Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[JonNC]

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.

Well, of course I don’t think our portion of the OHCAC is man-made, anymore than I think yours is. The OHCAC is not man-made.
My solution is to remain in the Church, hear the word, receive the sacraments, do the works He calls us to do, and pray for the unity of the Church Militant.

Jon

 

[GraceofGod31]

House Harkonnen:

Really? So by the end of the first century the canon was officially ratified? Provide me with one name of an Apostle or church father

How about a few Church fathers in the 2nd century which is within two generations of eyewitness testimony and still 2 centuries until Nicea. Justin the Martyr repeatedly refers to the four gospels in his writings. Iraeneaus, Ignatius, Polycarp I could go on.

Also the oldest list of books for the New Testament canon is the Muratorian fragment dating to c.170. It shows that by 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book New Testament, which included the four gospels. While there was debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the current books of the New Testament were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 2nd century, with the exception of James, Hebrews, and 2nd Peter. However, these 3 books were also agreed upon and recognized as canon by church leadership shortly thereafter. Following Eusebius, the disputed books are referred to as the Antilegomena.

 

[Nicea325]

How about a few Church fathers in the 2nd century which is within two generations of eyewitness testimony and still 2 centuries until Nicea. Justin the Martyr repeatedly refers to the four gospels in his writings. Iraeneaus, Ignatius, Polycarp I could go on.

Also the oldest list of books for the New Testament canon is the Muratorian fragment dating to c.170. It shows that by 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book New Testament, which included the four gospels. While there was debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the current books of the New Testament were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 2nd century, with the exception of James, Hebrews, and 2nd Peter. However, these 3 books were also agreed upon and recognized as canon by church leadership shortly thereafter. Following Eusebius, the disputed books are referred to as the Antilegomena.

I am very aware of what you have said in regards to a “list” of books, But guess what? That is not the same as an official ratified canon. Far to many Protestants assume because ancient church used a similar list of NT books to our current Bible; hence it somehow supports or proves an official canon existed. That is not true because history is very clear when the canon was officially ratified.

As I said, if the NT was official canon sort forth by the church late 1st or early 2nd century, I would like to read this important piece of history.

 

[GraceofGod31]

I am very aware of what you have said in regards to a “list” of books, But guess what? That is not the same as an official ratified canon. Far to many Protestants assume because ancient church used a similar list of NT books to our current Bible; hence it somehow supports or proves an official canon existed. That is not true because history is very clear when the canon was officially ratified.

As I said, if the NT was official canon sort forth by the church late 1st or early 2nd century, I would like to read this important piece of history.

So it only became Scripture when it was "officially " canonized? Can you tell me why the church needed an official cannon in the first place?

 

[marywarfield]

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.

I disagree with this. Scripture MUST be interpreted
Traditionally otherwise you run the risk of relativism.
I.e. gay marriage, abortion.

If the Canon was defined through tradition in 300ad
it makes no sense to redefine it differently later. If it was
true in 300ad it’s true today because Christ cannot
contradict Himself.

 

[seanman611]

Posted this reply on another forum that delt with the same subject:

Since it is impossible for me, as an Anglican, to say something that represents all Anglicans, I’ll give the belief on the matter that many/most Anglicans share.

Many Anglicans tend to look at the Bible as being the main and most important authority, containing all things necessary for salvation. That being said, tradition and reason are also given authority. If the Bible is silent on an issue, then we tend to look to tradition and appeal to spirit-filled human reason. If there is a tradition that violates scripture, then we need to take a serious look at and evaluate that tradition. Personally, I think that the Anglican position is a good approach.

However, Anglicans tend to look at theological issues differently than many other Christian traditions. The idea is that we have unity in the essentials (laid out in the historic creeds, early church councils), yet there is liberty in what is not defined in the creeds or councils. That being the case, you get Anglicans that hold vastly different views in regards to salvation, for example. Furthermore, while Anglicans affirm the Real Presence, there are varies competing theologies on what that means. Therefore, Anglicans are a Christian tradition which tends to be united in liturgy, worship, and Sacrament, rather than by a detailed confessional document.

