Sola Scriptura...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, I don’t believe in your conflation of Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura, a heretical position.

This isn’t my conflation of Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura Steadfast.

For those reading, Nuda Scriptura, as opposed to Sola Scriptura, says that that the Scriptures are the only place we can get any information whatsoever. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura believe the Scriptures are sufficient as the authority for believers’ life and doctrine.

But I’m not talking about Nuda Scriptura. I’m talking about Sola Scriptura.

In the previous thread I had already covered many of these points as to how varied the definition of Sola Scriptura can be employed amongst all those who espouse some form of this view. I specially did this in order to try to present a balanced view of the opinions of those who hold to this view. Since it seems that we’re back at square one again, here’s a refresher. Take a look through some of the definitions given for Sola Scriptura by those who espouse to this view.

For a strict example of this view, I provided A. A. Hodge’s view…

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

For a moderate version of this view, I provided Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield’s view…

THE scope of this article does not permit the full discussion in it of the employment of Scripture, or of the estimate put upon Scripture, by either our Lord or the writers of the New Testament. It is strictly limited to what is necessary to exhibit the use of the terms ‘Scripture,’ ‘The Scriptures,’ in the New Testament and the more immediate implications of this use.

This use was an inheritance, not an invention. The idea of a ‘canon’ of ‘Sacred Scriptures,’ and, with the idea, the ‘canon’ itself were derived by Christianity from Judaism. The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of ‘Law, Prophets and (other) Scriptures (K’thubhim),’ though they were often called for brevity’s sake merely ‘the Law and the Prophets’ or even simply ‘the Law.’ These ‘Sacred Scriptures’ (vd<OQj" ybet]ki), - or, as they were very frequently pregnantly called, this ‘Scripture’ (bytkh) or these ‘Books’ (μyrpsh) or, even sometimes, in the singular, this Book' (rpsh) - were looked upon as all drawing their origin from divine inspiration and as possessed in all their extent of divine authority. Whatever stood written in them was a word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as something which 'the Scripture says' ( arq rma or bytkh rma or arq bytk) or 'the All-merciful says' (anmjr rma), or even simply 'He says' (rmwa awh ˆk or merely rmwaw) - that God is the speaker being too fully understood to require explicit expression. Every precept or dogma was supposed to be grounded in Scriptural teaching, and possessed authority only as buttressed by a Scriptural passage, introduced commonly by one of the formulas, 'for it is said' (rmanç) or as it is written’ (bytkd or bytkdk), though of course a great variety of less frequently occurring similar formulas of adduction are found.

And for a progressive version of this view, I provided Dr. W. Robert Godfrey’s view…

Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church — both the people of God and the ministerial office — is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”1

The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

To be honest, I thought these quotes represented a very balanced view of wide range of opinions of those who espoused this view.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Steadfast:

A conflation all too common for its convenience among those who would take up the cudgels for Mater Roma.

If this is a conflation all too common for its convenience, it seems as though those who hold to this view are doing a very good job of beating themselves into a bloody pulp by their own cudgels.

Quite frankly, the Catholic Church has a good right to raise her eyebrow in skepticism to the many varied claims of those who hold to this view. There’s no consistency in interpretation at all amongst all those who hold this view.

 

[Steadfast]

In the face of invincible misconception and triumphalism, let me just bow and take my leave.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In the face of invincible misconception and triumphalism, let me just bow and take my leave.

And like you don’t have misconceptions about the Catholic Church?

Give me a break Steadfast. Either defend your thesis or back out gracefully without making accusations against me in the process.

I’ve thought long and hard about this. It’s not something that I feel should be dismissed easilly either. And, ultimately, my point still stands-- my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit.

In other words, if one can’t verify from the Scriptures that they expressly state that the Scriptures are the most reliable means of knowing God’s will, then what right do those who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura have to ask us where to find something in the Scriptures in the first place?

If they can’t even find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura within the Scriptures then it remains a very credible possibility that the doctrine itself does not actually exist within the Scriptures.

