Sola Scriptura and why do Protestants like it?

[TimothyH]

Sola Scritura as it was taught by Luther (who basically coined the phrase) is not throw out traditions and only go on the Bible. It is the concept that Scripture is the Highest Reference. Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture. Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept. This is the view of most High Litergical Churchs like the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran MS and WELS (and some ELCA), and many Anglican Churchs. Many of those Churches maintain a litergury that is very similar if not identical to that of the Catholic Church. Sola Scritpura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”.

There are “bible only” churches out there but you will find they are generally not High Litergical and most cannot trace their roots back very far. Many of them do have some strange interpretations as well.

Again as with all questions about Protestants…please recognize that we are not one big group. There are lots of denominations with a range of believes, doctrine, and theology. Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your arguement and renforces the misconception that Catholics are elitest and don’t know anything about any other faiths.

Catholicism believes the same thing, that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture will never contradict each other.

The problem with subjugating Tradtion to Scripture however, is that Tradition will always follow interpretation of scripture in such a scenario, and if interpretation changes, Tradtion must necissarily change as well. If there is a change in interpretation of the “Highest reference” and that interpretation contradicts historically held beliefs and practices, then beliefs and practices (AKA Tradition) must change in deference to the “Highest reference”.

We have seen glaring examples of this when the Protestant Churches (ld by the “High liturguical” Churches themselves!) all declared artificial contraception not to be sinful. Prior to the 1930’s, no Protestant Church could be found which taught that artificial means of contraception was anything but a grave sin. In the early 1930’s, the Anglican Church changed 1900 years of traditionally held beliefs and practices when, based on a new interpretation of Scripture, said that artificial contraception was acceptable in some circumstances. The Methodist Church and other’s have done the same thing with abortion. Most Protestant Churches have reinterpreted Scripture to teach that marriages can be disolved which flies in the face of twenty centures of traditionally held Christian beliefs and practices, with King Henry VIII himself as it’s most damning witness!

Catholicism however, sees both Tradition and Scripture as authoritiative and complimentary. If Tradition contradicts our interpretation of Sacred Scripture or if our interpretation of Sacred Scripture goes against centuries of practice and belief, we don’t subjugate one to the other and therefor declare one or the other to no longer be valid. Instead we put the brakes on and examine where we went wrong.

Using the example of artificial contraception again, some within the Catholic Church have interpreted scripture in a way which allows some form of artificial birth control and this is nothing new. But this files in the face of twenty centures of Chritian Tradition as well as thousands of years of Judaic Tradition. It’s a great example of how the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture self governs the Church, protecting it against faulty intepretation, the whims of society and the habitual nature of of man to try to bend the will of God to his own desires.

The shared authority of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture is part of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church in infallible teaching. It’s part of the reason why we can’t get some guy like the Archbishop of Canterbury or some whacked out Pope to just declare that homosexual behavior is no longer a sin, or adultery, or abortion for that matter.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Exept that the priest is just as human as I am. What if he’s wrong and I’m right?

An individual priest will first and foremost, be governed by twenty centuries of Sacred Tradtion.

If the priest starts teaching something which contradicts two thousand years of belief and practice, he is almost guaranteed to be called on it.

In the absence of an authoritiative Tradtion, and if Scripture is the only reference, or even the highest reference, the priest can just say, “Well, we’ve been wrong all along” or “We have grown in our understanding of God’s will as communicated to us through Scripture.” That can’t happen in Catholicism. As soon as someone comes up with an interpretation of Scripture which contradicts long held beliefs and practices, he is immediately called out as being in error.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

In this way Catholicism honors Christ’s teaching given to the twelve Apostles and dares not change it, either in written word or in actual practice.

-Tim-

 

[Tomster]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

In order to understand why Protestant denominations cling to the sola scriptura theory, we have to go back a few steps to get a realistic understanding of the great cardinal principle of Protestantism. The cardinal principle in Protestantism is that every man attains salvation by entering into an immediate relation with Christ, with the aid of that interior faith by which he believes that, though his sins persist, they are no longer imputed to him, thanks to the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. All men are thus priests for themselves and carry out the work of their justification by treating directly and individually with God. The Life of Grace, being nothing else than the external favor of God, remains outside of us and we continue, in fact, in spite of Lutheran faith in Christ, corrupt and sinful. Each human being enters into an isolated relation with the our Lord, and there is no transforming life in which all are called to share.

Luther never understood the meaning of faith informed by sanctifying grace and charity. Accordingly, the one visible Church of the mystical Body of Christ is done away with, as well as the priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The only purpose of preaching and such ceremonies as were retained by Protestants was to stir up the individual’s faith.

