What is scripture? This might sound like a pedantic question but many people have never really thought about it.
My goodness yes, I share your observation, I feel like I’ve seen this often as well. For some, it seems as if the Bible almost becomes part of the Trinity. I don’t know why it bothers me so much, because I too LOVE the Bible. Maybe it bothers me because God is far too big to be summed up or completely described in a book with human words. Yes, the Bible is profoundly important, but the Pharisees were also a people of the book, were they not? So somehow they knew the book so well, but they hated Jesus and plotted to kill him. It’s funny that we don’t take this warning to heart a little bit more frequently. These presumably well-intentioned people badly misinterpreted what they were reading and somehow ended up rejecting Jesus. We seem to need more than just that book. And then conversely, just the Holy Spirit without a Bible is enough; not ideal perhaps, but enough. Hence Gods gift of the Holy Spirit just a few short weeks after his ascension. Just what we needed most!
I would agree on this point.
Disagree with this. Sola Scriptura is not attempting to use Sola Scriptura to describe all of reality. Sola Scriptura says that scripture is the sole infallible rule and norm for doctrine and faith because it is God’s Word. In other words, it is the artifact of God’s revelation of his plan of salvation to his people, inspired or breathed out by the Holy Spirit, and handed down to us to faithfully communicate God’s revelation. It is not trying to address all of reality as you state. So this is a fundamentally errant definition or use of Sola Scriptura.
This is also a flawed understanding. Sola Scriptura recognizes that God is the ultimate arbiter of truth. His Word is truth. And he has provided that his Word which was revealed to the prophets and apostles would be written down to faithfully carry his revelation from generation to generation. What Sola Scriptura recognizes is that I don’t have the right to alter what God has handed down.
We have the Gospel because God sent his Son in the flesh, who died on the cross, that we might be forgiven of sin. He commissioned disciples who witnessed this event, and apostle to proclaim what Christ did. This is no different than the Prophets who declared that the Word of the Lord came to me…and then described what God manifested to them. None of these guys claim it on their own authority, but upon the authority that God visited with them and told them what to say. Anyway, with regard to the NT documents, the testimony of the apostles was written down either through epistolary letters or through historical narratives for the purpose of conserving and faithfully handing down the gospel.
Because God physically manifested himself in the flesh and came to them and gave them the great commission to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. In other words, by God’s command.
No. Of course not. Because when Christ returns, it will be Judgment Day. In other words, the revelation of Christ has already come, and when he returns again, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. There won’t be a need for any further testimony.
This is debatable. Jesus refuted oral traditions that were not in accord with the written word because it was perversion of his Word. If you read the early Church apologetics and theologians you will find they constantly defend their stance from scripture. St. Paul even tells us to reject someone from the Church, or even an angel of God if they are proclaiming a new gospel.
They did so on the basis of exegesis of scripture demonstrating how the unorthodox interpretation either ignored scripture or twisted it.
This idea creates a backward view of ecclesiology. It essentially says the Word of God is what it is because the Church says so. Keep in mind most of the heretical views in the history of the Church came from inside the Church itself. Rather, Sola Scriptura says that the Church are those who hear and obey the Word of Christ. The first view defines God’s Word in light of the Church. The second view defines the Church in light of its obedience to God’s Word.
This is not debatable. There are approximately 15 years between the resurrection of Christ and the first letter of St. Paul during which the New Testament writings had no authority because they didn’t exist. The Gospel St. Paul is referring to in his writings is not the New Testament because it doesn’t exist. Nor is it simply referring to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, as these writings did not yet exist when he penned those words. So what is the Gospel he is referring to?
Here’s my issue with that take on things: if the apostles and their successors were authoritative teachers prior to the creation of the canon of Scripture, why are they not any longer, now that there is a canon of Scripture?
Yes it is. In fact, there has been plenty of debate. The fact of the matter is the apostolic fathers themselves wrote down the gospel for the purpose of handing it down faithfully. Luke himself, in his prologue says as much:
This is where you are confused about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Church has the responsibility to proclaim and teach the gospel. We affirm that this is the rightful office of the Church. So in our confessions we state the following:
I am not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. I will take a stab at it anyway. My answer is no, that is not what Sola Scriptura teaches. So for example, we accept and confess the three ecumenical creeds. We do so because they are true expositions of the gospel as recorded in scripture, and is faithful to them. Once again, scripture being the means by which these are judged as being faithful proclamations of our faith. We would however reject doctrines that are at odds with or conflicting with the gospel as recorded in scripture. So for example, Sabellius held that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same persons. Well, scripture tells us that these persons are distinct in a variety of places. This teaching was rejected because it was in conflict with what has handed down in scripture.
