Truths for a fair sola scriptura discussion with Catholics

[tdgesq]

And Lutherans do not reject this, per se. We recognize the role of the Church to teach. That’s scriptural. The truly ecumenical councils, even the 7th, which rejected iconoclasm, Lutheranism generally accepts.

Right, but the question is whether that teaching authority binds the consciences of Christians.

As I said, Lutherans accept the seven general councils. We won’t speak of them as “infallible”, but authoritative seems a reasonable term.

I’m not certain what it would mean for these teachings to be “authoritative,” as you put it. If it’s authoritative in the way the Book of Concord is authoritative, then it appears to be nothing more than a group of intelligent and holy men (some less intelligent and holy than others) whose opinions we respect. While their teaching may be influenced by the Holy Spirit, they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Enter sola scriptura: where every doctrine is open to the judgment of individual human reason - all allegedly based on Scripture, the historical record and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual Christian.

As for protestants, remember that there are different communions, with different histories and origins, within what is termed today Protestantism. I can only speak for what I understand about Lutheranism.

Understood. I don’t know where Lutherans stand on Monothelitism, but am aware of some Evangelicals who accept it, in contradiction of the unequivocal teaching of the Third Council of Constantinople. More on that in a bit.

I would offer as evidence this: which STP would they endorse? Would it depend on whether they west western or eastern? Would it depend on whether they see Nicea as supporting or refuting papal supremacy? Without knowing that, how can we know where they would come done on other issues?

This is a false dilemma for the first eight centuries. Whether you hold to the conciliar theory of the Pentarchy, the general acceptance of the Church faithful, or the primacy of the Bishop of Rome; East and West all agreed that the de fide teachings of these councils were (yes, I will say it) infallible. There simply was no such thing as individual judgment based upon self-study of Scripture. For those who tried - say, Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople - they were anathematized. Even the Pope of Rome, Honorius, was posthumously anathematized over the Monothelite controversy.

There really isn’t any historical question that the general councils believed they had the authority to definitively teach Christian truth. I think Protestants just need to come out and say “well, while the undivided Church may have believed that, it was wrong.” At least then those of us from the Apostolic Churches know where to begin the debate on sola scriptura.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Fr of Jazz:

I would argue that it is an artifact of sola scriptura to say merely they supported the use of Sacred Tradition. The fathers and Councils taught and practiced STC united.

An interesting idea, I believe, that bears further elaboration. Especially in your use of “artifact of SS”

For example John Henry Newman had even better history and doctrine than offered by the Lutherans in his 19th C. Anglican Communion. At the time it was considered an argument from history. IOW, Anglicans had history on their side. They were closer to the historic teachings of the Fathers than their contemporary Catholics. What finally convinced Newman that this argument from history was false, was his writing of the book, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine. This is really just another way of expressing STC, Whereby the Truth of Doctrine, though developing and growing in greater articulation is still the same Truth. STC is the ONLY way it could have been preserved, despite the ongoing assaults and developments.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I would offer as evidence this: which STP would they endorse? Would it depend on whether they west western or eastern? Would it depend on whether they see Nicea as supporting or refuting papal supremacy? Without knowing that, how can we know where they would come done on other issues?

Jon

You’re overlooking the vast area of agreement on STC as the method of transmission of God’s word. The definition I offered is acceptable to the CC East and West and the EOC presently, but more to my interest here, is taught and practiced by the fathers and the first 7 Councils: “God established that His word is transmitted by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church.” All of this is in stark contrast to SS whose Reformation proponents, based on SS, explicitly rejected STC–not only did they reject Papal infallibility, but also that of a Council, as well as apostolic succession and Tradition preserved in the apostolic Church. The latter three, on the other hand, are all accepted by the EOC, but SS they rejected.

We may debate whether Papal primacy and infallibility (accurately understood) are legitimate developments w/i STC, but there is no question that STC as I defined it was consistently taught and practiced in the CC (fathers and Councils) from earliest days down to the beginnings of the Reformation. And based on SS the Reformers disputed it.

I would also add that one can’t provide context evidence for a “what if” question with more questions, especially when they basically rephrase the original one. More questions or the same one rephrased are not evidence. It’s like saying “Why couldn’t an advanced civilization from another galaxy morph into our political leaders to take over our country?” “If they destroyed their world, wouldn’t they have to find somewhere else?” Context evidence to move the scales toward making the question legitimate would be: there have been a higher-than-normal number of UFO sightings on the East Coast. The President’s body has been found and positively IDed; yet he is still live on TV from the G20 summit.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

An interesting idea, I believe, that bears further elaboration. Especially in your use of “artifact of SS”

I’m using “artifact,” with some license, in the scientific and medical sense: “Any error in the perception or representation of visual or auditory information introduced by the involved equipment or technique(s).”
“An artificial product or effect observed in a natural system, especially one introduced by the technology used in scientific investigation or by experimental error.”

IOW in the undivided Church and both the CC and EOC God’s word is handed on down through time by STC, united and interrelated. With the advent of SS we have two competing assertions about the method God chose to transmit His word.

Protestants in arguing for SS often define STC not on its own terms but through the lens of SS. So in reality what they offer is either an SS interpretation of STC or simply a rephrasing of SS. So we get statements like “Catholics accept Scripture as the word of God, but they also add information from Tradition to it and Church statements too.” So the view they as Protestants have is that Catholics read Bible and interpret it alone to get subset “s” of truths, then add Tradition to get subset “t”, and finally add Church statements to get subset “c.” We throw all these in a bucket and get complete set “z.”

The problem is this kind of definition of the CC’s and EOC’s teaching reflects their own Reformation splitting of STC, not the CC’s real encounter with God’s word in the unity and interrelatedness inherent in STC. And so their view is an artifact of their own tool–SS–used to interpret and judge STC, not the reality of it as held and experienced by the CC and EOC. IOW that view of STC would only obtain when one already subscribes to SS.

For example John Henry Newman had even better history and doctrine than offered by the Lutherans in his 19th C. Anglican Communion. At the time it was considered an argument from history. IOW, Anglicans had history on their side. They were closer to the historic teachings of the Fathers than their contemporary Catholics. What finally convinced Newman that this argument from history was false, was his writing of the book, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine. This is really just another way of expressing STC, Whereby the Truth of Doctrine, though developing and growing in greater articulation is still the same Truth. STC is the ONLY way it could have been preserved, despite the ongoing assaults and developments.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but Newman makes it clear in the Essay on Development that history is on the CC’s side. Perhaps one could say his Anglican via media argument from history was off.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Excellent explanation of artifact of SS. I will have to think more on that.

Yes, I apparently did not make myself clear about history being on the side of Anglicans. This is* their own teaching* (and was a belief held by Newman BEFORE he wrote the Essay on Development of Doctrine.)