Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[hapaxparadidomi]

I hope to receive an informed answer regarding this question. How are protestants able to maintain that the bible taught “It is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals” and maintain the idea that the authors of the bible were teaching new revelation orally? The protestant view would in effect have an inspired author saying ‘There are no other inspired sources except this bible’. If that is the case, then that would negate that author from being inspired. How do you address that contradiction?

 

[Aviatrix]

Well, it is hard to generalize about all protestants because that term includes a lot of diverse ideologies. But here is what it says in a presbyterian document I happen to have, referring to the Bible:

“It is the standard of all doctrine by which we must test any word that comes to us from church, world, or inner experience. We subject to its judgement all we believe and do”

To me that doesn’t say that no other writings are inspired. It says that the bible is a litmus test, so to speak, for whether or not something is Inspired. If something isn’t supported in the bible how do we know it it is inspired at all? That the bible is the word of God is known, but that other things are must be established in light of what we know.

That is my interpretation of that part of the document, anyway. I could be wrong.

 

[benjohnson]

What you posted perhaps isn’t the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. We simply say that God doesn’t contradict himself, so any other true authoritative teaching or tradition would never contradict scripture.

500 years ago, we used this idea to combat abusive practices in the church. Those abuses that seemed to be tolerated by the teaching authority of the time - so we were able to show that those abuses were contrary to the bible and hence not to be followed. Those abuses ended quickly in both our church and in the remaining Catholic church, so there may be some merit to our evaluation.

We should also say that Sola Scriptura is also a practice of the church, not of individuals. We would reject the concept that one could reject tradition, practices, and then page through the bible to make a separate form of christianity.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

What you posted perhaps isn’t the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. We simply say that God doesn’t contradict himself, so any other true authoritative teaching or tradition would never contradict scripture.

500 years ago, we used this idea to combat abusive practices in the church. Those abuses that seemed to be tolerated by the teaching authority of the time - so we were able to show that those abuses were contrary to the bible and hence not to be followed. Those abuses ended quickly in both our church and in the remaining Catholic church, so there may be some merit to our evaluation. .

Ben, the explanation put forth by some protestants is that Sola Scriptura is a denial of the existence of other infallible authorities. That means that the written medium is the only infallible authority but oral medium is not and the leadership of the church in whatever capacity is not.

I just want to make sure I am clear on your view. Do you subscribe to that explanation?

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Well, it is hard to generalize about all protestants because that term includes a lot of diverse ideologies. But here is what it says in a presbyterian document I happen to have, referring to the Bible:

“It is the standard of all doctrine by which we must test any word that comes to us from church, world, or inner experience. We subject to its judgement all we believe and do”

To me that doesn’t say that no other writings are inspired. It says that the bible is a litmus test, so to speak, for whether or not something is Inspired. If something isn’t supported in the bible how do we know it it is inspired at all? That the bible is the word of God is known, but that other things are must be established in light of what we know.

That is my interpretation of that part of the document, anyway. I could be wrong.

Howdy Aviatrix, I believe my question to Ben applies to you as well :

Ben, the explanation put forth by some protestants is that Sola Scriptura is a denial of the existence of other infallible authorities. That means that the written medium is the only infallible authority but oral medium is not and the leadership of the church in whatever capacity is not.

I just want to make sure I am clear on your view. Do you subscribe to that explanation?

 

[JonNC]

Ben, the explanation put forth by some protestants is that Sola Scriptura is a denial of the existence of other infallible authorities. That means that the written medium is the only infallible authority but oral medium is not and the leadership of the church in whatever capacity is not.

I just want to make sure I am clear on your view. Do you subscribe to that explanation?

Not speaking for Ben, though I think he’d agree, that we do not consider councils, etc. to be infallible, or inerrant, or equal to scripture, but instead witnesses to the truth of the faith which is stated in scripture.
Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth once said, to the effect, *The Scriptures cannot err and therefore they do not err. The Lutheran Confessions can err but they do not err. * The point being, scripture does not err, cannot err, but the writings of men, be they councils, Church Fathers, Martin Luther, can err. So, we always hold the writings of men accountable to the inerrancy of scripture.

Jon

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Not speaking for Ben, though I think he’d agree, that we do not consider councils, etc. to be infallible, or inerrant, or equal to scripture, but instead witnesses to the truth of the faith which is stated in scripture.
Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth once said, to the effect, *The Scriptures cannot err and therefore they do not err. The Lutheran Confessions can err but they do not err. * The point being, scripture does not err, cannot err, but the writings of men, be they councils, Church Fathers, Martin Luther, can err. So, we always hold the writings of men accountable to the inerrancy of scripture.

Jon

Jon, my question is pertaining to wether the idea of sola scriptura, as I have defined it, could have been taught by an inspired author. Would you agree that it could not have been?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, my question is pertaining to wether the idea of sola scriptura, as I have defined it, could have been taught by an inspired author. Would you agree that it could not have been?

What you’re asking is, is sola scriptura explicit in scripture? I would say no, since it is a post-apostolic era practice. Does that make it a contradiction of the apostles? No.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Jon, my question is pertaining to wether the idea of sola scriptura, as I have defined it, could have been taught by an inspired author. Would you agree that it could not have been?

