Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

[Hodos]

I’ll have to disagree with you there, Hodos. Sola Scriptura isn’t the answer to any question. It presents more problems than solutions. Sola Scriptura is nowhere mentioned at all in Sacred Scripture; it was an invention of Martin Luther. As well as: Sola Scriptura means that Sacred Scripture itself is the only infallible guide of faith and morals.

Who composed the canon of Sacred Scripture?

God composed the canon of Sacred Scripture, since he is its author. We received it. And again, I think that JonNC probably spoke it best, this is an issue of hermeneutics. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the answer to a question, which is which authority holds precedence when scripture is in conflict with another authority such as tradition. You can deny that all you want, but that is the historical context in which Sola Scriptura was articulated. Christ himself used the scriptures to challenge the authenticity of what was claimed to be sacred tradition.

Where were the Protestants cautioning against Church authority?

There was no need, we believe in Church authority. We just believe that the church authority is submissive to God’s word. You have to ask yourself, authority to do what exactly? God didn’t give the Church authority to declare doctrine in contradiction to what he revealed through Christ and his word. He gave the Church the authority to proclaim what it received, and we use scripture as the artifact of that revelation to norm what we proclaim so that we are not operating outside of the authority that God gave us in the Great Commission.

 

[Michael16]

Hodos, Hodos, Hodos. Ugh. What will we do with you?

No. All your premises are baseless.

Christ never articulated Sola Scriptura as the infallible guide to faith and morals. His Teaching was all oral: Delivered in talks and sermons to crowds and His disciples gathered around Him. The Apostles gathered His Teachings together in Sacred Tradition and passed it faithfully down; carefully preserved. In fact; Saint Paul himself said in one of his letters: Be careful to do what is taught in the traditions I teach you.

So: Even Luther’s favorite author to twist into saying what he wants him to say; taught from tradition.

So: I see you’ve neatly sidestepped the basic point: It was the Church, led by infallibly by the Holy Spirit; since Christ gave the Holy Spirit to Ensure the Church never goes astray, who codified Sacred Scripture. So, who do I believe? Christ’s faithful Spouse or a misogynistic neurotic German priest whose absurd notions got no traction among learned theologians and had to go outside the Magisterium for backup against the Church who stood firm against him?

Hodos, please. I know who God entrusted the fullness and truth of Christ’s Faith to. And it wasn’t your sick little anti Semitic, intolerant polemicist who preached bloody violence against Jews, Catholics and dissenting Protestant “ theologians “ and poor suffering German peasants who rebelled against their lords inspired by your “ hero “.

 

[Michael16]

As for “ we received it “: Where were the dissenting “ voices of truth “ that went against the Church on the codification of Sacred Scripture, ? No one. All the bishops in communion with the Holy Father agreed.

 

[adf417]

We just believe that the church authority is submissive to God’s word. You have to ask yourself, authority to do what exactly?

Authority to declare baptism as being regenerative and not regenerative at the same time. Authority to declare the Lords supper as symbolic and not symbolic at the same time. These and others all in the name of Christianity.

Peace!!!

 

[goout]

God composed the canon of Sacred Scripture, since he is its author. We received it.

I’ve made this point before but…

We get into what is essentially a denial of the fullness of the Incarnation.
In the Incarnation God becomes fully human. Two full natures, one person. Your quote above suggests the “robotic” or “trance” theory of scripture, whereby revelation is a forceful one-way street, with God basically forcing scripture down the throat of mankind and calling that “Inspiration”.

But this can’t be. Because God is love, and God’s love respects human free will to the point of human flesh…scripture must be a partnership between the divine and the human. Scripture is incarnational. Inspiration does not mean that humanity is a dumb receiver in the transmission of the Gospel, it means that God is accomplishing in human words, with human free will, all that God wishes to accomplish for salvation. In the relationship between God and human, God breathes saving truth. God does not need the scriptures!!!

So all of the human elements are in cooperation with the divine. Story, oral tradition, authority, commitment to writing. All of it. The whole (cata-holos!)

To echo the elephant in the room that always goes unanswered:
Where were the scriptures when Christ walked the earth, when he died and rose and ascended, and for the few decades after?
Where were the scriptures?
Are we to believe that the Gospel was “less” because it was not yet written down?
How can that be if Christ himself…is the Word?
Does the Gospel serve God or does God serve the Gospel?

 

[Michael16]

Hodos: You’re whole community and tradition is premised on rebellion to authority. Don’t even TRY to quibble on that point.

 

[Michael16]

Your “ hero “ declares a LOT of things in contradiction to God’s Word, like the Lord’s Supper. “ Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood “ a pretty direct and straightforward statement on the part of Our Lord, yet Luther says he means it symbolically? Hahahahaha

 

[Hodos]

Hodos: You’re whole community and tradition is premised on rebellion to authority. Don’t even TRY to quibble on that point.

There was no rebellion, there was a call for reform. Big difference. The issue as we see it is not one of rebelling against authority. The Church does not have authority inherent in itself. Only God has inherent authority. The Church has the authority to do what God told them to do. So in the Great Commission it says to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. The Church was not granted the authority to teach something other than what Christ commanded or taught. Teaching doctrines that violate what Christ taught is not granted to the Church, and certain practices and teachings were challenged for that reason. The Church at the time rather than debate these issues chose to demand blind compliance to what was an abuse of authority.

 

[Hodos]

Your “ hero “ declares a LOT of things in contradiction to God’s Word, like the Lord’s Supper. “ Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood “ a pretty direct and straightforward statement on the part of Our Lord, yet Luther says he means it symbolically? Hahahahaha

I think you have Luther mistaken for Zwingli.

