Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[Gorgias]

And that rule and norm is to proclaim the gospel as it was recorded by the prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testament scriptures.

Great. Two questions!

• If the Bible is the “rule and norm”, then where in the Bible is it declared as such?
• If this is the case, then my second question becomes more critical…

I am not exactly sure what you mean by this statement.

No problem. Let me try to explain it, again:

• At some point in time, the canon of Scripture was firmed up.
• Prior to that time, apostolic teaching was all there was. They taught the things that Jesus said and did.
• The Gospel of John tells us that there was more that Jesus said and did than is recorded in Scriptures.

Therefore, you have two possible scenarios:
Either the pre-Scripture teaching contained those things that Scripture didn’t record, or it didn’t.

• If they didn’t teach anything that wasn’t later recorded, then sola scriptura is somewhat ‘safe’. Yet, how might you make that assertion and make it stick? What evidence is there that the apostles themselves only taught the things that ended up in Scripture, and not the other things Jesus said and did that John tells us aren’t in Scripture?
• If they did teach the “other things Jesus said and did that weren’t recorded in Scripture”, then sola scriptura has a problem: there was apostolic teaching that was valid before the canon of Scripture which is now not valid teaching, and if someone taught it now, you would reject it.

So, which is it? Make an unfounded assertion about the apostles, or declare part of Jesus’ teaching null and void?

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 ?

Yep; that’s what we’re getting toward. Once @Hodos clears up this question of mine, perhaps there will be the opportunity to address this 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.

And she doesn’t!

 

[Gorgias]

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?

Hmm… not sure that’s exactly how I’d have put it, but it’ll be interesting to see Ray’s response.

I think I’d say something more like “the first generations of Christians taught the Gospel message from their personal experiences with Christ. They were inspired to write down some of what they had experienced (but not all of it, and they were honest in making that point). If Christ commanded preaching and promised protection against error, then why is Apostolic preaching on its own ok in the beginning, but Apostolic preaching backstopped purely by Scripture the only ok method later on?”

 

[Hodos]

It’s not debatable because the first Christians did not have a New Testament at all. There’s no scriptura to sola.

Yes, there actually was scripture. The Old Testament. And the apostles constantly appealed to it to prove the veracity of their testimony about Christ or to provide moral instruction.

If they are practicing Sola Scriptura then the Old Testament is their ONLY infallible rule of faith. That means somebody had to show in Scripture (Old Testament) where you can add to Scripture. Can you show me where Jesus or the Apostles do this?

This was already addressed above. Apparently you missed it, or purposely ignored the definition of Sola Scriptura in order to erect a strawman. Either way, this is an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of the doctrine.

The Jews believed Christ was a false Christ would they not demand to be shown such a thing as adding to the Word of God in Scripture? Otherwise are they not justified to reject the New Testament.

Again, my explanation was provided above. Apparently you missed it.

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.

No one is claiming that the canon was closed at this time. But again, as you just demonstrated, Paul is appealing to scripture to demonstrate the veracity of his claim that Jesus is the Christ, the fulfillment of OT law and prophecy. Thanks for your assistance in proving my point. Also, you forget that Paul refers to a quote from Luke as scripture, and Peter refers to Paul’s letters as scripture. So…

 

[TULIPed]

If they did teach the “other things Jesus said and did that weren’t recorded in Scripture”, then sola scriptura has a problem: there was apostolic teaching that was valid before the canon of Scripture which is now not valid teaching, and if someone taught it now, you would reject it.

Is it possible that what they taught is in conflict with scripture?

 

[Hodos]

Great. Two questions!

• If the Bible is the “rule and norm”, then where in the Bible is it declared as such?
• If this is the case, then my second question becomes more critical…

In quite a few places actually, in both Deuteronomy and Psalms, the law as provided to and recorded by Moses is the means by which the Israelites are judged. They are to instruct their children in it, wear it on their foreheads and upon their sleeves, etc. The prophets additionally held Israel accountable to it throughout their writings. Jesus holds people and traditions accountable to the scriptures in Matthew. And again, you see it declared in the Pauline corpus in 2 Timothy 3.

