Sola Scriptura ?

[Contarini]

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.

How do we know either of those things?

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.

Textual criticism deals only with the copying of the original text. It has nothing to say about the accuracy of the original text itself. That is the province of so-called “higher” criticism. And many, arguably most “higher critics” have come to fairly skeptical conclusions. This argument will not fly.

Most scholars do not think that the Pastoral Epistles (or even Ephesians and Colossians) were written by Paul; that either 1 or 2 John was written by Peter; or that any of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. The accuracy of the book of Acts is seriously questioned–probably the majority of scholars regard it as quite unreliable.

So without invoking a prior commitment to the truth of Scripture and/or the authority of the Church, how can you possibly show that Scripture is accurate, in the face of the opinions of so many scholars?

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.

That’s overstating the case. Because of the vast number of witnesses to the text, we can indeed establish with some certainty the original form of the text–but only approximate certainty. There are many minor readings that remain uncertain, and the majority of textual critics would say that the traditional manuscripts were in error on a number of points, some of them (such as the ending of Mark) quite important.

However, the more relevant point is the one I raised above: the real question is who wrote the original text. Textual criticism has nothing to say about this.

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.

That’s not true. One can look at the earliest non-scriptural written records, which do confirm many (not all) of the beliefs for which Catholics appeal to tradition over against radical Bible-alone Protestants. Where this is lacking (as with the legends concerning the Dormition of the Virgin, for instance), you have a valid point.

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.

The overemphasis placed by many Catholic apologists on the fourth-century councils is coming back to bite them here. The really telling point is not that the local synods of Hippo and Carthage made a determination in the late 4th century (though that is significant), but that we are dependent for our belief in the authenticity of the NT records on the witness of the early Church. A really easy example is 2 Peter. Most scholars today think that 2 Peter was written quite late–maybe well into the 2nd century–and certainly was not writen by Peter. If you disagree, you do so *only *because you trust the determination of the early Church. The most that conservative Protestant scholars can argue is that the arguments against Petrine authorship are less than conclusive. The only real argument *for *Petrine authorship is the witness of the early Church. This is not equally true with all the books of the NT, but it applies to some extent to all of them. Even the undisputed letters of Paul (the only books of the NT which are generally agreed by scholars to be written by the person whose name they bear, with the possible exception of Jude) derive their apostolic *authority *from the recognition of the early Church–otherwise one could make a plausible case that Paul was simply an eccentric theological genius who transformed Christianity into something that Jesus would never have recognized. That is, of course, what many people say. Again, why do you disagree?

Edwin

 

[cmancone]

Honestly Contarini, all the research I’ve done has lead me to conclude the exact opposite. You say:

Most scholars do not think that the Pastoral Epistles (or even Ephesians and Colossians) were written by Paul; that either 1 or 2 John was written by Peter; or that any of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. The accuracy of the book of Acts is seriously questioned–probably the majority of scholars regard it as quite unreliable.

I’ve seen plenty of scholarship that completely disagrees with every part of that statement. I almost always hear that the accuracy of the book of acts is impeccable, and that Luke was quite the reliable historian. Interesting. Personally, I believe my sources.

That’s overstating the case. Because of the vast number of witnesses to the text, we can indeed establish with some certainty the original form of the text–but only approximate certainty. There are many minor readings that remain uncertain, and the majority of textual critics would say that the traditional manuscripts were in error on a number of points, some of them (such as the ending of Mark) quite important.

Again, I’ve heard the exact opposite. There are a very great many copies of early texts, allowing us to reconstruct very accurately virtually the entire NT. There are some quibbles here and there, which have virtually no impact on any matter of doctrine. The two possible exceptions are the ending of Mark and the story of Jesus and the adulterer (let he who has not sinned throw the first stone). As far as all my research has determined, the original texts of the Bible are very well known, with those exceptions.

You are correct though, textual criticism only ensures that we have accurate copies of the originals, not that the originals are accurate in and of themselves. I see no reason to doubt that though, and have only seen evidence to the contrary.

That’s not true. One can look at the earliest non-scriptural written records, which do confirm many (not all) of the beliefs for which Catholics appeal to tradition over against radical Bible-alone Protestants. Where this is lacking (as with the legends concerning the Dormition of the Virgin, for instance), you have a valid point.