I believe the Scriptures are trustworthy and reliable. In fact, I believe they are inerrant. And I’ve never said they weren’t. However, I also believe that the Scriptures can be seriously misunderstood without the living witness of Christ’s church to validate by the Holy Spirit what the Scriptures actually mean.

Furthermore, the Scriptures do claim that those who know God’s will, people that God himself has chosen, will instruct people to know his will as faith in him spreads.

While there are passages of Scriptures which display that the church will be limited in her understanding until the fullness of Christ comes, there is still nonetheless nothing within the Scriptures which speaks charitably about serious divisions within the church concerning doctrinal issues.

Quite frankly, the rise of Sola Scriptura does not easilly lend itself to the early church’s view of the Scriptures. And anyone who takes a serious look at what the early fathers actually do claim regarding the church in contrast to the Scriptures should understand that this idea of Sola Scriptura was quite frankly a invention of the middle ages which corresponds directly with the ready access to the newer innovations of the printing press.

 

[Catholic_Guy]

I think that’s very true. Many who promote the idea of Sola Scriptura seem to give relatively no serious thought about how the Scriptures were actually handed down and brought together by the Catholic Church. I had discussed this in detail in the previous thread about how 99% of the Scriptures can be verified using the early fathers alone. I really hope I can retrieve some of that information because it really struck home in my opinion.

Yes, but what do the early church fathers say about the sufficiency of scripture?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)

This is great! Using the “sola scriptura” method of reading and quoting the Early Church Fathers. Take them out of context and viola, you have your argument backed up. Lets start with the first one by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. This was taken out of context. First what was the intent of Book III from the preface;

Thou hast indeed enjoined upon me, my very dear friend, that I should bring to light the Valentinian doctrines, concealed, as their votaries imagine; that I should exhibit their diversity, and compose a treatise in refutation of them. therefore have undertaken – showing that they spring from Simon, the father of all heretics – to exhibit both their doctrines and successions, and to set forth arguments against them all… … Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the **only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.” **

Now we understand that St. Irenaeus was refuting the heretical teachings of the Valentinians. Second lets look at your quote with some more context and finish what he wrote in chapter 1, I will start off from the end of your quote;

…pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God…

…These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

In context you can see that he is dealing with polytheistic heretics and has to explain to them how we received the teachings on the Trinity. Third lets summarize the next chapters in book III ;

Chapter 2 – The heretics follow neither Scripture nor Tradition
Chapter 3 – A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various churches, **a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up **
Chapter 4 – **The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. **Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.

Nice try on St. Irenaeus, but you were taking him out of context. I will post on the other ECF quotes later.

In Christ,

Catholic Guy

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, it does not, nor does it explicitly establish a form of political government.

But the Scriptures do lay out a very specific pattern for the pattern of the church, a ministry established by Christ put in effect for the reconciliation of our sins.

On the one hand, there is the matter of the forgiveness of sins as explained here. As the article notes, this power was understood as coming from God:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

2 Corinthians 5:18

Indeed, Paul again confirms…

So we are ambassadors for Christ

2 Corinthians 5:20

The issue is not whether we should confess our sins or not. The Scriptures are clear that we do need to confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is how God says our sins are forgiven or retained within the Scriptures.

Steadfast:

It accepts certain secular practices and structures as being what they were.

On the other hand, the Scriptures also say to obey rulers and authorities to the extent that they are established by God’s sovereign authority.
Romans 13:2:

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?

Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

This isn’t saying for us to break God’s laws when secular authorities command us to go against God’s will. A balance is required.

In other words, we are to obey secular authority to the extent that they are fulfilling God’s will. Even then, however, if we do not obey the secular authority when it asks us to do something which goes against God’s will, we also have to be prepared to accept punishment from the secular authorities even though we are doing something good in God’s eyes.

The early church, unlike many Christian denominations today, clearly understood this sovereign authority from God even amongst pagan governments and accepted it with gladness-- often to their own death for the sake of Christ’s truth when they has to stand up for their faith.

Steadfast:

It does however, explicitly condemn trafficking in slaves, see 1 Timothy 1:10.

