Self Authentication in Sola Scriptura

[Truthstalker]

From another thread, by John Henry:

I maintain, though, that the “self-authentication” you refer is only a useful criteria once you know the canon. Seriously. Practically, how does what you are suggesting work? People, inspired by the Holy Spirit, “just know” what is and isn’t scripture? But that is clearly not how it happened. It was decided which books were part of the canon, in council, after centuries of developing traditions on the subject. So the question that I have is:

Presuming that you get to invent another history of the Church, with your theory being the one that people are to use, how does your theory work in practice, as people undertake the laborious task of sifting through the greater than 100 books written within the first couple of centuries after Christ?

Practically, in SS one trusts the Lord to guide and speak to one:“My sheep hear my voice,” etc. It’s not my theory - I didn’t come up with it. People ask God to guide them, and He is faithful.

Protestants have trouble believing God would guide anyone through the medium of the Catholic church. Catholics have trouble believing God would guide Protestants without it.

 

[Della]

From another thread, by John Henry:

Practically, in SS one trusts the Lord to guide and speak to one:“My sheep hear my voice,” etc. It’s not my theory - I didn’t come up with it. People ask God to guide them, and He is faithful.

Protestants have trouble believing God would guide anyone through the medium of the Catholic church. Catholics have trouble believing God would guide Protestants without it.

There is a huge difference between Christians reading the Bible for devotional growth and instructions in daily following of Christ vs. deciding doctrine and dogma all on their own. Jesus never promised all and sundry that they would be able to discern such matters all on their own (which they don’t actually do, as you yourself pointed out on SS). If SS were correct, there would have been no need for Jesus to have had Apostles to whom he gave certain charism and authority. He could simply have dictated a book and left it up to mankind to follow. But, he didn’t do that. He established a well-structured Church through which he would speak to future generations, the Bible being but a part of the Church speaking to men.

 

[Truthstalker]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

How could it be irrelevant whether or not the Church was the agent who authenticated the canon? If it was the Church, then this is proof that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the Truth! Is it not?

As I understand it, In SS the church only recognizes, and does not authenticate, the work of the Holy Spirit in developing the canon. The Bible, in SS, stands above the church, or rather is the foundation of it. From a SS viewpoint, it is arrogant for the church to approve tha actions of God and act as His judge. In contrast I think the Catholic view on the matter is less adversarial and more organic.

As Della pointed out, not all are given equal understanding of doctrine or the Scriptures. I think the SS answer to that is that the church is still given pastors and teachers. Any ensuing teaching or tradition would have to be measured by, and be necessarily subordinate to, Scripture.

The way I have observed SS working, typically, is that a system of doctrine is presented that the presenters insist is the correct interpretation of Scripture. One of the problems with SS is exactly this: a tradition immediately arises that is treated as on-par with (or even superior to) Scripture, and then Scripture is viewed through the lens of the interpretative system. I think typically, however, people try conscientiously to make sure that the system conforms to their understanding of Scripture. All too often the understanding of Scripture swallows Scripture, so that then Scripture is read only within the system. Catholics are honest about the fact they have a Tradition; I wonder about Protestants sometimes.

Scripture, as both Protestants and Catholics agree, is God-breathed. If the canon as canon is not inspired, then God must speak to every Protestant in a way that makes every Protestant believe, without error in hearing, that that particular set of 66 books, and no other, and not less than that, is inspired. Luther had notorious trouble with the book of James. Either God authenticates the Scripture to every Protestant or that God told the Church what He wrote. In either case He, not the Church, ultimately authenticates Scripture - the question is what is the proper role of the church in mediating the authority of Scripture. If, as the reformers claim, Scripture is self-authenticating, then the Church gets a free ride.

Protestants, as I think I noted somewhere, deny the Holy Spirit operates effectively through the Church. Catholics deny He will operate effectively through the individual believer, but assert the Church is necessary for all things.

 

[Stephen_C]

Ok, I am trying to figure out what you are saying here. (Still waiting for my first 2 cups of java to kick in) I think the one thing that sticks out for me is Jesus did not leave us the Bible. He gave us the Church. He gave Peter the keys (and all things that goes with that) to that Church. It was this Church that gave us the Bible. So my question to you is…When deciding which writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not, what did they use as the bench mark(s)? And if you believe the Church put the Bible togather, then do you think they would know what is say’s (means)?

