Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[Tomster]

Which assertion? That the Catholic Church knows the Scriptures better than the Jews? I’ll discuss that with a Jew if you don’t mind.

But you have yet to prove the validity of Sola Scriptura and we’ve spoken before. So please, if you want another go. Provide the definition of Sola Scriptura and show it to us in the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,

As all Catholics know, Tradition enjoys greater independence than Scripture. For the credibility of Tradition and the truth of the doctrines therein contained can be determined by infallible judgment independently of Scripture, once you grant that the successors of Peter and the Apostles enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit. Holy Scripture in all its parts cannot be known as a source of revelation without the witness of Tradition, and therefore depends on it. It is a source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants understand this.

 

[SyCarl]

My understanding is that Sola Scripture was a response to the Church’s central authority. A way of saying that there is no inherent quality of a Pope or of the Church to interpet the Bible in a final way. Objectively, how is this belief less reasonable than the belief that only the Church can validly interpet the Bible?

It did not soley deal with the authority to interpret the Bible. It dealt with what the infallible source of doctrine was. Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of doctrine and that the necessary truth are plain in it. The Catholic Chruch position is the both Scripture and Tradition are equally sources of doctrine with the Church as the only final interpretter.

 

[Tomster]

De Maria,

As all Catholics know, Tradition enjoys greater independence than Scripture. For the credibility of Tradition and the truth of the doctrines therein contained can be determined by infallible judgment independently of Scripture, once you grant that the successors of Peter and the Apostles enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit. Holy Scripture in all its parts cannot be known as a source of revelation without the witness of Tradition, and therefore depends on it. It is a source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants understand this.

:coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: Forgive the omission please. I should have said it is a source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants CANNOT understand this.:coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread:

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3304288]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You give no proof for your assertion here. Anyone can say this but that doesn’t make it true.

De Maria
Which assertion? That the Catholic Church knows the Scriptures better than the Jews? I’ll discuss that with a Jew if you don’t mind.

Why discuss it only with a Jew? Surely you could defend it before a protestant could you not?

But you have yet to prove the validity of Sola Scriptura and we’ve spoken before. So please, if you want another go. Provide the definition of Sola Scriptura and show it to us in the Bible.

Here is what i beleive Sola Scriptura is:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

Tomster;3304314]De Maria,

As all Catholics know, Tradition enjoys greater independence than Scripture. For the credibility of Tradition and the truth of the doctrines therein contained can be determined by infallible judgment independently of Scripture, once you grant that the successors of Peter and the Apostles enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit.

You must assume without any evidence the that the bishops after the apostles were to enjoy “protection” of the Holy Spirit since the Scriptures never teach such a doctrine. In fact the scriptures declare that there will be false teachers who will come into the midst itself. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example. We know even from church history that Pope Honarius was declared a hereitc.

Holy Scripture in all its parts cannot be known as a source of revelation without the witness of Tradition, and therefore depends on it.

Where do you get this from?

It is a source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants understand this.

 

[Tomster]

You must assume without any evidence the that the bishops after the apostles were to enjoy “protection” of the Holy Spirit since the Scriptures never teach such a doctrine. In fact the scriptures declare that there will be false teachers who will come into the midst itself. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example. We know even from church history that Pope Honarius was declared a hereitc.

Where do you get this from?

No assumptions - just facts. The twelve and their successors will, through the Holy Spirit assisting them, act for Jesus until he comes the second time. The authority to teach cannot be for the lifetime of twelve men; it has to be for all time. For the religious needs of all men are substantially the same from age to age, and Jesus came for the sake of all men. Since he promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world, for so long a time is the teaching commission to last. Paul set Timothy over the Church in Cyprus and Titus over Crete. The heads of the primitive Churches pointed to some Apostle as the source of their authority: Jerusalem to James the Less; Ephesus to John and Asia Minor to John; Alexandria to Mark, the disciple of Peter and Rome to Peter the Rock. The Apostolic office of teaching does not die.

