Who originated sola Scriptura?

[beng]

Melchior:

The Reformers Luther and Calvin popularized it. There are many quotes from the Fathers (including Augustine and Athanasius) where they talk about the Scriptures being sufficient for all teaching.

Mel

Material sufficiency =/= formal sufficiency

William Webster and James White were the one notorius enough to suggest that the Father taught Sola Scriptura.

Their claims were destroyed by Joe Gallegos.

Main link

Gallegos Vs White on Sola Scriptura & the Early Father

Athanasius and Sola Scriptura (responding to White)

Gallegos responding William Webster on Material Vs Formal Sufficiency of the scripture for the Early Fathers

 

[GloriaDeo]

Melchior:

Predestination goes right back to St. Paul (actually the OT). Read Romans 9 to see that the idea did not “pop up out of nowhere”.

Mel

No offense meant, but that is just interpreting the Bible allegorically. What about Deuteronomy 30?

 

[Melchior]

GloriaDeo:

No offense meant, but that is just interpreting the Bible allegorically. What about Deuteronomy 30?

No offense taken.

I don’t see your point. Could you please clarify how I am interpreting Romans 9 allegorically? I am interpreting it literally, and the context quite clearly teaches election. Augustine agreed. Aquinas agreed. Many a Catholic agreed. I am not arguing for a Calvinistic version of predestination. I am merely saying that there is ample Biblical evidence and Catholic Scholarship that understands predestination based on God’s Divine will rather the the twisty “He looked down through the corridor of time to see who would choose him…” stuff. That is omniscience not predestination.

As for Deut. 30: Well there is the paradox. I do not attempt to understand a mystery. But those who have heard the message are responsible for what they do with it. Never-the-less God saves those whom He wills according to His good pleasure. Others He leaves to their own way. But through it all we still have free will. Yet our will is still subject to Him. God ordains the ends and the means, the rest is His business. Where He has remained silent we should not speculate. If one believes and one does not is it because the one who believes is superior to the one who does not? No it is because God has shown mercy on whom He has shown mercy. The problem with Calvinists is that they try to explain everything. But some things are not for men to know. But ultimately God is Sovereign.

In Peace,

Mel

 

[Matt16_18]

Apologia100

I say that the bible is subordinate to the Magisterium, because there would be no bible without the Magisterium.

**Catechism of the Catholic

The Magisterium of the Church

85** “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

 

[vangrosh]

Melchior, as a Catholic I can tell you that you have not been given a good response yet. Please, no offence to the Catholics that tried to answer but these questions are not so simple and should not be answered with, “gee, I think the Catholic position is….”. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in this area can give you the official Catholic position. You can also try to ask your question in the “Ask an apologist” thread.

As a side note, from the perspective of a former evangelical, I have found the Catholic position on every area of theology to be infinitely superior to my former evangelical beliefs. The Catholic theology of scripture, tradition and the Magisterium is a lot more complex then most other Catholic teachings because it involves so many things- the Church, the bishops and the Pope, Sacred Tradition, Scripture etc. All these things have to be understood separately and also in relation to each other. There is also the great spiritual mystery that surrounds all of it- the mystery of Christ as the Head of His Church - His body. Christ is mysteriously but actively involved in keeping the right balance between all the above elements and protecting the Church from error. At the same time, Christ through the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into deeper truth, faith and knowledge as we can see by examining the development of doctrine over 2000 years. There is a lot of more ‘basic’, if I can use the word, Catholic doctrines and theology that can be so easily demonstrated from scripture and the Fathers of the Church that should leave no doubt as to the Truth of the Catholic Church if looked at with an open mind.

I think the more basic issues should be settled first before going on to the more difficult ones. For me, it was the Eucharist. That is what drew me to the Catholic Church. This was from reading only the Fathers and the Bible. I knew I had to find the Church of the Fathers.

