, regardless of whether or not you agree with the teaching:

wikichristian.org/index.php/Luther’s_view_on_the_canon_of_scripture_(J.S.)

Thanks, jnpl.

If you think members of CAF do not read, and study opposing points of view, you have grossly underestimated us.

 

[jnpl1185]

Thanks for the welcome!

He did, but he moved them to the back of his Bible, and stated that they were not on par with the rest of the Scriptures. However, if one researches this topic, one will find that there are NO Bibles produced from 382 when the Catholic Church closed the canon, and Luther’s Bible that did not contain the Deuterocanonicals. The idea that the canon was not closed until Trent is false. The Church received the Septuagint as the authoritative canon from the Apostles, and that is what has always been used.

All information I am aware of, and not sure how this refutes anything I wrote, as I fully accept their inclusion and believe they should be read. The point was that there were many scholars throughout the centuries, Catholic and otherwise, who have openly challenged canon due to emerging biblical scholarship, starting with Jerome. That Luther included them as Apocryphal seems only to acknowledge their disputed nature, regardless of official teaching after Damasius’ canon.

Yes, the publishers were trying to save money by extracting some books from the canon. What a motive for butchering the SAcred Scripture!

I get the impression you think I am arguing that it was right for them to do this… nope. Preachin’ to the choir. Again, not something I am arguing about. Just sharing information.

Trent affirmed what we received from the Apostles, that what constitutes Holy 'Scripture comes from God, not the publisher.

Certainly not the publishers, but I welcome new insights into biblical scholarship and textual history that Popes and Councils may not have had access to. These kinds of declarations require a certain faith in Papal Authority that I simply do not have as a Lutheran Christian. Not trying to argue–if you can believe this, more power to you, but you can’t convince me with declarations and tradition any more than I could convince you with reason and history. This will have to remain an area where we agree to disagree.

And if it had been up to Luther, he would have left out “the epistle of straw” (James). It is a testimony about how wrong it is for any one man, based on his own scholarship, to presume to define or change the Revelation of God to mankind. This presumption (hubris) is the primary wedge between Luther and the Church founded by Christ.

As the article I shared with everyone states, the “epistle of straw” comment is usually taken out of context, which it seems to have been here. Also, Luther actually did understand James in context of the Gospel of living faith, as the article argues (you did read the article, right?).

If this were true, then Luther would not have rejected the Deuterocanonicals, since they were used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Do you have a source for this claim? The deuterocanonical books were, at least usually, excluded from Jewish and early christian canon (meaning, 1st century) from everything I’ve read. That’s why they’re deuterocanonical.

 

[guanophore]

The point was that there were many scholars throughout the centuries, Catholic and otherwise, who have openly challenged canon due to emerging biblical scholarship, starting with Jerome. That Luther included them as Apocryphal seems only to acknowledge their disputed nature, regardless of official teaching after Damasius’ canon.

You are right of course, both about the scholarly debate, and Luther’s decision. However, the Revelation of God is not defined by “emerging biblical scholarship”, any more than any other doctrines of the faith. The faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was every written. The reason the canon and SS discussions always end up in the realm of authority is because changing the canon, and using SS function to deny the teaching authority put in place by Christ. It is that authority that has His guidance and His commandment to make decisions of this kind, not “emergent biblical scholarship”, however dedicated. Jerome submitted all his findings to that authority, and yielded to it, especially when his personal opinion diverged.

As it turns out, this was the most commendable course, because the Jews who denied the Deuterocanonicals and the Reformers who followed them all ended up with egg on their faces almost two millenia later. One of the major factors was that no one had these texts in the original Hebrew. When they did turn up in the dead sea scrolls, God demonstrated that the TEaching authority had the right revelation in the first place, in spite of all “biblical scholarship” to the contrary.

Certainly not the publishers, but I welcome new insights into biblical scholarship and textual history that Popes and Councils may not have had access to.

Yes. These are a constant source of enrichment for all of us.

These kinds of declarations require a certain faith in Papal Authority that I simply do not have as a Lutheran Christian. Not trying to argue--if you can believe this, more power to you, but you can't convince me with declarations and tradition any more than I could convince you with reason and history. This will have to remain an area where we agree to disagree.

Ok. I did not have it either, until I started an earnest study of the history of my faith. It became more and more clear to me that the successor of Peter, as the recipient of the Petrine Gifts, is the visible sign of unity in the Church.

As the article I shared with everyone states, the "epistle of straw" comment is usually taken out of context, which it seems to have been here. Also, Luther actually did understand James in context of the Gospel of living faith, as the article argues (you did read the article, right?).

