Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[FathersKnowBest]

The Didache is my favourite, but it got lost until the 19th century. I think it’s important that it was found to further prove the truth of early Christian practice.

The Didache is interesting for many reasons.
One that is appropriate is that some practices, such as allowing baptism through immersion or infusion (pouring) which were denounced by many protestants, were vindicated historically in this document. Further interesting that since the rediscovery, the attitude of some protestants seems to be “I don’t care if the facts are against us, we still can’t agree with the Catholic Church.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I trust the Jews to do a solid job picking out which OT books belong in the Bible.

Just kidding. I’m not the greatest historian on OT books, but if the Jews did reject it can’t we assume that it should be left out? I know even Paul quoted an old (non-canonical) poem in Acts 17 but that doesn’t make it Scripture.

The Jews did not have a closed canon and do not have a closed canon that I am aware of.

This is because Scriptures were never meant to be Alone!

What we see in Scriptures is:

“I will build my Church”​

“Take it to the Church”​

“Go baptize, teach and make disciples (Church)”​

“The pillar and bulwark of Truth. (Church)”​

Not once, it is Sola or Solo Scriptura. It is a man made practice to take away from the Church.

But in accordance to the logic you presented in Post #62, you would be forced to accept this poem and the Book of Enoch.

And why do you know to look in those books for clues in the 1st place?

Because the Church has already spoken!

Also, why do the Ethiopian Orthodox accept it?

Other than asking them. See above.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;11754236]That’s the thing I do not understand. You do not trust the church to be an authority equal to scripture when it comes to practice and tradition and yet you trust the church to establish the highest authority when you necessarily have to consider tradition and the church lesser than scripture. I do not think I have misrepresented Sola Scriptura here either, if we take it to mean that the scripture is the highest and final authority.

I trust the Church to be and have the authority it has, which is different than the authority of scripture. The Church is not “lesser” than scripture, but is a servant of it. It is the Church that uses scripture as the final norm.

That being said, while the texts aren’t linked in theme or style, they are linked to the discussion of sola scriptura. What text are we more likely to consider scripture if we did not have the tradition of the church in this regard? 3rd John, a very short letter containing little of doctrinal value (I am not saying it is valueless, God forbid) or the Didache, a fairly comprehensive early catechism giving instruction and doctrine on many items for the community of the faithful. I confess that I think the didache of more value when it comes to knowing key elements of the faith than 3rd John alone.

And I asked the question; was there a clamor in the early Church to include the Didache in the canon? If there was no such clamor, then it should not be included. IOW, rely on the early Church. While the Lutheran confessions do not close the canon per se, but neither is there a circumstance where we would offer to add books that did not have the sanction of the early Church.
I find my self in agreement with you regarding the value of the Didache.

Jon

 

[eddie_too]

let us, hypothetically, accept the doctrine of sola scriptura.

should not the concept, at the least, be modified by the words “correctly interpreted”?

seriously, if you have looked at any to the threads related to the mormons or the bahai, you will find that both rely on sacred scripture to support their beliefs and teachings.

i believe even muslims rely on sacred scripture to support at least some of their beliefs and teachings.

of course, correctly interpreted begs the question of, to whom should we turn to learn the “correction interpretation” of sacred scripture.

even seems to me that the doctrine of sola scriptura creates an infinite labyrinth from which there is no escape, disagreement ad infinitum is the fruit of such a doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

let us, hypothetically, accept the doctrine of sola scriptura.

should not the concept, at the least, be modified by the words “correctly interpreted”?

seriously, if you have looked at any to the threads related to the mormons or the bahai, you will find that both rely on sacred scripture to support their beliefs and teachings.

i believe even muslims rely on sacred scripture to support at least some of their beliefs and teachings.

of course, correctly interpreted begs the question of, to whom should we turn to learn the “correction interpretation” of sacred scripture.

even seems to me that the doctrine of sola scriptura creates an infinite labyrinth from which there is no escape, disagreement ad infinitum is the fruit of such a doctrine.

