Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

=Covenanter;12410447]Of course, but then I think there is a widespread understanding that there is significant variety within Protestantism and so when somebody is speaking about ‘Protestantism’, they do so only in the general sense.

That is why I did not object too strongly to the article speaking generally about Protestantism.

My personal view is that this generality is of little value, particularly when it comes to doctrine. OTOH, when it comes to a practice such as sola scriptura, I guess it really doesn’t matter much.

Jon

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

How can you be so sure, when there was so much controversy about whether or not they all belonged in the NT? Are you aware of how many of the books were disputed, and why?

Yes, there were many communities that lacked literacy, and did not have many of the “fragments”. The kerygma, the Apostolic preaching was the primary form of transmission of the faith. The more the manuscripts were copied and shared, the wider their distribution, but there was never any question, as there is today, that there was some kind of contradiction between the Word of God alive in the Church, and the Word of God on the written page.

I’ll second the above.

God did not leave a written word at all - He left us an authoritative church (the “keys to the kingdom”, “binding and loosing”, “I will build my church”, “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”, the “pillar and bulwark of truth”). I don’t see a promise that sole authority would reside in writings - in fact, Scripture itself refutes this:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

This points to the authority of, not just the written word, but of the church from whence it came. How can a writing be authoritative unless the writer has authority? If they were authoritative while writing, they were authoritative when speaking also, and authoritative when electing successors, and authoritative when interpreting what has written by their predecessors.

One need look no further than more contemporary writings - of, say, the past 200 years or so - and how people attempt to twist their meaning today. Yet the intended meaning is clear when looking at the other beliefs and practices of those people. That is why I appreciate the writings of the early church fathers. Although they are not scripture, they give a glimpse into the early church, and how very Catholic it was.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My personal view is that this generality is of little value, particularly when it comes to doctrine. OTOH, when it comes to a practice such as sola scriptura, I guess it really doesn’t matter much.

Jon

Greetings Jon; Practice defined is key in understanding ones interpretation of Sola Scriptura.

If a Sola Scriptura practice denies the Apostolic Traditions, the divine authority Jesus places upon His Church, then Sola Scriptura becomes a practice of biblical contradiction.

If a Sola Scriptura practice places itself as the Sole source by which God gives His revelation and teachings to His Church, The Sola becomes a new wind of doctrine invented by men and not a divine revelation from God.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole authority and source by which the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ are interpreted and defended from ones own interpretation. This leads to division and contradictions of varying Christian communities that denominate from one another.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole Source that denies the presence of Jesus Christ in our midst, and denies the Holy Spirit present who teaches and sustains us in all revealed Truth unchanged. Sola Scriptura becomes a false idol.

If a Sola Scriptura practice presents itself as God’s living Word written, that can be used for teaching, instruction and correction on a par with Sacred Apostolic Tradition without contradiction. Then the Sola is used in it’s correct context as other Catholic Saints have used it for teaching, instruction and refuting heresies as a canon (measuring standard), with the Keys Jesus gives them.

Sola Scriptura enters history when the majority of the (laity) Christian faithful are still illiterate. Yet those interpreting their own teachings from the Sola Scriptura alone without the magisterium, became their own infallible self proclaimed Church magisterium supported by their sole interpretation from Sola Scriptura. This Sola Scriptura practice becomes a self proclaimed infallible interpreter from Sola Scriptura to support each different infallible interpreter that has lead to chaos.

I love the Sola Scriptura, that puts the bright light on those divine revelations and teachings revealed by Jesus Christ that are not written, but practiced in faith by all the faithful since Pentecost unchanged to today divinely confirmed from liturgy.

It is here where Sola Scriptura is placed in it’s correct context; The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For it is for this reason ALONE above all others, why the bible books were canonized and revealed as God breathed.

So that all the faithful can begin and grow their Christian faith by hearing and hearing the Word of God, not reading the Word of God. And then faith from Sola Scriptura in liturgy becomes the living Word in Eucharist, when we can taste, eat and drink the Sola Scriptura = Word made flesh and blood. This is where Sola Scriptura belongs, in the liturgy of the Mass. The Sola Scriptura was sent for man, not man for the Sola Scriptura.

