Don’t be silly. It only become’s tradition if you can get any two people to agree on it for 5 minutes or longer. Really though you’re characterization doesn’t accurately reflect the thought process. Let me help. If you want to answer a heresy its best to answer the actual heresy in question instead of a straw man. I don’t have much respect for self ingratiating arguments. A well educated protestant would roll their eyes and ignore anything else you have to say–where’s the good in that?I say sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
They take the Bible. That’s scripture.
Then they read it and interpret it to mean something. That’s their tradition.
Then they declare that interpretation is correct and binding on themselves - magisterium.
Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium - that’s the Catholic way, not sola scriptura.
So Jesus hung His Church out to dry, basically?Don’t be silly. It only become’s tradition if you can get any two people to agree on it for 5 minutes or longer. Really though you’re characterization doesn’t accurately reflect the thought process. Let me help. If you want to answer a heresy its best to answer the actual heresy in question instead of a straw man. I don’t have much respect for self ingratiating arguments. A well educated protestant would roll their eyes and ignore anything else you have to say–where’s the good in that?
As an evangelical, I learned that the New Testament was written by the apostles and their co-laborers such as Luke and Mark.
These writings were considered scripture immediately and preserved by the recipients.
Later they were collected and RECOGNIZED as canon by people who had a connection through tradition/succession to the original authorship. That does not mean infallible succession. There is a long way between ‘reliable’ and ‘inspired’, if you know what i mean.
Meanwhile, although the authorship and recognition of scripture had stayed intact, interpretation of it degraded. We have examples of this today. Consider this, The US constitution, slightly younger than the New Testament writings were at canonization, has been very accurately preserved and distributed throughout the United States. You can get transcripts of it anywhere that are 100% faithful to the original. However, Lawyers debate wildly differing views about its binding principles in law–not only because they are trying to win for their side, but because they sincerely disagree. Its not hard to see how 300 a. d. the church leadership agreed on scripture but was losing its understanding of it–unless tradition was ACTUALLY preserved.
The new testament is the earliest written record of the apostles tradition therefor the most accurate resource on what they thought and what their tradition was. In spite of the thick theological and practical content, there is a lot of tradition in Catholicism that has no explicit description in the new testament. So, rationally, evangelicals choose to defer to the earlier resource.
Sola Scriptura is in contrast not to the notion that God continues to guide his church but in contrast to the notion that anyone since the New Testament authors have had binding authority to deliver new revelation. Revelation of the new testament books was not new at the time of canonization. The command to Peter, 'whatever you bind on earth…" applies to the apostles only in the mind of the evangelical and not to anyone after them. Of course that is an interpretation of both scripture and history. History because of the many errors made by well meaning and supposedly Godly men since the first century. ‘Sola’ doesn’t mean ‘Only’ in the context of this debate anymore than ‘anything’ as in, “God can do anything.” God can’t do evil, and “Sola Scriptura” is a doctrine based on an interpretation of reason applied to history and scripture. If you want to prove that it is false, deal with the actual evidence and logic of the doctrine, not a straw man. This post reminds me of all the times I’ve heard protestants say Catholics worship saints–REALLY!!!
So Jesus hung His Church out to dry, basically?
History disagrees with you.
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).*
History disagrees with THEM. I reject sola scriptura. I posted that argument as a transparent devil’s advocacy because I want to encourage y’all to deal with the doctrine as it is. If you object, “so Jesus hung the church out to dry?” You are going to get references to the leadership of the Holy Spirit which are plentiful in the New Testament. There are two sides to an effective strategy. Defense and offense. Defense, you show the opponents fallacy on the merits of reason, second, you offer a better theory supported by reason.
I haven’t read all the links yet. It may be it’s covered well there. Bobcatholics post which I quoted earlier had a certain “drive by meme” quality to it. That is what I objected to.
So Jesus hung His Church out to dry, basically?
History disagrees with you.
