S
stewstew03
Guest
No worries - I’m on my phone as well.
Besides, it was rhetorical - of course the answer is Tradition…
- Status
Besides, it was rhetorical - of course the answer is Tradition…
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Tradition would be a relevant factor to the issue of the canon. Inspiration is not a tradition, its an event.No worries - I’m on my phone as well.
Besides, it was rhetorical - of course the answer is Tradition…
S
stewstew03
Guest
I agree… But the witness and testament of this inspiration is Tradition.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Yes, absolutely. Tradition witnesses as to what books are inspired. So the how we know they are inspired is through Christ Himself. The how we know what is inspired has church reception as one of its factors.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Sounds awfully like Solo scriptura. But honestly this really doesn’t sound like the solo or sola scriptura promoted by most protestants, that is they would typically insist one does not need a church to interpret the bible, that the bible in of itself is sufficient. You are much closer to the orthodox and catholic position which accepts the suffiiciency of the bible, that is it contains all the things neccessary for good works and salvation, but that you need another component to help understand such writings and make them profitable in the first place.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Yes; but essentially, the latter that you described is what has always been promulgated by the historic Protestant confessions of faith (and I would argue the apostolic and early churches). Of course we maintain Scripture is sufficient; but it doesn’t read itself!
P
PJM
Guest
Well done
Christ founding only One Church and therefore Only one corisponding set of Faith beliefs; flows both from Tradition and the reality made possible in Logic.
Noah, Abram, Moses, David, Jacob the Prophets and then Christ Himself who passed it on to Pater; and from Peter today’s CC, shows the Mind of God in Tradition.
Becaue there is Only One God; there can Logically be only One trut set of Faith beliefs; which is the precise justification and cause of only One Church.
**John.10: 16 **“And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”
Ps.127:1 “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain”
Eph. 3: 9-10 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
ALL of the mandates, commands and authority are place in a single source: the Apostles alone and through them by absolute necessity and Divine Providence [Mt. 28:19-20] to to todays CC.
Mt. 10:1-8; Mt. 16;15-19; Mt. 18;18; Mt. 28:16-20; John 14:16-17 [filled in John 20:21-22]; and John 17:15-19 all directly and precisely prove this historical and biblical fact summed up in Matthew 28:18-20.
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [NOW being PASSED on the The Aposlles ALONE] [19] Going therefore, teach** ye** all nations;*THUS MANDATING SUCCESSION] * baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Gods continued Blessings be with you,
Pat/PJM
S
stewstew03
Guest
Does it interpret itself?
M
Mickey
Guest
If someone wants to be protected from tricks and remain healthy in the faith, he must confine his faith first to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and secondly to the Tradition of the Church. But someone may ask, is not the canon of Scripture sufficient for everything, and why should we add thereto the authority of Tradition? This is because not everyone understands the Scriptures in the same way, but one explains them this way and another that way, so that it is possible to get therefrom as many thoughts as there are heads. Therefore it is necessary to be guided by the understanding of the Church … What is tradition? It is that which has been understood by everyone, everywhere and at all times … that which you have received, and not that which you have thought up … So then, our job is not to lead religion where we wish it to go, but to follow it where it leads, and not to give that which is our own to our heirs, but to guard that which has been given to us.
- St. Vincent of Lerins
- St. Vincent of Lerins
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Yes and no, stew. You need someone to interpret. Scripture also interprets itself in that you have, say the apostle Paul directly interpreting a passage of the OT and applying it to Christ. Or a gospel writer doing the same. At times you have clearer passages interpreting less clear passages.
B
benjohnson
Guest
If I may, it seems that perhaps there’s a misunderstanding here - in that some people think that Sola Scriprua simply means “Bible only.”
When we encounter Protestants who obviously have churches, pastors, creeds, confessions and traditions, the evidence should make us pause before we say Protestants aren’t living up to Sola Scriptura.
I would say that this is more of the problem the definition of what some think Sola Scriptura is rather than the average Protestant behaving somewhat hypocritically in regards to having more than “just the Bible.”
