Sola Scriptura: Justification?

[Jehoshua]

After a certain discussion i had with a baptist pastor today i’d like to pose this three-part question to protestants.

---

How do you justify sola scriptura in the face of history? Firstly the apostles had no New testament and so how would their authority to teach (magisterium) be justified with Sola scriptura.

Secondly it is a known fact that the Catholic Curch (which included the orthodox at the time) chose which books were to be included into the bible through its episcopal authority (Magisterium) and through widespread popular acknowledgement over time (tradition) of certain books. Therefore if Sola Scriptura were true id be assuming that every gospel on christ would be used, such as the gospel of judas or the secret gospel of matthew. So how is this historical development of the bible post-apostles justified in protestantism?

Thirdly how do you considering the late 15th century origin of protestantism justify Sola Scriptura considering the universal acceptance of the magisterium/tradition/scripture formula by ancient christianity (Catholic Church/Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox) and the fact that it arose as a personal opinion, innovation, on Luther’s part. Therefore making it clearly non-consistent with all prior christian teaching before and therefore early christianity?

---

I would honestly like to know how these things are justified in protestantism, I also sincerely hope that this discussion thread doesn;t devolve to a vulgar brawl. I look forward to your responses and the responses of catholics in reply to those also.

 

[Reuben_J]

Doctrinal wise some of the most virulent attacks that I see against Catholicism come from Baptists. Again, there are different categories of them, and I have personal friends who are Baptists so I want to be careful here not to generalize, meaning some of them don’t.

Personally I don’t see any justification whatsoever for Sola Scriptura or Bible Alone. It is not Biblical. They have lost their root in Christianity which is very sad indeed because that’s mean they are unable to really appreciate Christianity through the eyes of the apostles.

From a Catholic perspective, I usually got the impression that Sola Scriptura takes on that doctrine because that would be the easiest way to discard traditions. Not because traditions are wrong but because, well, they are (always associated with) Catholics.

 

[TriuneUnity]

After a certain discussion i had with a baptist pastor today i’d like to pose this three-part question to protestants.

---

How do you justify sola scriptura in the face of history? Firstly the apostles had no New testament and so how would their authority to teach (magisterium) be justified with Sola scriptura.

First, I have to ask how you are defining sola scriptura. It will impact both any answers that you get, as well as whether the answer is satisfactory for you, the asker. I will take a stab at it, but remember that our understanding of sola scriptura may not be the same as what is promoted in many evangelical circles, that being solo scriptura.

The Apostles did not need a New Testament in order to teach. They were receiving direct revelation from the Lord Christ. The doctrine of sola scriptura only applies to the post apostolic church. Why? Because it was after the Apostles were no longer on earth that direct revelation stopped. Once the direct revelation ceased, the Church began to use that revelation which she inherited, the Holy Scriptures.

Though it is important to note that the Apostles, especially when evangelizing the Jews, did not just say “Our teaching is true because we’re Apostles.” The NT contains hundreds of Old Testament citations for a reason. Even Jesus pointed to the authority and inspiration of the OT to attest to His ministry.

Secondly it is a known fact that the Catholic Curch (which included the orthodox at the time) chose which books were to be included into the bible through its episcopal authority (Magisterium) and through widespread popular acknowledgement over time (tradition) of certain books. Therefore if Sola Scriptura were true id be assuming that every gospel on christ would be used, such as the gospel of judas or the secret gospel of matthew. So how is this historical development of the bible post-apostles justified in protestantism?

Thirdly how do you considering the late 15th century origin of protestantism justify Sola Scriptura considering the universal acceptance of the magisterium/tradition/scripture formula by ancient christianity (Catholic Church/Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox) and the fact that it arose as a personal opinion, innovation, on Luther’s part. Therefore making it clearly non-consistent with all prior christian teaching before and therefore early christianity?

I would refer you to this thread, where those particular issues have been discussed at length.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=453333

 

[Jehoshua]

Thankyou TriuneUnity for your perspective and the link to the to the thread.

