sola scriptura

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10268330]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.

Oh, I think I did.

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

Not at all. What the logic does reveal is that different patriarchs have differing views on who has the authority within the Church, and what that authority amounts to.

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”.

What does the early Church say it is?

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.

No! Not Lutheran! The Church. There is but one. There are different fellowships, different communions. One holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

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

Christ knows. the Church Triumphant knows, and they pray for the day we here are united again.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Ok, this is problematic. We do not yet know which books are inspired. So for you to say that book x says book y is God breathed does not help, right? Is book x itself God breathed?

It’s problematic in that it could present a circular argument. However, that circle is broken when we take into consideration that Paul was chosen and instructed personally by the risen Christ. Based on that, we can know that he is writing with Christ’s authority behind his teaching.

I addressed this in my second reply to you that I made before this.

Okay, I saw that. Yes, that’s reasonable…the church has said the canon is closed. What was the criteria for it being closed, Eufrosnia?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Not at all. What the logic does reveal is that different patriarchs have differing views on who has the authority within the Church, and what that authority amounts to.

Um, two people claim that X is wrong, two people claim that X is right. Both claim authority. Which one is the Church?

What does the early Church say it is?

I don’t know because you are yet to tell me what exactly is the Church.

No! Not Lutheran! The Church. There is but one. There are different fellowships, different communions. One holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

But how did you know that? Is that from the Bible? But if we go step by step, we don’t yet know that the Bible is worth believing. So how did you come to accept the above definition or description? On whose authority?

Christ knows. the Church Triumphant knows, and they pray for the day we here are united again.

Well always remember. Christ gives you the Grace. It is up to each and everyone of us to choose whether to accept it or not. We can choose to remain where we are because that is what we have done all these years or accept the Grace (in this case think critically).

If I may also say, you have nothing to lose in looking at your own church in a critical way. Either you will find that the suspicions were off and remain Lutheran OR you will become Catholic. Just thought I will mention it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s problematic in that it could present a circular argument. However, that circle is broken when we take into consideration that Paul was chosen and instructed personally by the risen Christ. Based on that, we can know that he is writing with Christ’s authority behind his teaching.

Um, you and I don’t know that Paul was instructed by the risen Christ unless we accept Scripture, no? I fail to see how the circle is broken UNLESS you can terminate it with something that is from natural reason i.e. something that does not need another thing to appeal to and is somewhat intuitive to us in itself.

Okay, I saw that. Yes, that’s reasonable…the church has said the canon is closed. What was the criteria for it being closed, Eufrosnia?

The Church saying it of course. But do you agree that not every word out of Apostolic Successor or even an Apostle is inspired?

 

[Traverse]

Well if I understand you correctly, this is somewhat similar to the defense of John Calvin. The idea is that the Church had a limited guidance by the Holy Spirit till around 400 AD and afterward once the Bible was pronounced, this authority was taken away, would that be correct?

The underlying principle of the argument is that since now we have the Bible, the Church is no longer necessary.

The issue here is the following. Let us assume this is true. Now think of the following scenario.

I am a pagan considering Christianity. I ask you what it is and you refer me to the Bible. I ask you why and you tell me its the Word of God. This being a big claim to make regarding a text, I ask you how you are sure. You tell me that it is what the church pronounced in 400 AD. I will then ask you how do you know that such a thing can be done by the Church? At this point, you face a problem that you might miss. You will have to appeal back to the church and tell me about how the Holy Spirit guided the Church to pronounce that.

The problem here is that at this point in time, I have not accepted the idea of a Holy Spirit. So in order to first accept the Bible, I as a pagan will have to first believe in the existence of such an entity and also accept the Bible relying on the possibility that the Holy Spirit is indeed a true entity.

This is an issue because the only thing that I can actually know for sure is the death and resurrection of Christ. That is the only non-faith element I have that leads me to Christ. But then it appears that I cannot actually go further without making some jumps to accept certain truths that don’t seem to be from natural reason.

Also, though you might not notice this, at this point I would have to accept the existence of the Holy Spirit and his guiding role based on your authority. But it would also not be clear to me as a pagan on how I would go from Christ (who seems to have authority) to you.