Hence the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, is nothing else than an assembly of those who, on account of the confidence interiorly conceived of the remission of their sins, have the justice of Christ imputed to them by God and are accordingly predestined to eternal life. And this church, known to God alone, is the unique church of the promises of indefectibility, to which our Lord Jesus Christ promised His assistance to the consummation of the world. Since, however, true believers, instructed by the Holy Spirit, can manifest their faith exteriorly, can communicate their impressions and feelings to others and may employ the symbols of the Sacraments to stir up their faith, they give rise to a visible church which, nevertheless, is not the Church instituted by Christ. Membership of this church is not necessary for salvation, and it may assume different forms according to circumstances. The true invisible church of Christ is always hidden, unseen to the multitude.

Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body of Christ and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality in man, a merely isolated relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of the human individual against order on the supernatural level, this uprise of individualism, with its chaotic self-seeking, had dire consequences in regard to ecclesiastical organization.

 

[Tomster]

Sola Scritura as it was taught by Luther (who basically coined the phrase) is not throw out traditions and only go on the Bible. It is the concept that Scripture is the Highest Reference. Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture. Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept. This is the view of most High Litergical Churchs like the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran MS and WELS (and some ELCA), and many Anglican Churchs. Many of those Churches maintain a litergury that is very similar if not identical to that of the Catholic Church. Sola Scritpura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”.

There are “bible only” churches out there but you will find they are generally not High Litergical and most cannot trace their roots back very far. Many of them do have some strange interpretations as well.

Again as with all questions about Protestants…please recognize that we are not one big group. There are lots of denominations with a range of believes, doctrine, and theology. Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your arguement and renforces the misconception that Catholics are elitest and don’t know anything about any other faiths.

And the above post only confirms what I just wrote in my previous post.

 

[Cinette]

**

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

*Muze please can you show me where in the bible it says that Tradition and the Magisterium are man made.

Note that I have spelt Tradition with a capital T.

Thank you

Cinette*

 

[Tomster]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

One more thing for your consideration, BA, is that another Protestant dogma, that of Private Judgment, or the individual relation with Christ, it was inevitable that the right of every individual to arrange his own form of religion would cause the pendulum to swing from state churches (Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.) to other concrete expressions of “evangelical liberty.” One current leads in the direction of indefinite multiplication of sects. Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, this would give rise to as many churches as there are individuals, that is, there would not be any church at all. As this is too opposed to man’s social nature, small groups tend to coalesce.

The second current tends to the creation of what may be termed broad or multitudinist churches. The exigencies of national churches are attenuated until they are no longer a burden to anybody. The Church of England is an example of this.

One consequence of the doctrine of Protestant Private Judgment must be stressed. This theory attuned men’s minds to the deification of man. Thus, Once Saved Always Saved. Anyone can, thus, proclaim themselves saved.

The autonomous man, who decides on his authority what he will accept of the Gospel God Himself came to deliver to us, is already well on the way to self-deification.

Hence the appeal of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Tomster]

Sola Scritura as it was taught by Luther (who basically coined the phrase) is not throw out traditions and only go on the Bible. It is the concept that Scripture is the Highest Reference. Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture. Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept. This is the view of most High Litergical Churchs like the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran MS and WELS (and some ELCA), and many Anglican Churchs. Many of those Churches maintain a litergury that is very similar if not identical to that of the Catholic Church. Sola Scritpura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”.

There are “bible only” churches out there but you will find they are generally not High Litergical and most cannot trace their roots back very far. Many of them do have some strange interpretations as well.

Again as with all questions about Protestants…please recognize that we are not one big group. There are lots of denominations with a range of believes, doctrine, and theology. Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your arguement and renforces the misconception that Catholics are elitest and don’t know anything about any other faiths.

It IS necessary for us to “lump” all of the denominations together in order for you to see the contradictions of Protestantism. This strengthens the Catholic position.

Your position only shows your own form of elitism which does not grant the same freedom to other demoninations which you have assumed for yourself.

What makes your form of Protestantism any better than an Anglican’s, Baptist’s, Presbyterian’s, Evangelical’s, Fundamentalist’s, SDA’s, etc., etc?

Under your system why don’t these denominations have the same rights as you?

Why are there disagreements over the essentials of faith between all of you? Is this what Christ intended?

If the above denominations agreed with your traditions, there wouldn’t be the need for the titles Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, etc. now would there?

No authority, no unity.

 

[Alix1912]

Wow,

You ask why a particular concept has an appeal to protestants. Then you all speculate on it and make fun of it and those who believe it. You post snarky oneliners like “I spell Tradition with a Capital T” Really, do you think we are all so stupid we cannot tell the difference between lower and upper case letters and what that means. Then when you actually get a response you make fun of it, and the people who post it, and you wonder why there are so many protestants who are Anti Catholic.

My husband’s priest gets so frustrated by this. He has often lamented that Catholics attitudes are often what drives protestants away from the Catholic Church way more than actual doctrinal differences. I have to agree with him, I find the general “We are always right and you stupid ignorant protestants are so silly and misguided attitude” more repulsive than any doctrinal differences between my church and the Catholic Church. It’s particularly annoying when those leveling that attitude are often (not always) poorly taught in their own faith let alone others.

