Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[Gorgias]

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

By the founding fathers. You know – the folks who had the authority to create the rules, and did so, and filled the roles of authority in the new government? You know… just like the apostles…

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

Awesome! OK, then: according to sola scriptura… who has that authority to interpret and who gave that authority, and where can we find that grant of authority?

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.

This is a fair claim, but it’s not a claim that bolsters the assertions of sola scriptura.

 

[TULIPed]

By the founding fathers. You know – the folks who had the authority to create the rules, and did so, and filled the roles of authority in the new government? You know… just like the apostles …

We should totally set up a Zoom call with them.

Awesome! OK, then: according to sola scriptura… who has that authority to interpret and who gave that authority, and where can we find that grant of authority?

Governance as set forth in scripture is beyond the scope of this discussion, but happy to debate it on another thread if you’d like. I’ll take this to mean you agree that Catholics (rightly) use scripture to support the authority of the Magisterium.

This is a fair claim, but it’s not a claim that bolsters the assertions of sola scriptura.

We can agree to disagree then. I think there’s a fair amount of empirical evidence to support the idea that Catholics use scripture (at least on this website) over and over again to support positions of orthodoxy. Makes my Protestant heart glad to see it.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

By the founding fathers. You know – the folks who had the authority to create the rules, and did so, and filled the roles of authority in the new government? You know… just like the apostles …

We should totally set up a Zoom call with them.

Funny you should mention that. After all, the founding fathers did what the apostles did: set up a means for an uninterrupted chain of leadership that would succeed them… so you don’t only have the founders in order to have authoritative leadership, and you don’t pretend that it’s the documents they wrote that have that sole authority!

TULIPed:

Awesome! OK, then: according to sola scriptura… who has that authority to interpret and who gave that authority, and where can we find that grant of authority?

Governance as set forth in scripture is beyond the scope of this discussion

Actually, it really is the salient issue here. You’re making a claim to authority and governance, and asserting (contra Scripture itself!) that it is Scripture that is that authority, but when challenged on that issue, it’s “beyond the scope”.

TULIPed:

I’ll take this to mean you agree that Catholics (rightly) use scripture to support the authority of the Magisterium.

Cute. Especially considering I wrote exactly the opposite! Scripture records the grant of authority, but does not grant that authority itself (nor does it, itself, have that authority, per se)!

TULIPed:

We can agree to disagree then. I think there’s a fair amount of empirical evidence to support the idea that Catholics use scripture (at least on this website) over and over again to support positions of orthodoxy.

Sure we do. Still, that fact in itself does not support your claims of sola scriptura. It’s frustrating that you refuse to admit this. Perhaps you see it, but prefer not to admit it on a public forum…

Blessings,
G.

 

[TULIPed]

Cute. Especially considering I wrote exactly the opposite!

So Scripture doesn’t support the authority of the Magisterium?

Scripture records the grant of authority

Ah - got it. Scripture is merely a “recording”. Come to think of it - lets see what the Catechism says of Scripture:

“In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

Seems to be more than a “recording” to me. I’m old school though - I still think the Constitution is more than just a “recording”.

Good discussion.

 

[Gorgias]

So Scripture doesn’t support the authority of the Magisterium?

No, no… that’s not the point I’m attempting to make, and I won’t allow you to put those words into my mouth.

Ah - got it. Scripture is merely a “recording”.

In this case, in the particular point you’re making, perhaps it is. Not for the entirety of the teaching found in the texts, but simply in answer to your particular question. After all, Scripture does record the grant of authority from Jesus to Peter and the apostles. The authority doesn’t proceed from the text; it proceeds from Christ Himself.

If it proceeded from the text, then the authority would not have existed until after the text existed. But, since it comes from Christ Himself, the authority exists at the very beginnings of the Church.

Seems to be more than a “recording” to me.

