Sola Scriptura quesiton

[bogeydogg]

It would be reassuring to have the original words from which today’s Scripture have arisen. Much of Scripture is based on oral tradition or appears in today’s Bible after several generations of scribes and story tellers have had a chance to monkey with it. Today’s Scripture cannot be regarded as infallible the same way that neither the Pope nor the Magisterium nor Tradition can be regarded as infallible. After centuries of research on Biblical text, new conclusions have arisen that were not available to Luther. He had to regard something as infallible, and Scripture seemed to him more infallible than anything being taught by the Catholic Church.

This is a matter of confession, you either accept the Bible as true or you do not. I am fully aware of the Bible as literature and that the Old Testament is compiled of certain oral and written traditions, but the Israelites had writing. It was not all oral tradition. It wasn’t handed down word of mouth until the return of Judah in the 7th Century BC. The Gezer Calendar dates back to around 1000BC and so it is not unreasonable to think that, while writing may have been rare, that a written record could have existed is not beyond the realm of possibility at all.

After all no one doubts Socrates existed and yet there is not one single writing of his extant. Not one. So why do we believe in Socrates? Because those who were around at the time of his life told us he existed, and in this we have a plain example of a very important rule historical study. Sources closest to the immediate events do carry a great deal of historical weight. We must believe the things told us about George Washington and Lincoln from their contemporaries otherwise we would have no evidence to believe these men existed at all. And those contemporaries hand us down a historical record which we study and learn from.

And there is not one jot of evidence that this is not what happened with the Bible except that a bunch of 19th century Hegelian evolutionary historians decided that there was no such thing as a miracle and concluded from their presumption that therefore the Bible was not a good historical source since it told us that miracles had occurred. In spite of this circular reasoning they then went on to explain that there could be no Moses, there was no Abraham, no Jonah, no Israelite taking of Canaan, no Exodus, etc, etc and so threw out the entire historical record of a people that had preserved it for 3000 years. The Jesus Seminar is really nothing but an extension of this.

And in spite of the 20th Century work done by historians that show more and more the Biblical Record has merit and that the JDPE school of higher criticism has fallen out of favor because of its many, many problems, there are still folks in “churches” that like to play fast and loose with the Biblical and say, “Well it couldn’t have happened this way” based on nothing more than the presumption that it couldn’t have happened this way.

Consider me unimpressed.

C S Lewis once pointed out that the critique of the Virgin Birth generally begins with the assumption that folks back then could be duped into believing that a virgin birth could happen because they did not have our modern scientific understanding of how life begins. He called this “chronological snobbery” and said the Scripture makes it quite plain people knew perfectly well where babies come from and what causes them. Other wise how could you explain Joseph decided to put Mary away before the angelic visitation and the Pharisees questioning Jesus’ parentage? He points out this is ridiculous and we should stop assuming that just because we are “enlightened” does not mean that folks back then wouldn’t know a miracle if they saw one and would not be able to distinguish it from a hoax.

Well I’ve gone on much longer than I meant to, but I hope I have made the point. To stand here in the 20th Century and say you know things that Martin Luther could not possibly have known about the Bible invites, no begs, the question of how well do you know the Bible? Remember Luther had very old copies of the Greek (that is why he questioned the Vulgate) and he read Greek and Hebrew and was quite well schooled in logic and textual critique and still believed the Bible’s witness. So why should I accept the word of someone that begins from a position of unbelief as being more scientific than Luther’s?

God Bless

 

[John_Jerpe]

Are you referring to Deism?

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism. Deism does not ascribe any specific qualities to a deity beyond non-intervention. Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a higher power, using only natural processes. Deism may also include a spiritual element, involving experiences of God and nature

 

[John_Jerpe]

I guess it sounds like I’m referring to deism. I know a man who belongs to the Unitarian Church and your description of deism sounds like him. He walks around with business cards and recruits members. I’ve noticed that the people he recruits are typically people that are disillusioned with life and not very informed. I call them his “victims”. It amazes me how many people claim to be infinitely open-minded when in reality, they stand for absolutely nothing, and don’t even realize it. What do you now about the Unitarian Church?

