Sola Scriptura...

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Some thoughts:

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

So was the Catholic Church founded by Christ and Cephas being the Rock.

This implies two basic premises:

1. It is the apostolic witness to Jesus that tells us who he is as opposed to secret oral traditions of gnostic communities (thus we accept the four canonical Gospels, and not spurious gnostic texts).
2. “Scripture” is whatever Jesus pointed to as authoritative (which according to the Gospel records is apostolic teaching and the Old Testament).

1. This Apostolic witness is found by the successors of the Apostles – the Deacons, Priests and Bishops. Those that remain united to the Church without dissenting have carried out this teachings. To make the comment of secret oral traditions – opens the door to shed a negative light to traditions in general, even when it specifies those of gnostic communities – a la NIV… If there is no closed canon… Why mention accepting the four canonical Gospels? No closed canon means… well no closed canon, at this point it leaves the possibility of accepting more books as Scriptures. Jesus points to the authority of the Father, His, and the Church. At no point does Jesus point to Scriptures as being authoritative – in fact, Jesus does not even mention all the OT books, and does not even quotes from all of them. The Gospel records were written by the Church, for the Church and the whole world. Without the Church, there would be an incredible problem with determining how Mark is the author of one of the Gospels. Also, the Apostles don’t teach anything in the Gospels – they are mentioned but there is no record of them teaching in the Gospels. Jesus teaches in the Gospels. Further, the Gospels don’t tell us which books comprise the NT.

Now the fact is you have to begin somewhere.

Really… It did with the Incarnation and the establishment of Christ’s Church – everything else follows.

The author then tries to ignore the big elephant in the middle of the room and says this:

Thus the canon is for us primarily a historical question rather than a doctrinal question.

Are there any limits to what some people will do to avoid recognizing the Church’s role in Scriptures? This author is one step away from joining the Ehrman camp.

The Lutheran approach to this problem is surprising in that we don’t seek to establish such a table of contents. We hold that the lack of definitive historical evidence cannot simply be eliminated by properly consecrated people getting together and taking a Spirit-guided vote, and so there ultimately isn’t anything we can do about it. In other words, no amount of voting, liturgical development, or theological reflection can answer for us whether Hebrews was written by an apostle or at least a close associate. The evidence just isn’t there.

This is very surprising, considering Lutherans hold to Sola Scriptura… Sola not determined and unknown Scriptura… I honestly can’t believe this statement was made by a Lutheran.

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

How on earth can you establish something that is not possible to be known with certainty? The attested books are within the confines of the Apostolic Church – not outside of Her.

I’m sorry Don, but this argumentation doesn’t even leave the gate.

 

[Porknpie]

Ultimately Catholic Tradition can only gain its authority by using quotes from the bible.

That is only your opinion.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Notice below that Cyril ties the Catholic Church to scripture…that the Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

The case for the authority of Catholic tradition can only be proved if Jesus himself instituted the apostolic succession

better to say because of the authority of the Church that Christ did indeed establish.

and the position of Pope and this can only be proved today by quoting the relevant scriptures in Matthew

No the Church existed before scripture. It’s not relying on either or but both, Tradition (came first) and Scripture (came second)

(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.

Jesus could not be any clearer in calling Peter the rock. He even changed his name.

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.

This must mean then that you can not trust the ECF’s in determining what was scripture. If true, then you really don’t know if the bible you have in your hand is both inspired and inerrant.

You only know scripture is inspired and inerrant because the Catholic Church told you so. It was the Catholic Council of Rome, the Synods of Hippo and Carthage plus Florence and Trent that affirmed what was scripture. Also, Catholics have no problem with Jesus and Peter both being rocks. Augustine saying Jesus is rock is true certainly in one sense. But in Jesus own words - scripture itself - says Peter is rock in another sense.

If you like quoting Augustine, here’s more on what he said about the Catholic Church.
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

And Tertullian says 200 years before Augustine
**“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” **Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

 

[josie_L]

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.

So why bring up St. Augustine if he’s irrelevant? Moreover, the authority with which you place on Scripture is not possible without acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church who helped put the Bible together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and Sacred Tradition). In other words, the Church came first, the Scriptures in their entirety, came later as a result of the Church.

p.s. The apostles did not put together a whole bible (old and new) to hand out to other Bible believing Christians.