I think you’re stretching the question a bit too far, here. You asked “where do you go to support the claim for the magisterium’s authority?”. The response isn’t “the claim proceeds from the Bible”, as I suspect that you wish the answer to be phrased. Rather, the response is “the Church has teaching authority because Jesus granted that authority to the apostles, who subsequently handed it on to their successors.” The Bible records that grant of authority, but it does not create it. For sola scriptura to be true, you have to hold to the latter, not the former, and I think that’s one of the weaknesses of that position.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

The Catholic Bible Canon of books remains unchanged. It was Luther an Augustinian Catholic Priest who rejected the Canon of scripture and took it upon himself to change it by removing books from the original Canon and relabeled them as not inspired by God, not to mention Luther went as far as changing a word in the New Testament to fit his new theology.
Imagine a Catholic Priest denying God breathed bible books from the original Canon of Scripture.
This is my question to the Sola Scripturalist.
When did God give divine revelation to Luther or any other Protestant reformer to change or reject Sacred Tradition and remove God breathed books from the bible? God gave divine revelation to the Apostles who handed down our Sacred Traditions first from the Oral sacred Tradition (Word of Mouth from the Apostles) and later the Written Sacred New Testament Scriptures.
Who gave the Protestant reformers the authority to change and or reject what God had given them since Apostolic times? Can anyone who reads the bible and invents his/her own doctrine from his/her own interpretation, without divine revelation from God?
Peace be with you

 

[BohemianBrother]

The question of what is and what is not scripture is out of the scope of Sola Scriptura, which merely asserts scripture to be the final norm of doctrine. If you had a church community stranded on an island with just a single book from the Bible, Sola Scriptura would still work. The Lutheran confessions, for example, don’t even list a canon of scripture.

As for the rest of your comment. Luther was a Catholic theologian and he was doing his job in translating the Bible. You can check his writings on why he moved some books into the “disputed” section. I certainly don’t agree with physically removing books from the Bible, but I can see the merit in giving scholarly opinion on the authenticity of certain parts of the canon. And Luther was allowed to do that back in the days before the Council of Trent.

 

[catholicray]

Forgive my delay. I prefer to not respond in haste and life has been happening of course. So let’s dig in.

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).

The verse I am assuming you are referring to is [2 Timothy 3:16], "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

I would address this by reading [1 Timothy 3:14-15], "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

The context for [1 Timothy 3:14-15] is clearly about false teachers. We are told that the Scripture we are receiving here is to teach us (believers) how to behave within the Church (the pillar and bulwark of the truth). Here Scripture clearly separates the Church as an institution, from it’s occupants or those who believe. This passage will not conflict with other passages of Scripture and is therefore appropriate context for [2 Timothy 3:16]

Let’s examine [2 Timothy 3:14-17], But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

 

[catholicray]

First it should be noted that this letter is to Timothy rather than the Church, [2 Timothy 1:1-2], Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. Likewise we have the same thing in [1 Timothy 1:1-2], Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think it is appropriate to understand that Paul is writing to Timothy to instruct him in how to minister to the congregation correctly. It is also important to note that the canon of the New Testament is not finished at this time. Nor is it bound together in one single source and distributed as such and made available to all the Churches. So we can not say with precision that Paul is referring to the New Testament in the verse you have referenced but I digress.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 is directed specifically to Timothy, as obviously there are plenty of people who were not acquainted with Scripture from childhood. Insofar as you might try to use this verse to support the principle of Sola Scriptura, at best we can say that Scripture is profitable for correction, teaching, reproof, and training in righteousness of the man of faith. However, with 1 Timothy 3:14-15 in mind, your quoted verse does not amount to Paul saying that the institution that Jesus established (the Church) is subject to correction, reproof, teaching, and training in righteousness from the Scriptures. Now I know that Protestants are desperate to decline defining the Church as an institution in any way, but I think Scripture quite clearly does so, and you only need carefully read 1 Timothy, specifically the verses I quoted.

 

[catholicray]

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.

This is a misunderstanding of “How” and “When” the Church is free from error. It is a notoriously poor apologetic offered by Protestants to Catholics that actually understand the inerrancy of the Church. Disagreement and dispute on doctrine and practice where it arises has always been finally settled by the Church whether through her teaching authority in the Magisterium the authority of the Pope and through Council. You would historically be referring to the error of various ministers she has hosted through generations and yet settled once and for all in her final teachings on any matter.

This is actually how the Roman Catholic Church remains one institution and how Protestantism is fractured many times over. Should error arise in a minster within Protestantism the “faithful” abandon their teacher for another. Should it arise in the Catholic Church the faithful wait patiently for the Church’s final teaching on the matter.