I have always been a staunch defender of the Catholic Church when someone spouts off things about Catholics that aren’t true, but the more I read threads like this I find myself not caring as much, since many Catholics don’t seem to care if the questions they ask protestants or the statements they make about them are patronizing, rude or downright wrong. Luckily I have an awesome husband who tries to model what being a true Christian and Catholic is like, and he has a great priest who can seem to both hold to the tenants of the Catholic Church without being a jerk about it, and be kind towards protestants that he encounters. It reminds me that there are rude people in every faith and to not judge it by a few.

However if this thread was my only exposure to the Catholic Faith as a protestant, I would not want to learn about it any further, or give it any more respect than shown towards protestants here.

Alright I’m getting my soap box now.

 

[Cinette]

Wow,

You ask why a particular concept has an appeal to protestants. Then you all speculate on it and make fun of it and those who believe it. You post snarky oneliners like** “I spell Tradition with a Capital T”** Really, do you think we are all so stupid we cannot tell the difference between lower and upper case letters and what that means. Then when you actually get a response you make fun of it, and the people who post it, and you wonder why there are so many protestants who are Anti Catholic.

My husband’s priest gets so frustrated by this. He has often lamented that Catholics attitudes are often what drives protestants away from the Catholic Church way more than actual doctrinal differences. I have to agree with him, I find the general “We are always right and you stupid ignorant protestants are so silly and misguided attitude” more repulsive than any doctrinal differences between my church and the Catholic Church. It’s particularly annoying when those leveling that attitude are often (not always) poorly taught in their own faith let alone others.

I have always been a staunch defender of the Catholic Church when someone spouts off things about Catholics that aren’t true, but the more I read threads like this I find myself not caring as much, since many Catholics don’t seem to care if the questions they ask protestants or the statements they make about them are patronizing, rude or downright wrong. Luckily I have an awesome husband who tries to model what being a true Christian and Catholic is like, and he has a great priest who can seem to both hold to the tenants of the Catholic Church without being a jerk about it, and be kind towards protestants that he encounters. It reminds me that there are rude people in every faith and to not judge it by a few.

However if this thread was my only exposure to the Catholic Faith as a protestant, I would not want to learn about it any further, or give it any more respect than shown towards protestants here.

Alright I’m getting my soap box now.

*Wow! I am assuming that you are referring to me since I was the one who made the comment which I have made bold above. I am wide eyes and incredulous - I hardly said anything and you are lambasting me with accusations.

I am not anti-Protestant at all. I have to say though that I can never understand how anyone can adhere to a belief in Sola Scriptura. I can speak my mind surely without being accused of being anti etc etc etc. Or are you perhaps mixing several individuals in the bowl?

 

[InspiritCarol]

Then you all speculate on it and make fun of it and those who believe it.

Read my post clarification please. I am not speculating. I participate in two Baptist bible studies, represent the Catholic Church for the Interfaith group (mostly Evangelical), the Ecumenical group (all catholic) and the ministerial board (same again). I have seen Christ in many places and many people. These kinds of threads serve no-one but the Evil one and I regret even posting to begin with.

You post snarky oneliners like “I spell Tradition with a Capital T” Really, do you think we are all so stupid we cannot tell the difference between lower and upper case letters and what that means.

There are some children on here; please don’t let the mud-slingers malign us all. Also, some people are just giving knee-jerk reactions to other offenses and letting off steam. This is clearly not a good place to do that.

Then when you actually get a response you make fun of it, and the people who post it, and you wonder why there are so many protestants who are Anti Catholic.

I don’t wonder why there are so many Anti-Catholics; this is just another reason in a very long list.

My husband’s priest gets so frustrated by this. He has often lamented that Catholics attitudes are often what drives protestants away from the Catholic Church way more than actual doctrinal differences.

Of course you see this with every faith. It is some human condition thing that we judge God based on the actions of people who purport to follow Him. This is criminal. Look to the principals and expectations of the religion and understand that with over a billion people, you’re going to have a whole bunch of insensitive ones.

I have to agree with him, I find the general “We are always right and you stupid ignorant protestants are so silly and misguided attitude” more repulsive than any doctrinal differences between my church and the Catholic Church. It’s particularly annoying when those leveling that attitude are often (not always) poorly taught in their own faith let alone others.

I have always been a staunch defender of the Catholic Church when someone spouts off things about Catholics that aren’t true, but the more I read threads like this I find myself not caring as much, since many Catholics don’t seem to care if the questions they ask protestants or the statements they make about them are patronizing, rude or downright wrong. Luckily I have an awesome husband who tries to model what being a true Christian and Catholic is like, and he has a great priest who can seem to both hold to the tenants of the Catholic Church without being a jerk about it, and be kind towards protestants that he encounters. It reminds me that there are rude people in every faith and to not judge it by a few.

I really thought my post clarification would derail the mob; but some people can’t see past their own noses. I’m personally shocked to see such ugliness, but that’s what mob-mentality does. I applaud you for posting this censure instead of just walking away in disgust.

