Sola Scriptura...

[pocohombre]

Incidentally, there are about as many definitions of SS as there are Christian denominations–tens of thousands of them. :sad_yes:

So you’ll have to forgive us Catholics if we don’t know which definition of SS you’re referring to.

And which one you’re accessing at the moment of the conversation, because, as I stated earlier, even each individual here who claims to subscribe to SS seems to change his definition ad lib.

You are beating a dead horse. Don’t hold anything back… (I’m temporarily hibernating).

 

[Picky_Picky]

And with all due respect, poco, I don’t think even you know what your own def of SS is.

For in one post you will say, “SS just means that teachings can’t contradict Scripture!”

yet in another post you will say, “The Catholic teaching on [A] can’t be found in the Bible!”

To wit, is this not you who said: “The bible does not teach the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.” (answer: yes, it was.)

So even you can’t decide what you mean when you subscribe to the SS paradigm.

Does it mean: all things we believe have to be taught in the Bible?

Or does it mean: we can believe whatever we want, as long as it doesn’t contradict the Bible?

I think you may be making rather heavy weather of this. The reason you are puzzled by two implications of SS is that in its most commonly held form (I believe) it has two points: firstly that nothing should be believed that is contrary to Scripture; and secondly that matters not contrary to Scripture, but not provable by reference to Scripture, may or may not be true but are not necessary to be believed for salvation. So “teachings can’t contradict Scripture” is covered by the first point, “The Catholic teaching on [A] can’t be found in the Bible!” is a reference to the second.

I would take it that as a Catholic you would have no problem with the first point, but would not accept the second, since you will believe it is necessary to believe what your church teaches. That’s where the issue is: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” say the 39 Articles, and you wouldn’t, as I understand it, agree.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think you may be making rather heavy weather of this. The reason you are puzzled by two implications of SS is that in its most commonly held form (I believe) it has two points: firstly that nothing should be believed that is contrary to Scripture; and secondly that matters not contrary to Scripture, but not provable by reference to Scripture, may or may not be true but are not necessary to be believed for salvation. So “teachings can’t contradict Scripture” is covered by the first point, “The Catholic teaching on [A] can’t be found in the Bible!” is a reference to the second.

I would take it that as a Catholic you would have no problem with the first point, but would not accept the second, since you will believe it is necessary to believe what your church teaches. That’s where the issue is: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” say the 39 Articles, and you wouldn’t, as I understand it, agree.

The problem is that by affirming the bold above, you would be bound by the authority that gave you the Scriptures in the first place, since they are not to be found in Themselves. Which means that these books have been given as necessary for salvation by the same body that is giving you all the other core beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

You are beating a dead horse. Don’t hold anything back… (I’m temporarily hibernating).

Around here it seems like the “beating a dead horse” theme comes up from Protestants who seem to want to disengage from a discussion where they cannot refute the arguments presented by Catholics.

It’s like saying, “I don’t believe immunizations help people!” and when I present the boatload of statistics that counter that wacky idea, the anti-immunization advocate says, “Well, you’re beating a dead horse. I just don’t believe that immunizations help people and there’s nothing you can say that will change my mind.”

Ok. If the truth doesn’t matter to you, then…that can’t be helped.

 

[Novocastrian]

The problem is that by affirming the bold above, you would be bound by the authority that gave you the Scriptures in the first place, since they are not to be found in Themselves. Which means that these books have been given as necessary for salvation by the same body that is giving you all the other core beliefs.

Unless you say that the canon is not a matter of saving faith. You could, for example, say that it is a matter of historical and theological truth, but not something to be held by all the faithful as necessary and requisite to salvation.

In modern RC terms, one might say that the canon is doctrine but not dogma.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless you say that the canon is not a matter of saving faith. You could, for example, say that it is a matter of historical and theological truth, but not something to be held by all the faithful as necessary and requisite to salvation.

In modern RC terms, one might say that the canon is doctrine but not dogma.

Are you saying that doctrines are not matters of “saving faith” but dogmas are, according to Catholicism?

 

[Novocastrian]

Are you saying that doctrines are not matters of “saving faith” but dogmas are, according to Catholicism?

Well, I’m led to believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the word dogma is applied to those doctrines which one is required to hold de fide as necessary to salvation. Doctrines are theological truths to which one is required to assent by the magisterium, but are not in themselves necessary to salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I’m led to believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the word dogma is applied to those doctrines which one is required to hold de fide as necessary to salvation. Doctrines are theological truths to which one is required to assent by the magisterium, but are not in themselves necessary to salvation.

No.

We don’t speak of anything in particular as “necessary to salvation”. That’s part of the Protestant lexicon.

Or rather, we say, “everything is necessary to salvation that has been proclaimed by God through His Church”.

Now, 'tis true that we do have a hierarchy of truths. But that is quite different from saying that there are certain things that are to believed that are “necessary to salvation”.

In fact, to speak of such things is to, well, not get it.

It’s like the Lover asking the Beloved, “What’s the minimum amount of contact with you that I need to have in order to be still considered your girlfriend?”