Yes. Luther was in impetuous man,and it was a good thing he had people to temper his rashness. Matters could be much worse. When I read his works, I think I would be ashamed to belong to any group named after him. But we are discussing that on the other thread. I believe he did the best he could with what he had. He was just not a paragon of virtue.

Do you have a source for this claim? The deuterocanonical books were, at least usually, excluded from Jewish and early christian canon (meaning, 1st century) from everything I’ve read. That’s why they’re deuterocanonical.

No, that is not why.

But if we are going to pursue this, we need to do so on a canon thread, lest we derail this one.

They are “Deutero” long before Christ came. They were part of the Alexandrian Septuagint, about 200 yrs. BC. That is the collection the Apostles used.

 

[Algo1]

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this:

source:

The view known as “partim-partim” was very popular from the time of Trent onward and in fact without knowing it most Roman Catholics who appeal to 2Thess. 2:15 to defend extra-Biblical doctrines are actually engaging in “partim-partim”.

This may come as a shock to you, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an infallible compendium of the Catholic faith.

That’s true, but according to the Code of Canon Law 749, neither is Dei Verbim:

§1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3 ** No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
**

I recommend Dei Verbum.

Trent reiterated what the Church has always believed and taught, what we have from the Apostles, and what you have represented here in the Fathers.

I always get suspicious when a Roman Catholic uses the term ‘always’ when referring to a teaching or practice.

The terms “material and formal sufficiency” are modern, but the concepts, as you have shown, are ancient. The Church has always taught what we call “material” sufficiency from Scripture, and “formal” sufficiency from Scripture and Tradition together.

It’s pretty obvious from the writings of those I quoted above and many other’s that for a long period of time the Roman Communion did hold to a “two-source” view of God’s revelation.

Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) is a canonized saint and was one of the leading Roman Catholic apologists subsequent to the Council of Trent. He expresses the position of Trent and the Roman Catholic critique of sola Scriptura in these comments:

We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions… They (i.e. the Protestants) think that if there were any apostolical traditions they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tradition…We, on the contrary, assert that there are not wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested…If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering any thing unwritten equivalent to the written word…I assert that Scripture, although not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God’s revelation made to the Church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 3, c. 12. Cited by William Goode, Vol. I, pp. 73, 77–78

‘Note that Bellarmine says that revelation itself is not contained wholly in Scripture. ** He insists there are doctrinal truths that were committed orally to the Church by the apostles and passed down orally in the Church through her Tradition. This is not merely an issue of tradition as an authoritative interpretation of Scripture but of supposed doctrinal truths that are part of revelation but not contained in Scripture. Neither Bellarmine nor Trent believed the Scriptures to be materially sufficient.
** According to Trent, then, there is the written and unwritten word of God which together comprise the fullness of God’s revelation to man. The Roman Catholic Church claims to possess both, emphatically stating that this was the belief and practice of the Church in the beginning and throughout the ages of the Church historically. It was supposedly during the Reformation that this teaching was radically altered as 1500 years of Church practice was suddenly eradicated and a false dichotomy introduced between Scripture and the Church. In contradistinction to the Council of Trent, the Reformers insisted that Scripture alone is the special revelation man possesses from God; that there exists no oral revelation in the form of tradition once the apostolic age had ended; and that Scripture, in its essential teaching on salvation, is clear (perspicuous) and self–interpreting. In other words, Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient. The Reformers argued that the Church is not infallible but that all tradition and teaching must be subject to the final authority of Scripture. Scripture is the sole and final arbiter of truth, infallible and the ultimate authority.’
William Webster Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. II p.16-17.

 

[PRmerger]

The deuterocanonical books were, at least usually, excluded from Jewish and early christian canon (meaning, 1st century) from everything I’ve read. That’s why they’re deuterocanonical.

I wonder what that means about the Book of Deuter-onomy. Does that mean it ought to be excluded from the Christian canon as well?

 

[Algo1]

In Chapter II of Book III, after saying in paragraph 1 that the heretics reject the authority of the Bible, St. Irenaeus goes on to say:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition (AH, III, 2, 2)

Irenaeus holds Scripture and Tradition equal.

Irenaeus has a very specific meaning when he refers to “that tradition which originates from the apostles”.
He describes the content of “this tradition” very clearly in Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he calls-- This Faith from the apostles and their disciples. He goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are (primarily) the cardinal truths of the Creed. And This Faith , and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls The Tradition He puts it this way:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith… For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central region of the world… For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I.10.1-2.