Here you have a problem. First, being Bible-alone doesn’t make you a radical Second, there are as many non-scriptural witnesses and ECF that argue against Catholic beliefs as there are that argue for it. If you want, I’ll go get some quotes from Augustine on how “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18 refers to Peters confession, and was not referring to Peter (he was quite clear on this point). The simple fact of the matter is that there was very little “consensus” on many points that the Catholic Church takes for granted in the early church. The problem you see is the amount of writings of the ECF. Just as people can take Bible quotes out of context to mean whatever they want, people can take the sayings of the ECF out of context to teach whatever they want. Indeed, there are much more writings by the ECF than there is in the Bible, and they are less well known. These two facts make it quite easy to make the ECF teach almost whatever you want. This fact makes them very suspect in all cases. It’s really best to stick with the Bible.

All that aside, I fail to see your point? Are you trying to disprove Sola Scriptura by casting doubt on the Bible? That’s what you (and everyone else here) seems to be doing. We all agree that the Bible is the word of God, so why am I arguing for it’s legitimacy?

 

[chet]

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.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?: No I mean The Church or the Bible? Did Jesus say this is the Bible and on this Bible I will Build my Church? Did Jesus write 12 books or did He choose 12 men to be His Apostles? Did Jesus tell his disciples to go write down what He said or did he give them authority to preach, baptize, to bind and to loose, to forgive or retain sins? And what office did Judas have that he should have to be replaced? Did Jesus say he was sending the Spirit of Truth to all His followers or to His Apostles? What happens when the Apostles are all gone? Who’s in authority then? Isn’t the bible the authority that Jesus set up? And really isn’t it ok if we all do our own thing?,Who really cares anyway? Jesus?
Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades. will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

" John 16:12-14

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

John 20:21-23

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Acts 1:1-2

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.

Acts 1:20-26

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’ “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

John 17:21-23

that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

 

[chet]

Which came first the chicken or the egg?: No I mean The Church or the Bible? Did Jesus say this is the Bible and on this Bible I will Build my Church? Did Jesus write 12 books or did He choose 12 men to be His Apostles? Did Jesus tell his disciples to go write down what He said or did he give them authority to preach, baptize, to bind and to loose, to forgive or retain sins? And what office did Judas have that he should have to be replaced? Did Jesus say he was sending the Spirit of Truth to all His followers or to His Apostles? What happens when the Apostles are all gone? Who’s in authority then? Isn’t the bible the authority that Jesus set up? And really isn’t it ok if we all do our own thing?,Who really cares anyway? Jesus?
Matthew 16:17-19 " John 16:12-14
John 20:21-23

Matthew 28:18-20
Acts 1:1-2
Acts 1:20-26 John 17:21-23

And whats this about giving keys to the Kingdom to Peter? Like he’s a Prime minister or something.You would almost think Jesus was going to let this crude fisherman be in charge while He was gone Nah? He honestly wouldn’t do that would He? But it might just prove the Holy Spirit is really running the show.Hmm?

 

[Pophead]

Dear Friends,

ATTENTION:

I am attempting to read all the contributions so far, so if you wish to further comment would you also ‘read back’ with me and consider **every point **that has been expressed so far and responded to.

I hope to assemble points for and against etc., with a brief conclusion; after I have read the first two articles plus a recent publication I acquired by a Calvinist who has critiqued the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.



Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[mercygate]

We first need to realize that one must fully comply with scripture…is this not the case? One can never contradict scripture - that would certainly be a mistake. In the case of the CC, they do not fall in line with scripture…

I know you are sincere in sayng this, but this statement is just plain piffle.

and, what I believe we have going on here is that the Bible may not say everything that they would like for it to say and so there needs to be some addition to the Bible so that they can further the agenda that they have.

Right. The Bible does not “say everything” and the “agenda” we have is to bring the world fully into the Kingdom of God.

It is almost like saying…if we had more time we would have won the game!! But, the only time that you had was 60 minutes and the game was over. This is just a thought and not an all-out accusation.

Really? Good thing you said that because you could have fooled me. Anyway, the time IS limited. We have only until the Lord comes again to finish the earthly work of the Church.

When it comes to the doctrines surrounding justification/Mary/and other miscellaneous items, the CC does not fall in line with scripture although…nobody here would ever agree with that even with all the scriptural evidence that you can cite.

Justification is an “other miscellaneous item?” Anyway, although this sentence is confusing, Catholics can cite Scripture on Catholic doctrines and go head-to-head with any Protestant. “Bible-only” Christianity is one legged. You read the book sitting on the church steps. Catholics read the book where it was written: from the heart of the Church.