When we encounter Protestants who obviously have churches, pastors, creeds, confessions and traditions, the evidence should make us pause before we say Protestants aren’t living up to Sola Scriptura.
I would say that this is more of the problem the definition of what some think Sola Scriptura is rather than the average Protestant behaving somewhat hypocritically in regards to having more than “just the Bible.”
B
benjohnson
Guest
If I may, it seems that perhaps there’s a misunderstanding here - in that some people think that Sola Scriprua simply means “Bible only.”
When we encounter Protestants who obviously have churches, pastors, creeds, confessions and traditions, the evidence should make us pause before we say Protestants aren’t living up to Sola Scriptura.
I would say that this is more of the problem the definition of what some think Sola Scriptura is rather than the average Protestant behaving somewhat hypocritically in regards to having more than “just the Bible.”
When we encounter Protestants who obviously have churches, pastors, creeds, confessions and traditions, the evidence should make us pause before we say Protestants aren’t living up to Sola Scriptura.
I would say that this is more of the problem the definition of what some think Sola Scriptura is rather than the average Protestant behaving somewhat hypocritically in regards to having more than “just the Bible.”
J
JM3
Guest
Sola Scriptura literally means Scripture Alone. If you wish to add more to it, then it ceases to be sola scriptura.
B
benjohnson
Guest
“Sola Scriptura” was a bombastic phrase used by Martin Luther to quickly explain why the Church should not follow what he felt were modern inventions or corruptions - paying for indulgences, paying for ecclesiastical offices, that sort of thing. Theses were contrary to the Bible in his view and should be discarded, and that how Lutherans apply it: We acknowledge other authorities as long as they do not teach contrary to Scripture.
My contention is that idea that you can take a phrase, strip it of meaning, and then apply it to a group of people and then wonder why they don’t live up to that meaning is a form of straw-man argument.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Quite so.
C
cajunhillbilly
Guest
I can agree with this. Anglicans have a view similar to the Lutherans.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
benjohnson,
I mentioned this before. Sola Scriptura means different things to different people.
Some really mean what has now been called Solo Scriptura. The problem is that in order to maintain “Scripture alone”; you would have to isolate yourself from fellow Christians. Once the first word of commentary has been spoken, “Scripture alone” ceases to be.
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
One thing that is rather puzzling to me is the way in which Martin Luther put Sola Scriptura into practice. He decided for himself which parts of the Biblical Canon he would accept, which seems to defeat Sola Scriptura.
Luther wrote Prefaces for Books in his German Bible. In his Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude, he wrote:
. . ."However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it **is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works ** 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place** its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, **even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (ibid).
**But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. **Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under he had of God” [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, **he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task ** in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude,. . .Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith."
Links:
A look at the preface to James and Jude
Preface To The Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude 1545 (1522)
See also Luther’s criticisms of Revelation:
“. . .it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . .”
“. . . .I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirithttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=godruleslinks-20&l=ur2&o=1 produced it. . . .”
“. . . .let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. . . .”
Link: Preface to the Revelation of Saint John (2) 1522 FT510
Luther wrote Prefaces for Books in his German Bible. In his Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude, he wrote:
. . ."However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it **is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works ** 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place** its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, **even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (ibid).
**But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. **Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under he had of God” [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, **he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task ** in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude,. . .Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith."
Links:
A look at the preface to James and Jude
Preface To The Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude 1545 (1522)
See also Luther’s criticisms of Revelation:
“. . .it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . .”
“. . . .I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirithttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=godruleslinks-20&l=ur2&o=1 produced it. . . .”
“. . . .let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. . . .”
Link: Preface to the Revelation of Saint John (2) 1522 FT510
So, what does the “sola” refer to in sola scriptura? It refers narrowly and only to scripture being, alone, by itself, the** final **norm for doctrine.
The only way I could “add more to it” would be to say that the early councils, creeds, or for me, the Lutheran cofessions are equal to scripture as the final norm. That would be a violation of the practice and understanding of sola scriptura. OTOH, to recognise the early councils, creeds, or for me, the Lutheran confessions as right witnesses and authoritative statements of the truth of the faith is actually consistent with and important to the practice of sola scriptura.
Jon
- Status