However if this thread was my only exposure to the Catholic Faith as a protestant, I would not want to learn about it any further, or give it any more respect than shown towards protestants here.

Thank God it’s not.

 

[InspiritCarol]

It IS necessary for us to “lump” all of the denominations together in order for you to see the contradictions of Protestantism. This strengthens the Catholic position.

But doesn’t help you make your point because you have just shut out 99% of your audience. You’re forcing people onto your playing field with your rules and expecting them to play your game, but good luck finding anyone willing to do that.

Your position only shows your own form of elitism which does not grant the same freedom to other demoninations which you have assumed for yourself.

Good point but perhaps lost in harshness.

What makes your form of Protestantism any better than an Anglican’s, Baptist’s, Presbyterian’s, Evangelical’s, Fundamentalist’s, SDA’s, etc., etc?

That’s a very big question and one I’m sure there is an answer to in her heart. Don’t you think?

Under your system why don’t these denominations have the same rights as you?

She never said they didn’t.

Why are there disagreements over the essentials of faith between all of you? Is this what Christ intended?

Friend - it’s between all of US. Not them.

If the above denominations agreed with your traditions, there wouldn’t be the need for the titles Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, etc. now would there?

No authority, no unity.

Friend - the *authority *has been, is, and always will be Jesus Christ.

 

[Muze]

Muze please can you show me where in the bible it says that Tradition and the Magisterium are man made.

Note that I have spelt Tradition with a capital T.

Thank you

Cinette

That’s a bit like asking where in the bible it says that Jesus never went to France. You can’t really prove a negative.

What we can see is that only form that has the Holy Spirit’s stamp of infallibility on it is the writings of those who saw Christ’s glory. There is no guarantee in Scripture for either Tradition or Magisterium.

In fact, if you read 2 Peter 1, you find that Peter is worried about false teachers and false teaching, and specifically states that he is writing so that the readers will hold on to the truth, and the only thing he offers is that which was written by those who beheld Christ’s glory:

12Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

An EXCELLENT place for Peter to identify any possible sources of infallible truth to protect the Church…

And Peter writes:

2 Pet 1:16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but** we **were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 **we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we **were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

But notice that Peter makes a SERIES of exclusive claims for those who saw Christ’s glory. These would exclude even their disciples, much less anyone else in the Church.

20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And that’s it. Only prophecy of Scripture. No magesterium. No tradition… err Tradition.

And Peter goes on to tell his readers that false teachers are coming.

So, I think what Peter says, knowing that he is about to die, is very revealing regarding what he (and presumably the other apostles) thought regarding Scripture and tradition.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Muze,

Nice to see you on this thread

Let me share an idea with you … in my opinion the most amazing decision was for God the Father to have selected Peter and gave him the answer to Christ’s question (“Who do men say that I am?”) If I had a business and was going to select one of my twelve associates to run this business - I guarantee, Peter would have probably ranked 11th out of the group! Poorly educated for the task at hand and apparently ill prepared for anything other than fishing and mending nets! Seriously, Peter has some major character flaws. But guess what happens … Peter speaks up and gives Christ the correct answer, Christ acknowleedges it to be the correct answer and where this answer came from - and then - founds His Church on Peter and gives him the Keys as a sign of his authority over the other Apostles (contrary to what you may have heard… there were not 11 other key sets handed out later! )

Now, the second most amazing reality is found in Matt 16:21-23

**21
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
22
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
23
He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” **
Here we have Peter - essentially in the next breath, showing not only the depth of ignorance but even more so, his total lack fof appreciation for what just happened with Christ putting Peter in charge. The only reason why Peter did not wind up 12th on my list was that it was occupied by Judas! Christ addressed the matter in two ways - one in which He took action and in the other He took no action. In taking action, Christ not only calls Peter a devil - Christ calls him “Satan” - the assumption is that Satan himself had Peter’s ear and deceived Peter to try and move Christ away from His Mission. But, notice, even calling Peter “Satan”, Christ did not remove the leadership position from Peter! Had it been me, I would have been asking myself why I did not pice one of the other guys!!! The key here is that, “God’s Ways are not our ways…” (Isiah 55:8-9).

As you know, Peter would go on to make other major errors - like denying Christ and giving a very poor behavioral example in front of St. Paul! But the take home message is that God knew in advance what Peter would do - major mistakes and all … and still picked him! Men are indeed fallible - and if the Holy Spirit was not directing the Catholic Church it would have surly run aground before the end of the 1st Century! As a human organization - like Peter - it has made some major political, economic, social and even geographic errors! But, because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit - there have been no errors on matters of Faith and Morals.

One of those matters it has declared to be without error is the Canon of Scripture that the Catholic Church developed and gave to the world around 400AD. It is the Church who gives us Scripture - NOT the other way around.

God bless

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

 

[Cathoholic]

Alix 1912, You stated

“the Lutheran Church MS does have a hierarchy and we have established interpretations of the Bible from our own councils. Our pastors have teaching authority.”

