Sola Scriptura

[Della]

ruzz:

Well, if the books that were chosen for canon (our bible) could only be interpreted one single way, we would have no division today would we? The church probably viewed them the same as they do today. I’ll tell you, I’ve seen debates on both sides of the same scripture and both sides make legitimate points when viewed from that side. In my opinion, the overall message in all the books of the canonized bible is vastly more important than the debated issues of a few verses. I’m sure the early church leaders saw that too and didn’t get hung up on some ambiguity. After all, they would be interpreting and teaching it all.

I’m afraid the rosy picture you have of the first century is simply wrong. There was dissention and divisions from day one. Not within the ranks of the Apostles, to whom Christ gave the commission to preach the Gospel to the whole world, but from those claiming to also have the gospel who were not sent by Christ or the Apostles. IOW, by Protesters. Sound familiar? Here’s what St. Paul wrote about these deceivers’ activities:

Galatians 1:6-9:
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
**(not that there is another). ** But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

Pretty strong statement, don’t you think?

There was no printing press in the first 1500 years of Christianity. Any books canonized were only available through a heirarchy of the Church. It was a different world from today where we have such easy access to information. We forget that the powers that be held tight control over scripture and its interpretation. The orginal Greek texts were not readily available. Therefore, interpretation and oral teaching was much more important then reading the Greek text back then.

This is true, but this was not altogether bad. The Apostles did nothing but preach and teach orally. They didn’t write many books explaining their theology. Only 2 NT books could be said to be anything like a modern theological treatise: Romans and Hebrews. The rest of it was letters sent to correct problems in an already existing Christian Church, except for the Gospels which were each written to tell the life of Christ to different people, such as to the Gentiles (Luke) and to the Hebrews (Matthew). And of course the Church had tight control over its own writings. Who else who have had?

All in all, I’d say they did a fine job in preserving the scriptures. However, part of me always wonders what else was written that either got destroyed or was excluded for what may have seemed like legitimate reasons at the time. Who knows? There may have been some books excluded because it contradicted the current teachings. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was deliberate, but it could have directly contradicted with current practices and therefore ruled not authentic or a forgery.

The books excluded from the Bible are all readily available for anyone to read. They were not destroyed–at least not deliberately if they were. Some, like the Didache, came very close to being included. It is a great source for understanding the way the early Church thought and operated. You ought to read it.

I wish we had more scripture. It might shed more light on things. Maybe brings sects back together.

Perhaps, but then again Jesus never commissioned the writing of any books. He sent the Apostles into the world to preach, to teach, to baptise and to make disciples of all men, not to write books. The only book that could be said to be commissioned by Christ himself is Revelation, and that was in a vision given to John. Otherwise, Jesus’ intent wasn’t that people should squabble over words on a page, but that they should become a part of his Body, the Church. If people leave that Church or reject the Church because they want to believe this or that according to what they think they see in the Bible, they are certainly not acting on what Jesus commanded, but are very much acting on their own.

 

[ruzz]

Genesis315:

ruzz,

First of all, I’ve never seen a non-Catholic make the Catholic argument about the printing press and the need for a teaching authority before. Are you sure you don’t want to come home ?

It’s true that both sides make rational interpretations, that’s where the problem lies. If it was an open and shut case there would be no disagreement. For example, I think John 6 supports the Real Presence much more than symbolism, but I can see how it’s not totally absurd for a smart person to also interpret it as symbolic. So who is right? (this is a big deal). How do we know?

It’s been a discussion for 500 years. I doubt we will resolve it in a few posts

I find context very important. I hate scripturesmiths who toss out verses out of context and use it to support their position. I try to look at what the BIG picture is. Why did God send his son to die for our sins. Surely he wasn’t just trying to be mean to Him. I ask a lot of why’s.

Sure it would be nice to have more books in the Bible, but God gave us enough because He knew Jesus founded a living teaching authority to keep things clear, or so us Catholics believe. The Bible even has stories of people needing help reading Scripture.

