Sola Scriptura: A Blind Spot but Not Worthless

[steido01]

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?

No, we do not. But that’s, essentially, what most Lutherans practice, and that’s just fine.

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.

It’s really quite simple. To quote one of my favorite internet articles;

“Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

1. 
   *]A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
   *]Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

1. 
   Don’t fall into the “Protestant vs. Catholic” garbage. That paradigm doesn’t lend itself to a right understanding of much of anything:
   

   “Between Catholics and Protestants, the canon debate is framed in such away that either you believe in an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration, or you believe that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority. But as with many theological issues, the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.”

   internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[Koineman]

It’s really quite simple. To quote one of my favorite internet articles;

“Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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.

Being an Orthodox Christian why would I be for Sola scriptura? I am only presenting the argument against sola scriptura. To that extent I have tried to understand the sola scriptura impulse and the reason why it is so treasured by protestants.

 

[Koineman]

Being an Orthodox Christian why would I be for Sola scriptura? I am only presenting the argument against sola scriptura. To that extent I have tried to understand the sola scriptura impulse and the reason why it is so treasured by protestants.

That requires a complex answer. To see an example of why I still cling to SS, consider the thread I started about Purgatory and 1 Cor. 3 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=953949). I think I showed pretty clearly in that thread that the idea of Purgatory cannot be derived from that passage, nor did Paul ever intend to convey any such idea. Nevertheless, Catholics claim the passage teaches it, but they have to engage in glaring eisegesis to claim that.

It’s humanity’s tendency to add to what God says–even to twist it at times–that is just one reason for SS. And it was a major historical reason for it, too.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Its curious that among the Lutheran posters here, I’ve recently noticed one change his profile to Orthodox, and two have mentioned, along the line, that they are Lutheran via transferring their membership from the Catholic Church. So, yes, at some point one has to realize that, no matter what any one communion says, individual believers make that final choice. But, as my tiny bit of anecdotal evidence shows, that isn’t necessarily connected only to sola scriptura.

Yes, I think it is possible to follow what the Church teaches,if one recognizes that that teaching authority is, in fact, scriptural. But I also recognize, and it seems you as an Orthodox Christian should also recognize, that sometimes individuals in charge of the Church make mistakes, or are in error. The Great Schism is evidence of that, and the Orthodox did not maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome precisely for that reason. In that case, who “followed what the Church teaches”?

What if it is the Church teaching that changes?

Jon

While I agree it is up to an individual believer to decide on which church he she belongs to, I think in choosing between Protestantism and Orthodoxy you enter into two different worlds. If I have laid out what the Protestant world of Sola Scriptura is, what is the Orthodox world? It is the world of church, real church community and in that community it is the knowledge knowing that you alone do not have sole access to the bible. If the church says something you might dissagree with or not take to seriously, (I feel) then you submit to the decisions of the church even if you don’t understand.

There is a different scheme of things in Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy we have the tradition of Elders, certain men or women given charge over particular people (usually in a monastic setting) and those who submit are expected to listen and submit their total will to this person. I know of no Protestant tradition that could encourage such a practice nor a protestant tradition that could command the authority the Orthodox church (or any of the other ancient churches) claims for itself.

I can agree that those in charge of the church may be doing wrong and they need to be corrected. But what are they corrected by? Scripture alone? Or the whole tradition of the church? Lets bring up an example. Lutherans reject the necessity of apostolic succession, yet it is clearly testified in the church’s history since at least Iraneaus. What is the justification for being against this tradition? It isn’t in the scripture, therefore it isn’t necessary. Nice perhaps, but not necessary. This also goes on to show the completely different system of church envisioned by the reformation.

As to who follows what the church teaches, that’s up to the individual. But I would say what the church teaches only matters when sola scriptura is not the primary means of establishing truth. Scripture and the church go hand in hand. One cannot seperate the tradition apart from the word, because it is within the tradition we understand the word.

 

[steido01]

I like what this says, but what about the boldfaced part above? Isn’t the very mention of a “rule of faith” an indication that there is a set number of books?

In a way, though that quasi-set number of books manifests itself, naturally, by the consensus of the church catholic, in general, through – wait for it – the practice of the church. This is too great to be controlled by some voters’ assembly or some singular, all-powerful bishop, or even the cultural whims of the times. It is lead and inspired by the Spirit Himself.

