Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[FathersKnowBest]

He could simply go to an Apostle to receive the final authority.

Not that the apostles are gone, we can go to the writings of the Apostles for our final authority.

Except that this didn’t happen.

In the later first century, while St. John was still alive, there was a dispute in Corinth.
The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity.
Irenaeus, c. 180-5 perhaps using Hegesippus, says: “Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles” (III, iii).

So, they appealed to the Bishop of Rome to solve a dispute while St. John was much closer and still alive.

the author seems to need this doctrine (its source unknown, its details equally unknown) to justify HIS personal authority.

Yes. That is why people should check actual history rather than depending on their own preconceived doctrines.

 

[JonNC]

=eddie too;11771273]under this doctrine of quasi-sola scriptura (where sacred scripture is the “highest” authority), where, when and exactly how does sacred scripture exercise its “highest” authority?

It is the highest authority for one thing: norming doctrine. The Church makes doctrine. The Church uses scripture to norm.

Sola scriptura doesn’t eliminate the Church, it depends on the Church.

i have to ask these questions because this “highest” authority doctrine is new to me and i am trying to fill in the gaps that its proponents are leaving.

is this doctrine written down anywhere or is it something that is made up as its proponents go along?

The Formula of Concord

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Except that this didn’t happen.

In the later first century, while St. John was still alive, there was a dispute in Corinth.
The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity.
Irenaeus, c. 180-5 perhaps using Hegesippus, says: “Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles” (III, iii).

So, they appealed to the Bishop of Rome to solve a dispute while St. John was much closer and still alive.

I think this is a wonderful role for the Bishop of Rome. A primacy of honor, to turn to in disputes. Until the Great Schism, this was the practice. If the Schism is resolved, this practice could return, and benefit the entire Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, returning to the OP.

Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura? How in your pilgrimage does the concept come into place?

Thanks, Jose.

I rely on the Church to norm doctrine to scripture. I then expect it to teach that doctrine, preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. SS isn’t something I do, except perhaps in matters adiaphora.

Jon

 

[eddie_too]

so this doctrine was formulated in the late 16th century by men who were rebelling against the RCC and has nothing to do with apostolic teaching or apostolic tradition.

it is a totally man made doctrine and made in rebellion at that.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This is the question I have about the Deuterocanon. We’re told by some that we “reject” them because of doctrine, but are never given a list of the doctrines; which doctrine from Tobit, which one from Ecclesiasticus, etc.

Jon

Jon, I’ve addressed this to you before. Do I need to find the reference? Here it is.

Luther wanted to dismiss the doctrine of Purgatory, found in Maccabees.
In order to do so, he needed an excuse to remove 1,2Macc. He found one in the “new” Jewish “canon” (which wasn’t really an official canon). In order to use this excuse, he had to throw out the other books as well.

 

[JonNC]

so this doctrine was formulated in the late 16th century by men who were rebelling against the RCC and has nothing to do with apostolic teaching or apostolic tradition.

it is a totally man made doctrine and made in rebellion at that.

Not a doctrine, a practice.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

JonNC;11771594**:

It is the highest authority for one thing: norming doctrine

. The Church makes doctrine. The Church uses scripture to norm.

Sola scriptura doesn’t eliminate the Church, it depends on the Church.

The Formula of Concord

Jon

My friend,but it begs the question-as of when? When did it become norm and did the church make such a declaration on this matter to remove any doubts as to what is the highest authority?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Not that the apostles are gone, we can go to the writings of the Apostles for our final authority.

Where in scripture is this teaching “normed”???

 

[Nicea325]

Where in scripture is this teaching “normed”???

Easy: NO WHERE! It simply has been injected into Christianity as though it has always been practiced and believed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where in scripture is this teaching “normed”???

It doesn’t need to be. It’s a hermeneutical principle that can fit any given denomination.

 

[pablope]

It’

That scripture is not a “dead letter” its authoritative and convicts us and corrects and reproved us.

How? Can you give or cite an example of how Scripture would correct or reprove you?

 

[marywarfield]

I called my pastor “father” once (old habits).

I received a formal letter or reproof from the Lutheran Overlords of Wittenberg.

Really? Hahaha. Is that a real org? Never heard of it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Really? Hahaha. Is that a real org? Never heard of it.

Nah, Wittenberg is where the 95 thesis were posted. He has a wicked sense of humor. Catholic now Lutheran with a short pilgrimage through Orthodoxy, the chap has seen more than anyone needs.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I’ve addressed this to you before. Do I need to find the reference? Here it is.

Luther wanted to dismiss the doctrine of Purgatory, found in Maccabees.
In order to do so, he needed an excuse to remove 1,2Macc. He found one in the “new” Jewish “canon” (which wasn’t really an official canon). In order to use this excuse, he had to throw out the other books as well.