We are blessed to live in an age where access to original texts are available including the original Hebrew and Greek. We can study them like few before us could.

We believe the right interpretation has been passed down from the beginning though the Church.

I know. That’s cool. I respect that.

.

 

[ruzz]

Della:

I’m afraid the rosy picture you have of the first century is simply wrong. There was dissention and divisions from day one. Not within the ranks of the Apostles, to whom Christ gave the commission to preach the Gospel to the whole world, but from those claiming to also have the gospel who were not sent by Christ or the Apostles. IOW, by Protesters. Sound familiar? Here’s what St. Paul wrote about these deceivers’ activities:

Galatians 1:6-9:
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
**(not that there is another). ** But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

Pretty strong statement, don’t you think?

Oh I know.

It was full of division and not a lot of structure. The early church, especially after Peter was crucified was a mess. You had apostles all over the region trying to spread the word.

Like I said, I am very grateful to the Church for keeping things under control.

.

 

[Fernando]

When Herr Martin Luther bolted out of the Church, he shifted the Authority (the teaching Church) to Scripture Alone so that every Protestant Bible reader is his/her own interpretive authority.

 

[Ignatius]

aisb23:

Well it’s not really an area I consider myself expert on. I know they were part of the Septuagint and considered canon at the time of Jesus, but later (again around 3rd or 4th century) the Masoretic text which doesn’t include them became the accepted Jewish canon. As to the hows and whys of that decision, I’m afraid I don’t know the answer.

Obviously 1st Maccabees in particular has to have some accepted religious component as we have a holiday (Hannukah) built around the events in it. But I really don’t feel competent to answer the subject at length.

Thank you aisb23, I think you did a splendid job giving us as much has you are able.

May the Almighty Bless and be with you always.

 

[Ignatius]

ruzz:

Well, if the books that were chosen for canon (our bible) could only be interpreted one single way, we would have no division today would we? The church probably viewed them the same as they do today. I’ll tell you, I’ve seen debates on both sides of the same scripture and both sides make legitimate points when viewed from that side. In my opinion, the overall message in all the books of the canonized bible is vastly more important than the debated issues of a few verses. I’m sure the early church leaders saw that too and didn’t get hung up on some ambiguity. After all, they would be interpreting and teaching it all.
. . . .
However, part of me always wonders what else was written that either got destroyed or was excluded for what may have seemed like legitimate reasons at the time. Who knows? There may have been some books excluded because it contradicted the current teachings. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was deliberate, but it could have directly contradicted with current practices and therefore ruled not authentic or a forgery.QUOTE]

Eusibius (born 260 A.D.) gives a fairly good discussion of the rational in the selection of the Books of the New Testament. He lists them in four categories from completely canonical to heretical. He also discusses many of writings which were not included with some rational for the dicisions. Most of this is in his “History of the Church.” It is great reading for those interested in
the history of the Holy Scriptures. I think there may also be some records from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in which the actual NT Cannon was determined.

God Bless.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So what do you guys think? Was this thread a hit and run job?

 

[Little_Mary]

aisb23:

Being Jewish, I have always had a problem with the concept of Sola Scriptura, and I have always thought that there is a very good religio-historical argument against it.

Now I think we can all agree that Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity of all types is built. After all the Christian bible contains both an Old (Jewish) Testament and a New (Christian) Testament. And Jesus and the Apostles and (especially) St Paul were all brought up as Jews and had a firm grasp of Jewish Tradition.

That said Judaism has always had written law, the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament. And it has an oral law, Mishnah, that expounds on and explains Torah. By way of an example there is a verse in Leviticus (unfortunately I don’t have a Bible handy so I can’t give an exact verse cite) that says “Thou shalt not scald a kid * in its mother’s milk.” This is Torah*. Mishnah expands on that verse to provide a great deal of the basics of the kashruth food laws, namely things like not cooking meat in milk, not eating dairy foods and meat at the same meal, keeping separate dishes and utensils for cooking and eating meat or dairy, etc.

