Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

MagdalenaRita:

They decided this based on four criteria:

Does the book go back to an apostle or an assistant of an apostle?
Has the document been read since the time of the apostles or is it new?
Was it used and read in the known evangelized regions? Was it universal?
Did the books match up to what were consistant with what the bishops were teaching in oral tradition?

How does this account for the exclusion of III and IV Maccabees in the western Church, while the East has always included them?

It seems to me you are making the Catholic argument here. Usually one finds the Protestant arguing that “the Church” didn’t really need a special Magisterium as such, because the CRITERIA led the community to pretty much the obvious and inevitable canon. Then the Catholic points out the criteria are really a description of some of what happened, but no assurance the criteria are sufficient as a tool.
Some scholars might point out other books in the canon that might not meet the criteria, or books outside that might meet them, or other criteria might have been better. I would say So what?

So the Catholic confidence is not in that tool, but in the Magisterium, that used the criteria, and other tools. We both would place ultimate confidence in God. But I would emphasize the Magisterium itself as God’s tool, not criteria

Thanks…

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Catholic confidence is not in that tool, but in the Magisterium, that used the criteria, and other tools

There were others who had their own idea or criteria they wanted to use. Marcion of Sinope for one, only wanted Paul’s letter and not all of the gospels. Not sure but I think he may have been excommunicated for some things he was teaching.

But yes, the Magisterium, following the traditions passed on from the apostles, using the criteria, decided the canon of the scriptures.

 

[commenter]

the Magisterium, following the traditions passed on from the apostles, using the criteria, decided the canon of the scriptures.

Of course, there were other early Christian groups with different theologies, who claimed their traditions were handed down from apostles. In effect, the early Magisterium not only canonized the New Testament, but also “canonized” some traditions as Authentic, others as compatible or possible, and others as heretical. The magisterium came up with one list of ECFs, and another of heretics. I’m sure the Gnostics and others made their own, different lists.

I’m not disagreeing with the Magisterium, just pointing out its importance. The Sola Scriptura argument is that a living magisterium isn’t necessary for choice of canon because those books are obviously all auto lined up with (the correct) early tradition, (which we fortunately got from somewhere).

 

[goout]

goout:

You are giving scripture and Tradition their proper footing.

traditions of men is proper footing ?

Why the vague question? What point are you trying to make. Give us some meat.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

the early Magisterium not only canonized the New Testament, but also “canonized” some traditions as Authentic, others as compatible or possible, and others as heretical. The magisterium came up with one list of ECFs, and another of heretics. I’m sure the Gnostics and others made their own, different lists.

I’m not disagreeing with the Magisterium, just pointing out its importance. The Sola Scriptura argument is that a living magisterium isn’t necessary for choice of canon because those books are obviously all auto lined up with (the correct) early tradition, (which we fortunately got from somewhere).

Completely agree with you.

 

[goout]

The reason you know nothing of my family is because you have not been exposed to my family, either in person or in writing.
The writing tells the story so that those who did not experience it first hand can learn about it.

What you call polemics are simply points that are inconvenient for you.

And here is The Point you continually avoid.
I don’t have the license to interpret and create your family’s story for myself, or manipulate it, or co-opt it as if it were my own family story.

Jon, that fact that your family story is written down does not complete it’s authenticity.
YOU DO, You Jon, along with the other persons in your family who have “skin in the game” make it complete and authentic. Your story exists in the living tradition of your family.

Outside that, it is dead words on a page, in other words, not human. And this is exactly what Christ came to save us from.

And Jon, this is unavoidable:
If you and your family do not exist, no story exists.

You calling this polemics is a cop out.

 

[JonNC]

What you call polemics are simply points that are inconvenient for you.

No. They are polemics. There is nothing that you have provided that has been inconvenient.

And here is The Point you continually avoid.
I don’t have the license to interpret and create your family’s story for myself, or manipulate it, or co-opt it as if it were my own family story.

And I don’t have to listen to you if you tried.

Jon, that fact that your family story is written down does not complete it’s authenticity.
YOU DO , You Jon, along with the other persons in your family who have “skin in the game” make it complete and authentic. Your story exists in the living tradition of your family.

The history of my family, from 300 or 400 years ago is unknown to me unless someone wrote it down. About 20 years ago, my uncle sent me an outline of that side of my family, including an ancestor who was the mayor of Manheim, Germany. I don’t know about that if it isn’t written down. I can pass it on to my children.
But even if I didn’t know it, it still happened. Knowing it depends on writing it down.

We are the family of baptized Christians that make up His Church. We know about the history of His Church because of what is written down, not just in scripture, but in other writings: The Didache, the numerous Fathers, the seven councils.

Outside that, it is dead words on a page, in other words, not human. And this is exactly what Christ came to save us from.

And Jon, this is unavoidable:
If you and your family do not exist, no story exists.