 

[John_Henry]

From another thread, by John Henry:

Practically, in SS one trusts the Lord to guide and speak to one:“My sheep hear my voice,” etc. It’s not my theory - I didn’t come up with it. People ask God to guide them, and He is faithful.

Protestants have trouble believing God would guide anyone through the medium of the Catholic church. Catholics have trouble believing God would guide Protestants without it.

Trtuhstalker,
I appreciate you opening this thread to try to answer my question. But I don’t think you did. No doubt God guides people through the Scriptures. No one debates that. Or at least, no one should. It is false to imply that the Catholic Church somehow forbids us from seeking God’s voice in Scripture. It’s just that there happen to be some pretty wide barriers that one cannot cross in interpreting Scripture (e.g., one could not come to the conclusion that we are saved by works) . Digression over.

The question was regarding self-authentication in the determination of the canon of Scripture. How would that work? If the Scriptures authenticate themselves, how come the early Church fathers had such trouble reaching consensus as to which books were authentically inspired? How come it eventually needed people to meet in a council to make the decision? How come books which are not canonical appeared to many people to be just that for so long? I am interested in what you think. If Protestants had been around ca. AD 300, how would the history of the canon have looked?

 

[John_Henry]

As I understand it, In SS the church only recognizes, and does not authenticate, the work of the Holy Spirit in developing the canon.

That’s a coincidence, because that’s what the Catholic Church says. The inspiration of Scripture is not dependent on the Catholic Church. It’s obviously dependent on the Holy Spirit. The Catholic claim, and it is hard to deny it, based on history, is that it was the Catholic Church, basing itself on tradition, gathered in council, that “recognized” which of the manifold available books were, in fact, inspired. Period. That’s the Catholic version.

To repeat, in what way, practically, do the scriptures self-authenticate? How does someone, who doesn’t already know the canon, decide between 3 John and St. Clement? Or Revelation and Hebrews, both of which were hotly contested for a long time, as well as Jude?

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey Guys! I’m gonna jump in here, if you don’t mind. . .

I think we make an oft made mistake when we, as Catholics, appeal to the practicality factor of SS. Our God is not practical. His dealings with us are so often impractical. Impossible. Improbable. These are his specialties.

To say that SS must be wrong because it is weak in practical application does not further our arguement very much, I think.

Aside from the greater concensus of historical Christianity. . . Aside from the Scriptural mandate for Tradition versus traditions of men. . . Aside from the impracticality of perfectly received personal interpretation. . . Aside, even, from the perceived impracticality of infallibility. . . I think we must focus on the Truth of our God’s strength for Effectivity. We know that God’s Word will not return to him empty. He will accomplish. He will be effective.

From this perspective, we can compare fruit. How effective is SS, as a rule of faith? How effective, on the other hand, is the three legged stool?

 

[MrS]

Protestants, as I think I noted somewhere, deny the Holy Spirit operates effectively through the Church. Catholics deny He will operate effectively through the individual believer, but assert the Church is necessary for all things.

And even scripture concers that it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the Truth… not the Scripture.

Catholics would do well to unite under a Sola Dei Verbum banner… for we do believe only in the Word of God. Where the differences arise: we believe the Word of God comes to us in three modes… first the early (oral) teachings of the Apostles - Tradition. Second the eventually-written portion of much of that Tradition - the New Testament which became the fullfillment of the OT and combines to give the world the Bible - the Catholic Bible, non other.

The third is the Authority to not only give the first two, but to interpret them… The teaching body of the Church… the Magisterium.

The reason we have non-catholic communities is because of the human tendancy to resist authority. Since there are no non-Catholic communities that can rely on Apostolic succession, there is no authentic authority to even claim sola scriptura, much less rely on it.

 

[RobNY]

From another thread, by John Henry:

Practically, in SS one trusts the Lord to guide and speak to one:“My sheep hear my voice,” etc. It’s not my theory - I didn’t come up with it. People ask God to guide them, and He is faithful.

Protestants have trouble believing God would guide anyone through the medium of the Catholic church. Catholics have trouble believing God would guide Protestants without it.

