Sola Scriptura...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Church didn’t write the Bible.

Yes she did by the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit.

If we can’t agree on this point, there’s really not much else we can say.

Steadfast:

God wrote the Bible using men to do so.

Ok…now we’re coming more to an agreement.

Steadfast:

This is absolutely essential.

The Church has a custodial duty to Scripture, but she is not its author.

I already agreed with you on this to some extent. The point that you seem to be overlooking is that the Church is also clearly, according to the Scriptures, the proper interpreter of the Scriptures as enabled by the Holy Spirit.

We can debate who the true church is later, but there’s no getting around this part that the church was also given the duty to interpet the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit as well.

Steadfast:

The Church is subject to the Word of God, not v.v.

Yes. But the Word of God also lives within those who carry on the traditional interpretations of the Scriptures too. The Word of God is not limited to the Sacred Writings-- but you already know that.

Steadfast:

That there is anything other than the Bible which is in fact this authoritative Word of God, given the Church as a guide to faith and duty, cannot be established with sufficient evidence to bind the consciences of the redeemed in Christ.

Why not?

The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were able to confirm in their conscience many things pertaining to salvation-- and the Holy Spirit is still very much active today as you know. In other words, authority was given to bind the conscience and teach God’s ordinances clearly.

In addition to this, the witness of the early fathers, whose history can be traced back to the apostles, clearly indicates a consistent pattern of understanding which exactly mirrors this very same testimony.

Quite frankly, if all one has are the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, even if given the ‘assumed’ Church as a guide to faith and duty, then how does one read 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and conclude that it’s speaking of the Catholic Church and not realize it’s denouncing the gnostic heretics that were already prevalent even during Paul’s time and continue to this day?

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Did not Luther conclude this passage was about the Catholic Church? Do not other people who ascribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura not do the same?

Steadfast:

All other authorities are, therefore and necessarily, subject and inferior to it.

Only if one believes that the Scriptures bind authoritatively on all matters of faith.

And yet you’ve already admitted, apparently in regards to civil authority when contrasted to God’s laws, that the Scriptures do not condemn all forms of slavery-- and yet you also apparently accept that the Church does have a right to speak authoritatively regarding all forms of slavery.

Perhaps I misunderstood you so I have to ask am I understanding you correctly?

Steadfast:

This is a thumbnail of my perspective on Sola Scriptura.

It’s very similar to what I thought you were going to say.

Although I have to admit that, as a former Lutheran who really got into the nitty gritty of his theology, I thought that you were going to include some little tidbits about Luther’s thoughts on Natural Law too.

To be clear, do you feel that Luther’s thoughts on Natural Law pertain to this situation?

Or are we just sticking to Article VII: Of the Church & Article VIII: What the Church Is?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Can you see how your answer missed my question here?

I didn’t ask whether the men entrusted with leadership and pastoral oversight in the church could sin.

I asked whether Christ and the Apostles taught that the Church, when she speaks authoritatively on any matter of doctrine or life, does so infallibly and irrefutably and irreversibly?

I’ve already displayed the transmission of thought from Christ to his apostles and beyond.

The Scriptures are clear on this part.

As I said before, it needs to be asked that if the Scriptures do not explicitly state that the Scriptures themselves are the most trustworthy way of knowing God’s will, then what do the Scriptures actually say in regards to those who were entrusted to correctly carry the Word of God?

In other words, how do we know the Spirit of Truth?

We know that John 4:24 clearly states that God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

We also know that John 14:17 clearly states that he, the Spirit of truth, will be known by us-- for he will live with us and is in us.

In addition to this, we also know that John 16:13 clearly states that Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth. The Scriptures even proclaim that he will not speak on his own-- he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell us what is yet to come.

According to John 18:37, when Jesus was facing off against Pilate, Jesus clearly stated:

You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

Later, according to, 1 John 4:6, we hear an echo of the Spirit from Jesus’s own apostles’ restating the same exact message:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Likewise, in Luke 10:16 we see this very same message being formulated:

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

In addition this, we have 1 Timothy 3:15’s reference to the church of the living God being the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Scriptures never claim anything even remotely close to this about themselves, and yet that is essentially what you are claiming-- that the Scriptures alone are the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Am I wrong about this?