 

[steveng]

I recently saw an interesting quote from G.K Chesterton: “Christianity is not a religion; it is a Church.” Coupled with this I’ve also been reading a book by Jimmy Akin, a Catholic apologist, called “The Bible is a Catholic Book.” He makes the argument, quite convincingly, that the Bible and its canon is something that wouldn’t be with us today if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. A standard Protestant response to this would be to argue that it was the guiding power of the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic Church, that has preserved Scripture for us. That is true, although God does use means to accomplish His purposes, but there is another leg to the argument that Jimmy Akin makes that does require serious consideration. It is this: the notion of Sola Scriptura was not possible before the 16th century.

There are several reasons for this:

1. The printing press had not been invented, and copies of the Bible took a long time and a lot of money to produce.
2. Even after the printing press was invented, only relatively wealthy people could afford a copy of the Bible.
3. Most people were still illiterate.

The argument put forward by Protestants during the Reformation and up to this day as well is that the Scriptures are the main source of God’s grace to us. This is obviously a response to the Sacramental system that was developed and defined by the Catholic Church. But, before the 16th Century, how was this possible? This is the very reason that visual signs, the liturgy, and prayers were created: so that people could learn the Christian Faith even without being able to read.

So, the question you need to ask yourself is: would God have established His Church and not have been explicit in defining which Scriptures were to be canonized etc.? It is clear that God sovereignly ordained the timing of Christ’s birth. Not only was it in the fullness of time from a prophetic perspective, but it was also the perfect timing anthropologically. The Roman Empire and influence of Greek culture and language made the conditions perfect for the Apostles to travel and spread the Gospel. So, if God did this, why did He not clearly establish the Scriptures so that the Church would be protected under Sola Scriptura? 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.

The arguments for and against Sola Scriptura are multi-faceted, but in my opinion the one discussed above is often overlooked. Maybe this is because it’s hard for us to imagine a world where the Bible isn’t available in every language, accessible in every format, and almost everyone can read it. Or maybe it’s because Catholic apologists are trying, fairly, I might add, to argue from the common ground shared by both parties; namely, Scripture. This is good but even Protestants will appeal to extra-biblical sources when looking for the historical context of books in the Bible, and this does impact their interpretation of those books.

 

[steveng]

Like Augustine

 

[TULIPed]

Exactly! Well said.

 

[Gorgias]

Like Augustine

One merely has to actually read Augustine to realize he wasn’t a proto-Calvinist.

 

[Hodos]

This is a misunderstanding of “How” and “When” the Church is free from error.

No, it is a recognition that the Church’s definition of “how” and “when” the Church is free from error is so liquid that it is meaningless in practice. We understand your definition. We just think the definition has no rational basis. It’s like redefining the word gender, to mean something other than the objective biological reality of gender. It confuses the issue leading to abuse.

 

[Hodos]

“Christianity is not a religion; it is a Church.”

To substantiate this claim, you need to define the terms religion and Church. The word Church literally means assembly. The term was used when Israel assembled around the presence of God in their midst, to receive his word about his role as savior from their captivity in Egypt and God’s will for how they should live their lives. It is exclusive to assembling around God and his Word. If it is gathering around something else, it isn’t the Church, not in the scriptural sense. The point of Sola Scriptura is to say that God’s revelation of his Son, our Savior, is not something we have the power to change. We have received his Word and we are only the Church if we faithfully maintain what was received. I can’t introduce another mediator or redeemer apart from the one given in Christ. Otherwise I am not the Church. Scripture is the artifact of that revelation of Christ as mediator and redeemer and is what norms the faithful proclamation of the Word.

It is this: the notion of Sola Scriptura was not possible before the 16th century.

No, exactly the opposite. We have an incarnational understanding of the Word. God comes and gives us his word. He did so to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and ultimately in Christ. The revelation of Christ come as our savior was preserved and handed down to us in scripture. Read the fathers, when they proclaim God’s word what do they use? They quote scripture all throughout their writings. Part of the problem that occurred in the Middle Ages is that the illiteracy was prevalent, and that scripture was not the norm in proclaiming the revelation of Christ. That is in large measure why a number of abuses crop up in the Middle Ages. But that doesn’t mean scripture didn’t exist. We have over 25,000 manuscripts that say otherwise.

 

[Hodos]

The argument put forward by Protestants during the Reformation and up to this day as well is that the Scriptures are the main source of God’s grace to us.

Nope. Martin Luther always held that Christ is the Word made manifest, the first and foremost source of God’s grace. He said the proclaimed word was the next means of the coming of the Word. Last of all was the scriptures. But the scriptures formed the means by which the oral proclamation of God’s word is normed and maintained. Your statement is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Reformer’s position on the means of grace. Also, Luther upheld the means of Baptism, Confession and Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper. He also maintained the liturgy of the mass, and translated it into German so that the laity could participate in the liturgy.