So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as the rule of faith. This rule has a very specific content, (ALL) of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith. Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the Apostolic Tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain ORAL in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture.
continued:

 

[Algo1]

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
   Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)

 

[EricFilmer]

My Critique of Miguel’s Response to Challenge #4

Challenge #4

In order to prove the claim of Sola Scriptura that the Bible Alone is sufficient to formulate all Christian doctrines, use a purely exegetical demonstration to teach the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It has to be purely exegetical because as soon as you cross the line into eisegesis then you are no longer relating what the text objectively says, but what it subjectively might mean (in other words, not Scripture but an interpretation of Scripture). More specifically I challenge you to prove the following aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity using a purely exegetical examination of Scripture:

• The divinity of God is limited to specifically three persons.
• The personal attributes for the Holy Spirit in the Bible are not a simple matter of artistic personification as is seen in the OT descriptions of wisdom.
• The descriptions of the Holy Spirit are not simply descriptions of the power of God in action.
• The Holy Spirit is fully distinct from the Father and the Son.

Miguel

, as a P.S. to Challenge #4, this includes objectively proving from the Bible alone that Christ shares in the exact same eternal divine nature as that of the Father (and therefore Christ is not simply a created being imbued with divine power). Moreover, if you are anyone else who accepts this challenge, intends on bringing up the Comma Johanneum then I will need to also see a credible scholarly and historical defense of it being authentic Scripture.

Challenge not accepted. Again, this is not the claim. The “formulation” of doctrine is not the same as the “substance” of doctrine. “Formulations” of doctrine can change. The actual doctrine itself cannot. What makes the Trinity essential doctrine is that the substance of is revealed in scripture. But the formulation of the doctrine is not in scripture. Even “Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” is merely “Trinitarian.” It is not precisely the “Trinity” of later formulation. But why should we believe the later formulation? We believe it because it is a good and faithful interpretation of the truths we find in scripture.

There need not be any objection. When I said, “formulation of doctrine” I simply meant in terms of the following statements you made (which I am paraphrasing from Post #607):

• While the Bible does not explicitly say, “Use just the Bible to determine doctrine”, it nevertheless drives us to that conclusion in a number of ways.
• 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.
• 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.

Therefore, the nature of this challenge is to simply see if Scripture Alone can be used to sufficiently teach the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If Scripture is not then Scripture lacks the material and formal sufficiency you outlined.

I would also like to point out that the ramification (among others) of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is that a Christian can focus on the Holy Spirit as a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son, and likewise kneel down and worship the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son. Therefore, in order for such an act of worship to be permissible, the Doctrine has to be clearly taught. According to Catholicism, this doctrine is clearly taught in Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture, and is officially defined by the Magisterium.

But an adherent of Sola Scriptura is not awarded this luxury. I submit to you that in order for a “good and faithful interpretation” of Scripture to result in the formulation of a doctrine that allows a Christian to worship the Holy Spirit as an eternally divine person distinct from the Father and the Son then a lot more than some vague Bible passages is needed. Rather, clear and objective passages are needed to give a proper doctrinal foundation for such a weighty theological idea.

Moreover, consider what you said in Post #602:
“Now lets imagine that tradition is asserting doctrine Y. Do we believe Y is true simply because it has the pedigree of tradition behind it? Or is Y true because it is grounded in scripture? Those doctrines that are in tradition are considered true because they are first in scripture, which typically would explain why they became tradition in the first place. But is this true of every doctrine? No. Sometimes a doctrine can be found in tradition that cannot be found in scripture. In this case, the doctrine is either to be rejected as false or left without a mandate for lacking a sufficient foundation.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

You believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and you believe in Sola Scriptura (in terms of how you have defined it). In light of the various comments you made which I have presented above in green text, in order to successfully meet the conditions of Challenge #4 you have to…

1. Use the Bible alone to determine the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If you appeal to Tradition or any non-biblical source then you will contradict your own application and definition of Sola Scriptura. In other words, in such an action you would not be using the Bible alone (i.e., a violation of its application) and you would demonstrate that the Bible alone is not materially sufficient in teaching universal Christian truths.
2. Your Bible quotes must clearly teach the various aspects of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Otherwise, you will be demonstrating that the Bible is not formally sufficient to teach it.
3. If you cannot express the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity with the Bible alone then this doctrine should be (according to you) “rejected as false or left without a mandate for lacking a sufficient foundation.”

In light of all this, let us see how you did in responding to Challenge #4: Show that the divinity of God is limited to specifically three persons

The Father is God: “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).
The Son is God: “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,’ (Hebrews 1:8).