 

[Steadfast]

Am I wrong about this?

Only insofar as you attribute absolute exhaustivity to the conclusion.

And by that I mean only insofar as you fail to admit that a guarantee that the Church will maintain the truth does not preclude the simultaneous admixture of error, this being a natural byproduct of her being made up of fallible men to whom no guarantee of absolute and exhaustive inerrancy has been given.

 

[Steadfast]

Yes she did by the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit.

If we can’t agree on this point, there’s really not much else we can say.

Well, we could continue to debate the point, but you’re right in the insight that it probably wouldn’t do much good.

I already agreed with you on this to some extent. The point that you seem to be overlooking is that the Church is also clearly, according to the Scriptures, the proper interpreter of the Scriptures as enabled by the Holy Spirit.

I’m not overlooking it at all. As you’ve stated it here, I even agree with it. What I disagree with is the unspoken conclusion that because the church is the proper interpreter of Scripture she is, necessarily therefore, the infallible and inerrant interpreter of Scripture, though even here I would agree with you if I could simply insert the proviso that though she does eventually get things right, it is more often by long consideration and discussion than by institutional fiat. Then, to put an even finer point on it, I disagreethat she even needs to produce dogmatic conclusions on anything other than a set of clearly marked out and defined doctrinal essentials.

We can debate who the true church is later, but there’s no getting around this part that the church was also given the duty to interpet the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit as well.

Fine. Again, as you state it here, I completely agree that within her custodial responsibility is the duty to interpret Scripture. This still doesn’t mean she wrote it.

Yes. But the Word of God also lives within those who carry on the traditional interpretations of the Scriptures too. The Word of God is not limited to the Sacred Writings-- but you already know that.

I’m a little suspicious of this because while I will concede the point as stated, I reject the notion that “the Word of God” living “within those who carry on the traditional interpretations of the Scriptures” is somehow normative for the Church as a whole except as consensus on those reflections is reached.

Why not?

The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were able to confirm in their conscience many things pertaining to salvation-- and the Holy Spirit is still very much active today as you know. In other words, authority was given to bind the conscience and teach God’s ordinances clearly.

Alright.

 

[Steadfast]

In addition to this, the witness of the early fathers, whose history can be traced back to the apostles, clearly indicates a consistent pattern of understanding which exactly mirrors this very same testimony.

Well, okay.

Quite frankly, if all one has are the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, even if given the ‘assumed’ Church as a guide to faith and duty, then how does one read 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and conclude that it’s speaking of the Catholic Church and not realize it’s denouncing the gnostic heretics that were already prevalent even during Paul’s time and continue to this day?

Did not Luther conclude this passage was about the Catholic Church? Do not other people who ascribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura not do the same?

For the most part they do.

I think Luther may have been a bit too eager to demonize the Roman Church and latched onto this. But Luther was no systematist, a subtle and graduated argument was not something he had much patience for. I tend to agree that it’s more likely about gnosticism, at least directly.

But then, I would tend to see the spirit of the error Paul is talking about one which has, through syncretism infected the Church from the very beginning and frankly, continues to do so.

So, it’s not necessarily an either/or proposition.

Your church is run through with gnosticism, especially as regards matter/spirit distinction.

It’s a tangent, but your exaltation of virginity, many of your teachings on the Mother of God, and especially your quasi-aristotelian conception of the Eucharist with it’s denial of accidental persistence are all symptoms, of if not gnosticism per se, certainly Greek philosophical conceptions.

Tertullian wasn’t right about a lot of things, but his question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” was trenchant.

I won’t suggest to you that I believe Protestantism entirely free from this though though I do believe that Confessional Lutheranism and (to a signifaicantly lesser degree) Reformed Protestantism have some safeguards in their confessions and the Solas against too rampant a failing here.

Only if one believes that the Scriptures bind authoritatively on all matters of faith.

No; Only if one recognizes that all other authorities, being human, are fallible and therefore, ultimately untrustworthy to the same degree as Scripture which is, afterall, God’s Word.

And this is an interesting thing. You accuse me here of undue presupposition and yet it is your presupposition that the Church is infallible.

