Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[benhur]

I have noticed that Protestants are MUCH more inclined than are Catholics to believe that Christ didn’t care whether we knew, with certainty, what He actually taught. Catholics on the other hand tend to be much more inclined to believe that Christ cared enough and had the ‘capacity’ to actually provide us with the means by which we could know His Truth.

Hi Topper,

I beg to differ.

The very foundation of the reformation (and the church after the apostles) is that indeed there is a very capable and Christ "caring’’, and “provisional” theopneostos in Writ, that captures what He actually taught/teaches.

We also differ on the role of the Holy Ghost in the individual, and the institution of the church in relation to that Writ’s understanding.

But I suppose we could generalize in that Catholics do stress more faith in the institution and P’s more faith in the personal divine revelation that one can experience.

As an example, the CC might be more concerned that all believers celebrate Easter on a specific date , while a P may be more concerned with “just do it”, for real.

The Pharisees thought they were "the’’ caring and provisional means for understanding Writ, and they were. But they did not override God’s role in all understanding, for He illumines the heart of all. I supposed the justified widow and her mite cared less about every jot and tittle of the Law as the Pharisee, for she was already broken by the simple Writ of , “But God…”

So Topper, do we strain the gnat and swallow the camel ? We are built not to care about how much one knows till we see how much One cares.

Writ is more than enough for an individual or congregation to ponder for an eternity, for we really ponder Him, thru and in His Spirit.

“For God so loved the World that …” is quite a certainty, by Writ or Tradition (CC’ O or P).

Blessings

 

[PJM]

Hi ericc,

As you say, Jesus appointed the apostles directly,

 

[jlhargus]

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

That’s the crux of the reformation - claims of paid-for-indulgences, papal infallibility, and other doctrines were counted by the Rome as being bolstered by tradition. The only counter to this rational and legalistic extension of tradition that would be the very word of God.

The Church also teaches Divine Tradition can never contradict the Written Tradition of the Bible . They both are the Word of God.

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, **when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

[2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by **our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.]

 

[benhur]

The Church also teaches Divine Tradition can never contradict the Written Tradition of the Bible . They both are the Word of God.

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, **when ye received the word of God

which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

[2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by **our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.]Hi j,

Just that the theopneustos of Writ is unconditional, whereas as you say, Tradition can not contradict Writ.

The oral transmission of the word of God by men has always been up for discernment, just as the understanding of His Writ. Just that Writ is still Writ irregardless. It is also to be judged more so after the original apostles and the writers of Writ departed.

“It is well, that he who is learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them.” Barnabus #21

Blessings

 

[Abu]

SyCarl #375
I am no fan of the development of doctrine. It is not necessary for us to believe anything more than the early church did. Jude wrote of the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth. Nowhere is it suggested that it would take more than thousand years for this to happen.

Such an egotistically mere opinion reveals the gross misunderstanding of Christ and the reality that despite accepting that the Holy Spirit guides the Apostles “to all truth” – you then blithely reject that fact in Christ’s Church!

So the gross error naturally extends to the development of doctrine, despite the reality that the Holy Spirit guides His Church into all truth!

If Augustine could say that belief in purgatory was optional, why must we believe in it today? If Chrysostom could cite an example of Mary sinning and can still be a saint and doctor of the church, why do we have to believe that she was sinless? If Gregory the Great could say that 1 Maccabees was not canonical, why must we believe it is?

But further, the reality that neither Saints Augustine, Chrysostom, or Gregory the Great have the infallibility which Christ conferred on His Church through His Magisterium, anything apparently goes to suit a false mindset. Such an egotistic approach is the reason for the thousands of sects all teaching something different to suit their own whims.

 

[SyCarl]

Such an egotistically mere opinion reveals the gross misunderstanding of Christ and the reality that despite accepting that the Holy Spirit guides the Apostles “to all truth” – you then blithely reject that fact in Christ’s Church!

So the gross error naturally extends to the development of doctrine, despite the reality that the Holy Spirit guides His Church into all truth!

But further, the reality that neither Saints Augustine, Chrysostom, or Gregory the Great have the infallibility which Christ conferred on His Church through His Magisterium, anything apparently goes to suit a false mindset. Such an egotistic approach is the reason for the thousands of sects all teaching something different to suit their own whims.

Is it egotistical to believe that the early Christians knew everything they needed to for salvation?

For argument, suppose a subsequently defined doctrine is actually true. it appears to me that there are then 2 possible logical conclusions.