Sadly, this great strength of Anglicanism can also be a great weakness. Some of us are finding that it is difficult to live in harmony with those who don’t share the same beliefs as ourselves on a wide-range of issues. Also, Anglicans often disagree on the place and authority that should be given to documents like the 39 Articles, which is the closest thing to an Anglican confession. Even when considering the 39 Articles, being somewhat vague and confusing as they are, some Anglicans interpret them as being more Catholic, while others see them as being more Lutheran or Reformed.

Therefore, to tie this together, Anglicanism rejects the idea of sola(o) scriptura in favor of prima scriptura.

 

[marywarfield]

So it only became Scripture when it was "officially " canonized? Can you tell me why the church needed an official cannon in the first place?

Simple history study affords the accurate answer. Jesus
was not the only person in Galilee claiming to be the Messiah.
Many others also made the claim just as today that
they themselves were such. And this continued past
the death of the Apostles and their disciples. Many
spurious writings existed that claimed to be Gospels
or were attributed to Christ and the Apostles
needed to be weeded out. It was necessary to
“legalize” the writings and only those that could
definately be proven to be of Christ and the Apostles
were later codified in the Canon.

 

[GraceofGod31]

Simple history study affords the accurate answer. Jesus
was not the only person in Galilee claiming to be the Messiah.
Many others also made the claim just as today that
they themselves were such. And this continued past
the death of the Apostles and their disciples. Many
spurious writings existed that claimed to be Gospels
or were attributed to Christ and the Apostles
needed to be weeded out. It was necessary to
“legalize” the writings and only those that could
definately be proven to be of Christ and the Apostles
were later codified in the Canon.

Could not have said it better myself. The reason for canonization, for ecumenical creeds, and from the Lutheran standpoint our confessions are in response to traditions outside of God’s word.

 

[GraceofGod31]

:

Many Anglicans tend to look at the Bible as being the main and most important authority, containing all things necessary for salvation. That being said, tradition and reason are also given authority. If the Bible is silent on an issue, then we tend to look to tradition and appeal to spirit-filled human reason. If there is a tradition that violates scripture, then we need to take a serious look at and evaluate that tradition. Personally, I think that the Anglican position is a good approach.

I don’t see the distinction here between what you state as the Anglican approach and what we Confessional Lutherans believe when we say sola scriptura.

We follow tradition and reason as well, where we differ is from the RCC’s insistence that tradition interprets scripture( and in the case of purgatory, plenary indulgences, Marian dogmas, etc. tradition trumps scripture.) If scripture is the primary authority then traditions and reason can be followed as long as they are congruent with what scripture teaches.

 

[GraceofGod31]

I disagree with this. Scripture MUST be interpreted
Traditionally otherwise you run the risk of relativism.
I.e. gay marriage, abortion.

If the Canon was defined through tradition in 300ad
it makes no sense to redefine it differently later. If it was
true in 300ad it’s true today because Christ cannot
contradict Himself.

There is a significant difference between tradition defining cannon, and it defining new dogma. How should I reconcile the church not teaching about plenary indulgences, and the 5th Marian dogma (because it was not taught in Scripture) in 300 AD for example, and now it does through tradition and authority of the magesterium teach these as dogma. Do we pick and choose when Christ can and can not contradict himself?

 

[marywarfield]

:

I don’t see the distinction here between what you state as the Anglican approach and what we Confessional Lutherans believe when we say sola scriptura.

We follow tradition and reason as well, where we differ is from the RCC’s insistence that tradition interprets scripture( and in the case of purgatory, plenary indulgences, Marian dogmas, etc. tradition trumps scripture.) If scripture is the primary authority then traditions and reason can be followed as long as they are congruent with what scripture teaches.

