Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Doctrine Matters
>
Sola Scriptura
Luke wrote: "Sorry for the vagueness, I was between making dinner and a crying baby so had to type fast and one handed on my phone! I want to point to the Great Schism as potentially a point in time where the..."
Hahaha! No problem. If anyone hasn't noticed, I am a questioner ( ! ) and like things as pinned down as possible...I am not adverse to questioning my own Faith, although feel absolutely blessed and grateful to be Catholic, but that needs sort of concrete points for me to investigate.
Relatively new "empty-nester" here! I guess to your detriment, some may think! hahaha
No problem Susan! I'm a questioner too! Hence why I'm probably not a "good Protestant" since I will take the wisdom and teaching of the Church fathers alongside scripture as my journey of exploring the early Church took me closer to Catholicism and Orthodoxy than where I began
Luke wrote: "No problem Susan! I'm a questioner too! Hence why I'm probably not a "good Protestant" since I will take the wisdom and teaching of the Church fathers alongside scripture as my journey of exploring..."John Henry Cardinal Newman apparently said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Nemo wrote: "The priestly services and the structure of the Temple were described, or rather prescribed, in the Books of Moses, long before the Babylonian exile."That's precisely my point. But they were not written down. The earliest records we have of scriptures in written form are from around the Babylonian exiles. All of these were transmitted orally.
I know this is a stretch for us to accept, but let me illustrate with another example.
Moses and the Desert Wanderings are in the Bronze Age, and around the very same time you had the Trojan War. There is in the archeaological record written documents on clay tablets, such as the Mycenean Linear B or the Hittite Cuneiform. These are largely found in palaces and places of power. Not in desert outposts with a nomadic people.
Now here we have an interesting coincidence: the Iliad, the epic poem describing the events of the Trojan war was recited orally for about 400 years before Homer wrote it down. This is roughly in the same time frame as to when the Israelites wrote down what became the Hebrew Scriptures. Is there a connection? I honestly don't know.
Back in the 1980s the historian Michael Wood did a fantastic TV documentary, In Search of the Trojan War, and in it he addressed oral transmission and how people preserved their stories. You had professional story tellers. They could recite entire epic poems by heart. They would travel from town to town and make their living this way. And wouldn't you know it, Wood found some somewhere in Anatolia, where folks from a village are gathered, listening to a guy reciting an epic poem.
Back to the Old Testament. The priestly order, the Levites, were charged not only to perform the requisite sacrifices, but to preserve the law and the rituals. And if people can recite the entire Iliad or the Odyssee or any other epic poems in whatever culture you are born into, then Levites can remember by heart what constitutes Leviticus, or Genesis, etc. It was part of their profession.
Nemo wrote: "The teachings of the Apostles are part of the Scripture which sola scriptura upholds. Obviously, what Paul taught before his conversion is not considered Apostolic teaching."Let me ask you this question:
According to sola scriptura, in what relationship does the authority of the Bible stand with the authority Jesus Christ. One is the inspired Word of God, the other is the Word.
Kerstin, I can possibly offer some insight into that question. In some evangelical circles, I've met some people online who actually conflate the two and go as far to say that Jesus IS the Bible!! 🤦🏻♂️ which is obviously total heresy.
But apart from those fringe opinions, generally the answer is that God can't/won't/doesn't speak to us today outside of scripture. Therefore if God wants to say something to you, then he will ONLY do it via the written word of scripture— either by Holy Spirit bringing things to mind or promoting you to look up/read a certain verse etc.
In the sola scriptura tradition, that is how Jesus, the Word, speaks: via the written word.
I personally disagree with this.
Nemo wrote: "The priestly services and the structure of the Temple were described, or rather prescribed, in the Books of Moses, long before the Babylonian exile."Kerstin wrote: "That's precisely my point. But they were not written down. The earliest records we have of scriptures in written form are from around the Babylonian exiles."
