Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

Come now let us reason together says the Lord…
I highly doubt Topper a Catholic meant “no oral tradition at all should be considered”
Tradition! …is part of our Catholic Faith of course. I might imagine you’ve heard that through the grapevine!~

Blessings,
Mary.

lol

Topper was talking about whether or not SS that the s "restrictive " was an early Church belief. I was agreeing with him ( hope you were sitting down when you read that ), if by restrictive we mean in the same way.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that Jews view their Scripture and their Tradition exactly as it is in the Catholic description of a Sacred Deposit; I have a feeling that you’re getting it entirely from Catholicism and assuming that Judaism does it exactly the same way just because you see a few main concepts that are the same.

I know they don’t view it exactly like Catholicism, nor did I ever state that they do. I just know they don’t view it the way that you do.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re on to something though. Suppose Orthodox Judaism does view the totality of Scripture and its Tradition as if it were a united thing at the same indistinguishable level of authority…as if it were a single Sacred Deposit, but by a different name…

What name would that be, exactly, and where is it described and defined by Orthodox Jews?

Where have I stated that’s how Orthodox Judaism views the totality of Scripture? I simply said they view Mishnah as the other half of the Torah. I did make a misstatement when I said that it was never viewed as secondary. The view that it is secondary is in flux, with some saying it is secondary, and others not.

I hope that clarified where the word “secondary” comes in. Mishnah is a noun, meaning study by repetition, but it’s related to a couple of other Hebrew words including an adjective, Mishneh, which means secondary. Every time I’ve seen this word introduced to the description of is etymology, some reference to secondary authority (specifically to the Tanakh) is mentioned with it.

Thanks for the verbal lesson. I knew the distinctions ahead of time, was not sure if you did.

…
Wikipedia page for Jacob Neusner, which should help you understand his role in American Jewish scholarship.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Neusner

He’s quite prolific, having written or edited over 950 books. One in particular received high praise from Pope Benedict XVI, earning him the nickname “the pope’s favorite rabbi.”

Thanks badnews, I had already heard of him, was not sure if you had.

By the way this is also from that same wikipedia that you linked to:

Some scholars have questioned Neusner’s grasp of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic. Probably the most famous and biting criticism came from Saul Lieberman: about Neusner’s translation of the Jerusalem Talmud, Lieberman wrote:"….one begins to doubt the credibility of the translator [Neusner]. And indeed after a superficial perusal of the translation, the reader is stunned by [Neusner’s] ignorance of Rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all of the subject matter with which he deals." He ended his review: "I conclude with a clear conscience: The right place for [Neusner’s] English translation is the waste basket.

It’s really not that hard to find reliable Jewish sources that afford Scripture the highest authority, especially in the specific context of where that places the wider body of Jewish interpretation and scholarship. You’ve chosen to give yourself a fairly impossible task, and you may want to just concede.

Why? I can find just as many reliable Jewish sources that say the Oral is just as authoritative as the Written. Here is what the very first website I came to writes:

The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, “Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy” (Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath’s inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one’s dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah’s laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema’s first paragraph, the Bible instructs: “And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.” “Bind them for a sign upon your hand,” the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn’t say. “And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.” What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries)

Jacob Neusner handles this exact issue with great specificity, and he’s certainly not agreeing with you.

Nor does he agree with you, read what he says in full on page 203:

Nor can it be described as contingent upon, and secondary to Scripture

and on page 205:

…we realize that the Mishnah claims it’s authority to be coequal with Scripture.

 

[simspt]

Barth’s views are very Lutheran - we have no objection to tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict scripture - used as the norma normans

.

“we have no objection to tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict scripture”

According to whom?
Do you decide what tradition contradicts scripture and what tradition doesn’t?
So tradition is ok as long as it agrees with your interpretation of scripture?
Seems you have made yourself the norma normans not tradition or scripture.
You accept this or that tradition because it agrees with “YOUR” interpretation of scipture…
You judge Tradition through the hermeneutic of Protestant Lutheranism right? So wouldn’t it be more accurate to claim you have no objection to tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict Luther’s interpretation of Scripture which “You” have determined to be the correct interpretation therefore any tradition that doesn’t agree with you must be false.

 

[benjohnson]

“we have no objection to tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict scripture”

According to whom?
Do you decide what tradition contradicts scripture and what tradition doesn’t?
So tradition is ok as long as it agrees with your interpretation of scripture?
Seems you have made yourself the norma normans not tradition or scripture.
You accept this or that tradition because it agrees with “YOUR” interpretation of scipture…
You judge Tradition through the hermeneutic of Protestant Lutheranism right? So wouldn’t it be more accurate to claim you have no objection to tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict Luther’s interpretation of Scripture which “You” have determined to be the correct interpretation therefore any tradition that doesn’t agree with you must be false.