I will always bring up the Eucharist first because it is the most important element that Jesus gave His Church. The Bible teaches this. The Fathers teach this. The Saints over the past 2000 years east and west teach this. And it’s not something they all just taught. The Eucharist has always been the centerpiece of Christian worship, and the people of God, the saints known and unknown have experienced the reality and power of the Eucharist for 2000 years. The Eucharist is responsible for the formation of love, sanctity, holiness, joy and perseverance of all the great Saints of the Church. If we do not share in the true Eucharist of the Body of Christ, His Church, then we separate ourselves from Christ, His Church and all the Saints. Then we can not be considered as part of that Golden Thread of Unity that weaves itself through the Body of Christ and spans the nations and generations of all peoples and tongues that have shared and experienced this most precious gift of the Eucharist.

More on the Eucharist in another post…

In Christ,
-Ric

 

[funkyhorn]

Melchior:

How can the very words of Jesus and the Apostles be subordinate to anything?

Good point, but now you have the problem of everyone practicing Sola Scriptura subordinating Scripture to their own personal interpretation.

 

[Melchior]

funkyhorn:

Good point, but now you have the problem of everyone practicing Sola Scriptura subordinating Scripture to their own personal interpretation.

Also a good point .

Of course it would be more fair to say Evangelicals are subordinating Scripture to their own personal interpretation. True practitioners od Sola Scriptura follow there particular traditions interpretation. Presbyterians follow the Westminster Confession of Faith. Lutherans the Book of Concord etc. So those more classically protestant churches believe the Church (there particular communion) is the collective interpreter of scripture. They are just as much against individual intrepretation as Catholics. Of course their intepretations are not considered infallible.

But I agree with your point as far as Evangelicals and Fundamentalisits go.

Mel

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchoir

• Of course it would be more fair to say Evangelicals are subordinating Scripture to their own personal interpretation. True practitioners od Sola Scriptura follow there particular traditions interpretation. Presbyterians follow the Westminster Confession of Faith. Lutherans the Book of Concord etc.*

The Lutherans and the Presbyterians are still subordinating their understanding of scriptures to the private interpretations of men. Sola Scriptura is NOT a doctrine about the inspired nature of scriptures, it is a doctrine about who has the temporal authority from Christ to interpret these scriptures. The Lutherans and the Presbyterians have rejected Christ’s church by rejecting the temporal authority vested with the bishops of Christ’s Church.

… if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector
Matt. 18:17

 

[contramundi]

Surprisingly, many of the early heretics embraced a sola scriptura mentality – in fact, some even cite favorite passages foisted by Protestants today – In St. Augustine’s final days as a bishop he was engaged in an oral debate with an Arian heretic - Maximinus –

In response to St. Augustine, the Arian heretic remarks:

“All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mt 24:35).”
Debate with Maximinus,15:16

 

[tmcgaw]

Martin Luther wanted to be a great saint and so he tried to be perfect through fasting, good works, etc. He became so frustrated that he took the words from the bible “The just man lives by faith.” He added the word “alone.” Sola Scriptura means “scripture alone.” This is a big difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. There is a good book “The Facts about Luther” written by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, LL.D. which describes Luther’s frame of mind when he developed this idea. There were a lot of things wrong in the hierarchy of the church at the time and this contributed to Luther’s actions. He died in remorse for what he did to the Catholic Church.

 

[agname]

GloriaDeo:

Although I don’t have an answer for you, that brings an interesting point to my attention. As a Protestant leaning towards the RCC, that is one of the reasons why I find myself at odds with Protestantism. Many of the “dogmas” that Protestants hold to have been created by them. They never were derived from scripture. Take, for instance, the Mormons’ founder (I don’t remember his name), he completely fabricated their Book of Mormon.
And Sola Scriptura; Suddenly, Martin Luther and his gang decided that they didn’t need tradition and Peter’s guidance on earth (the Pope).
The last thing I have much issue with is predestination. Out of nowhere comes this guy, John Calvin, and takes a couple things out of context and comes up with an elitist ideal of being “elect”. Sorry for blabbering, but it just goes to show you that ideals that just pop up out of nowhere have no credibility!:nope:

I believe you will find the following very interesting…

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ53.HTM

 

[ralphinal]

It was because of the teaching authority of the CHurch that most of the New Testament was written. Personally, I hold to the idea that all of the New Testament was finished before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Mark was written at Peter’s direction, John was done at the request of the young Chruch that the last eyewitness account could be saved, all of the epistles were for instruction. I think the more correct statement would be that the Scriptures are a part of the Magisterium (teaching authority) thought the two can act independantly of wach other. You can study scripture without the Magisterium and there are many teachings that are not explicit in scripture.

Who invented sola scriptura? People who wanted to get rid of the Magisterium. When did it start? Hard to say exactly, but I know when it will end.

 

[Melchior]

tmcgaw:

Martin Luther wanted to be a great saint and so he tried to be perfect through fasting, good works, etc. He became so frustrated that he took the words from the bible “The just man lives by faith.” He added the word “alone.” Sola Scriptura means “scripture alone.” This is a big difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. There is a good book “The Facts about Luther” written by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, LL.D. which describes Luther’s frame of mind when he developed this idea. There were a lot of things wrong in the hierarchy of the church at the time and this contributed to Luther’s actions. He died in remorse for what he did to the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you should balance it out by readin a book about Luther who is not so bias. HIs deathbed regret is highly suspect. I would lie to see some primary sources for that one.

Luther had his problems and schism is never a good thing. I may have reacted differently. But the facts remain, as one fair minded Catholic on this board said, the Reformation was the Church’s fault. The corruption within led to the schism. Those who were apalled by the wicked things going on at that time may have overreacted but it is clear that God allowed this for a reason. Luther was a product of the Church, he did not simply set out to leave the church. The church at that time left him and refused to reform when confronted with corruption. It is good to see the Church did recover from those corruptions - but it may never had happened if not for the Reformers.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

ralphinal:

It was because of the teaching authority of the CHurch that most of the New Testament was written. Personally, I hold to the idea that all of the New Testament was finished before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Cool. It is good to see a Catholic who believes the NT was finished prior to 70AD. I am with you since the Revelation makes much more sense if it was written rpior to the destruction of Jerusalem. And it shows how a good many of those prophecies and those of Matthew 24 were actually fullfilled during the life of the Apostles. Hmmm I think I will do a poll.

O.k. back to the actual topic.

Mel

 

[martino]

Melchior:

The Reformers Luther and Calvin popularized it. There are many quotes from the Fathers (including Augustine and Athanasius) where they talk about the Scriptures being sufficient for all teaching.

Keep in mind when you say Scripture you need to think of it as the teaching and writings of the Apostles and Prophets not a black leather book. There were many Fathers who relied on the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets and of course Jesus, found in the Gospels, for primary instruction. If you look at it that way it makes more sense. This is what the Reformers were trying to re-capture and clarify. Can you find the Jesus and the Apostles direct teaching outside of the Bible? Of course not. Now how we understand scripture is the real issue. It’s centrality should not be.

Mel

I dont mean to keep butting heads with you but, of course you can find the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles outside of the Bible. How do you think the early Church survived and even flourished during the first three hundred years? Oral Tradition is what preserved the teachings so that they could even be recorded in Scripture.

 

[Shibboleth]

tmcgaw:

Martin Luther wanted to be a great saint and so he tried to be perfect through fasting, good works, etc. He became so frustrated that he took the words from the bible “The just man lives by faith.” He added the word “alone.” Sola Scriptura means “scripture alone.” This is a big difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. There is a good book “The Facts about Luther” written by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare, LL.D. which describes Luther’s frame of mind when he developed this idea. There were a lot of things wrong in the hierarchy of the church at the time and this contributed to Luther’s actions. He died in remorse for what he did to the Catholic Church.