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).*
Those dates all seem mighty late to me. Think of how much modern opinion has evolved in 200 years. I am not saying your conclusion is wrong, but your evidence doesn’t prove your point without some explanation. How do you cover the 200 year gap? You have to treat tradition as something to be proved, not something that is assumed. I would start with scripture and show first that scripture does not endorse sola scriptura, and second, that it denies it. Remember, the inspiration of 66 books is common ground. That is where you start.
Sola scriptura comes from Luther’s 95 theses. What gives!I totally agree with the premise that sola scriptura is not biblical in any instance, and this is coming from a Protestant.
This, in my opinion, is where there might be some misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholics. The mainline Protestant Churches do not teach sola scriptura. Now, I know many Catholics would disagree with me here and possibly the non-mainline Protestants believe in sola scriptura, but the confession I belong to, does not.
I belong to the Lutheran Confession of faith. We use the scripture as our source and norm for faith and everyday life, but we do not believe in Sola Scriptura. We are constantly referring back to the great writers, mothers, fathers and doctors of the Church. We study the works of Augustine, The little flower, Martin Luther and others who have witnessed the faith and taught the faith in their writings based on sacred scripture and the Apostles and early saints.
One common source with two distinct modes of transmission (scripture and the Apostles) is common, at least in the main Lutheran confessions of the faith. Now, some Protestants believe in a dual source, one from scripture and another from the Apostles, but this is indeed un-biblical. The Apostles cannot, would not, and did not preach anything other than what was taught to them by Our Lord. The Apostles taught the true word, because they lived with , spoke with and worshipped the true word, that is Jesus, who came down from Heaven and lived among men.
So, I definitely agree with the Catholics on this forum about Sola Scriptura!
I have been to thousands of sermons and two masses. The litergy had more scripture than the sermons.To me it seems the bible is irrelevant to the Catholic faith in as much as the catechism of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith not the bible. According to you the bible didn’t exist until 400 years after Jesus. So there were no NT scriptures to play a role in the foundation of the church. How could there be. Though I believe there certainly was NT scriptures at that time.
As a former cradle Catholic we were never encouraged to read or study the bible “that was a Protestant thing” it was always the catechism as the rule of faith. Sure there were bible verses smattered around here and there but never the central focus of the faith in a doctrinal matter. You just focused on the CCC.
The real problem I see is when Catholics read the bible and have questions on church teaching and scripture. They inquire with their priest and are dismissed and referred back to the CCC with no real answer.
Incidentally the ECF’s are used to support church teaching and are authoritative as much as they agree with church doctrine. Is that not cherry picking in its purest form?
Personally I don’t see it as a power issue at all. It is the liberty to live out your faith in Christ as Paul laid out in Galatians 5.
Yes we certainly have differing opinions based on what we value as the real authority for truth and faith for the life of the believer.
Really? And it is not a later development?Sola scriptura comes from Luther’s 95 theses. What gives!
The scripture has examples of the apostles quoting each other as scripture. Scripture was recognized as such by the church before the ink was dry because of the authority of its authors.There is at the very least one reason as to why sola scriptura does not work is just look at the Apostles and the very early Churches. The Apostles at first did not write but taught orally. When St. Paul wrote to the various Churches, St. Paul in no way shape or form ever thought that what he wrote was inspired or scared Scripture. Those Apostles who did write did not in any way ever thought what they wrote was inspired or scared Scripture, but what they saw, heard and was taught by Christ.
It was over time, as the Churches used what had been written by Apostles and St. Paul, to teach the faith of Christ who Christ was and what He did and what He taught and what people needed to do in order that they might be saved, that the Church came to realize that those writings were inspired. By the third century the Church seeing all of the writings being used in the various Churches that some were indeed inspired while other were not and were instead either added nothing to the deposit of faith or were contrary to what the faith was and is.