The earliest manuscripts were dated back to the Babylonian exile period, but it doesn't mean that they had not been written down before and copied over time. New discoveries in archaeology have been continually pushing the dates of the manuscripts back.
What I find more interesting is the accounts in the Scripture, outside the Five Books of Moses, that indicate the existence of the written Law of Moses. It is written in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34 that the high priest found the Law of Moses in the temple. This is before the Babylonian invasion. I take it to mean that there was a period of time when the Law was neglected to the extent that nobody knew the written Law existed.
Kerstin wrote: "According to sola scriptura, in what relationship does the authority of the Bible stand with the authority Jesus Christ. One is the inspired Word of God, the other is the Word. .."As I said earlier in msg. 15, the Scripture derives its authority from God, i.e. Christ. In other words, it is the same authority. God does not contradict Himself.
Luke wrote: "Kerstin, I can possibly offer some insight into that question. In some evangelical circles, I've met some people online who actually conflate the two and go as far to say that Jesus IS the Bible!..."
Very well put Luke!
I was trying to make the distinction between the person, Jesus Christ, and the object, the Bible. Jesus came to establish his Church, which is at its most basic level a community of persons. So he witnessed to and taught people, most especially his successors, the Apostles. They got the great commission, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt 28:19-20)
Christ by his authority declares the Apostles ready make disciples themselves. The passing of authority goes from person to person, even though we recognize that Jesus was fully man and fully divine. I don't see a contradiction here. This passing of authority from person to person is still with us today in the form of Holy Orders, or Apostolic Succession. The model of the shepherd and his sheep is maintained. Paul confirms this in 2 Tim 2:2, "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." Again, we are talking about persons, making disciples from person to person. Nowhere here is the mention of scriptures. The focus is on building the Church.
So what role did they take? As I tried to illustrate in an earlier post, the scriptures at the time of Christ were encountered in the synagogue, that's where the scrolls were kept. This practice was continued in the early house churches, and eventually you had church buildings, to be proclaimed at Mass. The role of scriptures, the Word of God, is a sacred tool to be used within Divine Worship, and the precedence of the synagogues confirm this. This is how they were uniformly used until the Reformation, until Martin Luther introduced a brand new theological concept, sola scriptura, which had no precedence and no precursors. The object of the Bible is elevated from a sacred tool in service of Divine Worship and becomes an authority on its own.
I don't expect everyone to follow my train of thoughts, to me this is very troublesome.
Kerstin wrote: "Luke wrote: "Kerstin, I can possibly offer some insight into that question. In some evangelical circles, I've met some people online who actually conflate the two and go as far to say that Jesus ..."
I followed! I think :). And altering the Bible that had been established for hundreds of years. Didn't he add a word and take books out? If I was saying this book had the authority of God on the one hand, I don't think I would be brave enough to alter it....and if it can just be altered like that, how does one use it as the 'ultimate, end all, all there is', in answering questions that arise? Does that confuse anyone else?
Susan wrote: "..it seems there should be an urgency, a 'dead seriousness' about all of this...as the loss of souls for eternity is at stake."The 'dead seriousness' applies to all Christians, whether or not one believes in sola scriptura. In other words, that is not at an argument against the doctrine.
You asked, "How does one know who has the Truth?" Appealing to human authority or hierarchy is not the answer, because they are fallen and fallible men.
The principle of sola scriptura, deficient as it might be, makes far better sense to me than the alternatives. As far as I can tell, nobody in this group has denied the divine authority of the Scripture. So it is not yet clear to me why people react strongly against it.
Luther didn't actually remove anything from the Bible. I used to think he did until I looked into the formation of the canon some more, and specifically, Luther's/the Reformations influence. Luther rearranged the order of the books, put the deuterocanon into a separate section in between the testaments and called it the "apocrypha".
He did want to remove some new testament books, namely: Hebrews, James and a couple others I can't remember. He was persuaded against this, and instead moved them to the back of the NT. If you look up "Luther's Bible" or "Luther's canon" you can see what order things ended up.
