Protestant Explanation

[mark_a]

Which Catholic doctrines and dogmas are not found (at least implicitly) in the bible?

 

[Indifferently]

What does everything have to be a debate and a defense of the Catholic Faith? The person who started this thread wanted a Protestant explanation on his questions. I think Protestants have answered him without a need to start a full on debate and dispute of our mutually exclusive positions.

If you believe your church is the ‘one true church of God’ and all outside it do not have the whole truth, then of course you are going to try and evangelize them, even in threads where you shouldn’t be doing so.

 

[Christian_Unity]

okay, thanks!

 

[Cicero54]

Hi Stephen,
A true understanding of sola scriptura does not include a rejection of Tradition, but rather an embrace of it. The Lutheran confessions regularly reference the ECF’s. What sola scriptura is is the practice of holding all teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma accountalbe to scripture as the final norm. To be sure, the early Church, in the midst of the Apostles themselves, used oral Tradition, based on the teachings of the Apostles, and that’s what the early Christians relied on. Scripture is the result of those teachings, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Now that’s not to say that there were things that were not written done. There was, as St John tells us. What we’re saying, however, is that it is difficult to know with certainty what those things were, and the conscence of the believer should not be bound to them.

Sola scriptura is not “the Bible and me”. It is not individual interpretation. It is not an exclusion of the historic teaching of the Church.

Jon

Jon, what you have said regarding the historical teaching of the Church is only a corrective if there is an authority to govern “what” out of that history aught to bear the burdon of specific meaning to a biblical passage. A case in point is the Montanist heresy of 177 A.D., which through the "extacies " of Montanus and Maximilla a new prophecy and a new era were declared as superceding even the revelations of the apostles. Phrygia and it’s environs were to be the place of the New Jerusalem. Speaking in tongues were the order of the day accompanied by phsycal contortions and rithings. The difference apparently being that no one understood the tongues as distinct from the case in Acts were they were known and the contents interpreted.

This movement spread and in the end even captured the formidable Tertullian in it’s maw never to let go even until his death. The movement finally died out with the suicide of Montanus and Maximilla, but not before a great deal of damage was done to the unity of the Catholic Church.

So the question then becomes, by what authority can we expect to bring into a unitive front that which history presents to us with so much drama, diversity and danger? If one takes the option of leaving the issue up to the individual and his God as an authoritative model, what do we do with conflict arising from contradiction and personal animus? If then to escape the obvious dangers in leaving it up to the individual you take the opposite course and, like Cotton Mathers, put into place an authority and invest it in a single individual or even a small coterie, what is to be done with the clash of elites using the same method but leading opposing groups?

Your proposal, although a modest one (no pun intended may J Swift rest easy), seems to circle back to the same kinds of conflict in the end.

God Bless

Cicero54

JMJ

 

[Cicero54]

If you believe your church is the ‘one true church of God’ and all outside it do not have the whole truth, then of course you are going to try and evangelize them, even in threads where you shouldn’t be doing so.

Sorry Indifferent, I’ll take your gentle reproof under advisement. I am on this site for the first time and I’m getting my sea legs as it were. I don’t wish to step on toes here so I’ll ease back a bit. I am a member of a Catholic debate forum on Yahoo groups. It encompasses Catholics and Protestants mainly, with a sprinkling of other religious confessions such as the occational Jew perhaps. I don’t recall seeing a muslim there though.

The discussions there can get quite warm as the old expression has it.

As a British Anglican you ought to be familiar with Fr. Ronald Arbuthnott Knox who was a priest in the Crown’s Church until his conversion to the Caholic Church in 1917. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1919. He was from then on a chaplin at Oxford for a couple of decades. He is at times compared with Cardinal Newman in style, eloquence and of course one time members of the Anglican Church. His official biographer was Evelyn Waugh who wrote a magnificent postumous biograpy of him in the later 50’s.

Anyway, all the best.

Cicero54

JMJ

 

[Reuben_J]

What does everything have to be a debate and a defense of the Catholic Faith? The person who started this thread wanted a Protestant explanation on his questions. I think Protestants have answered him without a need to start a full on debate and dispute of our mutually exclusive positions.

