Sola Scriptura & Epistemology

[JonNC]

=shockerfan;13776767]I should have used the phrase “virtually uncontested”. The Canon was the same for 1100 years. (same list used from 382 until Luther decided to put 7 books in the appendix, and on his own authority claim they were apocryphal. Then Protestant Bible societies in the 1800s, on their own authority, decided to not print those books even in an appendix.

Again, not true. Clearly the majority view has always been, in the west, the 73 books, but it was not virtually uncontested. It was even contested at Trent! There is little that is novel in Luther’s view of the canon.
Luther’s Die Bibel still has 74 books. The reduction of the Bible to 66 books is a uniquely English event. The thing about American Lutherans is we sadly accepted the incomplete Bible that the English publishers produced.

In other words, whether it was Luther, or Protestant Bible societies, they became their own “Pope”, since the Bible does not have a “holy table of contents”

Nonsense. Since the Bible doesn’t have a “holy table of contents”, that leaves various communions open to include the books they wish, or include more as the Orthodox have done since before the Schism.

If your Bible does not have the DC, then your Bible does not have books in the version of Scripture used by Jesus and the Apostles.

I suggest that my Luther bible is more complete since it has the Prayer of Mannaseh.

So then the Book of Mormon is correct for the Mormons?

Ask them.

Jesus founded one Church…not 40,000 different ones. Its not up to each one to determine “truth”. Unless you believe the Holy Spirit is leading people to different answers.

True, which, of course, includes the See in Rome. So, the issue becomes how do we decide on a universally common Bible for all of Christendom, and the answer is not a decree that is “infallible ex cathedra”, because that is disputed as well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=alwayswill;13776486]to clarify the bolded statement:

If the only writing from God that we had was the Ten Commandants:SS would still be true

Hypothetical, but true.

If the Chronicles of Adam or 3 Corinthians were God breathed writings; we would still hold to Sola Scriptura.

No doubt.

<“it is reasonable to assume that God used His Church in order to make those inspired books known to us”>
Absolutely true

<“It seems to me that, at least to a point, one has to have an idea of what is scripture to know what scripture is.”>
All Scripture is God breathed: all of the other characteristics and attributes flow from that.

That’s great, but it doesn’t answer the questions that Catholics here are asking you.

follow this analogy:
God speaking from His throne::
Consider all of the characteristics and attributes of the very words spoken by God from His throne…
It is impossible for there to be a higher authority than God speaking from His throne.
Because the words are from God

You’re repeating the same thing. I don’t think anyone disputes this.

Does knowing whether or not God said “I help those who help themselves” change characteristics and attributes of the words of God

In the same way:

It is impossible for there to be a higher authority than writings breathed out by God Himself.
Because the writings are from God.

That, again, doesn’t answer the question. How do you know which books are God-breathed? The Prayer of Manasseh is my favorite scriptural book this time of year. His confession is a wonderful model of confession for the sinner. Is it God breathed?

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

Hypothetical, but true.

No doubt.

That’s great, but it doesn’t answer the questions that Catholics here are asking you.

You’re repeating the same thing. I don’t think anyone disputes this.

That, again, doesn’t answer the question. How do you know which books are God-breathed? The Prayer of Manasseh is my favorite scriptural book this time of year. His confession is a wonderful model of confession for the sinner. Is it God breathed?

Jon

I am not answering the questions because that has no bearing on my point.
which is: there is no authority higher than Scripture.

The collecting of all known God breathed writings has no bearing on the authority of writings breathed out by God.

I would love to see any Catholic here concede that God breathed writings carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

 

[JonNC]

=shockerfan;13776746]

To be clear, there is something called “context”. Different Christian denominations read God’s word differently and get different meanings out of the same texts, thus, we have 40,000 different denominations claiming their understanding what what God’s word says is correct.

I thought it was 30,000, or was it 33,000. Oh well, that same methodoloy says there are 240 some odd Catholic Churches.

A simple example: Lets say you read the phrase “I never said you stole that.” There are 6 words in that sentence, and depending on which word you emphasize, there will be 6 different meanings. Well, the Bible has way more than 6 words, thus different meanings abound…thus 40,000+ Christian denominations.

So, Yes, I agree that Scripture is God’s word, but there is only one correct context. The Bible does NOT give you separate explanations of each verse to help you figure out the correct context…so by what authority can an adherent to SS claim their particular view of the context is correct?

By what authority can one patriarch claim his view of the context of Matthew 16 is correct, while all the others are wrong?

This is hugely important. Because of SS’s rejection of “Sacred Tradition”,

Properly understood, SS does not reject ST, but instead holds it accountable to scripture.

there is not uniform understanding of the necessity of Baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, can a person lose their salvation?, etc. These topics matter, but SS fails to provide the reader of God’s word the correct context.