Ll there again you run into a conundrum. If we agree
that the Church needed to codify the Scripture in 397ad
since there were so many spurious writings at the time
how can we then defend Luther’s alteration of said
codification 1000 years after the fact by throwing out
Maccabees 1 and 2 which are clear supports of a “purgatory”?
And even without that we would have to throw out the
Creed of the Lutherans which professes that Christ
descended into Hell? If a person can be in a state
of purgation after death why are you professing Christ
did just that with the souls in Hell?
Lol. Basically Luther threw out Scripture as either prima
or sola and you have continued that tradition. No?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ll there again you run into a conundrum. If we agree
that the Church needed to codify the Scripture in 397ad since there were so many spurious writings at the time

Most of the spurious writings were considered spurious long before 397. See Irenaeus on this fact. That was hundreds of years before Hippo or Carthage. The early local councils met not to “codify” the Scripture, but to refute heretics who modified what was already accepted throughout the churches governed by the bishops at those councils (Marcion being an early example).

how can we then defend Luther’s alteration of said
codification 1000 years after the fact by throwing out
Maccabees 1 and 2 which are clear supports of a “purgatory”?

bzz, Luther’s Bible translation contained 1 and 2 Maccabees.

And even without that we would have to throw out the
Creed of the Lutherans which professes that Christ
descended into Hell? If a person can be in a state
of purgation after death why are you professing Christ
did just that with the souls in Hell?

What does that mean? Does it say Christ descended to Hell or to purgatory?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Most of the spurious writings were considered spurious long before 397. See Irenaeus on this fact.

Just because Ireneaus opposed Marcion and the Valentinians (among other heretics), doesn’t mean he had declared - on his own - an infallible statement for the whole Church in regards to what books are to be considered in the New Testament.

Also, I don’t think there is any mentions of: Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude in his writings.

Irenaeus accepted Clement I

When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles. He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes – and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement’s time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, which declared one almighty God, maker of heaven and earth and fashioner of man, who brought out the people from the land of Egypt; who spoke with Moses; who ordained the Law and sent the Prophets; and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who care to can learn from this Writing that he was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is older than those present false teachers who make up lies about another God above the Demiurge and maker of all things that are. (Against Heresies Book III Chapter 3.3)

and the Shepherd of Hermas.

1. Truly, then,* the Scripture declared*, which says, "First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence: "He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one. Rightly also has Malachi said among the prophets: "Is it not one God who hath established us? Have we not all one Father? " In accordance with this, too, does the apostle say, “There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and in us all.” Likewise does the Lord also say: "All things are delivered to Me by My Father; " manifestly by Him who made all things; for He did not deliver to Him the things of another, but His own. But in all things [it is implied that] nothing has been kept back [from Him], and for this reason the same person is the Judge of the living and the dead; “having the key of David: He shall Open, and no man shall shut: He shall shut, and no man shall open.” For no one was able, either in heaven or in earth, or under the earth, to open the book of the Father, or to behold Him, with the exception of the Lamb who was slain, and who redeemed us with His own blood, receiving power over all things from the same God who made all things by the Word, and adorned them by [His] Wisdom, when "the Word was made flesh; "that even as the Word of God had the sovereignty in the heavens, so also might He have the sovereignty in earth, inasmuch as [He was] a righteous man, "who did no sin, neither was there found guile in His mouth; " and that He might have the pre-eminence over those things which are under the earth, He Himself being made "the first-begotten of the dead; " and that all things, as I have already said, might behold their King; and that the paternal light might meet with and rest upon the flesh of our Lord, and come to us from His resplendent flesh, and that thus man might attain to immortality, having been invested with the paternal light. (Against Heresies Book 4 Chapter 20.2)

Which he quotes from the bold above:

FIRST Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing. He alone is able to contain the whole, but Himself cannot be contained. Have faith therefore in Him, and fear Him; and fearing Him, exercise self-control. Keep these commands, and you will cast away from you all wickedness, and put on the strength of righteousness, and live to God, if you keep this commandment. (Shepherd of Hermas 2nd Book, First Commandmend)

Irenaus is clearly saying that the Shepherd of Hermas is Scriptures.