Who, really, is poisoning the well?

And yet you’ve already admitted, apparently in regards to civil authority when contrasted to God’s laws, that the Scriptures do not condemn all forms of slavery-- and yet you also apparently accept that the Church does have a right to speak authoritatively regarding all forms of slavery.

It has a right to speak, but it doesn’t have a right to legislate. And frankly, to her credit, I don’t see that she did. If your church did, and I’ll admit my ignorance here, she was wrong to have done so. She has no business with that particular sword.

Oh, certainly, in certain areas a stigma was attached to slave ownership and disapproval of the institution became more and more pronounced, with clear civil implications.

Although I have to admit that, as a former Lutheran who really got into the nitty gritty of his theology, I thought that you were going to include some little tidbits about Luther’s thoughts on Natural Law too.

To be clear, do you feel that Luther’s thoughts on Natural Law pertain to this situation?

Since its unlikely that Luther would have used the expression “Natural Law” and since I haven’t read everything he ever wrote, I will confess some doubt as to what you’re talking about here.

Or are we just sticking to Article VII: Of the Church & Article VIII: What the Church Is?

Here I am on much surer footing.

 

[Lampo]

Steadfast…First, you are way above my head in theology, so I ask this question in respect. And pardon me for breaking in to your debate. Since you believe in Sola Scriptura, how do you understand 1 Tim 3:15? It says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Shouldn’t that be the Bible and not the Church if you adhere to Sola Scriptura. Thanks.

 

[Steadfast]

Steadfast…First, you are way above my head in theology, so I ask this question in respect. And pardon me for breaking in to your debate. Since you believe in Sola Scriptura, how do you understand 1 Tim 3:15? It says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Shouldn’t that be the Bible and not the Church if you adhere to Sola Scriptura. Thanks.

That’s a very insightful question and I was thinking about it in this thread.

A pillar is a support. It holds things up. A bulwark is a defensive structure, a wall or a tower. The Church has the duty of upholding and defending the truth.

That’s how I understand it.

 

[Lampo]

Thanks for your answer. That’s how Catholics understand this passage as well. If you believe this passage, it seems to me you don’t really believe in Sola Scriptura then. The Bible Alone is another way of saying Sola Scriptura, correct? I think that passage would say the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth if Sola Scriptura were true.

 

[Steadfast]

Thanks for your answer. That’s how Catholics understand this passage as well. If you believe this passage, it seems to me you don’t really believe in Sola Scriptura then. The Bible Alone is another way of saying Sola Scriptura, correct? I think that passage would say the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth if Sola Scriptura were true.

The Bible is the Truth. The Church must defend and uphold the Truth.

It’s not a Bible or the Church situation.

The Church upholds and defends the Truth.

What is the object there? It’s not the Church, it’s the Truth.

The focus of the statement is not the Church, it’s the Truth.

The Church serves the Truth; the Bible doesn’t serve the Truth.

The Bible is the Truth.

The Church then, serves the Bible.

Not v.v.

 

[jAlex]

The Bible is the Truth. The Church must defend and uphold the Truth.

The Bible is the Truth.

Oh dear …and I thought Jesus said “I am the Truth, the Way and the Life” (John 14:6)…

The Church then, serves the Bible.

Not v.v.

Correction: The Church serves God.

The Bible has the Truth, but not all the Truth is contained only in the Bible… Without the Church there would be no Bible.

Alex.

 

[Steadfast]

Oh dear …and I thought Jesus said “I am the Truth, the Way and the Life” (John 14:6)…

Right, because Jesus and the Bible are so completely at odds that they can’t both be the truth, right?

You’re an evil hobbit.

Correction: The Church serves God.

And God is Truth.

The Bible has the Truth, but not all the Truth is contained only in the Bible… Without the Church there would be no Bible.

Alex.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[jAlex]

Right, because Jesus and the Bible are so completely at odds that they can’t both be the truth, right?

You’re an evil hobbit.

Thank you for your kind words and God bless you instead.

I was pointing out flaws in your reasoning, not attacking you personally.

I politely ask you to point me to the place where I stated they are false and/or contradict. The Bible and Jesus and not at odds, but you are talking about them like they are one and the same thing.