Perhaps because this is a Catholic forum even though this is a non-Catholic section, that Catholics tend to answer topics regarding their faith seeing that this is all an off-shoot of the Catholic Answer.

Maybe Catholic needs not defend their faith on this thread, but which Protestants can represent the Protestants since they disagree among themselves?

So can it be said that the differences are between the Protestants and the Catholics; and between the different types of Protestants themselves?

 

[JerryZ]

This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith which represents what many historic Reformed Protestants believe on the issue:

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

30,000 + Denominations and growing attest to the validity of that concept :doh2:

 

[po18guy]

As a British Anglican you ought to be familiar with Fr. Ronald Arbuthnott Knox who was a priest in the Crown’s Church until his conversion to the Caholic Church in 1917. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1919. He was from then on a chaplin at Oxford for a couple of decades. He is at times compared with Cardinal Newman in style, eloquence and of course one time members of the Anglican Church. His official biographer was Evelyn Waugh who wrote a magnificent postumous biograpy of him in the later 50’s.

Anyway, all the best.

Cicero54

JMJ

No doubt you have a Knox bible at hand. I suspect that you know this, but the Knox Bible has just recently gone back into print in the States, and is also available on-line at a notably protestant site, along with the Douay-Rheims 1899 and a few others who offer the dreaded “apocrypha.”

As well, a cheery welcome to CAF.

 

[po18guy]

30,000 + Denominations and growing attest to the validity of that concept :doh2:

I find it odd that man claims the bible as “supreme authority” when neither our Lord, nor the bible itself makes any such claim. Our Lord, in the bible, clearly states that the Church is the final authority over all things. Yet, by using one’s own ego to interpret, very comfortable and satisfying doctrines may be made. Yet, as in the case of those testifying against our Lord after His arrest, their testimony does not agree.

 

[Cicero54]

No doubt you have a Knox bible at hand. I suspect that you know this, but the Knox Bible has just recently gone back into print in the States, and is also available on-line at a notably protestant site, along with the Douay-Rheims 1899 and a few others who offer the dreaded “apocrypha.”

As well, a cheery welcome to CAF.

Indeed! I do have a copy of Fr. Knox’s “The New Testament” published in this instance by Templegate Publishers. I love this translation for it’s clarity and detail. The footnotes in this addition are extremely helpful.

Cicero54

JMJ

 

[bzkoss236]

What I described was what the Lutheran understanding of sola scriptura is - the practice of holding teachers, teachings, doctrines and dogmas to scripture as the final norm.

Jon

But what you described isn’t “sola scriptura”, but “prima scriptura”. I’m just trying to point out that the use of the term is incorrect.

 

[jrtrent]

What you describe is “Prima Scriptura” not “Sola Scriptura”. “Prima Scriptura” means that the Bible is held above other sources and “Sola Scriptura” does in fact mean Bible only (no outside sources), or “Bible and me” as you put it. Using “Sola Scriptura” the way you used it is like using “myself” to mean “me and my family” or “me and my friends”.

I think JonNC was correct; you can “embrace” tradition without making it a source and norm for faith and practice. Luther, and other reformers, did not, in the words of Lutheran theologian F. Pieper, despise the testimony of the Church, but took note of it, rejoiced over it, and were “confirmed in their faith when they saw that God also in former ages raised up witnesses of the truth revealed in Scripture.” As JonNC pointed out, however, this testimony of the Church–its teachers, teachings, councils, dogmas, and so on–cannot be held apart from or alongside scripture as the foundation of the Christian faith, rather they are examined and deemed worthy only insofar as they agree with scripture.

Prima Scriptura is an idea held by the Orthodox, in which scripture is but one part of Holy Tradition. This includes not only scripture, but also councils, creeds, the teachings of the church fathers, liturgical custom, canon law, and even icons. The scriptures are first and foremost on the list, but they are still considered part of Holy Tradition, not something that stands as the lone source for faith and practice as in the concept of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is just one of the five “solas” that were developed specifically as a counter to teachings within the Roman Catholic church. Here is a quote that gives them some context.