May I ask why you think that he wanted to be a great Saint. He was a monk and he wanted to be a good monk. Inserting “alone” as you say did not come out of a void or frustration. He was following in the footsteps of other Catholic individuals before him, and I am not talking about “Huss”. His was a translation so he was not adding words to the original text, he was translating it in what he thought and others also that the passage was trying to state.

“Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”

1. In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

1. The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.

1. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

 

[Melchior]

martino:

I dont mean to keep butting heads with you but, of course you can find the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles outside of the Bible. How do you think the early Church survived and even flourished during the first three hundred years? Oral Tradition is what preserved the teachings so that they could even be recorded in Scripture.

I don’t see it as butting heads. I appreciate the dialogue.

The church had the Old Testament from the beggining. And the Gospels and Paul and the rest fo the Aposltes letters were all written and widely distributed while they were still alive. The New Testament existed from the times of the Apostles though in seperate letters and books. They did not rely on oral tradition. The canon was set in 367 but the books were already centuries old and well known and used in the church. Read the Didache and you will see the NT books being quoted as early as the first century. I apologize for being so blunt but oral tradition was not what preserved the teachings since the teaching were put into writing by the Apostles and those who were with them (Mark and Luke). And of course the Old Testament was also around.

In Peace,

Mel

 

[martino]

Melchior:

I don’t see it as butting heads. I appreciate the dialogue.

The church had the Old Testament from the beggining. And the Gospels and Paul and the rest fo the Aposltes letters were all written and widely distributed while they were still alive. The New Testament existed from the times of the Apostles though in seperate letters and books. They did not rely on oral tradition. The canon was set in 367 but the books were already centuries old and well known and used in the church. Read the Didache and you will see the NT books being quoted as early as the first century. I apologize for being so blunt but oral tradition was not what preserved the teachings since the teaching were put into writing by the Apostles and those who were with them (Mark and Luke). And of course the Old Testament was also around.

In Peace,

Mel

I too appreciate the dialogue and I have no problems with what you stated except for this: even though the writings were available or most of them were available during the first few centuries, not everyone had a copy (actually almost nobody had a copy) and they relied on oral teachings just to hear what was in the writings. Secondly, I said that oral Tradition “preserved” the teachings of Christ which was very important since there were hundreds of other writings also circulated about which were believed by some to be “Scripture”. This is how many early heresies began, relying on false writings that claimed to be inspired. It was the oral Traditions that kept the authentic teachings of Jesus intact. What do you think?

 

[Shibboleth]

I do not see why oral traditions are considered less than written traditions. Many books originally were orally passed down. I doubt that Noah or his children wrote the story of the flood. The story was probably told many times before someone, probably in Babylon, wrote it down for the first time.

Homer was a blind man and no doubt was illiterate yet he is still given credit for the Iliad and the Odyssey as it stands today. I am sure that he was not the first to teach it through verbal rhetoric.

Lets look at the concept of Fahrenheit 451. If people started burning the Bible and Christians in an attempt to preserve it started memorizing it word for word, would it be any less scripture or the Bible?

 

[martino]

Shibboleth:

I do not see why oral traditions are considered less than written traditions. Many books originally were orally passed down. I doubt that Noah or his children wrote the story of the flood. The story was probably told many times before someone, probably in Babylon, wrote it down for the first time.

Homer was a blind man and no doubt was illiterate yet he is still given credit for the Iliad and the Odyssey as it stands today. I am sure that he was not the first to teach it through verbal rhetoric.

Lets look at the concept of Fahrenheit 451. If people started burning the Bible and Christians in an attempt to preserve it started memorizing it word for word, would it be any less scripture or the Bible?

Well first of all you are comparing books that were written by man in every way to the Bible which was written by God through men. The Holy Spirit is the primary author of Scripture says the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Here is what the Catechism says about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition:

II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44