While it is true that most Jewish males could read they did not write except for the scribes who were trained to write whereas most people at the time were not. Most of the known world; Roman Empire most people did not know how to read or write so the few who did read the Gospels and Epistles. So how could people who could neither read or write use sola scriptura as their only rule of faith? They didn’t, instead they replied on the Church to read and say what the NT writings said and meant.
It was only during the time of Martin Lurther, that sola scriptura came into being yet, most people at that time could neither read or write except for the educated; most people were not able to receive any education or learned to read or write. Sola scriptura suggests that one can read Scripture and determine and decide for themselves what it says and means without any other authority other than their own. Since the 1500’s sola scriptura has only cause misunderstandings, misuse of Scripture and errors in understandings by personal interpretations by cherry picking and choosing whatever verse comes closest to whatever thought,notion, and idea that they have which my not even have anything to do with what was written and what was meant since by and large it was taken out of context. Scriptura never was intended to be the sole source and authority whereby each and every individual becomes the deciding authority.
The Holy Spirit can not be the author of chaos nor of conflicting truths as truth is truth and never changes it meaning. One can certainly make the claim that one is being guided by the Holy Spirit, but if several people each make that claim and each has read the same verse or verses and each has a different interpretation all can’t be correct as in the end neither can really claim t be guided by the Holy Spirit and be correct someone or someone’s are going to be incorrect. That’s all there is to it which is why sola scriptura never works.
Um, no.The scripture has examples of the apostles quoting each other as scripture. Scripture was recognized as such by the church before the ink was dry because of the authority of its authors.
I was writing a little impromptu. It isnt in the 95 theses after all. It was in the diet of worms though. I suppose it may have been a year or two later that Luther first articulated that position, but the whole logic of the reformation is to go over the popes head and appeal to scripture as a higher authority. Without that axiom, there is not philosophical ground for the reformation to justify the political dimension. Here is an apology Via Dr RC Sproul, a Reformed theologian who is highly respected among them discussing the importance of Sola Scriptura. He is on the wrong side of the debate, but he does trace the history of the proposition with primary resources.Really? And it is not a later development?
Can you provide Luther’s description of SS from the 95 Theses? (Or from any of Luther’s writings for that matter)
here ya go.Um, no.
I would like you to know Mammoths that I am a Catholic very well versed in the Catholic faith and I am also a Discalced Carmelite Secular and so I take unbridge of your remarks concerning my post. If you don’t like it or agree that’s fine but besmarging me is not!The scripture has examples of the apostles quoting each other as scripture. Scripture was recognized as such by the church before the ink was dry because of the authority of its authors.
I meant no besmirch, you clearly know much more than I do. We concur that there were spurious "scriptures’ floating around and this necessitated the magisterium coming together and creating a standard–the canonical new testament. We are on the same side here.I would like you to know Mammoths that I am a Catholic very well versed in the Catholic faith and I am also a Discalced Carmelite Secular and so I take unbridge of your remarks concerning my post. If you don’t like it or agree that’s fine but besmarging me is not!
The 4 Gospels were recognized before the 1st century was over. In 381 the Church decided which writings were Scripture;NT and what was not. They also decided what OT Scripture was inspired and what was not. Up till that time there were plenty of writings being used and not all of them were inspired but more or less Gnostic in nature. I study also Catholic Church teachings as well as Catholic Church history. I may not know all there is to know and still learn but I base my remarks upon firm Catholic ground.
Hi Mammoths, I understand now where you re coming from. Its not I think I know a lot but more like most people have learned a lot but still need to learn. That being said I do tend to think that since from all accounts Paul started writing first d then some of the Apostles then wrote; there is still debate as to whether or not Peter actually wrote the two Epistles attributed to him. I also like to think that most of the NT was written much earlier than has been thought. Yes Luke did not say anything more about Paul after his arrest and transfer to Rome. Also from what research I have done it appears that there were many writings said to be Paul’s that were not just as they were for many of the Gospels that were in fact Gnostic in nature and also some that were just fiction accounts of the Apostles due to people wanting to know more about the Apostles.I meant no besmirch, you clearly know much more than I do. We concur that there were spurious "scriptures’ floating around and this necessitated the magisterium coming together and creating a standard–the canonical new testament. We are on the same side here.
