Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[rcwitness]

so you tell me:

Who or what is the ultimate infallible former of the Canon?
Was it a “God work” or a “they produce”?

God is the source and “gifter” of Infallibility. Just as He is the font of all holiness.

The men who God used to hold the Apostolic faith (and in this case, the "body of Sacred Scripture) were not necessarily all of the Magisterium. But the Magisterium made an Infallible decision when finally declaring the canon. It was a work of God in the life of the Church, and not without faithful men and the exercise of Church authority.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

guanophore;13734507]
I just wrote that for others who are reading the thread so that they can consider the source.

Thank you for considering us on the sidelines guanophore.

Although, while I am here reading the thread. I am perplexed on how the term “Canon” is being thrown around here.

For the record; Canon as defined by the Catholic Church is a tool used as a Measuring Standard or rule.

The Canon = measuring standard the Catholic Church used to determine which books were inspired of God, (is) was very stringent and applied a scrutiny most humanly possible to arrive at the bible books we have today.

For example; Each letter or book had to be proven that it was written by an apostle, a book had to prove that it was used in the Mass (Liturgy) since the first century or by the last living apostle, then each letter or book had to prove that an apostolic successor to the apostles had the book in use and was handed down by an apostle. Such measuring standards in the example above were used as the canon to guarantee each book was inspired by God.

If this thread is using the term Canon to reference the list of books that were canonized, then forgive my over-sight and my confusion that mislead me to believe that the canon the Church used is infallible or fallible.

I believe the divine Keys which the Church possesses is sufficient for Jesus to bind and loose in heaven, when the Church used her canon to determine which books were inspired and which books were rejected, with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

Consider the list of books that met the canon has never changed. Did this list of books come under fire and tested by both Saints and biblical scholars? Yes. Did their arguments change the list of inspired bible books. Never did.

Did Martin Luther change the list? NO. But Luther renamed the Deutero books as uninspired, which the ECF’s and Saints would of never dared to do such a thing by themselves.

Sorry for the interruption

Peace be with you all

 

[JonNC]

I thought you said that you believe the Church got it right? And you thought the Church got the Canon right because God is Sovereign? And if the Bible is the Rule of faith for us, how can it not be Confirmed by God to be absolutely complete?


Is the doctrine of SS confirmed by all protestant Christians, or does everybody have an equal right to define it???

Being right doesn’t necessarily mean being infallible. From a confessional Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession is right, but not inerrant, the writers correct, but not infallible.

Since SS is a practice of the Church, communions tend to use it in different ways, not unlike the differences between EO and CC.
SS is not a doctrine, but a practice.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Being right doesn’t necessarily mean being infallible. From a confessional Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession is right, but not inerrant, the writers correct, but not infallible.

Since SS is a practice of the Church, communions tend to use it in different ways, not unlike the differences between EO and CC.
SS is not a doctrine, but a practice.

Jon

 

[simspt]

Being right doesn’t necessarily mean being infallible. From a confessional Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession is right, but not inerrant, the writers correct, but not infallible.

Since SS is a practice of the Church, communions tend to use it in different ways, not unlike the differences between EO and CC.
SS is not a doctrine, but a practice.

Jon

religious practices are based on doctrines aka religious truth claims aka beliefs
a rose by any other name smells as sweet

 

[rcwitness]

Being right doesn’t necessarily mean being infallible.

I agree. We would say in a situation where the Church makes a decree, such as what constitutes Sacred Scripture (Canon of Scripture), it requires more that merely “being right”. It requires a position of authority. It is confirming and establishing what is the Word of God. Individual lay Christians are able to be right about all matters, even before a decree is made. Origen gave the earliest “right” list of N.T. writings we know of. He was “being right”, but not infallible.

From a confessional Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession is right, but not inerrant, the writers correct, but not infallible.

Sure. I’m not educated on the Confession, but I’d agree it’s not inerrant or Infallible.

Since SS is a practice of the Church, communions tend to use it in different ways, not unlike the differences between EO and CC.
SS is not a doctrine, but a practice.

It seems like quite an important matter in the faith to reduce it to mere practice. The practice difference between us and the EO is not the cause of division. The rejection of authority is. And that is more related to doctrines and Tradition.

 

[commenter]

Being right doesn’t necessarily mean being infallible. From a confessional Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession is right, but not inerrant, the writers correct, but not infallible.

