Sola Scriptura...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Maybe you are right and this discussion belongs to a different thread. It’s just every other issue I have tried to discuss that has nothing to do with Peter, EVERY TIME we came down to this. I try to prove my point and give all the supporting evidence, and then I get the reply, “Well, all you say does not matter anyways since it is the CC that has the authority to teach the truth, just check Mtt 16:18 and tell us how you can go around this, and then we can talk about the rest”.

I did check other threads here that discuss this, there is plenty of material there indeed. What I see is as the Protestants who use Sola Scriptura can’t agree on whose interpretation is correct, the same way the Catholics and the Orthodox who use extra-biblical writing can’t agree on whose interpretation of those extra-biblical writings is correct. So either way does not seem to solve the problem, just all the same confusion.

How about trying this thread?

 

[Mystic]

How about trying this thread?

Yes, that’s where I went just to find out that just as there are debates over how to interpret the Scripture in Sola Scriptura case, same way there are debates over how to interpret the extra-biblical writings for those who rely on them. This just proves to me that the Tradition does not solve the issue really.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, that’s where I went just to find out that just as there are debates over how to interpret the Scripture in Sola Scriptura case, same way there are debates over how to interpret the extra-biblical writings for those who rely on them. This just proves to me that the Tradition does not solve the issue really.

But it’s not just about Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

I think the either/or position of either Tradition or Scripture is a false dichotomy. It comes down to the Living Witness of the Church as the Holy Spirit moves us to believe through Christ our Lord.

Have you actually read through this thread you’ve posted in?

 

[Mystic]

I agree this could be off topic. But it seems to be the implication of the things said here against Sola Scriptura that “just believe in the Sacred Tradition and everything will fall in place”. Well, it doesn’t, at least for me, for when I turn to the Tradition to study it I see there is no consensus as to how to interpret this Tradition. So instead I just engage in another debate of who is right in their interpretation of the things said by the fathers etc ect…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I agree this could be off topic. But it seems to be the implication of the things said here against Sola Scriptura that “just believe in the Sacred Tradition and everything will fall in place”. Well, it doesn’t, at least for me, for when I turn to the Tradition to study it I see there is no consensus as to how to interpret this Tradition. So instead I just engage in another debate of who is right in their interpretation of the things said by the fathers etc ect…

What would actually convince you?

 

[Mystic]

What would actually convince you?

Good question, if I knew I would already be convinced. But I know one thing that would not.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Good question, if I knew I would already be convinced. But I know one thing that would not.

Can you at least see, based on the thoughts presented, where some adherance to tradition is required in order to verify the scriptural record?

Perhaps there is some confusion as to who’s tradition to adhere to (and we can come back to that if necessary).

But do you see where a proclamation of sola scriptura has a strong tendency to throw denominations into perplexity?

Like I said before, Sola Scriptura, upon closer examination, really isn’t Sola Scriptura at all. It’s tradition-- that is, traditional interpretations according to Luther, or Calvin, or Knox or Armenius for example

At least, there doesn’t seem to be any strong working definition of it that doesn’t somehow involve one also…

a) …requiring knowledge of the Hebrew, Aramaic and later Greek languages spoken by the authors and transcribers,

b) …the cultural practices, including the archeological and geographical evidences of those people the Scriptures describe, such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians for example,

c) …and a basic understanding of the history of the Israelites coupled with at least some basic claim to knowledge of the early church in relation to what the Scriptures from both before Christ and after Christ actually describe.

In short, if Sola Scriptura requires all these things to clearly understand the Scriptures, then the people who uphold some form of Sola Scriptura aren’t really talking about relying solely upon the Scriptures at all.

In fact, in this context noted above anyway, they’re really talking about Sacred History, which is what the Catholic Church (and Orthodox to some extent) has been teaching since the beginning.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I was reading through a Hebrew Catholic Website and came across a very interesting article. I thought the quote below would be a good way to end an old thread which was never actuallly completed back when I was here months ago…
Canon Michael Lewis:

The creation of the universe is mirrored in the creation of Sacred Scripture. Just as God separated the light from the darkness on the first day, so He drove away all darkness of error from Sacred Scripture. All was done by the divine speech.