And God is Truth.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut…

And thanks for your kind christian words again.
God bless you.

Alex.

 

[Steadfast]

Alex,

It was a joke…it’s something Dwight, the character from the NBC comedy series “The Office” says…

He’s composing a valentine, and he says, “You’re evil, like a Hobbit”…which doesn’t mean anything, or if it does, no one knows what it means.

Since then it has come to indicate a non sequitur response; i.e. When someone presents an argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and completely misses the forest for the trees or just doesn’t make much sense, it is approporiate to say “You’re evil, like a hobbit” or, “you’re an evil hobbit.”

I am not sure why I decided to use the expression but it wasn’t meant as a personal insult and I beg your pardon anyway because it is pretty obscure and it was certainly wrong for me to have assumed that you’d get it.

As for my second comment, “thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut” I actually meant that sincerely.

 

[jAlex]

Alex,

It was a joke…it’s something Dwight, the character from the NBC comedy series “The Office” says…

He’s composing a valentine, and he says, “You’re evil, like a Hobbit”…which doesn’t mean anything, or if it does, no one knows what it means.

Since then it has come to indicate a non sequitur response; i.e. When someone presents an argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and completely misses the forest for the trees or just doesn’t make much sense, it is approporiate to say “You’re evil, like a hobbit” or, “you’re an evil hobbit.”

I am not sure why I decided to use the expression but it wasn’t meant as a personal insult and I beg your pardon anyway because it is pretty obscure and it was certainly wrong for me to have assumed that you’d get it.

As for my second comment, “thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut” I actually meant that sincerely.

I appreciate the explanation. After all, English is my second language and I’m not familiar with all the particular language twists . I promise to start seeing “The Office” though . You can call me “evil hobbit” if that’s trendy

Alex.

 

[Lampo]

But didn’t the Church come before the Bible was canonized?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Only insofar as you attribute absolute exhaustivity to the conclusion.

I guess I’m not seeing how I’m in anyway attributing absolute exhaustivity to the conclusion that God has promised to not let his church fall into error. It’s right there in the Scriptures over and over again Steadfast. And I am reading this in its proper context too.

For example, we read in 1 Thessalonians 2:2-4…

We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.

In fact, when one looks at the instructions given from Paul to Timothy, it becomes even clearer that God has most certainly chosen people to guard the proper exegesis of the Scriptures within the context of the church of the living God. In other words, guarding a sound doctrine of faith.

When one compares passages like these and adds them to the other passages which clearly say that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church (in addition to the transmission of a proper interpretation going from Christ to his apostles and beyond), I really don’t see how one can fairly read the Scriptures and argue against this.

Do you believe this or not?

Based on your words below, I’m guessing not-- so let’s address them futher…

Steadfast:

And by that I mean only insofar as you fail to admit that a guarantee that the Church will maintain the truth does not preclude the simultaneous admixture of error, this being a natural byproduct of her being made up of fallible men to whom no guarantee of absolute and exhaustive inerrancy has been given.

In the previous passages regarding doctrine I already demonstrated that warnings were given to many to adhere to sound doctrine-- even the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching. As I’ve already noted above, Paul gives similar admonitions to both Timothy and Titus for example.

And yet, as far as I understood, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to be, isn’t it?

As Romans 10:17 clearly indicates, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Think about it.

Of course the church is made up of fallible men. I’ve never said she wasn’t. Even the pope can make mistakes. This is to say, papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable (i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin). And yet, even despite our faults, we also know that God has promised to keep his church error free-- and this is in the Scriptures for all people to see Steadfast.

In other words, we’re not trusting in man. We’re trusting that God is true to his word despite our own faults. The church continues on via the Holy Spirit despite her own misgivings.

Now you have claimed that I am attributing absolute exhaustivity to the conclusion only insofar as I fail to admit that a guarantee that the Church will maintain the truth does not preclude the simultaneous admixture of error. You’ve also claimed that this simultaneous admixture of error is apparently a natural byproduct of the church being made up of fallible men to whom no guarantee of absolute and exhaustive inerrancy has been given.

But this proves my point exactly.