There isn’t a uniform understanding of these outside of SS, either. Orthodox reject the term Transubstantiation, they apply Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist at the same time as Baptism. Orthodoxy does not practice the Sacrament under one kind.

Jon

 

[Goya]

And you understand the nature of sarcasm, and hyperbole.

Jon

Yes, Luther spoke those words TIC; however, the reason he addressed the issue at all (a rhetorical question), stands on its own.

His manufactured neo-theology required divine revelation, inspiration, or otherwise some sort of divine ratification/approval.

Alas, there was none for him to lay claim to–ergo, his smartalec retort.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post.

I didn’t say there was. I was talking about the quote you provided! Luther is known for sarcasm and hyperbole.

As you mention, Luther was very adept at both sarcasm and hyperbole. However, with regard to his comment about being the “Prophet of the Germans”, I don’t think he was demonstrating either, but rather a deep seeded belief with regards to his personal authority. In fact, a review of his other comments about his authority indicates that he clearly believed that he had the authority of a Prophet and that his ‘calling’ came directly from God. When you view his actual claims to authority alongside the way that he consistently demonstrated that authority in his interactions with others, you get a much better understanding of how he intended his authority to be perceived . Combine this with the fact that a lot of his followers believed that he was some sort of Prophet and you easily reach the conclusion that he wasn’t being sarcastic or demonstrating hyperbole in stating that he was a Prophet. This is exactly the conclusion of a LOT of Scholars. We can review their comments and his claims to authority if you like.

Lutheran Seminary Professor Robert Kolb wrote a very compelling book about Luther:

“Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”

More than half of this excellent book deals with Luther as “Prophet”, both in his and also in the eyes of his followers.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Goya]

???
did you just ask:
What is the value of God’s word as being the highest authority?

???

Did you just pretend he asked something he didn’t even come close to ‘asking’?

That would be called a strawman.

NB: SS =/= “God’s Word”.

Par for the course though, it appears. Your entire case in this thread amounts to circular logic–i.e.–you worship your scripture, because it’s scripture (conveniently neglecting --or rather, avoiding) how what you consider ‘scripture’, became Scripture.

…because according to what you consider ‘scripture’ itself, the only ‘scripture’ that is ever identified as such, would be what we call ‘the Old Testament’.

 

[Gorgias]

I thought it was 30,000, or was it 33,000. Oh well, that same methodoloy says there are 240 some odd Catholic Churches.

No, just one Catholic Church. Many Rites, though. Each of those Rites, however, is in union with the pope and believes in the same body of doctrine and dogma.

There isn’t a uniform understanding of these outside of SS, either. Orthodox reject the term Transubstantiation

Not sure what your point is; weren’t you trying to demonstrate that there’s variation within the Catholic Church? In any case, they believe in the doctrine – that is, that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. ‘Transubstantiation’ is just an explanation of how that happens, not what happens.

, they apply Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist at the same time as Baptism.

So do the Eastern Catholic Rites. That’s liturgical practice, not doctrinal belief, so it doesn’t fall under the kind of thing you’re trying to demonstrate. You might as well say “Catholics all use their own native languages – see! they’re not one united body!!!”

Orthodoxy does not practice the Sacrament under one kind.

Again, liturgical practice is a horse of a different color than doctrinal belief.

 

[shockerfan]

Misunderstand the writings breathed out by God does NOT and NEVER will diminish the authority of a God breathed writing.
That is hugely important.

How can you argue otherwise?

Carefully read what I wrote…I’m not arguing the authority of God…He has authority. (His Church also has authority, because He gave the Church authority)

I am arguing that determining what is and is not God breathed is important too…because if you can’t determine what is and is not the word of God, then how is one to know what writings have authority? You don’t seem to be concerned with that point…why?

 

[guanophore]

I am not answering the questions because that  has no bearing on my point.

which is: there is no authority higher than Scripture.

Well, your point is without relevance, really, since Scripture, though authoriative, cannot exercise authority, since the exercise of authority requires a will and an intellect, qualitiies that Scriptures do not possess.

The collecting of all known God breathed writings has no bearing on the authority of writings breathed out by God.

On the contrary, it is fundamental, which is why the Church went to great effort to complete this task in 382.

If there is no criteria set and followed, then the faithful will have no way of knowing with confidence which writings are, in fact, theopneustos. One might as well use the book of Mormon, if one feels the “burning in the bosom” when reading it.

I would love to see any Catholic here concede that God breathed writings carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

Certainly Catholics accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, but since we do not believe texts, however holy, can exercise authority, we cannot affirm such an errant statement.

We can affirm, though that the Teaching committed to the Church is the Word of God, and that it has been preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit, and has the same authority as Christ speaking from His throne.