For to Catholics the Word of God is living who is the Sola Word of God incarnate in the Son of man who lives in our midst.

Peace be with you

 

[andrewstx]

I was raised in a fundamental sect that really did worship the bible as a paper and ink idol. Every Sunday the unordained, un educated ‘preacher’ would quote from the bible saying “God says (or said) in such and such book, chapter and verse”. I effect calling the bible God. This sect was not Pres/Reformed but they were founded by Presbyterian clergy in the late 19th to early 20th century. Obviously these individuals thought that God in person wrote the bible or dictated it to human robots.

This sect had ‘regulative worship’ down to a tee. Anything not speciffically ordered to be done in the bible was forbidden. Even organs, flowers and candles were forbidden them. The worship was completely centered on ‘gospel praychin’, but they did ‘observe’ a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” every Sunday because the bible ordered them to. It usually took between five and ten minutes!

Jon has told me that this sect was solO scriptura, rather than sola scriptura. And I trust him on the matter. But I was so disgusted by the hyper reverence and practically worship of a book that I rebelled. I joined a liberal Episcopal church the instant I escaped the grip of my folks. For a time I had little reverence or respect for the bible.

But soon I learned to balance things and became Catholic. Even later I became Russian Orthodox. But I still insist that such a thing as hyper-reverence for the bible does exist called bibliolatry.

 

[guanophore]

I was raised in a fundamental sect that really did worship the bible as a paper and ink idol. Every Sunday the unordained, un educated ‘preacher’ would quote from the bible saying “God says (or said) in such and such book, chapter and verse”. I effect calling the bible God. This sect was not Pres/Reformed but they were founded by Presbyterian clergy in the late 19th to early 20th century. Obviously these individuals thought that God in person wrote the bible or dictated it to human robots.

This sect had ‘regulative worship’ down to a tee. Anything not speciffically ordered to be done in the bible was forbidden. Even organs, flowers and candles were forbidden them. The worship was completely centered on ‘gospel praychin’, but they did ‘observe’ a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” every Sunday because the bible ordered them to. It usually took between five and ten minutes!

Jon has told me that this sect was solO scriptura, rather than sola scriptura. And I trust him on the matter. But I was so disgusted by the hyper reverence and practically worship of a book that I rebelled. I joined a liberal Episcopal church the instant I escaped the grip of my folks. For a time I had little reverence or respect for the bible.

But soon I learned to balance things and became Catholic. Even later I became Russian Orthodox. But I still insist that such a thing as hyper-reverence for the bible does exist called bibliolatry.

I was in a community like this for about a year. It was forbidden to set one’s bible on the floor, or God forbid you would leave it on a footrest and end up with your feet on it!

 

[andrewstx]

You got the good eye there Andrew!

Not really. When I was in high school I was friends with a son of a boy whose father was the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian church and we discussed our relative faiths some. His dad became a higher-up in the Presbyterian church, and the church was sold to an Assembly of God congregation. I often wondered how they got the marble altar out and the pulpit in the center and retro fitted the Jacuzzi for immersion baptisms in what was built as a Presbyterian church.

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;12413362]Greetings Jon; Practice defined is key in understanding ones interpretation of Sola Scriptura.

If a Sola Scriptura practice denies the Apostolic Traditions, the divine authority Jesus places upon His Church, then Sola Scriptura becomes a practice of biblical contradiction.

I frankly do not think our confession denies Tradition, or the authority of the Church.

If

a Sola Scriptura practice places itself as the Sole source by which God gives His revelation and teachings to His Church, The Sola becomes a new wind of doctrine invented by men and not a divine revelation from God.

Again, not a doctrine, but a practice. If i is a doctrine, then the conscience of the believer is bound to it. this is not the case with sola scriptura. An Orthodox Christian, for example, is not bound to believe in sola scriptura.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole authority and source by which the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ are interpreted and defended from ones own interpretation. This leads to division and contradictions of varying Christian communities that denominate from one another.

