Why Sola Scriptura fails

[Porknpie]

Once again, you misinterpret for your own purposes what I have said. If I applied the term “doctrine” to SS, it was used as a synonym for “teaching”. I make no claim that any authority ever formally declared SS to be official church doctrine. But that hardly invalidates it as a worthwhile practice.

So let me try once more to clarify where I stand.

I have learned that, in the very early days of Christianity – that is, in the generations immediately following the apostolic era – after the Apostles themselves had all died – there was a common practice among church leaders and teachers to insist that all tenets of the faith were to be subject to the test of Scripture (the inspired, written Word of God). If the teaching, or tenet of faith was found to be in conflict with Scripture, that teaching or tenet of faith was to be rejected.

I don’t pretend to know whether this practice of the early church (of identifying Scripture as the ultimate authority) was ever given a name, if it was ever recognized as a “doctrine”, or if it was ever anything more than “common practice”. In the days when proclaiming this teaching met with no effective opposition, it met with tacit approval throughout the church. There was never any need to give it a name, or a title, or to identify it formally as a doctrine. “Scripture over everything else” was simply the way things were done.

Simka,

What writings were listed a “Scripture” in the generations after the apostles?

And who said that they were inspired and inerrant prior to the biblical canon in 393 & 397 ad?

Pork

 

[PRmerger]

The fundamental problem that arose in the 1500’s was that Reformers were upset because they **perceived **that the church was indeed, using (small “t”) tradition to overrule Scripture, in precisely the same manner as the Jewish religious establishment of Jesus’ day had given their traditions precedence to overrule the Word of God.

Again, there is no Sacred Tradition that is contrary to Scripture.

That folks “perceived” this is no more valid than Muslims “perceiving” Christians to be polytheists because they “perceive” that we worship 3 gods.

 

[PRmerger]

So, specifically on the issue of salvation, they said that Scripture contained all the knowledge that was necessary.

Except, curiously, the knowledge of exactly what was Scripture. They needed the Church for that.

The corollary was, on that particular subject, any tradition was only beneficial if it helped to understand Scripture.

Sure. I don’t think Catholics ought to have a problem with that. There is no Tradition that obstructs one’s understanding of Scripture.

 

[Simka]

What writings were listed a “Scripture” in the generations after the apostles? And who said that they were inspired and inerrant prior to the biblical canon in 393 & 397 ad?

We know that the Jewish Scriptures were recognized as “inspired” in Jesus’ day. The Apostles themselves recognized the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit at work among them. And by the end of the Apostolic era, virtually all the Apostolic writings were recognized within the body of the church as the Inspired Word of God (Scripture). What the church essentially did was to ratify what had already become commonly known and understood.

If this issue is of critical importance to you, then to be certain of more of the detail you apparently require, I suggest you look to the official reports from Vatican I and Vatican II. They declare that it was not the church, but God, by His own inspiration, who determined the content of Scripture. The role of the church in the late 4th century was limited to discovering what God had already chosen.

 

[JonNC]

Many Lutherans I know do not even read them. They kind of place them into the “lost Gospel” group and figure they are useless.

No disagreement. Remember, we are talking about American Lutherans, as German Lutherans still have the DC’s in their German language Bibles.

Here is an interesting article about the “Apocrypha” in American Lutheranism.

cyberbrethren.com/2008/07/27/the-apocrypha-%E2%80%94-missing-in-action-in-the-lutheran-church/

Jon

 

[Simka]

Again, there is no Sacred Tradition that is contrary to Scripture.

We should not be using “Sacred Tradition” and “traditions” interchangeably. The argument raised 500 years ago was against the use of traditions to establish new doctrines that did not meet the test of Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Hi there,

Sorry, Jon - “Sola Scriptura” means “Scripture alone”.

You cant claim Scripture alone, and then say there are room for other things.

No - its Scripture alone.

If, instead of scripture alone, Protestants had scripture, reason and tradition - then they would actually be Catholics!

sigh

With all respect, Lutherans do not get to say what Catholics believe. And the reverse is true. The “sola” refers to what is the final norm. Here again is what the Lutheran Confessions say:

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.

