Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[whatistrue]

the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a meaning that is different from what he himself has laid out.

But the point is that he didn’t “lay it out” in that manner - you are ignoring the meaning of the actual words in favor of a real stretch based on grammar to fit your predetermined belief. So no, I don’t have to prove anything.

particular member of the group was attempting to define the passage regarding binding and loosing as the authority to declare doctrine that is different than what was handed down by Christ.

This is simply a disingenuous reading of what was said. No one (at least no one who adheres to Catholic understanding of doctrine and dogma) is going to claim that the power to bind and loose allows new doctrine that is against what Jesus laid down. There can be a deeper understanding of doctrine over time, but no, the Church never claimed the power to reverse doctrine. Now in matters of discipline, where God (including Christ) did not either specify or even hint at what should be, the Church can determine what rules should be followed (such as liturgical rubrics, the vestments of a priest, etc.) and change them when indicated. This is not changing doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

This was already demonstrated above in showing the three usages, how they use the same grammatical construction and how in two of those usages they explicitly speak of forgiveness of sins.

OK. I couldn’t find them in the thread. Would you mind pointing me to that post, by number, please?

Since you offered no substantive response other than the “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense, I felt no need to reply. The group can clearly see you have no serious refutation.

Hang on, though: the immediate context of the pericope in Mt 18 is “disfellowshipping”. The notion of “forgiveness of sin” isn’t part of that discussion – rather, the question being asked is how to get someone to admit that they’re doing wrong. Even then, the result isn’t “forgiveness of sin”, it’s “you’ve won your brother over” and the relationship with the Church is restored.

Let’s move to the next pericope, then – the one you’re focusing on: Peter’s question of “how many times should I forgive?” This, too, has nothing to do with the Sacrament of Reconciliation – this is one person forgiving another person.

(Now, I bet that you’re not thinking of the Sacrament of Reconciliation here, but if you’re going to approach a Catholic with the thesis that “Mt 18:18 is all about forgiveness of sins”, then you need to realize that we’re going to respond “nope… no sacramental absolution (a la John 20) here!”

The issue there is the reconciliation of a repentant or unrepentant person to the community.

Fair enough; but, that makes it a question of excommunication and restoration of fellowship and not one of “forgiveness of sins”, which is what your claim was.

Not the declaration of doctrine which is in contrast with Christ’s teaching (or in the case of Josephus usage in contrast with Mosaic teaching) which was the usage you were trying to make for Matthew 16 in contrast to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. So again, note how your original precept is refuted by your own example.

Not seeing what you’re attempting to say here. No, I don’t see this as undercutting the argument for the divine proxy of authority. Can you be more explicit in what you think you see here?

Then when John paraphrases Matthew’s verbiage (again using the same grammatical construction and linking it with Matthew’s usage for forgiveness and retaining sin in chapter 18)

Except that… John doesn’t. The verbiage of John is completely distinct from that in Matthew! And, considering that “bind and loose” has distinct, legal meaning in the context of the Jewish community (and that this meaning is not “forgiveness of sin”), your argument here really fails to hold. Perhaps you can explain why you think “bind and loose” and “forgive and retain” are meant to be conflated?

 

[fhansen]

Try arguing various positions from Scripture: infant baptism vs adult/believers only, baptismal regeneration vs none, the Real Presence, justification, the role of man’s will, predestination, Sunday day of rest and worship vs Saturday/sabbath, the deity of Jesus, even. Going by Scripture alone Protestants often disagree with each other on most of these.

I “discuss” many such issues on a non-Catholic Christian forum and it’s amazing the differences in interpretations, sometimes polar opposite, on many significant truths of the faith. Scripture was never intended to serve as a systematically structured catechism; it’s often vague and seemingly ambiguous or even contradictory in places, While we may all agree that Scripture is the Word of God and an important source of revelation, it simply cannot tell you what it means to say when a question arises. A visible, locatable, human agency, divinely guided and with a historical connection to the beginnings of our faith is the only logical option. Otherwise we’re dealing with best-guess theology: may the better exegete “win”. And even the bible tells us that Jesus said and did many things, not all of which were recorded, and to hold onto those teachings that were passed down whether written or oral.