Since I am bound to the confessions and creeds, my personal interpretation is not valid when it comes to doctrine. I cannot, as a Lutheran, deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole Source that denies the presence of Jesus Christ in our midst, and denies the Holy Spirit present who teaches and sustains us in all revealed Truth unchanged. Sola Scriptura becomes a false idol.

Agreed. It would also fail to be sola scriptura!

If a Sola Scriptura practice presents itself as God’s living Word written, that can be used for teaching, instruction and correction on a par with Sacred Apostolic Tradition without contradiction. Then the Sola is used in it’s correct context as other Catholic Saints have used it for teaching, instruction and refuting heresies as a canon (measuring standard), with the Keys Jesus gives them.

For the purpose of instruction? Sure. For the purpose of setting doctrine, SS is the final norm.

Sola Scriptura enters history when the majority of the (laity) Christian faithful are still illiterate. Yet those interpreting their own teachings from the Sola Scriptura alone without the magisterium, became their own infallible self proclaimed Church magisterium supported by their sole interpretation from Sola Scriptura.

I haven’t seen such a statement regarding Lutheran practice. In fact, Lutheran theologians state contrary to this, acknowledging that our confessions are not inerrant, and our leaders not infallible.

This Sola Scriptura practice becomes a self proclaimed infallible interpreter from Sola Scriptura to support each different infallible interpreter that has lead to chaos.

Actually, the very nature of sola scriptura - holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture - is to prevent this. It may not be successful, bit then neither is Sacred Tradition in doing so.

I love the Sola Scriptura, that puts the bright light on those divine revelations and teachings revealed by Jesus Christ that are not written, but practiced in faith by all the faithful since Pentecost unchanged to today divinely confirmed from liturgy.

Amen.

It is here where Sola Scriptura is placed in it’s correct context; The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For it is for this reason ALONE above all others, why the bible books were canonized and revealed as God breathed.

Agreed.

So that all the faithful can begin and grow their Christian faith by hearing and hearing the Word of God, not reading the Word of God. And then faith from Sola Scriptura in liturgy becomes the living Word in Eucharist, when we can taste, eat and drink the Sola Scriptura = Word made flesh and blood. This is where Sola Scriptura belongs, in the liturgy of the Mass. The Sola Scriptura was sent for man, not man for the Sola Scriptura.

No argument.

For to Catholics the Word of God is living who is the Sola Word of God incarnate in the Son of man who lives in our midst.

Could not agree more.

Peace be with you

And also with you, my good friend.

Jon

 

[jimbowanna]

I find this a bit amusing. Scripture is the final authoity and the books of the Bible as they were written originally by men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit are inerrant. God is wise enough and certainly able to use whatever he chooses to “assemble” our Bibles and preserve it, even if it was a bunch of catholics. There are plenty of examples of God using heathens and pagans to accomplish His purposes in the Bible. After all He made a donkey speak. So instead of patting yourself on the back over the contribution the “church” made in putting together what we have today, a little humility would be more appropriate over His choice of you for such a task. That said, the Jews were the chosen people of God and they forfieted that position by denying the Messiah. The Catholic church as well as all the denominations and all people would do well to get alone with God and allow His Spirit to teach and lead them instead of the traditions we’ve all come up with and labeled true religion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If a Sola Scriptura practice denies the Apostolic Traditions, the divine authority Jesus places upon His Church, then Sola Scriptura becomes a practice of biblical contradiction.

JonNC “I frankly do not think our confession denies Tradition, or the authority of the Church”.

Agreed Jon. Yet when Sola is attached to Scriptura, this expression of faith appears to supersede and place Apostolic Tradition such as the Liturgy in the Mass on a separate platform, that creates an imaginary division leaving Sacred Tradition only secondary or next to no value when measured up to the Sola Scriptura.