That would be the wrong question to ask, would it not?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Unless you say that the canon is not a matter of saving faith. You could, for example, say that it is a matter of historical and theological truth, but not something to be held by all the faithful as necessary and requisite to salvation.

In modern RC terms, one might say that the canon is doctrine but not dogma.

Luke 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” 6 And the Lord said, “If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this sycamine tree, ‘Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old received divine approval. 3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

Faith is meant to maximize and be a channel of God’s love. Not to minimize. The Apostles asked our Lord to increase their Faith - not to give them a list of the minimum necessary to attain Salvation. This is a Protestant term, not a Catholic term.

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

St. Paul tells us that each one of us has been assigned a measure of Faith and each one of us has different gifts.

When we talk about Faith, we refer to the things that we believe as the body of Christ. Not the minimal, but all of them. We do use things that the Church has declared to be “de fide”, because they represent the Faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

This Faith develops, just like a mustard seed - it grows - it does not shrink.

So this Faith includes the Canon on Scriptures as declared by the body of Christ delivered by the Holy Spirit. It is not found in Scriptures themselves, but in the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Unless you say that the canon is not a matter of saving faith. You could, for example, say that it is a matter of historical and theological truth, but not something to be held by all the faithful as necessary and requisite to salvation.

In modern RC terms, one might say that the canon is doctrine but not dogma.

That idea just doesn’t make sense.

If one can’t know with absolute certainty that a book is theopneustos, then one can’t rely on its contents to determine doctrine.

I can understand if someone claims that there could be MORE books that are theopneustos, but logically one needs to know that the books that one is using for doctrine are God-breathed.

 

[steido01]

That idea just doesn’t make sense.

If one can’t know with absolute certainty that a book is theopneustos, then one can’t rely on its contents to determine doctrine.

I can understand if someone claims that there could be MORE books that are theopneustos, but logically one needs to know that the books that one is using for doctrine are God-breathed.

Take a read here: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

I’m curious to hear your reaction and whether you understand the method.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Take a read here: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

I’m curious to hear your reaction and whether you understand the method.

Interesting. And disturbing.

I don’t have time to get into it now, but this approach is very Marcion-like.

The statement:

1. Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

… is of course true in one sense; the Catholic Church will never establish a dogma from any one source alone. But the statement above is weasel-wording the issue.

It seems like your canon is limited to only the “uncontested” books.
Does that mean that, if we find some early source that “contests” the Gospel of Matthew, we must now discard that from our sources for establishing dogma? (In fact, Marcion did “contest” Matthew’s Gospel, IIRC).
Or is it a vote?
If a vote, then how about the rest of the “antilegomena?” How much of a majority is needed before a book can be used for dogmatic purposes?

 

[steido01]

Interesting. And disturbing.

I don’t have time to get into it now, but this approach is very Marcion-like.

Please, take the time. I’ve seen plenty of responses to the generic Protestant understandings of canon, but I’ve yet to read an educated Roman response to the Lutheran understanding. I welcome a chance to learn from a presumably knowledgeable Roman Catholic like yourself.

The statement:

… is of course true in one sense; the Catholic Church will never establish a dogma from any one source alone. But the statement above is weasel-wording the issue.

I don’t see how this is “weasel-wording” anything. It acknowledges that the Church, in general, has a teaching authority - and responsibility - to acknowledge Scripture and promulgate what Scripture teaches.

It seems like your canon is limited to only the “uncontested” books.

No, that’s applying a conclusion where Lutheranism does not make one. Lutheranism does not define a canon. Re-read carefully what you just quoted above. This explains why some Lutherans will, generally, use a 66-book bible and reserve the Apocrypha for liturgical and hymnal purposes, while others will use a 73- or 74-book bible. The canon, in and of itself, does not pose a doctrinal issue to Lutherans.

Does that mean that, if we find some early source that “contests” the Gospel of Matthew, we must now discard that from our sources for establishing dogma? (In fact, Marcion did “contest” Matthew’s Gospel, IIRC). Or is it a vote?
If a vote, then how about the rest of the “antilegomena?” How much of a majority is needed before a book can be used for dogmatic purposes?

Neither. To quote the article, “the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.” The Gospel of Matthew is clearly an accepted Scriptural source in the Universal Church, in general. I think we need to be careful, when discussing Lutheranism, to not make a presumption where Lutheranism does not.

 

[Winstonsmith198]

Ultimately Catholic Tradition can only gain its authority by using quotes from the bible. The case for the authority of Catholic tradition can only be proved if Jesus himself instituted the apostolic succession and the position of Pope and this can only be proved today by quoting the relevant scriptures in Matthew (ie the misinterpretation of calling Peter the Rock which by the way Augustine himself said that the Rock was Jesus) and elsewhere in the Bible. The tradition cannot be proved by the Church fathers as they are not contemporary witnesses to Jesus instituting the apostolic succession and the Catholic Church. So for the Catholic Church to prove its authority it has to use scripture and indeed can only use scripture to prove its authority.

 

[steido01]

If FNB does not have time to respond, perhaps PR or another of our friends would be so kind?

Thanks, in advance!

