Sola Scriptura: A Blind Spot but Not Worthless

[Koineman]

=Koineman;12875169]
If the canon itself is a dogma, I disagree–at least in part. I would reword your statement thus by adding boldfaced/italicized words at the end:

I don’t believe that the lack of a scripturally defined canon of scripture leads one to believe that scripture is not "the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged–with the exception of the canon itself.

Do you think that, perhaps, as the Reformers looked back at the history of the Church,and saw the variety of opinions (from Fathers and patriarchates) regarding certain books, that this is why they did not dogamatically define the canon of scripture? I do not believe, for a minute, that Lutheran doctrine would change one iota were Lutherans to receive as equal the deuterocanonical books of the OT.

I don’t follow this. Your final sentence above actually implies a dogmatic definition of the canon, for how could the deuterocanonical books be considered–even hypothetically–“as equal” unless there was already some defined body of Scripture they could be considered equal to?

I agree. What I was talking about in the comment you replied to was this:

Yes, that’s a valid counter-question. Both the RCC and EOC claim an unbroken line of apostolicity back to the apostles, yet not all their traditions agree. The boldfaced declaration above really just begs the question.

That’s interesting, but we Lutherans believe the following:

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

Note that we view scripture as the sole means by which we judge all dogmas and teachings. Who makes said dogmas and teachings? The Church. For me, specifically, my communion, uses scripture to judge dogmas and teachings.

Is the identification of the canon of Scripture a dogma/teaching?

 

[Per_Crucem]

It could be that I’ve heard Catholics say things that are not really in line with official teaching of the RCC, but in general, the apologetic argument I’ve heard tends to go like this: Since the RCC identified the canon of Scripture, the RCC must be submitted to in its interpretation of that Scripture. Since you trust the RCC for the canon, how can you say she is wrong about other things?

The problem with that argument is that it begs the question. If the apologist is seeking to prove the validity of the RCC by doing that, he has already assumed the validity of the RCC in the argument. One could reach the conclusion that the RCC is the Church which defined the canon, but it would have to be reached through different means than saying it defined the canon, so therefore, it defined the canon!

 

[Koineman]

The problem with that argument is that it begs the question. If the apologist is seeking to prove the validity of the RCC by doing that, he has already assumed the validity of the RCC in the argument. One could reach the conclusion that the RCC is the Church which defined the canon, but it would have to be reached through different means than saying it defined the canon, so therefore, it defined the canon!

Exactly!

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, that’s a valid counter-question. Both the RCC and EOC claim an unbroken line of apostolicity back to the apostles, yet not all their traditions agree. The boldfaced declaration above really just begs the question.

Is the identification of the canon of Scripture a dogma/teaching?

Strictly speaking, no, it’s not. In the Tradition of the Church, there is no “master list” of a canon. What we do have, are books authored by the apostles or their disciples, which we grade in importance to the liturgical life of the Church. That grade is established by their reliability, their universal consensus, and their liturgical applicability. So, for example, while Revelation is considered the Word of God, it never made its way into liturgical readings because of its disputed status in the early church, the vagueness with which it is written.

 

[JonNC]

=Koineman;12876353]I don’t follow this. Your final sentence above actually implies a dogmatic definition of the canon, for how could the deuterocanonical books be considered–even hypothetically–“as equal” unless there was already some defined body of Scripture they could be considered equal to?

Actually it doesn’t. How we view the DC’s, and the NT antilegomena, has more to do with practice, not dogmatic definition. Father K will tell you that in his Lutheran tradition, there is no distinction of the NT antilegomena. The distinction for us is in practice, not in doctrine.

Is the identification of the canon of Scripture a dogma/teaching?

Its not in the confessions. My current pastor likes to speak of a 66 book Bible. I disagree with his assessment, as I don’t think a Lutheran can make such a claim, at least not dogmatically. Here’s an interesting blog from Pr. Will Weedon:

In it, he quotes Piepkorn: “The term “Canonical” in Christian tradition is always relative; it refers to the actual canon in use in a given diocese or province at a given time. The content of the canons varies from time to time and from place to place. The canon was never fixed for the whole Church by an ecumenical Council.”