Hillaire Belloc once said that critics of the Church are like men inside Chartres Cathedral on a dark night, trying to see the stained glass windows by candle light, and wondering why people say that these windows are so beautiful.

*2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be **perfect, thoroughly furnished ***unto all good works.

I have heard verse 16 argued as being a proof for rejection of sola scriptura (saying it is merely profitable)…BUT…they did not read all the way to the end of the chapter…verse 17 shows us the glorious sufficiency!

Well, first of all, you need to know what books belong in the Bible in order to hold the Bible as sufficient. The Church wrote the table of contents. Moreover, if sola Scriptura is linked with it’s siamese twin, sola fide, then 2 Tim 3:16-17 is telling us that perfection requires good works. Go figure.

 

[chet]

As a Catholic I rely on the authority of the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the the successors of Peter and the 12 Apostles,The Pope and the Catholic Bishops in union with him.An unbroken succession from the time of Christ.And the promise of Christ to the Apostles that The Spirit of Truth would lead them into all Truth. Now if your a Protestants you rely on the Teaching Authority of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley,Ect., to interpret the Bible if your not clear on its meaning.ie., the Traditons of Men. If you don’t agree with them: You can declare yourself Pope and start your own Church;Because the Holy Spirit revealed to you the correct interpretion and application of the Sciptures and anyoneelse is obviusly wrong!

Genesis 3:4-5 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

[JimG]

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.

“It is the teachings of the Apostles that is God’s Word.” That is Catholic doctrine. The teaching was handed down from Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church. As an integral part of preserving and handing on the Teaching, members of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote letters and gospels, which the Church accepted and canonized as Scripture.

 

[JimG]

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.

You are saying then, that the canon of scripture was a part of the Tradition which had been handed down from the beginning.

 

[Pophead]

Dear Friends,

According to the Wikipedia Sola Scriptura is contrasted with Prima Scriptura and Solo Verbi Dei, but sometimes confused with that of Solo Scriptura.

1. Sola Scriptura

One of the five pillars of the Protestant Reformation.

The key implication of the principle is that interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church (Luther said, “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it”). The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible’s authority and to reject added-on tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible (which did not have any Biblical basis and/or contradicted with Scripture). The Apostolic Church’s teaching authority is in the Scriptures alone.

“The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.” (Smalcald Article II, 15 - Martin Luther). (See Galatians 1:8).

1. Prima Scriptura

Prima Scriptura holds that even though the Bible is the primary source of doctrine it is improved by reference to other sources.

1. Solo Verbi Dei (by the Word of God alone)

This is the Catholic position: that the Word of God is formed by Scripture and Tradition and when they refer to the “Word of God” it is not only to Scripture that they are referring as some other Christian groups might.

1. Solo Scriptura

Belief that it is up to the individual to interpret the Bible, discarding all conciliar and ecclesiastical authority.

+++

ATTENTION:

If you are Sola Scriptura, Prima Scriptura, Solo Verbi Dei or Solo Scriptura; would you please indicate which of these best represents you own view, if not please specify.

So far contributions to this thread are:-

Pophead 6
JimG 7
Randy Carson 2
LuvHim 3
Chet 11
runandsew 1
vociMike 4
contrarini 3
kaycee 4
jemfinch 2
david 1
paarsurrey 1
cmancone 6
geezerbob 1
Catholicdeacon 2
The Apologist 4
Daniel Marsh 1
Teflon93 3
Brian H 5
Ignatius 1
Mercygate 1

This means 21 members have contributed so far. Let’s just say the room is filling up quite nicely, with most of the comments coming from Chet(11) and JimG(7), followed by camcone and myself with 6 each, then BrianH with 5 and vociMike, kaycee and TheApologist with 4 each, followed by LuvHim,contrini and Teflon93 each with 3, followed by RandyCarson, jemfinch and Catholicdeacon with 2 each and finally runandsew, david, paarsurrey, geezerbob, Daniel Marsh, Ignatius and Mercygate with a single comment each.

As I am still attempting to assimilate (read and understand) each persons unique position, it might be helpful if you indicate which title best describes your current view, for it is certain as St. Augustine learned that views do and must change if one is to be honest.

My own view is currently closer to Solo Scriptura and not Sola Scriptura. I am however reading three seperate articles at the moment and am hoping with that and what has already been contributed I might emerge with a better understand of how I view the Bible, and certainly my own critique of Sola Scriptura.