It is here where I mention Sola Scriptura becomes a contradiction to biblical teaching and divine revelation, When according to the Catholic Faith, one cannot have one without the other, when the Word is God undivided. I pray that my thoughts expressed here are received with my humility by which I write them.

Authority of the Church as you know Jon is another subject. I will simply state that the Catholic Church has it’s biblical foundation not only recorded in scripture but maintains a Rock foundation in Apostolic Tradition. Which again neither one can be separated as Sola from one another. Sola Scriptura becomes a contradiction by itself without Apostolic Sacred Traditional faith and practices.

Again, not a doctrine, but a practice. If i is a doctrine, then the conscience of the believer is bound to it. this is not the case with sola scriptura. An Orthodox Christian, for example, is not bound to believe in sola scriptura.

Sorry Jon, I don’t even know what an Orthodox Christian is?

Sola Scriptura is never a doctrine? I pray that is the case Jon. If Sola Scriptura is only a practice which is an expression of the Christian faith? I believe it is here, where we can begin to move mountains of obstacles that divide our communions.

Can you provide some type of proof that Sola Scriptura is never a Protestant doctrine and only a practice?

I

Since I am bound to the confessions and creeds, my personal interpretation is not valid when it comes to doctrine. I cannot, as a Lutheran, deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example.

Jon, you make it difficult for this Catholic to be your opponent, when you write like that.

The real presence is an Apostolic Sacred Tradition unchanged, that is not written in the scriptures, but the real presence is defended by Sacred Scripture, but not by Sola Scriptura, the Traditional Apostolic faith and practice has defended the real presence in the Eucharist since antiquity before it was recorded as scripture. Sola Scriptura does not exist here, when this divine revelation and teaching was set in stone.

I realize your expressing a Lutheran’s Sola Scriptura here; Although, from your travels, I am sure your aware of some non-Catholic Christians, who teach from a Sola Scriptura platform in a way that differs from your Sola Scriptura.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole Source that denies the presence of Jesus Christ in our midst, and denies the Holy Spirit present who teaches and sustains us in all revealed Truth unchanged. Sola Scriptura becomes a false idol.

Agreed. It would also fail to be sola scriptura!

It may fail your Lutheran Sola Scriptura? Because there are many Sola Scriptura non-Catholic Christians who use the Sola Scriptura to deny and reject the real presence of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist.

These same Sola Scripturalists sometimes go as far as placing the letters on a page over and beyond the real presence to reveal a symbolic Jesus or a memorial of a past event that contradicts biblical faith in the real True presence of Jesus Christ. The Sola Scriptura here becomes a false idol.

How can this Sola Scriptura be true? that uses Sola Scriptura to deny Apostolic faith in practice not written in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in His Eucharist.

For the purpose of instruction? Sure. For the purpose of setting doctrine, SS is the final norm.

SS is the final norm? I take it a Lutheran does not place SS as the only norm. If SS is not the only norm, then why does the Lutheran scriptura require the sola attached to it?

The Sola Scriptura never has the keys to bind and loose on earth Jon. She the Church, the mystical body of Christ is the Sole possessor of the divine keys to bind and loose doctrine Jon.

How do you refute Jesus teaching and divine revelation of giving His divine Keys to Peter and His Church on earth with Sola Scriptura?

When it is the one Church who possesses the keys to the kingdom of God on earth, who binds and looses doctrine supported by Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura alone cannot refute heretics and defend the apostolic faith by Sola Scriptura.

I will try and give a response to your other important comments at a later time, which I hope to get more clarifications from your insights.

Good to communicate with you Jon

Truly yours; Gabe;

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;12415609]
Agreed Jon. Yet when Sola is attached to Scriptura, this expression of faith appears to supersede and place Apostolic Tradition such as the Liturgy in the Mass on a separate platform, that creates an imaginary division leaving Sacred Tradition only secondary or next to no value when measured up to the Sola Scriptura.

Not if the role of SS is properly understood, which is only and simply to hold accountable doctrines and teachings.