 

[nmgauss]

donmburrows.com/2013/05/the-bible-and-its-forgeries.html

"Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about Greek and Roman antiquity knows that literary forgeries and literary deceptions were commonplace. The only reason this is a debate in the New Testament is because a good number of people are invested in a view of “Biblical authority,” which they define to mean that every piece of every verse of the Bible is 100 percent true and factual, no matter the tensions, problems, and ambiguities that any honest reading of the texts lays bare.

"Those who argue against calling these works forgeries are thus backed into more and more specious hypotheses to resist it, but are also met with a reality too big to ignore in light of the textual discoveries over the past century. None of these Bible-authority ideologues would suggest that the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Peter or any of the other so-called apocryphal works out there are, in fact, apostolic. They would agree they are forgeries written in these apostles’ names

"But whatever one decides to do with the Pastorals (Timothy 1, Timothy 2, and Titus), the vast majority of scholars agree they were written by someone who went out of his way to pretend that he was Paul, putting on an act that is a literary fiction at best, an outright deception at worst. So asserting that the Bible is true because this forger asserts that it’s true (leaving aside the problem of what he considered “scripture”) should disqualify someone from serious conversation

 

[bogeydogg]

donmburrows.com/2013/05/the-bible-and-its-forgeries.html

"Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about Greek and Roman antiquity knows that literary forgeries and literary deceptions were commonplace. The only reason this is a debate in the New Testament is because a good number of people are invested in a view of “Biblical authority,” which they define to mean that every piece of every verse of the Bible is 100 percent true and factual, no matter the tensions, problems, and ambiguities that any honest reading of the texts lays bare.

"Those who argue against calling these works forgeries are thus backed into more and more specious hypotheses to resist it, but are also met with a reality too big to ignore in light of the textual discoveries over the past century. None of these Bible-authority ideologues would suggest that the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Peter or any of the other so-called apocryphal works out there are, in fact, apostolic. They would agree they are forgeries written in these apostles’ names

"But whatever one decides to do with the Pastorals (Timothy 1, Timothy 2, and Titus), the vast majority of scholars agree they were written by someone who went out of his way to pretend that he was Paul, putting on an act that is a literary fiction at best, an outright deception at worst. So asserting that the Bible is true because this forger asserts that it’s true (leaving aside the problem of what he considered “scripture”) should disqualify someone from serious conversation

So let me get this straight, he begins by saying that those who seek to explain away the inconsistency in the New Testament Texts wind up with more and more vague explanations and special pleading, he does this by the way while not actually offering a counter theory to the secretary theory and choosing instead to devalue it by calling it special pleading.

He then goes to say that these “forgeries” were made because of maybe some other branch of Pauline Christianity that was too liberal about women and then assert that we can get to the reasoning behind the forgeries by looking past the forgeries themselves.

Do I really need to give you a long explanation on the definition of special pleading?

You have quoted a guy here who is quoting a guy (Ehrman) that he actually acknowledges is working from the assumptions of the 19th Hegelian Evolutionary Historians that I mentioned in my previous post, and then you imply that because he thinks I should be disqualified because I don’t see the forgeries then well…

The problem is you’ve made my point perfectly (and thrown yourself into the “appealing to authority” crowd which even Church scholars from Aquinas to Kreeft acknowledge is a flimsy way to argue) by showing that the author is making assertions based on his assumptions. I know you think science and blah blah blah means that you’ve won the argument before it begins but you didn’t actually give an answer to my point. That being that there is no such thing as a pure point of view, and that being so why should I accept yours as true over mine?

I am not an anti-intellectual, not at all, and I certainly accept that the Biblical authors had a point of view and a reason for writing what they did. The Bible is a polemic after all and no one ever wrote a polemic without conclusions driving their intent which is derived from their assumptions.

After all extremely brilliant men such as Dawkins and Collins can look at the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions. One man begins with the assumption that there is no God and one man begins with the assumption that there is and, surprise surprise they each come to the conclusion that fits with their assumptions. I know my faith is an assumption. I have never seen God or an angel or anything else to give me empirical proof that God exists. I choose to believe in God because I believe, among other things, that a creator explains certain things about the phenomena very, very well.

And because I know this is an assumption I don’t tell people who disagree, however politely it may be implied, to shut up.