Id have to say thoug that from my interpretation of what this baptist pastor said gave me the impression that if its not justified in scripture its not christian. Fortunately he’s not one of those offensive types but of course i would like to further understand the protestant, particularly the baptist view in this area.

in regards to your answer to my first point, the canon of the bible wasn;t established at the death of the last apostle so if sola scriptura takes over from direct revelation immediately after the final apostles death how do you justify that. Considering the fact that the canon of the new testament was only clarified much later, even into the 2nd millenium AD. This fits in with my second point but its neccessary as a clarification.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thankyou TriuneUnity for your perspective and the link to the to the thread.

Id have to say thoug that from my interpretation of what this baptist pastor said gave me the impression that if its not justified in scripture its not christian. Fortunately he’s not one of those offensive types but of course i would like to further understand the protestant, particularly the baptist view in this area.

This would not be the classical Protestant view. The classical Protestant view is that Scripture is the only infallible authority in the possession of the Church. It is not, though, the only authority. It must be interpreted according to the rule of faith (the creeds), and the confessions of faith serve as uninspired authority which is derivative of Scripture.

in regards to your answer to my first point, the canon of the bible wasn;t established at the death of the last apostle so if sola scriptura takes over from direct revelation immediately after the final apostles death how do you justify that. Considering the fact that the canon of the new testament was only clarified much later, even into the 2nd millenium AD. This fits in with my second point but its neccessary as a clarification.

The New Testament did not become inspired at the time it was canonized. The Scriptures were in the possession of the church from the time they were written. 95% of the NT was recognized as Scripture close to 100 years before any councils met to discuss the canon. Also, the church always possessed the OT.

 

[Jehoshua]

In regards to yor second point, of course the church was always in possession of the books, but it was also in posession of a myriad of other text’s which were also used to teach. Such as the Gospel of Judas and so on, what the church did was clarify which of those scriptures were indeed inspired and which were not.

From my thinking then, if sola scriptura is true and then in the post-apostolic age then those books should also be used because they were used in teaching as equal to the other books before the canon was established by the Catholic Church through the agents of the Magisterium and Sacred tradition. The fact that they aren;t suggest a non-scriptural agent to determine what is inspired which would be tradition and the magisterium was consdered as a universal authority in the early church.

Of course the old testament was already acquired though i note that the Jew’s have a differing set of books then christians as they had not clarified their canon till later as well.

---

Back to the first point, he didn’t actually portray his view particularly well as it wasn;t a direct question of me asking him about Sola Scriptura, more of the impression i got from his words regarding the bible.

 

[TriuneUnity]

In regards to yor second point, of course the church was always in possession of the books, but it was also in posession of a myriad of other text’s which were also used to teach. Such as the Gospel of Judas and so on, what the church did was clarify which of those scriptures were indeed inspired and which were not.

That just isn’t true, Jeho. The spurious books like the Gospel of Judas were and the other Gnostic texts, were almost unanimously condemned. Irenaeus talks about these books in 200 A.D., which was 200 years before the councils which canonized the texts met, and says they are worthless heresies. There is the perennial myth that the church sat down and voted on which books to include and which to throw out. This just didn’t happen.

From my thinking then, if sola scriptura is true and then in the post-apostolic age then those books should also be used because they were used in teaching as equal to the other books before the canon was established by the Catholic Church through the agents of the Magisterium and Sacred tradition. The fact that they aren;t suggest a non-scriptural agent to determine what is inspired which would be tradition and the magisterium was consdered as a universal authority in the early church.

No, they weren’t. Can you demonstrate that any major church writing prior to the canon being fixed accepted the Gnostic gospels as inspired? The only books that were ever considered some what legitimate as Scriptural were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians… that’s it.

 

[ajcstr]

Can you demonstrate that any major church writing prior to the canon being fixed accepted the Gnostic gospels as inspired? The only books that were ever considered some what legitimate as Scriptural were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians… that’s it.

