Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[eddie_too]

under either definition of sola scriptura, who decides what the correct intepretations are?

accepting, as the RCC teaches, that all de fide doctrines are supported by sacred scripture, that still leaves the problem of who has the authority to interpret sacred scripture and a related problem, who decides what is a christian doctrine?

 

[JonNC]

under either definition of sola scriptura, who decides what the correct intepretations are?

accepting, as the RCC teaches, that all de fide doctrines are supported by sacred scripture, that still leaves the problem of who has the authority to interpret sacred scripture and a related problem, who decides what is a christian doctrine?

For Lutherans? The Church.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Paul would have never commanded his fellow Christians to not go beyond what is in the OT. For us to believe that Paul commanded Christians to only observe the OT is just plain silly.

Or, your interpretation of what St. Paul meant by that phrase just might be wrong.
Actually, that’s the only logical explaination since you’re right, he would have never commanded his fellow Christians to not go beyond what is in the OT.

In fact, I’d say that you were going beyond what was written in that you’re ascribing meaning to St. Paul’s words that he intend.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Augustine views these verses in the same way.

Augustine (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate 49]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.l.html

And if John’s Gospel is sufficient, how much more all of Scripture?

SyCarl, are you familiar with the phrase “if it proves anything, it proves too much”?

If he’s saying, as you are claiming, that John’s Gospel is sufficient, the question should not be the one you asked, but rather, is all the rest of Scripture redundant and extraneous?

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl, are you familiar with the phrase “if it proves anything, it proves too much”?

If he’s saying, as you are claiming, that John’s Gospel is sufficient, the question should not be the one you asked, but rather, is all the rest of Scripture redundant and extraneous?

So what then is John saying and what is Augustine saying about what he said.

 

[Angainor]

Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

I want to believe what the Apostles taught us to believe. The New Testament is a reliable record of Apostolic teaching. If any teaching is compared to the New Testament and found to be contradictory, then that teaching is not to be trusted.

So that explains “Scriptura,” but what about “Sola Scriptura”? Well, as a practical matter, the scriptures are the only completely reliable source of Apostolic teaching today. If I lived in A.D. 95 it would be a different matter. I could possibly ask an Apostle himself. Apostolic teaching repeatably warns that there will be false teachers. How does one know if a teacher is false? A teacher is false if they are teaching contradicts Apostolic teaching. The New Testament is a reliable source of Apostolic teaching. If a teacher contradicts that, they are a false teacher.

 

[eddie_too]

for jonnc

when factions within the Church disagree as to what is sacred scripture or on how to interpret sacred scripture, who decides?

 

[JonNC]

for jonnc

when factions within the Church disagree as to what is sacred scripture or on how to interpret sacred scripture, who decides?

That is a significant question, as it has plagued the Church long before the Reformation, and that’s not even mentioning the early heresies. From a Lutheran perspective. the Church. Specifically for me, the Lutheran Church, and narrowly, the LCMS. For you, the pope and Magisterium.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is a significant question, as it has plagued the Church long before the Reformation, and that’s not even mentioning the early heresies. From a Lutheran perspective. the Church. Specifically for me, the Lutheran Church, and narrowly, the LCMS. For you, the pope and Magisterium.

Jon

That’s an issue that’s unavoidable.

Once upon a time there was a Church that was invested with Christ’s Authority.

Some people said: I don’t believe you are teaching truth any more. We’re going to start our own Church.

Now, at that very point in time, they were disowning the Church that had Christ’s Authority.

When someone or something has Authority from God, unless and until some Divine command undoes it, that Authority should be followed.

EVEN IF they are doing (not teaching, but doing) wrong.

From our Savior’s own lips:

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

 

[GraceofGod31]

Here is my issue with this line of thought. I am an ex-protestant and believed in sola-scriptura.* That is until, through studying history, I realized that the new testament was by the Catholic church in the 4th century, through Tradition.

It is through sacred tradition that the new testament was revealed. Not to mention all there was was Tradition prior to the 4th century when we got the bible as we have it today.
Sacred tradition means the teaching handed down from the Apostles which, again, preceeds the new testament.*

So… explain to me how Sacred scripture trumps sacred tradition when tradition came first and tradition gave us scripture?

