Sola Scriptura ?

[Daniel_Marsh]

There were divisions and false teachers in the early church age, would that not nulify the triple authority position also?

After all, if they had divisions back in the apostles time, would that not mean they were also failures doctrine wise?

 

[chet]

Papias

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition”

(fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition”

(Church History 4:21).

 

[Contarini]

I wonder what the early Christians did when all they had to go by was what the apostles and their successors said? The only scripture in existence at that time was the old testament, which would be confusing at worst, or of limited use at best, to a neophyte Christian. Imagine the horror of having to learn through the spoken word, not the Bible.

This is not an argument against any serious, historic version of sola scriptura. If you actually bothered reading traditional Protestant writings such as Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent, you would see that this obvious point was always admitted by Protestants. The argument was not that the Word of God could not be passed down orally (obviously the NT was originally oral proclamation), but that all of it was eventually put down in writing.

The point at issue is not whether the Word of God could exist or has existed outside written form. The question is whether there is any content of the Word of God today that has not been written down in canonical Scripture.

In the light of Yves Congar’s formulation of the doctrine of tradition, and Vatican II’s adoption of something like this in Dei Verbum, the issue now looks rather different. If, as Congar and Vatican II said, Tradition is the entire process by which the Word of God is handed on, then the question really concerns what Catholic theology has traditionally called the “monuments” of tradition (the Fathers, the Liturgy, conciliar and papal teachings). Protestants claim that Scripture is superior to all these monuments. Oral tradition really isn’t the point at issue at all.

Edwin

 

[chet]

This is not an argument against any serious, historic version of sola scriptura. If you actually bothered reading traditional Protestant writings such as Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent, you would see that this obvious point was always admitted by Protestants. The argument was not that the Word of God could not be passed down orally (obviously the NT was originally oral proclamation), but that all of it was eventually put down in writing.

The point at issue is not whether the Word of God could exist or has existed outside written form. The question is whether there is any content of the Word of God today that has not been written down in canonical Scripture.

In the light of Yves Congar’s formulation of the doctrine of tradition, and Vatican II’s adoption of something like this in Dei Verbum, the issue now looks rather different. If, as Congar and Vatican II said, Tradition is the entire process by which the Word of God is handed on, then the question really concerns what Catholic theology has traditionally called the “monuments” of tradition (the Fathers, the Liturgy, conciliar and papal teachings). Protestants claim that Scripture is superior to all these monuments. Oral tradition really isn’t the point at issue at all.

Edwin

Your right its a matter of athority! Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” *(Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]) No earthly authority,No unity!

 

[Teflon93]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

Hi Pophead-

I’m a recent convert to RC and I used to be a pretty staunch defender of the two solas—sola scriptura and sola fide—myself.

Here’s what did it for me on the sola scriptura argument:

1. It depends on what you mean by Scripture. As you’re no doubt aware, the Catholic Bible has 7 books not in most Protestant bibles. Also, translations exist which serve to fundamentally slant doctrine—essentially, there have been boutique versions of Scripture created to suit various agendas. I used to insist on King James as a result, but of course King James also misses a lot of terrific linguistic scholarship developed since the 17th century. In short: how can we maintain only what’s in the Bible when the Bible is not one thing but many things to many people?
2. Why are there different versions of the Bible? Well, the Catholic Church determined canon by consensus, and Luther and others later decided upon their own canon. A similar practice happened with translations of Scripture, as some couldn’t resist the siren call of “tweaking” it to strengthen their own preferred interpretation.
3. Nowhere in Scripture does it say “sola scriptura”. The reason for this is quite simple—the Bible didn’t exist yet. It would have been a curious thing indeed for the earliest Christians to insist on a written version of an oral tradition.
4. Scripture itself refers favorably to the importance of tradition in understanding the relationship between creature and Creator. Protestants argue against apostolic tradition (no papal authority derived from Peter) while having to embrace it as the letters of Paul are definitely part of Scripture. So if sola scriptura means something, apostolic succession and the traditions Paul writes of must mean something to. This creates a cognitive dissonance—tradition does not matter because Scripture is the only thing which matters, and yet Scripture is comprised in part of tradition and emphasizes its importance.
5. If Scripture were the only thing which mattered, why are there so darn many Protestant denominations? Despite translations, a good chunk of Scripture is certainly similar enough. So why are there Baptists and Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Lutherans and Anglicans and all the rest? What is different about them if it isn’t the Bible? Could it be non-Scriptural things such as doctrine, theology, and church tradition?
6. Protestant churches themselves do not walk the sola scriptura talk. The Bible lays out no liturgy, yet many Protestant churches have one. The Bible does not define the Elect nor lay out predestination, yet Calvinists have made that the center of their theology. Protestants don’t just have Bibles in their pews, but hymnals, prayer books, and the like. Why have them, if all you need is the Bible? Moreover, Protestants still have churches. If sola scriptura/sola fide were perfectly sufficient, wouldn’t home-based Bible study and prayer do the trick? Pentecostals actually ALTER Scripture during their infrequent Communion services by changing references to wine to references to juice. This is a function of the Pentecostal Church being founded during Prohibition, but of course Jesus didn’t change water into grape juice, which didn’t even exist before the advent of refrigeration. If fundamentalist Protestants are willing to arbitrarily alter Scripture, what does that do to sola scriptura?
7. Protestants claim the Pope is no better than you or I at interpreting the Bible, yet they still have pastors whose primary job is to intepret the Bible for the flock in the form of the sermons which are the focus of Protestant worship services. In essence, they’ve exchanged one pope for many popes, but why have pastors at all if each one of us has a direct line to God and access to a Bible? Why should Protestant churches be made up of more than one family if sola scriptura is true? After all, does not a Baptist head of household have the same authority to preach as a Baptist pastor, since sola scriptura rules and apostolic succession does not matter?