But I also believe that there were detractors for James and Revelation in the early church so these books were not always agreed upon either. Point being, a definitive list was needed.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But I also believe that there were detractors for James and Revelation in the early church so these books were not always agreed upon either. Point being, a definitive list was needed.

Yes, it was, due to the influence of heretics like Marcion. Despite the fact that some theologians rejected a few books here and there, 95% of the NT books were accepted by the vast majority of the Church by the year 200. Athanasius listed all 27 books in his festal letter 30 years before either council was called. Add to this the fact that neither council that met in 393 and 397 were definitive councils, they were local synods.

 

[Jehoshua]

As to your response about the books rejected by the church, i of course used the mst spurious examples, however there were many books that were not gnostic that were in popular use in large parts of the church that are not in the current canon.

To this day even some churches of the oriental orthodox communion use or don;t use certain books that the rest of christianity rejects or includes. The peshitta doesn;t include the book of revelation and the ethiopian orthodox include the books of enoch and others.These churches of course departed early in the churches history from the Catholic Church which of course at the time included Eastern Orthodoxy.

Does this not show that if there was no magisterium to implicitly select books that were inspired we would have a whole bunch of books used in different areas of the church as we have in oriental orthodoxy were the churches were largely seperated from eachover by distance and politics, even more so after the islamic invasions.

To me this phenomenon in oriental orthodoxy, and the fact that it is known that several councils convened and discussed the canon (the council of trent discussed the last few doubts on certain books) and that it is known that several books were in popular use that arent in the current scripture anywhere and in fact were destroyed by the church in some instances due to continued use after being determined as non-inspired. (i recall that last point having occured in Egypt although I can;t recall the details as of writing).

This clearly shows that many books were in widespread usage and that if sola scriptura were practiced in the early church we would using a whole bunch of books that we aren;t using now. Maybe not the gnostic ones, but definitely books such as the books you mentioned and some of the books used by certain particular churches of the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

 

[ajcstr]

The only books that were ever considered some what legitimate as Scriptural were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians… that’s it.

And they are now not in the New Testament because?

To me, this is an example of the need for an authoritative body, how may different Bible versions would there be if not? At some point a decision had to be made, and the decision was made based on which writings squared with the oral tradition that had been handed down so that the Bible flowed FROM that tradition.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And they are now not in the New Testament because?

To me, this is an example of the need for an authoritative body, how may different Bible versions would there be if not? At some point a decision had to be made, and the decision was made based on which writings squared with the oral tradition that had been handed down so that the Bible flowed FROM that tradition.

The only problem with this view, aj, as it relates to the books of the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, is that they both fell out of use as revealed Scriptures long before the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Hippo and Carthage were addressing the issues caused by Marcion’s editing of the Old and New Testaments. Those councils met to address that particular problem, they did not meet to have a list of books in front of them and vote on which ones to include and which ones not to include. The NT, as we have it today, was in use by the entire church decades before Hippo and Carthage. If Marcion hadn’t done what he did do, those councils may never have met.

In addition, Hippo and Carthage were regional synods that did not have any authority outside of their locality. By the standards of Roman Catholic theology, these were not infallible councils and, therefore, did not have that charism. So by Rome’s own standards, they would not have added any infallible surety to our knowledge of the canon.

 

[ajcstr]

In addition, Hippo and Carthage were regional synods that did not have any authority outside of their locality. By the standards of Roman Catholic theology, these were not infallible councils and, therefore, did not have that charism. So by Rome’s own standards, they would not have added any infallible surety to our knowledge of the canon.

But we are talking about Catholic bishops ordained via apostolic succession AND lets not forget about 7 books that were part of this canon from the get go that are still in my bible (and not sitting at the kids table either).

 

[TriuneUnity]

But we are talking about Catholic bishops ordained via apostolic succession AND lets not forget about 7 books that were part of this canon from the get go that are still in my bible (and not sitting at the kids table either).

This is outside the issue of the deuterocanonicals. The canon was already functioning as Scripture hundreds of years before any council met to discuss the matter.

