Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[benhur]

So, the Catholic Church continues to follow the pattern established by God with his Chosen People, the Orthodox Jews: Sacred Scripture and Oral Tradition.

Hi Randy,

Well it seems you can be equally Jewish, and maybe without anathemas , one way or the other. We should ask M if the latter hold oral as equal to Writ , or if there are variances in authority between the two. Another words Writ is inspired but we also live by interpretations. Are they both of the same “nature” ? Is God breathed Writ equal to inspired interpretation ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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

Hi Randy,

Does it have to be so black and white, exclusive, either/ or for one to be final norm? Yet it is plain from their writings, from any writing, that it solidifies, clarifies, sets for the record, the Truth that was once/is oral. From henceforth the oral checks back to the written more accurately than the other way around.

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?

Paul , the most prolific of God-breathed writ ever, and why was he not more “comprehensive” ?

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

If the motive is to elevate the receiver of God’s gift as equal to the gift itself , maybe wrong. If it is to say that all successors to apostles chosen by Jesus are equal in oral dispensation ad infinitum, maybe wrong also.

No one denies that Jesus and the apostles all taught orally first, and writ came later by the Lords prompting of said apostles/close associates. Scripture then became part of “Tradition”. All things thereafter declared are purported to be “scriptural”.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Randy,

Well it seems you can be equally Jewish, and m:blush:aybe without anathemas , one way or the other. We should ask M if the latter hold oral as equal to Writ , or if there are variances in authority between the two. Another words Writ is inspired but we also live by interpretations. Are they both of the same “nature” ? Is God breathed Writ equal to inspired interpretation ?

Blessings

I posted this earlier, I believe it was Jewish 101, but it may be different, other websites said basically the same:

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)

Every Jewish website I visited said the Oral Law completed the Written, and was given by God at the same time.

Before the elevation of Scripture over Tradition in some circles, every controversy that popped up, because Scripture isn’t clear, was answered by those Christ put in authority. No matter how comprehensive Scripture may be, it still must be interpreted correctly, otherwise it is useless.

People who elevate Scripture, in reality want to give themselves the authority to interpret, that Christ gave to others. That way they can justify dissent, and the fracturing of Christianity.

If Scripture is clear, why do we see these controversies?

1.) Baptism
A.) Necessary or not.
B.) Infant, or adult only.
C.) Sprinkling, or immersion only.

2.) Female ordination.

3.) Number of Sacraments.
A.) Efficacy of said Sacraments.

4.) Did Jesus institue:
A.) Priesthood?
B.) The Mass (sacrificial or not)?

5.) Bread of Life Discourse (Literal or Metaphor?).

6.) The Canon.

7.) Prayer to Saints.

This is just a small sample. I can go on. Until Scripture is returned to equal footing with Sacred Tradition, you will continue to see the fracturing of Christianity.

 

[Duane1966]

Where is the evidence that he did ?

A little earlier than the passage I quote will give you the background. As I stated earlier, that Victor exercised papal supremacy is not in dispute with Orthodox. They would answer the Eastern bishops ignored Victor. What else is not in dispute is that, when the dust had settled, the East had done what Victor had told them to do.

From this website: matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

g. 12). Perhaps the most interesting take on this matter is from the liberal Protestant scholar Dr. Adolph Harnack who made the following observations on the matter:

[Victor] ventured by an edict (one might say a pre-emptory edict) with reference to the arrangement of ecclesiastical feasts to proclaim the rule of the Roman practice asa general rule of the Churchand to announce that any local church would be excluded ashereticalfrom the fellowship of theoneChurch, if it did not adopt the Roman arrangement.

How could Victor have ventured upon such an edict (still less to put it into actual effect, even if he had the strength to do so) unless it was established and recognized that in the decisive question offaithit was eminently the function of the Roman church to determine the conditions of the “common unity”? How could Victor have made such an unheard-of demand to the independent local churches, unless, as Bishop of Rome, he had been recognized as the guardian of the “common unity”? [13]In a footnote Harnack added “Irenaeus too seems to object not to Victor’s behaviour as such, but his behaviour in this instance”. What should be rather obvious now is that there were no recorded claims by anyone that the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority to act in the manner that he did. No evidence can be brought up in these or any other recorded instances where the prerogatives of Rome were questioned. If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been an innovation then someone would have opposed it, as the Fathers were not slow in doing with innovations in the Church when they cropped up from time to time. However, the Primacy of Rome and the claims of its bishops was no secret or innovation. If it was, then not one single patristic opponent of the decisions of Rome ever claimed that Rome lacked the authority to render the decisive judgment on matters of doctrine or discipline.** This is significant, because there were Fathers who had both doctrinal and disciplinary disputes with the Roman See from time to time*

 

[Topper17]

Hi Duane,

A little earlier than the passage I quote will give you the background. As I stated earlier, that Victor exercised papal supremacy is not in dispute with Orthodox. They would answer the Eastern bishops ignored Victor. What else is not in dispute is that, when the dust had settled, the East had done what Victor had told them to do.