It might be wise from now on to please indicate if you are SolaS or SoloS or PrimaS or SVD. This you could incorporate in your signature…have a look and you will see that I am about to do this.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

ATTENTION: Friends

Please would you read the preceeding comment and indicate by placing the appropriate abreviation: SolaS, SoloS, SVD or PrimaS with your signature to help me establish which view you are supporting. If none of these adequately explains your current position, please create your own abv. place it in you signature and then explain briefly here what your abv. stands for.

The articles I am currently reading are as follows:

1. Twenty One Reasons Toe Reject Sola Scriptura by Joel Peters
2. Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth
3. Defining the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura by Robert Bowman (a debate held at Apologetics.com which features some enlightening thoughts by Dr M McKain.
4. A critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison (a Calivinist)

I am not sure how long all this reading is going to take plus assimilating all the views expressed here, but as soon as I have I will attempt to feed back some of what I am learning. So if for now you might consider including the abreviation that best expresses you particular stance, I would greatly appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Pophead

ps. I hope you have read my last two comments. If not please do.

 

[mercygate]

Dear Friends,

According to the Wikipedia Sola Scriptura is contrasted with Prima Scriptura and Solo Verbi Dei, but sometimes confused with that of Solo Scriptura.

1. Sola Scriptura

One of the five pillars of the Protestant Reformation.

The key implication of the principle is that interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church (Luther said, “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it”). The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible’s authority and to reject added-on tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible (which did not have any Biblical basis and/or contradicted with Scripture). The Apostolic Church’s teaching authority is in the Scriptures alone.

“The true rule is this: God’s Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.” (Smalcald Article II, 15 - Martin Luther). (See Galatians 1:8).

1. Prima Scriptura

Prima Scriptura holds that even though the Bible is the primary source of doctrine it is improved by reference to other sources.

1. Solo Verbi Dei (by the Word of God alone)

This is the Catholic position: that the Word of God is formed by Scripture and Tradition and when they refer to the “Word of God” it is not only to Scripture that they are referring as some other Christian groups might.

1. Solo Scriptura

Belief that it is up to the individual to interpret the Bible, discarding all conciliar and ecclesiastical authority.

+++

ATTENTION:

If you are Sola Scriptura, Prima Scriptura, Solo Verbi Dei or Solo Scriptura; would you please indicate which of these best represents you own view, if not please specify.

So far contributions to this thread are:-

Pophead 6
JimG 7
Randy Carson 2
LuvHim 3
Chet 11
runandsew 1
vociMike 4
contrarini 3
kaycee 4
jemfinch 2
david 1
paarsurrey 1
cmancone 6
geezerbob 1
Catholicdeacon 2
The Apologist 4
Daniel Marsh 1
Teflon93 3
Brian H 5
Ignatius 1
Mercygate 1

This means 21 members have contributed so far. Let’s just say the room is filling up quite nicely, with most of the comments coming from Chet(11) and JimG(7), followed by camcone and myself with 6 each, then BrianH with 5 and vociMike, kaycee and TheApologist with 4 each, followed by LuvHim,contrini and Teflon93 each with 3, followed by RandyCarson, jemfinch and Catholicdeacon with 2 each and finally runandsew, david, paarsurrey, geezerbob, Daniel Marsh, Ignatius and Mercygate with a single comment each.

As I am still attempting to assimilate (read and understand) each persons unique position, it might be helpful if you indicate which title best describes your current view, for it is certain as St. Augustine learned that views do and must change if one is to be honest.

My own view is currently closer to Solo Scriptura and not Sola Scriptura. I am however reading three seperate articles at the moment and am hoping with that and what has already been contributed I might emerge with a better understand of how I view the Bible, and certainly my own critique of Sola Scriptura.

It might be wise from now on to please indicate if you are SolaS or SoloS or PrimaS or SVD. This you could incorporate in your signature…have a look and you will see that I am about to do this.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

Verbum Dei. Not “sola” because I accept the whole ball of wax: Christ, Scripture, the teaching authority of the Church . . . ALL of it.

The idea that an individual reading Scripture should, without reading it from the heart of the Church, be able to come up with a fully authentic understanding of its meaning is preposterous.

The Scriptures arise from the Church. They are the heart of her worship. Although they are very much accessible to the believing Christian, the “solo Scriptura” position as you outline it here is actually *sola ego. *Solipsism is anti-Christian.

 

[Janet_S]

"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures (Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1:8:1)

Yes, that is true. Many heretics gather their views from other sources than the Scripture.