But even though he didn't actually remove anything, and the apocrypha was still included even in the 1611 KJV, it was eventually "outlawed" by the American Bible society, who kinda made it 'illegal' to print any Bibles with it included.
This is how the Protestant canon eventually changed within society and how those "extra books" became suspicious to your regular lay people.
And all of this eventually leads to the same question: who has/had the authority to make such changes?
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "..it seems there should be an urgency, a 'dead seriousness' about all of this...as the loss of souls for eternity is at stake."The 'dead seriousness' applies to all Christians, whet..."
I think the issue is personal interpretation....leaving everyone up to their own thoughts and ideas is what would be seemingly dangerous to me with such dire consequences.
I'm not sure if you are aware of how Catholics view things....it is not human authority as the Holy Spirit protects from error. We are not placing our faith in mere men. And even the Pope, to us, it is not a man made idea, but Jesus Himself who set up that hierarchy...but maybe I understand Catholicism wrong too!
Luke wrote: "Luther didn't actually remove anything from the Bible. I used to think he did until I looked into the formation of the canon some more, and specifically, Luther's/the Reformations influence. Luth..."
Thank you. Yes, I agree that seems a very big question. Did he add the word 'alone' and then it was later put back in?
Susan wrote: "it is not human authority as the Holy Spirit protects from error.."If you believe that the Holy Spirit protects from error, why do you not believe that He protects each believer from error?
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "it is not human authority as the Holy Spirit protects from error.."If you believe that the Holy Script protects from error, what do you not believe that He protects each believer fr..."
1) Because I don't see that that is how Jesus set up His Church and
2) we already see proof that that can not be so as we currently have many denominations that contradict each other. The Holy Spirit would be a better protector than that.
Susan wrote: "Because I don't see that that is how Jesus set up His Church and ."Again, the hierarchy of the Church is different from infallibility.
we already see proof that that can not be so as we currently have many denominations
With Roman Catholicism being one of them. It doesn't prove that any one of the branches is infallible, nor does it disprove that the Holy Spirit is willing and able to guide the believers into all truth.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Because I don't see that that is how Jesus set up His Church and ."Again, the hierarchy of the Church is different from infallibility.
we already see proof that that can not be so..."
Yes... I am saying, I do not see Jesus setting up a Church of only individuals...I was trying to point out that I see Him set up a Church with Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons and those Bishops deferring in matters of solving problems to a specific Bishop...thus the hierarchy.... the infallibility is different.
I don't see Catholicism as a denomination as I believe this is the Church Jesus set up, one, and two, I don't see how multiple denominations could not prove that the Holy Spirit is not guiding all to the Truth as there can only be one Truth. How can all Truth contradict itself? I must be missing something.
Since you said Roman Catholicism is a denomination, you must have a date when you say it 'started'. What do you consider the date?
The Truth does not contradict itself, but fallen and fallible men do, and that is what we all are. I already gave two possible reasons msg. 48 why there are many interpretations of the Scripture. The Christian life, as I understand it, is life of growth and learning, as the Scriptures and the Church Fathers (such as Irenaeus and Origen) have taught. If we're all infallible and perfect, there would be no differences of opinions, but we're in the process of transformation, by the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth.
When the Church Fathers were challenged why they believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired, they didn't just say because they believed so, they gave reason and evidence for their belief (see msg. 21)
If any person or group of people claim that they are "infallible", I too would expect some evidence to support the claim.
Susan asked me in another thread, "If you come across something in the Bible that is countered, how do you choose/place confidence in one argument over another if both can be backed up with Scripture? "Case in point, the relationship between free will and grace of God, the interpretations of Origen and Calvin seem to contradict each other, but they can be reconciled, as Augustine did, by explaining that it is not either/or, but both/and.
