Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[alwayswill]

The Church does not use this term to describe inanimate objects because it is employed as an adverb, not an adjective. I know this may seem like a useless distinction, but it is based upon the position that infallibility is the opposite of fallibiity (to make errors) which is a condition that requires a person. Only persons can make acts of the will and employ critical thinking and judgement. Inanimate objects cannot do these things.

For that reason it is the Teaching of Christ preserved without error in the Church that is considered infallible, for He is incapable of making an error. The documents contain and promulgate the infallible Teaching He has entrusted to the Church, but they do not posess the character of persons.

I agree the distinction is important

infallibly is an adverb
infallible is an adjective:

I’l keep it in mind that the Catholic view is that there is no such thing as an infallible document.

Thank you for explaining.

 

[PJM]

My opinion is (as PRmerger articulated once) that when Protestants give the veneration of Scriptures as being the Word of God, they tacitly give submission to the Infallibility of the Catholic Church for Confirming the Canon of Scripture.

This Infallible Confirmation of the Canon and the belief that all Scripture is free of error comes from God and given through the Church, and not Scripture itself. Though Scripture supports it. Scripture and divine Teaching authority come from the same Spirit.

I believe the Scripture is the Written Word, and the Eucharist is no less the Word. Both are from above.

Thank you

 

[JonNC]

ARe you saying that the new modern way of referring to Sola Scriptura as a “practice”, rather than a doctrine, makes it “nonbiding on the conscience of the believer”? Somehow that does not seem consistent with the Augsburg Confession.

Is the Augsburg Confession considered a doctrinal summary? Would someone espouse a “confession” that is not binding on the conscience?

Guan,
It isn’t a new, modern way. No one is bound to believe sola scriptura. It isn’t a teaching. It is a practice, a hermeneutical principle. Why on earth would I have to confess a belief in SS? How does a belief in SS impact my salvation?

The Augsburg Confession doesn’t require one to confess sola scriptura. I never have.
“Our churches teach…” Here are the articles of the CA

God

• Original Sin
• The Son of God
• Justification
• The Ministry
• New Obedience
• The Church
• What the Church Is
• Baptism
• The Lord’s Supper
• Confession
• Repentance
• The Use of the Sacraments
• Ecclesiastical Order
• Ecclesiastical Usages
• Civil Affairs
• Christ’s Return to Judgment
• Free Will
• The Cause of Sin
• Good Works
• The Worship of the Saints
• Abuses Corrected
• Both Kinds in the Sacrament
• The Marriage of Priests
• The Mass
• Confession
• Distinction of Foods
• Monastic Vows
• Ecclesiastical Power
• Conclusion

Nothing there about the way a communion determines doctrine, and if I have to confess it or not.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Guan,
It isn’t a new, modern way. No one is bound to believe sola scriptura. It isn’t a teaching. It is a practice, a hermeneutical principle. Why on earth would I have to confess a belief in SS? How does a belief in SS impact my salvation?

The Augsburg Confession doesn’t require one to confess sola scriptura. I never have.
“Our churches teach…” Here are the articles of the CA

Nothing there about the way a communion determines doctrine, and if I have to confess it or not.

Jon

I’m honestly not following this claim Jon. It’s not necessary for all to profess a doctrine in order for it to be a doctrine. It was already professed. You either practice it’s teaching and principle, or you dont. But it is what it is.

Here is a website made to “correct” Catholics, where it is referred to as a doctrine:

justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

And here is the Webster’s definition of doctrine:

Full Definition of doctrine

1. archaic teaching, instruction

2 a something that is taught

b a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief dogma

c a principle of law established through past decisions

d a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

e a military principle or set of strategies

 

[alwayswill]

I’m honestly not following this claim Jon. It’s not necessary for all to profess a doctrine in order for it to be a doctrine. It was already professed. You either practice it’s teaching and principle, or you dont. But it is what it is.

Here is a website made to “correct” Catholics, where it is referred to as a doctrine:

justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

And here is the Webster’s definition of doctrine:

Full Definition of doctrine

1. archaic teaching, instruction

2 a something that is taught

b a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief dogma

c a principle of law established through past decisions

d a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

e a military principle or set of strategies

so i think we need a little consistency here

Either a church is allowed to define a word as it used in the context of that church
or we all are to use the meaning found at the dictionary websites.

If the RCC can define the word “infallible” different than do the dictionary websites. than why can’t the Lutherans do the same with the meaning of “doctrine”?

I accept and respect the fact that Catholics will use the the word “infallible” different that the generally accepted definition: can you do the same with Lutherans?

or should we all agree to use dictionary.com or Webster’s

FYI: some use the word doctrine to mean any church teaching others use it to mean an official declaration

 

[rcwitness]

so i think we need a little consistency here

Either a church is allowed to define a word as it used in the context of that church
or we all are to use the meaning found at the dictionary websites.

