Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[PRmerger]

Divine revelation is the word of God. Preeminently, that is the Son of God, right?

First, could you please answer: where is “There is no new revelation” found in Scripture? Book, chapter and verse, please.

 

[JonNC]

What say you, then, to this commentary by Jimmy Akin regarding Luther’s apparent rejection of “Scripture only, but interpreted through a church” paradigm?

Thus if one were today to propose a “Scripture only, but as interpreted by a Magisterium” model for theology, it would be immediately and roundly rejected by the Protestant community (except perhaps in a few small, radical sects) as being no true theory of sola scriptura at all. The term “only” in “Scripture only” must be taken not only to exclude other material principles of theology (like Tradition) but also other formal principles of theology (like the Magisterium).

But if one has cut loose the historic Christian principle of formulating the matter of theology into distinct, concrete doctrines then what is one going to use in its place? How is one to formulate doctrines if one has rejected what has historically been the formal principle? What formal principal will you propose in its place?

This was a question put by Catholics to Luther and the other Protestants, who answered that, in the absence of some group of Christians who were divinely commissioned with the task of formulating the material of theology, the individual himself must be divinely commissioned with this task. Thus the doctrine of an absolute right to private judgment–to deciding for oneself what the correct interpretation of Scripture is–was created.

Christians, of course, had always taught a right to private judgment–that the every individual had the right to think on and interpret the Scriptures for himself (this is why the Scriptures were read out loud at Mass, so that even the illiterate could hear them and think about their meaning). The exercise of private judgment was fine and wholesome and to be encouraged by all possible means so long as it was not used to reject those doctrines which had been determined by Christ’s appointed teachers (the Magisterium) to represent the authentic teachings of the Bible.

Thus Christians had historically taught a right to private judgment, but not an absolute right that overthrew the teaching authority which Christ himself set up in his Church by gifting it with official teachers, as the New Testament itself declares (Ephesians 4:11). On any area in which the teaching authority of Christ’s Church had not spoken (which was and is the great majority of areas), private judgment was permitted. It was only when a doctrine which had already been established to be true, such as the Trinity, the fully Divinity and humanity of Christ, the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, the efficacy of the sacraments, etc.–that private judgment was limited.

In order to throw off the Magisterium’s teachings, however, the Reformers had to get past this limitation, and so they asserted an unconditional, absolute right to private judgment, according to which the individual had a right to disagree and to publicly teach contrary to even those doctrines that Christ’s teaching authority had already established as true.

This was necessary as an answer to the Catholic question, “Who are you to overturn a historic Christian teaching which has already been settled by the Magisterium? You are not even a member of that body, much less the whole of it, and such doctrines can never change to begin with.” In the face of this question, the Reformers were driven to answer, “We do not need to be the whole of the Magisterium, or even individual members of it, for every Christian has the right to settle every single doctrine on his own and is not bound in conscience to accept the rulings of the teachers which, we admit, Christ intended his Church to have.”

Thus the doctrine of private judgment became a necessary component of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Scripture itself would be the sole material principle for theology, and the judgment of the individual would be the sole formal principle, as no other source could ultimately and authoritatively tell the believer what was the correct interpretation of Scripture. Any theory which said that there was a magisterial group of Christians who were to interpret the Scriptures on behalf on the individual would be vigorously opposed.
jimmyakin.com/library/sola-scriptura-and-private-judgment

I don’t know, except to say that the quotes relayed by Mr. Akin are not in our confessions. Our confessions clearly are used to define the doctrines of the Lutheran faith. In terms of doctrine, Lutherans are bound to the confessions. If one wishes to be Lutheran, one accepts the teachings.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

First, could you please answer: where is “There is no new revelation” found in Scripture? Book, chapter and verse, please.

I’m not going to proof text with you PR.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not going to proof text with you PR.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know, except to say that the quotes relayed by Mr. Akin are not in our confessions. Our confessions clearly are used to define the doctrines of the Lutheran faith. In terms of doctrine, Lutherans are bound to the confessions. If one wishes to be Lutheran, one accepts the teachings.

Jon

Fair enough.

Am I correct in understanding that you do not believe your church to be capable of infallible interpretations of the Scriptures?

 

[Pythons]

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?

Given the time hack of Scripture itself the Bible would be reduced to one book…
…The Book of Genesis or Job or whatever one was first.
…If sola Scriptura was true.

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough.

Am I correct in understanding that you do not believe your church to be capable of infallible interpretations of the Scriptures?

To paraphrase Krauth, Scripture cannot err, and therefore does not. The confessions can err, but do not.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

To paraphrase Krauth, Scripture cannot err, and therefore does not. The confessions can err, but do not.

Jon

Ok. But what about your church communion. Can it err in its interpretations?

 

[PRmerger]

There is no new revelation.

Where is “there is no new revelation” found in Scripture?

(Divine) Revelation is the Word of God.

Now that I’ve answered your question, could you answer mine that I posed so many pages back?

Where is the concept “There is no new revelation” found in the Bible?

First, could you please answer: where is “There is no new revelation” found in Scripture? Book, chapter and verse, please.

I’m not going to proof text with you PR.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2uho0gyfN1ro2ymz.gif

Just to make the answer to my question loud and clear:

There IS NO SCRIPTURE that proclaims that “there is no new revelation.”

The only way that Gaelic Bard, or anyone, is able to proclaim this is because they give tacit (or explicit) submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is only through the Church, and the Sacred Tradition handed on orally through the apostles, that Gaelic Bard, or anyone, can know that all public revelation has ceased.