Augustine also wrote to the effect that there can be many valid interpretations of the same passage of the Scriptures, as long as they don't contradict the rule of faith and logic; Origen demonstrated that there are many levels of interpretations of the Scriptures, literal, moral and spiritual, and they are all valid and help us to grow deeper in faith.
I would like to address two points Kerstin made in msg 110.1. "The role of scriptures, the Word of God, is a sacred tool to be used within Divine Worship"
No, that is only one among many roles of the Scriptures.
The Laws of Moses include ceremonial, dietary and moral laws, which govern every aspect of the Jewish life, not only worship ceremony.
As Paul wrote to Timothy, " from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
2. "The passing of authority from person to person"
The mark of Apostolic authority is the Apostolic doctrine, the presence/witness of the Holy Spirit and the manner of life, as we learn from the Scripture and the Church Fathers. It is not just person, but also doctrine.
Jesus Christ, the first Apostle, if I may say so, also shows this mark of Apostolic authority, as we read in John 5. The Father bears witness of Him, the Scripture bears witness of Him, and His works also bear witness that He is from God.
Nemo wrote: "The Truth does not contradict itself, but fallen and fallible men do, and that is what we all are. I already gave two possible reasons msg. 48 why there are many interpretations of the Scripture. ..."
Upon reviewing infallibility, Catholic Answers says:
"Christ instructed the Church to teach everything he taught (Matt 28: 19-20 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.') and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to 'guide you into all the truth' (John 16: 13 - 'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.'). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt 16:18 - 'And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it', 1 Tim 3:15 - 'if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.'), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope's infallibility. The development of the faithful's understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come? (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10)."
There is much more, but you can always look into it further if you would like.
1. The Scripture refers to the universal Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. I provided the the historical timeline of when/how the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations started in the Church Unity thread.I cannot find that alleged quote by Cyprian in ANF5, not in Letters 54,55, 59 or 14. I'd appreciate if anyone could provide the original source of that quote.
2. The Scripture says the Church is the pillar of truth. IF the Catholics interpret it to mean not individuals, then the Pope is not the pillar of truth either, for the Pope is also an individual; On the other hand, if individuals in the Church are fallible, then the Church as a whole would be fallible, because the whole is made up of parts.
I've always found that verse intriguing: "the Church is the pillar of truth". That in itself seems to go against sola scriptura as it appears to place authority in the hands of the people of God. It also appears to go against people holding the Bible up as the top authority too.
But maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Luke wrote: "I've always found that verse intriguing: "the Church is the pillar of truth". That in itself seems to go against sola scriptura as it appears to place authority in the hands of the people of God...."
This verse would contradict sola scriptura only if the "people" of God can somehow be "against" the word of God, which I think would be an absolute impossibility in principle, because God cannot contradict Himself.
In practice, it is possible perhaps because a) the people are not of God, i.e, they are rebelling against Him, or b) the Bible is not of the word of God, i.e., it is not inspired by Him. I think we all agree that the Bible is inspired by God, so that leaves only a): the people who are against the Bible are not the people of God.
True I suppose, but under sola scriptura the Church can't say anything authoritatively other than what is in the Bible, even if it agrees with scripture
Nemo wrote: "1. The Scripture refers to the universal Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. I provided the the historical timeline of when/how the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations starte..."The 'Pope' is not the pillar of truth.....yes, he is an individual...I think you misunderstand the Catholic infallibility.
And it also seems that you have no place for the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "I've always found that verse intriguing: "the Church is the pillar of truth". That in itself seems to go against sola scriptura as it appears to place authority in the hands of the p..."
Again, there does not seem to be any room for the Holy Spirit in your definition of Church, you seem to imply it is only a bunch of people (worldly), with not origin by Jesus and no involvement of the Holy Spirit.
Luke wrote: "True I suppose, but under sola scriptura the Church can't say anything authoritatively other than what is in the Bible, even if it agrees with scripture"As I understand it, the Church recognizes the divine authority of the Bible, and has the authority to interpret the Bible, being the dwelling place of God in the Spirit. However, the Church cannot say anything that doesn't agree with the Bible, for the reason already mentioned.