No problem. Let me try to explain it, again:

• At some point in time, the canon of Scripture was firmed up.
• Prior to that time, apostolic teaching was all there was. They taught the things that Jesus said and did.
• The Gospel of John tells us that there was more that Jesus said and did than is recorded in Scriptures.

Again, that isn’t all they had. They had the OT scriptures, and no one is denying that the gospel was not declared orally. However, as discussed earlier above, the apostles saw fit to record their teachings in gospel accounts and epistles, and the Church saw fit to preserve these recorded teachings for the purpose of faithfully handing down their teachings and as such are the rule and norm by which we can evaluate the faithfulness of someone’s proclamation of the gospel.

 

[Hodos]

If they didn’t teach anything that wasn’t later recorded, then sola scriptura is somewhat ‘safe’. Yet, how might you make that assertion and make it stick? What evidence is there that the apostles themselves only taught the things that ended up in Scripture, and not the other things Jesus said and did that John tells us aren’t in Scripture?

I think the question here is backwards. We can objectively agree that the teachings contained within the canonical scriptures are indeed apostolic in origin and are true accounts of the narrative of Jesus life, and the teachings of the apostles. The issue is when one wants to make a claim that an oral tradition not contained within the scriptures are apostolic in origin. You can make the claim, but if the teaching is at odds with scripture it is definitively not apostolic in origin, and it if is suspect (meaning cannot be proven from the scriptures) you cannot definitively say that it is apostolic in origin. So as an example, please provide me a quote from Jesus or any of the apostles that has been infallibly defined by the Church that is not contained in scripture. We both agree that the scriptures are authoritative and apostolic in origin. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the apostolic origin of a doctrine not contained in scripture particularly if you are claiming that I am anathema if I don’t believe it.

So, which is it? Make an unfounded assertion about the apostles, or declare part of Jesus’ teaching null and void?

Yes, but that is the position that you hold. Making unfounded assertions in some cases and declaring part of Jesus’ teachings null and void in others because you believe in an extra-scriptural tradition that may or may not be of apostolic origin. Again, we both agree that the NT scriptures are apostolic in origin. The point of disagreement is on oral tradition developed over the course of centuries which in some cases cannot be established by scripture.

And she doesn’t!

We could debate that on certain points of doctrine.

 

[catholicray]

This was already addressed above. Apparently you missed it, or purposely ignored the definition of Sola Scriptura in order to erect a strawman. Either way, this is an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of the doctrine.

I read above that you moved the goal post. You said that Christ provided authority to the Apostles to write Scripture. This only confirms what I said. That it is not debatable. The first Christians did not practice Sola Scriptura. The authority resided in the Apostles. Acts Chapter 15 demonstrates the authority of the magisterium teaching through council. There is no demonstration of Sola Scriptura without assuming the existence of New Testament writings before they exist. So it’s not a strawman I’m afraid. It’s not debatable and you affirmed it while opposing my position. What more do you want? XD

 

[catholicray]

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?

Your asking for my own understanding here. So it would be my understanding that one and the same Church that held council in Acts 15 continued to do so throughout history guided by the Holy Spirit. The teaching authority was handed on and the Holy Spirit continues to guide His church in teaching free from error, regardless of the failings of those he chooses to guide.

If God can guide the Apostles in free will to write inerrant Scripture than it is not a difficult issue to understand that he can do this at any time. Not to mention if you accept the Old Testament as inerrant then you assume God has been doing this for quite some time. So why assume that God no longer does this at all only because you believe your canon is finalized?

 

[Hodos]

I read above that you moved the goal post

No one moved the goal post. You just keep redefining the meaning of Sola Scriptura away from its historical use to something more manageable for you to attack. The position of Sola Scriptura has always been that the Church is subject to God’s Word, not above it.

 

[Hodos]

The teaching authority was handed on and the Holy Spirit continues to guide His church in teaching free from error, regardless of the failings of those he chooses to guide.