It is here where I mention Sola Scriptura becomes a contradiction to biblical teaching and divine revelation, When according to the Catholic Faith, one cannot have one without the other, when the Word is God undivided. I pray that my thoughts expressed here are received with my humility by which I write them.

Always the case, Gabe. But as a practice, I do not see a contradiction here. Scripture provides the Church with teaching authority, which is exercised by the Church, in the Lutheran tradition, while holding scripture as the final norm.

Authority of the Church as you know Jon is another subject. I will simply state that the Catholic Church has it’s biblical foundation not only recorded in scripture but maintains a Rock foundation in Apostolic Tradition. Which again neither one can be separated as Sola from one another. Sola Scriptura becomes a contradiction by itself without Apostolic Sacred Traditional faith and practices.

Again, no argument.

Sorry Jon, I don’t even know what an Orthodox Christian is?

a Christian who is EO.

Sola Scriptura is never a doctrine? I pray that is the case Jon. If Sola Scriptura is only a practice which is an expression of the Christian faith? I believe it is here, where we can begin to move mountains of obstacles that divide our communions.

Can you provide some type of proof that Sola Scriptura is never a Protestant doctrine and only a practice?

Oh, I don’t speak from a generally protestant position. I’m speaking as a Lutheran. No where in the confessions is anyone bound to believe SS as an article of faith. It is a practice of the Church

Jon, you make it difficult for this Catholic to be your opponent, when you write like that.

Well, I certainly do not want you as an opponent.

The real presence is an Apostolic Sacred Tradition unchanged, that is not written in the scriptures, but the real presence is defended by Sacred Scripture, but not by Sola Scriptura, the Traditional Apostolic faith and practice has defended the real presence in the Eucharist since antiquity before it was recorded as scripture. Sola Scriptura does not exist here, when this divine revelation and teaching was set in stone.

Well, sure. I think we’ve discussed before Melanchthon’s support of the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, using scripture, the universal Church, East and West, and the Fathers of the Church.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Properly understood, this is how the practice of sola scriptura works.

continued

 

[JonNC]

I realize your expressing a Lutheran’s Sola Scriptura here; Although, from your travels, I am sure your aware of some non-Catholic Christians, who teach from a Sola Scriptura platform in a way that differs from your Sola Scriptura.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole Source that denies the presence of Jesus Christ in our midst, and denies the Holy Spirit present who teaches and sustains us in all revealed Truth unchanged. Sola Scriptura becomes a false idol.

It may fail your Lutheran Sola Scriptura? Because there are many Sola Scriptura non-Catholic Christians who use the Sola Scriptura to deny and reject the real presence of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist.

These same Sola Scripturalists sometimes go as far as placing the letters on a page over and beyond the real presence to reveal a symbolic Jesus or a memorial of a past event that contradicts biblical faith in the real True presence of Jesus Christ. The Sola Scriptura here becomes a false idol.

How can this Sola Scriptura be true? that uses Sola Scriptura to deny Apostolic faith in practice not written in the real presence of Jesus body and blood in His Eucharist.

If I thought, for a moment, that sola scriptura did these, I would abandon it instantly.

SS is the final norm? I take it a Lutheran does not place SS as the only norm. If SS is not the only norm, then why does the Lutheran scriptura require the sola attached to it?

You’ve already answered your question. While there are other norms - councils, our confessions, etc - there is only one (sola) final norm.

The Sola Scriptura never has the keys to bind and loose on earth Jon. She the Church, the mystical body of Christ is the Sole possessor of the divine keys to bind and loose doctrine Jon.

Agreed, Gabe. It isn’t the purpose of the practice of SS to be the keys. From the confessions: **The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. 2] For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. **

How do you refute Jesus teaching and divine revelation of giving His divine Keys to Peter and His Church on earth with Sola Scriptura?

When it is the one Church who possesses the keys to the kingdom of God on earth, who binds and looses doctrine supported by Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura alone cannot refute heretics and defend the apostolic faith by Sola Scriptura.