At least, this is how I’ve been taught.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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.

True, but one accepts them more and I happen to believe that to be the right side.

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi IP

Don’t you also have an "extent point’’ or is it all carte blanche, all the way to full Roman tradition?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Hi IP

Don’t you also have an "extent point’’ or is it all carte blanche, all the way to full Roman tradition?

An extent point to which I trust tradition? I don’t know if I could phrase it in such a manner. When I examine how we often approach bible, regardless of what church we belong to, it seems to me we all have influences which we often ignore. This can lead some people to believe they have read the bible objectively as is the case in much of evangelicalism. So many evangelicals and baptists believe they have simply just understood the word by the spirit yet this doesn’t seem to be the case or how the spirit operates. They were influenced just as much by tradition and society as anyone else is. They think they might have come to the trinity from simply reading the bible but they didn’t. They came to the trinity primarily because the western church has accepted Trinitarianism as a starting point for thinking about God. The trinity of today can of course be traced back to the discussions of it in the fourth century and then the proto trinitarians like Iraneaus or Origen.

We all understand the bible not from itself in of itself but in the context of a tradition, within an understanding of it which we have received either from literature, theologians, preachers or cultural influences in general.

Orthodoxy to me seems the best tradition which expounds on the bible and not just on it alone but on the church throughout the centuries, neither forgetting one nor placing one above the other (though of course scripture cannot be contradicted), which reflects on it. Not of course saying that everything to protestantism is wrong. I think the reformation had good things to say, I also think it had many bad things to say. Sola Scriptura is one of those bad things. It’s like I said earlier, Sola Scriptura can only exist in an unfallen world. A world wherein each of us is open to direct guidance by God. I believe the history of the church before and after the reformation shows the principle impossible.

 

[benhur]

An extent point to which I trust tradition? I don’t know if I could phrase it in such a manner. When I examine how we often approach bible, regardless of what church we belong to, it seems to me we all have influences which we often ignore. This can lead some people to believe they have read the bible objectively as is the case in much of evangelicalism. So many evangelicals and baptists believe they have simply just understood the word by the spirit yet this doesn’t seem to be the case or how the spirit operates. They were influenced just as much by tradition and society as anyone else is. They think they might have come to the trinity from simply reading the bible but they didn’t. They came to the trinity primarily because the western church has accepted Trinitarianism as a starting point for thinking about God. The trinity of today can of course be traced back to the discussions of it in the fourth century and then the proto trinitarians like Iraneaus or Origen.

We all understand the bible not from itself in of itself but in the context of a tradition, within an understanding of it which we have received either from literature, theologians, preachers or cultural influences in general.

Orthodoxy to me seems the best tradition which expounds on the bible and not just on it alone but on the church throughout the centuries, neither forgetting one nor placing one above the other (though of course scripture cannot be contradicted), which reflects on it. Not of course saying that everything to protestantism is wrong. I think the reformation had good things to say, I also think it had many bad things to say. Sola Scriptura is one of those bad things. It’s like I said earlier, Sola Scriptura can only exist in an unfallen world. A world wherein each of us is open to direct guidance by God. I believe the history of the church before and after the reformation shows the principle impossible.

Ip

It sounds you are very much like a protestant in that you (O’S) also have decided that a “tradition” can be fallible , a council can be fallible, a church can be fallible. You also reject certain traditions.

I am not sure who coined SS or if it was even Luther . I think he took a stand against a certain biblical interpretations that were held up by a magisterium, even councils and popes. What he was really saying was that they were fallible and that one can have a differing interpretation, some would even say "private’’. That is not to say Luther was devoid of any tradition that helped illumine "his"interpretations. As you rightly say, we do have a foundation given to us. Luther was aware of history and early father writings. Luther was also aware of Holy Spirit dynamics being available to every generation to “see if it isn’t so”. He was very Augustinian or Jerome like in this regard. Like the HS helped illumine fathers to the trinity as He still does today. He does not rest once it is revealed so that others don’t have to eat the meat and digest for the themselves. Otherwise everything would be milk to us (predigested food, by others).

I would say Luther though knowledgeable of history and councils and fathers finally rested upon scripture to make sense of it all. You and I can quibble over SS but only because we have a tradition, even a church, that is free from a tradition that says she is infallibly right on all things (faith and morals),that being the opposing final norm.