Here we state what the sole (sola) rule and standard is. To do what? To estimate and judge all teachers and dogmas. No where does it state we eliminate doctrine, or Tradition, or teaching, or the Church.

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.

Here is the statement of the role of Tradition - as a witness to the truth of the faith, not equal to scripture, but subjected to it. No where stated is that Tradition is to be eliminated.

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.

This is obvious. Please note that it says we “pledge ourselves to them”. Now the creeds are not written in scripture, and we pledge ourselves to them.

Jon

 

[Simka]

What writings were listed a “Scripture” in the generations after the apostles? And who said that they were inspired and inerrant prior to the biblical canon in 393 & 397 ad?

Pork, as a followup to my previous answer, let me ask you a couple of questions, because I truly want to understand where you’re coming from. Unless your purpose is to assert there was no Scripture prior to 393/397, what is the point of your question?

Is it of vital importance to you to know whether both, or only one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians was accepted as “inspired” by the year 100?

Is it of overwhelming importance whether John’s gospel, and all three of his letters, were similarly recognized? How does this bear on the principles and practices that were common within the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-century church?

 

[Nicea325]

Once again, you misinterpret for your own purposes what I have said. If I applied the term “doctrine” to SS, it was used as a synonym for “teaching”. I make no claim that any authority ever formally declared SS to be official church doctrine. But that hardly invalidates it as a worthwhile practice.

So let me try once more to clarify where I stand.

I have learned that, in the very early days of Christianity – that is, in the generations immediately following the apostolic era – after the Apostles themselves had all died – there was a common practice among church leaders and teachers to insist that all tenets of the faith were to be subject to the test of Scripture (the inspired, written Word of God). If the teaching, or tenet of faith was found to be in conflict with Scripture, that teaching or tenet of faith was to be rejected.

I don’t pretend to know whether this practice of the early church (of identifying Scripture as the ultimate authority) was ever given a name, if it was ever recognized as a “doctrine”, or if it was ever anything more than “common practice”. In the days when proclaiming this teaching met with no effective opposition, it met with tacit approval throughout the church. There was never any need to give it a name, or a title, or to identify it formally as a doctrine. “Scripture over everything else” was simply the way things were done.

Of course, at the same time, there were also important traditions within the church, many widely held as important, widely taught as useful standards for Christian living. Some were even held to have Apostolic origin.

(One example that comes to mind is the traditional date for celebrating Easter. Two different arms of the church identified two different dates, and each claimed Apostolic authority for its tradition.)

But these traditions never rose to the level of doctrinal authority, which had been reserved for Scripture alone. No early church father ever appealed to tradition to resolve any doctrinal issue.

(I could quote you paragraph after paragraph from early writings, but short of laying the entire documents before you, you will accuse me of taking such citations out of context, so I cannot see the point. You can read for yourself the recorded writings of Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine, to name a few. Taken in context, their views are consistent with Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote: “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”)

Over time, widespread acceptance of this common practice gradually began to diminish. I cannot tell you what the precise time-frame or schedule was. But by the 16th century it had reached a point where advocates within the church sought to draw it back to its former standard. They claimed that the church had fallen away from its former reliance on Scripture, and had been elevating its traditions to authority over Scripture, which in turn had led to acceptance of practices which were contradictory to Scripture. One area more than any other was of special concern, and that was the church’s teaching on the requirements for salvation. I cannot tell you at what point in time, or by whom, the Latin name, “sola Scriptura” was first applied to the reformers’ position. But the name was a suitable summary of the position it represented. Its fundamental teaching was that, as in days of old, the church should again acknowledge that Scripture contains all the knowledge necessary for salvation and Christian living.

The church said “No.”

Understood. However, your argument still falls into error and I’ll tell you why. First, you understand Sola means only in Latin-correct? If you say yes,then what you are asserting is that the early church and ECF strictly held to ONLY the Bible and nothing else. Which is false and a distortion of truth. The fact the church used Scripture does not mean everything revolved around Scripture and no questions asked. Again…a false presentation of early church history.Second, you are merely assuming and it is pure conjecture on your part and I’ll quote your own words:

There was never any need to give it a name, or a title, or to identify it formally as a doctrine. “Scripture over everything else” was simply the way things were done.