1. God has changed the amount of truth that is required
2. The new truth is not a necessary truth.

As God has said in Malachi 3:6 that He doesn’t change, is it egotistical to accept the second conclusion?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

From my reading, most of what the church fathers wrote deals with matters over which that neither Catholic or Protestant would disagree with. However my point is that most Protestant beliefs can find support in the writings of the early church. So a church father could state that everything we need to know is clearly set out in Scripture.

You say that Sy, but I would suggest that it is much harder to do than to just say. In my experience, it is extremely easy for a Protestant to post a quote from a Father which makes it APPEAR that the Father supported some version of Sola Scriptura. However, when the ‘other’ quotes from that same Father are posted on the same subject, that Father does not look so Sola Scriptura anymore. If you think that I am wrong, then please post a quote from a Father that you think supports the idea that ‘everything we need to know is clearly set out in Scripture’. Also, if you would, could you please post where it was that you found the quote. We will then be able to look at the other things that that Father says about Scripture/Tradition.

The early fathers did not always agree. **Cyprian would not accept Pope Stephen’s position on baptism by heretics and called a number of North African councils to support his position. **What do you think would have happened if this dispute had taken place in the 16th century? Would Cyprian have been treated any different from Luther?

Could you please post the quote from Cyprian which you think supports his defiance of Pope Stephen, and explain what you think it means, and then we can look at the rest of what he wrote on the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Also again, could you post where it was that you found the quote. I can assure you SY, that Cyprian’s ‘attitude’ towards the Bishop of Rome was VERY, VERY different from what Luther’s.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

 

[benhur]

I need to be careful here, for their is an element of truth [BUT NOT THEE ENTIRE TRUTH] in your statement.

What protestants miss is that it is GOD Himself who warrants the truth of HIS Catholic Church.

Jn 17:17-20

“Sanctify them in truth” [God cannot DENY Himself] ** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.** [This means eactly what it say’s: WITH God -like Powers & Authority. READ Mt 10:1-8] And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.** And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me**;
.
This is an extension of the Power & Authority of holding ALL of the keys’ to heaven gate: Mt 16:18-19

Hi PJM,

Yes , God warrants the truth for His church. Yes, the apostles had Godly authority. Now we must discern why one would think it is only His church that is thereafter so ordained and only ‘others’ would go ‘astray’

NOT SO, so long as the Bishops in Q, align FULLY with the Catholic Magesterium

Circular. You are apostolic, you are scriptural when you are ‘Catholic’ is what you be saying.

My FRIEND I’m not following you here, might you explain further? And we AGREE Mary is NOT equal to Jesus, nor do Catholics make that claim.

Ok I will try. The church received oral testimony then written testimony that was theopneustos, from our foundation the apostles and or close associate. Does that make all subsequent elders/presbyters equally theopneustos? Because the subsequent ecclesia received Writ is she equal to that theopneustos Writ ? That is what I am being told by some here on CAF.

So just as I receive the Creator of the universe, or if one (Mary) were even to incarnate the Christ, we are also then not equal to the gift. So the ecclesia is subject to her own “gift” of Writ.

Infallibility apples ONLY to Faith issues & Moral Teachings.

Is that all?

For example the Catholic-Magisterium interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is a Catholic Book…

Again , the circle.

What my FRIEND do you mean precisely by “regeneration” as used above?

Regeneration=born again= born of the Spirit=born of God=being made a new creature/creation etc.
The Holy Spirit is everywhere,but resides only in believers. To unbelievers, He is on the “outside” , convicting man of sin, judgement and righteousness.

What do you see as the ROLE of the “preacher?”

"By the foolishness of preaching God chose for man to be saved "

“He then who wishes to be saved, look not to man (preacher) but to Him who dwelleth in him (preacher) and speaks to him”, Barnabus #16

On this POINT we agree

We Catholics have the Magisterium [teaching authority] to be our guide. So long as we confirm to these guide, we cannot be in error.

Sorry, I was tongue and cheek with this , " I guess we are not all disciples, and to be proficient and gifted in rightly dividing the Word."

We are all to be disciples and to rightly divide the Word. Does not quite say rightly divide the magisterium. Does not say leave that to your shepherds.

Were the above a factual statement, would there exist the multiplicity of differing faith beliefs from the same bible:

My statement allowed for all variances. I restrict infallibility to His part,and you apply it also to our (magisteium ) part also. Your oneness proves nothing except that if everybody follows one person/magisterium they will be “one”.