It shouldn’t. Christ clearly gives the keys to St. Peter.
Defense of the faith, of course, requires the use of many sources.

Good to communicate with you Jon

Truly yours; Gabe;

the pleasure is always mine.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I frankly do not think our confession denies Tradition, or the authority of the Church.

On the contrary, I seem to recall reading something that gave me the impression that if a belief or practice was not specifically mentioned, then it had been retained.

“We on our part also retain many ceremonies and traditions (such as the liturgy of the Mass and various canticles, festivals and the like) which serve to preserve order in the church.”

— Augsburg Confession XXVI:40

“...our churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new and have been adopted by the fault of the times although contrary to the intent of the canons...”

— Augsburg Confession, prologue to XXII, 1

“...nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic.”

— Augsburg Confession, epilogue to XXVIII, 5

Again, not a doctrine, but a practice.  If i is a doctrine, then the conscience of the believer is bound to it.  this is not the case with sola scriptura.  An  Orthodox Christian, for  example, is not bound to believe in sola scriptura.

This is a concept that has changed over time. My seminary textbooks refer to it as a doctrine of the faith. Even if it is called a “practice” instead, it is still such a fundamental element of the Lutheran Faith that it functions at the level of a doctrine.

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9)

 

[twaine_marie]

I am sure there are many opinions on Sola Scriptura within the many branches of Protestants. I understand that this is their written knowledge as to reference what it is they fully believe. Catholics have Doctrines and encyclicals and many resources to validate their beliefs including the Bible.
One question I have are the quotes I often hear from our Protestant brothers and sisters, “My salvation is secure” and I have done everything to secure my own and my families salvation".

Seems to me that my salvation was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His full gift is Grace when we participate in this through our Baptism and the Sacraments. I could not accomplish or do anything to accomplish my salvation. How do we respond in all charity to this?

 

[Covenanter]

Well, which one…the catholic 73 book version or the protestatn 66 book version?

In Ad200, can you provide an example of the canon of the bible then, and factor in the fact that Christians were on the run from the Roman persecution, no printing press, not many could read or write…so how could those Christians then possess the Bible as you know it today?

The Protestant 66 book version. Not wrapped up nicely in a single Bible, of course. We cannot know how widely they were distributed, but I am certain that even in the ancient world, there was a dedicated enough scholarly class to ensure that at least every church would have access to the scriptures, if not every individual believer.

The very word to make us wise unto salvation is Christ, the living word Himself, not the written word.

And besides, what do you think was referred to as the New Testament back then in the early years of Christianity?

You need to distinguish between the Word (Jesus) and the word (scripture). Paul clearly sates in 2 Timothy 3:15 that the written word (Holy Scriptures as he terms is) is able to make us wise unto salvation. Do you dispute this?

Also, I do not know when the term ‘New Testament’ came to be used for scripture, but there can be no doubt that even in Paul’s day his own writings were regarded as New Testament scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Yes. Of course, the inspired inerrant scriptures had these qualities as soon as they were penned, but it is also a fact that hundreds of writings were floating around the empire all claiming to be inspired, or accepted by different groups as inspired. The authority appointed by Christ sifted through all these, and proclaimed which ones should be in the canon, and which should not. Common acceptance of the writings was one factor, but not the only one, since there were many groups using writings that contained heresies. The contents had to be consistent with the Sacred Tradition as well.

There were many “gospels” and “epistles” that were recognized as authentic that did not make the canon. The Church had to make an authorative ruling. For example, what can you find in the Epistle of Barnabus that is contrary to Christian faith?

The Shepherd of Hermes? The Didiache?

Ultimately, if you are willing to grant that the scriptures are inherently God-breathed and were recognised as scripture prior to the councils, then you cannot maintain that the authority of the church established them as scripture. The New Testament has an objective value as scripture, and cannot be categorised according to the subjective judgement of the church.

Thus, all the later councils did in forming the canon was to enforce discipline across the church by excluding non-scriptural writings. This is within the proper remit of the church as the pillar of truth and enforcer of discipline.