So to recap, at the time of Jesus and the early Church there was a written law and and an oral law. And this is key, the oral law was not written down until around the 3rd or 4th century AD, where it became the basis for later Talmudic commentary.

Therefore since Jesus and the Apostles and St Paul were all Jews coming out of a Jewish tradition, it logically follows that the early Church would follow Jewish tradition and have it’s own written law (the Gospels and the Epistles) as well as it’s own oral law (Tradition).

Thank you,
arthur

Arthur

Bless you and welcome. I have always been curious as to how someone of the Jewish faith might view this subject. I wish you would start a thread as sort of a question/answer discussion so we can learn more about the Jewish faith.

 

[Little_Mary]

Catholic Dude:

So what do you guys think? Was this thread a hit and run job?

Was just about to ask where Martin Luther went when I caught sight of this post.

Come back Martin Luther.

 

[Little_Mary]

ruzz:

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How did the Jews keep their religion straight for thousands of years without a single authority?

Almighty God, who then sent us Jesus, who then taught us, orally, and established His church with Peter as the rock.

 

[Little_Mary]

Everyone, I do NOT mean for this to sound sarcastic. This form of communication leaves a lot to be desired as far as getting the real meaning of a post across sometimes. However, I know it will sound simplistic next to all these other posts but, well, that’s just me. , with that said, here’s my :twocents: …

Nowhere in NT, at least not to my knowledge, does it quote Jesus as saying something like “OK, now write this down because 1200 years from now there is going to be this book called The Bible that everyone will read and interpret individually and oral traditions will be completely ignored”

I don’t think he ever even said “OK now write this down”

 

[Milliardo]

Catholic Dude:

So what do you guys think? Was this thread a hit and run job?

Well, he’s all but abandoned the OSAS debate as well. Either it’s his weekend off, or he’s busy, or he couldn’t find anymore answers. Your choice.

 

[Little_Mary]

Milliardo:

Well, he’s all but abandoned the OSAS debate as well. Either it’s his weekend off, or he’s busy, or he couldn’t find anymore answers. Your choice.

Or maybe he r-a-n to the nearest Catholic church to sign up for RCIA after he read all those brilliant responses.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Ok CatholicDude, I am here,

I cant quite remember what we were going to ask, so Ill start off with a few questions:

1)How do you know what books are “supposed” to be in the Bible
2)How do you define SS?
3)Under what Authority do you teach/interpret the Bible?
4)Why are there so many divisions if many Prots go by SS?
5)How did people know what to believe before there was a Bible (as we know the Bible today)?

Ok, first of all, we need to lay some facts out before we can begin discussing. First of all, we have to understand the theory of knowledge. The theory of knowledge [epistomology] is used in an attempt to defend against scepticism. As Protestants and Catholics we both agree that it is absolutely foolish to hold to scepticism, that is, the idea that we cannot know anything. This must be countered for an effective epistomology.

This, of course, cannot be done by evidence. For instance, let us take an example which I have often used. How do we know a specific fact, let’s call it, fact “A?” If we say that we know A is true because of B, the sceptic will then say then ask how we know B. We must then respond that we know B by something else called C. We will eventually use all of the letters in the alphabet, and it will never end. This takes us to an infinitely regressive argument. Hence, if we try to use evidences to solve an epistomological issue, we will be left in an infinitely regressive argument.