On the other hand, some heretics use Scripture (interpreted in novel ways, independent from the mind of the Church) to support their beliefs. Cardinal Newman recognized the familiar plea of sola Scriptura among the Arians when he studied and wrote his book (Arians of the Fourth Century).

Vincent of Lerins reports the following in the 5th century:

voskrese.info/spl/lerins25.html

 

[Pophead]

Verbum Dei. Not “sola” because I accept the whole ball of wax: Christ, Scripture, the teaching authority of the Church . . . ALL of it.

The idea that an individual reading Scripture should, without reading it from the heart of the Church, be able to come up with a fully authentic understanding of its meaning is preposterous.

The Scriptures arise from the Church. They are the heart of her worship. Although they are very much accessible to the believing Christian, the “solo Scriptura” position as you outline it here is actually *sola ego. *Solipsism is anti-Christian.

Dear Mercygate,

It is good that you feel so strongly about your particular view and that you feel so strongly about what my current and not so certain view is BUT you have really missed the point for which I strung my last two threads. Let me put this clearly so that you do not continue to meander down a path that will ultimately lead to me ignoring your comments. I am currently no really sure which of the particular views most accurately define the position I might hold more firmly in the future, to begin a full frontal assault of a position that I only hold with a lose grip is going to mean you did not read my comments, or perhaps did not really understand my current predicament.

Let me try and help you some. Firstly, you may or may not decide to put in your signature the abreviation SVD, that is not something that I can insist upon as I am merely a newbie here, who likes to think of himself as a thinking believer and who is certainly not anti-christian. I am a child of God and have been in His family (not the organisation called the church, but the invisible body of Christ, which has NO geographical location.) since the 7th of July 1976. (please feel free to read my story : Abraxas to Jesus.)

To put it more succinctly, I am a soul in transition. The song by Bono from U2 might suitably describe my current mindset; I am a believer, but I still haven’t found what I am looking for in terms of specific Christian Doctrines.

I am at the moment not to happy with the idea of Sola Scriptura and I will not be bullied into believing SVD; this is why I am reading articles from both perspectives so as to gain a better understanding of what I believe is the view which most accurately explains what I believe. Currently my choice of SoloS is more a resting place on my way to a better understanding of what I really believe about this wonderful life in Jesus Christ. Now if you don’t mind; I am going to take a quite walk away to spend some time in prayer and reading and reflection on these things before I further comment or reply here.

Seeing as there as so many people discussing here, I am sure you will find an audience to discuss your view of SVD and rejection of ALL others views as non christian.

Honestly,

 

[Janet_S]

…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 (Irenaeus–Against Heresies, 3:1:1)

Catholics say “amen” to this. There is nothing in this statement that rejects either Sacred Tradition or the Church Magisterium. This agrees with what Dei Verbum says:

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

…It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were **by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these **heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known **hidden **mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity (Iraeneus–Against Heresies, 3:3:1)

Keep in mind this is Kaycee’s selected quote in support of sola Scriptura. Actually, this quote supports the Catholic understanding of the Church Magisterium, the authority of Sacred tradition, and the idea of Apostolic succession (as a mark of the true Church). I assume Kaycee included this quote because it refers to “hidden mysteries” which he may have understood to be what Catholics refer to as " Sacred tradition." Actually what Ireneus refers to as “hidden mysteries” are the teachings of the Gnostics, a heretical group. This is quite distinct from the Catholic idea of Sacred Tradition which is part of the deposit of faith and is not secret.

…proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - (Irenaeus–Against Heresies 3:12:9)

Again, Catholics can say “amen” to that. This statement does not reject Sacred Tradition or the Church Magisterium. Another quote from Dei Verbum:

*But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. *

 

[Randy_Carson]

"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…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…It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity…proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Wow! These quotes make it sound like Irenaeus was a firm believer in sola scriptura, alright.

I wonder if they are representative of Irenaeus’ total thought…let’s see…from that same work of Irenaeus:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser…" (Against Heresies, 3,2:2).

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (Against Heresies, 3,4:1).

Gee, now I don’t think Irenaeus believed in* sola *scriptura at all! Guess it helps to read in context, huh?

But I’m curious, does this mean that you accept Irenaeus as a model to be followed and that you will accept the doctrines that he teaches because he is so authoritative in your estimation?

