Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[spina1953]

Just to clarify, we do not regard SS as an invention of the Reformation but a return to the ancient and holy apostolic practice. You are operating from a false understanding of how we view it.

Hi Tomyris: I understand what you are saying but the truth of the matter is that it is not and never was an ancient and holy Apostolic practice.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Tomyris: I understand what you are saying but the truth of the matter is that it is not and never was an ancient and holy Apostolic practice.

Hi spina,
Neither was universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. Or infallibility* ex cathedra.*
Or even Purgatory. Yet, some will say that all of them, including the status of scripture as the highest norm, is alluded to, even implicitly, in the early Church.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Hi Tomyris: I understand what you are saying but the truth of the matter is that it is not and never was an ancient and holy Apostolic practice.

Well, I guess we will take it on your say-so. Thanks for straightening us out!

You will note, I guess, how Paul NEVER used existing Scripture to prove a point, but ALWAYS used tradition. And how often the ECFs used tradition and …

Sorry…I think what you call Sacred Tradition rose out of logical extensions from Scripture, human traditions, human reasonings and error. Otherwise, you see, I would be CATHOLIC.

 

[spina1953]

Well, I guess we will take it on your say-so. Thanks for straightening us out!

You will note, I guess, how Paul NEVER used existing Scripture to prove a point, but ALWAYS used tradition. And how often the ECFs used tradition and …

Sorry…I think what you call Sacred Tradition rose out of logical extensions from Scripture, human traditions, human reasonings and error. Otherwise, you see, I would be CATHOLIC.

What became the NT was first oral tradition then when it was written down those who wrote what became the NT did not even think let along imagine that it would ever be considered a one volume book with the last word. From my own reading of early Church history, oral teaching was the norm and what was written had to conform to that oral teaching. SS did not facture in to it at any point for the early Christians.

 

[guanophore]

I think that one of the problems with SS is that one does not always understand the authors intent and the meaning he wanted his readers to understand. This is where Tradition comes in. I am sure that in those days those that heard and or read these writings asked for explanations . Also we need to remember that those who wrote that now is the NT did not think themselves inspired nor did they ever thought that their writings would become Sacred Scripture. It was the oral teachings that they passed on most of which were never written down.

There were times when what was written were burned and destroyed, so the oral transmission was the more important than the written. I would also point out that say three or four people read the same passage of Scripture and they all have a different understanding of it, but each claim to be guided by the HS neither can anyone say each is wrong if each says that they are guided by the HS, In the end all it causes is chaos and confusion to what was intended and meant by the writer of the passage they read.

I was really resonating with this today, Spina. I heard a Catholic Apologist (not sure who) on the radio who was reading this passage:

“You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” 2 Corinthians 3:2–4

This principle of the Word of God being alive and well in the Church seems to have gotten lost during the Reformation. I understand that the Reformers had lost faith in the Magesterium, but the sensus fidelium was also thrown out with the jettison of the authority. I think they believed that there was no reliable custodian of the Word of God.

There is a consensus, even among those who embrace SS, that the Word of God was delivered to the Church:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13–14.

But what seems to have happened is that those who embraced SS stopped having faith in God to preserve His word where He placed it.

" so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it " (Isa. 55;11).

The Apostles taught that the Word of God would remain in the Church until the “end of the age”. So how did God become so weakened that His power could be thwarted by men? His Word was unable to accomplish the purpose to which He sent it (to make the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truth)!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just to clarify, we do not regard SS as an invention of the Reformation but a return to the ancient and holy apostolic practice. You are operating from a false understanding of how we view it.

Hello Tomyris

A false understanding? The purpose of this discussion to gain the understanding.

Can you prove your Sola Scriptura practice is a return to the ancient and holy apostolic practice? Before the bible was canonized four hundred years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So as to gain a true understanding of Sola Scriptura.

When only the Catholic faith was present and in full practice defeating heretics and heresies many times at the cost of Catholic Saints blood and martyrs. Can you prove which one of these witnesses of Christ; were practicing a Sola Scriptura faith, when the bible books were not canonized yet?

peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;12428336]Hi spina,
Neither was universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction.

That’s debatable Jon. Peter is always listed as first among the apostles in scripture. Jesus only commissioned Peter to tend and feed His flock, with the keys only Jesus can give until Jesus returns. This is all accounted from holy scripture supported by Apostolic Tradition.