Jon

 

[Koineman]

Strictly speaking, no, it’s not. In the Tradition of the Church, there is no “master list” of a canon. What we do have, are books authored by the apostles or their disciples, which we grade in importance to the liturgical life of the Church. That grade is established by their reliability, their universal consensus, and their liturgical applicability. So, for example, while Revelation is considered the Word of God, it never made its way into liturgical readings because of its disputed status in the early church, the vagueness with which it is written.

So are you saying the canon is not closed? If there is no “master list,” as you call it, then how could we know for sure what the canon consists of? And if we don’t know what it consists of, how can we say it’s closed, since then we wouldn’t know whether any given book is an addition that does not belong.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So are you saying the canon is not closed?

Yes and no. If you’re defining canon as “books authored by the apostles and their disciples” then yes, it would be closed. If Scripture is placed into the wider context of Holy Tradition, then no, since Holy Tradition is present always and everywhere within the life of the Church. So the early fathers, the liturgy, saints of past, present and future, etc. are all a part of Tradition.

If there is no “master list,” as you call it, then how could we know for sure what the canon consists of? And if we don’t know what it consists of, how can we say it’s closed, since then we wouldn’t know whether any given book is an addition that does not belong.

As above, it would be closed with respect to the foundation of the Church in the apostles.

 

[Koineman]

Yes and no. If you’re defining canon as “books authored by the apostles and their disciples” then yes, it would be closed. If Scripture is placed into the wider context of Holy Tradition, then no, since Holy Tradition is present always and everywhere within the life of the Church. So the early fathers, the liturgy, saints of past, present and future, etc. are all a part of Tradition.

I should have been clearer. Let me restate my question: “So are you saying the canon of Scripture is not closed?”

 

[Per_Crucem]

I should have been clearer. Let me restate my question: “So are you saying the canon of Scripture is not closed?”

It is. You won’t, however, find a canonical decree as such.

 

[steido01]

It is. You won’t, however, find a canonical decree as such.

Agreed. Nor should there be.

I think the following hypothetical might tell more about a given understanding of the canon (forgive me, Koineman, if it’s too far from your OP, but I think it’s useful):

Unlikely as it may be… What if tomorrow archaeologists turn up the “long-missing ending from Mark,” entirely in line with the existing Gospels, and undoubtedly the work of the same writer as the oldest existing manuscript – but simply lost to the ages? Ought it to be considered as Scripture? Or has the canon already been closed?

 

[commenter]

I think the following hypothetical might tell more about a given understanding of the canon
Unlikely as it may be… What if tomorrow archaeologists turn up the “long-missing ending from Mark,” entirely in line with the existing Gospels, and undoubtedly the work of the same writer as the oldest existing manuscript – but simply lost to the ages? Ought it to be considered as Scripture? Or has the canon already been closed?

First, one could argue that the entire Gospel of John is so different from the synoptics that it is “not in line” and thus not Scripture. But it is. Other ancient books have long been known that are arguably “in line with” the gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps. But it is not canonized.

Second, scholars already disagree about authorship of everything in the NT so there is no chance they could “canonize” that newly discovered ending. Even if it were proven that the same person wrote this new manuscript that wrote Mark, who’s to say it is inspired? There may have been other sequels or endings or other books by the authors of many books in the NT. So what? Just because Luke may have written other books, doesn’t mean they are inspired.
Scholars can, maybe, answer manuscript questions but inspiration isn’t a manuscript question.

It’s not “the church” in general that canonizes the NT books, but specifically the Magisterium. The Magisterium does consult scholars, but makes its own decision. Further, it is the Magisterium that canonizes Tradition. Thus, 1% of tradition is considered reliable, and becomes Tradition (not automatically, but defined as such). The other 99% of traditions are not reliable, though they might be true and inspirational. The argument that “we don’t need the Magisterium because we have Scripture and Tradition” reminds me of the saying “we don’t need farms because we have grocery stores”. Everything that is now in that (filtered, screened, 1%) we call “Tradition” - was in the Magisterium.