Since SS is a practice of the Church, communions tend to use it in different ways, not unlike the differences between EO and CC.
SS is not a doctrine, but a practice.

Jon

But I am sure the main reason Lutherans regard the Confession as “right”, is because they regard it as a consistent, practical application of principles in Scripture. They see it fitting within the template. But the template has to be infallibly composed. It is useless to regard the canon as a fallible collection of infallible books: that could mean the 27 books you trusted with your spiritual guidance, and for that matter books which mostly guided the Confessions, might not be the ones God inspired. It also means books most Christians never read, which would presumably contain crucial information, were inspired and ignored (!)

This is not reasonable. For Scripture to have any meaning for us today, there must have been a visible, authoritative human agency - not “the Church” in general, but an identifiable entity within it, with divine guidance to publicly open the canon, declare a relatively few books inspired, and reject most potential scriptures as not inspired. The human entity must have had enormous credibility, as hundreds of scattered congregations, with a little grumbling, gradually put aside other, perhaps favorite scriptures as no longer scripture, and adopted this 27 book canon.

Other canons, supported by other Christian groups that did not accept the Magisterium, went on for awhile but faded away. We live in the world where the Magisterium-and-it’s-canon “won”. We live in a world where the ancient opponents of the Magisterium-and-its-canon were defeated.

My reading of Protestant scholars suggests they now feel more the need to “defend the NT canon” without resort to the Magisterium; a few decades ago, they hardly ever mentioned the NT canon. (just an impression, I could well be wrong)

 

[rcwitness]

But I am sure the main reason Lutherans regard the Confession as “right”, is because they It is useless to regard the canon as a fallible collection of infallible books: that could mean the 27 books you trusted with your spiritual guidance, and for that matter books which mostly guided the Confessions, might not be the ones God inspired. It also means books most Christians never read, which would presumably contain crucial information, were inspired and ignored (!)

This is not reasonable. For Scripture to have any meaning for us today, there must have been a visible, authoritative human agency - not “the Church” in general, but an identifiable entity within it, with divine guidance to publicly open the canon, declare a relatively few books inspired, and reject most potential scriptures as not inspired. The human entity must have had enormous credibility, as hundreds of scattered congregations, with a little grumbling, gradually put aside other, perhaps favorite scriptures as no longer scripture, and adopted this 27 book canon.

I agree. For SS to put Scripture as the highest and final authority (which btw, we agree to a great degree over Scripture being the highest authority) , some things have to be tacitly given to Church authority first.

One is that God Himself did not reveal which writing were breathed by Him (although He did, SS just doesn’t accept how). Also, scripture itself doesn’t assign Scripture as the final authority for the Christian (but Church authority has prevailed against all attacks).

On the other hand, the Catholic Faith has historical evidence of the process of Her leadership discerning and confirming which books were to be regarded as Sacred Scripture AND Scripture itself supports the authority of a Church leadership who is able to “bind and loose” in heaven and earth!

So thanks be to God for His Written Word… and thanks be to God for His sovereign guidance of Infallibility!

 

[JonNC]

religious practices are based on doctrines aka religious truth claims aka beliefs
a rose by any other name smells as sweet

No. There are a lot of practices that are not doctrine. Priestly celibacy comes to mind

Jon

 

[guanophore]

bolded by aw

if God worked through the Church then we have the Canon God allowed.

“If they produced” then it was potentially fallible .

so you tell me:

Who or what is the ultimate infallible former of the Canon?
Was it a “God work” or a “they produce”?

For us there is no distinction. When God is working through His people to produce a result, He is sovereign, and the result is inerrant. They are infallible becuase He is preserving them from error.

"Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:20–21

Anything infallible comes not by the will of man, but of God, and the holy men of God through which He works are inspired, making them infallible. We believe that all those who penned the Scriptures were acting infallibly at the time.

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13–14

The Apostles preached infallibly when they gave the Word of God to the believers.

“for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:12–13

This is sunergesis, or people working together with God in a way that enables Him to will and to work His good pleasure.

So it is both. God is sovereign, and the people through which He infallibly works produce an inerrant result.

 

[guanophore]

religious practices are based on doctrines aka religious truth claims aka beliefs a rose by any other name smells as sweet

I can see that this modern innovation of “practice” rather than doctrine has advantages for many reasons. I have had a hard time adjusting to it, though.

I had textbooks in Seminary by Norman Geisler in which SS was introduced and taught as a “doctrine”. As far as I can tell, he still teaches it this way.