These were the things to my mind which made the case for the other legs of the stool—tradition and apostolic succession—and awakened within me the notion that the reason I never felt spiritually fed in the various Protestant denominations to which I belonged was that reason contradicted sola scriptura and sola fide.

Thank you for a terrific question.

 

[BrianH]

Hi Pophead-

. If Scripture were the only thing which mattered, why are there so darn many Protestant denominations? Despite translations, a good chunk of Scripture is certainly similar enough. So why are there Baptists and Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Lutherans and Anglicans and all the rest?
** Why should Protestant churches be made up of more than one family if sola scriptura is true?**
Thank you for a terrific question.

I am not even a proponent of Sola Scripture but how can I let this pass? I would imagine that you do not apply this logic to your own situation. Here we have the Orthodox Church,
The Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, The Old Catholic Church (and the HUNDREDS of smaller groups that continue to splinter)who all appeal to the Magisterium (differing definitions of that), Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture and yet THEY do not agree.
A Catholic apologist could correctly point out there are more Protestant divisions than the groups I mentioned but that still does not refute my point, it only argues against the DEGREE of the facts, not their accuracy.
Face it Teflon, those people who all appeal to the same authorities (the three I mentioned) started breaking up and putting up walls long before Protestants came on the scene and yet the truthfulness of those claims, which started the first divisions, gets a pass? How very inconsistent.

 

[TheApologist]

I am not even a proponent of Sola Scripture but how can I let this pass? I would imagine that you do not apply this logic to your own situation. Here we have the Orthodox Church,
The Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, The Old Catholic Church (and the HUNDREDS of smaller groups that continue to splinter)who all appeal to the Magisterium (differing definitions of that), Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture and yet THEY do not agree.
A Catholic apologist could correctly point out there are more Protestant divisions than the groups I mentioned but that still does not refute my point, it only argues against the DEGREE of the facts, not their accuracy.
Face it Teflon, those people who all appeal to the same authorities (the three I mentioned) started breaking up and putting up walls long before Protestants came on the scene and yet the truthfulness of those claims, which started the first divisions, gets a pass? How very inconsistent.

The Orthodox and all the others, in my knowledge, have broken off from the Catholic Church headed by the pope(currently Benedict XVI). There are something like 22 or 23 rites in the church, but they are all in full communion.
Just like Protestants, these churches(in my knowledge) broke off from THE Church. It’s not like Protestant churches which have no final authority. Just because a number of churches have the right idea of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture doesn’t mean they have AUTHENTIC Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

 

[cmancone]

Well, my comments certainly sparked plenty of responses. I certainly have plenty to say in return, but first let me give some background that I think will help. Sola Scriptura is not so simple subject as it seems, and I think many of your responses can be easily explained with a little background, mainly on my views of Sola Scriptura (I can’t really tell you what other people say).

My views of Sola Scriptura are simple conclusions from what I discussed in my previous point. As I pointed out earlier, 99.9% of people who claim to speak for God don’t. Most of the time, if someone says they speak for God, they are either lying or crazy (or maybe just confused). There are many people out there who claim to speak for God, but very rarely do they actual speak for Him. Since 99% of people/books/teaching claim to speak for God but don’t, the only logical thing to do is to disbelieve any claims of speaking for God until God proves otherwise.