 

[steido01]

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).

I am familiar with Marcion and his errors; his example cannot be applied to Luther. No books were removed from the Lutheran bible (in fact, Luther’s bible included the Prayer of Manasseh). In any case, a universally attested canon does not require unanimous approval (which cannot possibly be found in any human-run body, anyway). A book can clearly be considered universally-attested by the church, in general.

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

Sure. And Lutheranism does not deny Tradition or tradition - only holds them accountable to the “Greatest Tradition” available to us: Holy Scripture. It is Scripture that serves as our final rule and norm.

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.

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?

Once again, be careful not to apply the tired anti-Protestant apologetics to Lutheranism. Lutheranism does not deny Tradition, nor the teaching responsibilities of our Ministerium. Lutheranism, however, does not understand those other sources to be divorce-able from, or to hold any authority outside of, what is shown in Scripture.

Use [Holy Scripture] for what, exactly?

Teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. For sermons. For hymns. For liturgical purposes. For moral benefit. For maintaining spiritual well-being. You understand where I’m going.

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

I know that the church, in general, has accepted it to be written by a man who was inspired to write as God directed.

So, you DO believe in Apostolic Tradition?

I haven’t denied that.

That’s great. So do we.

Indeed, though you limit Tradition to be those dogmas accepted by your Magisterium; so I wonder whether you truly believe in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Tradition, or if you instead place your faith entirely in an human - yet, somehow, infallible - Magisterium.

The Church came before the NT was written.

And being a good Roman Catholic, you use this as your reasoning. We will, unavoidably, differ here. I do not believe the existence of Tradition is inexplicably tied to the physical, institutionalized Church in Rome.

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

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

It may be that we are closer together than many realize, and that it is only definitions, semantics and a horrendous misunderstanding of “Sola Scriptura” (promulgated by general Protestantism and Roman Catholics alike) that divides us. Perhaps the Orthodox-Lutheran dialogues of the 80’s were on to something:

1. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.
   helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#cano

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sure. And Lutheranism does not deny Tradition or tradition - only holds them accountable to the “Greatest Tradition” available to us: Holy Scripture. It is Scripture that serves as our final rule and norm.

This sounds pertty to some, but in its practice is ugly .

How many rules and norm does this greatest tradition have? And further, who teaches it?

Matthew 10:24 “A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; 25 it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master."

And so the Church is like the teacher and master, as it is His body.

 

[steido01]

Are there any limits to what some people will do to avoid recognizing the Church’s role in Scriptures? This author is one step away from joining the Ehrman camp.

…

How on earth can you establish something that is not possible to be known with certainty? The attested books are within the confines of the Apostolic Church – not outside of Her.

I’m sorry Don, but this argumentation doesn’t even leave the gate.

Thanks, as always, for your constructive feedback, Jose.

I don’t think Lutheranism is denying the church’s role in acknowledging what constitutes Scripture - though I entirely understand how it might seem that way to one who is used to acceptable things receiving the “rubber stamp” of the Church. Lutheranism certainly acknowledges the teaching authority and responsibility of the church, in general, to bring Word and Sacrament to the people. It simply doesn’t seek to make things “official” with a set canon, because the church, in general, knows Scripture. While it’s not something that bothers us, I entirely understand why more linear Western minds might find it unusual. To me, it’s like this less-than-perfect analogy: I can get a sack of purple potatoes from the local farmer’s market. The farmer can verify that they are locally-grown purple potatoes because only farmers in this co-op group grow this particular purple potato. He doesn’t need the government to place a “Locally-Grown Purple Potato” stamp on the sack of potatoes. He can trust his fellow farmers, who passed on the original roots to him for planting.

Someone might then make the observation that the Lutheran canon isn’t technically closed. Well, sure. Technically, if archaeologists found the 29th chapter of Acts or some other hypothetical book, it could join the other books of our canon, provided the church, in general, accepted it. But for all practical intents and purposes, the Lutheran canon is, essentially, closed.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am familiar with Marcion and his errors; his example cannot be applied to Luther. No books were removed from the Lutheran bible (in fact, Luther’s bible included the Prayer of Manasseh).