Susan wrote: ".. .The 'Pope' is not the pillar of truth.....yes, he is an individual...I think you misunderstand the Catholic infallibility.You mentioned the "pope's infallibility" in msg.123. I'm simply saying that the Scripture you quoted in that comment doesn't support the notion.
I repeatedly said it is the Holy Spirit who guides believers into all truth.
Susan wrote in another thread "..when [Augustine] says they are believing themselves, not the Gospel, I think he is saying they are reading into the Gospel what they want to believe.."Augustine is making an important distinction between sola scriptura and the misuse of scripture. If one follows the principle of Sola Scriptura, he would uphold the whole scripture, not just parts of it. Those people read into the Gospel what they want to believe, because they accept only parts of the Scripture and reject the rest.
when Scripture can be used by two different people to say two different things...how do Sola Scriptura people resolve that?
There are many ways to resolve the problem, but the most basic is to heed Augustine's admonition, and not misuse the Scripture.
Ask the question: does this interpretation contradict any passages in the Scripture?
Origen, when he defends the doctrine of free will, he examines all the relevant passages in the Scripture, including those verses that seem to contradict free will, and provides an interpretation of those verses that both make sense in context and are consistent with free will. I think that is the kind of exegesis that we can all learn from.
Reading the Scripture is like reading the Book of Nature. An interpretation is like a scientific theory. When two theories predict different things about nature, does any theory fail to explain some observable facts or experimental results? Then that theory is false. Similarly, if an interpretation contradicts part of the Scripture, it is not a valid interpretation.
I would be more than happy to continue discussing sola scriptura, because I think it is a very important doctrine. But it would be far better if people take the time and effort to truly study the Scripture, instead of reading these comments of mine. :)
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote in another thread "..when [Augustine] says they are believing themselves, not the Gospel, I think he is saying they are reading into the Gospel what they want to believe.."Augustine i..."
Yes, please let's keep discussing because I think it is an important topic too....
1) you say if someone follows Sola Scriptura, that they will uphold the whole Scripture and not just parts of it....again, I can only come from a Catholic perspective as that is how I have lived...but I have never been taught anything that was not to my satisfaction backed up by Scripture, so please feel welcome to point any out to me as I would like to review/study that, and I have heard of innumerable ones where Protestants can seem to take parts of the Bible to explain their views but negate others, so from my life experience, I thought it was the Protestants who pick and choose...(although we just were reminded of how the Jews saw what they were expecting to see in the Scripture, avoiding all the Prophets and seemingly myriad parts that Jesus fits like a glove...)
I have been trying to think of an example, and I guess faith and works is one that Catholics often point out... I know it gets more complicated than that, but the only time apparently "by faith alone" is in the Scripture is James 2:24 where it is rejected. I guess there are various Protestant views, but if one feels intellectual beliefs are enough, as James says again in 2:17, "even the demons believe..." - is there an explanation for the discrepancy? Catholics are not saying by works that we earn our justification so we don't need to get into that, as that if often misunderstood - it is a pure offering by God's grace...but the verse still has to be dealt with... for those Protestants who believe they cannot lose salvation, why would we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling"?
Did Luther add the word "alone" (and then it was removed again I think)? Why would one express Sola Scriptura and then feel the need to add to it?
On what authority or basis was the Bible (the key element of Sola Scriptura) altered, books changed/moved after hundreds of years? What Divine Inspiration led to/explains that change?
Then there is the Eucharist thing, where He says "flesh" but it is explained that 'He didn't really mean flesh'; it is the only place apparently people walked away and He did not clarify things to them, and that is just explained that 'they weren't leaving for that reason...'
Then there is the ignoring or removal of Maccabees and praying for the dead, seemingly to refute Purgatory...but why would one pray to the dead if one is in Heaven and one is in Hell?