Thus, we have seen that there are at least 2 instances where GB gives submission to the authority of Sacred Tradition, as proclaimed by the Catholic Church:

-the canon of Scripture
-the doctrine that teaches that there is no new revelation.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Just to make the answer to my question loud and clear:

There IS NO SCRIPTURE that proclaims that “there is no new revelation.”

The only way that Gaelic Bard, or anyone, is able to proclaim this is because they give tacit (or explicit) submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is only through the Church, and the Sacred Tradition handed on orally through the apostles, that Gaelic Bard, or anyone, can know that all public revelation has ceased.

Thus, we have seen that there are at least 2 instances where GB gives submission to the authority of Sacred Tradition, as proclaimed by the Catholic Church:

-the canon of Scripture
-the doctrine that teaches that there is no new revelation.

Whatever, PR. I was going to answer your question…but sorry I’m not going to do it on your terms of demanding a proof text. Have a blessed day.

 

[Nicea325]

You mean James?

I agree with you as to the purpose of the council…What is missing from later councils is that in Acts, doctrine was still being given via revelation. Nicea, Chalcedon, etc., were not being given new revelation. They were interpreting on revelation that had already been received. If the ecumenical councils are equal in authority to apostolic revelation, then you don’t have a closed canon.

GB:

Quick question? Are you aware of doctrinal development? Only asking.

God bless

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

GB:

Quick question? Are you aware of doctrinal development? Only asking.

God bless

Sure. Could you define what you mean by it, Nicea?

 

[Nicea325]

Sure. Could you define what you mean by it, Nicea?

Yes indeed. I agree that Divine revelation was given to the Apostles. However, core doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Hypostatic Union, etc, etc, took time to fully comprehend and took time make official. Not saying they were invented, evidently, but doctrines are ratified when deeply challenged such a the Alexandrian bishop who denied Jesus divinity in the 4th century.

God Bless you my brother in Christ.

 

[JonNC]

Ok. But what about your church communion. Can it err in its interpretations?

Our confessions are our communion’s interpretation.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Whatever, PR. I was going to answer your question…but sorry I’m not going to do it on your terms of demanding a proof text. Have a blessed day.

Again, there is no verse.

You would have provided it by now if there were one.

You proclaim, “There is no new revelation” based on this, and this alone: SACRED TRADITION told you this, through the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Our confessions are our communion’s interpretation.

Jon

So your confessions are inerrant?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Yes indeed. I agree that Divine revelation was given to the Apostles. However, core doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Hypostatic Union, etc, etc, took time to fully comprehend and took time make official. Not saying they were invented, evidently, but doctrines are ratified when deeply challenged such a the Alexandrian bishop who denied Jesus divinity in the 4th century.

God Bless you my brother in Christ.

I don’t have any issue with that understanding. Certainly through prayer, studying God’s revelation, etc., the church gains a greater understanding of doctrine. For Protestants, generally, aside from our contention that doctrine must be based on Scripture, is that from a historical stand point, there are some things that have no basis in Scripture or history.

The understanding that Scripture teaches that there is no new revelation is that Scripture teaches that God’s word finally and fully came through the incarnate Christ. That incarnate Word was revealed to the apostles. No apostles after them because there’s no incarnate Christ on earth giving revelation to man. The apostles preached that revelation down and handed it on to the church. Indeed, there’s no new revelation because…“in these last days God has spoken to us in His Son.”

God bless you too, brother.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t have any issue with that understanding. Certainly through prayer, studying God’s revelation, etc., the church gains a greater understanding of doctrine. For Protestants, generally, aside from our contention that doctrine must be based on Scripture, is that from a historical stand point, there are some things that have no basis in Scripture or history.

The understanding that Scripture teaches that there is no new revelation is that Scripture teaches that God’s word finally and fully came through the incarnate Christ. That incarnate Word was revealed to the apostles. No apostles after them because there’s no incarnate Christ on earth giving revelation to man. The apostles preached that revelation down and handed it on to the church. Indeed, there’s no new revelation because…“in these last days God has spoken to us in His Son.”

God bless you too, brother.

I understand your position and respect it. However, would you not tend to agree that Christ Church on earth in an extension of His Incarnation? I doubt Christ would leave His church unguided and to wander aimlessly in terms of doctrines, etc.

Peace be with you, brother.
P.S

What things have no basis in Scripture and history?

 

[PRmerger]

The understanding that Scripture teaches that there is no new revelation is that Scripture teaches that God’s word finally and fully came through the incarnate Christ. That incarnate Word was revealed to the apostles. No apostles after them because there’s no incarnate Christ on earth giving revelation to man.

That ONLY the incarnate Christ is able to provide revelation is no where found in Scripture.

The apostles preached that revelation down and handed it on to the church. Indeed, there’s no new revelation because…“in these last days God has spoken to us in His Son.”

This is a non-sequitur. “There is no new revelation” because “God spoke to us in His Son” doesn’t follow. It’s like saying, “There is no new revelation” because “God is the alpha and the omega.”

Or like saying, “You can’t get a new car because Anne Hathaway’s gamine haircut is horrendous.”

Incidentally, the position that you are espousing is in **direct contradiction **to Scripture, which clearly states that Jesus would not leave us orphans (John 14:18), and that he would be with us until the end of time (Matt 28:20).

 

[JonNC]

So your confessions are inerrant?

Here’s my understanding: only scripture is inerrant, but our confessions are a right reflection of scripture, as are the creeds, and the early councils. We don’t place the label inerrant on them because we believe that scripture is the final norm, and writings, doctrines, and teachings are only a witness to the truth of scripture.

Jon