The practice of sola scriptura from the 1st century to the 4th century...?

[JonNC]

Blessings my friend. Indeed scripture is a source for hermeunetics for the church to one accountable;however,it is not the only source.

And His blessings also with you.

I agree. For me as a Lutheran, I am bound to the three creeds, the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechsim, etc. The teachings of any Lutheran are also accountalbe to these. For example, if a Lutheran pastor begins to teach that the Sacrament is only symbolic, that His presence is not really there, he is accountable for these false teachings, as they are not the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions.
We only say that scripture is the final norm.

Jon

 

[CompSciGuy]

As a convert who is confident in the Catholic faith, I have to say that I don’t really think the “where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only authority” as a very good argument against sola scriptura. It’s like saying “where in this TV set up instruction manual does it say that these instructions are all you need to use the TV?” Even if scripture were intended to be the sole rule of faith, why would it have to be explicitly written in there that it is? In the case of the TV manual, perhaps there is more to know about operating the TV, but the manual is all you need in order to do it. The Protestant point of view is that the Bible is all you need to live a life of faith.

That being said, the following I think are good arguments against sola scriptura:

1. Tradition has always had a place of authority and has always played a major role in the creation of Christian dogma from the earliest times of the Church. The authority of the Church has always been regarded as the source of truth before the reformation.
2. Like others have already stated, the Bible itself is a product of that Tradition and Church authority, not vice-versa.
3. The Bible is not comprehensive in its teaching of the faith. There are elements of the faith, such as the sacraments and the Trinity, that are talked about in scripture but not fully explained. That is why there are disagreements among Protestants on matters such as what the Eucharist is, what baptism really is, how they are to be performed/observed, etc. Now to this the Protestant may reply “well these things are ‘non-essentials,’ all that matters is that you believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross and we should repent of our sins and accept him as our savior. Everything else, like the sacraments, are up for interpretation.” To this I would ask, why would Jesus establish a faith, give us sacraments and not have something specific in mind when he did so? Did he come to give us a Church or just a template for different Churches? The way Paul and the apostles talk about things like the Eucharist and baptism, they speak as if we are already expected to know what they are. That’s because these things were taught by the Church in those days, as they are today.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

Correct.

No the way I understand it. That’s why I said that the Church’s proper role is hermeunetics, not the individual. Regardless of what I think or interpret, to be Lutheran I must confess the Augsburg Confession, etc. So, sola scriptura is a practice of the Church. Lutherans, no more than Catholics, can go off willy nilly claiming that their own interpretation is right, when it conflicts with Lutheran (or for Catholics, Catholic) doctrine.

Jon

I know you believe the teaching office of the Lutheran church is in charge of hermeneutics, but in general, each and every sola scriptura proponent is in charge when it comes to hermeneutics - correct?

 

[JonNC]

I know you believe the teaching office of the Lutheran church is in charge of hermeneutics, but in general, each and every sola scriptura proponent is in charge when it comes to hermeneutics - correct?

All Lutherans should, Joe. I can’t speak for other communions.

 

[joe370]

All Lutherans should, Joe. I can’t speak for other communions.

Of course. That was a silly question on my part.

 

[joe370]

Hey CompSciGuy…

As a convert who is confident in the Catholic faith, I have to say that I don’t really think the “where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only authority” as a very good argument against sola scriptura…

I kind of understand your point. Of course, I think the whole* “where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only authority”* - idea comes from protestants asking catholics similar questions but catholics are not sola scriptura proponents so that whole scripture alone mentality is not a hard and fast rule for catholics even though, as far as I can tell, every catholic tradition, other than the assumption, is grounded in scripture. Even the assumption makes perfect sense if Mary’s sinlessness is grounded in scripture which of course it is.

Regarding the TV set up instruction manual analogy it doesn’t appear that anyone is actually claiming that the manual says that those instructions are all one needs to use the TV like you mentioned.

If scripture alone, as the Christians sole rule of faith does not have to be explicitly/implicitly spelled out within the pages of scripture then how can one know that scripture alone is in fact the Christians sole rule of faith? They would have to defer to some outside authority.

That being said, the following I think are good arguments against sola scriptura:

1. Tradition has always had a place of authority and has always played a major role in the creation of Christian dogma from the earliest times of the Church. The authority of the Church has always been regarded as the source of truth before the reformation.

2

. Like others have already stated, the Bible itself is a product of that Tradition and Church authority, not vice-versa.

The whole chicken and the egg argument…

1. The Bible is not comprehensive in its teaching of the faith. There are elements of the faith, such as the sacraments and the Trinity, that are talked about in scripture but not fully explained. That is why there are disagreements among Protestants on matters such as what the Eucharist is, what baptism really is, how they are to be performed/observed, etc.