The Bible distinguishes between those who sell themselves into servitude, or are sold into it due to debt. The OT never understood it to be an inherited state.

In the NT, as I’ve mentioned, taking slaves is explicitly condemned.

Since slavery as it came to be known in the post-medieval West involved the taking of men for the sole purpose of enslaving them, then I’d say yes, the Bible does explicitly condemn it.

But, even if it did not, the Church certainly has the duty and right to give opinion on practices about which the Bible is silent if the practice is immoral.

In the previous thread I already mentioned I Timothy 1:10. Here it is again in full context…

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

However, if the Scriptures explicitly condemns the practice of slavery, then why does Paul command the slave Onesimus to return to his master in Philemon 1?

Admittedly, Paul instructs the master to accept Onesimus no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. However, he doesn’t specifically condemn the practice of slavery here. Neither does he ‘command’ the master to accept Onesimus-- the request is a ‘plee’ on the part of Paul who admits he cannot change the laws of the land.

Certainly, if Paul were going to condemn slavery, this would have been a perfect time to command the master to refain from slavery of any sort and order the master to no longer engage in laws which were clearly against God’s will, as you pointed out in Timothy 1:10.

Why the ambiguity on this matter if it’s expressly condemned?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Nice try on St. Irenaeus, but you were taking him out of context. I will post on the other ECF quotes later.

In Christ,

Catholic Guy

Excellent points Catholic Guy. I was going to address this but was sidetracked with Steadfasts posts.

One thing I wanted to add was from the previous thread.

One extremely disputable matter that many who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura tend to avoid is exactly how one group collectively decides what is authentically considered valid Scripture to begin with. We obviously all agree that the Holy Spirit empowers people to collectively recognize the authenticity of God’s Word, essentially granting an insight into what it considered true writings and false writings.

However, the early church did not enjoy any kind of unanimous agreement on what was considered valid Scripture-- inspired of God in the true sense.

For a large example of this, some felt that The Acts of Barnabas, The various Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, The Epistles of Ignatius to various locations, The Didache, and even The Shepherd of Hermas were inspired of God. This is actualy quite a large list when one contemplates how many individual epistles are included within Clement’s and Ignatius’ writings.

And, to be fair, the Scriptures themselves so not actually claim when they are to be included within the canon of Scripture. In other words, there is no list within the Scriptures themselves which claims authenticity. Neither, for that matter, does any self-proclamation within a sacred writing seem to be a factor when deciding when something is considered a valid Scriptural book or not.

So, for example, despite the warnings contained within the book itself, some felt that the Book of the Apocalypse should not be admitted into the canon.

Although Irenaeus repeatedly and decisively declares that the Apocalypse was written by John, a disciple of the Lord, and even comments on the number 666 which is shown as 616 in other translations circulating about, Eusebius apparently suspended his judgement, hesitating between the external and internal evidence of its validity.

St. John Chrysostom and other bishops, on the other hand, actually argued against including this book in the New Testament canon-- chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria likewise rejected it because of the Montanists’ heavy reliance on it.

And in the 9th century, it was included with the Apocalypse of Peter among “disputed” books in the Stichometry of St. Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Constantinople.

As I also said before, no self-proclamation within a sacred writing seems to be a factor when deciding when something is considered a valid Scriptural book or not.

Furthermore, on the other hand, there are books within the Scriptural canon which do not explicitly claim to be inspired of God.

The Book of Esther for example (within the protestant versions anyway), apparently does not even mention God once-- and some have concluded that he almost seems to be deliberately left out. Those who read the words with a believing heart inspired of the Spirit, however, appear to have no doubt that God was involved in this Queen Mother’s heroism when facing off against Haman’s genocide.

I’m going to go through here_i_stand’s list and see what each church father considered valid Scripture and see if there is any descrepency between their views.

 

[Steadfast]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

On the other hand, the Scriptures also say to obey rulers and authorities to the extent that they are established by God’s sovereign authority.

Not at all, there’s no quatenus here. It says obey the authorities. Not insofar as they are godly, or established by His authority. It says that they have their authority from God (full stop) and it would seem to be regardless of their opinion of the authority of Yahweh since Paul can only have been talking about pagan, Roman civil authority.