Did you see the scripture reference I posted? Its clear that Peter himself considers Paul’s writings scripture at the time Peter wrote. This must be very early since Luke makes no mention of Paul’s beheading or of the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70AD. At the latest, the first pope calls Paul’s writing scripture in the middle of the first century. Also, Paul refers to St Luke with a direct quote calling it scripture. That puts the gospel according to Luke within one or two decades of the resurrection. I don’t disagree that the catholic church formally defined the cannon in 381. My point is that the canon was formally defined on the basis of a tradition that already existed. They didn’t create scripture or choose arbitrarily the books of the new testament. So the point is that the scriptures document how early the establishment of Christian doctrine, and the gospel history including the resurrection. Often times the differences between composition, general recognition, and canonization get conflated. I cannot count how many times I meet people who erroneously claim Constantine wrote the bible in the 4th century so he could use Christianity for power. The scriptures were inspired by God. They were initially received and generally recognized by the church, and later collected and formally defined in the canon of the new testament with the magesterium discerning between spurious and genuine scriptures using tradition as evidence.
I have rejected Sola Scriptura for many of the reasons you and other’s cite here. That’s why I am seriously considering Catholicism and if I do become confirmed it will cost me dearly. All that having been said, I also find from experience with other evangelicals and protestants that Sola Scriptura lends itself to a very high degree of bible literacy among the devout. Therefore, those of us who wish to wrestle against this principality do well to be informed in scripture. I believe the best evidence against Sola Scriptura for the person caught in it is the bible itself. Obviously there is much more for anyone who is on the fence, but for the person caught in it, there is nothing more frustrating than to be faced with a self refuting belief.
as far as how to interpret scripture, we have to interpret with humility accepting the guidance of authoritative teachers. Countless times i have seen people project meanings on scripture that just aren’t there because of their cultural lens. Also tradition sheds light on some esoteric meanings that would be difficult to come by on one’s own.Hi Mammoths, I understand now where you re coming from. Its not I think I know a lot but more like most people have learned a lot but still need to learn. That being said I do tend to think that since from all accounts Paul started writing first d then some of the Apostles then wrote; there is still debate as to whether or not Peter actually wrote the two Epistles attributed to him. I also like to think that most of the NT was written much earlier than has been thought. Yes Luke did not say anything more about Paul after his arrest and transfer to Rome. Also from what research I have done it appears that there were many writings said to be Paul’s that were not just as they were for many of the Gospels that were in fact Gnostic in nature and also some that were just fiction accounts of the Apostles due to people wanting to know more about the Apostles.
Its true the four Gospels were accepted by the end o the first century and possibly even before that time. But i think it important to understand that the Apostles who did write and Paul for that matter did not think that they wrings were inspired Scripture at the time they wrote. I think in Peter’s writings referring to Paul’s writings that his writings were being distorted just as people were doing with Scriptures, referring to the OT writings. But that is just my personal opinion on that. When the canon was fix it was after a hard fight as to which books were indeed inspired and Scripture; some were easy while others were debated for a long while before they were finely accepted. Now there is nothing wrong in reading Scripture as individuals and its good that we do. The question becomes one when one takes whatever they read in Scripture and decided as to what it says and means and tell others there interpretations is the only correct one. That is the real problem with sola scriptura. Thanks for making it more clearer as to what you were saying. I apologize if I was out of hand with my retort!
PS, I understand you are considering becoming Catholic and I wish you all the lessing and in no way do I want you to think what you have said is wrong but I admire people like you who consider seriously and take time to try and understand what the Catholic faith is about!