Sola Scriptura: A Blind Spot but Not Worthless

[Isaiah45_9]

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 ?

The Sola before the Scriptures.

 

[clem456]

Sola Scriptura does have a blind spot: Since Scripture does not specify the books that belong in the Bible, it is not the sole infallible authority on all matters pertaining to Christian faith and practice. All Christians today are dependent on the extrabiblical tradition known as the canon of Scripture. What’s more, they treat that tradition as infallible, since they don’t dare to question it or change it.

Whenever I ask a non-Catholic or non-EO Christian to show me where the Bible says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired, invariably the answer goes outside the Bible, whether to history or to the claim of a subjective, inner witness by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps both. (I use Hebrews as my example because it’s not clear whether it was written by an apostle; other NT books could be used in the question.)

Having said that, I don’t take that fact as far as Catholics take it. Catholics take that fact and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur. The church was the conduit through which the Holy Spirit gave us the canon of Scripture, but a conduit is not equal to or as important as the water that flows through it.

A better analogy is that of a messenger: A messenger does not have equal authority to the one who wrote the message, just because he or she delivers it, and if he or she spoke about the message, his or her words would not be of equal authority to the words in the message.

This is why I don’t reject SS, even though it does have the blind spot I mentioned.

Allow me to observe that the Church’s position is more than what you give above. You have pieces of it.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

This is not a matter of mere equality as if we are measuring the relative power of each, but rather an “integration”. There is a difference. One infers a sort of tension of power. The other infers the common source, the blending, the mutuality. And grace, which is so immeasurable as to be beyond “equality”.

In any event, Catholicism is fully incarnational, like Christ. That reality is sorely misunderstood. Christ is a person who lived in a community, taught in a community, and gave his charisms to a community. Christ is not a book or a power structure.

And Christ lives, right? We just had Easter the other day. Christ did not die after the canon was established. If you reject ongoing Tradition, that causes a “small” problem.
Tradition and scripture flow from him. If you reject either you reject his living presence and detract from both.

 

[Koineman]

Allow me to observe that the Church’s position is more than what you give above. You have pieces of it.

I don’t think so. Since both are considered to be divine revelation, both are authoritative. Thus, there is nothing wrong with speaking of one as being equal in authority to another. Thus, I don’t think I’m misrepresenting the Catholic position.

Also, bear in mind that my OP reacts to what I’ve heard Catholic apologists say.

And Christ lives, right? We just had Easter the other day. Christ did not die after the canon was established. If you reject ongoing Tradition, that causes a “small” problem.
Tradition and scripture flow from him. If you reject either you reject his living presence and detract from both.

1. I would reject “ongoing Tradition” if it means innovations added to apostolic teaching. I side with Irenaeus on that issue.
2. I don’t reject tradition.

 

[clem456]

I don’t think so. Since both are considered to be divine revelation, both are authoritative. Thus, there is nothing wrong with speaking of one as being equal in authority to another. Thus, I don’t think I’m misrepresenting the Catholic position.

Well, yea frankly you are. And the problem is, that is not what Catholics believe, in the way you are expressing it.

You are pitting one against the other. As if there are two authorities vying for power, as if Christ spoke and wrote a book, but did not live in a community. There is no dichotomy in Christ.

Your understanding is not the Catholic Church’s position.
This is what we believe again:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Hello dear friend. You know how much my heart desires to be Lutheran, or Catholic for that matter . Between the Solas and Absolute and Supreme jurisdiction I find myself in limbo .

Would it be fair to say a District President is elected in like manner of a Bishopric election of a Catholic/Orthodox/Scriptural model?

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.

Does the district president ordain other Pastors by the laying of the hands?

IOW - Are Scriptures used for the norm ruling Church government?

 

[Koineman]

clem456:
It may not be worded the same way the CC words it, but what I said does not go against it. Consider: Whenever God speaks, what He says has divine authority. Would you agree?

If so, then also consider: Is Tradition considered to be divine revelation? Then it has divine authority.

Is Scripture considered to be divine revelation? Then it, too, has divine authority.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It may not be worded the same way the CC words it, but what I said does not go against it. Consider: Whenever God speaks, what He says has divine authority. Would you agree?

If so, then also consider: Is Tradition considered to be divine revelation? Then it has divine authority.

Is Scripture considered to be divine revelation? Then it, too, has divine authority.

That’s why there is no “sola” before any of them.

 

[clem456]

. I would reject “ongoing Tradition” if it means innovations added to apostolic teaching. I side with Irenaeus on that issue.
2. I don’t reject tradition.

Christ was the prime innovater. Did you know that innovation means to refresh, to change, to renew? That sounds like something the living Jesus Christ might breathe life into.