As far as false teachers go, there have been a lot of them Arius, Marcion, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin et. al. The Living Magisterium has always refuted their claims.

From your second quote, “Where do I get this from?” Logic, history. The Church came before the Bible. Didn’t you know that?

 

[Tomster]

You must assume without any evidence the that the bishops after the apostles were to enjoy “protection” of the Holy Spirit since the Scriptures never teach such a doctrine. In fact the scriptures declare that there will be false teachers who will come into the midst itself. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example. We know even from church history that Pope Honarius was declared a hereitc.

Where do you get this from?

Please read post # 23. Did you conveniently bypass it?

 

[Tomster]

You must assume without any evidence the that the bishops after the apostles were to enjoy “protection” of the Holy Spirit since the Scriptures never teach such a doctrine. In fact the scriptures declare that there will be false teachers who will come into the midst itself. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example. We know even from church history that Pope Honarius was declared a hereitc.

Where do you get this from?

If you want to discuss Pope Honorius, start a thread please.

 

[po18guy]

My understanding is that Sola Scripture was a response to the Church’s central authority. A way of saying that there is no inherent quality of a Pope or of the Church to interpet the Bible in a final way. Objectively, how is this belief less reasonable than the belief that only the Church can validly interpet the Bible?

Because it is founded on disobedience. It insults the Savior Who designed His earthly church and potentially blasphemes the Spirit who places a leader in Charge of Christ’s church. Period.

Obedience to Christ through those He sent.

Christ’s peace.

 

[justasking4]

Please read post # 23. Did you conveniently bypass it?

i did and i reject outright as a bad argument for your point. It says nothing and its just an assertion without any support to it.

 

[justasking4]

If you want to discuss Pope Honorius, start a thread please.

I used him as an example to show that the claim the HS would prevent error in the catholic church to be false.

 

[Tomster]

i did and i reject outright as a bad argument for your point. It says nothing and its just an assertion without any support to it.

Re-read then and ponder it for awhile. It just may come to you.

 

[Tomster]

I used him as an example to show that the claim the HS would prevent error in the catholic church to be false.

Nice try. Start a thread.

 

[Valke2]

This is what I learned recently regarding Sola Scripture, an issue that I was not at all familiar with. I will try to be as clear as I can and would appreciate any comments,supported by citations if possible.

1. Ancient interpetations of the Bible (100-300 CE), read and interpeted the text through the lense of 4 general assumptions:

a. They assumed the Bible was a fundamentally cryptic text, so that while it said “A”, it might actually mean “B”. So that for example, the phrase “and they walked together” in the story of the binding of Isaac, meant that Abraham had told Isaac what he was planning to do and Isaac went willingly.

b. They assumed the Bible was a book of lessons directed to the readers. It is not fundamentally history, it is instruction.

c. The interpeters assumed that the Bible contained no mistakes and no contradictions. Additionally, if there was something that contradicted the beliefs about God, for example that He was not all knowing and did not know how Abraham would react to His instruction, the interpeters interpeted the text in a way that resolved this so that God’s omnipottence was not in question.

d. They assumed that the entire Bible was Divinely inspired. The word of God given to man, in which God speaks directly or God through His prophets.

The above were the assumptions that ancient interperters came to the table with. These assumptions are very much in play with many readers today. Which is why when someone comes up with something that opposes such assumptions, tempers flare.

continued in next post.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Robert,

I was actually referring to where Luther gives validation to the creeds, thus supporting my stand regarding Sola Scriptura and Tradition- although you bring up topics that are worthy of looking into. Let’s just make sure that we keep the concepts of Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura separate. There seems to be a tendency to meld them together in these threads.

Jesse,

Where Luther supported the Creeds, he would support the one Church.

There is nothing in the Creeds (I assume you mean the Apostles’ and the Nicene) which supports Sola Scriptura.