Of course there is an assumption that the Church interprets scripture properly. We, as Lutherans, believe that our confessions do just that.
Curiously, the only significant disagreements within Lutheranism is when synods begin to move away from the scriptures and confessions, as when they start to ordain women, or seem to accept same gender relationships as acceptable before God.
So, for Lutherans, sola scriptura, which is a practice not a doctrine, has not created any such labyrinth of disagreement. As for other communions, I don’t know if they see this labyrinth. I hope some will tell us.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

It DOES make the Apostles equal in authority to Scriptures, at the very least!

No, it doesn’t. The authority of the Scriptures is vested in the authority of the Triune God who inspired them.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I trust the Church to be and have the authority it has, which is different than the authority of scripture. The Church is not “lesser” than scripture, but is a servant of it.

True. As it is the servant of ALL of God’s Word.

From the Catechism:
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."48

It is the Church that uses scripture as the final norm.

Citation?

And I asked the question; was there a clamor in the early Church to include the Didache in the canon?

Yes, by some.

From the New World Encyclopedia:

The text is possibly the first written catechism, with three main sections dealing with Christian lessons, rituals such as baptism and eucharist, and Church organization. It was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[2] but rejected as spurious by others,[3] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church “broader canon.” The Roman Catholic Church has accepted it as part of the collection of Apostolic Fathers.

Although the Didache was excluded from the canon of scripture because it could not be clearly linked to any one specific Apostle, the text remains immensely valuable and instructive as a window into the early Christian community and their struggles to adapt to a predominantly Hellenistic climate and world.

If there was no such clamor, then it should not be included. IOW, rely on the early Church.

For something this important?
Why? Do you believe that they were guided by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised?

If you believe so, then do you believe this also regarding some of the other beliefs professed by the Early Church that you seem to reject?

 

[pablope]

No, it doesn’t. The authority of the Scriptures is vested in the authority of the Triune God who inspired them.

How does Scripture exercise authority here on earth?

And how does God exercise His authority here on earth?

And by the way…chapter and verse where Scriptures say it is the written word of God?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No, it doesn’t. The authority of the Scriptures is vested in the authority of the Triune God who inspired them.

And the authority of the Apostles comes from Jesus who taught them for 3 years and specifically vested in them His Authority – “He who hears you, hears ME”

 

[Per_Crucem]

And the authority of the Apostles comes from Jesus who taught them for 3 years and specifically vested in them His Authority – “He who hears you, hears ME”

Yes. The authority of the apostles is derivative…which, by nature, means not equal to but dependent upon.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes. The authority of the apostles is derivative…which, by nature, means not equal to but dependent upon.

Yes, but finish your sentence.
The Authority of the Apostles is derived from … God.

So, no, Apostolic Authority is not somehow equal to Jesus, but dependent upon Jesus.

Of course.

But it’s a non-sequitor. We were talking about Apostolic Authority vis-a-vis Scripture.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, but finish your sentence.
The Authority of the Apostles is derived from … God.

So, no, Apostolic Authority is not somehow equal to Jesus, but dependent upon Jesus.

Of course.

But it’s a non-sequitor. We were talking about Apostolic Authority vis-a-vis Scripture.

I don’t see how it is a non-sequitor. You are the one who claimed that their authority is equal to Scripture (which is the word of Christ). Now you state that it isn’t equal to Jesus. Great…that means you think it isn’t equal to Scripture, which is His word.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I trust the Church to be and have the authority it has, which is different than the authority of scripture. The Church is not “lesser” than scripture, but is a servant of it. It is the Church that uses scripture as the final norm.

And I asked the question; was there a clamor in the early Church to include the Didache in the canon? If there was no such clamor, then it should not be included. IOW, rely on the early Church. While the Lutheran confessions do not close the canon per se, but neither is there a circumstance where we would offer to add books that did not have the sanction of the early Church.
I find my self in agreement with you regarding the value of the Didache.