But are you traditions good for all times? How do you know that your scared tradition did not begin also with ear tickling, expediency, going with the flow etc. For sure it is now "tradition

Well, this is what the reformers tried to discern. And that perhaps more fervently, genuinely, for they laid their possessions even life on the line to do so. Today, we suffer less for really probing, rocking, even daring not to be sectarian.

Blessings

PJM

 

[Abu]

SyCarl #381
Is it egotistical to believe that the early Christians knew everything they needed to for salvation?

The glaring error in that assumption is that there have been many more billions of people since “the early Christians” and many more falsehoods, including divorce and remarriage, contraception, euthanasia, IVF, because the Scriptures, privately interpreted, cannot always guide us on such issues, much less cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty, and lack of unified Christian belief and action.

For argument, suppose a subsequently defined doctrine is actually true. it appears to me that there are then 2 possible logical conclusions.

1. God has changed the amount of truth that is required
2. The new truth is not a necessary truth.
   As God has said in Malachi 3:6 that He doesn’t change, is it egotistical to accept the second conclusion?

Thus the so-called “logical conclusions” are most illogical, as not only does God not change, but His Catholic Church doesn’t change Her dogma or doctrine and teaches infallibly, as Christ mandated, so you despise Christ’s own Church:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

It is time to listen to Christ through His one and only Church.

 

[MaryT777]

The glaring error in that assumption is that there have been many more billions of people since “the early Christians” and many more falsehoods, including divorce and remarriage, contraception, euthanasia, IVF, because the Scriptures, privately interpreted, cannot always guide us on such issues, much less cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty, and lack of unified Christian belief and action.

Thus the so-called “logical conclusions” are most illogical, as not only does God not change, but His Catholic Church doesn’t change Her dogma or doctrine and teaches infallibly, as Christ mandated, so you despise Christ’s own Church:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

It is time to listen to Christ through His one and only Church.

Amen!~

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The early fathers did not always agree. Cyprian would not accept Pope Stephen’s position on baptism by heretics and called a number of North African councils to support his position. What do you think would have happened if this dispute had taken place in the 16th century? Would Cyprian have been treated any different from Luther?

Greetings, friend.

You are correct in that there were disagreements.

Jerome disputed the canon he was told to translate into our first bible, the Vulgate. He was overruled by Pope Damasas in 382 AD and went ahead and did what he was told. I guess he could have nailed a 95 theses to their door and started his own church, but since Protestants/Orthodox/Catholics alike all hold those 27 NT books to be the inspired word of God, I’m very glad he was subordinate.

 

[JonNC]

I think that there must be some sort of misunderstanding here. I said:

 

[JonNC]

Then I am happy that you provided me with the opportunity to clarify. The point is that, at least in my opinion, given the wide variety of doctrines which have come out of Sola Scriptura communities, Protestants are not justified in believing that “the Bible is precisely the tool Christ left to provide us with the means to know His truth”, as you put it. In all honesty, the Scriptures were NOT written so as to provide us with a proper understanding of doctrinal matters. It COULD have provided that function, but obviously it was not written that way.

But you see, Topper, none of them asked your opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant to their view, their certainty, that scripture is the means by which Christ left us the ability to know His truth. And those who ignore Tradition altogether aren’t interested in my opinion, either. That you or I believe that “Bible Christians”, are not justified in their belief doesn’t impact that belief one iota. They are, in short, not confused by you or I on the matter. In fact it is quite the opposite; they are very sure and not the least bit confused.

They inspired writers could have easily written another couple of books detailing the EXACT definition of the dozens of doctrinal issues that separate us. As an example, the Christ Approved Truth about the Holy Eucharist could have been written into a Chapter of a 28th NT book. But it wasn’t. It wasn’t because Christ had already provided us with a way in which we can know, for certain, his Truth on the matter of the Eucharist. He established His Church on Earth and provided for it to be led into all Truth on issues of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit. THAT is a system that COULD work(and actually does). Sola Scriptura DOES NOT work and simply cannot.

Well, the Christ-approved truth about the Eucharist is written at least 4 times in scripture. That some do not discern that truth doesn’t mean it isn’t there. But here is where I agree with you: Christ provided His Church to lead us into all truth. It continues to do so. Ecumenical dialogue, for example, is evidence of the Spirit’s work within His Church.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Blessings of the Resurrection,
Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

But you see, Topper, none of them asked your opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant to their view, their certainty, that scripture is the means by which Christ left us the ability to know His truth. And those who ignore Tradition altogether aren’t interested in my opinion, either. That you or I believe that “Bible Christians”, are not justified in their belief doesn’t impact that belief one iota. They are, in short, not confused by you or I on the matter. In fact it is quite the opposite; they are very sure and not the least bit confused.