My last point re: your apparent position in this thread.

I believe that you are conflating Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura because you are asking two questions which are only destructive of the latter and which have no bearing at all upon the former:

1. “Where does the Bible say it is the sole authority?” (in Sola Scriptura it doesn’t need to), and
2. “How do you know which books should even be in the Bible?” (Sola Scriptura does not depend upon canonical considerations, it depends upon the nature of God’s Word qua God’s Word).

You also missed my point re: slavery.

I distinguished between menstealing; i.e. the taking away of people to be sold into slavery and, by extension the support of that estate by individuals and systems, and the common state of enslavement in (at least) the eastern Roman Empire which was usually a state entered into in order to dissolve debt or to relieve a generational economic burden.

There is no reason to assume that Onesimus, a Greek, was not the latter.

And since Paul clearly says that we are not to seek conflict with the established order (culture, the state etc.), but rather to work within it in the first instance and in the second submit to it, it would be contradictory for him to encourage Onesimus to remain *in absconditus.

*The eventual attitude in the West toward slavery is deeply biblical because of the nature of that slavery as being founded on a practice clearly condemned as “lawlessness”; i.e. menstealing.

But slavery as a state in and of itself? In the proper context the Bible is completely neutral. Any decision on the part of authorities to condemn it or illegalize it *in toto et per se, *while certainly not unbiblical, can hardly appeal to biblical authority for precedent or command.

It becomes then a happy circumstance where the enlightened state legislates in accordance with eschatological preferences rather than mirroring Scriptural mandate.

Finally, I beg your pardon for my snarky tone and I promise to try harder to be charitable.

 

[TimOliv]

I don’t understand one thing that maybe those more familiar with certain Protestant denominations can enlighten me on.

Fundamentalist Christians say they take the bible literally. Many also forbid drinking alcohol.

Question:

Why would it be sinful to drink since Jesus’ first miracle was making wine and he shared wine with the Apostles at the Last Supper?

I posed this same query to a Baptist friend of mine who replied that Jesus never drank wine, he only made and drank grape juice. That the “wine” refers to a non-alcoholic grape beverage.

How, reading a passage such as “he took the cup of wine” do you interpret wine to mean non-alcoholic grape beverage, especially in light of the fact that you say you take everything literally?

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve never heard that one. That is hilarious. I’ll have to double check with my Orthodox Jewish friends and see if the wine at Passover is just grape juice…maybe the unleavened bread they use is really cubes of Wonder bread too.

I don’t understand one thing that maybe those more familiar with certain Protestant denominations can enlighten me on.

Fundamentalist Christians say they take the bible literally. Many also forbid drinking alcohol.

Question:

Why would it be sinful to drink since Jesus’ first miracle was making wine and he shared wine with the Apostles at the Last Supper?

I posed this same query to a Baptist friend of mine who replied that Jesus never drank wine, he only made and drank grape juice. That the “wine” refers to a non-alcoholic grape beverage.

How, reading a passage such as “he took the cup of wine” do you interpret wine to mean non-alcoholic grape beverage, especially in light of the fact that you say you take everything literally?

 

[TimOliv]

I’ve never heard that one. That is hilarious. I’ll have to double check with my Orthodox Jewish friends and see if the wine at Passover is just grape juice…maybe the unleavened bread they use is really cubes of Wonder bread too.

Another reasoning I heard from a non-denominational christian was that Jesus was a Nazarene and would never have consumed alcohol, that’s why he only drank grape juice.

Do Protestants just make stuff up as they go along or is there actually a logic affixed to this whole mess?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Not at all, there’s no quatenus here.

Actually, yes it is quatenus-- because there are instances where the authorities demanded that the early Christians kneel before Caesar while simultaniously denying Christ their Lord. In these instances the commands by the governments in question had to be disobeyed in favor of their faith in Christ.

Steadfast:

It says obey the authorities. Not insofar as they are godly, or established by His authority.