The Jewish sages call the words in Genesis by which the world was made ‘the ten words of creation.’ Rightly then was the first of the ‘words’ of creation, the triumphant word ‘Let there be light’, for God’s word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. With Him is the fountain of life and in His light, we see light.

Those words of God are put down in human speech in the Hebrew language, the holy tongue, a language which in itself has so much to tell us about our faith. All words are contained in the one Word that the Father has spoken from all eternity. It was therefore most fitting that the first language into which that speech should be set down in writing was Hebrew for the outstanding feature of Hebrew is its shining quality of light and its radical directness.

In its fundamental structure, the holy tongue points to the Trinity whose signature is on all that is made. Most Hebrew words derive from a root form that consists of three consonants and thus Hebrew itself is a reminder of God who is Three in one.

Hebrew has an alphabet of twenty-two letters that originally denoted only consonants, although w, y and h are used to represent vowels in certain positions. The lack of true vowels raises questions as to how the text is to be vocalised for, although a system developed of representing vowels by adding points to the consonants, the points themselves are not part of the inspired text of Scripture.

Imagine an English sentence without vowels (mgn n nglsh sntnc wtht vwls) or a linguistic world where potentially ‘bg’ could be read as ‘bag,’ ‘beg,’ ‘big,’ ‘bog’ or ‘bug.’ This absence of true vowels is a reminder to us of a profound truth: we can only read God’s word as set down in writing in the Hebrew Scriptures because of tradition. It is tradition that teaches us how to read the text, how to mark the vowels and so to vocalise the written word.

As the Psalmist wrote: ‘God has spoken once: twice I have heard him.’ (Ps. 62: 12) There is but one Word but we hear that Word in Scripture and in Tradition.

Anyway, take care everyone. God bless you and the Lord guide you in all his holy ways.

 

[MariaG]

Thanks for the article. It is a good one:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Maria

 

[loscampos]

First we must have a question or hypothesis: Which has more authority, the church or scripture? We could also make this into a statement: The bible has more authority than the church. The converse statement would be: the church has more authority than the bible.

After the question we must look for any scripture verses that explicitly state one or the other.

The argument for Biblical authority:

            2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

The argument for Church authority:

            Mat 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

            1 Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how 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.”

Now that we have some explicit scripture verses we must find their implied meanings. As a side note, we could bring points on what constitutes the church, what is the body of the church, how do we determine if a book in scripture is inspired if it isn’t explicitly stated and so forth? All of these topics we will dive deeper into in further essays, but in order to stay on the current topic we will not go into all of these points that could be brought up.

Our second task is the context and the meanings of theses verses. In 2 Tim 3:15 we find that scripture is important for teaching and reproving etc. An underlying problem with this verse to prove scripture has more authority than the church is; if two people are teaching two different things from the same scripture. If the two in dispute are using the same scripture for correction and reproof, how then shall the dispute be settled? Mat 18:15-18 clearly states they must go to the church to settle the matter. The next question is then, why do we go to the church to settle the matter and not only scripture? We go to the church because it is the pillar of truth. This is an important concept because Jesus himself is truth. He is passing down his authority on truth to the church. This is especially clear if we continue on and finish reading 1 Tim 3:16, he refers to binding and loosing. Although this topic can be further talked about, we will use only what is relevant. The church is the truth because it can leave things out of heaven, something the bible in itself cannot do.

Lastly do either one of these points contradict themselves or any other passages pertaining to authority. “The bible has more authority than the church,” contradicts itself and the authority of the church. Continuing from our example on two people disputing each other from the same verse, not only does the bible tell us to go to the church to settle disputes, it tell us that it is not for private interpretation. This is made clear in 2 Pet 1:20 “Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation,” We can go in many different directions with this verse, but we will stick to the framework of authority. The altercation between the two people has part of its roots in conflicting interpretations. Within a larger context, if these two were leaders of different churches in Christianity, if neither church has authority over each other, then aren’t they both just interpreting the bible as their own? The main point is that there is a singular reference to adjudicate differences and it is a singular church and not scripture.

Does the statement “the church has more authority than the bible,” contradict itself or other teachings. The answer is no, not only for the reasons stated above; we could also look at binding again in more depth, as well as the spirit leading us in truth and so forth. Used in conjunction with each other 2 Tim is a great leading point into the other two verses.

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

taken from:lococatolico.com/Essays.html