 

[PRmerger]

If FNB does not have time to respond, perhaps PR or another of our friends would be so kind?

Thanks, in advance!

I think the article got it right here:

"The Lutheran approach to Scripture begins with faith in Jesus and confession of belonging to the apostolic church. "

Essentially, the canon was determined to be “that which conformed to the teaching of the Apostles”. That is, that which conformed to Sacred Tradition.

And gets it wrong here:

“A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).”

Dogmas are not established by the homolegomena. Rather, the homolegomena reflect the dogmas that were already given, once for all, to the saints.

 

[josie_L]

Why is this still an issue, i.e., find me a Bible prior to the reformation that did not contain the septuagint as divinely inspired, then we can talk? By the way, there is no such Bible.

 

[steido01]

And gets it wrong here:

“A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).”

Dogmas are not established by the homolegomena. Rather, the homolegomena reflect the dogmas that were already given, once for all, to the saints.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, PR.

Forgive me if I come across as challenging your intelligence… but I’m not sure you’re entirely understanding the Lutheran concept, for the simple reason that the Lutheran understanding (and the author) does not necessarily disagree with what you’re saying (unless you are intentionally conflating separate ideas here, and I do not know you to be dishonest ). We agree: clearly, Scripture reflects the teachings of the one, true Faith - after all, that is precisely why Scripture is authoritative to us today. What the author is saying, and what I think is clear when the quoted sentence is read in its entire context and not alone, is simply that the antilegomena cannot be used -on their own- to create arbitrary dogmas, because it is Faith in Christ - and not the belief in any set canon - that saves. All the world’s bibles could hypothetically disappear, and the Faith would endure.

The difference between us (and that I think you’re meaning to allude to?) revolves only around “What is the source of Scripture?” If one is raised believing that Scripture exists only thanks to the express direction of the institutionalized Church, I can understand why the rather ‘organic’ Lutheran/Eastern Orthodox understanding of Scripture as a collection inspired manifestations of the one, true Faith and attested to by the church, in general, might come across as foreign. But unlike the Protestant concept, it can stand logically on its own.

I’d still like to read a theological objection to the Lutheran understanding of ‘canon,’ written from a Roman Catholic perspective, that does not base itself off of a straw man argument against Protestantism. Any help?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Please, take the time. I’ve seen plenty of responses to the generic Protestant understandings of canon, but I’ve yet to read an educated Roman response to the Lutheran understanding. I welcome a chance to learn from a presumably knowledgeable Roman Catholic like yourself.

Marcion had rejected the entire OT and much of the NT because it didn’t match his pre-determined theology. His movement was not a small one, and indeed was quite a threat to the Catholic Church for quite some time.

My point is that you can’t even appeal to the Gospel of Matthew (or Mark, or John) as being “universally attested to” in light of the Marcionites (and perhaps others).

You NEED to appeal to the Apostolic Tradition in order to even know anything about Jesus.

I don’t see how this is “weasel-wording” anything. It acknowledges that the Church, in general, has a teaching authority - and responsibility - to acknowledge Scripture and promulgate what Scripture teaches.

An infallible teaching authority, or not?
You see, you have it backwards. Scripture acknowledges the Church’s authority.
Scripture is the witness to the Truth contained within the Catholic Church.

No, that’s applying a conclusion where Lutheranism does not make one. Lutheranism does not define a canon. Re-read carefully what you just quoted above.

Then where is any authority to be found?
Catholics profess 3 earthly authorities: Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Protestants reject the Magisterium. They dismiss Apostolic Tradition. And now, you’re making Scriptural authority logically impossible. On what do you base your faith?

This explains why some Lutherans will, generally, use a 66-book bible

Use it for what, exactly?

and reserve the Apocrypha for liturgical and hymnal purposes, while others will use a 73- or 74-book bible. The canon, in and of itself, does not pose a doctrinal issue to Lutherans.

No, but it should pose a logical issue.

Neither. To quote the article, “the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.” The Gospel of Matthew is clearly an accepted Scriptural source in the Universal Church, in general.

“In general”?
How do you know that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, PR.

Forgive me if I come across as challenging your intelligence… but I’m not sure you’re entirely understanding the Lutheran concept, for the simple reason that the Lutheran understanding (and the author) does not necessarily disagree with what you’re saying (unless you are intentionally conflating separate ideas here, and I do not know you to be dishonest ). We agree: clearly, Scripture reflects the teachings of the one, true Faith - after all, that is precisely why Scripture is authoritative to us today.

So, you DO believe in Apostolic Tradition?

That’s great. So do we.

The Church came before the NT was written.
So, we had our beliefs passed on (via the paradosis of the Apostles) BEFORE any Catholic wrote any scripture.

What the author is saying, and what I think is clear when the quoted sentence is read in its entire context and not alone, is simply that the antilegomena cannot be used -on their own- to create arbitrary dogmas, because it is Faith in Christ - and not the belief in any set canon - that saves. All the world’s bibles could hypothetically disappear, and the Faith would endure.

YES! Again, because of the oral Apostolic Tradition!!!

Is this what you’re saying? Because then you’re belief system came about 1500 years too late. It already existed.