My family (part of it) came from the Wisconsin Synod and they have the same view as the MS in this area so I think I understand what you are saying. But the MS or the WS does not have or even claim to have Apostolic authority. They don’t claim to have this kind of protected authority or infallibility.

As I said earlier Alix 1912, if you don’t think the Catholic Church has this “spiritual genealogy” and protection, that’s your call. Nobody is asking you to violate your conscience with regards to the Catholic Church and join something you don’t believe in.

But if you can see the errors of sola Scriptura (however defined), then I think God is calling you to be humbly and prayerfully looking within Christendom WHERE this Apostolic authority is being proclaimed and lived out. And also as I said, I believe this search will lead you to the Catholic Church. I would suggest listening to audios from Kimberly Hahn as a good place to begin (this one and this one are very good).

 

[Cathoholic]

Muze you stated:

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

Muze, were Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John fallible men? You and I would say yes but we both would say they were infallible in their teachings (specifically Scripture). So if God can take fallible men and protect them in an infallible manner then, why wouldn’t He do it now?

The are several other problems with your statement—“Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made”.

This is the fallacy of ipse dixit—basically it means philosophically “It’s so because I say it’s so”. This is not persuasive.

You said:

“tradition . . . (is) manmade”

Yet Scripture describes ITSELF as “tradition” in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (while affirming the authority of oral tradition too).

**2nd THESSALONIANS 2:15 ** (RSV Protestant Version) 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the **traditions **which you were taught by us,
**either **by word of mouth or by letter.

So not all “tradition” is manmade unless you want to deny 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (and 3:6).

You stated:

magisterium was man-made.

Was “magisterium” “man-made" during Scriptural times when Jesus sent out the Apostles?

LUKE 10:16 16 “He who hears you hears me,
and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Also regarding your statement “magisterium . . . (is) manmade”. . . . Scripture describes in Acts 15 the Apostles using their rightful area as official authentic teachers of the truth. You might say: “Well I don’t want to call their official teaching authority “magisterium”. That’s fine. Call it what you want, but this concept is what we still see in action whether or not we term it “magisterium”. If you don’t want to call the teaching office of the Church “magisterium” (merely from the Latin for “teacher”) that’s fine.

In Acts 15 the magisterium (official teaching office with God-given and protected authority) had to settle the issue of the necessity of circumcision and what “circumcision” means in a fulfilled sense. If they were a sola Scriptura Church somebody should have appealed to Genesis (what we call Genesis 17 now).

GENESIS 17:12-14 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

But the Magisterium exerted their authority as official interpreters of the tradition of circumcision and what circumcision authentically means in light of the New Covenant (and Paul reflects that when he tells us to: . . . . put on the circumcision of Christ, put on baptism c.f. Colossians 2:11 and following). And no Christian accused them of usurping their God-given protection in the area of official teaching on an absolutely enormous issue—that of what we are called to regarding circumcision.

You also excluded tradition saying:

“Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself.”

But that is partial truth and a self-contradiction.

As I stated earlier, Men ARE fallible but that doesn’t mean God can’t infallibly protect them from teaching error. You would agree with this regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (etc.) “Scripturally speaking”.

But also without oral Tradition and Authority you cannot know what the Bible even is.

There is NO VERSE that says:

HYPOTHETICAL VERSE “The books, letters, etc. that belong in the Bible include: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. etc. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. etc. Jude and Revelation.”

Then HOW do you KNOW what books belong in Scripture?

By oral Tradition and the Apostolic authority to sort out and proclaim and settle disputes (just as the Church did at “The Council of Jerusalem” in Acts 15) that’s how.

If nobody had authority to sort out what God really inspired and what God did NOT inspire, then you don’t have an infallible Canon of Scripture known.

 

[Cathoholic]

Muze you also had a few other notions that I disagree with (only one of these concepts I will address here). You said:

“The Church was Arian from 351 to 381. It was not infallible at that time.”

This is a partial truth.

If you mean there were many of the people (including some of the Bishops teaching apart from the Church’s official teaching magisterium) were affirming the Arian heresy (the denial of the full Divinity of Jesus) you are correct about the Arian aspect. That’s why St. Jerome could say “The world woke up one day and found itself Arian”.

But you are still wrong on the assertion that the Church was not infallible.

The official teaching office of the Church NEVER denied the full Divinity of Christ—They never taught Arianism as official doctrine. There were confused Bishops. That’s WHY we had the Council of Nicea in the early 300’s AD. Fortunately we also had Bishops who held to the true traditional teaching—Catholic Bishops such as St. Athanasius, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and others.

There were also people with authority who were confused in the early Church on the circumcision issue. They wrongly taught apart from the Magisterium that circumcision is necessary. But the official teachings were eventually authoritatively clarified there too - you can see this in Acts 15:5 and following.