Well, the Christ-approved truth about the Eucharist is written at least 4 times in scripture. That some do not discern that truth doesn’t mean it isn’t there. But here is where I agree with you: Christ provided His Church to lead us into all truth. It continues to do so. Ecumenical dialogue, for example, is evidence of the Spirit’s work within His Church.

Blessings of the Resurrection,
Jon

In the two paragraphs above, you point to scripture as “the means by which Christ left us the ability to know His truth” and say “Christ provided His Church to lead us into all truth”.

I guess this is one of those “both/and” moments.

So, without the Scriptures, could the Church still succeed in leading us into all truth? I say yes.

Without the Church, could the Bible Alone lead us into all truth? I think not.

Some truth? Sure. Most of the truth? Maybe. All of the truth? Nope.

 

[JonNC]

In the two paragraphs above, you point to scripture as “the means by which Christ left us the ability to know His truth” and say “Christ provided His Church to lead us into all truth”.

I guess this is one of those “both/and” moments.

So, without the Scriptures, could the Church still succeed in leading us into all truth? I say yes.

Without the Church, could the Bible Alone lead us into all truth? I think not.

Some truth? Sure. Most of the truth? Maybe. All of the truth? Nope.

Both/and. Pope Benedict reiterated the point that the Church serves the word of God. I can’t imagine trying to understand the scriptures without my upbringing in the Church.
OTOH, even with scripture the Church has always struggled to agree.

Jon

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

You say that Sy, but I would suggest that it is much harder to do than to just say. In my experience, it is extremely easy for a Protestant to post a quote from a Father which makes it APPEAR that the Father supported some version of Sola Scriptura. However, when the ‘other’ quotes from that same Father are posted on the same subject, that Father does not look so Sola Scriptura anymore. If you think that I am wrong, then please post a quote from a Father that you think supports the idea that ‘everything we need to know is clearly set out in Scripture’. Also, if you would, could you please post where it was that you found the quote. We will then be able to look at the other things that that Father says about Scripture/Tradition.

Could you please post the quote from Cyprian which you think supports his defiance of Pope Stephen, and explain what you think it means, and then we can look at the rest of what he wrote on the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Also again, could you post where it was that you found the quote. I can assure you SY, that Cyprian’s ‘attitude’ towards the Bishop of Rome was VERY, VERY different from what Luther’s.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

I will address your questions but it may take me sometime. Unfortunately my eyes are such that I cannot read or write on the computer for long before my vision goes blurry. Perhaps one of the problems of age

 

[jlhargus]

Hi j,

Just that the theopneustos of Writ is unconditional, whereas as you say, Tradition can not contradict Writ.

The oral transmission of the word of God by men has always been up for discernment, just as the understanding of His Writ. Just that Writ is still Writ irregardless. It is also to be judged more so after the original apostles and the writers of Writ departed.

“It is well, that he who is learned the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them.” Barnabus #21 Blessings

Yes Ben, but writ tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that sent teaching authority into all truth. Not hit and miss, could be right could be wrong, interpretations or discernments, but infallible truth.

8096

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I hope you and your family had a wonderful Easter.

It ought to be obvious that a solution and reconciliation of the most significant division of the one True Church, the Great Schism, would go a long way of toward healing other rifts within our His True Church. You comment was, as you repeat it below, that the CC is best positioned to solve these things. For me to pray that you are right, and this schism between the EO and CC is solved seems reasonable.

I don’t understand this consistent comment about the EO Schism, about how THAT is what needs to be taken care of ‘first’, meaning BEFORE the Reformation communities could take any action. I can’t believe that that is what you really mean, so if it is not, then please explain what you mean.

Personally, I don’t think that the Reformation communities should just sit back and expect everyone else to heal THEIR divisions and before Protestantism can do something. It seems passive to a fault. In addition, when you consider the ever increasing pace of denominalization, I don’t think that Protestantism can wait for somebody else to do the ‘hard thing’. Again, I believe that Protestantism needs to heal its own divisions. Then it could approach the RCC and Orthodox from a position of Protestant Unity. We at the same time could be working with the Orthodox to heal the Schism.

Of course it is, and it should be. The EO say you are in Schism from them, so I will take a neutral position and maintain that you are in schism from each other. After all, the excommunications were mutual.