Sola Scriptura as practiced by Lutheran tradition in the western chruch is a practice of the church and not of individuals. That said, individuals will rebel against God - let us pray that we bind our wills to Christ Jesus.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

While I generally agree, I would rephrase and say it was not generally a practicein the early Church. In and of itself, Sola Scriptura is not a belief, but a practice. Further, if what you mean by “restrictive” is the belief that no other writings should be considered, no oral tradition at all should be considered, then it is obvious that this wasn’t a practice of the early Church.

Jon

OK, I’ll go along with that also. In fact we are both right. Sola Scriptura was neither a belief NOR a practice in the early Church. It didn’t exist at all but rather was simply a 16th century innovation.

I will grant you that it could never have become a “practice” until after it had become a belief, but again, it was neither for the first 15 centuries.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

OK, I’ll go along with that also. In fact we are both right. Sola Scriptura was neither a belief NOR a practice in the early Church. It didn’t exist at all but rather was simply a 16th century innovation.

I will grant you that it could never have become a “practice” until after it had become a belief, but again, it was neither for the first 15 centuries.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Just as universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction is not part of the early Church. And as we discussed earlier, this is the huge issue in the dialogue, and the use of SS is directly related

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Just as universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction is not part of the early Church. And as we discussed earlier, this is the huge issue in the dialogue, and the use of SS is directly related

Jon

This is interesting. Here you admit that Sola Scriptura does not have any historical precedent, in essence conceding that it was a 16th century innovation.

On the other hand, you contend that the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome was some kind of later day concept. It WAS NOT. It is very clear from the writings of the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome held a position ABOVE that of the other Bishops, and that unity was to be found WITH him.

What confuses me is how you can contend (mistakenly) that the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not found in the teachings of the early Church, and that that supposed lack of evidence means that the Church is not legitimate, at least with respect to this claim, and yet, admit that Sola Scriptura is not found in the early Church either, while still holding that SS communities are legitimate by the same criteria. It seems like there is a double standard there.

It seems that you put a lot of chips on the table with regard to this issue.

This would be an excellent thread at some point, especially given that you put so much weight on whether this concept is found in the early Church.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13714725]

This is interesting. Here you admit that Sola Scriptura does not have any historical precedent, in essence conceding that it was a 16th century innovation.

Of course it wasn’t the doctrine of the very Early Church. It doesn’t make sense to dispute that, and it isn’t a doctrine today. OTOH, it is far less an innovation than papal supremacy.

On the other hand, you contend that the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome was some kind of later day concept. It WAS NOT. It is very clear from the writings of the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome held a position ABOVE that of the other Bishops, and that unity was to be found WITH him.

Not true. I did not contend that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is of later development. I said that universal jurisdiction is, as is papal supremacy. They are different. Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that, when discussing the expectations Rome would have for Orthodoxy should unity become possible.

"…Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity,** this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”**

The doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium!!

What confuses me is how you can contend (mistakenly) that the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not found in the teachings of the early Church, and that that supposed lack of evidence means that the Church is not legitimate, at least with respect to this claim, and yet, admit that Sola Scriptura is not found in the early Church either, while still holding that SS communities are legitimate by the same criteria. It seems like there is a double standard there.

Again, not disputing primacy, just as Orthodoxy has never disputed primacy either, there is no evidence of in the early councils of supremacy. Jurisdiction is discussed in Nicaea canon 6, and the Bishop of Rome is given no supremacy. The difference is Rome declares supremacy as dogmatic. Lutherans make no such claim about SS. It is a practice, used to hold teachings and doctrine accountable to the final norm, which is scripture.
So there is no double standard. I recognize the legitimate role the Bishop of Rome plays, as having universal jurisdiction for those bishops and communions in communion with him, because they agree to it. That is legitimate. But his jurisdiction is not universal over the whole Church.

It seems that you put a lot of chips on the table with regard to this issue.

No more than I have ever discussed on this forum for years.

This would be an excellent thread at some point, especially given that you put so much weight on whether this concept is found in the early Church.

Sola scriptura, or papal supremacy?

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course it wasn’t the doctrine of the very Early Church. It doesn’t make sense to dispute that, and it isn’t a doctrine today. OTOH, it is far less an innovation than papal supremacy.

Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you? But on what basis?

Why is sola scriptura somehow more acceptable than papal supremacy, and since this is key, what verses would you use to defend your view. (You know the verses I would use to defend my position, of course.)

