sola scriptura

[IgnatianPhilo]

I understand your point well here, Ignatian. I’m just not sure that it bears itself out here in reality. May I try and illustrate here by example?

The argument is made that Scripture is insufficient as a rule of faith because there are multiple interpretations of it. Therefore, there is a mandate for an infallible church body to definitively instruct us, via Tradition, as to what the entire correct meaning of Scripture is.

On a surface level, this makes sense. However, that is not the exact situation that we have in modern Christianity. For there is also a set number (not as numerous, I grant you) of different interpretations of Tradition as well. The fact that there are, using the same criteria listed above, would also indicate that either Tradition, or an infallible teachibg authority, is also insufficient as a rule of faith.

Point taken. However, as sola scriptura is a practice designed for use by the church, it is already granted that Scripture and its interpretation is something that is done within the context of “something else.” If you don’t have the church, there’s nothing to implement sola scriptura.

My concern isn’t in that there are multiple interpretations in of itself, my main concern is that there is always a secondary source for an interpretation of the bible, ie God or God through the church. Thus scripture by itself can in no way be thought of as totality in of itself sufficient fro salvation (since ignorant and distorted people can read it to their own destruction), nor the highest authority as in regards to that highest authority you need help in interpreting it and protestants more often than not say this happens through the spirit of God. My only point in mentioning the multiple interpretations is that there is no consistency among them, even on points they consider core doctrines. Some sola scripturists say that scripture is the only authority, and even though are going against the typical historic model of sola scriptura envisioned by luther and others, their definition is just as authoritative and non-scriptural as luthers.

Now I see that lacking in protestantism. That is the idea scripture is interpreted within the confines of the church. Whenever it could be shown through history the doctrine of apostolic succession, the fathers suddenly take a back seat to scripture and what they say and the history given by them suddenly become as if nothing compared to scripture, despite this being the accepted historical idea within all the most ancient churches. I have never seen a protestant say taht we need a church, we need only the bible and I suggest your view is not common, at least among evangelicals and other protestant groups.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

My concern isn’t in that there are multiple interpretations in of itself, my main concern is that there is always a secondary source for an interpretation of the bible, ie God or God through the church. Thus scripture by itself can in no way be thought of as totality in of itself sufficient fro salvation (since ignorant and distorted people can read it to their own destruction), nor the highest authority as in regards to that highest authority you need help in interpreting it and protestants more often than not say this happens through the spirit of God. My only point in mentioning the multiple interpretations is that there is no consistency among them, even on points they consider core doctrines. Some sola scripturists say that scripture is the only authority, and even though are going against the typical historic model of sola scriptura envisioned by luther and others, their definition is just as authoritative and non-scriptural as luthers.

Let me try and find some commonalities that you and I might share before really wading into the subject in depth. I dont want to misrepresent your view and I dont want you to misrepresent mine. It invariably can happen but it helps to try and cut it off at the pass. We’ll just talk past each other if we don’t.

1. We both agree that Scripture is the divine word of God, yes?
2. We both agree that the church and only the church can interpret Scripture authoritatively for the community of the faithful (for our purposes here, when I say church, I mean those appointed as elders/deacons over a congregation of Christ. I know our church polities are a bit different. I’m just trying to reduce it to a common denominator).
   Individuals may read and interpret Scripture themselves, however, such interpretations are not binding on the consciences of other Christians unless accepted by the church. If those interpretations violate the common faith of the church, they are subject to church discipline unless they repent and renounce those interpretations. The common faith of the church has been expressed in history through the formations of creeds, councils, and confessions of faith. Yes, no?
3. We both agree that Scripture is the revelation of God written down by those appointed by God to do so. Yes?
4. Since God is eternal and timeless, his word and his doctrine precedes and transcends the church, although it is revealed to the church in time/history. While the written testimony of the apostles comes after the church is formed, the communicative word of God (in the Person of His Son) is what creates the church. Yes?
5. We disagree that the church is infallible when Scripture is interpreted, most notably in the context of an ecumenical council.
6. We both agree that Scripture, as it is addressed to the church and not unbelievers, is meant primarily to be handled within the liturgical and communal life of the church. Yes?
7. The church’s teaching, although understood better or more detailed ways through history, is “once for all delivered to the saints” and public revelation has ceased. Yes?
8. Do we agree or disagree that the content of Scripture and apostolic tradition are in content fundamentally the same?
9. We agree or disagree that when someone violates the principle of infallible Scripture+infallible church+infallible tradition and heresy or schism occurs, it is not due to the insufficiency of scripture/church/tradition, but rather the result of sinful disobedience?
10. That the fathers of the church, while hugely important in understanding the teaching of the early apostles, are not individually infallible and can and have misinterpreted Scripture?