Sorry for my ignorance, but there are so very many aspects that do not seem to be "backed up by Scripture" in the Protestant view to my not as knowledgeable as I should be Catholic mind
2) I don't think if a theory fails to explain something, that it is false, as you stated. It may not be addressing the question at hand....only if it contradicts known truth would it be false, as truth cannot be contradictory.
3) I don't know if one knows how much studying of Scripture anyone is doing.......and if we didn't read your comments, we couldn't have a conversation.
Susan wrote: ",,., I can only come from a Catholic perspective as that is how I have lived...but I have never been taught anything that was not to my satisfaction backed up by Scripture..."1) I'm trying to explain the principle of sola scriptura in this thread, not the other principles held by Protestants. If they interest you, feel free to create separate topics for them.
2) I was referring to a scientific theory, which is falsifiable by observable facts and experimental results.
In 2 Timothy 3, Paul warns Timothy of people who "resist the truth" like Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, and instructs him on how to discern the truth of the Christian faith.Paul first reviews his own Apostolic credentials, namely, doctrine and manner of life, so that Timothy may know the trustworthiness of his teaching.
Paul could have rested on his Apostolic authority, but he didn't. Instead, he confirms that his teaching is consistent with the Jewish Scriptures, which Timothy have learned from childhood.
He then concludes by saying that all Scriptures (including the Apostolic teachings) are inspired by God, that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped.
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: ",,., I can only come from a Catholic perspective as that is how I have lived...but I have never been taught anything that was not to my satisfaction backed up by Scripture..."1) I'm..."
I'm sorry. I am not quite sure what you are saying here...
Nemo wrote: "In 2 Timothy 3, Paul warns Timothy of people who "resist the truth" like Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, and instructs him on how to discern the truth of the Christian faith.Paul first reviews..."
And I am not sure you answered or addressed the points I tried to make, as much as repeated what I said.
My point in quoting 2 Timothy 3 is to demonstrate that the Scripture (and Apostle Paul) teaches sola scriptura.If you think I'm repeating what you said, then we agree on the principle.
Nemo wrote: "My point in quoting 2 Timothy 3 is to demonstrate that the Scripture (and Apostle Paul) teaches sola scriptura.If you think I'm repeating what you said, then we agree on the principle."
Um, no, not really...I was merely pointing out that you just repeated my verse...I read that verse....I am the one that posted that verse...but I don't think you answered the point that saying something is profitable does not mean sufficient....
Whether Paul's teaching is 'consistent with' the Scriptures does not mean that other oral teaching was not profitable also, and I am not sure, but are you saying Paul only spoke verbatim what the Catholic Church later confirmed as the canon of the Bible?
You didn't address if the Bible says anywhere, that the Scriptures are sufficient. And if the Bible does not say that, is it ok for Sola Scriptura following people to follow something that is not itself Scriptural...
You use the end of the verse, "complete", like that proves that he is saying not that the Scriptures are profitable, as it says, but that he is in essence saying they are sufficient..."he also acknowledges in other places, the authority of apostolic tradition (1 Cor 11:1; 2 Thess 2:15), and sees the Church, built on the foundation of Christ and the apostles (Eph 2:20), as the bearer of God's truth to the world (1 Tim 3:15)"
Re: the role of tradition and the teaching office of the Magisterium my Ignatius Bible adds John 14:26 and notes, "the Holy Spirit, sent from Heaven to complete the teaching ministry of Jesus and give the apostles an accurate understanding of the gospel (16:12-13). The Spirit also works through the sacraments to renew the world with the graces and blessings that Christ died to give us (3:5; 6:63; 20:22-23). See John 16:13 "teach you....bring to your remembrance..." - the terms you and your in this verse are plural. It is thus a promise to guide and instruct the ordained leaders of the Church, here represented by the 11 apostles. It is not a promise that the Spirit will grant every individual Christian supernatural insight into the fill meaning of the gospel or the Scriptures (2 Pet 1:20-21),
You didn't address any of the discrepancies I mentioned.