The Roman Church taught that the foundation for faith and practice was a combination of the scriptures, sacred tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope; but the Reformers said, “No, our foundation is sola scriptura”. The Catholic Church taught that we are saved through a combination of God’s grace, the merits that we accumulate through penance and good works, and the superfluity of merits that the saints before us accumulated; the reformers responded, “sola gratia”. The Catholic Church taught that we are justified by faith and the works that we produce, which the righteousness that God infuses in us through faith brings about. The reformers responded, “No, we are justified by faith alone, which lays hold of the alien righteousness of Christ that God freely credits to the account of those who believe”. The Catholic Church taught that we are saved by the merits of Christ and the saints, and that we approach God through Christ, the saints, and Mary, who all pray and intercede for us. The Reformers responded, “No, we are saved by the merits of Christ Alone, and we come to God through Christ Alone”. The Catholic Church adhered to what Martin Luther called the “theology of glory” (in opposition to the “theology of the cross”), in which the glory for a sinner’s salvation could be attributed partly to Christ, partly to Mary and the saints, and partly to the sinner himself. The reformers responded, “No, the only true gospel is that which gives all glory to God alone, as is taught in the scriptures.” monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/fivesolas.html

 

[St_Stephen_1]

Sorry St_Stephen, are you interested in the opinions of Protestants, or are you just telling us what you think? The original post is phrased as if it’s a question, but all you’ve done is give us your opinion so far. If you were genuinely interested, you would have just asked.

I have read your post thrice. I honestly am not sure what point you want me to take on board. Are you proposing that after posing the original question I cannot participate in the ensuing discussion? Why shouldn’t I continue to participate in the discussion?

 

[St_Stephen_1]

I think ‘Protestant’ here is often used as a bit of a ‘straw-man’. Protestants, that is, people who reject the authority of Rome (and are not Coptics, Orthodox or what have you) are as numerous and as different in beliefs from one another as can be. They are not some homogeneous entity. I am a Protestant. I value tradition. My church recognizes the importance of continuity, of the historic apostolic succession, of the threefold orders of ministry, of liturgical worship and much else besides. There are other Protestants whose services (even within my own Church) vary all the way from the Anglo-Papalists who use the Roman MIssal and pray for the RC bishop in the diocese (instead of the Anglican one) to those who are biblical fundamentalists, believe the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon and think laypersons should have the power to celebrate the eucharist, which they thin is purely a remembrance. And any in between. And that’s just the Church of England.

Protestantism is not just some catch-all term you can use to contrast with ‘Catholicism’. Name a specific Protestant denomination. Or better, name an individual thinker, philosopher or theologian so that we can analyse the argument. Don’t just set up a position that some people allegedly hold and then attack it - all the while pretending you are asking a question.

I am not entirely sure what specifically has annoyed you about this thread. I asked a very genuine question. As fas as I am aware it is only the ecclesial communities arising from the sixteenth century Reformation in western Christendom that accept only scripture and not the other parts of tradition. I asked my question to protestants because as far as I am aware they’re the only christians who hold the point of view I asked about. The other part of western Christendom, the Roman Catholic church, accepts a wider Tradition. Scripture is the principal part of the Tradition but not it alone. As far as I know all of eastern Christendom accepts Tradition in a manner similar to the Roman Catholic church.

I am happy to be told that what I think I know about protestantism is wrong. The purpose of my question was to ask protestants why they believe this. If they don’t then tell me they don’t and I am wrong. Please answer the question rather than knock it. It is genuine. If protestants believe what they believe then they should defend their belief. I am asking why they believe. As a Roman Catholic I clearly believe differently. That is no reason for me not to learn why protestants beliefs are different.

 

[jrtrent]

How can protestants say everything we need to believe can only be found in the Bible and reject Sacred Tradition?

Time compels me just drop a link and run for now, but the section linked to from A. A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology is a short yet reasonably comprehensive answer to your question from a Reformed perspective.

reformedreader.org/ss01.htm

 

[Christian_Unity]

Time compels me just drop a link and run for now, but the section linked to from A. A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology is a short yet reasonably comprehensive answer to your question from a Reformed perspective.

reformedreader.org/ss01.htm

This is definitely worth reading the link to understand the Protestant perspective. It is a fair and honest assessment to answer the thread topic from a Reformed perspective.