You as a Lutheran are focussing on how men will fail God and are therefore stressing that the church may not indeed be error-free after all.

We as Catholics, however, are focussing on how God will never fail us even when we fail him and are therefore stressing that the church will always be error-free despite our failings precisely because God promised this to us.

In your view, you are placing the main thrust of the church’s inability to clearly teach within the parameters of human reason-- therefore stressing that since man is capable of failure that therefore we can only trust the Scriptures on these matters. But that conclusion is not Scriptural in any sense of The Word.

In our view, however, we are placing the main thrust of the church’s ability to clearly teach within the parameters of divine revelation-- therefore stressing that since God is not capable of failure we can trust God on these matters even though we make mistakes. And this conclusion is Scriptural in every sense of The Word my friend.

And you know I’m right on this one.

 

[onmywayagain]

The Bible is not the sole authority of Christianity. Sola Scriptura was made up by man, some thousands of years later and everyone knows it. Even the people who believe in it.

Holding fast to the Traditions that were passed to us in written form or oral form is in the Bible. No one can dispute that.

 

[Steadfast]

The Bible is not the sole authority of Christianity. Sola Scriptura was made up by man, some thousands of years later and everyone knows it. Even the people who believe in it.

Holding fast to the Traditions that were passed to us in written form or oral form is in the Bible. No one can dispute that.

Well, alrighty then.

You can pick up your Pom Poms in the director’s office.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, we could continue to debate the point, but you’re right in the insight that it probably wouldn’t do much good.

Yes we could continue to debate for a while on this one. So intead I’ll invert this argument and approach it from the perspective that I used to have regarding the Scriptures.

When I was formerly a Lutheran I tended to place my trust more in the Scriptures than in the church itself-- so I think this is similar to your own view on this matter. To be clear, I thought it almost a sure thing that traditional conservaitve Lutheranism was correct for mistrusting and therefore separating from the Catholic Church.

Yet, at the same time, it always nagged me that I was in a church that bore the name of Luther rather than some title which directed me more directly to the attention of Christ.

In addition to this, I also noted – albeit, begrudgingly when I was still a Lutheran – that if Christ could allow people within his church to become as ‘corrupt’ as I thought the Catholic Church was, then there was really no gaurantee that the church I was in was any more closer to God either.

In other words, I was very much aware of the promises and directives within the Scriptures themselves where Christ did in fact promise that he would never leave her or forsake her. I was aware of the ‘faith’ that Peter had which Christ promised hell would not prevail against. I was also, of course, aware that the Holy Spirit would teach us in all things.

And, to be honest, the image of the modern church I was getting, a church with thousands of denominations arguing with each other over what Sola Scriptura truly meant, was simply not matching up with the descriptions and admonitions for unity that Christ and the apostles struggled so hard to preserve.

I always remembered reading how Luther actually struggled with so many different things regarding faith. He tried, very faithfully I might add, to employ many of the gifts available through the church to avail himself closer toward Christ’s mercy.

However, regardless of how hard he tried, he found all these things failed him. He ultimately came to the conclusion that, when he was trying all these things, he was not so much relying on God’s grace but rather on his own deeds to acquire God’s grace.

In this sense here, as I’m sure you know, Luther felt that many of these things (but not all) were merely being employed by raw human effort in a somewhat vain attempt to merit God’s grace. As such, he essentially concluded, based on his readings within the Psalms and also Paul’s epistles, that many of those who were employing these things were essentially setting themselves up within a relationship with an angry God instead of a loving one.

In Luther’s mind, however, it seemed more appropriate, based on his reading of the Scriptures, that God’s favor was not a prize to be won. Rather, God’s grace is a free gift simply because of God’s loving kindness.

Please remember that I’m going to be coming back to the point about the Church writing the Scriptures by the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit-- something we’ve disagreed with thus far.

But, up to this point, are we in agreement so far regarding Luther’s thoughts?

 

[Steadfast]

I’ve enjoyed chatting with you. You are intelligent, well read and articulate. You don’t waste your time with slander and you argue from a position of charity and sympathy.

I wish that could be said for others here, but since it can’t and since I have such a very hard time suffering fools gladly, I will probably be banned soon.

All the best,
Mike