sola scriptura

[JonNC]

=rfournier103;10266588]Where in the Holy Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the deposit of faith? I’ve never understood where the philosophy of Sola Scriptura came from (or when).

No one, because that is not what is meant by sola scriptura. Scripture says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. What scripture is is the final norm by which the teachings of the Church are held accountable. Following that, and subject to that, is the Tradition of the Church - councils, creeds, confessions, etc.

Who is the man who decided that there would be no other authority than the Good Book?

No one. See above. It isn’t that there is no other authority, but only that scripture is the sole final norm.

What authority did we Christians have prior to 393 A.D. (Synod of Hippo)? Christians were rudderless prior to then?

Obviously not. Perhaps one could say the rudderless situation happened in circa 1054.
To speak of scripture in this way, however, implies that the Apostles and others did not write, or that these writings did not exist prior to 393. They did, and people knew of them.

I am very interested in the Protestant position on this.

If it is understood the sola scriptura is, in effect, a practice of the Church (in my case, Lutheran) to hold accountable teachers, doctrines, etc., then it stands to reason that there must be a Church to practice sola scriptura. So, as a Lutheran, I recognise that the Lutheran confessions stand as statements of the true faith, along with the early councils and creeds, not because these things are equal to scripture, but because they rightly reflect it.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

It would be conjecture. We have to go on what was said about it in the apostolic and post-apostolic period. Of course, I don’t grant that he had papal authority anyway. Even if he had, though, the apostles received revelation, raised the dead, and did a whole host of supernatural displays; all of it died with them. They are the foundation. Once the foundation was layed, there wasn’t any reason for those gifts to continue. The house doesn’t add to the foundation.

You do realize that there is nothing in the Bible that states that the gifts were not to continue, that Christ intended for them to die with the Apostles.

To your later comment about the church. There were gifts given only to the apostles. The apostolic office was unique. It isn’t repeated. Many things given to them faded once the office disappeared.

All this demonstrates is that there was a hierarchy in the Church. Your statement that the apostolic office was not to be repeated is pure conjecture as there is nothing in scripture that even implies that this is the case. If there is please direct me to the verse.

 

[SteveVH]

No one, because that is not what is meant by sola scriptura. Scripture says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. What scripture is is the final norm by which the teachings of the Church are held accountable. Following that, and subject to that, is the Tradition of the Church - councils, creeds, confessions, etc.

Yet Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture and is, indeed, the source from which the New Testament writings came. Do you think that a book written by a man trumps the man’s life? That is exactly what Scripture is; a part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. Why would it have authority above the very Church that produced it?

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10266899]Sure, but where is that from? In other words, why I should I think it true?

Why should i think the pope has the charism of infallibility ex cathedra? The simple point is that each communion has its own way of hermeunetics.

Because it looks like the final authority for you is the Bible. If that is the case, and this is not in the Bible, that seems to indicate an inconsistency, no? Even the book you consider as the final authority regarding faith does not seem to say what you want to believe?

It doesn’t have to, though it does imply that scripture is a solid basis for faith. And Sacred Tradition as an equal is inconsistent since there is more than one interpretations of it.

How did you figure out what the church is? If I just start calling myself the church, is that a valid church? If I perhaps attended the Lutheran seminary and got credentials, can I start my own church? Who gave the permission/authority for the Lutheran seminaries to teach or who certified them?

The Church is the congregation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. If you want to start your own church, have at it. To be a Lutheran pastor, OTOH, one must be ordained as such, and hold to the Confessions.

Sure, but how do you come to know this claim?

Let me be more specific. If I wrote a book, and included the phrase “this is the word of God”, does it make my book the word of God?

So it seems to me that to accept that claim “Bible is the word of God”, it must have been told to you by someone else, right? Do you agree with me that to believe such a strong claim about a text from someone else, that someone must have some sort of authority to begin with?

In other words, do you agree that the Bible by itself cannot be a supreme authority and at least one other entity must share the same authority. That person being the entity that told you the Bible is the word of God? Because if that entity did not have any authority, your assent to the claim that the Bible is Word of God would be contrary to all reason and arbitrary. Yes?