This is the source of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is in fact not a negative statement (yes, that contradicts what I said earlier, but I’m going to be more specific now). What it actually means to me is that in order to believe someone when they claim to speak for God, they have to prove it. If I claimed to speak for God, you certainly wouldn’t take my word for it, and I wouldn’t expect you to. In order for me to believe that church Tradition speaks for God, they must prove it just the same. Even to believe the Bible speaks for God, it must be proven. In the case of the Bible, it has been proven. That’s why I believe in Sola Scriptura. I know God speaks through the Bible. I don’t know He speaks through anything else, and anyone else who claims to speak for God must prove it before I’ll believe it. So to reiterate, that’s why Sola Scriptura isn’t a negative statement. All it says is that anyone who claims to speak for God must prove it. The Bible has proved it, so the Bible stands first in all matters of faith and morals. I don’t claim God doesn’t speak in other ways, I simply claim that the Bible is the only thing we absolutely KNOW God has spoken through. More coming very soon.

 

[BrianH]

Just like Protestants, these churches(in my knowledge) broke off from THE Church. QUOTE]

 

[TheApologist]

Well, my comments certainly sparked plenty of responses. I certainly have plenty to say in return, but first let me give some background that I think will help. Sola Scriptura is not so simple subject as it seems, and I think many of your responses can be easily explained with a little background, mainly on my views of Sola Scriptura (I can’t really tell you what other people say).

My views of Sola Scriptura are simple conclusions from what I discussed in my previous point. As I pointed out earlier, 99.9% of people who claim to speak for God don’t. Most of the time, if someone says they speak for God, they are either lying or crazy (or maybe just confused). There are many people out there who claim to speak for God, but very rarely do they actual speak for Him. Since 99% of people/books/teaching claim to speak for God but don’t, the only logical thing to do is to disbelieve any claims of speaking for God until God proves otherwise.

This is the source of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is in fact not a negative statement (yes, that contradicts what I said earlier, but I’m going to be more specific now). What it actually means to me is that in order to believe someone when they claim to speak for God, they have to prove it. If I claimed to speak for God, you certainly wouldn’t take my word for it, and I wouldn’t expect you to. In order for me to believe that church Tradition speaks for God, they must prove it just the same. Even to believe the Bible speaks for God, it must be proven. In the case of the Bible, it has been proven. That’s why I believe in Sola Scriptura. I know God speaks through the Bible. I don’t know He speaks through anything else, and anyone else who claims to speak for God must prove it before I’ll believe it. So to reiterate, that’s why Sola Scriptura isn’t a negative statement. All it says is that anyone who claims to speak for God must prove it. The Bible has proved it, so the Bible stands first in all matters of faith and morals. I don’t claim God doesn’t speak in other ways, I simply claim that the Bible is the only thing we absolutely KNOW God has spoken through. More coming very soon.

How has Scripture proved itself as God’s Word?

 

[Teflon93]

I am not even a proponent of Sola Scripture but how can I let this pass? I would imagine that you do not apply this logic to your own situation. Here we have the Orthodox Church,
The Catholic Church, the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, The Old Catholic Church (and the HUNDREDS of smaller groups that continue to splinter)who all appeal to the Magisterium (differing definitions of that), Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture and yet THEY do not agree.
A Catholic apologist could correctly point out there are more Protestant divisions than the groups I mentioned but that still does not refute my point, it only argues against the DEGREE of the facts, not their accuracy.
Face it Teflon, those people who all appeal to the same authorities (the three I mentioned) started breaking up and putting up walls long before Protestants came on the scene and yet the truthfulness of those claims, which started the first divisions, gets a pass? How very inconsistent.

Well, TheApologist nailed my response before I could even type it out.

The logic as I see it runs thus:

a. Protestants generally believe that Scripture is the full revelation of God’s will and the path to salvation

b. Protestants generally believe that intermediaries between self and God are unnecessary

c. Protestants generally disregard apostolic succession and pre-Lutheran tradition (okay, there’s always the Anglican exception here)

d. If these things are true, and the only thing I need for my salvation is my Bible (got it) and my faith (got it), why exactly is there anything resembling a worship service, a Protestant liturgy, a Protestant clergy, etc?

Now bear in mind I’m merely exploring the boundaries of sola scriptura here. The Catholic answer is that “because tradition matters and the Church exists not just to instruct but to complete good works” but neither of those probably resonate to a sola scriptura advocate.