Or infallibility* ex cathedra*.

From what is revealed here from sola Scriptura, those Oral words spoken from the breath of the Apostles are infallible because they became written and canonized by the Catholic Church as Inspired of God. Those Words spoken from the breath Orally by the apostles that did not get placed in holy Writ, lives on in the Apostolic Catholic faith practice unchanged as built upon the “rock”. It was Peter alone who walked on water with Jesus, it was Peter alone who received the Holy vision from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the Way. And It is Peter whom Jesus promised to be with always.

Infallibility protects the divine revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ from ever falling into error. If Sola Scriptura denies Jesus presence with his Holy Bride, who promises to never leave her orphan, then Sola Scriptura contradicts Jesus promises.

Or even Purgatory

.

The faith of Purgatory stems from the ancient Hebrew written and oral Traditions. It is not something new. It is only new to Sola Scriptura who is never there with Jesus to receive the Hebrew knowledge and understanding of death, the under the earth and levels of heaven. Paul clears this up in Christianity with the cleansing fire that burns but does not destroy. You relate Purgatory from a protestant revolt to authority, not the ancient Hebrew faith that Jesus fulfills to release the captives in death. Sola Scriptura never gains this ancient fulfilled Hebrew faith in Jesus Christ, because it handed down both orally and supported by scripture both old and new.

Yet, some will say that all of them, including the status of scripture as the highest norm, is alluded to, even implicitly, in the early Church

.

The only difference here Jon is; No early church Father ever places or adds the Sola to Scriptura as a faith practice. Scriptura is applied with Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles who were of a Jewish faith understanding. Sola Scriptura misses all of this.

The early church never isolates scripture with a sola. They applied three standards. Oral Apostolic Tradition, Scripture, and the authority of the keys by the Magisterium in the Apostolic Successors.

Sola Scriptura in the early Church was used by heretics who invented heresies from their own Sola Scriptura interpretations without the keys and magisterium, which left their teachings excommunicated. Many of these heretics rejected bible books and tried to force their own writings and books as inspired but never succeeded, due to the Oral Apostolic Tradition infallibly handed down from the Apostles.

Is it true or false Jon, that your sola Scriptura rejects the authority of the apostolic successors from Peter and the apostles? Rejects Apostolic Oral Tradition as handed down from the apostles to their successors? When Luther introduces his own traditional faith from Sola Scriptura?

Peace Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sorry…I think what you call Sacred Tradition rose out of logical extensions from Scripture, human traditions, human reasonings and error. Otherwise, you see, I would be CATHOLIC.

The Mass that Each Apostle evangelized those Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and other faith communities with the seven sacraments were all invented by human tradition, human reasoning’s and error? That rose out of logical extensions from scripture? When scripture was not fully canonized yet to gain any form of Sola Scriptura faith.

Wow! Does Sola Scriptura really reveal such a denial of Christian history recorded? I am at a lost for words for the first time on these boards:shrug:

 

[guanophore]

The Mass that Each Apostle evangelized those Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and other faith communities with the seven sacraments were all invented by human tradition, human reasoning’s and error? That rose out of logical extensions from scripture? When scripture was not fully canonized yet to gain any form of Sola Scriptura faith.

Wow! Does Sola Scriptura really reveal such a denial of Christian history recorded? I am at a lost for words for the first time on these boards:shrug:

SS does require the denial of a great deal of Christian history. I realize it was invented to correct history - to replace the corrupt Catholic clerics in Europe with something more pure and reliable. However, it was developed in a vacuum, since the Eastern Clerics, who also are custodians of the once for all divine deposit of faith, did not suffer the secular temptations of Bishops and Cardinals in Europe because they had no adequate political affiliation. So one who espouses SS has an impossible challenge in explaining away the EO rejection of the practice.

 

[spina1953]

I was really resonating with this today, Spina. I heard a Catholic Apologist (not sure who) on the radio who was reading this passage:

“You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” 2 Corinthians 3:2–4

This principle of the Word of God being alive and well in the Church seems to have gotten lost during the Reformation. I understand that the Reformers had lost faith in the Magesterium, but the sensus fidelium was also thrown out with the jettison of the authority. I think they believed that there was no reliable custodian of the Word of God.

There is a consensus, even among those who embrace SS, that the Word of God was delivered to the Church:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13–14.