The idea is that God’s revelation to mankind is the supreme authority for faith and morals. Because God is the final authority and revelation is His word to man and bears that same authority. That revelation to man first came orally through te teaching and life of Christ. It was later preached by the apostles. Then it was committed to writing. The dispute is not whether oral teaching can have authority but, rather where that teaching is located at present and whether certain CC distinctives were ever taught by the apostles.

 

[MaryT777]

 

[acacia12]

 

[po18guy]

I hope to receive an informed answer regarding this question. How are protestants able to maintain that the bible taught “It is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals” and maintain the idea that the authors of the bible were teaching new revelation orally? The protestant view would in effect have an inspired author saying ‘There are no other inspired sources except this bible’. If that is the case, then that would negate that author from being inspired. How do you address that contradiction?

Acts 15 destroys the alleged foundation of sola scriuptura. All scripture existing at that time advised that circumcision was required. The Church declared that it was not, and the matter was settled. Scripture did not produce the Church - the Church produced scripture. They have it backward.

 

[po18guy]

The idea is that God’s revelation to mankind is the supreme authority for faith and morals. Because God is the final authority and revelation is His word to man and bears that same authority. That revelation to man first came orally through te teaching and life of Christ. It was later preached by the apostles. Then it was committed to writing. The dispute is not whether oral teaching can have authority but, rather where that teaching is located at present and whether certain CC distinctives were ever taught by the apostles.

A tiny fraction of revelation was committed to writing (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2"40, 1 Coritnhains 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, etc. etc. etc.). In order for scripture to be a “final authority”, the Apostles would have had to declare that. They did not. 15 centuries later, a group of rebellious men did. By what authority did they declare that?

We see from Nehemiah 8:5-8 and from Acts 8:26-35 that scripture needs authoritative interpretation. We see from 2 Peter 3:16 that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures. 2 Peter 3:17 admonishes us not to listen to them.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

A tiny fraction of revelation was committed to writing (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2"40, 1 Coritnhains 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, etc. etc. etc.). In order for scripture to be a “final authority”, the Apostles would have had to declare that. They did not. 15 centuries later, a group of rebellious men did. By what authority did they declare that?

We see from Nehemiah 8:5-8 and from Acts 8:26-35 that scripture needs authoritative interpretation. We see from 2 Peter 3:16 that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures. 2 Peter 3:17 admonishes us not to listen to them.

That’s a whole lot of private interpretation you got goin’ on down dere’

 

[po18guy]

That’s a whole lot of private interpretation you got goin’ on down dere’

Luke, John, and Paul telling you and I that the bible is incomplete is private interpretation? Do you accuse Peter of private interpretation as well? Ummmmm…

As to sola scriptura: Show me the unity!

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[Nicea325]

Gaelic Bard:

The idea is that God’s revelation to mankind is the supreme authority for faith and morals. Because God is the final authority and revelation is His word to man and bears that same authority.

Okay…how does it equate into Holy Writ only?

That revelation to man first came orally through te teaching and life of Christ. It was later preached by the apostles. Then it was committed to writing.

Precisely. But where does writing equate into final authority?

The dispute is not whether oral teaching can have authority but, rather where that teaching is located at present and whether certain CC distinctives were ever taught by the apostles.

Which also begs:

Where do the Apostles ever teach written scripture is the final authority?

 

[po18guy]

Where do the Apostles ever teach written scripture is the final authority?

In Acts 15, the Church overrode scripture.

Here, from Pope Francis’ address to the Pontifical Bible Commission:

"As we know, the Holy Scriptures are the testimony in written form of God’s Word, the canonical memorial that attests to the event of Revelation. The Word of God, therefore, precedes and exceeds the Bible,” the Pope said.

“It is for this reason that the center of our faith is not only a book, but a history of salvation and especially a Person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh. Precisely because the Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture to understand it properly we need the constant presence of the Holy Spirit who ‘guide us to all truth’."

Reiterating the Vatican II Constitution, Dei Verbum, Pope Francis stressed the “unbreakable” bond between Scripture and Tradition, “as both come from the same source.”

The Holy Father stated that the exegete, or one who interprets the Scripture, “must be careful to perceive the Word of God present in the biblical texts by placing them within the faith of the Church.”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard:

Okay…how does it equate into Holy Writ only?

Strictly speaking, it doesn’t. If you preach that Christ was crucified for sinners, raised for their justification and ascended into heaven, you are preaching revelation, I.e., the word of God. The issue, then, is whether at present there is revelation from God apart from what is written down. In order to demonstrate that a doctrine not written down is revelation, it must be shown to come from the apostles. It is the Protestant contention than many RCC distintictives do not. It is well established that the Scriptures did. That is why anything apart from them are subject to their authority.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

In Acts 15, the Church overrode scripture.

In Acts 15, revelation over rode revelation. Does the Catholic Church teach that public revelation has continued? If not, the point is moot.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Luke, John, and Paul telling you and I that the bible is incomplete is private interpretation? Do you accuse Peter of private interpretation as well? Ummmmm…

As to sola scriptura: Show me the unity!

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

Are you saying that what Paul, Luke and John wrote are clear, perspicuous and understood by all?