The Church received, preserved, and proclaimed the faith before a word of the New Testament was written and later assembled the various writings of her people and established the canon at some point later yet. That ancient Church exists in both the east and west today and as both rely on their continuous lived experience (aka “Tradition”) since the origins of our faith, their basic beliefs and practices are, generally speaking, almost uncannily the same after centuries of virtual isolation from each other. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has caused more confusion and division with spin-off denominations often resulting than any other source within the Christian faith.

 

[Justin_Mary]

The Church received, preserved, and proclaimed the faith before a word of the New Testament was written and later assembled the various writings of her people and established the cannon at some point later yet.

Exactly. Sacred scripture was compiled based on its support of the Gospel preached from day 1

 

[pablope]

Hi everyone,
. The main one for me is Sola Scriptura. If you can disprove that, then I will accept Catholicism wholeheartedly. I’d appreciate you reading it and giving feedback, and also pointing me to any helpful material. I’ve read so many books and watched so many videos in the last few years, but I’d appreciate feedback to help me get over this last hurdle.

massleanings dot blogspot dot com/2020/07/starting-journey dot html

Let me offer this articles to help you. These are from Called To communion…you may even like the site as there are former Calvinists there. Look for the conversion story of David Anders.

Sola Scriptura Redux: Matthew Barrett, Tradition, and Authority | Called to Communion

Sola Scriptura Redux: Matthew Barrett, Tradition, and Authority

What I’ve done below is merely interject some thoughts and observations regarding Matthew’s remarks, with the hope of stimulating some mutual ecumenical reflection and better mutual understanding on the topic.

Matthew writes:

The reformers may have rejected Rome’s understanding of tradition and upheld the supremacy and final authority of Scripture over tradition. But we would be mistaken to think the reformers did not value tradition or see it as a subordinate authority in some sense.

The problem with that position, as I pointed out just over two years ago when Peter Leithart made a very similar claim, is that without a Magisterium to provide an authoritative judgment concerning what is and is not authoritative tradition, what gets to count as “tradition” is only what agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. And when what gets to count as “tradition” is only what agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, then tradition has no authority at all, because of the more general principle that “when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me,” as Neal and I have explained in “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”1

Ecclesial Deism | Called to Communion

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, [COLOR=“Blue”]tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.[/COLOR]

 

[TULIPed]

A visible, locatable, human agency, divinely guided and with a historical connection to the beginnings of our faith is the only logical option.

A human agency that declares on its own that its never in conflict with that which gave it authority in the first place?

The story of King Josiah I think - maybe - is instructive here - I’ve mentioned it before; I’d like your learned commentary upon it @fhansen.

Passover hadn’t been observed in hundreds of years before Josiah took the throne (as an 8 year old?). Hundreds of years of human leadership - hundreds of years of the forgotten covenant. In a quirk of fate (or destiny?) workmen find the Torah while cleaning out the Temple.

What purpose did scripture serve in this example do you think?

 

[fhansen]

These are apples and oranges. It’s pure speculation or conjecture to assert that any covenant was broken by any human agency in regard to the Church. And there was no missing written Word in Catholicism. Read the catechism and notice how many times Scripture is quoted. And consider the fact that every time any reader endeavors to understand Scripture, a human agency is necessarily employed in the interpretation process.

 

[TULIPed]

It’s pure speculation or conjecture to assert that any covenant was broken by any human agency in regard to the Church.

But how would you know? In the example of Josiah, the Levitical priesthood existed during the hundreds of years of apostasy that Judah experienced before Josiah rose to the throne.

In Josiah’s case - what significance did finding the Torah represent? Was it merely a dramatic flourish by the writer of Kings? Would Josiah have returned to orthodoxy without finding it?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

In Josiah’s case - what significance did finding the Torah represent? Was it merely a dramatic flourish by the writer of Kings? Would Josiah have returned to orthodoxy without finding it?

Josiah was already orthodox. The Torah was found when he made repairs to the Temple.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

A human agency that declares on its own that its never in conflict with that which gave it authority in the first place?

Once God is the Head, the agency is divine, not merely human

 

[TULIPed]

Josiah was already orthodox. The Torah was found when he made repairs to the Temple.