Christianity is all innovation. When did your innovation stop? With Peter’s death? Paul? (help me God not with Constantine please)

Innovation. Yes.

 

[Koineman]

Also, Clem, my OP was reacting to the idea that the church has equal authority to Scripture, not to the idea that Tradition has equal authority to Scripture. But maybe you’re using the terms *church *and *Tradition *interchangeably.

 

[Koineman]

Christ was the prime innovater. Did you know that innovation means to refresh, to change, to renew? That sounds like something the living Jesus Christ might breathe life into.

Christianity is all innovation. When did your innovation stop? With Peter’s death? Paul? (help me God not with Constantine please)

Innovation. Yes.

You do realize that Irenaeus stands against you? Shall we delve into what he said about this topic? Perhaps in another thread?

 

[clem456]

It may not be worded the same way the CC words it, but what I said does not go against it. Consider: Whenever God speaks, what He says has divine authority. Would you agree?

If so, then also consider: Is Tradition considered to be divine revelation? Then it has divine authority.

Is Scripture considered to be divine revelation? Then it, too, has divine authority.

When God speaks divine revelation, he says one thing:

Jesus
period, end of story.

He does not speak division between written words and the life of his community. All these come together as one in Jesus Christ, the one and only Word of God, who is a divine person with full human nature, not a book, not a concept, a** person**.

 

[benhur]

The Sola before the Scriptures.

Understand. But it only matters if you see no fault, even infallibility, in what goes before the Scriptures (pope,council,bishop).

 

[JonNC]

=Isaiah45_9;12880155]Hello dear friend. You know how much my heart desires to be Lutheran, or Catholic for that matter . Between the Solas and Absolute and Supreme jurisdiction I find myself in limbo .

Me, too.

Would it be fair to say a District President is elected in like manner of a Bishopric election of a Catholic/Orthodox/Scriptural model?

Probably not. District have a convention, consisting of clergy and laity and choose thier district president. Your way might be better IMHO.

Does the district president ordain other Pastors by the laying of the hands?

He often participates in it.

IOW - Are Scriptures used for the norm ruling Church government?

Yes, in a way, but Church polity is considered adiaphoron within Lutheranism, which is why one finds differing styles from synod to synod. Ours in the LCMS is (uncomfortably for me) congregationalist.

Jon

 

[benhur]

You are pitting one against the other. As if there are two authorities vying for power,

That is the nature of things till His return.You can not avoid it.

It also only natural for one’s writing to be more authoritative than second hand knowledge of any teaching.

In my opinion the only unnatural thing is the paradigm of infallibility of a Church, so of course then Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative for they are both infallible in hands of a Church

 

[clem456]

That is the nature of things till His return.You can not avoid it.

Human beings should not capitulate to their baser inclinations. In any case, the nature of things is that Christ is -not- division. (Since we are talking about the nature of things and Christ perfects our nature.)

It also only natural for one’s writing to be more authoritative than second hand knowledge of any teaching.

You can’t separate written words from the people who wrote them, and those who read and understand them. If you don’t have an audience, what is the point? Are the writings some sort of idol on a bookshelf? God writes the words and sits and reads them, and congratulates himself? That is not God’s nature. His nature is communitarian, Trinitarian.
The words are given to a people, by a Person.
The reader gives the words meaning. Writing is about revelation, it’s about God revealing himself in relationship, not idol worship of the dead letter.
The is no Word of God without a Person and a community.
Any author would take offense. A great author might take great offense since his whole revelation since the beginning of human history was given to a community, culminating in his son, who is THE WORD, given in community with God’s’ people.

In my opinion the only unnatural thing is the paradigm of infallibility of a Church, so of course then Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative for they are both infallible in hands of a Church

The standard piñata of infallibility.
It’s not what you think it is.

 

[steido01]

Would it be fair to say a District President is elected in like manner of a Bishopric election of a Catholic/Orthodox/Scriptural model?

Happy Easter, Jose. He is Risen!

While it might not be exactly like how the Catholic Church selects bishops today, I think it would be fair to say that DPs are selected in a manner similar to the bishops in the early church. Every three years, the districts (dioceses) assemble in convention to elect a DP from among the already-ordained pastors within that district. Voters consist of one pastor and one male layman (99.9% of the time an elder of the congregation) from each parish or multi-parish. Compare this to the practice of the early church. Pardon the secondary source, and focus on the primary.

Does the district president ordain other Pastors by the laying of the hands?

Yes, it is the norm for the DP to lead the Rite of Ordination, as he represents the church-in-general, which has the power to minister Word and Sacrament. Here is DP John Wille presiding over the ordination of Pastor Moua Vang in the South Wisconsin District. Note the laying on of hands by the surrounding presbyters, led by the DP: http://www.hmonglcms.com/uploads/1/1/2/9/11299580/482160_orig.jpg

IOW - Are Scriptures used for the norm ruling Church government?