But, @Hodos, if I understood @Gorgias rightly, his point goes a bit further than that, doesn’t it ? I think what he is saying is: why does the Church have the legitimacy to define doctrine before the canon of the New Testament is established, and not afterwards ? Why does it have the authority to decide what is and what is not part of that canon, and has to be submitted to it once it exists ? And – a question which I was ill at ease with from my first year in seminary – why do we Reformed Christians even accept fundamental definitions of faith like the Trinity, when the Trinity is hinted at but not explicitly supported by Scripture ? When we do that, do we not recognize that the Church legitimately holds the office of defining doctrine ?
We don’t define doctrine in the way that you are describing. The apostles proclaimed what Christ gave them. They received it, and proclaimed it. So when we are speaking about doctrine, we are saying that this is what was taught by Christ through the apostles. In other words, doctrine is meant to proclaim what was received. We affirm that the Church has that authority. So you must be talking of something else, because we are in agreement on that point. What you seem to be saying is that we can proclaim new doctrine apart from what we received by Christ. The Church was not given that command or authority. The Church was given the command to teach “all that I commanded you,” not innovate off of that. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura means to preserve the faithful proclamation of the gospel by using the scriptures as the rule and norm of what we proclaim. It does not deny the Church’s ministerial stewardship, it defines the rightful limits of that authority. So, the Church is frequently referred to as a steward in the parables of Christ. A steward bears the authority of his master, within the boundaries of what the master has defined. Not outside of those boundaries.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not defining new doctrine. It is consolidating what scripture says about the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into a concise statement. The doctrine of the Trinity is the consolidation of several things which we see in scripture. There is only one God. Yet that God is manifested in the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons all share the same divinity, since there is only one God, and yet, the scriptures reveal them as three distinct, pre-existent persons, who fulfill different but related roles in the working out of the plan of salvation. In short, we confess the Trinity because it is a faithful exposition of what was revealed in the manifestation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and faithfully handed down to us in scripture.
Yes, and they proclaimed it so much that, as you know, there was a considerable production of Christian literature in the beginning of the Church - not all of which made it into the canon, even when it was ancient, well-loved, relying on tradition, and perfectly orthodox.
I’m not saying that. I guess my position is more Newmanian (Newmanesque?) in that I think that doctrine sometimes “grew” (and developed, and became more explicit) from the “seeds” which had been received.
I would agree with that. But they did so in the same manner that I discussed above. They very early on relied upon texts whose authorship was known or at least thought to be known by them, were ancient (going back to the time of the apostles), and were consistent with Old Testament revelation and New Testament revelation. So for example, Hebrews, whose authorship was unknown, but was suspected to be Pauline in origin or to be of someone who was familiar with Paul, was consistent with Pauline doctrine. So it was considered as canonical. They had criteria for authenticity that ensured the message was apostolic in origin.
And this is where scripture comes in. Sound exegesis of scripture can detect when a teaching which develops over time is consistent with the author’s original intent or not. We also should be able to draw distinctions between pious opinion which may or may not be exegetically sound, and doctrine.
For me, the study of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity has actually made me more, not less secure that the doctrine is fundamentally scripturally sound, rather than just one of a variety of possible interpretations. The Fathers tried to be extremely careful in how this doctrine was worded, and they fiercely opposed when someone was misreading scripture or promoting one data point in scripture while ignoring others. Look at the Athanasian Creed for example. It tries to be as precise as possible without going beyond what scripture says in summarizing the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It’s not debatable because the first Christians did not have a New Testament at all. There’s no scriptura to sola.
The Gospel at this time is shown through the Old Testament not the New Testament Gospel. The Gospel is what the Apostles were revealing about the Old Testament as far as scripture is concerned. Paul is not talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those writings literally don’t exist when St. Paul penned this letter.
It’s wild how here you shy away from my statement. It is not debatable that the first Christians did not practice Sola Scriptura. You say it is and immediately follow up with “ Sola Scriptura is not attempting to address how the gospel was transmitted immediately after Pentecost.” No kidding?
For me, it’s not about proving/disproving Sola Scriptura. It’s about truth. Did Jesus humble himself, enter into time to write the Bible, or did he become man & build a Church on the apostles?
Ok - I think now I’ve finally got it. (Not your fault - I think one of the side effects of sitting in my house for 6 months is that my brain is operating slower). So is the argument that since God told the first Christians to write down the Gospel (via the HS), God can continue to tell Christians (presumably as long as they are part of the Magisterium) things that are equal with Scripture in terms of ultimate truth and, for lack of a better term, salvific efficacy?