In this sense, the idea that the church and its authority ceased to exist seems to mean the end of Christianity because it cannot propagate forward without we obtaining such an authority for ourselves.

This is a great point, but it’s based on an assumption of my beliefs. I do not dismiss the authority of the church so much as I dismiss the claim that the catholic church is THE church.

I’m not protestant myself, being a member of the church of Christ. Now I know that many just consider that to be a non-denominational denomination of protestants, but that is not how we represent ourselves. We represent ourselves as Christ’s church established in the first century. The primary difference between us and catholics is the belief in sola scriptura, which doesn’t necessarily call for no authority outside of scripture, but it calls for all doctrine from scripture. The church indeed has authority as specified quite thoroughly in scripture and the Holy Spirit, which gave us the bible through men, would have certainly been confirmed through the authority of the church.

So I suppose the big difference between me and John Calvin is that I don’t belief the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit being temporary mean that the authority of the church has ceased. However, I do believe that the authority of the church is confined to what scripture specifies its authority to be.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s very true. In the case of the former, though, say Luke…we have one apostle calling his writings “Scripture” (Paul). We don’t have the same in the case of Clement or Ignatius. While Clement might have been ordained by Peter (I am not privy to direct information on that one), his writings come shortly after the apostolic period, do not claim to be Scripture, and do not even address doctrinal matters or provide any new information on the teaching of the Christ.

Where do any of the writings refer to themselves as “Scripture”?

Likewise, if we accept the writings of Luke or Mark based solely on “apostolic succession,” then every writing by a successor to the apostles would be Scripture. It’s a bit of a self-defeating argument.

I would agree, but I am not trying to make that argument. You were using close association with the Apostles as a criteria for determining that Mark and Luke were inspired works.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that the books in the New Testament were used by the Church prior to Nicaea. But so was the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Keep in mind that we have no idea who wrote Hebrews, but it was included.

 

[Eufrosnia]

So I suppose the big difference between me and John Calvin is that I don’t belief the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit being temporary mean that the authority of the church has ceased. However, I do believe that the authority of the church is confined to what scripture specifies its authority to be.

Oh I see. In that case, wouldn’t there be an issue of who has the final authority to interpret Scripture? Because the Church never claims that they do anything contrary to Scripture. It interprets Scripture in the way that it matches with its actions. But the natural question I can see arising from your position is “why that interpretation and not this?”, right?

So who would you consider has the final authority on interpretation? Also, going back to that previous post, isn’t it the case that the person who wants to become Christian will always first have to accept the authority of the Church (through natural reason) and then accept the authority of the Bible by an assent of faith (because it is what the church teaches)?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Um, you and I don’t know that Paul was instructed by the risen Christ unless we accept Scripture, no? I fail to see how the circle is broken UNLESS you can terminate it with something that is from natural reason i.e. something that does not need another thing to appeal to and is somewhat intuitive to us in itself.

That is where we can examine the evidences for its acceptance both internal and external to the text.

The Church saying it of course. But do you agree that not every word out of Apostolic Successor or even an Apostle is inspired?

Let me rephrase the question. Not why you believe the canon is closed, but why the church said the canon is closed (except for that problem with Esdras but thats another issue).

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Where do any of the writings refer to themselves as “Scripture”?

Refer a few posts back.

I would agree, but I am not trying to make that argument. You were using close association with the Apostles as a criteria for determining that Mark and Luke were inspired works.

Yes that was a criteria the church used. In fact it was probably the chief factor for the church.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that the books in the New Testament were used by the Church prior to Nicaea. But so was the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Keep in mind that we have no idea who wrote Hebrews, but it was included.

Some churches used those two, yes. The Shepherd of Hermas was not included because it’s a second century document, so it doesnt meet the apostolic test.

 

[rfournier103]

This is a great point, but it’s based on an assumption of my beliefs. I do not dismiss the authority of the church so much as I dismiss the claim that the catholic church is THE church.

I’m not protestant myself, being a member of the church of Christ. Now I know that many just consider that to be a non-denominational denomination of protestants, but that is not how we represent ourselves. We represent ourselves as Christ’s church established in the first century.