 

[Goya]

No,it doesn’t

The canon is a list of all known God breathed writings.
A writing is Scripture (and everything that goes with that) the moment it was written; prior to canonization

If the only God breathed writings we had were the Ten Commandments; we would still hold to Sola Scriptura

If the Chronicles of Adam or 3 Corinthians were God breathed writings; we would still hold to Sola Scriptura.

Funny you should say this, as it actually runs contrary to SS (or what SS purports to be)–for scripture itself, confesses that Christ said many things (God breathed)–which were not written down.

Those–many anyway–were passed on orally.

As was the entirety of the Faith.

So for your quaint little “…we don’t believe in SS for what scripture is”, neglects what scripture itself, proclaims. On its very face (i.e.–no need to dig, or split hairs).

…and that’s just reading what is written in scripture.

Now let’s look at what scripture shows (i.e.–not what is said, but what is/was done–and not done):

1. Christ Himself, never left so much as a single word written down–at all. In fact, the only account in scripture itself, of Christ writing, is in the sand, with a stick (when the crowd was going to stone the adulteress ("…let he who is without sin, cast the first stone…");
2. Not one single solitary syllable prophesying scripture that would come into being;
3. No mention–not even in passing–of this doctrine of SS that would come into being…and that it would come into being 1500 years thence;
4. Yet that same scripture tells of a Church; prophesies it’s endurance through time; and spells out in detail, how Christ went about establishing such–hand picking 12 Apostles; instructing them in His faith; expressly delegating His authority to bind and loose; expressly enlightening them and empowering them at the Pentecost; etc.

That is what Christ did.

Scripture tells us so–though we knew this before it was ever written down–because as the adage goes: *the Church doesn’t teach what it teaches because it’s in the Bible; IT’S IN THE BIBLE, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH ALWAYS TAUGHT. *

 

[shockerfan]

Again, not true. Clearly the majority view has always been, in the west, the 73 books, but it was not virtually uncontested. It was even contested at Trent! There is little that is novel in Luther’s view of the canon.
Luther’s Die Bibel still has 74 books. The reduction of the Bible to 66 books is a uniquely English event. The thing about American Lutherans is we sadly accepted the incomplete Bible that the English publishers produced.

Your definition of “contested” seems to be rather broad.
• These books were in the Septuagint, the version of the OT used by Jesus and the Apostles
• In 382, Pope Damasus, prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books
• The Council of Hippo approved the same 73 books in 393
• The Council of Carthage approved the same 73 books in 397. Many Protestants and Evangelicals take these councils as the authority for the NT canon of books.
• Pope St. Innocent I in 405 approved the same 73 books and closed the canon of the Bible
• The second Council of Carthage (419), approved the same 73 books
• In 1441, the Council of Florence formally defined the same 73 book list of scripture
• The Council of Trent in 1546 responded to the challenging of the Deuterocanon by Luther, and infallibly defined the canon with the 73 books that went virtually uncontested for over 1100 years, by accepting the canon from previous councils.

Nonsense. Since the Bible doesn’t have a “holy table of contents”, that leaves various communions open to include the books they wish, or include more as the Orthodox have done since before the Schism.

Welcome to the fruits of Sola Scriptura and the rejection of Church authority.

I suggest that my Luther bible is more complete since it has the Prayer of Mannaseh.

If I included the Gnostic gospels, the Didache, and the Letters of Clement, would that make my Bible more complete, since it would then have more books?

Ask them.

Your position is pretty much “Canon is what anyone says is canon for them.”

True, which, of course, includes the See in Rome. So, the issue becomes how do we decide on a universally common Bible for all of Christendom, and the answer is not a decree that is “infallible ex cathedra”, because that is disputed as well.

Well, there was a universally common 73 book Bible for 1100 years.

 

[shockerfan]

I am not answering the questions because that has no bearing on my point.
which is: there is no authority higher than Scripture.

Where in Scripture does it say “there is no higher authority than Scripture”?

Also, in Acts 15, when Peter delivered the first judgment of the Church (regarding circumcision), was it authoritative and binding on all Christians? Was it binding when Peter said it, or was it binding later when it was written down and determined to be God breathed?

Before there was a Bible, what was binding on Christians? Answer: the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ as handed on by word of mouth.

The collecting of all known God breathed writings has no bearing on the authority of writings breathed out by God.

I would love to see any Catholic here concede that God breathed writings carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

And again…nobody is arguing otherwise

 

[Micosil]

Actually, those books were in the Vulgate, St. Jerome’s translation.

Why were they in there when St. Jerome had issues? He submitted his will to the authority of the Church. “He who hears you hears me” (Jesus to the Apostles - Luke 10:16).