From a practical point of view, I am not sure there is a difference in the outcome by how you label it.

 

[guanophore]

No. There are a lot of practices that are not doctrine. Priestly celibacy comes to mind

Jon

Yes indeed! But they are all based on doctrines. The practice in the Latin Church of choosing for priests from among those who have been given the gift of celibacy is based on the Teachings of Jesus and Paul on the value of consecration to the Kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

nope: not erroneously equating infallibility with impeccbility

I tend to be using the definitions of infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) as found on nearly every dictionary websites.

I’ll try to be more aware that may not be the definitions Catholics are using.

Here is a Catholic use of the term, which seems to have different implications than modern dictionaries. Catholics used the term this way long before any of these modern dictionaries were ever published. But many of them include the Catholic definition as well.

 

[alwayswill]

Here is a Catholic use of the term, which seems to have different implications than modern dictionaries. Catholics used the term this way long before any of these modern dictionaries were ever published. But many of them include the Catholic definition as well.

I read the article
I stated (several times) Infallible means incapable of error .
The article states " Infallible …** the inability to make a mistake** or to teach error."

Many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists say the Bible infallible because it is the Word of God.(and it is impossible for a God breathed writing to be in error)

The article states the Bible is not infallible because it is an inanimate object.

Is it the Catholic view that there is no such thing as an infallible document, statement, or written declaration?

 

[JonNC]

Yes indeed! But they are all based on doctrines. The practice in the Latin Church of choosing for priests from among those who have been given the gift of celibacy is based on the Teachings of Jesus and Paul on the value of consecration to the Kingdom.

But not all priests, even in the Latin Church, are chosen that way, and the Eastern churches in communion with the pope hold no such discipline, as far as I know. If it’s doctrine, then it seems all would have to be celibate.
Doctrine binds the conscience of the believer. No Lutheran is held to such.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

I read the article
I stated (several times) Infallible means incapable of error .
The article states " Infallible …** the inability to make a mistake** or to teach error."

Many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists say the Bible infallible because it is the Word of God.(and it is impossible for a God breathed writing to be in error)

The article states the Bible is not infallible because it is an inanimate object.

Is it the Catholic view that there is no such thing as an infallible document, statement, or written declaration?

Its not so much a right and wrong here. You aren’t “wrong” to say the bible is infallible, according to the definition that it cannot fail. It’s a matter of distinguishing the two terms.

The Church has always assigned infallibility with an office (Magisterium) that can make a decission, statement, declaration, judgment, or enciclical which is free from error. Like the article states, “…the inability to make a mistake…”

The Bible doesn’t “make”, it either contains a mistake within it, or it doesn’t. It is His Word communicated to us through writting.

 

[alwayswill]

Its not so much a right and wrong here. You aren’t “wrong” to say the bible is infallible, according to the definition that it cannot fail. It’s a matter of distinguishing the two terms.

The Church has always assigned infallibility with an office (Magisterium) that can make a decission, statement, declaration, judgment, or enciclical which is free from error. Like the article states, “…the inability to make a mistake…”

The Bible doesn’t “make”, it either contains a mistake within it, or it doesn’t. It is His Word communicated to us through writting.

It seems that I have been corrected (multiple times) for stating the the Bible is infallible (incapable of error).

can you clarify:
Is it the Catholic view that there is no such thing as an infallible document, statement, or written declaration?

 

[rcwitness]

It seems that I have been corrected (multiple times) for stating the the Bible is infallible (incapable of error).

can you clarify:
Is it the Catholic view that there is no such thing as an infallible document, statement, or written declaration?

Yes, as far as I know.

Btw, the Bible is much more than “error free” material. It is the divine Revelation of God written down. Thanks be to God.

 

[guanophore]

I read the article
I stated (several times) Infallible means incapable of error .
The article states " Infallible …** the inability to make a mistake** or to teach error."

Many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists say the Bible infallible because it is the Word of God.(and it is impossible for a God breathed writing to be in error)

The article states the Bible is not infallible because it is an inanimate object.

Is it the Catholic view that there is no such thing as an infallible document, statement, or written declaration?

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.

 

[guanophore]

But not all priests, even in the Latin Church, are chosen that way, and the Eastern churches in communion with the pope hold no such discipline, as far as I know. If it’s doctrine, then it seems all would have to be celibate.
Doctrine binds the conscience of the believer. No Lutheran is held to such.

Jon

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?