All you have done is shown passages which associate the concept of divinity with the terms “Father”, “Son” and “Spirit.” Does any of this actually state that God exists as three, and only three, separate persons? No.

Also, Hebrews 1:8 can also be translated as “God is thy throne forever and ever,” which does not even have to associate any divinity with the Son. For example, William Barclay translates it this way and notes that this whole section of Hebrews teaches that Christ is superior to the angels. This would be “a given” if it were actually teaching that Christ is God. For more on Barkley’s commentary, see The Daily Bible Study Series: The Letter to the Hebrews, page 16 ff. And let me state that I am not denying that “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” is a possible translation of the Greek. My point here is that even such a translation as this lacks the clarity that formal sufficiency requires.

Moreover, such a translation does not teach that the divinity of Christ is eternal. in the early Church there were a number of people who felt that Jesus was a created being imbued with a degree of divine power from God. As such, they saw Christ as functioning in a role along the lines of the Greek notion of the demiurge. John 1:2 states that the God created everything through the Word, and some see this as a demiurge-type reference.

What would an Arian heretic say?
A follower of the Arian heresy would look at your claim of that Christ is an eternal divine person by pointing out:

1. The Bible say that God is one. The Bible does not say that God exists as more than one person.
2. (To quote Arius himself) “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".
3. Jesus cannot be equal to the Father because in John 14:28 he says that the Father is greater than him. Hence, whatever power of divinity Jesus possessed, it could not be the eternal divinity of the Father.
4. The description of the action of the Word in John 1:2 matches the description of the action of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31 (i.e., John says that it was through the Word that all things were created, and Proverbs 8:30 states that Wisdom was the “master workman” who was beside God during creation). Therefore, it can be surmised that the Word and Wisdom are the same person. Proverbs 8:22 clearly says that Wisdom was created, so the Word/Wisdom cannot be eternal.

Now, in order to combat this heresy I would simply quote the Nicene Creed (which was crafted, in part, to do just this, and drew upon both Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture, and the authority of the Church). But as an adherent of Sola Scriptura, can you use the Bible alone to sufficiently refute those Arian points? Can you use the Bible alone to prove the validity of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and denounce his views as heresy? If the Bible is, indeed, materially and formally sufficient to teach the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit then you should be able to. But if you can’t defend the doctrine against the Arian heresy using only the Bible then what does that say about the claims Sola Scriptura makes about the Bible?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

The Holy Spirit is God: “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

What would a Modalist heretic say about this? I imagine he would say…

1. There is one God: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4, RSV)
2. The Bible does not say that God actually exists as more than one person.
3. God intervenes in human life in three ways: Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.
4. Because there is one God who acts in three roles, the personas of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply types of “masks” that God uses to help us better understand the nature of his activity. For example, when God revealed himself to Abraham, he was in “Father mode.” When he came to redeem us, he switched “masks” to appear in the “Son mode.”
5. The above quote from 2Cor. 3:17 is simply an expression of the one God in “Holy Spirit mode”. But the Holy Spirit is not an actual divine person who can be considered distinct from the Father.

Can you use the Bible alone to prove the validity of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and denounce the above Modalist views as heresy? If the Bible is, indeed, materially and formally sufficient to teach the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit then you should be able to. But if you can’t defend the doctrine against the Modalist heresy using only the Bible then what does that say about the claims Sola Scriptura makes about the Bible?

The Holy Spirit is a person: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?’” (Acts 5:3).

After all, one can only “lie” to a person.

A Modalist Heretic‘s Response: “Sure, and the ‘person’ being lied to is the one God being presented in the ‘Holy Spirit’ mode.’ There is no need to concoct from this passage such a radical idea as there being only one God who somehow exists as more than one person."

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26)

After all, how likely is it that Jesus is really saying that his Father sends himself?

Let’s see what else the Gospel of John teaches.
Did the Father send the Son? Yes. “For God sent the Son into the world…” (John 3:17)
But the Son also says…
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

So in sending the Son, the Father has sent himself. The same can be said of the Father sending himself as the Holy Spirit in John 14:26.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26)

I see three distinct persons mentioned here: Jesus is speaking (“in my name”) about “the Father” who will send “the Holy Spirit.”

Well the Oneness Pentecostals don’t see this as scriptural evidence of three distinct divine persons. Like you, they are adherents of Sola Scriptura, and yet here is a short article from one of their members giving an biblical argument against the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Is Jesus God the Father? So if the Bible is materially and formally sufficient for determining doctrine they why did you and William Arnold III use the same Bible (including the passage you cited from John 14:26) and come to completely opposite conclusions?