Jon

Sola scriptura would necessitate the church be lesser than the scripture in authority. I am not saying the Church can contradict scripture, do not get me wrong, but I would not relegate it a secondary status. When you say however the church is not lesser than scripture I would ask, “How is this demonstrated?” For the protestant cannot believe anything is binding, anything is forced on the believer to accept, except that it be found in the scripture. Certain traditions may be helpful yes, I know you accept that, but it is not binding on the individual like scripture is binding on the individual. So when you say the church is not of lesser authority than scripture, how is that brought into practice when one believes in sola scriptura? I know what you will say, that you accept the fathers, you accept the creeds (some of them), you accept the traditions, but you do not accept them because of any inherent authority in of themselves (something Orthodox, Catholics and Orientals I think take much more seriously than all Protestants). It’s not that they are the church and are to be trusted, but rather because they are coherent with the scripture and only on that reason you accept some of the traditions and reject others. This the crux of our disagreement and why asking the question of the Didache is important because it really has nothing against it in terms of potentially being in the canon, although I might add these rules are not from the bible.

It was written at the end of the first century or at the beginning of the second century. It contains (so far as I can tell) nothing false. It is orthodox in its content. Some of the fathers include it on their lists of the canon. We might not know the author but we do not know the author of the letter to the Hebrews as well and it seems impossible to verify apostolicity (direct connection with an apostle) with any absolute certainty. What prevents this from being scripture? What makes 3rd John Scripture? If the answer is in tradition why is not binding on the beliefs of the individual Christian? If the tradition which establishes the scripture is not binding on the scripture it proclaims the great authority for the Christian, what are we left to stand on? In my view nothing.

I will add this note to what I am saying, I do not intend to offend, I only intend to give my view as it seems to me.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I don’t see how it is a non-sequitor. You are the one who claimed that their authority is equal to Scripture (which is the word of Christ). Now you state that it isn’t equal to Jesus. Great…that means you think it isn’t equal to Scripture, which is His word.

Both were given Authority by God.
Neither are equal to God.

I don’t see how this could get you confused.

 

[benjohnson]

Both were given Authority by God.
Neither are equal to God.

Speaking as a layman, keep in mind that the actual words of God hold power (in a way that’s hard for me to describe) - as we hear in baptism even a stranger can use the words of God bring people into the faith. The priest uses the works of God during communion. Even Jesus used the phrase “it’s is written…” to dispatch the tempter.

Lutherans are accused of relying on the Bible too much, but in our defense, in the Bible are found the actual words of God.

“But In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Speaking as a layman, keep in mind that the actual words of God hold power (in a way that’s hard for me to describe) - as we hear in baptism even a stranger can use the words of God bring people into the faith. The priest uses the works of God during communion. Even Jesus used the phrase “it’s is written…” to dispatch the tempter.

Lutherans are accuses of relying on the Bible too much, but in our defense, in the Bible are found the actual words of God.

“But In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son”

Again, BOTH were given authority directly by God.
In fact, it could be argued that only through the Church do we know that the scriptures are theopneustros, and so it is the witness of the Church (the Apostles and their successors) that we know of their authority.

The Church witnesses to the scrptures, the scriptures witness of the Church. Both were given their Authority directly by God (and witnessed by each other).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Even Jesus used the phrase “it’s is written…” to dispatch the tempter.

Yes, and then He sent out His Disciples with command over evil spirits.

Lutherans are accuses of relying on the Bible too much, but in our defense, in the Bible are found the actual words of God.

Yes, they are. And the scriptures testify to the fact that Jesus empowered His Church with His Authority.

 

[benjohnson]

Again, BOTH were given authority directly by God.

Agreed! Lutherans chose the actual words of God over other authorities only as a last resort.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Both were given Authority by God.
Neither are equal to God.

I don’t see how this could get you confused.

Scripture does not have its authority as a derivative. It has its authority by being theopneustos. The words of God are equal to His authority.

 

[benjohnson]

The words of God are equal to His authority.

Agreed!

“My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” -M.L.

“O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” -A

Between the heart and mind, we’re gloriously trapped by Him!