I would also point out that NO TRADITION contradicts scripture. It may contradict your personal interpretation of scripture (which peter warns against in 2nd Peter 3:16) but it doesn’t actually contradict the true meaning of scripture.

I mean doesn’t make sense that since Tradition came first, and gave us the new testament, that scripture can only truly be interpreted in light of Tradition?

The italicized portion appears to presuppose that before scriptural cannon was set that the scripture was not written until the 4th century. In fact the books the Catholic church cannonised were completed before the end of the first century and were being read by the first generation of believers of the apostolic era. Church fathers of the second century clearly accepted the books that were not canonized until 2 centuries later. Augustine and many others writings include documents they rejected. The only reason the Catholic church adopted a cannon in the 4th century was in response to various groups attacking the books that had been viewed as scripture since the apostolic era.

Just look at how well the Pharisees and Saducees fairer by holding tradition equal to or greater than scripture. The very Messiah that scripture pointed to, they rejected. They were more worried about their tradition regarding the Sabbath then what scripture said. They were engulfed with enlongating their phalacteries and praying in public so people could see how righteous they were.

And somehow 2000 years later tradition is supposed to work better for us. Are we better people in God’s eyes because we hold to tradition? Or post that first Easter, does scripture tell us that God sees us as righteous people through the lenses of the fulfillment of all things His Son Jesus. Jesus who the the writers of the new testament confess.

 

[marywarfield]

The italicized portion appears to presuppose that before scriptural cannon was set that the scripture was not written until the 4th century. In fact the books the Catholic church cannonised were completed before the end of the first century and were being read by the first generation of believers of the apostolic era. Church fathers of the second century clearly accepted the books that were not canonized until 2 centuries later. Augustine and many others writings include documents they rejected. The only reason the Catholic church adopted a cannon in the 4th century was in response to various groups attacking the books that had been viewed as scripture since the apostolic era.

Just look at how well the Pharisees and Saducees fairer by holding tradition equal to or greater than scripture. The very Messiah that scripture pointed to, they rejected. They were more worried about their tradition regarding the Sabbath then what scripture said. They were engulfed with enlongating their phalacteries and praying in public so people could see how righteous they were.

And somehow 2000 years later tradition is supposed to work better for us. Are we better people in God’s eyes because we hold to tradition? Or post that first Easter, does scripture tell us that God sees us as righteous people through the lenses of the fulfillment of all things His Son Jesus. Jesus who the the writers of the new testament confess.

What people are NOT addressing is what Tradition IS.
Tradition is TRUTH that we hold to be truth from the
beginning. Therefore if the Apostles baptized by sprinkling
or immersion, with living or with cold water, a decision based
entirely on water resources available in the desert or Rome
at the time- such baptismal practice is a Tradition
and a TRUTH for it is TRUTH that they baptized
both ways according to water availability and we know
this how? From OTHER writings of people familiar with
them as peers.
Yet no where in Scripture does it say baptize by immersion
or by sprinkling, no where in the Bible does it state
use living or cold water, or what to do when the Jordan
dries up to a mudflat.
Tradition just IS, like TRUTH just is. It just is.
To claim anyone pharisaical over the matter by holding
to tradition is false because it is like saying what is
truth can be conveniently altered at will.
So no those who cling to tradition in these issues
are NOT the Pharisees- but quite likely their
detractors are.

 

[GraceofGod31]

What people are NOT addressing is what Tradition IS.
Tradition is TRUTH that we hold to be truth from the
beginning. Therefore if the Apostles baptized by sprinkling
or immersion, with living or with cold water, a decision based
entirely on water resources available in the desert or Rome
at the time- such baptismal practice is a Tradition
and a TRUTH for it is TRUTH that they baptized
both ways according to water availability and we know
this how? From OTHER writings of people familiar with
them as peers.
Yet no where in Scripture does it say baptize by immersion
or by sprinkling, no where in the Bible does it state
use living or cold water, or what to do when the Jordan
dries up to a mudflat.
Tradition just IS, like TRUTH just is. It just is.
To claim anyone pharisaical over the matter by holding
to tradition is false because it is like saying what is
truth can be conveniently altered at will.
So no those who cling to tradition in these issues
are NOT the Pharisees- but quite likely their
detractors are.