Blessings.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

1. The scriptures are divinely inspired.
2. The question is not that a church can interpret the bible which it can, but what gives that church the authorirty to do so? Do protestant churches contain a historic tradition going back to the apostles? Do protestant churches have a legitimate apostolic succession? Its best seen in this example, in the first century did one have to be with the apostles in order to be in the church? The answer is obviously yes. Now in the second century did one have to be in the churches of those appointed by the apostles or by those who were appointed by the apostles? The answer should be obvious.
3. Revelation yes, but the scriptures were recognised by the church
4. It also goes beyond the mere words found in scripture.
5. The only time when scripture can be said to be infallibly interpreted would be through an ecumenical council recognised by the church.
6. It was addressed exclusively to those in the churches under the care of an episkopos or elder.
7. Revelation ceased with the apostles
8. The apostolic tradition is the means by which God has used for us to interpret the scriptures. And they are the same in that tradition explains things otherwise not clear in scripture. Saint Peter says those ignorant and of distorted minds can misinterpret scripture to their own destruction and saint Paul says we must listen to what was written and what was spoken. Clearly there were supplementary traditions and teachings to the things written in paul which he would have elaborated on and I see this reflected in the churches.
9. the fathers of the church were not perfect and made mistakes, but if we are going to discuss some of their mistakes we should be focused. I can fully admit Iraneaus was wrong in the things he said concerning the time of Christ’s ministry, but I must also say that he was totally right and consistent with those before him and after him concerning the apostolicity of the churches. What good reason do we have to say that apostolicity is not a required factor in a legitimate church? That is what makes a non apostolic church such as the Baptists, legitimate when compared to the churches the apostles established?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

1. The scriptures are divinely inspired.
2. The question is not that a church can interpret the bible which it can, but what gives that church the authorirty to do so? Do protestant churches contain a historic tradition going back to the apostles? Do protestant churches have a legitimate apostolic succession? Its best seen in this example, in the first century did one have to be with the apostles in order to be in the church? The answer is obviously yes. Now in the second century did one have to be in the churches of those appointed by the apostles or by those who were appointed by the apostles? The answer should be obvious.
3. Revelation yes, but the scriptures were recognised by the church
4. It also goes beyond the mere words found in scripture.
5. The only time when scripture can be said to be infallibly interpreted would be through an ecumenical council recognised by the church.
6. It was addressed exclusively to those in the churches under the care of an episkopos or elder.
7. Revelation ceased with the apostles
8. The apostolic tradition is the means by which God has used for us to interpret the scriptures. And they are the same in that tradition explains things otherwise not clear in scripture. Saint Peter says those ignorant and of distorted minds can misinterpret scripture to their own destruction and saint Paul says we must listen to what was written and what was spoken. Clearly there were supplementary traditions and teachings to the things written in paul which he would have elaborated on and I see this reflected in the churches.
9. the fathers of the church were not perfect and made mistakes, but if we are going to discuss some of their mistakes we should be focused. I can fully admit Iraneaus was wrong in the things he said concerning the time of Christ’s ministry, but I must also say that he was totally right and consistent with those before him and after him concerning the apostolicity of the churches. What good reason do we have to say that apostolicity is not a required factor in a legitimate church? That is what makes a non apostolic church such as the Baptists, legitimate when compared to the churches the apostles established?

I made some edits to my last post to further expound on the points addressed. I apologize for that. I was typing before on a mobile device and needed to make some additions. I don’t know if you want to add to the above before I reply.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I have nothing further to add.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

1. The scriptures are divinely inspired.

Okay.