:bible1:

 

[Indifferently]

Sorry Indifferent, I’ll take your gentle reproof under advisement. I am on this site for the first time and I’m getting my sea legs as it were. I don’t wish to step on toes here so I’ll ease back a bit. I am a member of a Catholic debate forum on Yahoo groups. It encompasses Catholics and Protestants mainly, with a sprinkling of other religious confessions such as the occational Jew perhaps. I don’t recall seeing a muslim there though.

The discussions there can get quite warm as the old expression has it.

As a British Anglican you ought to be familiar with Fr. Ronald Arbuthnott Knox who was a priest in the Crown’s Church until his conversion to the Caholic Church in 1917. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1919. He was from then on a chaplin at Oxford for a couple of decades. He is at times compared with Cardinal Newman in style, eloquence and of course one time members of the Anglican Church. His official biographer was Evelyn Waugh who wrote a magnificent postumous biograpy of him in the later 50’s.

Anyway, all the best.

Cicero54

JMJ

Oh, the gentle reproof wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular, my friend. Of Newman, I recently read that the two best witnesses to the Christian religion the Church of England had ever produced, John Wesley and John Henry Newman, both deserted it in different directions. That’s something I can agree with. With compromise comes much good, and much that isn’t so good.

 

[Indifferently]

I am not entirely sure what specifically has annoyed you about this thread. I asked a very genuine question. As fas as I am aware it is only the ecclesial communities arising from the sixteenth century Reformation in western Christendom that accept only scripture and not the other parts of tradition. I asked my question to protestants because as far as I am aware they’re the only christians who hold the point of view I asked about. The other part of western Christendom, the Roman Catholic church, accepts a wider Tradition. Scripture is the principal part of the Tradition but not it alone. As far as I know all of eastern Christendom accepts Tradition in a manner similar to the Roman Catholic church.

I am happy to be told that what I think I know about protestantism is wrong. The purpose of my question was to ask protestants why they believe this. If they don’t then tell me they don’t and I am wrong. Please answer the question rather than knock it. It is genuine. If protestants believe what they believe then they should defend their belief. I am asking why they believe. As a Roman Catholic I clearly believe differently. That is no reason for me not to learn why protestants beliefs are different.

We certainly value tradition in my branch of the Christian church, or ‘ecclesial community’ as you’ll have it. Our reformation happened, principally, under Queen Elizabeth I. The ‘via media’ settlement is an interesting historical topic, which I mention from time to time, which contributed to a certain liberal tolerance once common in the English national character, which has now sadly passed with the passing of Christianity and its replacement with cultural Marxism. Tradition was a part of that settlement.

 

[JonNC]

But what you described isn’t “sola scriptura”, but “prima scriptura”. I’m just trying to point out that the use of the term is incorrect.

What you are pointing out is incorrect. What you are describing is what we would consider the morphing of it into solo scriptura by groups such as American evangelicals, and the like. The usage of the term as I explained it is the orthodox understanding. It is clearly used that way in the confessional Lutheran documents.

From the Formula of Concord

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

There is no mention of individual interpretation here. Neither is there a rejection of Tradition, except to say that Tradition is subject to scripture. The “sola” simply refers to the practice of using scripture as the only final norm. The “sola” is not saying it is the only thing we use.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Cicero54;10084892]
So the question then becomes, by what authority can we expect to bring into a unitive front that which history presents to us with so much drama, diversity and danger? If one takes the option of leaving the issue up to the individual and his God as an authoritative model, what do we do with conflict arising from contradiction and personal animus?

Precisely why we reject this model, and it is not sola scriptura, as SS is the practice of the (Lutheran part of) Church.

If then to escape the obvious dangers in leaving it up to the individual you take the opposite course and, like Cotton Mathers, put into place an authority and invest it in a single individual or even a small coterie, what is to be done with the clash of elites using the same method but leading opposing groups?

Such as the Magisterium?
Simply, as the early Church did, bring it to a council. But to have a truly ecumenical council, it would take all the patriarchates.

Your proposal, although a modest one (no pun intended may J Swift rest easy), seems to circle back to the same kinds of conflict in the end.

True, as the conflicts we have seen since at least 1054.

My point is that whether on uses Scripture and Tradition as a model of hermeunetics, or scripture aided by Tradition, we must put our faith in the Church, not in ourselves. Then pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.,

God Bless

His blessing also with you.

Jon