I must go to an Elders’ meeting, and will respond in detail later. For now, I know your approach to this, as we’ve discussed it before. Hence, I think you know my general answer.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yet Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture and is, indeed, the source from which the New Testament writings came. Do you think that a book written by a man trumps the man’s life? That is exactly what Scripture is; a part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. Why would it have authority above the very Church that produced it?

The distinction, Steve, isn’t between Sacreed Tradition and Sacred Scripture, or between scripture and the Church. They go hand in hand. I think the difference in our views has to do with by what means does the Church hold the consciense of a believer to a particular doctrine or dogma.
I must go, but will return to elaborate later.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yet Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture and is, indeed, the source from which the New Testament writings came. Do you think that a book written by a man trumps the man’s life? That is exactly what Scripture is; a part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. Why would it have authority above the very Church that produced it?

Because the Church received it as the very Word of God.

Because while Scriptures are not the “sole” authority, Tradition cannot be in conflict with it. Being in conflict with it would mean being in conflict with God’s Word. As such, God does not contradict Himself. However, the interpretation of Scriptures is to be held by the authority of the Church and if the Church identifies a practice that is not consistent with ALL God has revealed to Her, then that’s what the Councils are for.

Trying to minimize Scriptures as a byproduct of Tradition is the wrong way of approaching this subject, imho.

 

[SteveVH]

Because the Church received it as the very Word of God.
Because while Scriptures are not the “sole” authority, Tradition cannot be in conflict with it. Being in conflict with it would mean being in conflict with God’s Word.

The Church determined the writings to be the very Word of God based upon how well they stacked up against Sacred Tradition. The Church is never in conflict with Scripture as its human authors were among the same people that handed on the Apostolic teaching to the Church orally. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition derive from and speak of the same Truth. They both come from the same source; Jesus Christ.

As such, God does not contradict Himself. However, the interpretation of Scriptures is to be held by the authority of the Church and if the Church identifies a practice that is not consistent with ALL God has revealed to Her, then that’s what the Councils are for.

I am well aware that God does not contradict himself and you will find no contraditction between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Trying to minimize Scriptures as a byproduct of Tradition is the wrong way of approaching this subject, imho.

How have I minimized Scripture? To point out the plain fact that the New Testament constitutes that part of Sacred Tradition that was put in writing is not to minimize Scripture. They are two streams from the same river.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You do realize that there is nothing in the Bible that states that the gifts were not to continue, that Christ intended for them to die with the Apostles.

All this demonstrates is that there was a hierarchy in the Church. Your statement that the apostolic office was not to be repeated is pure conjecture as there is nothing in scripture that even implies that this is the case. If there is please direct me to the verse.

There is no explicit verse, no. However it is more than conjecture. First, the requirement to be considered an apostle cannot be fulfilled by anyone, either today or in the post-apostolic church (Acts 1:21-22). That, in and of itself would be enough to demonstrate that the apostolic office ceased. Secondly, when the apostles themselves are nearing death or the end of their ministry, they never instruct anyone to ordain new apostles or that their charism would continue. Rather, they say to remember what they were taught by the apostles and entrust it to those who come after them (Acts 20:28-35, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). Lastly, it’s a matter of historical record that those things gifted to the apostles -revelation, miracles, healing, divine assistance- ceased.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Church determined the writings to be the very Word of God based upon how well they stacked up against Sacred Tradition. The Church is never in conflict with Scripture as its human authors were among the same people that handed on the Apostolic teaching to the Church orally. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition derive from and speak of the same Truth. They both come from the same source; Jesus Christ.

No Steve, not determined.

From CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

Handed onto the Church. IOW, Received by the Church.

How have I minimized Scripture? To point out the plain fact that the New Testament constitutes that part of Sacred Tradition that was put in writing is not to minimize Scripture. They are two streams from the same river.

From your tone and reference to Sacred Scriptures, I found Scriptures to bow down to Tradition from your posts.