No it does not. For example, Titus 3:1-2, which was also written by Paul, clearly notes the following qualifiers…

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

If what you were saying was true, then whenever the governments in question demanded that Christians turn themselves in for execution, then Christians would be guilty before God of disobeying the authorities that God himself put in effect.

Or if governments demanded that Christians kill themselves, they would again be guilty before God of disobeying the authorities when they said, “No.”

Or, look at it this way:

Are Christians in China guilty before God if they resist the one-child policy in order to be fruitful and multiply?

Think about what you’re claming here Steadfast.

Steadfast:

It says that they have their authority from God (full stop) and it would seem to be regardless of their opinion of the authority of Yahweh since Paul can only have been talking about pagan, Roman civil authority.

They have their authority from God only insofar as the commandments they promote are in conformity to God’s will. We are, however, fully expected to disobey the laws which would lead us to sin. Daniel in the lion’s den is a perfect example of disobedience from the civil authorities when obedience to them would lead one to sin against God.

So don’t give me this stuff Steadfast. You’re now officially making things up as you go.

By the way, are you quia or quatenus?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

My last point re: your apparent position in this thread.

I believe that you are conflating Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura because you are asking two questions which are only destructive of the latter and which have no bearing at all upon the former:

It’s not my position Steadfast.

Did you even read the links and quotes I provided in order to give accurate quotes from others who also hold to Sola Scriptura?

I’m not making this stuff up.

But let’s address your points below…

1. “Where does the Bible say it is the sole authority?” (in Sola Scriptura it doesn’t need to), and…

…and what you’re missing is that while the Scriptures do not make the claim for Sola Scriptura they do make the claim that Christ has established his church here on earth to spead the Gospel message.

In other words, while the Scriptures do not make the claim for Sola Scriptura, they do make many other claims which contradict the position of those who hold the Scriptures as being of primary authority regarding the revealing of God’s will.

I’ve never said that doctrines cannot be developed from the Scriptures. I’ve only pointed out that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not one of those doctrines which are contained within the Scriptures.

1. “How do you know which books should even be in the Bible?” (Sola Scriptura does not depend upon canonical considerations, it depends upon the nature of God’s Word qua God’s Word).

What does this even mean?

You need to read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church Steadfast.

Regardless of what other’s claim, the Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records. In other words, the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture.

There’s no debating this part because the Scriptures do clearly indicate this.

 

[Steadfast]

I think we have An Official Disagreement.

I see nothing in anything you’ve posted to indicate that the Bible places any conditions on the civil authority requisite to merit the obedience of its subjects.

The very passage you quoted from gives qualifications for believers with regard to the state, but it certainly doesn’t give any for the authorities themselves. These requirements for believers are not exhaustive and I doubt seriously that it’s Paul’s intention to give an exhaustive list. He is giving us a picture of what our relation to the state and the prevailing culture ought to be:

To the state we ought to be obedient and within the culture we ought to be charitable and peaceable.

And just as Paul is not being exhaustive in his list of expectations of believers, neither is he being exhaustive in the extent to which these requirements ought to be observed.

Elsewhere the Bible tells us that we are to obey God rather than man. The point being that where God’s Law and man’s law conflict we must obey God and disobey the civil law. Thus the demand that Christians worship Caesar ought not to be obeyed.

But again, any expectation that the State has no objective right to enforce even unjust and immoral laws is missing in all of Scripture beyond the eschatological assurance that Christ, at His return will break their rods and place them under His feet.

I am not making anything up. This is good old fashioned Augustinian/Lutheran Two Kingdom Theology and it antedates your Rutherfordian/Lockean scheme by about 1700 years.

I’m LC-MS so I’m quia.

 

[Steadfast]

…and what you’re missing is that while the Scriptures do not make the claim for Sola Scriptura they do make the claim that Christ has established his church here on earth to spead the Gospel message.

What on earth makes you think I would disagree with this?

In other words, while the Scriptures do not make the claim for Sola Scriptura, they do make many other claims which contradict the position of those who hold the Scriptures as being of primary authority regarding the revealing of God’s will.