No one has stated that the Church did not receive Christ’s command to teach His Word. We affirm that. However, as Paul demonstrates the Word was given to correct and reprove (1 Timonthy 3:16). If the Church is free from error there is no need to do so. Additionally, most historical heretical teachings sprang from inside the Church and were addressed through the creation of creeds that provided precise summaries of scriptural teaching. This demonstrates that Church is not free from error, but is judged on the basis of its faithfulness to God’s word.

So why assume that God no longer does this at all only because you believe your canon is finalized?

No one is saying the Holy Spirit does not continue to work in the Church. However, the Holy Spirit works where His word is faithfully proclaimed. So when I see a bishop from Chicago or San Francisco touting LGBTQ ideology, or Catholic Universities flying the Rainbow flag, I am bound to judge them on the basis of what was handed down to us from Christ in scripture. In other words the Holy Spirit is infallible, the Church is not and must be in submission to Christ her head.

 

[Gorgias]

Is it possible that what they taught is in conflict with scripture?

That’s an interesting question! A Catholic response would likely include the following points:

• Were the Apostles capable of teaching doctrinal error? If they were, then wouldn’t that mean that Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was wrong from the very beginning ? If they were, wouldn’t non-apostolic, non-magisterial teachers (oh, let’s say, for example, in the 16th century) likewise prone to error? And, if they weren’t, then wouldn’t that mean that ‘sola scriptura’ is erroneous, since the source of infallible teaching (aside from God!) isn’t from Scripture so much as it is from Apostolic Teaching ?
• If Christ gave the proxy that whatever Peter held on earth was held in heaven, then doesn’t that necessarily imply that pre-Scriptural Apostolic Teaching on faith and morals was by the very nature of that grant of proxy true and correct?

(A non-Catholic answer, I suspect, would include the assertion that “of course they made mistakes! Why do you think that we (infallibly) left the Catholic Church?!?!?”)

In quite a few places actually, in both Deuteronomy and Psalms, the law as provided to and recorded by Moses is the means by which the Israelites are judged.

Very true. However, apples and oranges, as this is the Mosaic Covenant, not the New Covenant of Jesus, in which it is not the Law which saves. (Paul makes that pretty clear. I’m surprised you’d take the tack that it’s the Law, not Christ’s teaching that matters…)

Jesus holds people and traditions accountable to the scriptures in Matthew. And again, you see it declared in the Pauline corpus in 2 Timothy 3.

Are they talking about the New Testament, here? That is, the New Testament which does not even exist at those points in time…?

 

[Gorgias]

Again, that isn’t all they had. They had the OT scriptures, and no one is denying that the gospel was not declared orally.

Sure, but that’s not the point.

However, as discussed earlier above, the apostles saw fit to record their teachings in gospel accounts and epistles, and the Church saw fit to preserve these recorded teachings for the purpose of faithfully handing down their teachings

Sure, but… “saw fit” isn’t the same as “the one thing that is the rule and norm of the faith”.

aithfully handing down their teachings and as such are the rule and norm by which we can evaluate the faithfulness of someone’s proclamation of the gospel.

Show me where the Gospels – or even the writings of Paul! – declare that the Bible is the “rule and norm”, above all others. Heck, Philip destroys that argument with one stroke – “how can you know what this means unless someone explains it to you?”

We can objectively agree that the teachings contained within the canonical scriptures are indeed apostolic in origin and are true accounts of the narrative of Jesus life, and the teachings of the apostles.

That’s not what sola scriptura claims, though; I’m afraid you’ve got it backwards! Sola scriptura doesn’t claim that the canonical Scriptures are true – it claims that only Scriptures are true, and any other teachings are only true inasmuch as they reiterate what’s explicitly in Scripture.

You can make the claim, but if the teaching is at odds with scripture it is definitively not apostolic in origin, and it if is suspect (meaning cannot be proven from the scriptures) you cannot definitively say that it is apostolic in origin.

Perfect!