So overall, I don't agree we agree on principle, things were just not addressed it seems.
1. Sufficiency of the ScriptureI don't know how anyone can read 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and deny that the Scripture is sufficient for the man of God. Through the instructions of the Scripture, the man of God is "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Can anything be more sufficient than that?
2. Tradition:
a. The Apostle Paul does speak of "tradition" in his epistles. However, given that the apostles also warn of the "tradition of men". Even if we grant the authority of tradition, it doesn't follow that the "Tradition" the Catholics talk about is the same "tradition" delivered by the apostles.
b. In 2 Timothy 3:14, I think Paul alludes to the above mentioned tradition without using the word itself, and he continues to show that that the tradition he teaches Timothy is consistent with the Scriptures that the latter has learned since childhood.
3. Authority of Scripture
Having brought forth both Apostolic teaching and the Jewish Scriptures (plural), Paul subsumes both under the ultimate and unifying authority, i.e., the Scripture (singular), because the Scripture is inspired by God, it is both profitable and complete for the man of God.
Nemo wrote: "1. Sufficiency of the ScriptureI don't know how anyone can read 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and deny that the Scripture is sufficient for the man of God. Through the instructions of the Scripture, the man..."
There are still some points in my post about Sola Scriptura left unaddressed but thank you.
I initially thought reading 1) that you ignored 3:14 and the other verses I posted that speak of Tradition but I see you address it somewhat in 2).
So you are saying in 2) that Sola Scriptura does allow Scripture AND Tradition? Just to be clear on our working definition of Sola Scriptura...
Then, you seem to imply 'Catholic' Tradition is not apostolic Tradition - could you document validation for your implication?
And just to clarify, you are calling people who call themselves 'catholic', not 'Catholic', correct?
And finally, you seem to be implying that Catholic Tradition is not consistent with the Scripture. Could you document validation of that?
It almost seems like this is all semantics...
We both seem to be agreeing that the Bible was inspired by God and profitable for all men. We both seem to be saying the Tradition handed down by the apostles with the aid of the Holy Spirit is Divinely inspired or led as well, -> the Church (contrasting it with the tradition of men). None of which I find inconsistent with my Catholic Faith (I may not be expressing it accurately however!).
So what Church would you say confirmed the canon of the Bible?
'Somebody' on earth had to declare which letters etc. actually made the cut...who do you say that was?
And although they called themselves 'catholic' if they weren't really 'Catholic', when did catholic -> 'Catholic'?
Susan wrote: ".. you seem to be implying that Catholic Tradition is not consistent with the Scripture. Could you document validation of that? ...."Again, the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholics.
My burden is to defend the principle of sola scriptura, that the ultimate authority is the Scripture, regardless of whether we grant the authority of "tradition".
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: ".. you seem to be implying that Catholic Tradition is not consistent with the Scripture. Could you document validation of that? ...."Again, the burden of proof is on the Roman Catho..."
I honestly do not think you have defended Sola Scriptura at all. I am not even sure we have a clear working definition...you do not seem to be sure whether Sola Scriptura includes Tradition or not....you seem to be sure that Scripture is Divinely inspired, and that it is profitable, which we say also....I thought Sola Scriptura is a very late (1500?) new idea, thought up by some mere individual and then promoted by some since then, that has no clear basis in Scripture (except for the one verse you mentioned, that we agree with also...)...so if I was staking my eternal future on your defense, I honestly find it quite lacking and unconvincing.