Yet the official teachings were still infallible. You never saw St. Peter going around officially TEACHING that circumcision was necessary. You might say well he ACTED that way in Galatians 2. But Popes are sinners just like Bible writers such as Matthew, Mark, etc. were sinners but still TAUGHT authoritatively in a protected manner. Paul acted that way too at times with regards to circumcision, but fortunately he did not TEACH that way.

Also regarding your statement above (“The Church was Arian from 351 to 381. It was not infallible at that time.”) if by “the Church” you mean that “many Catholics” even today deny aspects of the faith (and sadly even some Bishops), you’d also only be partially correct.

But if you meant “the Church” in the sense of the official teaching Church you’d be wrong.

The charism of infallibility for the Bishops does not extend to them when teaching APART from the magisterium. I am sure you don’t believe that, but I still wanted to make the point on what we as Catholics believe.

The Magisterium incidentally is the successor of Peter (who we as Catholics often affectionately call “the Pope”) and the Bishops in UNION with him (see CCC 100)—NOT the Bishops TEACHING something DIFFERENT from him.

If you mean the Church TAUGHT the Arian heresy as official teachings you have some explaining to do. This would be wrong, but I’d be interested to hear you out (on a different thread though).

I want to appeal to you to put aside the debate aspects and think deeply of one more characteristic of the sola Scriptura issue.

If God intended us to follow sola Scriptura, you’d expect the Old Testament Church to follow sola Scriptura too.

The Old Testament Church did NOT affirm sola Scriptura though. Nor could they affirm that. Why?

Because the ancient Hebrew language was a “consonantal language” (it was all consonants). You NEEDED oral tradition to pass it on accurately from person to person then. Why?

Well think of an English analogy (of course the analogy is not inspired but I’m using the correlation merely to illustrate a point).

I’ll give you one word: “mn”. This is an English word with no vowels. But what word is it?

Is it “man”? Is it “men”? Is it “amen”? Is it “many”? Is it “money”? Is it “omen”?

You don’t know do you?

You don’t know unless you have an oral interpretation to tell you what word it is.

If this were impossible with one uninspired word, how much more would you NEED oral tradition to be protected in the inspired Old Testament ancient Hebrew Scriptures?

Wouldn’t God protect His teachings to us? Yes.

How do you KNOW oral Tradition is protected? The same way you KNOW written Tradition is protected—by the assurance of God. He will not leave us orphans.

Please meditate on this.

You NEED an authoritative body with a protected oral tradition even for Sacred Scripture (both for the Canon and to pass on the Old Testament Hebrew).

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. So the question remains; WHERE is this authoritative oral Tradition claimed and lived out? I believe it is within the Church that Jesus built and He continues to protect—The Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cathoholic,

A truly excellent post!

God bless

Muze you stated:

Muze, were Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John fallible men? You and I would say yes but we both would say they were infallible in their teachings (specifically Scripture). So if God can take fallible men and protect them in an infallible manner then, why wouldn’t He do it now?

The are several other problems with your statement—“Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made”.

This is the fallacy of ipse dixit—basically it means philosophically “It’s so because I say it’s so”. This is not persuasive.

You said:

Yet Scripture describes ITSELF as “tradition” in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (while affirming the authority of oral tradition too).

So not all “tradition” is manmade unless you want to deny 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (and 3:6).

You stated:

Was “magisterium” “man-made" during Scriptural times when Jesus sent out the Apostles?

Also regarding your statement “magisterium . . . (is) manmade”. . . . Scripture describes in Acts 15 the Apostles using their rightful area as official authentic teachers of the truth. You might say: “Well I don’t want to call their official teaching authority “magisterium”. That’s fine. Call it what you want, but this concept is what we still see in action whether or not we term it “magisterium”. If you don’t want to call the teaching office of the Church “magisterium” (merely from the Latin for “teacher”) that’s fine.

In Acts 15 the magisterium (official teaching office with God-given and protected authority) had to settle the issue of the necessity of circumcision and what “circumcision” means in a fulfilled sense. If they were a sola Scriptura Church somebody should have appealed to Genesis (what we call Genesis 17 now).

But the Magisterium exerted their authority as official interpreters of the tradition of circumcision and what circumcision authentically means in light of the New Covenant (and Paul reflects that when he tells us to: . . . . put on the circumcision of Christ, put on baptism c.f. Colossians 2:11 and following). And no Christian accused them of usurping their God-given protection in the area of official teaching on an absolutely enormous issue—that of what we are called to regarding circumcision.

You also excluded tradition saying:

But that is partial truth and a self-contradiction.

As I stated earlier, Men ARE fallible but that doesn’t mean God can’t infallibly protect them from teaching error. You would agree with this regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (etc.) “Scripturally speaking”.

But also without oral Tradition and Authority you cannot know what the Bible even is.

There is NO VERSE that says:

Then HOW do you KNOW what books belong in Scripture?

By oral Tradition and the Apostolic authority to sort out and proclaim and settle disputes (just as the Church did at “The Council of Jerusalem” in Acts 15) that’s how.