And yes, the written Words are binding as much as the spoken Word. Or are we to ignore all the Papal Encyclicals? Or our Missal? All these writings are binding. That is part of the Church authority to bind and lose. So yes, the Sacred Scriptures, once committed to writing by the Church are indeed binding to us.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Yet Sacred Tradition preceded Sacred Scripture and is, indeed, the source from which the New Testament writings came. Do you think that a book written by a man trumps the man’s life? That is exactly what Scripture is; a part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. Why would it have authority above the very Church that produced it?

The distinction, Steve, isn’t between Sacreed Tradition and Sacred Scripture, or between scripture and the Church. They go hand in hand. I think the difference in our views has to do with by what means does the Church hold the consciense of a believer to a particular doctrine or dogma.
I must go, but will return to elaborate later.

Jon

To elaborate:
What we would say is that the conscience of the believer should not be bound to those things from which there is no scriptural evidence. For example, On marian teachings: the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is clear in scripture and the conscience of the beleiver ought to be bound to it, the doctrine of the IC, OTOH, is not clear in scripture, though it seems reasonable that one may believe it.
Another: Lutherans share with Catholics the belief that the saints do indeed pray for us, but in scripture there is no command, promise, or example (except for the dream in Macc 2) for invocation. I don’t think invocation ought to be prohibited, but neither should a belief in it be de fide.

In short, scripture is the final norm for de fide beliefs, and when Tradition does not contradict this, which honestly is most of the time, Tradition stands as a witness to the true faith.

Jon
Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10266899]
Sure, but how do you come to know this claim?

Let me be more specific. If I wrote a book, and included the phrase “this is the word of God”, does it make my book the word of God?

So it seems to me that to accept that claim “Bible is the word of God”, it must have been told to you by someone else, right? Do you agree with me that to believe such a strong claim about a text from someone else, that someone must have some sort of authority to begin with?

Yes. The Church did. SS relies on the Church to set this standard. To be sure, different communions handle the canon in different ways.

In other words, do you agree that the Bible by itself cannot be a supreme authority and at least one other entity must share the same authority. That person being the entity that told you the Bible is the word of God? Because if that entity did not have any authority, your assent to the claim that the Bible is Word of God would be contrary to all reason and arbitrary. Yes?

You see, you’re speaking of it in a way that doesn’t fit what I believe. You’re question assumes that I give the Church no authority, when in point of fact, I do. Lutherans do.
For example, our complaint about the supremacy of the papcy is two-fold: one is that it doesn’t agree with scripture, but it also doesn’t comply with the early Church. IOW, we look to the authority of the early Church in the matter.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

I think that there’s truth to what both Steve and Isaiah49 are saying. The catechism of the Catholic Church, regarding Scripture and Tradition, has this to say:

The Relationship between Tradition and Sacred Scripture

1. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out of the same divine wellspring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move toward the same goal. 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.”

…Two distinct modes of transmission

81.“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successsors of the apostles so that enlightened by the spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by thier preaching.”

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes. The Church did. SS relies on the Church to set this standard. To be sure, different communions handle the canon in different ways.

So what and who is the Church?

Note that the answer to the above question would have had to be known before you accepted the Bible as the word of God (otherwise you wouldn’t know it is an authority you should trust regarding the claim that the Bible is the word of God). So without a definition from the Bible, who or what do you (or can you) identify as the Church?

You see, you’re speaking of it in a way that doesn’t fit what I believe. You’re question assumes that I give the Church no authority, when in point of fact, I do. Lutherans do.
For example, our complaint about the supremacy of the papcy is two-fold: one is that it doesn’t agree with scripture, but it also doesn’t comply with the early Church. IOW, we look to the authority of the early Church in the matter.

The issue with respect to the Papacy is interesting. If you have read the Roman Catholic case for the Papacy from Scripture, it is a consistent case. No Lutheran ever claims that is inconsistent. Rather, the tendency seems to be to state that it is not the consistent interpretation I would like to embrace regarding those passages. In other words, I as a Lutheran interpret passage x that you quoted differently, Yes?