Umm… who has been authorized within the Church to teach Christ’s Gospel? That is, who gets to interpret it? THE CHURCH, which is led by the apostles and their successors. (This is pre-eminently a Biblical perspective, since we see apostles appointing successors who have the same role as the apostles themselves, and we see apostles judging disputes and controversies. NOWHERE do we see them going back to written (or even oral) accounts in order to resolve disputes. (And before you mention the Bereans, please realize that you’ll have to account for the fact that they merely went back to the OT in order to confirm that it and the Gospel were hand-in-glove.)

please provide me a quote from Jesus or any of the apostles that has been infallibly defined by the Church that is not contained in scripture.

Straw man. Did Jesus tell the apostles to only quote Him directly in their teaching? For example, does Paul quote Jesus? And, given that he does not, is Paul’s teaching thereby not infallible?

 

[Gorgias]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the apostolic origin of a doctrine not contained in scripture particularly if you are claiming that I am anathema if I don’t believe it.

You know how logic works: if the premise is false, the assertion is presumed true. Therefore, in “if you are claiming I am anathema for not believing, then the burden of proof is on you”, the premise “if you are claiming…” is false. The Church does not proclaim you anathema.

We could debate that on certain points of doctrine.

We could! But, for you and me, that would merely be a matter of opinion, since neither you nor I have been vested with authority by Jesus. The magisterium, on the other hand, is literally “the teaching authority”. What the Church says is what matters.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Yes, there actually was scripture. The Old Testament. And the apostles constantly appealed to it to prove the veracity of their testimony about Christ or to provide moral instruction

Did they?

Did they appeal to the scripture or the event? The remembrance of said event as passed down from word of mouth from father to son?

I mean, did they believe in God’s providence because it was written? Or because their fathers told them?

 

[TULIPed]

If God can guide the Apostles in free will to write inerrant Scripture than it is not a difficult issue to understand that he can do this at any time. Not to mention if you accept the Old Testament as inerrant then you assume God has been doing this for quite some time. So why assume that God no longer does this at all only because you believe your canon is finalized?

Then why not just amend the canon? A better question is probably the inverse - why is the canon unchanged?

 

[TULIPed]

But, for you and me, that would merely be a matter of opinion , since neither you nor I have been vested with authority by Jesus.

And here we come to the point of the argument - one that every king in history (and parent) knows well: “It is because I say it is!” And this is precisely why documents like the Bible, the Magna Carta, the 10 Commandments, the Constitution, loan covenants, reps and warranties, and swimming pool rules are written down. Things in writing hold us accountable to that which we agreed upon. They serve as a standard by which things are measured.

Speaking of measuring - how do Catholics hold those in authority accountable? To what standard do you appeal? I’ve seen one way you do things - and I was impressed. A while back there was what I’ll call the “Pachamama Incident”. There were more than a few threads on this situation. I must say that it made my Calvinist Protestant heart swell with love when I saw so many of my Catholic brothers and sisters - ON BOTH SIDES - using scripture to debate the matter.

Why did they choose to debate this matter around scripture? Why did they debate it at all?

 

[whatistrue]

This demonstrates that Church is not free from error, but is judged on the basis of its faithfulness to God’s word.

Actually, this demonstrates that individual members of the Church, even highly placed members, can err, but the Church as a whole and represented by the Magisterium does not, hence the declaration of an incorrect view as, well, incorrect or even heretical.

 

[Gorgias]

And here we come to the point of the argument - one that every king in history (and parent) knows well: “It is because I say it is!”

And if they possess proper authority, then the argument is valid, no? But, if they don’t, the child’s response is a petulant “nyah! you’re not the boss of me!” (Come to think of it, that’s the petulant child’s response to actual, proper authority as well!)

the Constitution, loan covenants, reps and warranties, and swimming pool rules are written down. Things in writing hold us accountable to that which we agreed upon. They serve as a standard by which things are measured.

Actually, no. This is the part that’s really amusing about sola scriptura – adherents point to a book and say “this is the final judge and arbiter!”. And then, as you did here, sola scriptura believers point to other reference texts to prove their point. Here’s the problem, though: it’s really the judicial branch of government who is the authoritative interpreter, not the Constitution itself. (Same thing with the pool rules – it’s the swim club who interprets them, not the rule book itself.)