Cardinal Cajetan had questions too…but he also submitted to the authority of the Church.

Opinion is not the same as authority.

Not only that, but Cardinal Cajetan eventually became one of the Counter-Reformation’s stalwarts.

 

[Micosil]

I thought it was 30,000, or was it 33,000. Oh well, that same methodoloy says there are 240 some odd Catholic Churches.

By what authority can one patriarch claim his view of the context of Matthew 16 is correct, while all the others are wrong?

Properly understood, SS does not reject ST, but instead holds it accountable to scripture.

There isn’t a uniform understanding of these outside of SS, either. Orthodox reject the term Transubstantiation, they apply Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist at the same time as Baptism. Orthodoxy does not practice the Sacrament under one kind.

Jon

The Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation, yes, but you see, Transubstantiation is how the change occurs, understood as far as our finite human reasoning allows us to – that the change occurs is understood to be the case in all of the ancient Apostolic churches, whether they’re in communion with Rome or not. And the change does indeed occur in their Divine Liturgies, as their sacraments are valid.

 

[shockerfan]

I thought it was 30,000, or was it 33,000. Oh well, that same methodoloy says there are 240 some odd Catholic Churches.

There is only one Roman Catholic Church headed by the holder of the “keys”

By what authority can one patriarch claim his view of the context of Matthew 16 is correct, while all the others are wrong?

see the holder of the “keys”

Properly understood, SS does not reject ST, but instead holds it accountable to scripture.

I have been trying to ensure I properly understand it…reading definitions from Norman Geisler or James R. White to name two, but their definitions are problematic on a number of points. What is your specific definition so I can better understand your perspective?

As a Catholic, I would say that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition “flow from the same divine well spring” and are never in conflict.

There isn’t a uniform understanding of these outside of SS, either. Orthodox reject the term Transubstantiation, they apply Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist at the same time as Baptism. Orthodoxy does not practice the Sacrament under one kind.

Again, thus the need to appeal to the holder of the “keys”

Side note: I have enjoyed this spirited debate. Blessings to you and your family on this Easter weekend.

 

[Goya]

Where in Scripture does it say “there is no higher authority than Scripture”?

Also, in Acts 15, when Peter delivered the first judgment of the Church (regarding circumcision), was it authoritative and binding on all Christians? Was it binding when Peter said it, or was it binding later when it was written down and determined to be God breathed?

Before there was a Bible, what was binding on Christians? Answer: the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ as handed on by word of mouth.

And again…nobody is arguing otherwise

 

[guanophore]

Where in Scripture does it say “there is no higher authority than Scripture”?

She did not claim this, she said this is her “point”.

Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, but the index of books that belongs in the Bible is in scripture either.

Also, in Acts 15, when Peter delivered the first judgment of the Church (regarding circumcision), was it authoritative and binding on all Christians? Was it binding when Peter said it, or was it binding later when it was written down and determined to be God breathed?

Good question shockerfan!

This Council is a good model for how Jesus intended the authority of the Church to function:

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” Acts 15:28

When this model is attempted using Scripture without the authority in the Church appointed by Christ it becomes “it seemed right from my interpretation of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures…” and it causes great fragmentation in the Body.

Before there was a Bible, what was binding on Christians? Answer: the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ as handed on by word of mouth.

Indeed, and Jesus explained “everything” to His apostles, who committed it to faithful men, who could teach others also.

Separating the New Testament from the One Faith that created it causes no end of problems.

 

[guanophore]

I have been trying to ensure I properly understand it…reading definitions from Norman Geisler or James R. White to name two, but their definitions are problematic on a number of points. What is your specific definition so I can better understand your perspective?

I was introduced to SS by Norman Geisler also, and it was taught to me as a “doctrine”, though the more modern conception is that it is a “practice”.

I think you will find that JonNC has a much more Catholic perspective on many things than most Protestants. He is able to accept that God guided the Church to choose the canon, which many Protestants cannot. He also, following Luther, accepts the creeds and early councils, and a role for Sacred Tradition as reflected in these, as well as in the Liturgy. I think he is actually in the minority of Lutherans nowadays, many of whom have abandoned the foundations of the faith as described in the Augsburg Confession.

 

[JonNC]

The Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation, yes, but you see, Transubstantiation is how the change occurs, understood as far as our finite human reasoning allows us to – that the change occurs is understood to be the case in all of the ancient Apostolic churches, whether they’re in communion with Rome or not. And the change does indeed occur in their Divine Liturgies, as their sacraments are valid.

I generally agree with all of this, even to say that Transubstaniation is a reasonable human expression of how it is possible for us to receive His body and blood, but wasn’t the point. The point is EO and CC, using scripture and tradition disagree.

Jon