And, if I’m not mistaken, he is silent on:

The Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle to Seneca the Younger
The 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians
The 1st Apocalypse of James
The Didache

Which were circulating at the time.

So… no… Ireneaus is not going to make your case.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Just because Ireneaus opposed Marcion and the Valentinians (among other heretics), doesn’t mean he had declared - on his own - an infallible statement for the whole Church in regards to what books are to be considered in the New Testament.

Nor did I say that he did. What I did say was that many of the spurious writings were considered spurious long before any provincial council (Carthage, Rome, et al.) made any declarations about the canon. Ireneaus is one example of a father who, very early on, indicated the falsehood of apocryphal writings.

I was not referring to Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. as these writings, while not Scriptural, are not spurious.

Please keep on topic to what I was addressing

 

[marywarfield]

Most of the spurious writings were considered spurious long before 397. See Irenaeus on this fact. That was hundreds of years before Hippo or Carthage. The early local councils met not to “codify” the Scripture, but to refute heretics who modified what was already accepted throughout the churches governed by the bishops at those councils (Marcion being an early example).

bzz, Luther’s Bible translation contained 1 and 2 Maccabees.

What does that mean? Does it say Christ descended to Hell or to purgatory?

Luther did indeed remove 2 Maccabees…

 

[marywarfield]

Most of the spurious writings were considered spurious long before 397. See Irenaeus on this fact. That was hundreds of years before Hippo or Carthage. The early local councils met not to “codify” the Scripture, but to refute heretics who modified what was already accepted throughout the churches governed by the bishops at those councils (Marcion being an early example).

bzz, Luther’s Bible translation contained 1 and 2 Maccabees.

What does that mean? Does it say Christ descended to Hell or to purgatory?

Like I said Luther did in fact object to AND remove
2 Maccabees. He did so because he disputed any
concept of sin purgation after death. A person dies with
sin that’s it- all over- curtains. Which of course WARS with
the Creed in that we know when Jesus descended to
Hell he freed the souls IN hell- purged them.
If one rejects that concept one is basically saying
Jesus descended into Hell just to show off to the
poor miserable blokes in Hell by showing them what
they were missing out on.

If someone removes something from the Bible a thousand
years after the fact then disputes aspects of doctrine
based on those things removed by claiming they are
unscriptural- what can be done?
Luther in fact removed much more than 2 Maccabees
and ever since the Protestants have been claiming
Catholic doctrines have no scriptural basis.

Perhaps this will help you out.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

 

[Per_Crucem]

Luther did indeed remove 2 Maccabees…

Luther’s German translation included all of the books currently contained in Catholic editions. While he personally disputed the inspiration of the deuterocanonical Scriptures, they were included in Die Biebel.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Like I said Luther did in fact object to AND remove
2 Maccabees. He did so because he disputed any
concept of sin purgation after death. A person dies with
sin that’s it- all over- curtains.

At the time that Luther disputed the inspiration of 2 Maccabees, Luther still believed in purgatory.

Which of course WARS with
the Creed in that we know when Jesus descended to
Hell he freed the souls IN hell- purged them.
If one rejects that concept one is basically saying
Jesus descended into Hell just to show off to the
poor miserable blokes in Hell by showing them what
they were missing out on.

The Creed states He descended to hell, not purgatory.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If someone removes something from the Bible a thousand
years after the fact then disputes aspects of doctrine
based on those things removed by claiming they are
unscriptural- what can be done?
Luther in fact removed much more than 2 Maccabees
and ever since the Protestants have been claiming
Catholic doctrines have no scriptural basis.

I believe that 2 Maccabees is Scriptural. I still don’t believe there is a Scriptural basis for purgatory.

 

[marywarfield]

Luther’s German translation included all of the books currently contained in Catholic editions. While he personally disputed the inspiration of the deuterocanonical Scriptures, they were included in Die Biebel.

And perhaps this from EWTN will help you understand
that Luther did indeed remove seven books from
the Catholic Bible.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=438095