Is this your “Church of Christ”: churchofchrist-tl.org/about.html ? Never heard of them until a few weeks ago. So this ‘church’ was persecuted and forced underground by the Catholics and the Romans?

I learned about the rise of Christianity, the Catholic Church, and the Reformation in my Western Civ. class in High School, but never heard of this “church of Christ”. The Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Puritans were mentioned, but not you. The website I linked says it was restored in 1830, but still… who are they? Any historical account of the whereabouts from 33 AD until 1830?

The Church of Christ’s website says: The original Church grew and continued under the authority of the ministry and the doctrines taught originally by Jesus Christ. There was to be only twelve Apostles at any given time in history, therefore as the original Apostles died, others were called by God to serve as Apostles in their place (Acts 13:1-3, 14:14).

This sounds like Apostolic Succession.(?)

I know this may belong in another thread, but if the ACTUAL FACTUAL Church that Jesus founded is TRULY based on Sola Scriptura, I need to better understand this Church, it’s history, it’s beliefs, and where it’s been. I’ll actually start another thread now. See you there…

PS: What the **** is a ‘straw man’? (seriously)

 

[SteveVH]

Refer a few posts back.

We have a reference from Peter that Paul’s writings (we don’t know which ones) are Scripture, but that is it. What about the rest of the New Testament? I only say this as you are using this as an argument against including some the ante-nicene Fathers writings.

Yes that was a criteria the church used. In fact it was probably the chief factor for the church.

Are you saying then that Hebrews was an exception to this rule?

Some churches used those two, yes. The Shepherd of Hermas was not included because it’s a second century document, so it doesnt meet the apostolic test.

Fair point, concerning The Shepherd of Hermas. But why was the Didache not included and why was the book of Hebrews included?

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t Paul ordain Timothy (Tim 1:6) with a laying on of the hands (as Catholic bishops do today)? How did Paul have the authority to do this? Paul was NOT one of the Apostles, was he? Even though Jesus appeared to Paul, he was ORDAINED by Ananias by the laying on of the hands

rfournier, I would think it’s actually quite clear that Paul is not a bishop, but a missionary.

Yes he was an apostle. Just not one of the original 12.

Interesting, this.

2 non-Catholic Christians have differing opinions regarding a particular theological concept.

Now where does that leave us?

In their paradigm, we argue back and forth, citing Scripture verses which support/deny that Paul was/was not an apostle/missionary.

And we are left with never knowing for certain what the answer is.

In the Catholic paradigm, we say: what does the Church say?

And we get an answer: Paul was a bishop and an apostle.

 

[PRmerger]

Some churches used those two, yes. The Shepherd of Hermas was not included because it’s a second century document, so it doesnt meet the apostolic test.

How does Hebrews meet the “apostolic test”?

And the Gospel of Mark?

 

[rfournier103]

How does Hebrews meet the “apostolic test”?

And the Gospel of Mark?

OWCH!

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

We have a reference from Peter that Paul’s writings (we don’t know which ones) are Scripture, but that is it. What about the rest of the New Testament? I only say this as you are using this as an argument against including some the ante-nicene Fathers writings.

Paul cites the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18. As for Paul…that’s it!? That’s almost 50% of the NT!

Are you saying then that Hebrews was an exception to this rule?

No because even though it’s author is debated, it was always accepted as apostolic in the East and then later the West. Apostolic in the same sense as Luke or Mark.

Fair point, concerning The Shepherd of Hermas. But why was the Didache not included and why was the book of Hebrews included?

I’m not an expert on the Didache, Steve but to the best of my knowledge it was determined to be non-apostolic but was mainly a manual for worship used by the churches of Egypt. While some churches accepted it, it did not have wide circulation. It was generally regarded as non-canonical by the time of Athanasius in the early 4th century.

 

[Eufrosnia]

That is where we can examine the evidences for its acceptance both internal and external to the text.

I am not sure what you mean. No evidence can say if St. Paul actually talked to Jesus, right?

So unless you want to terminate the circles by something naturally acceptable to practical reason, you do still have a circle, no?

Let me rephrase the question. Not why you believe the canon is closed, but why the church said the canon is closed (except for that problem with Esdras but thats another issue).