 

[bekalc]

This comes mostly from a misunderstanding of Martin Luther coupled with a desire to be free from Rome. Luther argued that in all matters on which the Bible does speak it is to be believed over Pope or Council. I am not arguing for or against that assertion I merely stating it as bald fact. However this understanding was never a part of what Luther himself called the “ecstatics” who insisted God Himself would lead them into Scriptural truth. Luther firmly believed in the authority of the Church to teach and guide the belief of the laity, he disagreed however with the Church at THAT time because he felt that Rome had departed from the faith of the Fathers and the Apostles.

Again I do not off this as a for or against argument merely as the reasoning behind the German Reformers complaint against Rome.

The issue here is good people, genuine people disagree on Scripture’s meaning. The Catholic Church would agree that one’s teaching shouldn’t contradict Scripture. Our teachings don’t contradict with Scripture as we interpret it.

Just as Lutherans don’t feel their teachings contradict Scripture.

The reason the Catholic Church doesn’t go with Sola Scriptura is not because we feel that the Word of God is lacking, it is God’s Beautiful Word. Rather its because human beings are fallible creatures. We go into Scripture with their own presuppositions, biases, and experiences.

Luther may feel that the Word of God “clearly spoke on the justification by faith alone” and the bondage of the Will. But I can tell that the Catholic Church strongly felt at the time that Luther was interpreting Scripture incorrectly. And they gave him quite a few Scripture versus to support their position. In general one of the reasons I became Catholic, was because I do feel that my Church’s position on justication by faith hope and love, does a better account of taking the whole of Scripture-than Luther’s position. Of course that’s my opinion.

The Church knows that humans can disagree and also go into Scripture with these biases which is why we have Tradition in the Magistrium.

Reading Scripture through the eyes of Tradition, means your reading it in context. And in fact Jesus himself told the Saduccees who rejected Oral tradition that they didn’t know how to read the Scriptures. Scripture also says if anyone Comes to you with Gospel other than the one you have accepted, and it promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church throughout time…

And if there are still disagreements then a Church council per Acts to solve them.

So the issue isn’t Scripture’s authority but rather who has the authority to determine what Scripture means. And yes, Luther as an individual, not as someone who was put in leadership position, did decide that his interpretation was more right than others. Now he may have very well thought that he was just going with clear interpretation of Scripture. I won’t even say his heart wasn’t in the right place.

But the fact is of course others would come around and feel Scripture was also clearly violated in other places

In general, its very possible that we Catholics could be wrong. But for me, I like the heart behind the way we approach Scripture. There’s a humbleness to it and a genuine desire to try and go with the earliest meaning. The humblness is even the pope is bound to Tradition.

And at least there’s a means to of solving disagreements.

 

[PRmerger]

So asserting that the Bible is true because this forger asserts that it’s true (leaving aside the problem of what he considered “scripture”) should disqualify someone from serious conversation

Indeed.

Catholicism asserts that the Bible is true because it conforms to the kerygma, which was proclaimed via Sacred Tradition.

 

[spina1953]

Sola Scritpura comment: It seems to me that without a Canon, how are we to know with any certainty what we are to believe? The canon of the Old and New Testament did not just pop up suddenly, but over a course of time. Some books were considered inspired while other books were more difficult to determine how they were inspired. By the Council of Trent, the canon closed because there was the need to define and determine once and for all what books were indeed inspired ands therefore useful for teaching of the faith, handed down by the Apostles from the lips of Jesus, who taught orally, which was passed down by the Apostles orally and when some of the Apostles and or their disciples did write, they only, not everything that Jesus said and did but that which one might come to believe. I am sure that when Jesus preached the Good News that those hearing it from Jesus asked Him questions as to what He meant. And when the Apostles preached the Good News, also there were those who asked questions as to what they meant and what they were saying, and this I am sure that goes for the ECF too. Traditions are those things that were not written down but were passed on orally from one generation to the next. They give meaning to what is in Scripture that helps us to understand what we believe. Without it, any interpretations goes and we would not know if what was interpreted was true or not because we would not have what was handed down from the Apostles orally as to what they taught and were teaching. There are many senses to understanding Sacred Scripture,! Literal sense, Sensus Pleinior, =a deeper sense intended by God but not that was intended by the Biblical authors So Sola Scriptura is not that useful in trying to understand what God was intending, saying and was meaning. This is why we need the teaching authority of the Catholic Church to help us to understand, since it was handed down from the Apostles but is also the deposit of faith in which we believe.