Then the problem here is that given that there are two possible contradicting interpretations, which one must the faithful choose?

The other issue with respect to the Papacy is the following. The claim is that the early Church did not have such a rigorously defined role of the Bishop of Rome. But history does tell us (writings of Church fathers) that Bishop of Rome did indeed enjoy a certain unique primacy. Still, Lutherans will say that its not clear if its the same concept/office it ended up being defined as later on.

Now the error here is that Lutherans seem to think that whichever existed in the early church must be the only thing they must accept. The simplest obstacle here is what do you accept as the early church? Is it the time of the first Apostles? If that were the case, there was no such text known as the Bible. When St. Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians, it didn’t say “this letter too is the word of God”.

But as I am sure you are aware, you accept the Bible from the Canon defined in Council of Hippo. That happened at least 300 years after the death of the last Apostles. Is that still the early Church? Where do you draw the line that THIS is the early Church and NOW is the new/false Church?

Also, what happened to the authority of the Church after pronouncing the Canon of Scripture? How did it suddenly disappear? Here you have an authority equal* to Scripture but if the Lutheran claim is true, it didn’t survive. How can that be?

(Note:* I used the word equal because a lesser authority cannot make a claim that something is of greater authority than itself (specifically in the case where the object/person the greater authority is claimed for, in this case the Bible, cannot provide evidence from itself for the claim.).

Also, if this authority was capable of pronouncing a text (the Bible) as equal in authority to itself, why is it problematic that it can pronounce papal infallibility in a more rigorous manner? It is well worth noting that the objection of Lutherans that Papacy does not exist in the early Church is not one of contradiction but rather an argument from absence. Just as the Bible as an entire collection we know today was absent in the Early Church, yet we have come to accept it based on the authority of the Church, why is it problematic to accept the Papacy as it has now been rigorously defined by that same authority, the Church?

 

[SteveVH]

No Steve, not determined.

From CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

Handed onto the Church. IOW, Received by the Church.

Let me just ask you one question. Who decided which writings were to be included and which were not; which were the word of God, and which were just the writings of men?

Thanks.

From your tone and reference to Sacred Scriptures, I found Scriptures to bow down to Tradition from your posts.

And yes, the written Words are binding as much as the spoken Word. Or are we to ignore all the Papal Encyclicals? Or our Missal? All these writings are binding. That is part of the Church authority to bind and lose. So yes, the Sacred Scriptures, once committed to writing by the Church are indeed binding to us.

You seem to have a great need to educate me, Isaiah. As much as I appreciate your concern, please show me where I have ever said that the scriptures were not binding. I have enough flaws, you really don’t have to make stuff up.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Let me just ask you one question. Who decided which writings were to be included and which were not; which were the word of God, and which were just the writings of men?

Thanks.

You can’t ask me this question and then make fun of me having a need to educate you…

The Catechism clearly answers this question for ALL of us Catholics.

You seem to have a great need to educate me, Isaiah. As much as I appreciate your concern, please show me where I have ever said that the scriptures were not binding. I have enough flaws, you really don’t have to make stuff up.

When you say in your post above:

Why would it have authority above the very Church that produced it?

I mean, that was you who said it. You are saying that the Word of God holds no authority over the Church. When in fact, we are bound by the Word of God. And being bound by the Word of God is being under its authority.

How can we be bound to something that holds no form of authority over us?

I don’t make up stuff Steve, I have no need to. I don’t need to show any of your flaws either. I have plenty mine to worry about.

 

[SteveVH]

You can’t ask me this question and then make fun of me having a need to educate you…

The Catechism clearly answers this question for ALL of us Catholics.

When you say in your post above:

Originally Posted by SteveVH

The Bible does not interpret itself. It requires an infallible authority to that. It is the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture to which we must adhere because it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Yes, of course, the Bible is the word of God and should be held in the highest esteem. I have never said anything else.