From this website: matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

I agree. Also, I think that the quote you posted makes a very good point:

"If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been an innovation then someone would have opposed it, as the Fathers were not slow in doing with innovations in the Church when they cropped up from time to time. However, the Primacy of Rome and the claims of its bishops was no secret or innovation. If it was, then not one single patristic opponent of the decisions of Rome ever claimed that Rome lacked the authority to render the decisive judgment on matters of doctrine or discipline."

We are always being told that the Church ‘went off the rails’ doctrinally, and that THAT is why the Reformation was necessary. However, nobody seems to agree as to when it went off the rails. In addition, it seems that nobody wants to get very specific. It’s just an (of course) very generalized and unsupported claim.

Martin Luther had as much interest in making this claim as anybody and he never could p(name removed by moderator)oint when the Church went off the rails.

Of course, if the Church actually HAD gone off the rails there were always plenty of Theologians and Bishops who would have been able to raise a ruckus. Where is the evidence of that ruckus when the various Popes claimed and exercised their authority over all the Church?

God Bless You Duane, Topper

 

[pablope]

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

So the confessions are like a pope…only on paper?

 

[pablope]

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simspt View Post
“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.

So…how about answering the question posed…which has been asked numerously and lutherans keep dodging…who will decide which tradition are in line and which are not?

 

[JonNC]

So the confessions are like a pope…only on paper?

No. We never have claimed them to be infallible (inerrant).

Jon

 

[pablope]

No. We never have claimed them to be infallible (inerrant).

Jon

Do you believe these were written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[JonNC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by simspt View Post
“we have no objection to tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict scripture”

So…how about answering the question posed…which has been asked numerously and lutherans keep dodging…who will decide which tradition are in line and which are not?

Why the unfounded accusation of dodging? Lutherans (along with Anglicans) are the most consistent participants on the NCR forum.
Jon

 

[pablope]

Why the unfounded accusation of dodging? Lutherans (along with Anglicans) are the most consistent participants on the NCR forum.
Jon

Sorry jon…have a hard time typing and cutting and pasting…am using an ipad…

The dodging i mentioned has to do with answering this question, which ben evaded…who will decide which tradition are in line and which are not?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Sorry jon…have a hard time typing and cutting and pasting…am using an ipad…

The dodging i mentioned has to do with answering this question, which ben evaded…who will decide which tradition are in line and which are not?

As we’ve stated , Scriptural teaching is clear , so it decides, and it has the backing of the Holy Spirit

 

[pablope]

As we’ve stated , Scriptural teaching is clear , so it decides, and it has the backing of the Holy Spirit

Okay…can you then cite an example where Scripture has decided something?

Can you provide an example of where Scripture decided what is truth and what is false?

And no avasive answer this time.

 

[Duane1966]

As we’ve stated , Scriptural teaching is clear , so it decides, and it has the backing of the Holy Spirit

You are joking correct? As was posted earlier, the rabbis quite correctly viewed the Torah alone as incomplete, and impossible to understand without the Oral Tradition, which also has the backing of the Holy Spirit.

There are at least three passages in the New Testament that contradict your view that Scripture is clear. They are Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts. Second Peter where he states no prophecy is open to private…And Second Peter, where he says Paul’s writings are hard to understand. They would not be hard to understand if they were clear. There would never be a need for councils if Scriptures were clear. The fracturing of Protestantism, with all holding to a view that Scripture is clear, quite obviously shows you to be wrong.

Two last questions and an observation. For any Protestant whose denomination does not hold that it is a sin to miss Sunday services, why go? Do you go for fellowship? Because if Scripture is so clear, surely that preacher cannot possibly teach you anything from the Gospels, that you should not already have arrived at if you’ve read the clear Bible.

 

[benhur]

I posted this earlier, I believe it was Jewish 101, but it may be different, other websites said basically the same:Every Jewish website I visited said the Oral Law completed the Written, and was given by God at the same time.

Before the elevation of Scripture over Tradition in some circles, every controversy that popped up, because Scripture isn’t clear, was answered by those Christ put in authority. No matter how comprehensive Scripture may be, it still must be interpreted correctly, otherwise it is useless.

People who elevate Scripture, in reality want to give themselves the authority to interpret, that Christ gave to others. That way they can justify dissent, and the fracturing of Christianity.

If Scripture is clear, why do we see these controversies?