This is what your first question falls badly into. Evidences cannot be used to solve epistimological claims for either side. If either one of us say that we know the canon by a specific fact, then we go back in infinite regression. For instance, let me illustrate this by using the Catholic viewpoint. Some Catholics will say we know what the canon is because of the authority of the Catholic Church. Of course, this is very quickly shown to be infinitely regressive when we ask how the Catholic knows that it is the Catholic Church that has the authority to do that, and not the Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way International, and such. If he appeals to things within the church, such as the church’s claim to apostolic succession, or it’s claim to Papal Infallibility, then he begs the question, because such already assumes the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. However, if he says we know that it is the Roman Catholic Church that has that authority, then, without begging the question, he will have to answer that we know that the Roman Catholic Church is that authority because of another ultimate authority. Then when we ask how we know how that ultimate authority is the ultimate authority to define The Catholic Church’s ultimate authority. Again, we have to say another ultimate authority to avoid begging the question, and what happens is he will have to say that there is another ultimate authority that tells us the ultimate authority, which tells us the Roman Catholic church is the ultimate authority to tell us what the canon is. I am sure as you have already guessed, the sceptic then will has how do we know the ultimate authority that tells us the ultimate authority that tells us the Roman Catholic Church is the authority to define the canon? The goes on and on and on… Hence, we might call your question #1 the “table of contents fallacy.”

How do we know God’s revelation? Well, the books that are in the Bible are in the Bible because they are God-Breathed [2 Timothy 3:16]. Such might seem circular, that is, the scriptures are what they are because they say so. However, as we have just seen, we cannot avoid this circularity. The Roman Catholic has already assumed that the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to define and interpret revelation. Hence, in order to avoid having the above mentioned other ultimate authorities, it must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a self-authenticating authority. Therefore, the protestant believes that the scriptures are self-authenticating. What we have, then, are two presupposed authorities:

The Catholic believes in Scripture+tradition as an authority.
The Protestant believes in scripture alone as an ultimate authority.

continued

 

[jschwehm]

You guys might find the following link interesting:

catholicxjw.com/doctrines.html

Jeff S.

 

[Genesis315]

Martin Luther,

See my original post in this thread. In my example, my little notebook is the Word of God because it says so. (#2).

On the other hand, we can look at outside historical evidence to validate the authority of the Church. Likwise, we can validate the Bible because the authority says its good.

Think about it. You originally knew the Bible was the Word of God because either someone you trusted told you it was. You can’t get that from the Bible anymore than you can get it from my hypothetical notebook.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Notice, that between these two premises there is only one difference. That is, that the Catholic also embraces tradition as an ultimate authority. Hence, the way we prove that the canon of scripture is correct is by the impossibility of the contrary. If the Catholic seeks to add tradition to scripture, he is going to have to define exactly what it is, and demonstrate that it is apostolic. The problem is that the early church is silent on many of the dogmas that have been defined on the basis of tradition. The Queen of Heaven dogma is a prime example. Other things such as the bodily assumption of Mary, the Papacy, the treasury of merit, and others are not attested in the early church at all, and many times in history no one would qualify as a modern day Roman Catholic with the beliefs they hold. Hence, it is impossible to define a body of tradition that is apostolic, and that is the most telling proof that the scriptures alone are to be the sole authority for faith and practice. Furthermore, if one believes we need some infallible tradition to decide the scriptures, one must ask how a Jew living 50 years before the time of Christ would know that Zachariah and Malachi were canonical? Jesus did hold people accountible for what the scriptures were in Matthew 22, but he also criticized the Jewish traditions of the elders as being fallible. It is clear then that the Jews had no infallible tradition to know what the canon was, but then how could Jesus hold them accountible to know what the canon is?
What is the difference for the Protestant, however? I have learned to do textual criticism of the New Testament and can demonstrate a very primitive origin for the New Testament texts. Not only that, but we also have clues internally within the text that will point us to the authorship. Also, John 10:27 says that God’s sheep hear his voice. Hence, while we must still weigh the evidence, and not accept it as a final authority, the patristic writers can be helpful in following the development of the canon. All of this evidence taken together brings us to the conclusion of a canon so strong that even secular scholars said that, given all the historical facts of Christianity and the text itself, the 27 book New Testament is correct. If anyone wants an example of how to do this, see Dr. Daniel Wallace’s articles for each book of the bible entitled “Introduction, Argument, Outline” for every book of the Bible at his website: bible.org/author.asp?author_id=1 . The conclusion then is that I can begin to answer the questions about the origin of scripture, but the problem is for the Catholic that he must overcome all of the afore mentioned problems to show that there is an apostolic tradition that traces back to the apostles.