The only point I am making is that it cannot be held higher than Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium. It came forth from Sacred Tradition and is interpreted by the Magisterium. All three are sacred and necessary. It does one no good to possess the Scriptures if one is not capable of discerning the truth present there. Ultimately it is the Church to which we are bound.

How can we be bound to something that holds no form of authority over us?

That authority is not independent of the Church who told you that it was the word of God in the first place.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Why should i think the pope has the charism of infallibility ex cathedra? The simple point is that each communion has its own way of hermeunetics.

You did not answer the question Jon. I asked how to you know what or who is the church. To even say that each “communion” has x,y,z, we first have to decide what is a communion and what might be an invalid one. Neither of these are answered by you but pertain to the question I asked.

It doesn’t have to, though it does imply that scripture is a solid basis for faith. And Sacred Tradition as an equal is inconsistent since there is more than one interpretations of it.

There are multiple interpretations of Scripture as well. So doesn’t that undermine the authority of Scripture using the same logic?

The Church is the congregation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. If you want to start your own church, have at it. To be a Lutheran pastor, OTOH, one must be ordained as such, and hold to the Confessions.

You didn’t answer the question though. How do you know that is the Church? It certainly isn’t intuitive to me that there exists an entity known as the congregation of saints that preach the word (which I don’t know is actually the word of God to begin with) or administers the sacraments (which I would have no clue what they mean without first knowing the Bible as the word of God) and that this said entity is “CHURCH”.

You have to think step by step. You want to say that you accept the Bible because it is what your Church (Lutheran I presume) told you. But, you fail to tell me how you came to accept the Lutheran Church as having any authority to begin with or its definitions of a Church.

I must go to an Elders’ meeting, and will respond in detail later. For now, I know your approach to this, as we’ve discussed it before. Hence, I think you know my general answer.

Every day is a new day! So who knows, right ?

 

[PRmerger]

Lastly, it’s a matter of historical record that those things gifted to the apostles -revelation, miracles, healing, divine assistance- ceased.

This is begging the question, Gaelic.

You need to prove that revelation ceased with the death of the apostle–using Scripture alone.

Of course, we as Catholics proclaim that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, but that is something (another thing) we know from Tradition, not Scripture.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Bible does not interpret itself. It requires an infallible authority to that. It is the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture to which we must adhere because it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Yes, of course, the Bible is the word of God and should be held in the highest esteem. I have never said anything else.

The only point I am making is that it cannot be held higher than Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium. It came forth from Sacred Tradition and is interpreted by the Magisterium. All three are sacred and necessary. It does one no good to possess the Scriptures if one is not capable of discerning the truth present there. Ultimately it is the Church to which we are bound.

That authority is not independent of the Church who told you that it was the word of God in the first place.

Can you please stop parroting the who told you, who decided, etc etc to me? I am Catholic, so please save your rhetoric… :hey_bud:

See post #502

However, the interpretation of Scriptures is to be held by the authority of the Church

That was me.

God established His Church. HIS Church, not yours, mine, or anyone else’s. HIS Church. ALL glory is to God. We just happen to be in it by His Grace, not yours, mine, or anyone else’s. I am grateful for God’s Church and the men and women He has chosen to carry His work, not yours, mine, or anyone else’s.

Yours truly,

A Catholic

 

[Reuben_J]

"Gaelic Bard:

Lastly, it’s a matter of historical record that those things gifted to the apostles -revelation, miracles, healing, divine assistance- ceased.

This is begging the question, Gaelic.

You need to prove that revelation ceased with the death of the apostle–using Scripture alone.

Of course, we as Catholics proclaim that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, but that is something (another thing) we know from Tradition, not Scripture.

From what I gather here,** ‘miracles, healing, divine assistance - ceased’** with the death of thr apostles, is certainly a rare position among the Protestants. It certainly did not historically. St. Augustine, when he was a Bishop, testified that someone was healed after he prayed over him. This is significant even though he did not seem to believe that the gifts ceased with the apostles but that the gift were to set up the Church but once the Church was stable there was no necessity for the gifts anymore.

Along history, mircales have been recorded so it may not be entirely correct to say that they ceased with the apostles.