Augsburg Confession, Article X, “Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”

 

[Michael16]

No, Hodos. Luther had his chance for honest and sincere debate for reform. He lost, was excommunicated and called upon predatory lay nobility to rise up with him against the Vicar of Christ on earth; and yet you say Luther called for reform? Please.

As for authority, let’s talk authority shall we?

Ahem.

Jesus spoke to Saint Peter, the first Pope and gave him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: Whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven and whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven.

Pretty straightforward authority from the Son of God Himself. Which Luther rebelled against in his frustration and anger that his non sense was refuted by THOSE GOD ENTRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY. Namely, the Pope and the successors of the Apostles, the bishops in communion with the Holy Father.

True, there was the abuse of the selling of indulgences, absentee bishops, ill trained priests that failed their flocks and led to ill evangelized parishes vulnerable to the predations of the preachers of your “ hero “. But, the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him settled the matter decisively in the Council of Trent. Which your “ hero “ decided not to attend when invited. Some reformer. He obstinately refused to parley and remained with his “ church “.

So: We can concretely prove that Luther denied the goodness of what God created, denied human free will, denied the authority of the Pope, twisted Saint Paul to say what Luther wanted him to say and denied Saint James. And this is just off the top of my head!

 

[Hodos]

No, Hodos. Luther had his chance for honest and sincere debate for reform. He lost, was excommunicated and called upon predatory lay nobility to rise up with him against the Vicar of Christ on earth; and yet you say Luther called for reform? Please.

Well if you are speaking about the disputations with Prierias, the debates with Eck, and Cardinal Cajetan’s inquisition of Luther, all three of those avoided the doctrinal questions at hand and basically maneuvered Luther to say that the Pope was not infallible, which I would agree with. So my categorization of what occurred is pretty honest if you look at those events.

Jesus spoke to Saint Peter, the first Pope and gave him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: Whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven and whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven.

I agree with this. Jesus provided the Church with the authority to forgive and retain sins based on the confession of Christ as Lord and Messiah. That doesn’t address what I was speaking about, which is that the Church does not have the authority to teach doctrine at odds with what was received by Christ.

 

[Michael16]

No, Hodos. Carjetan didn’t do an Inquisition number on Luther. Perhaps if he did; Europe and the world would have been saved from so much grief on the account of Martin Luther. The debates were done honestly and fairly. The doctrinal questions were dealt with and dealt with effectively. Luther was soundly defeated and drove Carjetan into a frothing fury at Luther’s arrogant obstinacy.

Now which doctrines did the Church supposedly teach contrary to the Word of God?

Indulgences were an accepted doctrine from the earliest days of the Church. No question and no dissension. What the matter at issue was that the mode of transaction was an abuse of the Church’s authority to dispose of the Deposit of Faith.

If Luther limited his dissension to the matter of selling indulgences; everything would’ve been fine and resolved. Noooooo. He had to go waaaaaay off base and question the entire Sacrament of Confession in his 95 Theses. I’ve read them. They horrify me.

 

[Michael16]

See my above point and TRY to get around it.

 

[Michael16]

Also: In the 95 Theses, Luther questioned Papal authority from the very BEGINNING of his revolt.

 

[SyCarl]

It is helpful to read the whole passage from Luke as to why he wrote his Gospel.

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Theophilus had been taught orally. Was that enough? Luke indicates he wrote so Theophilus so he would know the exact truth of what he had been taught. Why would the book have been needed by Theophilus if oral tradition was sufficient?

Whatever they may have said about tradition, the basis for sola scriptura can be found in the early church fathers.

Irenaeus had no problem referencing Scripture long before any council fixed a canon. He states that the truth was passed down orally at first and then in writing.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

He also says the Scriptures can be clearly and unambiguously understood by all.

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. …Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them…

(Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

continued

 

[SyCarl]

Augustine writes that all matters regarding faith and life are plainly contained in Scripture.

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

As to things not in Scripture they may be believed or not depending on your assessment of the evidence.

…you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly…But what I shall not demonstrate so that it be held as seen and perceived either by bodily or mental senses, and if I shall nevertheless say something which must of necessity be either true or false, but which seems to belong to neither of these categories, it remains only that it be believed or not believed. But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scripture, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses or evidences which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.

Letter 147 Saint Augustine Letters, Fathers of the Church, Volume 20 pp 171-173

 

[adf417]

Your “ hero “ declares a LOT of things in contradiction to God’s Word, like the Lord’s Supper. “ Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood “ a pretty direct and straightforward statement on the part of Our Lord, yet Luther says he means it symbolically? Hahahahaha

Do you have a source on this? Ive always been with the understanding Luther was one that was not in the symbolic camp.

Peace!!!

 

[Michael16]

I’ve noticed several things.

1. You’re using Church authorities to try to trump other Church authorities. Reminds me of negationism in the Koran.
2. Clear passages. The passages are clear: They refute Luther in the simplest terms possible. Yet, Protestant apologists twist them beyond all recognition.
3. I have yet to see in your quotations where they say, and these are non Biblical texts written by saints; where Church authority is abrogated in any circumstances.

 

[Michael16]

I talked with my parents’ ELCA church faith formation director. She said the Eucharist is symbolic.

 

[adf417]

I talked with my parents’ ELCA church faith formation director. She said the Eucharist is symbolic.

I understand but that does not equate to Luther believing the same thing which goes to my point a couple posts back that - some believe it and some do not. I think you may want to reconsider Luther’s personal position on this one.

Peace!!!