Not true. I did not contend that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is of later development. I said that universal jurisdiction is, as is papal supremacy. They are different. Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that, when discussing the expectations Rome would have for Orthodoxy should unity become possible.

Agreed. They are different.

The doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium!!

Which makes it at minimum a thousand years older than the doctrine of sola scriptura, doesn’t it?

 

[JonNC]

=

Randy Carson;13715829]Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you? But on what basis?

Why is sola scriptura somehow more acceptable than papal supremacy, and since this is key, what verses would you use to defend your view. (You know the verses I would use to defend my position, of course.)

Of course you would ask that.
There are numerous verses one can use to defend the use of scripture by the Church as the norm. And there are numerous that Catholics use to defend supremacy, but as Pope Benedict points out, that isn’t the experience of the first millennium Church.
Like I told Topper, if certain bishops wish to bind themselves to the Pope in this way, it is acceptable.

Which makes it at minimum a thousand years older than the doctrine of sola scriptura, doesn’t it?

SS is t a doctrine, but the idea of supremacy is probably 600 years or so. Arianism is older than both, but neither of us finds that convincing. Primacy, OTOH, can be found in the early Church

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Of course you would ask that.
There are numerous verses one can use to defend the use of scripture by the Church as the norm. And there are numerous that Catholics use to defend supremacy, but as Pope Benedict points out, that isn’t the experience of the first millennium Church.

This is Benedict’s opinion. Jon, do you think a Catholic should agree with Benedict on this, him just being one pope, or the many popes who held a different view than Benedict XVI?

SS is t a doctrine, but the idea of supremacy is probably 600 years or so.
Jon

Does this sound like someone who doesn’t believe in supremacy?

"was indefatigable…in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome’s appellate jurisdiction in the east…(xxxxx) argued that St. Peter’s commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).

*"If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility."

These quotes are much older than 600 years.

Arianism is older than both, but neither of us finds that convincing.

Pope Victor I predates Arianism, and he quite obviously believed in supremacy of the pope, as he exercised it.

 

[JonNC]

This is Benedict’s opinion. Jon, do you think a Catholic should agree with Benedict on this, him just being one pope, or the many popes who held a different view than Benedict XVI?

Does this sound like someone who doesn’t believe in supremacy? These quotes are much older than 600 years.

Pope Victor I predates Arianism, and he quite obviously believed in supremacy of the pope, as he exercised it.

Certainly it is not up to me to say who Catholics should believe. Your link sounds as much like an opinion as any other.
Bottom line: only one of the patriarchs believed the western patriarch had supremacy/ universal jurisdiction. Otherwise, there would not be a thousand year old schism.
Bottom line: only the leaders of Orthodoxy and Rome can settle the disagreement.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Certainly it is not up to me to say who Catholics should believe. Your link sounds as much like an opinion as any other.

Jon, those words were from Pope Gregory the Great. He said Constantinople was subject to the Apostolic See (Rome). He said the second quote.

Bottom line: only one of the patriarchs believed the western patriarch had supremacy/ universal jurisdiction.

So you can show me writings from the early patriarchs disputing supremacy? If not, then you are putting words in the patriarchs mouths to fit your needs. Silence of the patriarchs, proves neither side.

Otherwise, there would not be a thousand year old schism.
Bottom line: only the leaders of Orthodoxy and Rome can settle the disagreement.

Jon

Jon, you stated that supremacy was only about 600 years old, and that Arianism was much older. Pope Victor I exercised supremacy/universal jurisdiction at the end of the second century. That he did, is not in dispute with the Orthodox, though they would say that the Eastern bishops ignored him, as they initially refused to do it. Two things we see from this:

1.) He obviously felt that he held supremacy, and he predates Arianism.

2.) Bottom line, when the dust settled, the East ended up doing what he had told them to do.

Jon, will you admit that your 600 year, and Arianism statements, as they relate to supremacy are wrong?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, those words were from Pope Gregory the Great. He said Constantinople was subject to the Apostolic See (Rome). He said the second quote.
So you can show me writings from the early patriarchs disputing supremacy? If not, then you are putting words in the patriarchs mouths to fit your needs. Silence of the patriarchs, proves neither side. Jon, you stated that supremacy was only about 600 years old, and that Arianism was much older. Pope Victor I exercised supremacy/universal jurisdiction at the end of the second century. That he did, is not in dispute with the Orthodox, though they would say that the Eastern bishops ignored him, as they initially refused to do it. Two things we see from this:

1.) He obviously felt that he held supremacy, and he predates Arianism.

2.) Bottom line, when the dust settled, the East ended up doing what he had told them to do.