Of course nothing matters without Christ. Why would you think that I think otherwise? Why would you think that’s inconvenient to me?

You calling this polemics is a cop out.

That’s not what I called polemics. I called your ridiculous comments about the incarnation polemics, a polemic you still haven’t backed up from the Catholic Catechism.

 

[MT1926]

That’s not what I called polemics. I called your ridiculous comments about the incarnation polemics, a polemic you still haven’t backed up from the Catholic Catechism.

OK I think I see now what is going on here. Let me see if I can help work this out a bit.

Jon you seem to be reading over everything that @goout is writing and wanting him to back up what he says from the CCC. Understandable I have no objection here. However, it appears you are so geared toward only accepting that one answer (in regards to his original comment about the incarnation) that you are ignoring everything else he is saying. In doing so you are missing the obvious point he is trying to make. Which is making you appear hostile to him.

So from the outside looking in it appears to me that @goout needs to give @JonNC CCC evidence for his claims on the incarnation or admit he was giving personal interpreation (which there is nothing wrong with as long as you let it be known that you are doing so)

And it appears to me that @JonNC needs to think about the point @goout is trying to make here. Yes I understand that this point doesn’t answer your question about the incarnation but trying to downplay his response just makes yourself look bad. There is nothing wrong with admitting "yes I understand your point, no one can “truly understand” my family unless someone from the family was still around to hand on the interpretations of what was written down. However, this point still isn’t evidence for your claim on the incarnation.

You guys need to take a step back because it sure seems like you are arguing two different points here.

God Bless

 

[goout]

goout:

If a Christian community says yes to the Incarnation but gives no credence to the visible, real, and continuous Tradition of the one Church founded by Christ, then that “yes” is lip service.

Source.

You’re asking for a source for really basic Christian ideas.
The Tradition of the Church is sourced in Christ himself. How do I give a source for this? It permeates everything about Christianity and makes Christianity unique among all beliefs.

First you can look to God’s self identification as “I Am”. The people of the covenant know God personally. The Law is from a God who can be known personally. The idea of covenant is one of relationship with a person, not mere adherence to a book.

Christ embodies this covenant. God’s full and final revelation is now in and through God’s own son, made flesh and blood, fully human and fully divine.

Ok, this is basic Christian doctrine. Does your denomination not believe these things?
What does it mean? For starters, it means the book is not God. The book is not enough. The bible points to Christ, not the other way around. And Christ is incarnate in the human condition, not contained in the pages of the Bible. (you will now accuse me of denigrating the Inspiration of Scripture. Can you get past that now please?)

And not to belabor the point but: this means that Christ has formed a community among human beings. If God did not intend this, then there is no need for Christ. We already had a book.

And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ. It sees Christ as simply a great teacher who started a book. And that’s simply not reality Jon. Christ didn’t write a book, he founded a community of persons.

And so you have to ask yourself, did Christ form a durable community, or one that is subject to decay?
And you also are confronted with a question about the resurrection. Is Christ alive? Or is he dead in the pages of the bible? If Christ is resurrected then Christ is still active in the community he founded.
(and you will probably say yea to everything here, but say “but I’m not required to give obedience to the bishop of Rome”. But Jon, in all of this discussion I have not mentioned the Bishop of Rome once. YOU bring up the Pope.)

 

[JonNC]

You’re asking for a source for really basic Christian ideas.
The Tradition of the Church is sourced in Christ himself. How do I give a source for this? It permeates everything about Christianity and makes Christianity unique among all beliefs.

I agree, but that was not your accusation earlier

First you can look to God’s self identification as “I Am”. The people of the covenant know God personally . The Law is from a God who can be known personally. The idea of covenant is one of relationship with a person, not mere adherence to a book.

We know the law because of the written word, starting with the Decalogue, but otherwise, yes.

Christ embodies this covenant. God’s full and final revelation is now in and through God’s own son, made flesh and blood, fully human and fully divine.

Amen

Ok, this is basic Christian doctrine. Does your denomination not believe these things?

Of course our tradition within the Church believes this.

What does it mean? For starters, it means the book is not God. The book is not enough. The bible points to Christ, not the other way around. And Christ is incarnate in the human condition, not contained in the pages of the Bible. (you will now accuse me of denigrating the Inspiration of Scripture. Can you get past that now please?)

Of course the book is not God. Why would I deny any of this?

And not to belabor the point but: this means that Christ has formed a community among human beings. If God did not intend this, then there is no need for Christ. We already had a book .

And you and I are both members of that community through baptism.

And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ. It sees Christ as simply a great teacher who started a book. And that’s simply not reality Jon. Christ didn’t write a book, he founded a community of persons.

I’m the one referencing Tradition here: the creeds and councils, the ECF’s. But God did inspire the writing of His word.