There is no burden on me, as all I learned in the Faith seems to be able to be backed up from the beginning. They called themselves catholic, I see the Mass there, I see the Eucharist there, I see the hierarchy there, I see the Sacraments there; everything is consistent with Scripture (OT and NT), everything is consistent with the Church Fathers (as a whole),,, When I decided to really learn my Faith and decide if I wanted to remain Catholic for myself (not just because my family always was), that was the whole beautiful story I found. I have yet to find an inconsistency that cannot be explained, although some things obviously will be a mystery until we die. You however seem very assured that that Church was not the Catholic Church but do not seem to articulate why or how. I am always open to hearing snags to look into, but it doesn't seem you are able to articulate any. So I am still left not understanding the actual clear definition of Sola Scriptura and I don't see how it was proven over anything that was believed for 1500 yrs prior.
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: ".. you seem to be implying that Catholic Tradition is not consistent with the Scripture. Could you document validation of that? ...."Again, the burden of proof is on th..."
OK. I think we've both made our points. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: ".. you seem to be implying that Catholic Tradition is not consistent with the Scripture. Could you document validation of that? ...."Again, the burden of ..."
OK. :)
Susan wrote: "I honestly do not think you have defended Sola Scriptura at all..."Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place. This is really the big hurdle here. When the Bible is the supreme authority then the Church automatically gets diminished. If you go back to the wikipedia explanation, then it is right there that teaching offices of churches and councils are secondary authorities to the Bible. Ergo, the definition of Church has to be altered. Within Protestantism the Church gets reduced to the mystical Body of Christ only. The very real and tangible Church Christ himself established is side-stepped. This is why the original understanding of "Church" as we believe, mystical and tangible, it is brushed over.
What then becomes of the Church that existed before the Reformation in this scenario? It becomes rather murky and ill-defined, that in the beginning it was a universal Church, but later it all fell apart. Susan, if you ever watch EWTN's 'Journey Home' this narrative comes up again and again.
Kerstin wrote: "Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place ..."You're making an unfounded assertion about Protestants there.
teaching offices of churches and councils are secondary authorities to the Bible. Ergo, the definition of Church has to be altered
Non sequitur. Teaching offices and councils are not the Church. Defining the authority of the former in no way change the definition or composition of the latter.
Within Protestantism the Church gets reduced to the mystical Body of Christ only.
All believers are members of the Body of Christ, all with diverse spiritual gifts ministering to each other and the Church as a whole, and as such, the Church is very much real and tangible.
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place ..."You're making an unfounded assertion about Protestants there.
I used to be Protestant...
Teaching offices and councils are not the Church.
They are very much part and parcel of the Church. Specific functions within the Church do not negate the whole as the Body of Christ.
All believers are members of the Body of Christ, all with diverse spiritual gifts ministering to each other and the Church as a whole, and as such, the Church is very much real and tangible.
I've lost track how many times as a Protestant it was underscored that the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. It was common narrative. Her being tangible was not part of the picture.
This underscores that Protestants don't define these things very well for themselves.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place ..."You're making an unfounded assertion about Protestants there.
I used to be Protestant......"
Indeed. But it doesn't justify making unfounded general statement about Protestants.
Protestants may not define things very well, but at least we have a common frame of reference, the Scripture, where people can verify things independently.
(Whereas when I ask Catholics in this group questions, I never get a clear and direct answer of what they believe and why, but only quotes from other people which need clarification themselves.)
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "I honestly do not think you have defended Sola Scriptura at all..."Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place. This is really the big hurdle here. When the ..."
"Within Protestantism the Church gets reduced to the Mystical Body of Christ only"... That helps me see where people might be coming from....thanks. I like the Coming Home shows, they are on sometimes when I am in the car, on the radio.
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)
In Search of the Trojan War (other topics)
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols (other topics)
The World of Jesus: Making Sense Of The People And Places Of Jesus' Day (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michael Wood (other topics)Patrick Madrid (other topics)
Luke seems sort of to be talking about one half of what I said (his post was first!), focusing on when the Roman Catholic church was di..."
Do you not see the other Bishops in the Bible and the earliest writings deferring their questions to one certain Bishop? This seemed to be pretty consistent and apparent to me, although I couldn't quote all the times off the top of my head.