This wasn’t an easy line of thought for me when I was a Protestant—but at some point one simply has to consider why there are so many conflicting Protestant denominations and more cropping up all the time. When you reference the various Orthodox churches, surely you’ve read your history and realize these split off centuries and centuries before Luther and are in a state of stronger union with the Roman Catholic Church today than the Protestant denominations are despite that. An Eastern Orthodox friend of mine attended Easter Vigil at my church and received the Eucharist—he was able to do so because while our churches remain regrettably separated our beliefs are close enough to retain the most important sacrament of all.

Kindly compare that to the Protestant tradition of rebaptism between Protestant denominations (e.g. Pentecostals and Baptists requiring new members from other Protestant denominations to undergo baptism again).

But I certainly acknowledge that schism is a terrible thing and hope for the day when christendom is once again united when our prodigal sons come home.

 

[cmancone]

Now it is time to be more specific about why the Bible is the Word of God. This will clear up a lot of objections. The reason we know the Bible is the word of God is not because it claims to be that (although it does), but because we know that the Bible was written by the Apostles, and we know that the Apostles speak for God. It is not the Bible or Tradition that is God’s Word. It is the teachings of the Apostles that is God’s Word. The Bible is therefore God’s word because we know (through textual analysis, among other things) that the Bible is an accurate copy of what the Apostles taught. Tradition is only God’s Word so long as it accurately reproduces what the Apostles taught.

In the case of the Bible, there are written copies that demonstrate that what we read today is an accurate copy of what was originally written down. Tradition has no such method to verify itself. The only way we can verify that Tradition is an accurate copy of the teachings of the Apostles is because Tradition claims it is. There is no independent way to verify this. That’s a problem.

As for the Bible itself, I really don’t believe the “Catholic” account of how the Bible was created. What a Catholic council did in the 300’s wasn’t to decide which books were inspired, they simply made it official. Long before any Catholic council’s, it was widely accepted which books were scripture and which weren’t long before then. The consensus already existed, the Catholic church just made it official.

As for the scripture used to verify tradition, I’ve responded to some of that in another post. Regardless, this is already quite a discussion as it is, so I’d really rather not go into it. If you really think that the Bible establishes church tradition (it doesn’t) then please start another post to discuss it.

 

[cmancone]

TheApologist, you ask:

How has Scripture proved itself as God’s Word?

The answer to you question is simple, and I addressed it in my post. Scripture is God’s Word because it was written by the Apostles, and we know it was written by the Apostles because of textual analysis as well as various historical proofs. That’s really all there is to it.

 

[BrianH]

Well, TheApologist nailed my response before I could even type it out.

The logic as I see it runs thus:

 

[jemfinch]

As for the Bible itself, I really don’t believe the “Catholic” account of how the Bible was created. What a Catholic council did in the 300’s wasn’t to decide which books were inspired, they simply made it official. Long before any Catholic council’s, it was widely accepted which books were scripture and which weren’t long before then. The consensus already existed, the Catholic church just made it official.

So all those debates, all those differing canons, all those issues with Hebrews and 2 Peter and Revelation, they were all just inventions of a vast conspiracy within the Church?

If you think there was no debate as to the canon, you either haven’t read the history of the canon or you believe the recorded history of the canon to be the product of a vast Catholic conspiracy.

Your theory of the uncontested canon is entirely unsupported by history.

Jeremy

 

[cmancone]

Teflon, I’m afraid I have to disagree with virtually everything you said Here’s why:

Well, TheApologist nailed my response before I could even type it out.

The logic as I see it runs thus:

a. Protestants generally believe that Scripture is the full revelation of God’s will and the path to salvation

b. Protestants generally believe that intermediaries between self and God are unnecessary

c. Protestants generally disregard apostolic succession and pre-Lutheran tradition (okay, there’s always the Anglican exception here)

d. If these things are true, and the only thing I need for my salvation is my Bible (got it) and my faith (got it), why exactly is there anything resembling a worship service, a Protestant liturgy, a Protestant clergy, etc?

Now bear in mind I’m merely exploring the boundaries of sola scriptura here. The Catholic answer is that “because tradition matters and the Church exists not just to instruct but to complete good works” but neither of those probably resonate to a sola scriptura advocate.

This wasn’t an easy line of thought for me when I was a Protestant—but at some point one simply has to consider why there are so many conflicting Protestant denominations and more cropping up all the time. When you reference the various Orthodox churches, surely you’ve read your history and realize these split off centuries and centuries before Luther and are in a state of stronger union with the Roman Catholic Church today than the Protestant denominations are despite that. An Eastern Orthodox friend of mine attended Easter Vigil at my church and received the Eucharist—he was able to do so because while our churches remain regrettably separated our beliefs are close enough to retain the most important sacrament of all.