The Church can make the pronouncement. It does not matter for a Catholic if the reasons given end up being great because the teaching itself is considered to be protected from error.

Now just to demonstrate something here, here the Catholic assents to an authority, the Church. The most natural question to ask (now that we have become somewhat familiar with the problem of circularity) is whether this position by Catholics is not circular.

To answer this question, you must understand the Catholic position. The Catholic position argues that Christ’s death and resurrection gives us reason to accept his authority over the transcendent/supernatural. In other words, if I had reasons (historical) to say the resurrection is true, then it is intuitive to me to give assent to Christ’s authority (note, I still wouldn’t know specifics about Christ as to even whether he is the son of God).

At this point in time, I recognize that Christ was a rabbi. Thus, I decide to turn to his students, the Apostles. This is as intuitive today as it was back in the day. Today we turn to Phd students of Professors who have pioneered a field for an example. In this same way, we accept their students, the Apostolic Successors.

The faithful then assent to the specific hierarchy and the limitations and scope of their authority as taught by them. This too is not foreign since this is exactly what doctors or engineers do. They have a scope in which they have declared their expertise.

So for the Catholic, the circle is terminated at Christ’s death and resurrection where the link is provided by the naturally recognized truth of acknowledging the authority of a student from a great teacher.

In this way, all I am asking if you have a way to terminate your circle? Also keep in mind that more complicated and more elaborate your solution, the more unlikely that it was what the first Christians thought.

 

[Traverse]

Interesting, this.

2 non-Catholic Christians have differing opinions regarding a particular theological concept.

Now where does that leave us?

In their paradigm, we argue back and forth, citing Scripture verses which support/deny that Paul was/was not an apostle/missionary.

And we are left with never knowing for certain what the answer is.

In the Catholic paradigm, we say: what does the Church say?

And we get an answer: Paul was a bishop and an apostle.

To be fair, we didn’t disagree. The opinions don’t differ. We both agree that he’s an apostle. I just disagree that he was a bishop, which Gaelic never commented on.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I am not sure what you mean. No evidence can say if St. Paul actually talked to Jesus, right?

So unless you want to terminate the circles by something naturally acceptable to practical reason, you do still have a circle, no?

Sure, but it is acceptable to practical reason. Set aside the question of whether the Scripture is inspired for a moment. Let’s just say his writings, as well as the writings of Luke are uninspired… they’re just historical records.

We also know that outside of the NT witness itself, Paul was a learned rabbinical teacher, who, apparently, at the drop of a hat goes from being a persecutor of the Christian faith to being the preeminent Christian apostle to the entire Gentile world, and professes to his experiences up to and including the point of beheading. I would ask you, what is more reasonable to the practical senses, that Paul’s testimony is true or that a wealthy, well respected Jewish leader, having been instructed by the foremost rabbi in Palestine, who spent his formative years hunting down and murdering Christians, to a state of constant near poverty, association with a persecuted minority (in fact, a minority he himself persecuted), imprisoned by Rome, flogged in synagogues, threatened to death by the Jewish community, and eventually is willing to die…for something he would have objectively known never happened (his encounter with Christ). Added to this fact, the apostles at the time of Paul’s conversion also authenticate his message as being the same doctrine that they themselves were instructed in personally by Christ and welcome him into apostolic fellowship (as does the entire Christian church).

Which all leads to the veracity of his testimony, which insures the veracity of his writings…and so on and so forth.

The Church can make the pronouncement. It does not matter for a Catholic if the reasons given end up being great because the teaching itself is considered to be protected from error.

Now just to demonstrate something here, here the Catholic assents to an authority, the Church. The most natural question to ask (now that we have become somewhat familiar with the problem of circularity) is whether this position by Catholics is not circular.

To answer this question, you must understand the Catholic position. The Catholic position argues that Christ’s death and resurrection gives us reason to accept his authority over the transcendent/supernatural. In other words, if I had reasons (historical) to say the resurrection is true, then it is intuitive to me to give assent to Christ’s authority (note, I still wouldn’t know specifics about Christ as to even whether he is the son of God).

Okay.