Nobody was applying his example to Luther (although I disagree about whether it could be applied). I was just pointing out that the attestation of even the 4 canonical Gospels was less than universal.

In any case, a universally attested canon does not require unanimous approval (which cannot possibly be found in any human-run body, anyway). A book can clearly be considered universally-attested by the church, in general.

And I asked what your criteria was for this. Is it OK if 80% attestation is achieved? 2/3 majority? Is it up for a popular vote?

Sure. And Lutheranism does not deny Tradition or tradition - only holds them accountable to the “Greatest Tradition” available to us: Holy Scripture. It is Scripture that serves as our final rule and norm.

You do realize, I hope, that this argument is hopelessly circular.
The Tradition we’re discussing is precisely that - of what is Holy Scripture comprised.
You can’t appeal to Scripture to determine what is Scripture.

Once again, be careful not to apply the tired anti-Protestant apologetics to Lutheranism. Lutheranism does not deny Tradition, nor the teaching responsibilities of our Ministerium. Lutheranism, however, does not understand those other sources to be divorce-able from, or to hold any authority outside of, what is shown in Scripture.

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

Use it for what, exactly?
Teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. For sermons. For hymns. For liturgical purposes. For moral benefit. For maintaining spiritual well-being. You understand where I’m going.

Yes. You are presupposing the correctness of the 66-books for things reserved only for scripture, whilst not knowing whether these books actually qualify as scripture. Pretty dangerous, IMO.

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

I know that the church, in general, has accepted it to be written by a man who was inspired to write as God directed.

As were all 73 books. So, why accept some? Sounds like special pleading.

Indeed, though you limit Tradition to be those dogmas accepted by your Magisterium;

No, we don’t. I don’t know where you got that belief from.

so I wonder whether you truly believe in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Tradition, or if you instead place your faith entirely in an human - yet, somehow, infallible - Magisterium.

Why is it so hard to understand that God could protect His Church - humans - from promulgating something that isn’t true? Don’t you believe that He went even further than that by inspiring scripture? What we claim for the Magisterium is LESS than what we, and you, claim for the writers of scripture. And we do so based on Jesus’ promises.

Jesus said it; I believe it.

And being a good Roman Catholic, you use this as your reasoning.

Yes, being a Catholic entails using reason.

We will, unavoidably, differ here.

I do not believe the existence of Tradition is inexplicably tied to the physical, institutionalized Church in Rome.

It is tied to Jesus’ promises to His Church, which is organically the same Catholic Church. When someone breaks away from it, they don’t get to arrogate the Authority that Jesus bestowed on it. No more than Korah was able to arrogate to himself Moses’ Authority.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks, as always, for your constructive feedback, Jose.

I don’t think Lutheranism is denying the church’s role in acknowledging what constitutes Scripture

This is absent in the article

• though I entirely understand how it might seem that way to one who is used to acceptable things receiving the “rubber stamp” of the Church.

I would not call it a rubber stamp, but the respect of the authority left to us by Christ.

Lutheranism certainly acknowledges the teaching authority and responsibility of the church, in general, to bring Word and Sacrament to the people. It simply doesn’t seek to make things “official” with a set canon, because the church, in general, knows Scripture. While it’s not something that bothers us, I entirely understand why more linear Western minds might find it unusual. To me, it’s like this less-than-perfect analogy: I can get a sack of purple potatoes from the local farmer’s market. The farmer can verify that they are locally-grown purple potatoes because only farmers in this co-op group grow this particular purple potato. He doesn’t need the government to place a “Locally-Grown Purple Potato” stamp on the sack of potatoes. He can trust his fellow farmers, who passed on the original roots to him for planting.

A sack of purple potatoes (I prefer red, btw) has little to do to represent the final norm and rule of faith for all the faithful. In this case there has to be a vehicle by which such a profound declaration is made. Your eternal life hangs on the balance on a sack of purple potatoes No, this is much more grave. The article grossly undermines the process of weeding out the inspired books and the actual history and place in the Church.