SS made perfect sense in his time and circumstance. At the very least(worst?), one man made tradition cancelled out another man made tradition. Politics aside, the church, even the CC, has strived to be “scriptural” in all things, and most churches also strive to stay within historical context and foundations.

 

[commenter]

In a way, though that quasi-set number of books manifests itself, naturally, by the consensus of the church catholic, in general, through – wait for it – the practice of the church. This is too great to be controlled by some voters’ assembly or some singular, all-powerful bishop, or even the cultural whims of the times. It is lead and inspired by the Spirit Himself.

The problem is who decides when “consensus” through (how much is enough) “practice” has been reached?
We don’t really know if there was much consensus about the canon in ancient times. The “practice” criterion is shaky. If 90% of local congregations were using the gnostic scriptures, does that “practice” make them Scripture? Remember the gnostics didn’t call themselves heretics, they called themselves Christians. On doctrine, if a majority of congregations found Arianism to be true and solid in their week to week “practice”, does that consensus make Arianism true?

At present a minority of Christian congregations are adding books to the Bible, such as the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary. If this trend goes on, and in a few decades a majority of congregations are using those documents in their New Testaments, for worship and instruction, could we then say that a “consensus” based on “practice” admits those 2 books to the NT? I wouldn’t.

The reality is that consensus of people - popular opinion - is worthless as to canonize Scripture and Tradition. So is “practice”. (Christians have been practicing Astrology for 2000 years. It’s still nonsense. Error doesn’t become truth even when it shows endurance, and continuing practice.

The early Church did listen to scholars, and to worshipping faith communities, but made their own decision via the Magisterium. It likely was not the consensus decision, nor the majority practice. Even if 99% of the consensus, and 99% of the congregational “practice” was going a different way from the Magisterium in the future, I would still regard the Magisterium as reliable; as it was in canonizing the NT.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To that extent I have tried to understand the sola scriptura impulse and the reason why it is so treasured by protestants.

Because it strips away the institution of the Church. It gives you more freedom to choose what to believe. It emancipates the individual from an entity.

The irony is that while it emancipates the individual from an entity it subjugates the individual to a micro cosmos of small entities and directs the individual to an entity that better fits personal needs and/or opinions.

In essence, it’s directly related to what is and what is not necessary for salvation. It starts from a halfway premise: Scriptures are the Word of God. It doesn’t matter how we know. From that premise, all the other ones follow.

 

[Koineman]

Because it strips away the institution of the Church. It gives you more freedom to choose what to believe. It emancipates the individual from an entity.

That is really and historically not the reason behind Sola Scriptura. It could be the impulse behind some evangelicals today (I’ve seen that tendency a lot), but this assessment is too broad of a stroke.

 

[benhur]

Because it strips away the institution of the Church. It gives you more freedom to choose what to believe. It emancipates the individual from an entity.

The irony is that while it emancipates the individual from an entity it subjugates the individual to a micro cosmos of small entities and directs the individual to an entity that better fits personal needs and/or opinions.

In essence, it’s directly related to what is and what is not necessary for salvation. It starts from a halfway premise: Scriptures are the Word of God. It doesn’t matter how we know. From that premise, all the other ones follow.

Hi Isaiah,

I like that you pretty much say we all have entities in the end. Maybe we are all saying," I like my entity better" ? All of us exercising free will and and individual conscience on the matter.

As to your last paragraph , one of the evidences of new life is love for the brethren, for the church, and realization that" blessed are the feet of those shod with the gospel" (which would include anything having to do with how we come to have Writ). We love our progenitors. From the very least of these brethren, all the way up yo the Father.

Blessings

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is really and historically not the reason behind Sola Scriptura. It could be the impulse behind some evangelicals today (I’ve seen that tendency a lot), but this assessment is too broad of a stroke.

I, of course, disagree.

It places the Scriptures as the final norm without the Apostolic Episcopal model to interpret this norm. It is a departure of the Apostolic Faith.

Very few, like the Lutheran Church of Norway - from what Father K has expressed -, some Anglican and Epicopal Churches, maintained the Episcopal model seen in Scriptures and in Apostolic heritage. That’s because in its essence, it strips away the Bishop (Overseer in other translations) and replaces him with Scriptures. At the same time it subjugates many individual presbyters (priests, pastors) to the message and interpretation of Scriptures without a central form of Church government - IOW Episcopal Model.