Now to this the Protestant may reply “well these things are ‘non-essentials,’ all that matters is that you believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross and we should repent of our sins and accept him as our savior. Everything else, like the sacraments, are up for interpretation.” To this I would ask, why would Jesus establish a faith, give us sacraments and not have something specific in mind when he did so?

Many will simply say: where is the word “sacrament” found in the bible? To which I suppose I would ask: where in the bible does the bible talk about essential and non-essential teachings?

Even if scripture said: scripture alone is the Christians sole rule of faith, God would surely leave His church with a means of interpreting scripture via the guidance of the HS so as to avoid the haphazard, willy-nilly approach we see when it comes to private interpretation as each and every Christian is supposedly moved by the HS - I would hope!

Did he come to give us a Church or just a template for different Churches?

Good point? Of course, I think, catholics suggesting that Jesus founded only the one catholic church (which is true in my opinion) - can be very off-putting to protestants because it seems akin to invalidating their own man-made church, which is not the case. Even the CCC says:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin… Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

The way Paul and the apostles talk about things like the Eucharist and baptism, they speak as if we are already expected to know what they are. That’s because these things were taught by the Church in those days, as they are today.

 

[CopticChristian]

Greetings, Joe, my good friend.
Truly, Joe, sola scriptura as a practice of the Church to hold teachers and teachings accountable was not a needed practice during the apostolic era, and probably not through the early councils. Perhaps one could speculate that the breakdown of Tradition approaching and following the Great Schism led to the need for a reliable norm, at least until such time as the Church could again find unity in Tradition.

Just a speculation on my part.

Jon

No disrespect. What Church? Reliable norm? For Whom? What are the results of this reliable norm and if it is reliable what are the fruits?

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Joe,

Correct.

No the way I understand it. That’s why I said that the Church’s proper role is hermeunetics, not the individual. Regardless of what I think or interpret, to be Lutheran I must confess the Augsburg Confession, etc. So, sola scriptura is a practice of the Church. Lutherans, no more than Catholics, can go off willy nilly claiming that their own interpretation is right, when it conflicts with Lutheran (or for Catholics, Catholic) doctrine.
Jon

What you are then saying is that the Doctrine is the standard.

 

[CopticChristian]

:tiphat:

Would this be considered an argument from silence?:sad_yes:

 

[joe370]

Would this be considered an argument from silence?:sad_yes:

No. Someone mentioned that there were no non-catholic responses to the thread, and Jon was simply saying: I have responded.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by JonNC
Greetings, Joe, my good friend.
Truly, Joe, sola scriptura as a practice of the Church to hold teachers and teachings accountable was not a needed practice during the apostolic era, and probably not through the early councils. Perhaps one could speculate that the breakdown of Tradition approaching and following the Great Schism led to the need for a reliable norm, at least until such time as the Church could again find unity in Tradition.

No disrespect noticed.

What Church? Well, I used the term Church loosely. What I mean is that within the Lutheran communion.
Reliable norm? If we accept that scripture is the irrerant word of God, would that not make it reliable? If it isn’t reliable, then all of Christian faith breaks down.

For Lutherans the result is true doctrines which are taught by the Church, the fruits being members being taught in the true faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What you are then saying is that the Doctrine is the standard.

For Lutherans, yes. For me to be a Lutheran, I am bound to the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions, which include most notably the 3 ancient creeds, the Augsburg Confession, it Apology, and the Small Catechism, all of which reflect the truth of scripture and the catholic faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No. Someone mentioned that there were no non-catholic responses to the thread, and Jon was simply saying: I have responded.

Exactly.

Jon

 

[jericho777]

Exactly. I am told by almost every sola scriptura proponent that catholic doctrinal development has done nothing more than add man-made tradition, unnecessarily, to the “pure word of God,” and yet SS, as a 16th century man-made tradition (since it’s found nowhere in the bible) - has added to the “pure word of God”, unnecessarily, to the point of fracturing Christianity, sadly, to the point of disrepair.

Hello joe, Let me say this people don’t want answer posts where there is little room for dialog and an exchange of ideas. They don’t like straw man arguments or someone trying to sandbag them.

I think scripture is the standard and filter by which we live out our faith based on its demonstrated use in the OT. The word Torah Strong’s 8450 which we translate as “law” literally means instruction. God’s law is instruction because it is a different concept of what we think of when we think of as law. Where do we find that instruction but in the bible.

You cannot deny there are great differences between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the cc. If these practices were so important for Christian life why is there no instruction, demonstration or mention for any of them anywhere in scripture?