Someone might then make the observation that the Lutheran canon isn’t technically closed. Well, sure. Technically, if archaeologists found the 29th chapter of Acts or some other hypothetical book, it could join the other books of our canon, provided the church, in general, accepted it. But for all practical intents and purposes, the Lutheran canon is, essentially, closed.

Well, there is no Lutheran Canon according to the article. The author says that he recognizes some books as used by most but that we really have no way of really knowing. This collides at full speed with Sola Scriptura. Seriously, you guys have a sheep running amok among the fold.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ultimately Catholic Tradition can only gain its authority by using quotes from the bible.

Not so. If every bible on the planet were to disappear tomorrow, the authority of the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, would be unaffected. Further, the authority of the Bishops was known BEFORE scripture was written…in fact, Apostles and Bishops WROTE the NT, so their authority in the Church was recognized before they ever took up a pen.

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…and elsewhere in the Bible.

Incorrect. In fact, completely backwards. We don’t base the authority of the Church on the Bible, but we base the canon of the Bible on the Authority of the Church which God used to write and RECOGNIZE those books which He had inspired. Without the Catholic Church, you would have dozens of gospels all clamoring for acceptance in your “canon”.

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.

Read on…

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

**This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book. **

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It acknowledges that the Church, in general, has a teaching authority - and responsibility - to acknowledge Scripture and promulgate what Scripture teaches.

You see, you have it backwards. Scripture acknowledges the Church’s authority.

And the Church acknowledges the authority of scripture. These things were designed to work together.

I appreciate that Lutherans, more than other Protestants perhaps, respect the role of Tradition and some form of teaching authority within their own ranks that is a little fuzzy to me. But that’s okay, at least they have the formula correct: Scripture + Tradition + Teaching Authority.

Modern day sola scriptura seems to simply mean “any Tradition and Authority BUT Catholic Tradition and authority.” Now, we have the situation in which the Baptist rejects the Lutheran’s Tradition and authority and he in turn rejects the Prebyterian’s Tradition and Authority…

Beyond that, no one seems to want to be a true sola scripturist any more. I guess the concept has been too discredited by now.

 

[JonNC]

And the Church acknowledges the authority of scripture. These things were designed to work together.

I appreciate that Lutherans, more than other Protestants perhaps, respect the role of Tradition and some form of teaching authority within their own ranks that is a little fuzzy to me. But that’s okay, at least they have the formula correct: Scripture + Tradition + Teaching Authority.

Modern day sola scriptura seems to simply mean “any Tradition and Authority BUT Catholic Tradition and authority.” Now, we have the situation in which the Baptist rejects the Lutheran’s Tradition and authority and he in turn rejects the Prebyterian’s Tradition and Authority…

Beyond that, no one seems to want to be a true sola scripturist any more. I guess the concept has been too discredited by now.

Hi Randy,
What Lutherans practice is sola scriptura - the sola meaning that only scripture is the final norm. If scripture is used to hold doctrine and teaching accountable, then obviously there are doctrines and teachings to be held accountable.
Tradition, then, is a witness to the truth of scripture.

I’ve often posted the rule and norm as provided in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, which provides a description of how this works.

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Randy,
What Lutherans practice is sola scriptura - the sola meaning that only scripture is the final norm. If scripture is used to hold doctrine and teaching accountable, then obviously there are doctrines and teachings to be held accountable.
Tradition, then, is a witness to the truth of scripture.

It is impossible to know what Scriptures are with certainty without Tradition (Clement I, Shepher of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Didache, et. al. (Maybe the author of Don’s article will attempt to introduce some of these books )

They testify to each other but one was established before the other. Christ left a Teaching Office (Magisterium), not a book to hold doctrine and teaching accountable, the Magisterium does that.

 

[SyCarl]

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

I think you will find disagreement on the form of the church Jesus founded, particularly with respect to the matters you refer to. At best you would be using your personal interpretation of the evidence to reach your conclusion.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

Again you are assuming applying your own interpretation of the evidence, particularly the extent and nature of the authority that was given. I can look at the evidence and see that Jesus gave the apostles authority to teach and heal the sick. I look and I see no church today who has the authority to heal the sick, so why should I assume that any other authority was given?

