Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

[Michael16]

How do you arrive at that?

That assertion is a farce. Sola Scriptura cannot be respectful of interpretive authority as it disregards completely any limitation. The whole Protestant point is that supposedly SS is above all interpretive authority.

Frankly, I feel I lost brain cells reading your assertion. I’m sorry to sound uncharitable; but I was struck that much by it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Here’s my angle

Sinful men – they make up the Magisterium…and those men die. The Word, of course, is eternal.

So I would de-emphasize the actual human here and emphasize the offices, so to speak, of the Magisterium.

A Mass is not a valid Mass without a reading from the Holy Gospel. Scripture is of utmost importance in the Church. But it, like the constitution, need a valid interpretation. So you simply cant separate one from another.

 

[Michael16]

In case my last reply didn’t tag you.

I feel that you completely misrepresented your master’s position and slid around my point while trying to look reasoned and consistent.

Again: Sola Scriptura cannot be, at all; respectful of interpretive authority as the principle holds that Sacred Scripture is above any and all interpretive authority; including that of your master’s.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

An Orthodox view on Sola Scriptura:

 

[JonNC]

I offer this point: Sola Scriptura is self refuting. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture does it refer to itself as the only infallible guide to faith and morals.

It doesn’t have to. Sola scriptura is a hermeneutical principle, not a doctrine. Sola scriptura is the practice of holding doctrine accountable to scripture as the final norm.

 

[JonNC]

You’re confusing the issue and don’t address the basic point: Sola Scriptura throws out all authority over interpretation and leaves chaos in its place.

Source, please. Identify a proponent of sola scriptura that states that SS “throws out all authority over interpretation”.

 

[Michael16]

No need. All you have to do is look at the logical conclusion to the principle.

 

[adf417]

None of us on this thread would ever propose a scenario where the Father, Son and Holy spirit are separated. Why wouldn’t we give their revelation the same consideration? Why cant the three legged stool analogy be equally applied here as it does in the Trinity?

Peace!!!

 

[Michael16]

You’re squirming around the issue. How can Sola Scriptura be only a hermeneutical principle and not a doctrine? That’s just hairsplitting.

Let’s be honest. Sola Scriptura is one of the foundational tenets of your faith tradition. Tenet meaning doctrine.

Now, a hermeneutical principle is an interpretive method/technique. That’s impossible to divorce hermeneutics from the body of interpretations that results from the hermeneutical techniques involved. It’s like trying to say employing Communist hermeneutics would result in capitalist interpretations of economics. You see the resulting impossibility?

The problem of how Sola Scriptura cannot be just an interpretive technique is that by necessity; it also throws out Tradition. It throws it out by saying that Tradition doesn’t matter; it’s the text alone. As if you can divorce the text from it’s interpretation; divorced from any body of tradition built up from those interpretations. Here’s the problem with that. It’s impossible not to build up a tradition based upon an interpretation; as it’s impossible not to interpret what one reads.

As we can readily see in Protestant communities; there’s a body of tradition that they draw upon. To deny that these communities have a tradition would be laughable to say the least.

 

[JonNC]

No need. All you have to do is look at the logical conclusion to the principle.

It seems only respectful to supply a source to defend your evaluation of another communion’s practice.

It might also be helpful if you explain your understanding of principle.

 

[Michael16]

I don’t really study Protestant apologetics. What I do know is from observing you and the other apologists on this site. Frequently, you guys hardly ever address questions head on. Preferring to go around to other points than the one put to you and undermining that point.

Now, how I define principle is one of two ways.

First: Principle as ethical ideals. Since we’re dealing with theological, not ethical; points; that definition isn’t applicable.

Second: Principle as ideas. Ideas meaning concepts of all sorts taken as a basis for something else.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t really study Protestant apologetics.

I don’t either. I tend to know about Lutheran teaching, and to a lesser extent Anglican. I probably know more about Catholic teaching than most other non-Catholic traditions. As a result , it is best to let them speak for themselves.

What I do know is from observing you and the other apologists on this site. Frequently, you guys hardly ever address questions head on. Preferring to go around to other points than the one put to you and undermining that point.

Do tell. Please provide an example for this blanket accusation.

Now, how I define principle is one of two ways.

First: Principle as ethical ideals. Since we’re dealing with theological, not ethical; points; that definition isn’t applicable.

Second: Principle as ideas. Ideas meaning concepts of all sorts taken as a basis for something else.

Now apply this to sola fide.

 

[JonNC]

Now, a hermeneutical principle is an interpretive method/technique. That’s impossible to divorce hermeneutics from the body of interpretations that results from the hermeneutical techniques involved.

Exactly. Just as doctrine is specific to the body doing the interpretation.

The problem of how Sola Scriptura cannot be just an interpretive technique is that by necessity; it also throws out Tradition. It throws it out by saying that Tradition doesn’t matter; it’s the text alone.