Jon, will you admit that your 600 year, and Arianism statements, as they relate to supremacy are wrong?

No. Only a out 600 years set than the Reformation.
Can you show me which of the other patriarchs sided with Rome at the time of the schism.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

=
Of course you would ask that.
There are numerous verses one can use to defend the use of scripture by the Church as the norm. And there are numerous that Catholics use to defend supremacy, but as Pope Benedict points out, that isn’t the experience of the first millennium Church.
Like I told Topper, if certain bishops wish to bind themselves to the Pope in this way, it is acceptable.

I dunno, Jon.

I’ve never been able to understand how the Church practiced sola scriptura during the lifetimes of the Apostles nor in the first couple of centuries prior to the formal establishment of the canon. After all, you have to have scripture before you can rely on scripture alone.

And I don’t see any specific instructions recorded in scripture from the apostles telling their followers to adhere exclusively to scripture as the norm after their deaths or the deaths of the men whom they had taken such great pains to appoint as their successors (such as Papias, Clement, Ignatius, etc.).

Paul specifically tells Timothy to entrust the gospel to men who would faithfully hand on what Paul had taught. He did not say, “Okay, once I’m gone, I want all of you to focus exclusively on what I’ve written.”

If that had been Paul’s intent, wouldn’t it have made sense for him to write a more comprehensive book of systematic theology? If that had been GOD’s intent, don’t you think the Holy Spirit would have inspired such a work?

SS is t a doctrine, but the idea of supremacy is probably 600 years or so. Arianism is older than both, but neither of us finds that convincing. Primacy, OTOH, can be found in the early Church

Jon

So, were the Christian churches wrong for teaching that doctrine is derived from both Scripture and Tradition for the first 1,500 years?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. Only a out 600 years set than the Reformation.
Can you show me which of the other patriarchs sided with Rome at the time of the schism.

Jon

Can you show me which of the other bishops sided with Athanasius at the time of the controversy with Arius?

If majority rules, then you should be Arian. :sad_yes:

 

[JonNC]

I dunno, Jon.

I’ve never been able to understand how the Church practiced sola scriptura during the lifetimes of the Apostles nor in the first couple of centuries prior to the formal establishment of the canon. After all, you have to have scripture before you can rely on scripture alone.

And I don’t see any specific instructions recorded in scripture from the apostles telling their followers to adhere exclusively to scripture as the norm after their deaths or the deaths of the men whom they had taken such great pains to appoint as their successors (such as Papias, Clement, Ignatius, etc.).

Paul specifically tells Timothy to entrust the gospel to men who would faithfully hand on what Paul had taught. He did not say, “Okay, once I’m gone, I want all of you to focus exclusively on what I’ve written.”

If that had been Paul’s intent, wouldn’t it have made sense for him to write a more comprehensive book of systematic theology? If that had been GOD’s intent, don’t you think the Holy Spirit would have inspired such a work?

So, were the Christian churches wrong for teaching that doctrine is derived from both Scripture and Tradition for the first 1,500 years?

It depends upon the Tradition. Lutherans use tradition all the time to teach from, to defend doctrine, etc. the first three symbols in the Book of Concord, after all, are the three ancient creeds.
On some of the other things, Randy, maybe you can help me out. Tell me where you’ve heard a Lutheran say we expect that Paul intended us exclusively on what he wrote, or even what was written in the four Gospels. That doesn’t even fit . It doesn’t fit what our confessions say. In fact, that would exclude the existence of the confessions. The Lutheran reformers never thought that way. So, I can’t defend that idea because it isn’t what we believe. Sola scriptura is not scripture with nothing else. It is scripture is the final norm, not even the only norm, just the only final norm. There are a number of norms; creeds, councils, confessions, and all of them are nor ex by scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Can you show me which of the other bishops sided with Athanasius at the time of the controversy with Arius?

If majority rules, then you should be Arian. :sad_yes:

If we listen Athanasius, isn’t the canon of scripture different?
It isn’t a matter of majority.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

It isn’t a matter of majority.

Jon

Agreed. So why is the majority all of a sudden important to you when it comes to Supremacy? Really doesn’t matter that no patriarchs sided with the pope, correct?

By the way, since Pope Victor I obviously exercised papal supremacy at the end of the second century, doesn’t this predate your assertion by 700 years?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Agreed. So why is the majority all of a sudden important to you when it comes to Supremacy? Really doesn’t matter that no patriarchs sided with the pope, correct?

By the way, since Pope Victor I obviously exercised papal supremacy at the end of the second century, doesn’t this predate your assertion by 700 years?

Where is the evidence that he did ?