1. The question is not that a church can interpret the bible which it can, but what gives that church the authorirty to do so? Do protestant churches contain a historic tradition going back to the apostles? Do protestant churches have a legitimate apostolic succession? Its best seen in this example, in the first century did one have to be with the apostles in order to be in the church? The answer is obviously yes. Now in the second century did one have to be in the churches of those appointed by the apostles or by those who were appointed by the apostles? The answer should be obvious.

Okay. Are we defining apostolic succession is a) a succession of persons or b) a succession of doctrine? Under A, the stress is on the fact that the person was appointed by someone who was appointed by…etc. etc…who was appointed by Peter, John…etc. Under B, while who appointed the cleric is important, the stress is on the fact that the successor teaches faithfully what has been handed down. If said successor no longer teaches faithfully, his succession is irrelevant. Which you agree with the following statement by an Orthodox priest:

“The concept of apostolic succession, by the way, shifts between the Eastern and the Western view with Augustine. The Western view adds a legal consecrator’s emphasis to apostolic succession. The Eastern view reflects the patristic heritage prior to Augustine, which places the emphasis upon the Church itself - as a eucharistic community headed by a bishop - as the vehicle of succession, not the consecrator…This [the Western view] has led to the proliferation of numerous groups, usually small, who claim to be in the apostolic succession but are in communion with no one. These bishops are called episcopi vagantes, wandering bishops.” (Apostolic Succession [Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 1994], pp. 22, 33-34)

Also, would you say that you agree with what Clement of Rome writes on the subject?

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” (First Clement, 44)

1. Revelation yes, but the scriptures were recognised by the church

Okay.

1. It also goes beyond the mere words found in scripture.

Could you clarify?

1. The only time when scripture can be said to be infallibly interpreted would be through an ecumenical council recognised by the church.

Okay. That’s what I thought. I wanted to make sure I was representing the Orthodox view accurately, as opposed to the Latin model.

1. It was addressed exclusively to those in the churches under the care of an episkopos or elder.

Okay.

1. Revelation ceased with the apostles

Okay.

1. The apostolic tradition is the means by which God has used for us to interpret the scriptures. And they are the same in that tradition explains things otherwise not clear in scripture. Saint Peter says those ignorant and of distorted minds can misinterpret scripture to their own destruction and saint Paul says we must listen to what was written and what was spoken. Clearly there were supplementary traditions and teachings to the things written in paul which he would have elaborated on and I see this reflected in the churches.

Okay. And you would see this reflected in and through creeds, councils, and confessions, yes?

You skipped point number 9.

1. the fathers of the church were not perfect and made mistakes, but if we are going to discuss some of their mistakes we should be focused. I can fully admit Iraneaus was wrong in the things he said concerning the time of Christ’s ministry, but I must also say that he was totally right and consistent with those before him and after him concerning the apostolicity of the churches. What good reason do we have to say that apostolicity is not a required factor in a legitimate church? That is what makes a non apostolic church such as the Baptists, legitimate when compared to the churches the apostles established?

Do you have in mind here the location of the church and its connection to a bishop, or do you have in mind here the teaching that that church adheres to? Let’s say, hypothetically, the bishop of Constantinople falls into grave doctrinal error. As a result of that error, the laity, and perhaps other clergy within that church break away from the bishop of Constantinople, while some of the clerics/laity remain loyal to the bishop. Is the apostolic church with the bishop, despite his doctrinal heresy, simply because he was ordained by a successor, or is the apostolic church with those who broke away, because their doctrine is true?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

1. Apostolic succession in both categories I would say. Rome for instance may hold a historical connection to the apostles but lacks a legitimate doctrinal succession from the apostles on some of its doctrines. So it is by the faith that the integrity of the position is held, but also important and what cannot be done without is the succession of the presbyters and episkopos themselves as the means by which this faith is promulgated. One simply cannot in of themselves declare themselves an elder this is impossible and is the orthodox view.
2. Obviously since God is immaterial and beyond the universe and he communicates via the use of natural language to us through the bible or other means, God is condescending to us. If I were to concede his word transcends the church, then I would suggest his word transcends what we see in the bible itself in actuality. But on more theologically consistent note, the word of God took on human nature and became man, again condescending to us. As for what has created his church, it was not a book that created the church, it was god since Abraham that the church or ekklesia or assembly has existed and has been nurtured and brought into its fullness by Christ and his apostles.
3. Necessarily this must be the case.
4. I have in mind the entire church. Lay people can oppose ordained clergy as in the case of Saint maximos the confessor, but this would not deny the authority of position of the church. Do we then go off or make another church if there is a heretic in charge? No, rather we should follow the example of Maximos and refuse communion with that church till they correct their error.