If nobody had authority to sort out what God really inspired and what God did NOT inspire, then you don’t have an infallible Canon of Scripture known.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cathoholic,

Again …

God bless

Muze you also had a few other notions that I disagree with (only one of these concepts I will address here). You said:

This is a partial truth.

If you mean there were many of the people (including some of the Bishops teaching apart from the Church’s official teaching magisterium) were affirming the Arian heresy (the denial of the full Divinity of Jesus) you are correct about the Arian aspect. That’s why St. Jerome could say “The world woke up one day and found itself Arian”.

But you are still wrong on the assertion that the Church was not infallible.

The official teaching office of the Church NEVER denied the full Divinity of Christ—They never taught Arianism as official doctrine. There were confused Bishops. That’s WHY we had the Council of Nicea in the early 300’s AD. Fortunately we also had Bishops who held to the true traditional teaching—Catholic Bishops such as St. Athanasius, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and others.

There were also people with authority who were confused in the early Church on the circumcision issue. They wrongly taught apart from the Magisterium that circumcision is necessary. But the official teachings were eventually authoritatively clarified there too - you can see this in Acts 15:5 and following.

Yet the official teachings were still infallible. You never saw St. Peter going around officially TEACHING that circumcision was necessary. You might say well he ACTED that way in Galatians 2. But Popes are sinners just like Bible writers such as Matthew, Mark, etc. were sinners but still TAUGHT authoritatively in a protected manner. Paul acted that way too at times with regards to circumcision, but fortunately he did not TEACH that way.

Also regarding your statement above (“The Church was Arian from 351 to 381. It was not infallible at that time.”) if by “the Church” you mean that “many Catholics” even today deny aspects of the faith (and sadly even some Bishops), you’d also only be partially correct.

But if you meant “the Church” in the sense of the official teaching Church you’d be wrong.

The charism of infallibility for the Bishops does not extend to them when teaching APART from the magisterium. I am sure you don’t believe that, but I still wanted to make the point on what we as Catholics believe.

The Magisterium incidentally is the successor of Peter (who we as Catholics often affectionately call “the Pope”) and the Bishops in UNION with him (see CCC 100)—NOT the Bishops TEACHING something DIFFERENT from him.

If you mean the Church TAUGHT the Arian heresy as official teachings you have some explaining to do. This would be wrong, but I’d be interested to hear you out (on a different thread though).

I want to appeal to you to put aside the debate aspects and think deeply of one more characteristic of the sola Scriptura issue.

If God intended us to follow sola Scriptura, you’d expect the Old Testament Church to follow sola Scriptura too.

The Old Testament Church did NOT affirm sola Scriptura though. Nor could they affirm that. Why?

Because the ancient Hebrew language was a “consonantal language” (it was all consonants). You NEEDED oral tradition to pass it on accurately from person to person then. Why?

Well think of an English analogy (of course the analogy is not inspired but I’m using the correlation merely to illustrate a point).

I’ll give you one word: “mn”. This is an English word with no vowels. But what word is it?

Is it “man”? Is it “men”? Is it “amen”? Is it “many”? Is it “money”? Is it “omen”?

You don’t know do you?

You don’t know unless you have an oral interpretation to tell you what word it is.

If this were impossible with one uninspired word, how much more would you NEED oral tradition to be protected in the inspired Old Testament ancient Hebrew Scriptures?

Wouldn’t God protect His teachings to us? Yes.

How do you KNOW oral Tradition is protected? The same way you KNOW written Tradition is protected—by the assurance of God. He will not leave us orphans.

Please meditate on this.

You NEED an authoritative body with a protected oral tradition even for Sacred Scripture (both for the Canon and to pass on the Old Testament Hebrew).

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. So the question remains; WHERE is this authoritative oral Tradition claimed and lived out? I believe it is within the Church that Jesus built and He continues to protect—The Catholic Church.

 

[kepha1]

That’s a bit like asking where in the bible it says that Jesus never went to France. You can’t really prove a negative.

What we can see is that only form that has the Holy Spirit’s stamp of infallibility on it is the writings of those who saw Christ’s glory.

Then there must be an unchanging infallible human language in order for a book to be infallible by itself, and as a result everyone who reads it should come to the same conclusions.
The bible is written in limited human language. Yes, it is inspired, but the claim that Scripture is infallible on its own means it needs no outside authority. This is not in Scripture. In fact, the idea is refuted in Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12.

1 Tim 3:15 (KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

You are saying, “which is the Scriptures of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Your premise, obviously, is unscriptural.

There is no guarantee in Scripture for either Tradition or Magisterium.

2 Timothy 3
[14] But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, (TRADITION)and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, (SCRIPTURE) which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

What’s listed first? Does verse 16 say, “Only scripture…”? Who is the “man of God”? Do a search “man of God” in any Bible search engine. It’s a person called directly by God or a person who is ordained by a bishop. Not individual believers.