 

[ajcstr]

The canon was already functioning as Scripture hundreds of years before any council met to discuss the matter.

Ok, I don’t know if I would agree with the hundreds of years, but why do you think this would be the case? - What in your opinion identified these 27 letters/gospels as true Scripture?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok, I don’t know if I would agree with the hundreds of years, but why do you think this would be the case? What in your opinion made a letter or gospel true scripture?

The criterion that was used was textual criticism. I believe primarily they used whether the letter agreed with the corpus of the writings and whether the writing could be traced to someone within the apostolic circle. Athanasius, for example, rejected the Shepherd of Hermas because, although it was widely used, it did not have adequate evidence of apostolic origin and did not bear the marks of belonging to the circle of the apostles themselves.

As to the timeframe, Tertullian was already quoting from twenty-three of the twenty-seven NT books by the late second and early third centuries, which would have been 200 years prior to the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The wide use of these books (as well as the Old Testament) by the ancient Christian writers to judge all views and controversies testifies to the fact that they were already functioning as Scripture long before they were officially listed in a canon. In 367, Athanasius drew up the first list of all twenty-seven books, even identifying it as a canon, and maintained that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us.”

 

[ajcstr]

The “they” is who I am after.

Athanasius was a Catholic bishop and I believe he left out the deuteros (not sure of this). Pope Damasus weighed in a few years later in 383 and his list is the same as we have today. I think this is accurate (LOL - I am leaning as I go along here). If it is then the Pope’s list is actually the first record of the full Canon (old and new)?

It was this list that was confirmed at Hippo and Carthage.

And in the first 2 centuries, who would have possesed these documents? Wouldn’t it have been the Church?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The “they” is who I am after.

Athanasius was a Catholic bishop and I believe he left out the deuteros (not sure of this). Pope Damasus weighed in a few years later in 383 and his list is the same as we have today. I think this is accurate (LOL - I am leaning as I go along here). If it is then the Pope’s list is actually the first record of the full Canon (old and new)?

It was this list that was confirmed at Hippo and Carthage.

And in the first 2 centuries, who would have possesed these documents? Wouldn’t it have been the Church?

You’re right, Athanasius did not list the DC books in the OT. The Council of Rome in 383 did include the DC’s. However, the Council of Rome was not an ecumenical council, either. The “they” would be any church that read and preached the Scriptures on a weekly basis. Of course, only the Church possessed those documents. Our contention, however, is not the Church didn’t possess them, but that the authority of the Scriptures is not tied in to the authority of the Church since only God can determine whether a book is inspired or not, since He does the inspiration. There is a difference between creating the canon (the work of God) and recognizing the canon (the work of the Church).

 

[ajcstr]

only God can determine whether a book is inspired or not, since He does the inspiration.

But doesn’t that have to be revealed to someone? somehow?

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

Our basic difference is that I would say this was revealed to the Church, through the Pope maybe, you would say the Holy Spirit reveals this to all believers ( I hope I am not putting words in your mouth but I’m sure you will set me straight if I am). But carrying this one step farther, if there is no single authority, what do we get? Very, very pious and well intentioned people have come up with very different answers.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But doesn’t that have to be revealed to someone? somehow?

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

Our basic difference is that I would say this was revealed to the Church, through the Pope maybe, you would say the Holy Spirit reveals this to all believers ( I hope I am not putting words in your mouth but I’m sure you will set me straight if I am). But carrying this one step farther, if there is no single authority, what do we get? Very, very pious and well intentioned people have come up with very different answers.

Well, it doesn’t have to be revealed per se, because the Scriptures themselves are the revelation. It doesn’t require an authority to place the Scriptures in the hands of the Church beyond the authority of God Himself. Our knowledge of the canon is based on the providential workings of God insuring that the Church would recognize the voice of its Shepherd in the Scriptures. Since it was God’s intention in inspiring the sacred writers that the inspired text be received, our confidence that we have that which God inspired is based on God Himself. The Church assists us in recognizing them, and no doubt, God used the Church in recognizing them. This recognition is entirely passive, however.