As you can see, scripture is sufficient for grounding the doctrine of the Trinity. All the precise formulations that came later (“spirations, processions,” etc.) are not spelled out in scripture, but are all definitely grounded therein.

Do you think the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is “grounded enough” in the passages you cited to justify someone actually worshiping the Holy Spirit as a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son? Do you think that the passages you cited are enough to warrant such an incredibly radical (and confusing) notion that there is only one God but he exists as three persons, and these persons are fully united with one another while at the exact same time are fully distinct from one another?

From an entirely objective viewpoint, I fail to see where your biblical defense of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is more credible than the various biblical rejections of it that I have presented. As a matter-of-fact, considering how radical the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is, I think the arguments made by the Oneness Pentecostals and my (fictional) Arian heretic and Modalist heretic provide weightier biblical and logical arguments for rejecting the doctrine. And in the interest of time and space, I didn’t even get around to posting comments made by Jehovah’s Witnesses who likewise deny the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit from a purely biblical standpoint.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

And finally, Miguel, seeing as you believe that the Father, Son and Spirit can be considered divine persons of the Holy Trinity because the Bible associates divinity with such names, consider this…

The Bible refers to the Son as being “begotten” of the Father, and the Father created the universe through the Son. But the Bible says that Wisdom was created by God (a concept similar to “begotten”), and was also the instrument used by the Father to create the universe (Proverbs 8:22-31).

Wisdom is often described as a person in the Bible. Wisdom is referred to as a woman who “calls” (Proverbs 8:1), builds a house (9:1), stretches out her hand (1:24), etc. Wisdom can be considered our “sister” (Proverbs 7:4).

From a purely biblical perspective, could not Wisdom also be considered a divine person? After all, Wisdom could be considered a kind of “demi-urge” as I explained in an above post (i.e., created by God but imbued with enough divine power to be considered “divine” along the same lines that some of the ancient heretics said about Jesus). And Wisdom is described with the attributes of a person to a greater extent than the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

It’s pretty obvious from the writings of those I quoted above and many other’s that for a long period of time the Roman Communion did hold to a “two-source” view of God’s revelation.

Yes, a very long time. 2000 years, give or take.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The Church received the Revelation by God of HImself through these two strands, written, and oral. They Apostles taught that these two are equal, and complimentary. They also are not to be separated from one another.

When the Reformers rejected the part of the paradosis that was not in the New Testament, fragmentation in the Church resulted, and a plethora of heresies.

 

[guanophore]

‘Note that Bellarmine says that revelation itself is not contained wholly in Scripture. He insists there are doctrinal truths that were committed orally to the Church by the apostles and passed down orally in the Church through her Tradition. This is not merely an issue of tradition as an authoritative interpretation of Scripture but of supposed doctrinal truths that are part of revelation but not contained in Scripture. **Neither Bellarmine nor Trent believed the Scriptures to be materially sufficient.**According to Trent, then, there is the written and unwritten word of God which together comprise the fullness of God’s revelation to man. The Roman Catholic Church claims to possess both, emphatically stating that this was the belief and practice of the Church in the beginning and throughout the ages of the Church historically. It was supposedly during the Reformation that this teaching was radically altered as 1500 years of Church practice was suddenly eradicated and a false dichotomy introduced between Scripture and the Church. In contradistinction to the Council of Trent, the Reformers insisted that Scripture alone is the special revelation man possesses from God; that there exists no oral revelation in the form of tradition once the apostolic age had ended; and that Scripture, in its essential teaching on salvation, is clear (perspicuous) and self–interpreting. In other words, Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient. The Reformers argued that the Church is not infallible but that all tradition and teaching must be subject to the final authority of Scripture. Scripture is the sole and final arbiter of truth, infallible and the ultimate authority.’
William Webster Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. II p.16-17.

Perhaps what we need is a definition of “materially sufficient”. Because it seems to me that the opposite of what William Webster claims is actually the Truth. Both Bellarmine and the Church have always (I know, that makes you suspicious ) held the view given to her by the Apostles.

2 Tim 3:15
the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Faith in Jesus Christ is the beginning of our Christian walk. If we are to move beyond that, we require instruction in the faith (formal sufficiency).

In truth, our separated brethren, for the most part, believe this also, since no Christian now would attempt to guide a neophyte in the faith by just giving them a bible and sending them alone into a cave to figure it out. All our separated brethren have churches with leaders, pastors, teachers, and lots of sermons in how to apply that word to daily life.

Joyce Meyers is one of my favorites.