As so he responded to hearing from the Torah thusly?

"11 When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. 12 Then the king commanded the priest Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary, and the king’s servant Asaiah, saying, 13 “Go, inquire of the Lord for me, for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our ancestors did not obey the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

As so he responded to hearing from the Torah thusly?

Daniel does the same thing, and we know he was faithful to God.

in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and terrible God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from thy commandments and ordinances; we have not listened to thy servants the prophets, who spoke in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.
Daniel 9:2‭-‬6 RSV

Daniel 9:2-6 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of J | Revised Standard Version (RSV) | D

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

The question of what is and what is not scripture is out of the scope of Sola Scriptura,

I believe Martin Luther would disagree with you, who invented Sola Scriptura. To reject the Church = body of Christ and entice his followers under the false pretense of freedom, which many hungered a freedom at the time, to believe one’s own interpretation of scripture. This newly founded doctrine of men (Sola Scriptura) gained much support from Catholic King’s and princesses who coveted after the Catholic Church lands and Church divinely given power. In this political mixture with the Christian religion begins a new chapter of the anti-Christ works.

which merely asserts scripture to be the final norm of doctrine.

You mean to tell me that Martin Luther who comes along 1600 years after the resurrection, who never got divine revelation to remove books from the canon and relabel God’s written Word as uninspired, can call the “final norm of doctrine” from the books Martin Luther assigned as God breathed minus 7 books? Is it not true if you lack one Word from God, who do not have God’s Word?

The Lutheran confessions, for example, don’t even list a canon of scripture.

Did God give you the Lutheran Confessions ? Or did man give you the Lutheran Confessions based on the abuse of a new cultural idea calling for freedom to reject God’s divine revelation of the Church to the Church, when the Lutheran Church did not exist when divine revelation was given to the Church.
An isolated community of believers on an island are never alone within the body of Christ with a bible or without a bible. It is here where Sacred Apostolic Tradition will live out the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as the first Christians did without the new testament.
Luther may have had the license to give a scholary opinion, but No man has a right to dispute, refute, relabel, change or add to God’s Word. That is what Martin Luther did and that is why Martin Luther a Catholic Priest (Monk) was excommunicated.
It amazes me how these Sola Scrptura threads try to separate the body of Christ= Church from the Word of God. The two are one.
Peace be with you

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

The evidence of Scripture is clear that it was not Christ’s concern to establish the written Word. He ordained Apostles, gave them authority, and established the Church. Not a church, the Church.

What Church today exercises the (sacramental) powers that Jesus Christ Himself gave to forgive sins? That Church which practices this divine grace since the resurrection possesses the Word of God.
Can Sola Scriptura part the divine grace to forgive sin? The scriptura cannot operate when it is “Sola”.

 

[BohemianBrother]

I don’t think freedom to rebel against the Church was Luther’s primary motive for creating the practice of Sola Scriptura (the idea was properly formulated only after his death). It was his discontent with the Church hierarchy and possible contraditiction in Church teachings that made him value Scripture as a norm for doctrine. Sola Scriptura is not the reason for Luther’s break with the Church, but a product of it.

Since I come from a protestant background in a country, which in its whole history was ruled by a Protestant for no more than 1 year, I don’t think the Reformation can be reduced to a mere political move. But it is true that without a political motivation, it wouldn’t have been possible to setup organized national churches.

You mean to tell me that Martin Luther who comes along 1600 years after the resurrection, who never got divine revelation to remove books from the canon and relabel God’s written Word as uninspired, can call the “final norm of doctrine” from the books Martin Luther assigned as God breathed minus 7 books? Is it not true if you lack one Word from God, who do not have God’s Word?

The canon wasn’t set in stone yet. I find Luther’s opinions on the canonicity of some books of the Bible not to be without merit. He was a theologian and this was exactly his job - in this case, it would be translating the Bible and organizing it, according to his own reasoning and judgement. Before the council of Trent, he was free to write his own commentary on why some books are problematic. Why it caught on with the later Protestants, I don’t know.

Moreover, the Bible wasn’t handed down as a single book straight from Heaven. Different particular churches use different canons all the time, so having discussions about which books are to be included or excluded in the canon is important. Even more so for Luther, who wanted to use Scripture as a final norm for doctrine.