 

[DadDave]

One way of looking at all this is:
Catholics:
Scripture, Tradition. Magesterium
Orthodox:
Scripture, Tradition, Church Fathers
Many Protestants:
Scripture, Reason, Experience (or a similar variation on the theme)

One issue I had with many of the Protestant bible studies I attended and controversies with in the Protestant churches I attended was the historical “amnesia” of sorts that many Protestants aren’t even aware of they have. When the denom I was in started have the controversies over the same sex ordination, marriage etc I was very confused so I went back to scriptures but everyone had twisted the words to say what they wanted them to say. So I thought t myself, what did St Paul mean when he wrote in his Epistles? I obviously couldn’t ask St Paul, but I could read what other Christians in the first centuries believed he meant. And then I found this treasure trove of info that lead me to believe that the early church was most similar to the apostolic churches (RC, OO, EO) at least from a liturgical standpoint.
Now let me back up and say that just because 1 church father says something doesn’t make it an open & shut case. Rather, just like when reading the Bible, one can’t proof-text a couple of quotes. But rather the overall message needs to be understood. Not an easy task.
While Catholic parishes in America are getting better at doing liturgy many still lack the “community” feel that many Protestant and orthodox churches have – but it is difficult to have a “community” feel with 1500+ families.
Sorry for the rambling
There has to be some appeal to the historical sources to properly put the scriptures into context.
Lest this turn into some neo-Gnostic “knowledge is everything” rant, truly living out the Greatest Commandment is all our ultimate goal.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jericho,…

Hello joe, Let me say this people don’t want answer posts where there is little room for dialog and an exchange of ideas. They don’t like straw man arguments or someone trying to sandbag them.

I am not attempting to sandbag. Why isn’t there much room for dialog regarding this thread? It’s a legitimate question. You have posed a similar and opposite argument yourself regarding the CC without actually addressing the OP.

By definition a straw man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Jericho, clearly I am not guilty of that so please clarify your statement?

I think scripture is the standard and filter by which we live out our faith based on its demonstrated use in the OT. The word Torah Strong’s 8450 which we translate as “law” literally means instruction. God’s law is instruction because it is a different concept of what we think of when we think of as law. Where do we find that instruction but in the bible.

OK…

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

You cannot deny there are great differences between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the cc.

Jericho, that is a partial straw man and a definite red herring but I will respond anyway:
Unlike you I I see no differences between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the cc, but you of course are entitled to your opinion and I of course will always respect it even if I don’t quite understand it.

What I definitely see is a major difference between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the SS which brings us right back to the OP.

If these practices were so important for Christian life why is there no instruction, demonstration or mention for any of them anywhere in scripture?

Irrelevant to the thread, but I’ll bite: Which catholic practices?

Jericho the thread is about SS. If the practice of sola scriptura was so important for Christian life why is there no instruction, demonstration or mention of it anywhere in scripture?

 

[Heuchler]

Hello joe, Let me say this people don’t want answer posts where there is little room for dialog and an exchange of ideas. They don’t like straw man arguments or someone trying to sandbag them.

I think scripture is the standard and filter by which we live out our faith based on its demonstrated use in the OT. The word Torah Strong’s 8450 which we translate as “law” literally means instruction. God’s law is instruction because it is a different concept of what we think of when we think of as law. Where do we find that instruction but in the bible.

You cannot deny there are great differences between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the cc. If these practices were so important for Christian life why is there no instruction, demonstration or mention for any of them anywhere in scripture?

First, please point out the differences in faith because if we could see these differences we probably wouldn’t be Catholic (even though the scripture writers and the people who compiled scripture were the people who founded the Catholic Church).

And the Bible indicates that it is not the only mode of instruction.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

The writings or the Gospels were never meant to be the only trustable thing. The Bible also states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Besides only the Church could read the Bible until recently because no one had the money or time to learn to read and for a family to buy a Bible up until the time of the printing press would have bankrupted anyone besides the rich. To say that the Bible is the only form of instruction would be foolish considering the majority of humanity wasn’t able to read until recently.

 

[jericho777]

Hey Jericho,…

I am not attempting to sandbag. Why isn’t there much room for dialog regarding this thread? It’s a legitimate question. You have posed a similar and opposite argument yourself regarding the CC without actually addressing the OP.

By definition a straw man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Jericho, clearly I am not guilty of that so please clarify your statement?

OK…

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

Jericho, that is a partial straw man and a definite red herring but I will respond anyway:
Unlike you I I see no differences between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the cc, but you of course are entitled to your opinion and I of course will always respect it even if I don’t quite understand it.

What I definitely see is a major difference between the faith revealed in the bible and the practice of the SS which brings us right back to the OP.

Irrelevant to the thread, but I’ll bite: Which catholic practices?