And that’s a misunderstanding of the principle. Without looking back, I think that point has been made on this thread before.
An excellent example follows:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament . This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body , etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. [55]](http://bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php#para55) And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but [56]is truly changed into flesh . And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny…

The quote is from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Here Melanchthon defends the doctrine of the real presence using scripture, the historic Church and the Fathers.
The principle of sola scriptura does not exclude tradition. It simply places scripture as the final norm.

 

[Michael16]

To provide an example: The discussion we had concerning Saint Peter as the head of the Church. As I had successfully defended the Catholic point and refuted the Protestant attack; the specific matter was dropped and how it applies to Sola Scriptura wasn’t addressed. Seeing as the Catholic doctrine concerning this passage is correct, and Sacred Scripture in your tradition trumps any individual interpretation; you have to concede that Sola Scriptura has holes in it. To say the least.

Thus have I applied my statement on principle to Sola Scriptura.

Now that’s you’ve conceded my point on hermeneutics, and I have demonstrated the invalidity of Sola Scriptura as a hermeneutic principle; the rest of Lutheran doctrine is thus revealed to be based on incorrect premises and thus revealed to be a body of errors.

The quote from the Apology Of Augsburg, IMHO; would be in line with Catholic doctrine.

 

[GladTidings]

Would I be wrong that scripture serves your magisterium, which is equally supreme,

I would not say that scripture is equally supreme to the magisterium, or that it serves the magisterium. The magisterium is guided by the holy Spirit.

If all scripture everywhere in the world disappeared, the Catholic Church would still carry on as it has from the very beginning. The other churches would be like, “duh?”

By the way, who did God give the bible to?

 

[Michael16]

I really like what you said. The Church and Sacred Tradition were there before Sacred Scripture and when God decided it was time; God gave Sacred Scripture to the Church.

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry. I misread which Sola you referred to.

Applying the principle to Sola Fide.

If you read Saint Paul in context, you understand that his teaching concerned works of the Mosaic Law as taught and practiced by the Pharisees. Which can be summed up as obeying the Letter, not the Spirit; of the Law. Mere legalistic observance of the Law will not justify one before God.

Obedience to the Spirit of the Law, which is love; trumps mere legalistic observance of the Law. To use a contemporary term: “ Goig through the motions “.

Further thought leads one to consider faith formed by hope and charity goes in tandem with works. Faith necessarily leads to works; but, as has been demonstrated; faith alone can not justify one before God.

It’s like when Abraham, our father in faith; left Ur for Canaan. If Abraham simply believed God and nothing else; he would’ve stayed in Ur. He wouldn’t be justified.

 

[goout]

I would not say that scripture is equally supreme to the magisterium, or that it serves the magisterium. The magisterium is guided by the holy Spirit.

If all scripture everywhere in the world disappeared, the Catholic Church would still carry on as it has from the very beginning. The other churches would be like, duh?

By the way, who did God give the bible to?

I really like what you said. The Church and Sacred Tradition were there before Sacred Scripture and when God decided it was time; God gave Sacred Scripture to the Church.

You have to center revelation on Christ. It’s not like Christ came and then God added the Scriptures. In Christ we have God’s full and final word.
All of revelation is contained in the person of Christ, and that includes the fullness of the Gospel, oral and written. The fact that the Gospel becomes a written document is not something apart from Christ, it is part of Christ even before written.

CCC

[75] "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips.

Please everyone: the Gospel is not part of divine revelation because it is written down, it’s part of revelation because it reveals Christ. The Gospel serves Christ, not the other way around.

[80] "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

There is way too much bibliolatry in Christianity that gives the written word an almost superstitious existence apart from Christ and his personal nature.

Christ is a person, not a book. Persons live in community, and all of those things associated with personal community (like the writing of scripture) are meaningless outside the community they are written within.

 

[Michael16]

You make a good point. Thank you, goout.

 

[JonNC]

The discussion we had concerning Saint Peter as the head of the Church. As I had successfully defended the Catholic point and refuted the Protestant attack;

I don’t think we’ve discussed St. Peter, hence I don’t think you successfully defended anything, but going on:

Seeing as the Catholic doctrine concerning this passage is correct, and Sacred Scripture in your tradition trumps any individual interpretation; you have to concede that Sola Scriptura has holes in it. To say the least.

Which passage? What did I concede?

Now that’s you’ve conceded my point on hermeneutics, and I have demonstrated the invalidity of Sola Scriptura as a hermeneutic principle; the rest of Lutheran doctrine is thus revealed to be based on incorrect premises and thus revealed to be a body of errors.

The quote from the Apology Of Augsburg, IMHO; would be in line with Catholic doctrine.

Again, what did I concede?
The quote from the Apology is an excellent example of sola scriptura. The teaching in it is essentially the same as the Catholic understanding of the doctrine of the real presence.
Again cause for celebration.