 

[benhur]

I, of course, disagree.

It places the Scriptures as the final norm without the Apostolic Episcopal model to interpret this norm. It is a departure of the Apostolic Faith.

Very few, like the Lutheran Church of Norway - from what Father K has expressed -, some Anglican and Epicopal Churches, maintained the Episcopal model seen in Scriptures and in Apostolic heritage. That’s because in its essence, it strips away the Bishop (Overseer in other translations) and replaces him with Scriptures. At the same time it subjugates many individual presbyters (priests, pastors) to the message and interpretation of Scriptures without a central form of Church government - IOW Episcopal Model.

From my understanding a bishop was to proclaim and protect the "message’’ and not necessarily be its interpreter. I thought that was already done by the apostles.

PS. not sure the apostles left us with epsicopacy but with presbytery form of governance. But yes epicopacy surely formed later on

Many epistles themselves were written to a congregation and its presbytery, not an episcopacy.

 

[Koineman]

I, of course, disagree.

It places the Scriptures as the final norm without the Apostolic Episcopal model to interpret this norm. It is a departure of the Apostolic Faith.

Very few, like the Lutheran Church of Norway - from what Father K has expressed -, some Anglican and Epicopal Churches, maintained the Episcopal model seen in Scriptures and in Apostolic heritage. That’s because in its essence, it strips away the Bishop (Overseer in other translations) and replaces him with Scriptures.

Nope. Not true. I’m really starting to wonder where you’re getting your facts from, and if you’re just generating heat and not light. SS does not force a choice between Scripture ***and ***the bishop. Some extreme forms/twisting of SS might do that, which was why I stated what I did in my last post.

At the same time it subjugates many individual presbyters (priests, pastors) to the message and interpretation of Scriptures without a central form of Church government - IOW Episcopal Model.

Again, true only in some cases. Too broad of a stroke. Way too broad.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. Not true. I’m really starting to wonder where you’re getting your facts from, and if you’re just generating heat and not light. SS does not force a choice between Scripture ***and ***the bishop. Some extreme forms/twisting of SS might do that, which was why I stated what I did in my last post.

That’s your perception. If Scriptures are the final norm, how are Scriptures enforced in the LCMS for example? In WELS? In ELCA? In ELDoNA? In LWF?

In Catholicism and Orthodoxy the Bishop settles local disputes in their AOR. In the case of Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome will have the final word should the matter not be able to be resolved at the Episcopacy level. In Orthodoxy, a council will have the final word.

Again, true only in some cases. Too broad of a stroke. Way too broad.

Who is your Bishop?

 

[benhur]

That’s your perception. If Scriptures are the final norm, how are Scriptures enforced in the LCMS for example? In WELS? In ELCA? In ELDoNA? In LWF?

In Catholicism and Orthodoxy the Bishop settles local disputes in their AOR. In the case of Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome will have the final word should the matter not be able to be resolved at the Episcopacy level. In Orthodoxy, a council will have the final word.

Who is your Bishop?

So Catholics like the Pope and councils. Orthodox like councils but not popes. Both claim Writ as an authoritative guidance. Both disclaim some councils. So what is wrong with going straight to Writ without prejudices of pope or councils (or at least recognizing their prejudices-the good, the bad, and the ugly of them ) ? And right off the bat not claim infallible authority ? That all forms are in the same boat, all face the promises and conditionality of Truth ?

 

[JonNC]

=Isaiah45_9;12879943]That’s your perception. If Scriptures are the final norm, how are Scriptures enforced in the LCMS for example? In WELS? In ELCA? In ELDoNA? In LWF?

They are enforced via the confessions. At least in my synod, we still view the Augsburg Confession, etc. as right reflections of scripture, and our clergy bind themselves to the doctrines of the Church which, again, are a right reflection of scripture.

In Catholicism and Orthodoxy the Bishop settles local disputes in their AOR. In the case of Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome will have the final word should the matter not be able to be resolved at the Episcopacy level. In Orthodoxy, a council will have the final word.

While not referred to as “bishop”, the synod has districts who are presided over by district presidents (essentially though not exactly bishops). He his there to help parishes who are having disputes, are calling a pastor, etc.

Who is your Bishop?

Rev. Dr. John Denninger.

Jon