And so you have to ask yourself, did Christ form a durable community, or one that is subject to decay?
And you also are confronted with a question about the resurrection. Is Christ alive? Or is he dead in the pages of the bible? If Christ is resurrected then Christ is still active in the community he founded.
(and you will probably say yea to everything here, but say “but I’m not required to give obedience to the bishop of Rome”. But Jon, in all of this discussion I have not mentioned the Bishop of Rome once. YOU bring up the Pope.)

It seems, then, that we are more in agreement than not.

 

[mcq72]

And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ

And we also all agree that tradition contrary to His inspired writings is lip service.

For example, when St. Augustine writes that indeed according to the scripture that “all have sinned”, except for Mary, according to tradition, that could be considered lip service by some.

 

[JonNC]

And we also all agree that tradition contrary to His inspired writings is lip service.

I agree.

For example, when St. Augustine writes that indeed according to the scripture that “all have sinned”, except for Mary, according to tradition, that could be considered lip service by some.

Or, we could understand that Catholics believe the phrase “all have sinned” is an expression, much like 70x7 times doesn’t mean exactly 490 times.

 

[mcq72]

Sorry J…did it again…was trying to respond to Gout on this , from your post ( I have properly edited my post now) …but thanks for responding …

As to Augustine, not sure. Don’t think he gives much of a theological explanation , save tradition, and I suppose , a harmless one at that time (undeveloped from our perspective in time). Just my opinion, but I think he buckled a bit on this one, trying to fit the tradition with scripture.

 

[commenter]

And we also all agree that tradition contrary to His inspired writings is lip service.

The reverse is also true. Tradition was already in place at the time the NT canon was being formed. Lots of proposed scriptures that were deemed contrary to Sacred Tradition were excluded from the canon.

 

[mcq72]

And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ.

Again, most churches recognize some forms of tradition.

The real question has more often been what “continuous” traditions did Christ start, and what traditions did the apostles start, and what did successors start. And now, the claim that the those three are infallibly linked when dealing with faith and morals., more to cover successors over a 1900 year span .

As to thread topic(I think), indeed the bible and its reception and understanding of rule could be said to be a tradition.

Barnabus, “To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written.”

Augustine, “Therefore, since we were too weak to find truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ , I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority through out the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both though it you be believed and through it you be sought…easy for everyone to read…accessible to all men…made firm the authority of your book…you enkindled certain lights, your holy ones, possessing the word of life…manifest authority of their spiritual gifts…sacraments, miracles, voices and words in keeping with the firmament of your book”.

Even in CC that “book” is one third leg of stool , and equal to any Tradition.

 

[mcq72]

The reverse is also true.

correct. I was responding to such a post stating the reverse.

Tradition was already in place at the time the NT canon was being formed.

So was OT scripture (in place), which was used in early church, even at the first council…the tradition to be “scriptural” has been with us since Moses.

Not sure OT Jewish leaders had the need to teach that since they interpreted and received scripture as it came down the pipeline, and were there before some of it that they were authoritatively equal to it . The prophets , the judges , the kings, the teachers, and lawyers had writ for their norm, and that was challenge enough, full of ups and downs in understanding and practice thereof.

 

[mcq72]

Then the Catholic points out the criteria are really a description of some of what happened, but no assurance the criteria are sufficient as a tool.
Some scholars might point out other books in the canon that might not meet the criteria, or books outside that might meet them, or other criteria might have been better. I would say So what?

Not sure the tool is in question , for the “community” and Magisterium used it. The consensus of the “community” (church at large, bishops etc) was reached way before any council. This is similar to OT “consensus”, without any "council, but for sure with community and its leaders.

 

[commenter]

The consensus of the “community” (church at large, bishops etc) was reached way before any council. This is similar to OT “consensus”, without any "council, but for sure with community and its leaders.

There wasn’t just one Christian community, but many, using many different “scriptures”. A consensus NT canon would have generated 300 books, plus more since then, all justified by some criteria.

The tiny NT Canon, and the decision to reject the great majority of possible books, points to a centralized authority. Some scholars claim the Magisterium, and its canon, and it’s adherents represented only a minority of the ancient Christian communities and Christian scholars; that they won because the Catholics had sharper swords, or wore down their opponent Christians, who buried their scriptures and theologies in hiding and faded from history.

I’m not thrilled with this explanation but it’s more plausible than the consensus one.

 

[mcq72]

well, I certainly did not mean one parish, or one bishop as “community”…i meant a consensus amongst most bishops, parishes etc etc.

Again, I believe OT and their scripture is prototype for new, and they certainly held no council, but mimic the consensus model.

 

[meltzerboy2]

That would be true if Sola Scriptura were not given to individual and collective (denominational) interpretations, which it is. This is because not everything in the Bible, whether the Hebrew Bible (OT) or the NT, is written to be taken at face value. Rather, there are layers upon layers of interpretation for many verses.