**This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book. **

You are assuming what you are trying to approve by saying the Church is infallible. Nothing that has gone before in the argument establishes this. You are applying your own interpretation of Scripture to reach this conclusion.

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Establishing the historical reliability of Scripture in some matters does not establish the reliability in everything it says. You are assuming because it is correct in some matters it is correct in all it says. I could just as easily say that history shows that the Iliad is reliable history because some of what it says can be shown by archeological evidence so that we can conclude it is accurate in what it says about the Greek gods. Then again you are applying your interpretation of the Scripture to conclude the Church is infallible.

The argument is still circular because you jump from historical reliability to the conclusion of an infallible church which is not the necessary result of reliability. We still have the infallibility of the Church relying upon its interpretation of what Scripture says. It amounts to saying the Church is infallible because it says Scripture says it is infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
What Lutherans practice is sola scriptura - the sola meaning that only scripture is the final norm.

Okay. Let’s put this into practice, shall we?

You and a close Baptist friend are both sola scripturists. The subject of infant baptism comes up. Naturally, you both appeal to scripture as the final norm.

[SIGN]MAJOR FAIL[/SIGN]

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you will find disagreement on the form of the church Jesus founded, particularly with respect to the matters you refer to. At best you would be using your personal interpretation of the evidence to reach your conclusion.

Not at all. Scripture is clear that Jesus intended to found a visible church with a hierarchy that could be identified. I’ll keep my powder dry on that for now.

Again you are assuming applying your own interpretation of the evidence, particularly the extent and nature of the authority that was given. I can look at the evidence and see that Jesus gave the apostles authority to teach and heal the sick. I look and I see no church today who has the authority to heal the sick, so why should I assume that any other authority was given?

Jesus claimed to be God, and He promised to rise from the dead. Since He did rise, we have to consider ALL of His other claims (such as being God) and promises to be true, also, since God cannot lie. One of those promises was to build a single Church to which He would give His own authority to speak in His name.

You are assuming what you are trying to approve by saying the Church is infallible. Nothing that has gone before in the argument establishes this. You are applying your own interpretation of Scripture to reach this conclusion.

Not at all. Since Jesus gave the Church the authority to speak in His name, and Jesus cannot err, it stands to reason that the Church cannot err in His name, either.

Establishing the historical reliability of Scripture in some matters does not establish the reliability in everything it says. You are assuming because it is correct in some matters it is correct in all it says. I could just as easily say that history shows that the Iliad is reliable history because some of what it says can be shown by archeological evidence so that we can conclude it is accurate in what it says about the Greek gods.

Sure. There is no difference between the Bible and Illiad whatsoever. This every grade school boy knows well.

The argument is still circular because you jump from historical reliability to the conclusion of an infallible church which is not the necessary result of reliability. We still have the infallibility of the Church relying upon its interpretation of what Scripture says. It amounts to saying the Church is infallible because it says Scripture says it is infallible.

If we can rely on Jesus’ promises because He has proven Himself to be God by rising from the dead, then we can deduce from the totality of his teachings and promises concerning the Church that it cannot err.

I appreciate your effort, but you need to work on this some more until you SEE what is happening here.

 

[Kliska]

the Church that it cannot err.

Why then are we constantly constantly warned of false teachers in the church? Why does Paul say that even he, the Apostle Paul, is capable of teaching a false gospel and if he does so, let himself be damned? Why did Peter fail in teaching properly by his actions, and Paul have to correct him? Why did God have to go after the 7 churches in Revelation individually? Why did Jesus wonder if He would find faith on the Earth at His second coming?

 

[Nicea325]

Oh it has been defined here quite well on posts from last year- I might be out of gas on this topic for now.

Really? Then tell us all who has the “official” definition of SS? Name the church who decided?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really? Then tell us all who has the “official” definition of SS? Name the church who decided?

There isn’t.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre
You are beating a dead horse. Don’t hold anything back… (I’m temporarily hibernating).

Exactly! SS is a dead horse because it has yet been defended by Truth.

 

[Nicea325]

There isn’t.

Precisely!