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.

We affirm that God established the Church and ordained his apostles. That is not an issue of debate. Feel free to look at our confessional documents on this matter. The debate is whether the Church is in submission to Christ to do what Christ authorized it to do, or does the Church stand on its own authority apart from Christ and declare doctrine that Christ did not establish. The Reformers said the answer is the former, not the latter.

 

[catholicray]

No, it is a recognition that the Church’s definition of “how” and “when” the Church is free from error is so liquid that it is meaningless in practice. We understand your definition. We just think the definition has no rational basis. It’s like redefining the word gender, to mean something other than the objective biological reality of gender. It confuses the issue leading to abuse.

That’s fine if you think that. I’d like to note that even if this is true (to a fault) it does not actually salvage the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the counter argument that James White offers during debates on Sola Scriptura. He accuses the Church of practicing Sola Ecclesia. The logic is that if you confirm that the Catholic Church practices Sola Ecclesia then it must follow that the reformers were right.

The problem with this logic is that there are more options than the Catholic Church if Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Church are both false. Eastern Orthodoxy immediately comes to mind but one should not neglect the option to reject Christianity altogether for options such as Atheism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. Therefore the Protestant is strictly responsible for answering the questions that concern the logical issues of their doctrine by offering a coherent and logical explanation. The attempt to discredit the Catholic Church to uphold this doctrine is nothing other than deflection when the questions overwhelm their ability to do so.

The logical issues of Sola Scriptura continue to build:

The claim that Scripture is the “sole” infallible authority of faith directly contradicts the teaching activity of God [Holy Spirit] as He teaches through man.

Sola Scriptura can not logically be practiced by the first Christians unless you desire to be locked in to the Old Testament as the sole infallible rule of faith.

and the nail in the coffin

A Protestant can not logically “infallibly” know what the canon of Scripture is. He can only fallibly know his own canon of Scripture because his only infallible source does not tell him which books belong in the Bible.

 

[Hodos]

Consider the counter argument that James White offers during debates on Sola Scriptura. He accuses the Church of practicing Sola Ecclesia. The logic is that if you confirm that the Catholic Church practices Sola Ecclesia then it must follow that the reformers were right.

I actually agree with him on this point. Declaring itself the infallible source of authority over and above God’s revelation through Christ essentially does just that on a functional level. I cannot speak for James White, but I would say it is not true that this can necessarily be extended to other ecclesial bodies, because most do not make the same claims to infallibility that Rome does.

The problem with this logic is that there are more options than the Catholic Church if Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Church are both false. Eastern Orthodoxy immediately comes to mind but one should not neglect the option to reject Christianity altogether for options such as Atheism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Not sure how you are trying to lump Atheism, Hinduism, Islam, or Judaism into the mix. Are you saying that the RC Church has the same view of ecclesiology as these religions?

The attempt to discredit the Catholic Church to uphold this doctrine is nothing other than deflection when the questions overwhelm their ability to do so.

No it isn’t. It is answering the question of what makes one part of the one holy catholic and apostolic faith and who defines it. God defines it. The Church receives it. And the Church is defined by being obedient to God’s Word.

 

[Hodos]

The claim that Scripture is the “sole” infallible authority of faith directly contradicts the teaching activity of God [Holy Spirit] as He teaches through man.

You consistently confuse the meaning of authority with infallibility. There are two sources of authority. There is authority inherent in God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The second is not inherent but vested upon a steward to exercise that authority. The Church was given the authority to do certain things as a steward. Namely make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Triune God, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. In other words, it is a limited authority to accomplish a specific task. The fact that one is granted authority does not mean that one faithfully executes their office. Jesus goes into graphic detail urging the apostle’s during Holy Week to be good stewards and faithfully execute their office (see for example Matthew 24:45-51). One does not judge the success or failure of the steward on the basis that they were appointed to that office. They are judged on the basis of having faithfully executed the office, and Jesus says they will be judged accordingly. If Jesus is warning the Church to faithfully execute its office, and will punish those who don’t, where do you get the idea that simply being appointed to the office makes you infallible? Seems like you are putting yourself in the master’s chair to me. Sola Scriptura on the other hand assumes that we are stewards and are accountable to the master.