A Schism does not justify a full blown heresy. In 1000 years the Orthodox have splintered into ONLY 17 or so separate doctrinally independent communions. Compare that to how many Protestant communions in ONLY 500 years. The reason for the statistical difference is that in the Orthodox Schism, they took a LOT more of Christ’s Truth with them than did the Protestants.

Of course it doesn’t justify the 500 year old division between our Traditions. I don’t think anyone claims that any division justifies another.

Your often mentioned EO argument sure makes it seem so.

Further, you start with the claim that Catholics are not confused. Okay, they are not confused by the competing, conflicting doctrines of traditions within the one True Church that use scripture and Tradition: EO, OO, OCs, PNCC, some Anglicans. I would contend that none of them are confused by the other. Why would you think that SS traditions within the one True Church are confused by the others?

Protestantism, as has been proven by its relatively short history within Christianity, has absolutely NO way to protect any type or sense of doctrinal purity. Lutherans believe differently from Calvinists who believe differently from Methodists who believe differently from Presbyterians who believe differently from JW’s, who believe……….on and on and on. NONE of you SHOULD have ANY assurance that your community is the one that ‘gets it right’, or has the most pure set of doctrines, or is the ‘most Scriptural’ or……………… That is because the means by which you ALL determine Truth (SS) is fundamentally flawed.

Of course a lot of these communities BELIEVE that they have certainty, but then so do the JWs and the Mormons. IF the individual Protestant were to look at the overall doctrinal confusion within Protestantism, they would realize that they have NO right personally to ‘certainty’.

But you see, Topper, none of them asked your opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant to their view, their certainty, that scripture is the means by which Christ left us the ability to know His truth. And those who ignore Tradition altogether aren’t interested in my opinion, either. That you or I believe that “Bible Christians”, are not justified in their belief doesn’t impact that belief one iota. They are, in short, not confused by you or I on the matter. In fact it is quite the opposite; they are very sure and not the least bit confused.

Exactly Jon, none of them and I do mean NONE of them, care one bit about the opinion of the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ established for THEM. That’s a problem. They want to claim that they are somehow part of it, but refuse to listen to it.

It seems that you place a certain importance on Tradition (with a big ‘T’). However, one cannot throw aside the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and establish your own ‘tradition’, and then claim that since you have a tradition (not The Tradition), that you are safe from error. Abandoning the Apostolic Succession basically INSURES that you will fall into error.

Well, the Christ-approved truth about the Eucharist is written at least 4 times in scripture. That some do not discern that truth doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

That’s right. But how do you KNOW that your version of the Eucharist is correct? Is it because your community based interpretation of Scriptures convinces you? You might have gotten the right answer, but through the wrong means, and while you might have gotten the right answer on one issue, you have no assurance that you got it on any other matter.

But here is where I agree with you: Christ provided His Church to lead us into all truth. It continues to do so. Ecumenical dialogue, for example, is evidence of the Spirit’s work within His Church.

Here you bring up the issue of the definition of “His Church”. The Holy Spirit is NOT going to lead ALL ecclesiastical communities into ALL Truth. Once you have abandoned the One True Church that Christ intended for us ALL, then you are functioning from nothing more than some sort of ‘community based’ form of Private Interpretation.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[benhur]

Yes Ben, but writ tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that sent teaching authority into all truth. Not hit and miss, could be right could be wrong, interpretations or discernments, but infallible truth.

8096

Hi j.

Writ also tells us that which is built upon the apostles foundation will be judged, that indeed there will be some hay and stubble.

For sure the CC , the O and P church have some infallible, grounding “truth”. Where anyone of those churches have “all” truth does not mean there may not be added truth, discernments, practices etc.

All the scriptures concerning guidance and truth must be taken together. It is one thing to say the Holy Ghost perfectly guides, it is another to say the church can only perfectly follow.

Blessings

 

[Topper17]

Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

I will address your questions but it may take me sometime. Unfortunately my eyes are such that I cannot read or write on the computer for long before my vision goes blurry. Perhaps one of the problems of age

I get the issue of problems that go with aging and look forward to your response. Hi Sy,

Thanks for your response.

I will address your questions but it may take me sometime. Unfortunately my eyes are such that I cannot read or write on the computer for long before my vision goes blurry. Perhaps one of the problems of age

I get the issue of problems that go with aging and look forward to your response. Please don’t feel like you have to hurry on my behalf.

God Bless You Sy, Topper

God Bless You Sy, Topper