What certitude do you have that the church never had to name it or title or declare it a doctrine? And no where does the early church ever teach or claim: Scripture over everything else.

Yes…taken out-of-context from the larger context of the matter in which those words were said by the church father. You posted:

Taken in context, their views are consistent with Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote: “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”)

1.Did Nyssa say those words because he was advocating or defending SS?
2 Tell me what did he mean by:…harmonize with the intention of those writings. What writings?
3. Why did Nyssa say those words and to whom were tthey directed at?
4. What was going on at the time.which compellled him to convey such words?
5.What reasons did he have to defend Scripture in such a fashion in his above statement?
6. Kindly show me where Nyssa or any ECF ever say or teach: Scripture over everything else?
7., Please present one ECF who exhaustively writes on defending,promoting or justifies ONLY-Scripture and nothing else to defend the faith?

BTW: I wonder why Jesus never bothers to say: Write and SS is the only means? Why did he even bother to leave a church,if everything needed for salvation is in the Bible-according to you?

 

[Simka]

Except, curiously, the knowledge of exactly what was Scripture. They needed the Church for that.

PR, have a look at #598. We have a significant difference in perception.
The Church, as a decision-making body of arbitration and debate, was NOT needed for determining Scripture. Inspired Christian leaders began making these calls, as early as the first century, even while some of the Apostles were still living. The validity of their identification of inspired Scripture was formally ratified hundreds of years later.

 

[PRmerger]

Inspired Christian leaders began making these calls, as early as the first century, even while some of the Apostles were still living.

And what is that, Simka, except an example of Sacred Tradition in action?

 

[pablope]

We should not be using “Sacred Tradition” and “traditions” interchangeably. The argument raised 500 years ago was against the use of traditions to establish new doctrines that did not meet the test of Scripture.

Well…could you tell us what these new doctrines are?

And if they did not mee the test of scripture…who is the authority to decide if these so called new doctrines meet the test of scripture or not?

Is this authority making the decision with the/received authority from God?

 

[Simka]

Understood. However, your argument still falls into error and I’ll tell you why. First, you understand Sola means only in Latin-correct? If you say yes,then what you are asserting is that the early church and ECF strictly held to ONLY the Bible and nothing else.

Yes, “sola” can be translated as “only” or “alone”. The title “sola Scriptura” stands for and represents a principle, or a practice, or a teaching, or a position, that “only Scripture” or “Scripture alone” is the final authority in refuting or validating a doctrine of the church.

The principle of SS does NOT mean, as you suggest above, that the church should hold to Scripture alone, and nothing else. That it a misrepresentation of SS.

SS has no issue with tradition. The 16th century advocates of SS welcomed church traditions, and acknowledged them as valuable, worth holding to, providing quality instruction in Christian living. The only proviso they wanted the church to retain was that decisions based on tradition should be subject to Scriptural oversight … that Scripture alone was the final arbiter on doctrinal matters.

 

[pablope]

PR, have a look at #598. We have a significant difference in perception.
The Church, as a decision-making body of arbitration and debate, was NOT needed for determining Scripture. Inspired Christian leaders began making these calls, as early as the first century, even while some of the Apostles were still living. The validity of their identification of inspired Scripture was formally ratified hundreds of years later.

You have a misunderstanding…Simka.

Various bishops were making or proposing various writings…not just ordinary laymen.

From what these various bishops proposed, there was no set standard of writings to read in the churches…during the Mass.

However, these bishops had no authority beyond their sees or dioceses. Because of these varying proposals…there was confusion. So when there is confusion what does the church do…it calls for a council.

And of the primary reasons, to have a standard set of writings to be read during the Mass…not extract doctrine.

The first such council to determine a canon was AD 382…and its outcome proclaimed by Pope Damasus.

 

[pablope]

Yes, " The only proviso they wanted the church to retain was that decisions based on tradition should be subject to Scriptural oversight … that Scripture alone was the final arbiter on doctrinal matters.