But what seems to have happened is that those who embraced SS stopped having faith in God to preserve His word where He placed it.

" so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it " (Isa. 55;11).

The Apostles taught that the Word of God would remain in the Church until the “end of the age”. So how did God become so weakened that His power could be thwarted by men? His Word was unable to accomplish the purpose to which He sent it (to make the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truth)!

Hi Guanophore: When the Apostles first began to teach and preach the Word of God as they had been taught by Jesus Himself and the Guidance of the HS which was promised to them to remember all that was taught to them, Just as Jesus did not write anything but spoke orally, so too did the Apostles. I think people forget that the Apostles while they did not have a formal education they did know how to read, if not write. Most people of that time and place also had learned to pass on what they learned almost word for word. it was Paul who started to write his Letters but that was in response to what was happening in those place where he started Churches and was not able to be there personally. This may have been true of those Apostles who did write, But the bottom line seems to me is that none of the Writers of the NT ever thought that what they did write would become Sacred Scripture. It also seems that many of the early Church Fathers of the second century, relied on the oral over the written, at least as long as there were either Apostles still living or those who had been with the Apostles and had learned from them.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me from reading history of the Reformation that Luther thought that Scripture could be easily read and understood, yet, that backfired in that others had different understandings which led to various fractions at the beginnings of Protestantism. This is where SS failed in that there was not unity of thought as to what passages of Scripture meant and what the Authors intended it to mean. it was more what the reader thinks it means without the benefit of Church authority, and the individual became the authority in which now if the church taught something it had to be found in Scripture or it was not accepted and the lay person would in a sense keep watch making sure that the church was teaching correctly from Scripture so in effect if the pastor says something anyone could rightly challenge what is being taught by saying that it is not found in Scripture, which then is the authority of the individual and not the authority of the Church. People can and do have different understandings of what they read depending of their life experiences and learning abilities.

They look to the meaning of this word or that word, looking at one single passage and linking it to other passages by authors who may have been talking about something else and putting them together top form an completely new and often novel meaning and understanding quite different from what the original writer intended and meant, really just taking out of context and making it fit the meaning the read is looking for or wants it to mean instead of what the author intends it to mean. This is why in my opinion SS does not work.

 

[Kliska]

“You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” 2 Corinthians 3:2–4

This principle of the Word of God being alive and well in the Church seems to have gotten lost during the Reformation. I understand that the Reformers had lost faith in the Magesterium, but the sensus fidelium was also thrown out with the jettison of the authority. I think they believed that there was no reliable custodian of the Word of God.

There is a consensus, even among those who embrace SS, that the Word of God was delivered to the Church:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13–14.

But what seems to have happened is that those who embraced SS stopped having faith in God to preserve His word where He placed it.

" so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it " (Isa. 55;11).

The Apostles taught that the Word of God would remain in the Church until the “end of the age”. So how did God become so weakened that His power could be thwarted by men? His Word was unable to accomplish the purpose to which He sent it (to make the Church the Pillar and Ground of the Truth)!

I think you’ve summed up well. In short, I see no promise in scripture that the church could not get it wrong. Paul said he could be wrong in teaching on faith and morals, unless someone sees that as hyperbole. God’s power can never be thwarted by man, but God gives free will. So, we have people directly taught by Apostles abandoning the faith even whilst the Apostles were alive. Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returned, why would He need to ask that if He guaranteed it? The Apostles gave warning after warning about the danger of false teaching; why did they never say just to hearken to the successor of Peter and you’d never go wrong on doctrine?

Part of the truth that we all recognize is that God wanted certain things written down, after all, He inspired the OT and NT writings. John made it a point to talk about writing down the information people needed to know. We can clearly see in the OT, when the people departed from God, one of the things that would happen is that the writings would be “rediscovered” and shared again. The writings did not change because they were literally written, copied, shared and we can perform text crit on them to see if they are the same or not.

As I said, I do think you’ve summed it up well. The difference between us is that the RCC teaches that Scripture is inerrant, but also the church was promised inerrancy in certain instances as well, in perpetuity. From the dire warnings I see in scripture, I just don’t see that taught.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You and I will always disagree about the role of action. Actions matter, deeds matter, especially as a witness to Jesus Christ, and who His disciples actually are. Teaching is done by word and by deed.

