Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[PhilVaz]

BTW, thank you for linking that blog article from Ray Aviles. I remember him from the Svendsen board. He clarified a number of issues on St. Jerome and presented a counter reply to Shea and Matt1618. Interesting stuff. But I do have one question that relates more specifically to sola scriptura (the topic of this thread)

from the article by Ray Aviles << The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. >>

from Ray Aviles << He was further riled by the fact that the churches followed the translation of a known heretic instead of a Christian such as himself. >>

Question: A known heretic based on whose decision and judgment? Ray Aviles, or the judgment of the Catholic Church? Who determines what is Christian orthodoxy and what is heresy? Which brings us back to the issue of authority and sola scriptura again.

Phil P

 

[SolaScriptura]

SS quoting Mark Shea << That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. That’s the breaks. >>

From what I understand, that is indeed correct. St. Jerome did not believe the deuteros (those 7 books in Catholic Bibles) were fully canonical on par with the proto-canonical OT books. Nevertheless, he did call them “Scripture” and considered them “inspired by God”. This is the distinction brought out in the Michuta vs. White debate I mentioned.

Phil P

Now this is another classic example of your substance and critical reading. How in the world would they not be on par with the other books if he thought they were “Scripture” and “inspired by God”?? Are there inspired Scripture and super-duper-inspired Scripture? Here is what Jerome says about them from the article that changed Mark Shea’s mind:

Jerome:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

There is more, but this makes the point. Either Jerome is terribly inconsistent with himself or he doesn’t mean what you are trying to force on him. This is where substance comes into play. I’ve seen no reputable scholar, not any train Catholic scholar, not even the New Catholic Encyclopedia that agrees with Matt1618 and his argument that you are putting forth. According to your logic you should call yourself dishonest or “in your own opinion you are dishonest”

 

[PhilVaz]

OK, one more issue on Webster/King.

SS << Of course King and Webster believes the church is the true interpreter of Scripture >>

OK, to resolve this show me where Webster/King cite the Fathers that the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture or where they themselves state and believe that the visible Church is the true interpreter of Scripture. I don’t remember that anywhere in their 1100+ pages. Give me a volume and page number. I have all three volumes sitting right here about two feet away from where I type. I’ve already quoted they think the Fathers teach “Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting” (Volume 3, page 10). That is point #11 of their 12 point summary of the Fathers understanding (page 9-10). Their twelve points do not mention the true interpreter of Scripture is the visible Church. BTW, most of their twelve points Catholics or Orthodox would have no problem with. Point #11 is probably the key disagreement.

I have quoted in a previous post where Mathison admits the visible Church is the true interpreter, along with Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan that backs this up.

Phil P

 

[Reformed1]

Let me ask you something. If you believe that the message of the Gospel applies to all that hear it (Mark 16:16), why then would the Teachings of the Holy Apostles (Thess. 2:15) be any different?

I know this wasn’t directed at me but perhaps what the apostles taught and that which we are required to believe is found in scripture?

You are probably aware of the fact that many of your Traditions, such as the immaculate conception, don’t appear on the scene until centuries after the apostles.

There is no proof that the Corinthians, Galatians, etc. ever heard of such things as the immaculate conception, treasury of merit, etc.

 

[JaneFrances]

I know this wasn’t directed at me but perhaps what the apostles taught and that which we are required to believe is found in scripture?

You are probably aware of the fact that many of your Traditions, such as the immaculate conception, don’t appear on the scene until centuries after the apostles.

There is no proof that the Corinthians, Galatians, etc. ever heard of such things as the immaculate conception, treasury of merit, etc.

Let’s not disrail this thread with challenges of the Immaculate Conception, treasury of merit, etc.

If you would like to discuss them further, as they are found in Sacred Scripture, please start new threads! These are great thread starters.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Hi Joey,

Actually, this is old information for me. I can quote you church fathers, theologians, and a pope that disagrees with the current Catholic canon.

Then please do it! If you are so confident that Patristic Literature is a basis for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. please show us the quotes that you speak of. :ehh:

Well first of all if you noticed the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia it lists a number of them.
New Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Here are two more links that give you more.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-were-some-of-best-scholars-at.html

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

Now, I didn’t mention sola fide, but I can change from Sola Scriptura to SolaFidian, but don’t make me do it, because he is even better

 

[SolaScriptura]

Question: A known heretic based on whose decision and judgment? Ray Aviles, or the judgment of the Catholic Church? Who determines what is Christian orthodoxy and what is heresy? Which brings us back to the issue of authority and sola scriptura again.