1.) Baptism
A.) Necessary or not.
B.) Infant, or adult only.
C.) Sprinkling, or immersion only.

2.) Female ordination.

3.) Number of Sacraments.
A.) Efficacy of said Sacraments.

4.) Did Jesus institue:
A.) Priesthood?
B.) The Mass (sacrificial or not)?

5.) Bread of Life Discourse (Literal or Metaphor?).

6.) The Canon.

7.) Prayer to Saints.

This is just a small sample. I can go on. Until Scripture is returned to equal footing with Sacred Tradition, you will continue to see the fracturing of Christianity.

Hi D,

We are back to Meltzer’s point that within Judaism the views on oral are varied.

" But is it honest or reasonable or sensible to continue teaching the traditional version of the ‘Unbroken Chain of Oral Law’ without comment when we know that it is not correct?Should our more learned and influential rabbis not openly and clearly explain and distinguish between the two sources of Oral Law? Should they not teach that, both in practise as well as in theory, the Oral Law from Sinai and Rabbinic Oral Law are not of equal status, since even today their colleagues continue to suggest that they are. As shown above, other colleagues have acknowledged that Rabbinic Oral Law may well not be what was originally intended."

reflectingonjudaism.com/content/oral-law

There are also many reasons for fracturing, not just over scriptural rule. Rule of Tradition has it share of blame.

Blessings

 

[alwayswill]

You are joking correct? As was posted earlier, the rabbis quite correctly viewed the Torah alone as incomplete, and impossible to understand without the Oral Tradition, which also has the backing of the Holy Spirit.

There are at least three passages in the New Testament that contradict your view that Scripture is clear. They are Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts. Second Peter where he states no prophecy is open to private…And Second Peter, where he says Paul’s writings are hard to understand. They would not be hard to understand if they were clear. There would never be a need for councils if Scriptures were clear. The fracturing of Protestantism, with all holding to a view that Scripture is clear, quite obviously shows you to be wrong.

Two last questions and an observation. For any Protestant whose denomination does not hold that it is a sin to miss Sunday services, why go? Do you go for fellowship? Because if Scripture is so clear, surely that preacher cannot possibly teach you anything from the Gospels, that you should not already have arrived at if you’ve read the clear Bible.

This has floated around the internet for a few years now and has been linked from various PRO-Catholic sites in order to improve the level of apologetics

Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn’t Use
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243954/posts

#4, #8, and #17 seem to apply to your points

1. Do not exaggerate the inadequacy of Sola Scriptura, as if it were not possible to understand the Bible at all without the Magisterium.** In reality, if one, without help from any external authority, gives the Bible a diligent, sincere, and attentive reading, it will be possible to achieve the right answer to a fair number of questions.** Sola Scriptura is inadequate because it cannot give the Church definitive answers to every question which she needs answered in order to function as the Church. For example, it cannot give the Church a definitive answer regarding whether Christian marriage is dissoluble. On the other hand, the Bible is clear enough that the text alone suffices to tell the Church that homosexuality is evil, among other things. If one fails to recognize this then it will be impossible to come to terms with the patristic witness to the clarity of Scripture
2. Do not cite 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”** In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader.** That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority.
3. Never ask, if a Protestant believes his salvation is eternally secure, what motivation he has to do good and avoid evil. The answer is obvious (and embarrassing to the Catholic who asked the question): the love of God. The love of God is sufficient motivation to pursue holiness with all vigor, absent any considerations of self interest. The most that a Catholic can argue in this respect is that Catholic theology, which furnishes men with both the baser motive of self interest and the loftier motive of the love of God, is superior in the practical order. For, in many cases, the baser motive will effectually turn a man from evil to good whereas the loftier motive, even though it should have, did not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Fair enough. But your “Tradition” is not authoritative in the sense that Scripture is authoritative, and I don’t see how the early Church could have practiced sola Scriptura when all it had for the first few decades was Tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors.

Using a timeline with approximate dates for the deaths of the Apostles and the formulation of the canon, when was the earliest date at which the Church could have practiced sola Scriptura if it had wanted to?

And what was the latest date by which the Church should have been practicing sola scriptura?

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

Aw, Jon…don’t you know you’re the only Lutheran in my life?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

My point exactly!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul , the most prolific of God-breathed writ ever, and why was he not more “comprehensive” ?

Because he didn’t need to be.

After all, he left behind a group of carefully schooled disciples such as Timothy, Titus, Clement, etc.

 

[benhur]

Because he didn’t need to be.

After all, he left behind a group of carefully schooled disciples such as Timothy, Titus, Clement, etc.

Hi randy,

Ok, we go tit for tat.

Another of his beloved disciples, Barnabus, also wrote, "Those who are knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, let them keep them, as many as are written’’.

Blessings