Only if Sola Scriptura is conflated with Nuda or Solo Scriptura.

Again, all that is necessary is for Scripture to be authoritative. The question of whether there are any other authorites *equal to it *is secondary and may be determined by appeal to history, plain reason and necessity.

I’ve never said that doctrines cannot be developed from the Scriptures. I’ve only pointed out that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not one of those doctrines which are contained within the Scriptures.

And I’ve pointed out, for the third time now, that it doesn’t need to, you’re efforts to force the issue notwithstanding.

Where does this leave us?

What does this even mean?

It means that Scripture’s authority doesn’t rest in its extent but its content or even more pertinently, its intent.

You need to read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church Steadfast.

I would never think of doing otherwise.

Regardless of what other’s claim, the Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records. In other words, the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture.

This is the crux of the biscuit as Zappa would say. You have a scheme where the Bible is under the Church; i.e. the Church defines what Scripture is and what it means.

We posit exactly the opposite.

And this brings us back to the very nature of appeals to authority.

The Bible has God’s authority.

So does the Church insofar as she teaches and acts according to His revealed will as found in the Bible.

But the Church’s authority is subject to and rests upon the authority of God’s Word.

And you prove this every time you quote Matt 16:18.

There’s no debating this part because the Scriptures do clearly indicate this.

Obviously we can debate it. It’s what we’ve been doing in this thread and what Protestants and Catholics have been debating for 500 years

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I think we have An Official Disagreement.

Actually, I think we now have an agreement.

If, for example, you believe that where God’s Law and man’s law conflict we must obey God and disobey the civil law, then we are in perfect agreement on this matter.

In fact, if you also believe that the demand that Christians worship Caesar ought not to be obeyed then you’re essentially agreement with my main point that I already made before.

This is what I said before…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

On the other hand, the Scriptures also say to obey rulers and authorities to the extent that they are established by God’s sovereign authority.

To this you replied…

Steadfast:

Not at all, there’s no quatenus here. It says obey the authorities. Not insofar as they are godly, or established by His authority. It says that they have their authority from God (full stop) and it would seem to be regardless of their opinion of the authority of Yahweh since Paul can only have been talking about pagan, Roman civil authority.

Now if you were arguing that these Scriptures meant obeying God’s laws over and above the laws of civil authority, I think you need to be more clear about this-- because it sounds to me as if you are arguing for the opposite here.

Anyway, this is why I responded as follows…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Actually, yes it is quatenus-- because there are instances where the authorities demanded that the early Christians kneel before Caesar while simultaniously denying Christ their Lord. In these instances the commands by the governments in question had to be disobeyed in favor of their faith in Christ.

You have noted that slavery in the form of menstealing was condemned whereas the common state of enslavement entered into in order to dissolve debt was permitted-- an interpretation that I agree with.

You have also noted that even if the Scriptures did not condemn the practice, the Church certainly has the duty and right to give opinion on practices about which the Bible is silent if the practice is immoral.

However, when you say opinion, does this mean the church can formulate a law regarding the abolition of slavery in any form even though the Scripture do not condemn it in all forms?

I ask because you also said that in the proper context the Scriptures are completely neutral. In other words, acording to your own words, any decision on the part of authorities to condemn it or illegalize it in toto et per se, while certainly not unbiblical, can hardly appeal to biblical authority for precedent or command.

If so, then how does Sola Scriptura (as you’ve defined it) lend any credence to the abolition of slavery in all forms?

Furthermore, since there are several defintions available, could you give me a clear and concise working definition of Sola Scriptura that you employ?

Even though you’ve summed up some thoughts on this, there are a few things I’m unclear on regarding your position. I’ve read significant portions of the Book of Concord before-- so I think I have an idea of what your answer will be. But, nonetheless, I want to check my bases before I proceed further.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Only if Sola Scriptura is conflated with Nuda or Solo Scriptura.

Again, all that is necessary is for Scripture to be authoritative. The question of whether there are any other authorites equal to it is secondary and may be determined by appeal to history, plain reason and necessity.