In fact, if you read 2 Peter 1, you find that Peter is worried about false teachers and false teaching, and specifically states that he is writing so that the readers will hold on to the truth, and the only thing he offers is that which was written by those who beheld Christ’s glory:

12Therefore (message truncated) 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

It says “recall these things”, it does not say READ these things.

An EXCELLENT place for Peter to identify any possible sources of infallible truth to protect the Church…

“No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

Peter does not give individuals the authority to interpret on their own apart from the Church. No where in Scripture is your doctrine found. It is a man made tradition. I challenge you to provide one verse that supports such chaotic Individualism.

And Peter writes:
2 Pet 1:16For we

did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but** we **were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 **we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we **were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
But notice that Peter makes a SERIES of exclusive claims for those who saw Christ’s glory. These would exclude even their disciples, much less anyone else in the Church.

Please don’t re-write the Gospels to force fit them into your agenda. James and John were with Peter at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5) and the Baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:17) was not a private event.

They HEARD the voice, they did not READ the voice. They wrote the Gospels down decades later. It was preserved by Oral Tradition that you deny. You are being unreasonable and don’t seem to appreciate how we got the Bible in the first place.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Alix 1912,

Let me share some some thoughts with you…

Sola Scritura as it was taught by Luther (who basically coined the phrase) is not throw out traditions and only go on the Bible. It is the concept that Scripture is the Highest Reference. Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture.

There have been a lot of things that the founders of the Protestant Revolt believed that are no longer believed by their followers today. For example, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Today, this is generally not the case.

The definition of SS you have provided is really unique from my understanding of how it is used today. Basically, my understanding of SS is that, “If it is not in Scripture it simply does not exist as for matters of faith.” Of course, even if something does exist in Scripture (e.g., Sinlessness of Mary, Peter being chosen to lead the Apostles,Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Christ commanding us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, Christ delegating to men the Power of God to forgive sin, etc.) it is subject to individual interpretation which for Protestants negates the Word of Scripture.

Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept. … Sola Scritpura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”.

Pray tell, how is this distinction made between various ‘traditions’? Then, who actually makes such a distinction? It really sounds like there are an abundance of ‘popes’. One of the obvious problems with the fluidity of all Protestant groups is that there is a loss of collective history - every day really is a new day for the ship without a rudder. Look how these many Protestant groups have embraced the homosexual agenda item of same sex marriage when there is clear condemnation in Scripture

There are “bible only” churches out there but you will find they are generally not High Litergical and most cannot trace their roots back very far. Many of them do have some strange interpretations as well.

Luther and Calvin were very unhappy about others actually disagreeing with THEIR theology and having the impudence of establishing their own. Truly, this must have been, “…the unkindest cut of all…”! I seriously doubt that anyone could envision 30,000+ groups, assemblies, sects, tabernacles, fellowships - all competing to be a church and all contradicting one another over every doctrine - except for one: the Catholic Church is wrong. Tracing one’s roots usually ends in the 16th century - and, for the Church founded by Christ on Peter in about 33AD - none save the Catholic Church have a long history.

Again as with all questions about Protestants…please recognize that we are not one big group. There are lots of denominations with a range of believes, doctrine, and theology. Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your arguement and renforces the misconception that Catholics are elitest and don’t know anything about any other faiths.

Alix 1912, I just do not think it is possible to have any kind of discussion concerning 30,000+ groups treating each as an individual. We are usually quite willing to talk about ‘Americans’ - but, we not only mean North Americans (excluding Central and South Americans) but also excluding the Canadians. That probably is ‘elitist’ but it makes for a manageable discussion - once you kow who you are talking about. The key is to look for a common denominator - the thread that unites the groups for comparrison purposes. Here the common thread is splintering from the Catholic Church - and the divergence these Protestant groups on every article of Faith held by the Catholic Church.

If your argument about such a grouping is that it characterizes Protestants as a ‘redheaded stepchild’ so be it. Here is an analogy that may be helpful: Smokers have been identified as not only causing adverse effects on their own health, but on that of others through second-hand smoke. Telling them that smoking is not healthy is annoying (I am an ex-smoker!) but, eventually, that message sometimes gets through. Non-smokers may consider themselves ‘elitist’ in that they should be enjoying pulmonary health contrasted with their smoking counter-parts. Maybe between the coughing and hacking some smokers could look to these ‘elitists’ and see a much better way to live - and actually move toward improved health by giving up this harmful product.

When we look around with each day bringing us closer to meeting our Divine Judge and all eternity being opened before us - I think it charitable to present as clear a case as possible about the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter. Ultimately, we all will be judged by how we responded to the Graces we have been given. We may find ourselves feeling uncomfortable - but, that is not so bad. Chances are Nicodemus was just like the other self-righteous Pharisees during the time of Christ. The preaching of John the Baptist may have made him uncomfortable - as did the preaching of Christ … but, unlike others, he worked with the disquiet of his soul to find Truth. From the Gospel accounts, Nicodemus was truly in the minority.

God bless