That’s not the way Jesus viewed the situation apparently. He told his followers:

Matthew 23
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

So, the hypocritical Pharisees were DOING the wrong things, but Jesus said that they must be obeyed, anyway. Thus, their doing was in error but it was their teaching that required obedience. Bad DOING did not abrogate their authority - the very opposite of what you are suggesting.

Food for thought?

This, Kliska, is why the Protestant Reformers were unjustified in separating themselves from a Church which they saw as corrupt. The clergy were DOING bad things, but they were still TEACHING true doctrine. That’s the gift of infallibility.

Acts 5:33
But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 "For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 "After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 "So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them

Gee, you kinda make a case for the truth of Catholicism for despite the best efforts of the reformers, the Catholic Church has not been overthrown. Meanwhile, Protestant groups divide, sub-divide and divide once more into thousands of tiny fragmented groups.

 

[Kliska]

That’s not the way Jesus viewed the situation apparently. He told his followers:

Matthew 23
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

So, the hypocritical Pharisees were DOING the wrong things, but Jesus said that they must be obeyed, anyway. Thus, their doing was in error but it was their teaching that required obedience.

This, Kliska, is why the Protestant Reformers were unjustified in separating themselves from a Church which they saw as corrupt. The clergy were DOING bad things, but they were still TEACHING true doctrine. That’s the gift of infallibility.

You can try to put new wine into old wine skins, but it doesn’t work well. What you put forth is begging the question. You buy into what you are saying, hence you are Catholic, but not everyone does.

Gee, you kinda make a case for the truth of Catholicism for despite the best efforts of the reformers, the Catholic Church has not been overthrown. Meanwhile, Protestant groups divide, sub-divide and divide once more into thousands of tiny fragmented groups.

I make a case for allowing things to play out without threatening to kill other believers in God. It hasn’t always been the case in history unfortunately. Protestants are still here, the “sola’s” are still here, the RCC is still here, EO is still here. Even the RCC is seeing more and more that there are certain strengths to the Protestant churches (ecclesial communities according to Rome) that are admirable. One of my favorite Catholics, Mother Angelica, remarked on it often.

I think it is time all we Christian brethren wake up and take a look around us at our brothers and sisters in Christ and figure out we all serve the same Master. Many protestants deny that about Catholics and many Catholics deny that about protestants (though the RCC does not). Mark 9:39 I know you disagree, but that’s not on me.

 

[Covenanter]

it doesn’t seem to matter even if they did speak for the universal Catholic Church.

The Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage were regional councils - councils composed of a body of local bishops whose authority naturally was only within their own geographic areas.

Can you point me to a pre-Trent council where the RCC authoritatively declared the canon in its present form?

The claims that the 382 Council of Rome declared this canon seem to have been disproven and disregarded by the academic community. Certainly, if a quote from Augustine was in the declaration, it must come from a later date than that claimed.

Do you have evidence of a 66 book canon dating back to the early church? May we see this evidence please?

No, because this is off-topic. My point is to explain what the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura is. It is enough for our purposes to say that Protestants believe the 66 book canon was accepted in the early church, and in this sense appeal to ancient practice just as the RCC does.

One must remember, The Catholic Church does not, will not, has no reason to pronounce authoritatively until the need arises which is the reason it took 325 years to develop the Nicene Creed. Trent, as an ecumenical council, which you still probably do not acknowledge as an ecumenical council, only re-affirmed and officially closed the canon which had already been in use.

I’m a bit confused. I thought you had said earlier that the canon was officially closed at the 382 Council of Rome?

BTW, it is quite interesting how protestants refer to Trent as having some sort of an officially declaration for Catholics when it is not an ecumenical council in the eyes of the protestant, but when Rome, Carthage, and Hippo are brought up, they quickly jump on the “they were not ecumenical councils” bandwagon.

Peace!!!

No, I did not say Carthage, Hippo etc were not ecumenical councils on the grounds that Protestants do not accept them. That would be a silly argument to use when debating a Catholic.

I said that Carthage, Hippo etc only ever claimed to be regional councils - a collection of local bishops who speak only for their jurisdiction, and not universally for the RCC.

The first to speak universally for the RCC on the establishment of the present canon seems to have been Trent.