 

[Julia_Mae]

But that isn’t the thrust of the OP. The Op is not asking for a detailed comparison and dialogue between the practice of sola scriptura, and the Catholic “three-legged stool”. The OP was asking why we should even bother with homiletics, etc.

I’ve often dialogued with Catholic members about SS vs Scripture and Tradition. I’m just not sure that this is the intent of the OP.

Jon

Here’s the question:

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

1. we don’t because sola scriptura is an invalid concept based in not understanding salvation history - which my post addressed
2. because if all you do is read Scripture, then what you believe is yourself and what you hear - Scripture needs interpretation and there’s only one place that comes from validly - implied in my post

 

[JonNC]

Here’s the question:

1. we don’t because sola scriptura is an invalid concept based in not understanding salvation history - which my post addressed
2. because if all you do is read Scripture, then what you believe is yourself and what you hear - Scripture needs interpretation and there’s only one place that comes from validly - implied in my post

Julia,

1. But the OP was not discussing the Catholic view. It was addressed to those who practice SS.
2. Who said SS is “all you read is scripture”? My first post dispells that misconception.

From a Lutheran perspective, the only essential difference is that SS holds scripture to be the sole final norm, while Catholicism sees (as I know it) Tradition as an equal source, in fact encompassing scripture. In both cases, we are talking about a practice of the Church.
I, as a Lutheran have no more latitude to interpret scripture (and remain Lutheran) than a Catholic does (and remain Catholic), in regards to doctrine.

Jon
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hiya, Gaelic!

I see you are online now.

It seems you have left our discussion without so much as an adieu!

How about if you answer this, briefly: have you examined all the (around 400) ancient Christian texts to apply your “evidence” as to whether they are inspired or not?

Please expound. But I am certain that you need not use 6000 words to answer.

 

[benjohnson]

What strikes me when comparing the Lutheran church and the Catholic church, is that the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, while different than Catholic teaching, could be compatible with Catholic teaching; In that no other authority (Magisterium, Tradition, and the Pope) would ever go against the word of God, to begin with, if everything was working as it should.

The Lutheran idea of Sola Scriptura, when viewed as another safeguard, would never trouble any Christian.

Now, what modern world is calling Sola Scriptura does bother me greatly - but that’s not what Luther taught, or what Lutherans should be doing.

The abuse of the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’ in a way reminds me of Vatican II - in that the documents produced by the VII council are just fine, but people used the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ to justify all sorts of weird stuff that they came up on their own.

 

[pablope]

What strikes me when comparing the Lutheran church and the Catholic church, is that the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, while different than Catholic teaching, could be compatible with Catholic teaching; In that no other authority (Magisterium, Tradition, and the Pope) would ever go against the word of God

, to begin with, if everything was working as it should.

The Lutheran idea of Sola Scriptura, when viewed as another safeguard, would never trouble any Christian.

Hi, Ben…just one question on an excellent post…when you said “word of God”…above…did you mean the written word? Are you limiting the word of God to just the written word?

Now, what modern world is calling Sola Scriptura does bother me greatly - but that’s not what Luther taught, or what Lutherans should be doing.

 

[benjohnson]

Hi, Ben…just one question on an excellent post…when you said “word of God”…above…did you mean the written word? Are you limiting the word of God to just the written word?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia,

1. But the OP was not discussing the Catholic view. It was addressed to those who practice SS.

It was posted on a Catholic forum and no place does it say in the op “only Protestants respond.”

1. Who said SS is “all you read is scripture”? My first post dispells that misconception.

It’s not a misconception it’s the thread topic. The entire topic of this thread is “why do we have sermons, why not just read the Bible?” Here’s the whole of the op, emphasis mine:

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

**In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.**

Okay? It’s the thread topic. Maybe you should address the thread topic. I did. I was done. I gave an answer.