How can you be so sure, when there was so much controversy about whether or not they all belonged in the NT? Are you aware of how many of the books were disputed, and why?

Yes, but that is a whole other debate!

Yes, there were many communities that lacked literacy, and did not have many of the “fragments”. The kerygma, the Apostolic preaching was the primary form of transmission of the faith. The more the manuscripts were copied and shared, the wider their distribution, but there was never any question, as there is today, that there was some kind of contradiction between the Word of God alive in the Church, and the Word of God on the written page.

Whether or not individual churches had access to the written word is not really an argument against the Protestant position that any teachings they did receive would still have to have been subject to the written word.

Greetings Coventanter,
This is quite amazing. I assume you mean the 66 book protestant canon. Can you tell us the method you would have used to get to the 66 books that you use now during a time when there were hundreds of other books being used by the rest of the church?

Peace!!!

Contrary to the atheist position that the canon was formulated at Nicaea by power-hungry and manipulative bishops, the early attempts to codify a New Testament canon more or less reflected what was already generally accepted as such within the Christian community (the writings of Gnostics, non-Trinitarians and various heretics excepted).

The modern Protestant canon is almost identical to that proposed by Athanasius.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12416315]On the contrary, I seem to recall reading something that gave me the impression that if a belief or practice was not specifically mentioned, then it had been retained.

“We on our part also retain many ceremonies and traditions (such as the liturgy of the Mass and various canticles, festivals and the like) which serve to preserve order in the church.”

— Augsburg Confession XXVI:40

“...our churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new and have been adopted by the fault of the times although contrary to the intent of the canons...”

— Augsburg Confession, prologue to XXII, 1

“...nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic.”

— Augsburg Confession, epilogue to XXVIII, 5

Correct.

This is a concept that has changed over time. My seminary textbooks refer to it as a doctrine of the faith. Even if it is called a “practice” instead, it is still such a fundamental element of the Lutheran Faith that it functions at the level of a doctrine.

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9)

Yes, the sole rule and norm for determining doctrine. But the rule itself need not be doctrine.

The following is an excerpt from an article found on the Lutheran Theology website, and while it is by an Anglican, it speaks well to the issue:

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

1. 
   *]Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
   *]Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
   *]Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

1. 
   

   But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

   1. 
      *]Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
      *]Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
      *]Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

   1. 
      

      And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith.

      If something is not a necessary truth for salvation, it isn’t a doctrine.
      
      Jon

 

[adf417]

Contrary to the atheist position that the canon was formulated at Nicaea by power-hungry and manipulative bishops, the early attempts to codify a New Testament canon more or less reflected what was already generally accepted as such within the Christian community (the writings of Gnostics, non-Trinitarians and various heretics excepted).

The modern Protestant canon is almost identical to that proposed by Athanasius.

Yep “generally” and “almost”. Two key words that would become the driving force to call the councils. At least that is the only reasonable answer I would give to my question. Do you care to finish your answer and clarify the tiny details as to how you came up with the definitive 66 book canon. Surly “generally” and “almost” is not good enough, right? If so, who cares if someone decides today to take a couple books out or add a couple books in today? When we are talking about God’s word, I don’t think there is any room for “generally” or “almost”.

Peace!!!

 

[Duane1966]

Jesus and the Apostles clearly referred to the Septuagint. In the writings of the Church Fathers inthe first 200 years (seems to be an important date to someone) there are direct quotations of the seven disputed books.

The fact of the matter is Luther and most early Protestants would have had no trouble accepting them as inspired scripture if a certain part of Maccabees didn’t point to Purgatory. This should be troubling to you. You have allowed yourself to be led by leaders who have no problem with jettisoning scripture whenever it doesn’t fit their theology of the moment. Anyone can eliminate books of the Bible and you in good conscience can not say a thing, for you have done the same.

I am happy that you have 66 books. If a certain reformer had his way it would have been 65 or less. Then your argument would have to be, those 65 are clearly inspired, but it is obvious that James is not.