Dear Truthstalker,

I was following your other thread, and I was not the least surprised to see this split-- it should be an interesting topic as well.

You note our Lord’s words-- and I agree that Christ’s sheep do hear Christ’s voice, i.e., Christ’s sheep listen to him and obey him. But, two things. First, it still leaves us with the problem with, what is Christ saying that we must obey? That is, what is the content of what Christ is saying? How can we obey him without knowing what he wants us to do (without interpreting what He says, that is)? And if we do not know what he wants us to do (or if we have a defective method for interpreting what He is saying to us), then how can we obey him reliably, or be sure that we are obeying him? (This leads to a number of other questions which might be interesting to be addressed as tangents, for instance, if we can’t be sure we’re obeying him, then how can we be sure we are ‘his sheep?’ If we can’t be sure we are his sheep, then how can we have confidence in our salvation before God? Just throwing out questions there to ponder.)

So the problem is this: we know Christ’s sheep listen to Him and obey Him; but, what about those who listen to what they think He says and they obey what they think He says? Surely you see the difference. Christ says that those who in actuality listen to and obey him are his sheep. But the person who interprets the Bible defectively does not actually grasp our Lord’s words, and obeys instead his defective interpretation of our Lord’s words.

So, in my mind, it would be circular to use this verse-- because we still haven’t settled the issue of whether or how one who follows SS can accurately interpret the Bible. Again, but more clearly (I hope): To listen to or obey the Lord, one must know what He says (that is, what he means, not merely empty words but their meaning), but if one cannot or does not know what He says, then one cannot listen to or obey the Lord. So it brings us back to the question of interpreting the Bible.

The second is this: even taking that at face value, Christ also tells the apostles [my paraphrase from memory] he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me (and he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me). How does the voice of the Lord come to us? Seemingly by those who are *sent *with authority. The apostles were sent with authority, specifically commissioned with Christ who specifically gave them an array of authority-- ‘whatsoever you bind on earth…’ (Matt 16; 18)etc…, the power to forgive sins (Jn 20), ‘I have been been given all authority/power… go ye therefore and baptize all nations’ (Matt 28).

It seems to me that Christ’s role as shepherd of his flock has been delegated to the apostles. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (Jn 20?) So we hear Christ’s voice through those who have been sent-- the apostles. And likewise, though those the apostles have commissioned to succede them, the visible heirarchy of the Church.

So we do hear Christ’s voice, but we hear His voice through His Church.

And it is not that we cannot hear Christ’s voice though the Bible. That of course would not be true-- the Bible is the word of God. The question is how well can we do so and with what accuracy. Like all documents the Bible must be interpreted-- and the Bible interpreted badly can lead to false doctrines. The very existence of differing opinions held by people who both hold the same guiding principle when reading the Bible shows this. To read any document correctly, one must read it in context. And Catholics would assert that to read the Bible in context, one must read it in the context of the Church-- ex corde ecclesiae, as it were, out of the heart of the Church. The Lord speaks to us through the Bible the most clearly when we read the Bible as the Church reads the Bible.

-Rob

 

[Truthstalker]

Dear Truthstalker,
The second is this: even taking that at face value, Christ also tells the apostles [my paraphrase from memory] he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me (and he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me). How does the voice of the Lord come to us? Seemingly by those who are *sent *with authority. The apostles were sent with authority, specifically commissioned with Christ who specifically gave them an array of authority-- ‘whatsoever you bind on earth…’ (Matt 16; 18)etc…, the power to forgive sins (Jn 20), ‘I have been been given all authority/power… go ye therefore and baptize all nations’ (Matt 28).

It seems to me that Christ’s role as shepherd of his flock has been delegated to the apostles. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (Jn 20?) So we hear Christ’s voice through those who have been sent-- the apostles. And likewise, though those the apostles have commissioned to succede them, the visible heirarchy of the Church.

The canned SS response to this is that when Jesus said this, he was speaking not only to the apostles present but by extension to all Christians. What is amusing about this “canned SS response” is that it arises from an interpretative framework, a tradition if you will, predicated on the concept that since S+T doesn’t work, only an SS interpretation can be valid - thus, all Christians must be included by the promise, not just “authority.”