Phil P

The judgment of the church based on Scripture determines, but of course not every views the church as only those who are in fellowship with the Bishop located in Rome. Was that supposed to be a hard question?

 

[SolaScriptura]

OK, one more issue on Webster/King.

SS << Of course King and Webster believes the church is the true interpreter of Scripture >>

OK, to resolve this show me where Webster/King cite the Fathers that the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture or where they themselves state and believe that the visible Church is the true interpreter of Scripture. I don’t remember that anywhere in their 1100+ pages. Give me a volume and page number. I have all three volumes sitting right here about two feet away from where I type. I’ve already quoted they think the Fathers teach “Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting” (Volume 3, page 10). That is point #11 of their 12 point summary of the Fathers understanding (page 9-10). Their twelve points do not mention the true interpreter of Scripture is the visible Church. BTW, most of their twelve points Catholics or Orthodox would have no problem with. Point #11 is probably the key disagreement.

I have quoted in a previous post where Mathison admits the visible Church is the true interpreter, along with Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan that backs this up.

Phil P

First I don’t have the volumes next to me at the moment. Second, I would have to look through them to see what they say. Third it is obvious they believe the church is the true interpreter of Scripture, unless you believe it is the pagans Fourth, I’m not sure you understand what they mean by Scripture interprets Scripture, because many of the fathers believed that. Could you explain what you think it means?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Let me ask you something. If you believe that the message of the Gospel applies to all that hear it (Mark 16:16), why then would the Teachings of the Holy Apostles (Thess. 2:15) be any different?

I don’t. Let me ask you something. ***Document ***the teaching of the Holy Apostles in Thess. 2:15 that is not contained in the Scriptures?

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[PhilVaz]

SS << Now this is another classic example of your substance and critical reading. How in the world would they not be on par with the other books if he thought they were “Scripture” and “inspired by God”?? Are there inspired Scripture and super-duper-inspired Scripture? >>

OK, another short comment here. Now we get into another distinction. The Fathers did not have a fully developed definition of “divine inspiration.” From what I understand, the Fathers not only considered the deuteros “Scripture” and “inspired”, they also called the Ecumenical Councils “inspired” or “word from the Lord.” For example, one Father off the top of my head:

St. Athanasius: “Vain then is the labour of those who have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer to have held ten or more synods, changing their ground at each, and while taking away some things from earlier decisions, in later ones make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that ‘every plant that the Heavenly Father has not planted shall be plucked up Matthew 15:13.’ But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides for ever, 1 Peter 1:25.” (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2)

And here is some commentary from Philip Hughes on this:

“St. Athanasius, who as a young cleric was present at Nicaea, can refer to its decree about Arianism as something final, the last all-decisive word: ‘The word of the Lord, put forth by the Oecumenical Council at Nicaea is an eternal word, enduring for ever.’ Eighty years or so later than this the pope, St. Leo I, warning the bishops assembled at the General Council of Chalcedon to leave untouched the decisions of Nicaea about the rank of the great sees of the East, speaks of Nicaea as ‘having fixed these arrangements by decrees that are inviolable,’ and says, ‘These arrangements were made by the bishops at Nicaea under divine inspiration.’ This was in the year 451.” (A History of the General Councils, introduction)

Question: did the Fathers believe the Councils were “divinely inspired” ? Apparently, yes they did. Did those same Fathers believe the Council documents therefore should be included in the canon of Scripture? No.

So there’s your distinction. Some also called the epistles of St. Clement of Rome “inspired”, and other writings “words from the Lord” etc. There was no explicitly defined and dilineated doctrine of “divine inspiration” in the early Church. This came much later (first with Catholic theologians, and later still with Protestant theologians). Catholic scholars like Yves Congar Tradition and Traditions and George Tavard Holy Writ or Holy Church? also go into this, but its been a while since I’ve read those.

Phil P

 

[JaneFrances]

I don’t. Let me ask you something. ***Document ***the teaching of the Holy Apostles in Thess. 2:15 that is not contained in the Scriptures?

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

As this thread is meant to discuss the defense of sola scripture, perhaps it would be a better idea to DOCUMENT the teaching of the Holy Apostles that Scripture is the sole and final authority as a rule of faith?

 

[PhilVaz]

SS << The judgment of the church based on Scripture determines, but of course not every views the church as only those who are in fellowship with the Bishop located in Rome. Was that supposed to be a hard question? >>

Yes, it is hard, and you didn’t answer it. Which church? Your church, or the one down the street that disagrees with your church?