Jericho the thread is about SS. If the practice of sola scriptura was so important for Christian life why is there no instruction, demonstration or mention of it anywhere in scripture?

I explained it wrong. Not saying it’s intentional in any way just the impression it leaves. People get a little gun shy if you know what I’m saying. Why do you think there is little response? Don’t worry don’t bother me none.

I used the precedence of the application of the OT where it is the sole basis for instruction. The torah is the sole central basis for all OT instruction in Judaism. They were using the OT in the mean time demonstrating and revealing Christ from beginning to end. By the end of the first century though all scriptures were written and circulated among the churches. So they were not left without the word of God. Obviously they had the original apostles relaying what Jesus taught them first hand and would later be codified in scripture. Incidentally were the original apostles during that time able to discern true scriptures from the false ones?

Not meant to be a straw man or red herring in any way just agreeing with your quote “Exactly. I am told by almost every sola scriptura proponent that catholic doctrinal development has done nothing more than add man-made tradition, unnecessarily, to the “pure word of God,” and yet SS, as a 16th century man-made tradition (since it’s found nowhere in the bible) - has added to the “pure word of God”, unnecessarily, to the point of fracturing Christianity, sadly, to the point of disrepair.” There are many rites and rituals that are not directly in scripture and only can be justified in tradition. These also were not in place before the death of the last apostle and came later. That is where the controversy arises from.

SS is based on the original use of the torah for instruction. It is from day one. The OT is constantly quoting itself as well as in the NT. They operate by using an established precedence to substantiate their premise. It is the modus operandi for the NT. Jesus came to fulfill the Torah and Prophets. The NT explains and further reveals the OT. The Bereans relied on nothing other than scripture to vet Paul’s teachings.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jericho, I will digress for a moment to address your statements. Your thoughts regarding the following:

jericho777;8494160] I used the precedence of the application of the OT where it is the sole basis for instruction. The torah is the sole central basis for all OT instruction in Judaism. They were using the OT in the mean time demonstrating and revealing Christ from beginning to end. By the end of the first century though all scriptures were written and circulated among the churches. So they were not left without the word of God. Obviously they had the original apostles relaying what Jesus taught them first hand and would later be codified in scripture. Incidentally were the original apostles during that time able to discern true scriptures from the false ones? SS is based on the original use of the torah for instruction. It is from day one.

As I am sure you know, in addition to the written torah there was the oral torah, which was the means for explaining what the written torah meant and how to interpret it and apply its laws. Orthodox Jews believe that God taught the oral torah to Moses, and he then taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the second century B.C,. at which point the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah, at which point the Jews continued to rely equally on the oral law, which was the traditional accompaniment to the written law. The written torah was not a detailed set of instructions or directions for the Jews which necessitated the need for essential oral commentary and this commentary was where oral tradition, aka oral torah, came in to play. Examples where the written laws of the torah are completely incomprehensible without oral tradition:

The bible says: take together four species on the first day of Succos. Which four species are meant, and what are we supposed to do with them?

The prohibition of Chelev leaves one uninformed as to which fat is included in the category of Chelev, and which are Shumin (fat) and therefore permitted.

Regarding Lev. 7, which blood is forbidden and how do we purge the meat of it?

Regarding Exodus 13, what are Totaphot? How are they made, and how are they “bound as a sign upon your hand?”

Finally, which work is forbidden on the Sabbath, and which is permitted?

The OT is constantly quoting itself as well as in the NT.

The NT writers occasionally quote other NT writers, but primarily they quote the OT. That doesn’t address my question though.

They operate by using an established precedence to substantiate their premise. It is the modus operandi for the NT.

The NT writers occasionally quoting other NT writers is your answer to the OP?

Jesus came to fulfill the Torah and Prophets.

The NT explains and further reveals the OT.

The Bereans relied on nothing other than scripture to vet Paul’s teachings.

Passage that reveals the Bereans disregarding Paul’s command regarding apostolic tradition, in favor of the following, or at least similar language:

We, as Bereans, rely on nothing other than scripture to vet Paul’s teachings?

 

[joe370]

First, please point out the differences in faith because if we could see these differences we probably wouldn’t be Catholic (even though the scripture writers and the people who compiled scripture were the people who founded the Catholic Church).

And the Bible indicates that it is not the only mode of instruction. The writings or the Gospels were never meant to be the only trustable thing. The Bible also states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Besides only the Church could read the Bible until recently because no one had the money or time to learn to read and for a family to buy a Bible up until the time of the printing press would have bankrupted anyone besides the rich. To say that the Bible is the only form of instruction would be foolish considering the majority of humanity wasn’t able to read until recently.

All true.