Can we point out some more of Irenaeus’ thought that you must be willing to accept on the weight of his testimony?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Janet_S]

Here you have a problem. First, being Bible-alone doesn’t make you a radical Second, there are as many non-scriptural witnesses and ECF that argue against Catholic beliefs as there are that argue for it. If you want, I’ll go get some quotes from Augustine on how “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18 refers to Peters confession, and was not referring to Peter (he was quite clear on this point). The simple fact of the matter is that there was very little “consensus” on many points that the Catholic Church takes for granted in the early church. The problem you see is the amount of writings of the ECF. Just as people can take Bible quotes out of context to mean whatever they want, people can take the sayings of the ECF out of context to teach whatever they want. Indeed, there are much more writings by the ECF than there is in the Bible, and they are less well known. These two facts make it quite easy to make the ECF teach almost whatever you want. This fact makes them very suspect in all cases. It’s really best to stick with the Bible.

You bring up a good point–one can take select ECF quotes out of context and support a variety of conflicting beliefs. This can be (and is) done with the Bible as well.

However, a comprehensive reading of the ECF’s shows a picture of the early Church as being distinctly Catholic. There is little doubt about this. John Henry Cardinal Newman was led to the Catholic Church as a result of his work translating the writings of the ECF’s. You have probably heard the famous Newman quote: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

I’m not sure if you have watched the show on EWTN called “The Journey Home”–interviews of people (many of them Protestant clergy) who convert to the Catholic faith. I would say maybe 50-75% of the Protestant converts on that show come to the Church after studying the writings of the ECF’s. You hear a repeat of that testimony so often it almost becomes boring.

You may disagree about this–you probably do. But I have never known of a faithful, knowledgable Catholic who extensively reads and studies the ECF’s and becomes convinced that the early Church was Protestant, not Catholic. If you or anyone else has ever heard of such a case, please respond.

 

[mercygate]

Dear Mercygate,

It is good that you feel so strongly about your particular view and that you feel so strongly about what my current and not so certain view is BUT you have really missed the point for which I strung my last two threads. Let me put this clearly so that you do not continue to meander down a path that will ultimately lead to me ignoring your comments. I am currently no really sure which of the particular views most accurately define the position I might hold more firmly in the future, to begin a full frontal assault of a position that I only hold with a lose grip is going to mean you did not read my comments, or perhaps did not really understand my current predicament.

I read your question. I stated my position. I’m glad you consider the sola ego position to be temporary because, whatever your personal need might be at the moment (and believe me, I have tremendous sympathy for uncertainty), it is untenable.

Let me try and help you some. Firstly, you may or may not decide to put in your signature the abreviation SVD, that is not something that I can insist upon as I am merely a newbie here, You could not insist that I change my signature even if you had three million posts.

. . . who likes to think of himself as a thinking believer and who is certainly not anti-christian. I am a child of God and have been in His family (not the organisation called the church, but the invisible body of Christ, which has NO geographical location.)

It does have a visible locus, just as when Christ had a visible body when he walked among us as a man, so it has a visible body today.

since the 7th of July 1976. (please feel free to read my story : Abraxas to Jesus

.)

To put it more succinctly, I am a soul in transition. So are we all.

The song by Bono from U2 might suitably describe my current mindset; I am a believer, but I still haven’t found what I am looking for in terms of specific Christian Doctrines.

I have never heard anything by U2.

I am at the moment not to happy with the idea of Sola Scriptura and I will not be bullied into believing SVD;

Stating the case is not “bullying.” Why would you think that stating a position forcefully is some kind of threat?

this is why I am reading articles from both perspectives so as to gain a better understanding of what I believe is the view which most accurately explains what I believe. Currently my choice of SoloS is more a resting place on my way to a better understanding of what I really believe about this wonderful life in Jesus Christ.

Now if you don’t mind; I am going to take a quite walk away to spend some time in prayer and reading and reflection on these things before I further comment or reply here.

Seeing as there as so many people discussing here, I am sure you will find an audience to discuss your view of SVD and rejection of ALL others views as non christian.

Honestly,You asked; I answered. I most certainly did NOT say any view other than the Verbum Dei was non Christian. You are reacting not to me but to something else.

 

[Teflon93]

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.

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.

Is everything that Christ said and taught in the Bible?

 

[Teflon93]

The Pentecostal Church requires it. My wife, a baptized Presbyterian, had to be rebaptized to join the Pentecostal Church. The Catholic Church honored her first baptism as the first was valid and there was no need for rebaptism.

I have been informed by Baptist friends that their church has a similar requirement.