The Fathers clearly believed in one visible Church, and that Church was centered in Rome. But you already knew that.

On Webster/King and “Scripture interprets Scripture” I would have to go through their volumes and produce examples what they mean. There is no emphasis on the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture in their volumes. If by “Scripture interprets Scripture” you mean “the analogy of faith” in Catholic theology:

1. Be attentive to the analogy of faith [Romans 12:6]. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

But Webster/King do not mean that. They mean by “Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting” that the individual has the right to interpret Scripture against the Catholic Church (I’ll have to produce examples from their volumes). The Fathers did not believe that. I’ve already quoted Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan on this. The Church interprets Scripture and defines doctrine, not the individual. If you agree with that, you agree with Mathison against Webster/King. Then the question becomes locating the authority of that visible Church.

Phil P

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

I don’t. Let me ask you something. Document the teaching of the Holy Apostles in Thess. 2:15 that is not contained in the Scriptures?

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

As this thread is meant to discuss the defense of sola scripture, perhaps it would be a better idea to DOCUMENT the teaching of the Holy Apostles that Scripture is the sole and final authority as a rule of faith?

Hi JaneFrances ( beautiful name by the way )

Actually it was supposed to be a thread on “The thoughts of a Sola Scripturists”, but one of the moderators in all their wisdom decided to lump it in with this thread. Furthermore, I’ve been fielding questions from all over the park and I didn’t notice you re-directing those back to sola Scriptura.

With that bad said the question is most definitely pertinent. If someone makes a charge that sola Scriptura is refuted because of Thess. 2:15 then it is legitimate for me to ask them to validate their claim. If they cannot document any teaching by the Apostles that are outside of Scripture then it does defend sola Scriptura because there objection based on that verse is shown to baseless.

BTW, I did answer you post above. Don’t know if you saw it because there are so many people responding so rapidly.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hi JaneFrances ( beautiful name by the way )

Thank you.

Actually it was supposed to be a thread on “The thoughts of a Sola Scripturists”, but one of the moderators in all their wisdom decided to lump it in with this thread.

I noted the lumping. I wondered about it. I appreciate the differences in a “Protestant defense of sola scriptura” and “the thoughts of a Sola Scripturist,” however as they do both pertain to the same topic, perhaps the lumping was an effort to broaden the focus.

Furthermore, I’ve been fielding questions from all over the park and I didn’t notice you re-directing those back to sola Scriptura.

You’ve done a reputable job in the fielding.

If someone makes a charge that sola Scriptura is refuted because of Thess. 2:15 then it is legitimate for me to ask them to validate their claim.

Of course. However, as this particular thread pertains to the defensibility of sola Scriptura, it is primarily important to validate the doctrine of sola Scriptura. While not wholly impertinent, to interject a challenge to list documentation for apostolic teachings not explicit in Sacred Scripture would surely derail this thread.

If they cannot document any teaching by the Apostles that are outside of Scripture then it does defend sola Scriptura because there objection based on that verse is shown to baseless.

FURTHER, one would have to qualify what sort of documentation is acceptable for such a challenge.

BTW, I did answer you post above. Don’t know if you saw it because there are so many people responding so rapidly.

I noticed. . .I responded. Thank you.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SS << The judgment of the church based on Scripture determines, but of course not everyone views the church as only those who are in fellowship with the Bishop located in Rome. Was that supposed to be a hard question? >>

Yes, it is hard, and you didn’t answer it. Which church? Your church, or the one down the street that disagrees with your church?

Of course I answered. Now you are asking a more specific question than you originally asked, which again demonstrates what I’ve been saying about you and your critical reading. You make too many rash judgments. Anyhow, let me answer your new more directed question.

It is the church that everyone belongs to. For me it is my denomination. For you it is Rome. For the Eastern Orthodox it is their church. For Anglicans it is theirs. For … You get the picture. Was that one supposed to be harder

The Fathers clearly believed in one visible Church, and that Church was centered in Rome. But you already knew that.

Yes, early on they believe in one visible Church, because that is all there were, but it was not always centered in Rome and neither is it now. I’m sure you know there is the church from the East that would disagree with that.