Yes; Scripture tells us plainly that the Church has the power and responsibility to call and ordain our ministers (Since Lutherans consider their Confessions to reflect Scripture, see Confessio Augustana, Article XIV and Smalcald Part III, Article X). Scripture also tells us how we are to settle disputes between our governing ministers (See, like, the entirety of the Book of Acts). Scripture does not tell us exactly how these governing ministers are to be organized, however, and tradition permits multiple means of selection, as the example of the early church shows. So long as the Word is proclaimed, and the Sacraments rightly administered, Lutherans believe the structure to be an adiaphoron (though we all know which means is most effective ).

 

[Denise1957]

Human beings should not capitulate to their baser inclinations. In any case, the nature of things is that Christ is -not- division. (Since we are talking about the nature of things and Christ perfects our nature.)

You can’t separate written words from the people who wrote them, and those who read and understand them. If you don’t have an audience, what is the point? Are the writings some sort of idol on a bookshelf? God writes the words and sits and reads them, and congratulates himself? That is not God’s nature. His nature is communitarian, Trinitarian.
The words are given to a people, by a Person.
The reader gives the words meaning. Writing is about revelation, it’s about God revealing himself in relationship, not idol worship of the dead letter.
The is no Word of God without a Person and a community.
Any author would take offense. A great author might take great offense since his whole revelation since the beginning of human history was given to a community, culminating in his son, who is THE WORD, given in community with God’s’ people.

The standard piñata of infallibility.
It’s not what you think it is.

Well said. I’d like to add a few comments. You are right that human beings should not capitulate to their baser inclinations. I find it interesting that there are Protestants who see the Church as vying for power with scripture. They see division, but I don’t see it at all. Where Protestants seem to distrust, we have trust.

I agree that God’s words are given to a people, a community. The old-fashioned way to refer to Jesus (by Catholics) is to say “Our Lord,” but Protestants say…“The Lord.” To me, there’s a big difference. We refer to Jesus as ours, because he belongs to and is part of our religious community as a Church, both locally, and in the greater world.

We Catholics have trust in our Lord, and believe in what He said about building His Church (singular, not plural) on the rock of Peter, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail. Our Lord also said that He would be with the Apostles until the end of time. He didn’t say anything about the Church only existing so that it could promulgate a bible, and then the Church wouldn’t be needed anymore. If this were true (as some Protestants seem to think it is) then it would have been included in scripture, but it wasn’t.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you Jon and Don (Walk in to a bar… )

I guess this begs the question then:

Are Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide necessary beliefs for Lutheranism? Or can you not hold them and still be in communion?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thank you Jon and Don (Walk in to a bar… )

I guess this begs the question then:

Are Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide necessary beliefs for Lutheranism? Or can you not hold them and still be in communion?

Sola scriptura, no, not in any formal sense. Inasmuch as you would affirm that all traditions etc. are subject to Scripture. Sola fide, yes. At least with respect to Augsburg Confession IV.

 

[commenter]

It also only natural for one’s writing to be more authoritative than second hand knowledge of any teaching.

In my opinion the only unnatural thing is the paradigm of infallibility of a Church, so of course then Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative for they are both infallible in hands of a Church

An infallible Scripture and Tradition require the infallible Magisterium. Some human agency - not “the Church” in general - had to have authority to:

1. Accept the OT as still inspired, for Christians, thought certain parts are superceded; (not at all obvious at the time)
2. Affirm a NT should exis****t; canonize certain writings; rule out the vast majority of others (again, seems in hindsight a New Testament should exist, but controversial at the time. If magisterium not infallible, maybe they were wrong to invent one.)
3. Define what “Scripture” means for Christians; (again not at all obvious at the time)
4. Define what “Tradition” means; canonize 1% of traditions as Sacred Tradition; rule out others as unreliable.
5. Over the past 2000 years continue to identify which Scriptures apply to given situations. Actively defend the canon of Scripture and Tradition, both under attack.

You probably accept at least 1 - 4 as infallible actions. None of them can be proven or accomplished by Scripture or Tradition alone or in combination, because they all require actions 1 - 4 to be completed, before we have “Scripture” and “Tradition” to work with. So, the actions of (at least) 1 - 4 point towards an infallible actor, a visible authority as a channel for God’s will.

If you disagree with #5, you concede the infallible Magisterium did exist for a few centuries(!) then mysteriously disappeared, though the people who infallibly finalized the NT canon were w****rong when they continued the same Magisterium for the future.