In none of these cases (including the Bible, BTW), does the document itself interpret or arbitrate its own contents. An authoritative body has the power and right to interpret them.

So… sola scriptura kinda fails on that account, too…

I must say that it made my Calvinist Protestant heart swell with love when I saw so many of my Catholic brothers and sisters - ON BOTH SIDES - using scripture to debate the matter.

Why did they choose to debate this matter around scripture?

Why wouldn’t we? After all, it’s the book that the Catholic Church compiled!

Besides which, this is a straw man, too. Here, you’re pointing out that Catholics revere Scripture. That’s a given. However, it doesn’t help your argument that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith.

 

[TULIPed]

And if they possess proper authority, then the argument is valid, no?

And how is the proper authority held accountable for its actions? What do we measure their actions against? How do we know if what they do is right and true? How do we know what a good spiritual leader looks like? (And - interestingly - where do you go to support the claim for the Magisterium’s authority?)

it’s really the judicial branch of government who is the authoritative interpreter, not the Constitution itself. (Same thing with the pool rules – it’s the swim club who interprets them, not the rule book itself.)

And by what was the judicial branch formed? How do we know what it’s purview is?

In none of these cases (including the Bible, BTW), does the document itself interpret or arbitrate its own contents. An authoritative body has the power and right to interpret them.

So… sola scriptura kinda fails on that account, too…

Sola Scriptura doesn’t hold that scripture interprets itself any more than a ruler measures or a plumb bob levels itself.

Besides which, this is a straw man, too. Here, you’re pointing out that Catholics revere Scripture. That’s a given. However, it doesn’t help your argument that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith.

I’m pointing out that when there is conflict and disagreement about spiritual matters (including those involving tradition - Sacred or not) Catholics and Protestants alike turn to scripture for guidance as to the Truth - the ultimate guidance as it is “God breathed”. This is why the Catechism is filled with scriptural references, and this is why Catholics reference scripture when they have questions about doctrine and authority.

 

[Gorgias]

And how is the proper authority held accountable for its actions? What do we measure their actions against? How do we know if what they do is right and true? How do we know what a good spiritual leader looks like?

I think this is a straw man, and you’re not even aware of it.

When we talk about the leadership of the Catholic Church, we recognize that they perform a variety of functions and hold a number of roles. On one hand, there’s their leadership of the organization. (That’s immaterial to this discussion, which is why I’m calling your questions a “straw man argument”, but it’s worth mentioning.). In this role, they aren’t infallible. Their prudential judgment might be just as bad as any other human leader. And, there is accountability built into the system, but the Pope is the supreme pontiff.

On the other hand, there’s the teaching authority that the college of bishops possesses. This is what the ‘magisterium’ actually is – not the people, per se, but the teaching authority. This authority comes from Jesus, and we believe that, when they issue a formal doctrinal / dogmatic statement on a matter of faith and/or morals, then that statement is protected from error.

So, the ‘accountability’ there is really a function of Jesus’ command and His promise to them (in the form of a proxy of authority). What they say on earth, is held in heaven.

(And - interestingly - where do you go to support the claim for the Magisterium’s authority?)

We go to the words that Jesus spoke directly to the apostles, telling them to teach all He had taught them, and telling Peter that he held the ‘keys to the kingdom’ and that what he declared, would be authoritative.

Now… I think that what you’re hoping I’ll say is “we know it from the Bible”, and you’ll have an opportunity to pounce and say “a-ha! the authority comes from the Bible!!!”

… but that’s not true. The authority comes from Jesus’ spoken words to the apostles. It’s coincidentally also reported in the Gospels, but to say that the authority comes from the Bible would be inaccurate. It was declared by Jesus in the year 33 A.D. or so … not somewhere in the late 1st century, when the books of the NT were gathered and declared as such.

To claim that the authority comes from the Bible would be like saying, “I just heard XYZ on the 6 o’clock news!” and then proclaiming that the 6 o’clock news is what is authoritative, and that XYZ happened because it appeared on TV. It didn’t… it happened because it happened; it was just reported, later on, during the TV news.