On Webster/King and “Scripture interprets Scripture” I would have to go through their volumes and produce examples what they mean. There is no emphasis on the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture in their volumes. If by “Scripture interprets Scripture” you mean “the analogy of faith” in Catholic theology:

1. Be attentive to the analogy of faith [Romans 12:6]. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Yes, and that is what “Scripture interprets Scripture” means. It is the same as the analogy of faith. Once again it demonstrates what I have been saying about you all along. You don’t read critically, because you are too busy looking for prooftexts of your belief. Scripture interprets Scripture is a hermeneutical principle without saying anything about who has the authority to use this principle. Of course King and Webster believes the church has this authority, don’t just don’t believe the church equals Rome. They don’t believe that the individual cannot interpret Scripture, because it is too obscure for them. Now of course this doesn’t mean all individuals have the same authority. The Scriptures themselves are clear about that. So you are attacking something you don’t understand. As a matter of fact if you check vol 3 of the book they have a section of quotes from the fathers who use this principle and you will see they are indeed talking about the analogy of faith.

But Webster/King do not mean that. They mean by “Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting” that the individual has the right to interpret Scripture against the Catholic Church (I’ll have to produce examples from their volumes). The Fathers did not believe that. I’ve already quoted Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan on this. The Church interprets Scripture and defines doctrine, not the individual. If you agree with that, you agree with Mathison against Webster/King. Then the question becomes locating the authority of that visible Church.

Phil P

No, “Scripture interprets Scripture” means scripture is self-interpreting and that is the same thing the “analogy of faith” of means. Based on this principle they would therefore say and individual can interpret Scripture and it is not therefore restricted to the magisteruim. But saying someone can interpret Scripture and has a responsibility to do so does not mean they have equal authority as those who are over them. Furthermore, they would say the church consist of the individuals, but not all individuals are equal. Part of you problem is that you are stuck on the words(i.e. Scripture interprets Scriptures ) without understanding the meaning. The rest of your problem is that whenever you say church you mean the teaching magisteruim of Rome alone, whereas they have a broader and more biblical perspective about what the church is. So it is not that they don’t believe the church interprets scripture using the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture”, but they don’t agree with you in reference to who the church consists of.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[SolaScriptura]

FURTHER, one would have to qualify what sort of documentation is acceptable for such a challenge.

I guess it would have to be documentation to show that the Apostles taught it in Thess. 2:15. Whatever documentation they provide is up to them since they made the claim, but they have to produce the evidence. If that cannot produce the evidence then they have no business stating that is what happened. Otherwise we could all state the Apostles taught such and such without the need to prove it.

I noticed. . .I responded. Thank you.

OK, I didn’t see your response. I will double check.

Thank you for the kind remarks. You have been very gracious.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[JaneFrances]

I guess it would have to be documentation to show that the Apostles taught it in Thess. 2:15. Whatever documentation they provide is up to them since they made the claim, but they have to produce the evidence. If that cannot produce the evidence then they have no business stating that is what happened. Otherwise we could all state the Apostles taught such and such without the need to prove it.

In the very same way, and on a more pertinent note, one holding sola Scriptura as a viable apostlolic teaching would have to produce documentation proving that such a doctrine was taught by the Apostles as it is not explicit in Sacred Scripture.

Can this be done?

 

[JoeyWarren]

In the very same way, and on a more pertinent note, one holding sola Scriptura as a viable apostlolic teaching would have to produce documentation proving that such a doctrine was taught by the Apostles as it is not explicit in Sacred Scripture.

Can this be done?

Great counter question!

 

[SolaScriptura]

In the very same way, and on a more pertinent note, one holding sola Scriptura as a viable apostlolic teaching would have to produce documentation proving that such a doctrine was taught by the Apostles as it is not explicit in Sacred Scripture.

Can this be done?

I think so, otherwise I wouldn’t be a SolaScriptura How, I prove this point is by it being logically necessary. Sola Scriptura does not mean there has to be an explicit teaching of something in Scripture for it to be true. Something can be taught in Scripture based “good and necessary consequence”( this is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith ). For example the dual natures of Christ is not an explicit teaching in Scripture, but it is arrived at based good and necessary consequence. Well, I believe the same is true for sola Scriptura. So the documentation I would offer for sola Scriptura is the Scriptures. As I have said before sola Scriptura means the Scripture are the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Now this simple definition leads to other truth, such as it must be the final arbiter in disputes, because it alone is infallible. It has to be the highest authority, because it is God speaking and nothing can be higher than the words of God himself. Therefore, if there is nothing else that can be proven to be on par with Scripture it logically follows that sola Scriptura is true.

Now to refute my argument one has to show that there is another source of equal or greater authority in the church then the word of God in Scripture.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Sola Scriptura does not mean there has to be an explicit teaching of something in Scripture for it to be true.

Just like the Trinity? or other Catholic doctrines that are implicitly declared?