Then I believe we may be in agreement, truthful tradition is still subordinate to Scripture? Your description of baptism is a perfect example. I’m new to these forums and I spent quite some time reading this thread alone. To me it appears that the RCC holds Scripture and Tradition in the reverse order meaning the Pope and the magesterium through tradition interpret scripture. And then through tradition clarify new dogmata.

We, from a confessional Lutheran standpoint, hold to tradition only as scripture allows. Using your example of baptism the common Lutheran practice is to sprinkler, yet tradition in light of scripture allows for immersion. We believe Scripture would allow even more extreme forms for lack of a water source which is not necessarily held by early tradition. RCC’s would reject anyone telling you immersion is required for a lack of command to it from scripture, just as we Lutherans reject it.

Now if we let Scripture reject anyone making dogma about those traditions of baptism in the early church, why would Scripture not be the basis for every other example. From where I stand tradition not found in scripture is one of two things something we don’t view as doctrine but have the freedom in Christ to practice or tradition used in direct conflict with clear commands and doctrine in God’s word. We can’t put the cart before the horse.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11791174]That’s an issue that’s unavoidable.

Once upon a time there was a Church that was invested with Christ’s Authority.

Some people said: I don’t believe you are teaching truth any more. We’re going to start our own Church.

Now, at that very point in time, they were disowning the Church that had Christ’s Authority.

When someone or something has Authority from God, unless and until some Divine command undoes it, that Authority should be followed.

EVEN IF they are doing (not teaching, but doing) wrong.

I would not argue with any of this, except to say two things:

1. Christ’s Church is not defined by membership in one specific communion, or being in communion with any one particular bishop.
2. If I am wrong about 1, however, then it is impossible to know which church as Christ’s authority, since it is in Schism for a millennium or more.

In the meantime, one depends on His grace, to forgive our divisions of His one true Church.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I would not argue with any of this, except to say two things:

1. Christ’s Church is not defined by membership in one specific communion, or being in communion with any one particular bishop.

AT THE TIME of the split, there was only one specific Church.

1. If I am wrong about 1, however, then it is impossible to know which church as Christ’s authority, since it is in Schism for a millennium or more.

OK, there were two claimants.
But the protestant split was due to disagreements with both of them.
One or the other was the Church that Christ started. Violating the decrees of both doesn’t provide a way to conform to Christ’s wishes.

In the meantime, one depends on His grace, to forgive our divisions of His one true Church.

Absolutely true. But to receive forgiveness, one needs to first admit that there was sin.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11796425]AT THE TIME of the split, there was only one specific Church.

Well, not getting into the Chalcedonian situation, I agree. And when that split happened, so did any certainty of authority.

OK, there were two claimants.
But the protestant split was due to disagreements with both of them.
One or the other was the Church that Christ started. Violating the decrees of both doesn’t provide a way to conform to Christ’s wishes.

Which one, FKB? If I follow one, I might remain in schism. If I follow the other,…
My own sense is that, where the two agree, we ought to be mindful, even deferential to that belief. If or when the two reconcile, we must also be there.

Absolutely true. But to receive forgiveness, one needs to first admit that there was sin.

I agree, and I think this is implied in my comment, and to its credit, the Catholic Church in the Catholic Catechism in #817 admits to this, also.

Jon

 

[eddie_too]

since Jesus established His Church to exercise His authority, i doubt any assertion claiming that His delegated authority cannot now be readily identified.

 

[JonNC]

since Jesus established His Church to exercise His authority, i doubt any assertion claiming that His delegated authority cannot now be readily identified.

It is identifiable. It is in the Church, but the Church is divided, in Schism, split. Therefore, so is the authority He gave the Church.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Which one, FKB? If I follow one, I might remain in schism. If I follow the other,…

So, your solution is to follow neither?

To instead follow a religion that was man-made and that you know, or should know, has no possibility of having that Authority?

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It is identifiable. It is in the Church, but the Church is divided, in Schism, split. Therefore, so is the authority He gave the Church.

Jon

If you have two (or more, or 30,000) competing “authorities,” you have NO authorities.
And therefore, the words of God are made null.

 

[eddie_too]

that is an interesting comment.

the Lord’s authority still exists. but, no one knows who possesses it.

such an understanding pretty much eliminates the effectiveness of Christ’s delegated authority.

and, it also raises the question of why would Jesus create a structure that would result in no one knowing who was His delegated representative here on earth?