In a way, it’s like how Protestants and Catholics differently view the role of Mary. Protestants say “thank you, you did a great job” but now that Jesus was born, and grown up, you don’t have a role in 2015, in relation to us. This is somewhat like how Protestants view the Magisterium and the canon.

 

[benhur]

That presumed ‘corporate God-breathed consensus’ was, in Christ time, absolutely inexistent. The consensus only came several centuries post-Christ (between 4th-9th centuries after Christ),

Disagree that canonization is the only type of “consensus”. Consensus does not have to be “unanimous”. So the Hebrew texts and the Septuagint were not a type of "consensus’’ ?

here were at least four differents canonical traditions (saducees’, pharisees’, jewish in diaspora’s, essenies’… without to count another less relevant jewish sects possibly with diferent and proper canons).

Not sure about this. We might be splitting hairs,like the order of the books more than the actual books contained( and the aforementioned hebrew vs greek Septuagint).

I don’t know if it involved a hyper-instituzionalize consensus, but one thing is evident: this process of consensus was not God-breathed.Understand. The problem with this objection is that they did not reinvent the wheel at Jamnia but reverted back to pre-Christ tradition, when it was quite possibly God-breathed.

Either way, Christ and the apostles had Writ without any institutional canonizing and yet within the context of Jewish faith. Diversity, even apparent ''confusion", was overcome without institutional, authoritative conformity.

 

[Koineman]

Actually it doesn’t. How we view the DC’s, and the NT antilegomena, has more to do with practice, not dogmatic definition. Father K will tell you that in his Lutheran tradition, there is no distinction of the NT antilegomena. The distinction for us is in practice, not in doctrine.

I don’t get this. Do we not, as Lutherans, say that there are 66 inspired books in the Bible, and there are books outside that canon that are not inspired? How can we have a definite canon without that being dogmatic?

And how can we have the practice of viewing those books without also the dogma that drives that practice?

I am finding your position really confusing.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think the word “compell” presents the wrong image here.

Your model of “scripture” presents it as a monolithic, single-voiced actor. However, it clearly presents a variety of views and suggestions to people on how to live.

Have you pulled out your eyes recently? In real terms, the Bible needs serious study and appraisal, and it’s difficult to believe any one man has all the answers there; as a serious book it requires analysis and discussion by many. Give some consideration to the fact that the Church DOES present a compelling, deeply analyzed interpretation of the Bible.

Consider, too, that Christ explicitly wanted people to use the Church to come to knowledge of Him. Jesus set up the mechanism of the church; where does he say, “just read the Gospels”? I would think that if Jesus wanted sola scriptura, he would be very clear on this—wouldn’t he want it in the Bible?

I am not for this position. This is what I believe sola scriptura ultimately leads to, a rejection of everything else except the bible. You can accept other teachers, only when you agree with them personally. By compel, I mean something like this. To see the entire voice of the church or a great majority say something about a specific topic, like say the divinity of the son. This should be compelling. Or say the Easter celebration of the church since at least the second century. This should be compelling. Yet there are people, in embracing sola scriptura say all of these men and their traditions are useless.

Im not accusing all protestants of saying tradition is useless. Clearly Lutherans and others respect the fathers. But they respect them only so far. They listen to the voice of the church throughout history only to a certain extent. I just happen to think that to be the wrong extent.

 

[Captain_America]

The real problem here is fully understanding how a person comes to conclusions and uses reasoning.

No individual is born apart from his community. The superindividualism (at times, hyperindividualism) in the Protestant Tradition is a bit much for me to take.

I just haven’t found many people with the intellectual equipment to manage reading a bank statement, let alone a complex book, let alone the even more complex Bible.

Hence, a tradition, over a long period of time and analysis, by bright minds, discussing the work, seems to offer the best way to assess the Bible.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I’m skeptical about the super-heavy reliance that Protestants put on the shoulders of people: I think it’s an unrealistic burden.