Kindly compare that to the Protestant tradition of rebaptism between Protestant denominations (e.g. Pentecostals and Baptists requiring new members from other Protestant denominations to undergo baptism again).

But I certainly acknowledge that schism is a terrible thing and hope for the day when christendom is once again united when our prodigal sons come home.

I very much disagree with your conclusions. First off, all we really need for salvation is to believe in Jesus. The Bible isn’t necessary, it just helps. Second, even with the Bible and Faith for salvation, church, worship, liturgy, etc, are still very much necessary. To imply otherwise is to ignore everything Jesus said. Our goal for life isn’t just to accept Jesus and to go to heaven. When we become Christians, we join the Body Of Christ. That alone implies being with other Christians. Becoming saved is only the very first step in life as a Christian. Our real goal for life is to grow closer to Christ, and do the good works He has prepared for us (i.e. Ephesians 2:8-9). Both of those involve being with other Christians. (Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.) There’s much more to being a christian than just being saved, and you don’t have to be a Catholic to believe that. To think otherwise is foolish, and would be ignoring everything Jesus taught.

In my experience of talking with Catholics, they often seem to exaggerate the differences between non-Catholic denominations. Suffice it to say that we are not so different as Catholics seem to want us to be. I have never once heard of one denomination requiring a person to be re-baptized when they change denominations. In fact I would consider any church that teaches such a thing a cult, and so would all the christians I know. However, that’s a discussion for another post.

 

[BrianH]

So all those debates, all those differing canons, all those issues with Hebrews and 2 Peter and Revelation, they were all just inventions of a vast conspiracy within the Church?

If you think there was no debate as to the canon, you either haven’t read the history of the canon or you believe the recorded history of the canon to be the product of a vast Catholic conspiracy.

Your theory of the uncontested canon is entirely unsupported by history.

Jeremy

Well the only major center of Christianity which disputed Hebrews was…Rome

 

[Teflon93]

I will be glad to welcome you when YOU come home
Don’t take me too personal, I like your style.

 

[Ignatius]

I have defended the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for thirty years but I having some real doubts about it. Infact I have lost my confidence in this doctrine. I would like to understand in great detail why it is that RC Apologetes reject this doctrine.

I have not come here to flame but to dialogue.

The biggest brick wall that I came up against when trying to convince my Catholic friends of the truth of Sola Scriptura was that the Bible does not claim that it is the sole rule of faith. The most the Bible ever claims for itself is that it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training”. This is quite a long way from claiming that it is the sole rule of faith.

The next brick wall is the fact that this doctrine was invented by men in the sixteenth century out of thin air.

The third is that it is the Catholic Church which transmitted the Sacred Scriptures down through the ages. Protecting the word and replicating it with perfect faithfulness.

It must also be noted that it is the Catholic Church which declared which, of the thousands of writings claiming divine inspiration at the time were, in fact, the God Breathed Holy Scriptures of the New and Eternal Covenant.

May the Holy Spirit always be your guide and lead you to the very Pillar and Foundation of Gods Truth.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;2389042:

Likewise, and my point on the presence of a Protestant liturgy is simply that Protestants have their own traditions.

yes

The Orthodox tie is actually a simpler one to explain since apostolic succession was a larger issue there than the doctrinal (although certainly the doctrinal issues were present and argued passionately). This break came first, but Catholicism didn’t keep fragmenting after that.

Teflon…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Catholic_Apostolic_Church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariavite_Church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

Think of a tree branching out from the Church of the 2nd century. How many branches were introduced between the 2nd and 16th centuries versus how many since the 16th century?

Isn’t this what I said when I said

Brian H A Catholic apologist could correctly point out there are more Protestant divisions than the groups I mentioned but that still does not refute my point, it only argues against the DEGREE of the facts, not their accuracy.

I hope you’ll grant my point.

It was my point because I said THAT up front!!

In fact, I find it quite difficult to argue against Protestantism simply because there is no such thing, and no sooner do you argue one point than somebody says, “No argument from a Methodist there, but you know those Baptists…” It’s like trying to wrestle water at the doctrinal level.

Yes, try arguing tradition with Catholics some day. “While Irenaues did not believe in the perpetual virginity BUT he was right about Rome…etc” Catholic tradition is appealed to WHEN it agrees with present Catholic doctrine. If an ECF disagrees, well, he is just one man…