 

[BohemianBrother]

cont.:

Did God give you the Lutheran Confessions ? Or did man give you the Lutheran Confessions based on the abuse of a new cultural idea calling for freedom to reject God’s divine revelation of the Church to the Church, when the Lutheran Church did not exist when divine revelation was given to the Church.

I don’t think either of these is correct. The Lutheran confessions are an authoritative summary of the teachings within the Lutheran churches. Yes they’re man-made, and all their authority comes from reflecting Scripture. I am not Lutheran, but I’ve found the Book of Concord to be at least a very interesting read.

An isolated community of believers on an island are never alone within the body of Christ with a bible or without a bible.

I actually agree with you here. I just wanted to illustrate the difference between Sola Scriptura and having a complete and correct biblical canon. You can practice Sola Scriptura even when you have an incomplete canon. Those are two different issues.

Luther may have had the license to give a scholary opinion, but No man has a right to dispute, refute, relabel, change or add to God’s Word. That is what Martin Luther did and that is why Martin Luther a Catholic Priest (Monk) was excommunicated.

I feel like his excommunication had more to do with some indulgence business…

It amazes me how these Sola Scrptura threads try to separate the body of Christ= Church from the Word of God. The two are one.

Indeed they are one and cannot be separated. But we will still disagree on what exactly the Body of Christ is.

Peace be with you too!

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think the Reformation can be reduced to a mere political move. But it is true that without a political motivation, it wouldn’t have been possible to setup organized national churches.

Political forces – who were already looking for an excuse to break from Rome and wield power over Church assets in their area – took advantage of Luther’s actions and co-opted them as the reason to form their national churches.

So, it’s less that the Reformation (in terms of Luther’s actions) were political, and more that political forces cloaked themselves in material that Luther provided.

The canon wasn’t set in stone yet.

Not so. The Church had spoken on the canon many times, prior to the Reformation. Given the renewed interest in fiddling with the canon, the Council of Trent found it necessary to re-address the question of the canon.

I feel like his excommunication had more to do with some indulgence business…

Nah. It had more to do with his refusal to step aside from problematic doctrinal assertions.

 

[BohemianBrother]

So, it’s less that the Reformation (in terms of Luther’s actions) were political, and more that political forces cloaked themselves in material that Luther provided.

Yes, that is mostly true. However, I’d say a schism would happen either way, but it would be significantly more suppressed without the political motives (like the Hussites a century earlier - who were mainly peasants and burghers).

It is generally impossible to separate the Reformation from the political forces at play. I just think that the Lutheran reformation was a lot less politics driven than the Anglican schism, which is more known in the English-speaking world.

Given the renewed interest in fiddling with the canon, the Council of Trent found it necessary to re-address the question of the canon.

Well, the Council of Trent often did try to emphasise the difference between catholicism and protestants. There was some opposition from the attending bishops, but I will agree that the majority position was the 73 book canon. Still, the issue of biblical canon is a different one from the practice of Sola Scriptura.

Nah. It had more to do with his refusal to step aside from problematic doctrinal assertions.

That is true from a Catholic perspective. Sola Scriptura wasn’t one of Luther’s doctrinal assertions however. Implicitly maybe, but the practice was formally defined well after his excommunication.

 

[Gorgias]

Sola Scriptura wasn’t one of Luther’s doctrinal assertions however. Implicitly maybe

I don’t think I’d agree that it was only “implicit.” Maybe the term “sola scriptura” was coined later (although I guess I’d have to go back and do some reading on the formation of that term), but Luther’s whole point – from the beginning – was that the magisterium didn’t have the authority to interpret Scripture, but rather, that Scripture itself was the final authority. No?

 

[BohemianBrother]

The way I understand Luther and Lutheranism, the church still has the authority to interpret Scripture and establish binding doctrine (the Lutheran confessions are a prime example of how that works in practice). Sola Scriptura basically only says that the Church shouldn’t establish new doctrines on non-scriptural grounds.

The lack of scriptural support was only a part of Luther’s critique of Purgatory and indulgences. He also cited the Church Fathers and used basic logical arguments.