One can be sufficiently agile within SS to argue for an SS interpretation of any Scripture - thus, one cannot prove S+T from within the SS system. Likewise you cannot prove SS from within the S+T system. What is amazing about this observation is the instinctive reaction on both sides: Protestants will go to a Scripture to argue further, and Catholics to Tradition.

I think we are all interested in reading the Bible as accurately and as fully as possible - the question is how to persuade the other side that their basis is incorrect, when there is simply no common ground.

 

[JaneFrances]

What is amazing about this observation is the instinctive reaction on both sides: Protestants will go to a Scripture to argue further, and Catholics to Tradition.

I think you touched on this already, and I entirely agree that Protestants tend to go to Scripture to argue further, but even this is not so “instinctive” as it is traditional. So, as usual, the arguement becomes which interpretive tradition is most favorable to the arguing parties. Everyone goes to tradition. . .some choose Tradition.

 

[RobNY]

The canned SS response to this is that when Jesus said this,

I am also interested in your response, Truthstalker.

he was speaking not only to the apostles present but by extension to all Christians. What is amusing about this “canned SS response” is that it arises from an interpretative framework, a tradition if you will, predicated on the concept that since S+T doesn’t work, only an SS interpretation can be valid - thus, all Christians must be included by the promise, not just “authority.”

An interesting, and probably true observation, Truthstalker.

One can be sufficiently agile within SS to argue for an SS interpretation of any Scripture - thus, one cannot prove S+T from within the SS system.

I would disagree here. Well, perhaps partially. One cannot prove S+T from within the SS interpretation, almost by definition. But, what one can do is to show that the SS interpretation is self-defeating or contradicting. The first step would be to show its inadequacy. The second step would be to argue to tradition from there.

Likewise you cannot prove SS from within the S+T system.

Nor can SS be proved from any perspective. As you said before, there must be an interpretive framework assumed which assumes with it SS. SS really must be assumed (in the best formulations, in the sense that it is axiomatic), never proven. S+T, on the other hand, can be argued to from Scripture.

What is amazing about this observation is the instinctive reaction on both sides: Protestants will go to a Scripture to argue further, and Catholics to Tradition.

Of course, Protestants do not accept Tradition, so going to Tradition to argue would be going away from common ground. There may be ways to incorporate Tradition into arguments with Protestants, but never in the sense of using Tradition only as an authority, for its authority is not recognized. However, arguing to an authority other than Scripture, from Scripture, is perfectly valid.

I think we are all interested in reading the Bible as accurately and as fully as possible - the question is how to persuade the other side that their basis is incorrect, when there is simply no common ground.

We do in fact have the common ground: we both revere Scripture. The slight irony is that you say, ‘we are all interested in reading the Bible as accurately as possible’ and then seem to forget we do have this common ground. The problem is that we interpret this differently. The first step for the Catholic is not to prove S+T, but first to remove SS, and then build S+T.

Why does this work? We are both interested in interpreting the Bible as accurately as possible. Anyone who is interested in interpreting the Bible as accurately as possible is someone who would be interested in getting rid of a defective framework of interpretation. Therefore, we are both interested in getting rid of a defective framework of interpretation. All that remains to be done is to show that one framework is defective-- and that’s generally what the purposes of these discussions is about.

That a framework is defective can be shown from external or internal contradictions, and that’s where all the points tend to center.

-Rob

 

[Truthstalker]

That a framework is defective can be shown from external or internal contradictions, and that’s where all the points tend to center.

-Rob

Both systems can accept internal contradictions (paradox) and can accept the existence of what appear to be facts that contradict the system, taking refuge in faith not fact, based on the previous decision to embrace the system.

Both systems look to God ultimately as the source of the system and dismiss the idea that God isn’t using the system. SS does not guarantee the correct interpretation of Scripture, only provides a range, while S+T simultaneously insists on one interpretation while also taking refuge in the concession of “doctrinal development.”

Both systems interpret all Scripture from within the system.

 

[Truthstalker]

Somebody on one of these SS threads corrected my impression that the CC, when authenticating Scripture, did more than recognize what God had done. Does the Catholic Church recognize Scripture as self-authenticating? Or must the Catholic go the the Catholic Church to find out what is Scripture (this isn’t necessarily a criticism)?

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m forgetting Prima Scriptura in these comparisons between SS and S+T.