Simple question Simka…how can Scripture make itself the final arbiter on doctrinal matters? How does Scripture make its decision known an making a ruling on doctrinal matters?

And what is the authority of the reformers to impose what they wanted on the Church?

Perhaps…you should read this article:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html

 

[Porknpie]

Pork, as a followup to my previous answer, let me ask you a couple of questions, because I truly want to understand where you’re coming from. Unless your purpose is to assert there was no Scripture prior to 393/397, what is the point of your question?

Is it of vital importance to you to know whether both, or only one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians was accepted as “inspired” by the year 100?

Is it of overwhelming importance whether John’s gospel, and all three of his letters, were similarly recognized? How does this bear on the principles and practices that were common within the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-century church?

Simka,

I’m just trying to understand who do you believe had the authority to say what was “Scripture” in the early church…and why? Somehow you’ve come to believe that the Catholic Church followed Sola Scriptura…and while for sure the Church looked to the written Word handed down by the apostles (this is clear), Tradition was there as well.

As examples, is Irenaeus not referring to Tradition to decide the truth between two competing Scriptures?

"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and t**he truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth **…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Tertullian…“teaching”… = …Tradition

“We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our teaching.” Tertullian, Purity 9,1 (c. A.D. 200).

The early OHCAC was following Scripture and Tradition as we follow today.

“Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3,2,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Tertullian again using Tradition to disprove the heretics.

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

Doesn’t sound like a Sola Scripture Church…Thoughts?

 

[Simka]

Well…could you tell us what these new doctrines are?

Not with any great precision, but I can name a few … Luther challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope. Soon afterward, reformers were challenging the entire system from which indulgences derived. Traditions regarding Purgatory, the Treasury of Merits, and the Intercessions of the Saints were brought into question, because they were held to be unsupported by Scripture.

And if they did not mee the test of scripture…who is the authority to decide if these so called new doctrines meet the test of scripture or not?

The reformers would have been content to have the Church make those calls. Unfortunately, what was happening was that the Church was abdicating its responsibility in this area, and effectively saying, “We have chosen to implement a doctrine of the church and it doesn’t matter whether it agrees with Scripture or not, because we’re relying on the authority of our traditions.”

The question became less about whether a doctrine was really Scriptural, but whether Scripture had the final say. The Church said “No.” Compliance with Scripture was no longer an issue the church relied upon.

 

[joe371]

We should not be using “Sacred Tradition” and “traditions” interchangeably. The argument raised 500 years ago was against the use of traditions to establish new doctrines that did not meet the test of Scripture.

As a former sola-scriptura advocate it eventually occurred to me that sola scriptura doesn’t come close to meeting the test of Scripture. I understand that there are quite a few different definitions of the practice of sola scriptura, but what I cannot locate is an early church father embracing only sacred scripture. Every time someone throws an early-church-father quote at me, claiming that that person embraced sola scriptura, I can then demonstrate that that same person also deferred to sacred tradition. However, what you seem to be saying is that as long as sacred tradition passes the test of scripture i.e. is found somewhere within the pages of scripture, then it should be believed - correct?

Who has the authority to make that determination, in terms of making sure that a teaching meets the test of Scripture, especially when people disagree on certain teachings, such as the Eucharist? Three different protestant churches (My niece, father and sister) all claim something different, claiming that they or their church are right because either they or their church, deemed it worthy of meeting the test of scripture. It simply does not work.

 

[PRmerger]

So well…then, can you provide the official writing of Luther as to what SS is?

Yes, I would like to see that as well.

Also, something that says that Fr. Luther described SS as a “hermeneutic principle”, which I believe someone has posited is something attributed to Fr. Luther.

 

[PRmerger]

We should not be using “Sacred Tradition” and “traditions” interchangeably.

Right.
Sacred Tradition = the Word of God.
traditions = customs.

The argument raised 500 years ago was against the use of traditions to establish** new doctrines** that did not meet the test of Scripture.

There have been no new doctrines, Simka. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.