I said it earlier (in a different way) and I will say it again. You can see the fruits of SS in what it has wrought. Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed, Episcopalians, Presbyterians…and on and on, each believing that their interpretation of the bible is correct, no matter how outlandish what they want to read into it is.

Jesus did not leave the Bible, He left the Church. And it is to Her that He entrusted to guide us, until He comes again.

 

[Kliska]

Jesus did not leave the Bible, He left the Church. And it is to Her that He entrusted to guide us, until He comes again.

Well, actually I would think we’d both say (protestants and Catholics) that He sent the Holy Spirit it is to Him that He entrusted to guide us, until He comes again. The manner and promises associated to that guiding is what we differ on.

 

[pablope]

Well, actually I would think we’d both say (protestants and Catholics) that He sent the Holy Spirit it is to Him that He entrusted to guide us, until He comes again. The manner and promises associated to that guiding is what we differ on.

To whom did Christ promise the guidance of the Holy Spirit…to the individual or to the Church?

Who will teach the truth…the individual or the Church?

 

[guanophore]

The Protestant 66 book version. Not wrapped up nicely in a single Bible, of course. We cannot know how widely they were distributed, but I am certain that even in the ancient world, there was a dedicated enough scholarly class to ensure that at least every church would have access to the scriptures, if not every individual believer.

There were no 66 book bibles before the Reformation.

Who is the “ancient scholarly class”?

What makes you so sure there were bibles in every Church or for every believer? Can you produce any evidence to support such a claim?

You need to distinguish between the Word (Jesus) and the word (scripture). Paul clearly sates in 2 Timothy 3:15 that the written word (Holy Scriptures as he terms is) is able to make us wise unto salvation. Do you dispute this?

Not a bit.

What Scriptures was Paul referencing?

Also, I do not know when the term ‘New Testament’ came to be used for scripture, but there can be no doubt that even in Paul’s day his own writings were regarded as New Testament scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Yes, but that recognition came from the authority appointed by Christ.

Ultimately, if you are willing to grant that the scriptures are inherently God-breathed and were recognised as scripture prior to the councils, then you cannot maintain that the authority of the church established them as scripture.

Both things are true. They were Scripture as soon as they were written, and they were established as such for the Church by the authority appointed by Christ. This was necessary because there were hundreds of books/epistles floating around claiming to be inspired, and accepted by some as inspired.

It is no different than the Trinity. Of course the Church believed in one God in three persons, but this also needed to be “established” through an authorative council to prevent heresies.

The New Testament has an objective value as scripture, and cannot be categorised according to the subjective judgement of the church.

Both things are true, again, but the testimony of the Church is not “subjective” either. The Word of God is also alive and well in the Church, and He has promised to lead her into “all Truth”, therefore when the Church makes such dogmatic pronouncements, it comes from the Holy Spirit.

Thus, all the later councils did in forming the canon was to enforce discipline across the church by excluding non-scriptural writings. This is within the proper remit of the church as the pillar of truth and enforcer of discipline.

Amen!

And it is not subjective, either.

Yes, but that is a whole other debate!

I know you might want to believe it is, but it is not. If the Church does not have authority, then the Church cannot make the decision to determine which books belong in the canon. If the Church does have “the proper remit of the church as the pillar of truth” then the Scriptures are not the “final authority” on every thing.

Whether or not individual churches had access to the written word is not really an argument against the Protestant position that any teachings they did receive would still have to have been subject to the written word.

This is a self contradictory statement. How can they be subject if the “norm” is not available?

" So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15–16

The truth is that there has always been an equal and entwined relationship between the Word of God that is written and that which was received orally.

the early attempts to codify a New Testament canon more or less reflected what was already generally accepted as such within the Christian community (the writings of Gnostics, non-Trinitarians and various heretics excepted).

Yes. They were writings that were vigorously protected and promulgated by the Magesterium.

The modern Protestant canon is almost identical to that proposed by Athanasius.

And by what authority does one justify the “almost”?

Why are is the Septuagint used by the Apostles not good enough?