If the RCC can define the word “infallible” different than do the dictionary websites. than why can’t the Lutherans do the same with the meaning of “doctrine”?

I accept and respect the fact that Catholics will use the the word “infallible” different that the generally accepted definition: can you do the same with Lutherans?

or should we all agree to use dictonary.com or Webster’s

So some who believe in SS call it a doctrine, while others do not?

Catholics are to be united in mind and judgment on matters Taught through her Magisterium. We can give you the meaning of a term used by the Church, which we will all agree on.

But ok… what is your definition of doctrine? Is that going to have different meanings than other Protestants too?

Is it the nature of Protestantism to move the target when trying to focus on it? I can show you many Protestants calling SS a doctrine in the faith. This is the first time I’ve heard it denied as a doctrine and described as simply a practice, as though it’s not an article of faith, and a principle of faith as defined in the Webster’s dictionary.

Jon even called it a principle, just as the definition does.

 

[alwayswill]

So some who believe in SS call it a doctrine, while others do not?

Catholics are to be united in mind and judgment on matters Taught through her Magisterium. We can give you the meaning of a term used by the Church, which we will all agree on.

But ok… what is your definition of doctrine? Is that going to have different meanings than other Protestants too?

Is it the nature of Protestantism to move the target when trying to focus on it? I can show you many Protestants calling SS a doctrine in the faith. This is the first time I’ve heard it denied as a doctrine and described as simply a practice, as though it’s not an article of faith, and a principle of faith as defined in the Webster’s dictionary.

Jon even called it a principle, just as the definition does.

FYI: some use the word doctrine to generally mean any church teaching others use it to mean an specific official declarations

See the ToC of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
seems to use the general term for doctrine
amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700#reader_0310286700

 

[DeusExMachina]

Why just communions that are loosely designated as “protestant”? Why not a dialogue of all western Christians, for example? Lutherans, for example, have little more in common with Baptists, than Catholics do. And in many ways, we have more in common with each other. I think that’s why dialogue between Lutheranism and Catholicism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism, Catholicism and Anglicanism, makes more sense. Liturgy, sacraments, creeds, put us in a category more closely aligned than “protestant”.

The my first comment set the comparison:
But okay. I’m good with that. I could have been clearer.

Jon

I would concur, atleast about lutheranism. But remember things like incense and priestly vestments only became legal for C of E services in 1899:shrug:

 

[rcwitness]

FYI: some use the word doctrine to mean any church teaching others use it to mean an official declaration

Sure, but Jon was denying that SS is a doctrine at all, under any definition.

What I think he was trying to say, is that it’s not a doctrine in the Catholic sense. That is, when the Catholic Church declares a doctrine, it is to be assented to with faith by all Catholic Christians. It is not open to opinion, doubt or contradiction. Yet, I believe this classifies as a doctrine about our doctrine and not the definition of doctrine itself.

 

[DeusExMachina]

While I tend to have Catholic sympathies, I am an Anglican, and thus technically protestant. I cannot even BEGIN to list all of the problems with sola scriptura.

Maybe this will suffice:
Not only are there specific mentions of appeal to sacred tradition in the bible, but the term sola scriptura first appears in the writings of a certain Dr Luther

 

[alwayswill]

While I tend to have Catholic sympathies, I am an Anglican, and thus technically protestant. I cannot even BEGIN to list all of the problems with sola scriptura.

Maybe this will suffice:
Not only are there specific mentions of appeal to sacred tradition in the bible, but the term sola scriptura first appears in the writings of a certain Dr Luther

the two word phrase (term) is not the concept

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority**, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”

Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”

 

[DeusExMachina]

the two word phrase is not the concept

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount** authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”

Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition"
St Irenaeus

“Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition”
Tertullian

[F]or it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsens
St Gregory of Nyssa

Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term

St Basil

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition"
St Irenaeus

 

[rcwitness]

the two word phrase (term) is not the concept

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount** authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”

Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”

Great post and quotes!

I believe the Catholic Church does venerate Scripture to the levels of these quotes. And there are Traditions which were attested to, not written in Sacred Scripture as well. I don’t think these other Traditions were binding on Christians, until their opposition became important enough for the Magisterium to dogmatically declare as coming from Apostolic Tradition. Just as even the great men who you have quoted venerating Scripture so highly, had uncertainty about which books where actually Scripture or not, so relied on an authority outside of Scripture (although I mean explicitly outside, since authority and the Church were never ‘outside’ of Scripture) to guide and Confirm Scripture and it’s interpretations.

The Catholic faith stands upon these three foundations, which provide the full deposit of faith: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterium (Teaching authority/interpretation).

Devotion to these three sources of God’s Gospel message will all lead to belief in Jesus’ forgiveness of sins through Baptism and Reconciliation, prayer and good works, and participation in His Eucharist meal, in a worthy manner. The latter being the success of the others.