Robert

 

[Valke2]

Jewish biblical interpetation has used the above assumptions in interpetitng its texts quite successfully. But it is Christians who pioneered modern day biblical scholarship, so I’m going to stick with them. BTW, all my information here comes from reading Kugel’s book, “How to Read the Bible” Kugel is no dummy and what makes his book particularly interesting for me is that he’s an orthodox Jew who acknowledges the importance of mordern biblical sholarship – not something many orthodox jews would agree with.

Anyway, Christian biblical interpetation was similar to Jewish interpetation (in method) in early Christianity. For example, like Jews, Chrisitans believed God knew the outcome of Abraham’s test before it began and that Isaac was aware that he was to be the sacrifice. Eventually, Christian biblical interpetation become to be more distinct from Jewish interpetation.

1. Reading the Bible allegorically (originated by the Jews of ALexanderia). By this I mean taking concrete details (names of places, people, events), and explaining them in terms of abstract entities, ideas or virtures. Example. The City of Jerusalem became no longer just the city, but an allegory for the Church. This method was greatly influenced by the writings of Philo of ALexanderia.
2. Using allegory to connect the OT with the NT. This is another way of applying what was written to the readers of the day. This expanded into a search for biblical traditions throughout all the texts, psalms, prohpets, etc., to support beliefs about Jesus. Going back to Abraham, the story was now an allegory of the resurrection of Jesus.

continued on next post.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I used him as an example to show that the claim the HS would prevent error in the catholic church to be false.

Tomster
Nice try. Start a thread.

I don’t blame you for trying to dismiss this pope since as you well know it demonstrates that the claim you made cannot be sustained by history…

 

[Valke2]

cont.

In all of the above, the Church was the central authority in which was trusted the correct interpetation and use of allegory. It’s wisdom as set forth in the Early fathers, could never be challenged.

But then comes the Italian Renaissance, end of 15th cent. For whatever reason, the ideas of the Middle Ages were challenged, including medieval biblical interpretation. People began to doubt the long entrenched ideas found in the four fould meaning of Scripture, memoralized in the 1200s in a latin poem setting forth: Literal sense; allegoriacl == what you should believe, moral sense – what you should do, and anagogical – where you are headed.

One reason for this was that knowledge of Hebrew was spreading very quickly to Christian scholars. Very few christian scholars had knoweldge of Hebrew prior to this. Once this changed, they began to see what they viewed as errors in the translations that prior scholars had relied upon (principally the tranlsation of Jerome). Instead of assuming that proper understanding of the Bible lay in past translations and commentary, they could read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

cont. next post.

 

[De_Maria]

Why discuss it only with a Jew? Surely you could defend it before a protestant could you not?

The statement that the Catholic Church knows the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews themselves? No. Because Protestants don’t understand Jewish insights.

But I can change the statement thus and address it to Protestants. We believe the Catholic Church knows the Scriptures, Old and New Testament better than Protestnts. That means you.

Here is what i beleive Sola Scriptura is:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

Great! Where is that in Scripture?

This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

You did great in defining YOUR belief. But I don’t see any reference from Scripture which says that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith.

So, please enlighten me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Valke2]

cont.

At the same time (more or less) we have the Protestant Reformation. The causes were many. dissatisfcation with preceived corruption in the Church’s ranks (sale s of indulgences, purchasing high office, etc.),

There were other, more theoretical and intellecutual objections. The idea of papal authority seemed illogical to some. Even assuming it was divinely authorized, why should the Church play a large role as intermediary between God and christian? And then there was the Bible. Should the Church have the unchallenged authority to say what the Bible means, especially when that meaning seemed to be dervied not from the Bible’s own words as much as from old doctrines and questionable methods of interpetation?

And so we come to Sola Scripture, by scripture alone. We had two potential authorities in relgious matters. The Church and the Bible. Promotion of Sola Scripture to the role of sole authority in matters of faith, happened at a time when Christian scholars were learning Hebrew and Greek and seeking new interpetations of Scripture, without the benefit of church sponseted interpetations or translations.