At this point in time, I recognize that Christ was a rabbi. Thus, I decide to turn to his students, the Apostles. This is as intuitive today as it was back in the day. Today we turn to Phd students of Professors who have pioneered a field for an example. In this same way, we accept their students, the Apostolic Successors.

Okay. The latter part being dependent on how you define apostolic succession.

The faithful then assent to the specific hierarchy and the limitations and scope of their authority as taught by them. This too is not foreign since this is exactly what doctors or engineers do. They have a scope in which they have declared their expertise.

So for the Catholic, the circle is terminated at Christ’s death and resurrection where the link is provided by the naturally recognized truth of acknowledging the authority of a student from a great teacher.

This would be true of any Christian.

In this way, all I am asking if you have a way to terminate your circle? Also keep in mind that more complicated and more elaborate your solution, the more unlikely that it was what the first Christians thought.

It gets no more complicated. How would you address the inherent circularity of the Catholic position, though? Especially as regards the canon. I know you haven’t argued this point, but here is what I usually see:

Premise: The Church is infallible
Major: The Church has infallibly defined that Scripture is God’s word, thus, we know it is.
Minor: The Church has infallibly interpreted the word of God to say the church is infallible.
Conclusion: The Church is infallible.

The only way, IMO, in the above scenario to break the circle, is to know that revelation is God’s word apart from church infallibility.

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10271643]Um, two people claim that X is wrong, two people claim that X is right. Both claim authority. Which one is the Church?

Which is why until you solve it, I’m where I am.

I don’t know because you are yet to tell me what exactly is the Church.

No. I told you. You just disagree.

But how did you know that? Is that from the Bible? But if we go step by step, we don’t yet know that the Bible is worth believing. So how did you come to accept the above definition or description? On whose authority?

On whose authority do you deny it?

Well always remember. Christ gives you the Grace. It is up to each and everyone of us to choose whether to accept it or not. We can choose to remain where we are because that is what we have done all these years or accept the Grace (in this case think critically).

Yes, his grace is available to both of us.

If I may also say, you have nothing to lose in looking at your own church in a critical way. Either you will find that the suspicions were off and remain Lutheran OR you will become Catholic. Just thought I will mention it

Why not EO? Why not the same for you? Could you not look at your Church in a critical way?
The better way, ISTM, is to continue as our communions have for 60 years and seek the unity His Church has lacked. In that way, we come together, not seeking the submission of the other which results in polemics, but instead responding to the guidance of the Spirit which calls us to unity.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Paul cites the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18. As for Paul…that’s it!? That’s almost 50% of the NT!

Very true.

No because even though it’s [Hebrews] author is debated, it was always accepted as apostolic in the East and then later the West. Apostolic in the same sense as Luke or Mark.

So in order for Hebrews to be accepted as apostolic, there was a determination made by someone as to its authenticity. But this judgment had to be based upon the contents of the writing and without consideration to its human authorship since it is unknown. It follows, then, that there already existed, prior to the writing, the deposit of faith against which the book of Hebrews was measured. This is Sacred Tradition in action. The Church had to have already possessed the Truth present in Sacred Scripture in order to make a judgment as to the inspired nature of any particular writing it includes.

I’m not an expert on the Didache, Steve but to the best of my knowledge it was determined to be non-apostolic but was mainly a manual for worship used by the churches of Egypt. While some churches accepted it, it did not have wide circulation. It was generally regarded as non-canonical by the time of Athanasius in the early 4th century.

Yes. A judgment was made by the Church that it was not one of the inspired writings, along with many others. In the same way the Church discerned which writings were inspired, all based upon the deposit of faith handed down orally by the Apostles. Sacred Tradition came first and already possessed the fulness of truth. It was the truth present Sacred Tradition that set the bar for any writing that was to be considered inspired.

It is that same Church that teaches the real presence in the Eucharist, who administers the sacraments, who celebrates Mass, rather than having a “service”. All these wierd Catholic things that you do not find spelled out specifically in the Bible come from Tradition and they are as apostolically valid as the writings chosen by this Church to make up the New Testament. You can’t have one without the other. If the Scriptures are valid, then so is Sacred Tradition.