 

[Michael68]

The biggest problem I see with it is the misinterpretation, misapplication, and occasional misrepresentation of it, not to mention what Catholics say about it

What do the Catholics say about it?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

alwayswill;13738609]St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

I believe St. Augustine, a bonified Catholic Saint, summed up his writings here; “I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”

 

[guanophore]

Guan,

It isn’t a new, modern way. No one is bound to believe sola scriptura. It isn’t a teaching. It is a practice, a hermeneutical principle. Why on earth would I have to confess a belief in SS? How does a belief in SS impact my salvation?

Maybe I am just dating myself. When I attended seminary in the 80’s it was taught to me as a doctrine (and still is by the authors of the textbooks I used). It was also taught as an hermeneutical princple.

I would think you would need to profess a belief in SS because you espouse the Augsburg Confession, which contains the principle of SS.

It impacts your salvation hugely, because your concept of how your soul is saved is influence by it. Other people, who also espouse SS, have different concepts of salvation. As a result their conduct and expresson of their Christian faith may be different. All of your posts make it clear you are not antinominalistic, yet there are other Christians who espouse SS who are (to my great sadness). I think it impacts their salvation.

  The Augsburg Confession doesn't require one to confess *sola scriptura*.  I never have.

“Our churches teach…” Here are the articles of the CA

Well I went and read it again before I posted that, to make sure the concept was in there as clearly as I remembered it.

“…showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands…”

" But the Scripture teaches not…"

“This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures…”

"Concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they depart from the Holy Scriptures "

“…not of faith, which Scripture does not allow…”

"… hold anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God…

There are many more, but it is plain that the doctrine/principle/practice of SS is a foundational element of the whole document. One may not be required to “confess” it, but one is certainly required to endorse it, since every thing else contained in it is based upon it.

Nothing there about the way a communion determines doctrine, and if I have to confess it or not.

Jon

I disagree. I think that whole section is one continual reference to how the doctrine was determined. It is replete with references that source the foundations of those doctrines, and the rationale as to why some were rejected and others retained.

"The above articles we desire to present in accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to exhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. "

One reason for the split in modern Lutheran communions is that some of them have drifted away from the contents of this document, and begun to form other methods of determining doctrine that are contrary to what is stated in it!

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Maybe I am just dating myself. When I attended seminary in the 80’s it was taught to me as a doctrine (and still is by the authors of the textbooks I used). It was also taught as an hermeneutical princple.

I would think you would need to profess a belief in SS because you espouse the Augsburg Confession, which contains the principle of SS.

It impacts your salvation hugely, because your concept of how your soul is saved is influence by it. Other people, who also espouse SS, have different concepts of salvation. As a result their conduct and expresson of their Christian faith may be different. All of your posts make it clear you are not antinominalistic, yet there are other Christians who espouse SS who are (to my great sadness). I think it impacts their salvation.

Well I went and read it again before I posted that, to make sure the concept was in there as clearly as I remembered it.

“…showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands…”

" But the Scripture teaches not…"

“This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures…”

"Concerning these opinions our teachers have given warning that they depart from the Holy Scriptures "

“…not of faith, which Scripture does not allow…”

"… hold anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God…

There are many more, but it is plain that the doctrine/principle/practice of SS is a foundational element of the whole document. One may not be required to “confess” it, but one is certainly required to endorse it, since every thing else contained in it is based upon it.

The AC teaches prima scriptura, not sola scriptura par se

I disagree. I think that whole section is one continual reference to how the doctrine was determined. It is replete with references that source the foundations of those doctrines, and the rationale as to why some were rejected and others retained.

"The above articles we desire to present in accordance with the edict of Your Imperial Majesty, in order to exhibit our Confession and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers. "

One reason for the split in modern Lutheran communions is that some of them have drifted away from the contents of this document, and begun to form other methods of determining doctrine that are contrary to what is stated in it!

 

[JonNC]

While I tend to have Catholic sympathies, I am an Anglican, and thus technically protestant. I cannot even BEGIN to list all of the problems with sola scriptura.

Maybe this will suffice:
Not only are there specific mentions of appeal to sacred tradition in the bible, but the term sola scriptura first appears in the writings of a certain Dr Luther

Not sure Dr Luther ever used the term.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What do the Catholics say about it?

Hi Michael. This thread is worth reading

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sure, but Jon was denying that SS is a doctrine at all, under any definition.

What I think he was trying to say, is that it’s not a doctrine in the Catholic sense. That is, when the Catholic Church declares a doctrine, it is to be assented to with faith by all Catholic Christians. It is not open to opinion, doubt or contradiction. Yet, I believe this classifies as a doctrine about our doctrine and not the definition of doctrine itself.

There goes a Catholic with all those doctrines again.

Jon