And people need to work to make money for their bread; so for many, their interpretations of the Bible will be hinky and conflict at points with whatever is offered, in the end, by their friends and fellows.

Really. . . how many Protestants actually take the time to interpret the Bible and deal with its many dimensions?

 

[Captain_America]

I am not for this position. This is what I believe sola scriptura ultimately leads to, a rejection of everything else except the bible. You can accept other teachers, only when you agree with them personally. By compel, I mean something like this. To see the entire voice of the church or a great majority say something about a specific topic, like say the divinity of the son. This should be compelling. Or say the Easter celebration of the church since at least the second century. This should be compelling. Yet there are people, in embracing sola scriptura say all of these men and their traditions are useless.

Im not accusing all protestants of saying tradition is useless. Clearly Lutherans and others respect the fathers. But they respect them only so far. They listen to the voice of the church throughout history only to a certain extent. I just happen to think that to be the wrong extent.

Right. . . okay. . . but it is YOU who say that the Bible alone is the way to go.

Why should I trust you?

The Bible doesn’t say this. Why didn’t Jesus point out this methodology? 'twould be easy enough for Him to point to.

 

[Koineman]

I am not for this position. This is what I believe sola scriptura ultimately leads to, a rejection of everything else except the bible. You can accept other teachers, only when you agree with them personally. By compel, I mean something like this. To see the entire voice of the church or a great majority say something about a specific topic, like say the divinity of the son. This should be compelling. Or say the Easter celebration of the church since at least the second century. This should be compelling. Yet there are people, in embracing sola scriptura say all of these men and their traditions are useless.

Im not accusing all protestants of saying tradition is useless. Clearly Lutherans and others respect the fathers. But they respect them only so far. They listen to the voice of the church throughout history only to a certain extent. I just happen to think that to be the wrong extent.

I think all churches, including Catholic and Orthodox, “respect the fathers only so far,” in that they pick and choose from the Fathers’ writings what suits their theology. The Fathers varies on doctrines quite a bit.

 

[Captain_America]

The frightening thing to me about the Protestant approach is something I’ve seen in used book stores. . . the Superstar Protestant who writes best-sellers, and who everyone follows, for about 2 or 3 years, before it’s on to the next Product. . .

Joel Osteen. The purpose-driven life, etc. These are the commercial examples.

There are more intellectual examples: Reinhold Neibuhr comes to mind.

These individuals come and go. Many Protestants just jump on their bandwagon.

((between you and me, I really have not, in talking with many Protestants over the years, run into Protestants who are doing the heavy lifting and performing a serious effort at Biblical exegesis)).

 

[Koineman]

The frightening thing to me about the Protestant approach is something I’ve seen in used book stores. . . the Superstar Protestant who writes best-sellers, and who everyone follows, for about 2 or 3 years, before it’s on to the next Product. . .

Joel Osteen. The purpose-driven life, etc. These are the commercial examples.

There are more intellectual examples: Reinhold Neibuhr comes to mind.

These individuals come and go. Many Protestants just jump on their bandwagon.

((between you and me, I really have not, in talking with many Protestants over the years, run into Protestants who are doing the heavy lifting and performing a serious effort at Biblical exegesis)).

There is a lot of that in Protestantism. I’ve seen it. But there are a lot of Protestants who don’t fall for that.

 

[almostamoe]

yes Sola Scriptura gets you spiritually activted-- or born again-- i have seen thousands of people be born again – becasue they believe the bible will get you baptised in the Holy Spirit–

yes the 9 ++ gifts are available – for ministry-- when you realize – hearing seeing – is possible-- dreams and visions – do occur when you are a christian – yes you can say things like " the Lord showed me – this or that – and i do what the Father tells me to do" just like Jesus —

but it does not happen-- when-- you are religious and not born again-- and get drawn into this "never ending discussion – of scripture interperation-- and - commentary-

– it is simple really-- the Holy spirit leads and guides – you-- as moses said – in numbers 11;29

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon.them

so if you have not some evidence that you cn prophecy by the Holy Spirit-- then you are not born again – and are religiously deceived