Now, we must give a definition of what sola scriptura is, and what sola scriptura is not. I will be using James White’s book “The Roman Catholic Controversy” as an outline. First, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. We are not claiming that the Bible is a science textbook, or even a catalogue of everything Jesus and the apostles did. Hence, for instance, one cannot argue that because the Bible does not contain the canon, that it is therefore insufficient. Also, quoting passages such as John 21:25 will do no good as we believe that as well. Second, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of all tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition passed down through over 5300 manuscripts. We also have traditions such as using plastic cups for communion. Such does not effect Sola Scriptura. However, Sola Scriptura does claim that all tradition is subject to the authority of scripture, and any tradition not found in the text of scripture is not binding. Next, we do not deny that the church has authority to teach. Hence, it is irrelevant to quote passages such as 1 Timothy 3:15 which talk of the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church proclaims and upholds the truth with all of its might and speaks with God given authority. However, the church is still subject to the ultimate authority of scripture. Next, Sola Scriptura does not deny that the church needs to be led by the Holy Spirit. Being led by the spirit is something that is inherent in Sola Scriptura itself. Finally, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that God’s word was never spoken. Hence, the citation of texts such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2. This is the fallacy that you fell into in question #5. The issue is not whether the apostles ever passed along their traditions in oral form, but how we have access to that apostolic tradition today now that the apostles are gone.

Continued

 

[Zooey]

Little Mary:

Everyone, I do NOT mean for this to sound sarcastic. This form of communication leaves a lot to be desired as far as getting the real meaning of a post across sometimes. However, I know it will sound simplistic next to all these other posts but, well, that’s just me. , with that said, here’s my :twocents: …

Nowhere in NT, at least not to my knowledge, does it quote Jesus as saying something like “OK, now write this down because 1200 years from now there is going to be this book called The Bible that everyone will read and interpret individually and oral traditions will be completely ignored”

I don’t think he ever even said “OK now write this down”

That’s actually a very good point, provided that you agree that the Holy Spirit was the One who inspired the writers…Which I assume you do!!

 

[Martin_Luther]

Now to address the questions you asked that I have not yet addressed. First of all, with regards to question #3, by what authority do I teach and interpret the Bible? From Biblical authority of course. The Bible tells us to teach the word, and to practice taught and careful exegesis. Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for doing just that with the message of Paul to verify that it is true. 2 Peter 3:16 talks about what happens when we are untaught and unstable and try to interpret the scriptures. We will distort them. Hence, we have exhortations to preach the word, test things by the scriptures, and practice taught and careful exegesis.

Finally, I think that question #4 is based on a faulty premise. That is, it assumes that all protestants hold to Sola Scriptura. With all of the things going on in pentacostal churches with new revelations, with people claiming God is audibly speaking to them, people who deny the Bible’s condemnation of Homosexuality, abortion, and premarital sex, how can we honestly say that these churches are actually holding to Sola Scriptura? In fact, if you take my church, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and all other reformed churches, and compare it with all of the groups that have scripture plus an infallible interpreter such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way International, Moonies, etc., you will find much greater unity between the reformed churches then all of these groups that have scripture plus and infallible interpreter.

There you go, that should get things started!

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Zooey]

You say, “not all protestants believe in sola scriptura”, wihout poiting out that some protestants–for example Methodists (which I am)–do accept tradition…Now this may not be all that Catholics would call tradition, but we (A) don’t accept every little “revelation” that somebody pops up with, in or out of “tongues”, but(B), we do accept that the early church fathers were part of the making of the canon of scripture.
I mean, you guys can argue this back & forth all you want, but I just want to start by saying that ML is not necessarily speaking for protestant traditions other than his own.
But I look forward to following this thread!!