But, see, that’s not actually what the Scriptures do claim about themselves. While the Scriptures do proclaim that they are greatly beneficial, the Scriptures also do proclaim that they can be dangerously misunderstood.

Unless you’re looking to debate the canon of the Scriptures themselves and how the Scriptural canon developed, there is virtually no need to appeal to history on this matter if one accepts the canon (even Protestant canons display this fact).

In other words, the question of whether there are any other authorites equal to the Scriptures is not secondary because the Scriptures themselves primarilly say that those who know God will be able to interpret the Scriptures properly for others.

I’ve already discussed some examples of this in this thread, but consider also Acts 8:26-40.

“How can I unless someone explains it to me?”

You are apparently aguing that I’m conflating Sola Scriptura with a naked reading of the Scriptures. And yet you still claim that the question of whether there are any other authorites equal to it is secondary and may be determined by appeal to history, plain reason and necessity.

Quite frankly, there are some things within the Scriptures which are self-evident, such as the authority that Christ confered onto his church and the necessity of his church to properly explain the Scriptures for others. So, in all fairness, if one were to read passages like this, if they were open to the Spirit when reading them, they would most likely seek out a church that believes in Jesus as Messiah to understand his role more clearly.

This isn’t to say that they wouldn’t be misled by the church in question that they seek out. In this sense, I think some historical research would be necessary on the part of the seeker to determine which church is validly proclaiming the fullness of God’s word.

However, if they were reading the Scriptures and sincerely seeking the Lord they would surely note that there are some large gaps in the knowledge provided within these Sacred writings-- a good indication that God would leave behind a church to explain these things more clearly.

I’m not exactly sure which definition of Sola Scriptura you’re using, but I think you do agree that the Scriptures are not in and of themselves a self-contained reality which speaks on all matters.

I’ll wait to hear your definition before I proceed much further with this.

Steadfast:

It means that Scripture’s authority doesn’t rest in its extent but its content or even more pertinently, its intent.

No. Actually, it means that the Scriptures’ authority rests with the Holy Spirit’s ability to reveal information contained within them.

Without him, the Scriptures are useless. Period.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is the crux of the biscuit as Zappa would say. You have a scheme where the Bible is under the Church; i.e. the Church defines what Scripture is and what it means.

Well…the church did write down the Scriptures first, didn’t they?

The transmission of the Sacred Writings were handed down from a church that was very much alive and active by the Holy Spirit before the Christian Scriptures were even penned by the same Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure how anyone can argue with this point.

Steadfast:

We posit exactly the opposite.

Yes. I understand this part. But what do you base this position upon?

Steadfast:

And this brings us back to the very nature of appeals to authority.

The Bible has God’s authority.

So does the Church insofar as she teaches and acts according to His revealed will as found in the Bible.

But the Church’s authority is subject to and rests upon the authority of God’s Word.

Actually, I’d say the Church has God’s authority to both pen and interpret the Scriptures. And this is in the Scriptures by the way.

So do the Scriptures insofar as they are taught according to His revealed will as witnessed by the apostles. And this is in the Scriptures too by the way.

But the Scripture’s authority is subject to and rests upon the authority of God’s Holy Spirit as he manifests his ability to convey and interpet the Scriptures through the Church that Christ himself founded in Matthew 16:18.

Steadfast:

And you prove this every time you quote Matt 16:18.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Steadfast:

Obviously we can debate it. It’s what we’ve been doing in this thread and what Protestants and Catholics have been debating for 500 years

Yes. But will any resolution in Christ ever come of it? That’s the question.

 

[Steadfast]

The Church didn’t write the Bible.

God wrote the Bible using men to do so.

This is absolutely essential.

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

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

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.

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

This is a thumbnail of my perspective on Sola Scriptura.

 

[Steadfast]

"Steadfast:

Did Christ or His Apostles require that the Church never be wrong, or, better, never permit differing opinions on doctrinal matters?

It is clear from the Scriptures that people can sin and yet still nonethless hold the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. However, it is also clear from the Scriptures that Christ himself demanded unity among his followers despite our downfalls.

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?