 

[spina1953]

Maybe someone can show where in the NT that says that Jesus said to the Apostles to write what I have taught you?, So far I do not see that. The Apostles taught and preached orally, and only a few ever write anything at all, and why did not all of the Apostles write what they preached and taught? It seems to me that apparently not all of the Apostles felt the need to write but instead preached and taught orally. another reason why SS does not work.

 

[Kliska]

Maybe someone can show where in the NT that says that Jesus said to the Apostles to write what I have taught you?, So far I do not see that. The Apostles taught and preached orally, and only a few ever write anything at all, and why did not all of the Apostles write what they preached and taught? It seems to me that apparently not all of the Apostles felt the need to write but instead preached and taught orally. another reason why SS does not work.

The RCC teaches Scripture as being inspired. That means God guided them to write what they wrote.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You can try to put new wine into old wine skins, but it doesn’t work well. What you put forth is begging the question. You buy into what you are saying, hence you are Catholic, but not everyone does.

You said that doing is a form of teaching, but Jesus clearly makes a distinction between what the Pharisees were doing and what they were saying. What they SAID had authority requiring obedience; what they did could be ignored.

Now, is it so difficult for you to concede this point? If so, why?

 

[Covenanter]

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

Either by word of mouth or letter. Sorry. St. Paul himself puts written tradition (scripture) and unwritten on an equal footing. Sola scriptura is UNSCRIPTURAL, no matter how you parse it.

The phrase “word of mouth” indicates them hearing these things indirectly, not directly from the spoken words of Paul himself. He is saying to accept the traditions whether the church receives his teachings in a letter, or hears only indirectly, by word of mouth, of such teachings from neighbouring churches.

It would be interesting to hear what exactly is said in the original language.

But beyond that, as others have pointed out, it was almost a hundred years before the last NT book was written. Where was the Church before that? If you believe your church is “based on the Bible”, who was it who decided what belonged in the Bible?

God decided what belonged in the Bible when he inspired the writers who wrote the scripture.

What do you think Peter considered scripture when he called Paul’s epistles scripture (2 Peter 3:16)? Peter seems to have believed in New Testament scripture hundreds of years before the RCC even claims to have established it.

Poor Martin Luther. He wanted to get rid of one pope, but instead he made every man his own pope.

You will rarely find an individual, even with the highest office in any particular Protestant denomination, which claims one-hundredth of the spiritual authority which the Pope claims to have.

PS – considering the wild variety of beliefs betwixt Protestant denominations, I think it is very bold, even arrogant, of you to state that this one doctrine is common to all, when there is no unity of belief even with regard to essential ideas such as baptism and even the doctrine of the Trinity.

Please do not surmise about my character. As I have said already, I spoke generally of Protestants in the exact same way that the article in question, published here on Catholics Answers did. Anyway, if there were no beliefs shared by Protestants, then we wouldn’t speak of Protestants as a group at all. Sola Scripture is one of those beliefs that sets Protestants apart from the rest of Western Christianity. Lets consider two of the biggest groups within Protestantism - Lutheranism and Calvinism. Can you tell me where they differ on the matter of Sola Scriptura?

PPS – Do you believe in the Trinity? Why? How? Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t, and they read the same Bible. They think Jesus is not quite God, but something like God. Some Pentecostals don’t, either, and believe in something called Modalism. They read the same Bible. (BTW those are both ancient heresies debated, refuted, and refuted in the early days of the Church). Most Protestants accept the formulation of the Trinity as defined in the Nicene Creed, whether they know it or not.

I believe in the Trinity because it is taught in the scripture, and because that is the God I worship. Jehovah’s Witnesses use a unique Bible published by the Watchtower to justify their non-Trinitarian theology. Others will err in their interpretation of the scriptures.

As for the Nicene Creed, many Protestant denominations include its teachings on the Trinity in their confessions of faith. We don’t have a problem with that.

 

[Kliska]

You said that doing is a form of teaching, but Jesus clearly makes a distinction between what the Pharisees were doing and what they were saying. What they SAID had authority requiring obedience; what they did could be ignored.

Now, is it so difficult for you to concede this point? If so, why?

You don’t concede a point that isn’t sound. You are trying to make the New Covenant conform to the Old. It does not and cannot work that way. New wine does not go into old wine skins. Just as Jesus talked of tithing, and tithing is not for the church, so too are some of His other admonishments.

Your posts tend to always beg the question.