I’ve read 1 Macc, and there’s nothing there doctrinally in dispute. Prayer for the dead is not opposed by Lutherans. 2 Macc does not define an intermediate state/place and, therefore, does not oppose our understanding that purgation/purification occurs at the moment of death.

And Purgatory is not an issue at all in Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, or Baruch. There are no doctrinal issues with these books, either.

Jon

 

[eddie_too]

the Church came first. sacred scriptures are a tool created by the Church.

without the Church, sacred scripture is of no value.

the Church existed without sacred scriptures. sacred scriptures have never existed apart from the Church.

sacred scriptures depend on the Church for their efficaciousness and authenticity.

just as the Church existed in the past without sacred scriptures, there is no reason it could not do so in the future. i realize this is an entirely hypothetical statement since the Church is not going to repudiate the canon it created for its members

no one can prevent sacred scriptures from being used for human (as opposed to divine) purposes. this has been done many times in history. when humans use sacred scriptures for purposes that do not originate from the Church that created them, it is more rightly termed an abuse of sacred scriptures. the most glaring examples of this abuse are islam, bahaism and mormonism, but in a more gentle manner, the protestant sects also abuse sacred scripture by teaching that the people who created it are not competent for understanding it.

 

[marywarfield]

He could simply go to an Apostle to receive the final authority.

Not that the apostles are gone, we can go to the writings of the Apostles for our final authority.

Problem with ALL of this sola Scriptura thinking
especially the idea it is backed by Jesus Himself
referring to OT teachings is the following;
No where does the OT talk about three wise men.
No where does the OT talk about the Messiah
being baptized in the river Jordan.
No where does the OT talk about the Last Supper, Peters
Denial, soldiers drawing lots for clothes, the Resuurection etc etc etc.

It is all inferred, interpreted.

Therefore under your rules of sola Scriptura these
events recorded by the apostles are merely tradition
because they are not WRITTEN in the Old.
In fact even the Apostles can’t be believed cause
we can’t even find THEM in the OT!

For heavens sakes. There are so many things wrong
with Scriptura as sola I don’t even know where to
begin.
Nowhere in the OT is a Trinity mentioned. Nowhere.
Yet are you ready to take the word of twelve men
NOT found in the OT that it exists?
Under sola Scriptura how CAN you accept anything
NOT in the OT?
Not sensible.

 

[Nicea325]

the Church came first. sacred scriptures are a tool created by the Church.

without the Church, sacred scripture is of no value.

the Church existed without sacred scriptures. sacred scriptures have never existed apart from the Church.

sacred scriptures depend on the Church for their efficaciousness and authenticity.

just as the Church existed in the past without sacred scriptures, there is no reason it could not do so in the future. i realize this is an entirely hypothetical statement since the Church is not going to repudiate the canon it created for its members

no one can prevent sacred scriptures from being used for human (as opposed to divine) purposes. this has been done many times in history. when humans use sacred scriptures for purposes that do not originate from the Church that created them, it is more rightly termed an abuse of sacred scriptures. the most glaring examples of this abuse are islam, bahaism and mormonism, but in a more gentle manner, the protestant sects also abuse sacred scripture by teaching that the people who created it are not competent for understanding it.

One of the issues I see always arising with SS is many of its supporters tend to separate the Word of God from His church. It is usually an either/or dichotomy, moreover, it is aboth/and dichotomy.

 

[SyCarl]

Not really, Carl.

When we look at history, this concept of final and sole authority of Scriptures was absent until the reformation. It has nothing to do with interpretation but to the actual practice of the Church. The reformers thought that by taking the authority out of the hands of the Church the problems the Church was having at the time would go away. They were wrong.

I don’t think you can really say that the sole authority of Scripture, or at least that it was the highest authority, was absent or the idea of Sola Scriptura was absent. Did the fathers accept tradition? Yes but not as the equal of Scripture or as a source of things that must be believed.

Irenaeus indicates that the Gospel was originally given orally then in Scripture. Both have the same content. Material sufficiency.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

He then indicates that the entire Scriptures can be understood by all. Formal sufficiency.

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. **These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures .Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, **although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it, those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 27, Paragraphs 1 & 2.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

He comments on oral tradition not passed on in writing…

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”

Irenaeus (Against Hearesies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iii.html

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

Hippolytus indicates that our knowledge of God comes only by Scripture. We should only look at things that Scriptures contains.

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but** even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them**.

Hippolytus (Against Noetus, Paragraph 9)
newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm

Cyril of Jerusalem says not to give credence to him unless what he teaches is proved by Scripture. That would make it the final authority.

Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. **For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy **Scriptures.

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, Paragraph 17)
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

(to be continued)