The answer is:* because that’s not what the Church does* (I said why) and you got your Liturgy from the Church. Like you got everything else but the heretical parts.

I answered the thread topic and the person who asked has not re-engaged and so, have a nice day, I’m moving on.

 

[JonNC]

=Julia Mae;10241763]It was posted on a Catholic forum and no place does it say in the op “only Protestants respond.”

I didn’t say not respond. Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe the OP had different intentions for the thread. If so, I’ll be happy to dialogue with you on a comparison of SS and S&T.

It’s not a misconception it’s the thread topic. The entire topic of this thread is “why do we have sermons, why not just read the Bible?” Here’s the whole of the op, emphasis mine:

The misconception is that sola scriptura means that only the bible matters, only the Bible is read, no interpretation is needed or allowed. That’s a misconception, one implied by the OP.

Okay? It’s the thread topic. Maybe you should address the thread topic. I did. I was done. I gave an answer.

The answer is:* because that’s not what the Church does* (I said why) and you got your Liturgy from the Church. Like you got everything else but the heretical parts.

and thank God for the Catholic Church, which taught us about scripture, and the pulpit, and the sacraments. To paraphrase Luther, what would we know of these without her?

I answered the thread topic and the person who asked has not re-engaged and so, have a nice day, I’m moving on.

You seem under the impression that I’ve attacked you. Not at all. As I said, I am perfectly willing to dialogue on the differences and benefits of SS and S&T anytime, as I have done frequently before.
You are right that the OP has not re-engaged. Wish they would.

More than a nice day, I wish you His Peace.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

The OP:

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why don’t we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

It was posted on a Catholic forum and no place does it say in the op “only Protestants respond.”

It’s not a misconception it’s the thread topic. The entire topic of this thread is “why do we have sermons, why not just read the Bible?” Here’s the whole of the op, emphasis mine:

Okay? It’s the thread topic. Maybe you should address the thread topic. I did. I was done. I gave an answer.

The answer is:* because that’s not what the Church does* (I said why) and you got your Liturgy from the Church. Like you got everything else but the heretical parts.

I answered the thread topic and the person who asked has not re-engaged and so, have a nice day, I’m moving on.

Julia Mae,

Your response to JonNC was unnecessarily harsh. Of course Catholics are free to comment; but the OP said, “I love my protestant brothers and sisters. But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during service and have no preaching.” We know the “we” is not directed to Catholics, because Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Plus you altered the OP by using a large font emphasis.

Just say’n.

Anna

 

[stewstew03]

Hiya, Gaelic!

I see you are online now.

It seems you have left our discussion without so much as an adieu!

He doesn’t call… he doesn’t write… :nope:

But seriously, Gaelic, I believe you (and ArizonaSamson) left some loose ends on the other thread.

No pressure… when you have time…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

He doesn’t call… he doesn’t write… :nope:

But seriously, Gaelic, I believe you (and ArizonaSamson) left some loose ends on the other thread.

No pressure… when you have time…

stew, not really. It was getting a bit too combative for my taste. Once condescension starts, the temptation is there to respond in kind. In addition, the question was already answered by another poster on another thread. Based on that conversation, I can say that an answer to it wasn’t really sought. The information on the development of the canon is readily available.

 

[PJM]

=Anna Scott;10239499]PJM,
Haven’t bumped into you for awhile. Gotta say your post hurt my ears…:manvspc:

No need to shout.

Anna

Its that darn inthuism thing

And I truly seldom mean to SHOUT! Only to emphaize the point:thumbsup:

Cntinued Blessings,
Pat/PJM

 

[PRmerger]

stew, not really. It was getting a bit too combative for my taste. Once condescension starts, the temptation is there to respond in kind. In addition, the question was already answered by another poster on another thread. Based on that conversation, I can say that an answer to it wasn’t really sought. The information on the development of the canon is readily available.

I don’t think my question was that difficult. Nor was it combative.

It’s been asked of you at least 3 times now.

You asked us at least 10 questions in one post, and asked, within a period of hours, why I hadn’t responded to them*

I think I have been much more generous and considerate.