| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 13 2003 : 4:06:40 PM
Forgive me for starting a new thread here, but I thought it was time as the old threads were too cluttered with its varying tangents. Here I will try to stick to the topic of Sola Scriptura, and to discuss whether it is supported by Scripture or not. As I am but one man and both slow of wit and writing I expect this to take several postings on my part to cover this topic sufficiently.
Part I - Tradition
Central to the concept of Sola Scriptura are the varying concepts of tradition. To begin, I belive it is important to define these different concepts of tradition which have been and are in existence. These concepts have been numbered and discussed by such authors as Heiko Oberman and Keith Mathison.
Tradition I - This is the one source concept of tradition which was universally held during the first three centuries A.D. This concept of traditon is characterized by the immediate divine origin of tradition together with the insistence on a clearly circumscribed series of historical acts of God in the rule of faith or the rule of truth, and the rejection of extra-scriptural tradition. As explained by G.L. Prestige, "the voice of the Bible could be plainly heard only if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the historical practice of Christendom."
Tradition II - During the 4th century A.D. we see some prominent fathers who may have hinted at a two source concept of tradition. But it was really during the Late Middle Ages when canon lawyers who were trying to defend an authoritative second extra-Biblical source of revelation began to support Tradition II. Describing Tradition II, Heiko Oberman writes "In the second case Tradition is a wider concept. It is argued that the Apostles did not commit everything to writing, usually on the grounds that the scriptural authors reported what Christ said and did during His lifetime but not what Christ taught His disciples in the period between the resurrection and ascension. During these forty days an oral Tradition originated which is to be regarded as a complement to Holy Scripture, handed down to the Church of later times as a second source of revelation. In the first case [Tradition I] Tradition was seen as the instrumental vehicle of Scripture which brings the contents of Holy Scripture to life in a constant dialogue between the doctors of Scripture and the Church; in the second case [Tradition II] Tradition was seen as the authoritative vehicle of divine truth, embedded in Scripture but overflowing in extra-scriptural apostolic tradition handed down through episcopal succession."
Tradition III - At Vatican I, the Roman Catholic church officially dogmatized the doctrine of papal infallibility. This doctrine, along with Cardinal Newman's theory of doctrinal development gradually led to the adoption of a novel concept of tradition in which the magisterium of the Church is considerd the one real source of revelation. Today in the Roman Catholic Church both Tradition II (tradition as a second source of revelation) and Tradition III (the magisterium and the pope as the real source of revelation) are positions which are commonly held, although the majority of Roman apologists today hold to Tradition III, as they have conceded the problems inherent with Tradition II and reject the idea of a two-source concept of tradition. Acceptence of Tradition II implicitly elevates the Church to the role of supreme authority, while Tradition III does the same, only explicitly. The doctrine of papal infallibilty lies at the foundation of Traditon III.
Tradition O - Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the sole basis of authority. Tradition is not allowed in any sense, the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed, and the Church is denied any real authority. The result is self autonomy and sectarianism. This concept places the final authority |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| securemann |
Posted - August 12 2003 : 9:47:05 PM
What Augustine thought: It is in fact the Church which determines the canon of Scripture(De doct.chr.2,7,12),which transmits tradition and interprets both of the above (De Gen.ad litt.ap.imp.1,1)which settles controversies (De bapt 2,4,5) and prescribes the regula fidei (De doct.chr.3,1,2) Therefore," I will rest secure in the Church," writes Augustine... |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - August 07 2003 : 11:49:09 PM
"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." -Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, ch.5
What does this actually mean? We should be careful to not take it out of its context.
"The phrase has to be read in its context. First of all, St. Augustine did not utter this sentence on his own behalf. He spoke of the attitude which a simple believer had to take, when confronted with the heretical claim of authority. In this situation it was proper for a simple believer to appeal to the authority of the Church, from which, and in which, he had recieved the Gospel itself: ipsi Evangelio catholicis praedicantibus credidi. [I believed the Gospel itself, being instructed by catholic preachers]. The Gospel and the preaching of the Catholica belong together. St. Augustine had no intention "to subordinate" the Gospel to the Church. He only wanted to emphasize that "Gospel" is actually received always in the context of the Church's catholic preaching and simply cannot be separated from the Church. Only in this context it can be assessed and properly understood. Indeed, the witness of the Scripture is ultimately "self-evident," but only for the faithful, for those who have acheived a certain "spiritual" maturity, --and this is only possible within the Church. He opposed this teaching and preaching auctoritas of the Church Catholic to the pretentious vagaries of Manichean exegesis. The Gospel did not belong to the Manicheans. Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoritas [the authority of the Catholic Church] was not an independent source of faith. But it was the indespensible principle of sound interpretation. Actually, the sentence could be converted: one should not believe the Church, unless one was moved by the Gospel. The relationship is strictly reciprocal." -Flovorsky
"The Church must be understood to have an authority to direct (commovere) the believer to the door which leads to the fullness of the Word itself." -Oberman |
| securemann |
Posted - August 07 2003 : 12:48:37 PM
Ct,I'm glad you acknowledge that the Church has something to do with the interpretation of Scripture but you state that the Church's authority is not equal to or greater than Scripture.I will have to answer that with what ST.Augustine said,"I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - August 06 2003 : 5:41:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
St.Vincent of Lerins,a Church Father from the 5th century states why sola scriptura doesn't work: ...someone perhaps will ask,"Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything,and more than sufficient,what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?" For this reason,- because,owing to the depth of Holy Scripture,all do not accept it in one and the same sense,but one understands its words in one way,another in another,so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.For Novatian expounds it one way,Sabellius another,Donatus another,Arius,Eunomius,Macedonius,another,photinus,Apollinaris,Priscillian,another,Iovinian,Pelagius,Celestius,another,lastly,Nestorius another.Therefore, it is very necessary,on account of so great intricacies of such various error,that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ECCLESIASTICAL and CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION. ( Commonitory 2:5)
That's right Securemann, Vincent of Lerins was a supporter of Tradition I. Although it wasn't known as Tradition I back then, it was just the view held by most christians for at least the first three centuries A.D. Vincent is not stating why sola scriptura doesn't work, he stated why Tradition 0 doesn't work. You and Lainey have mostly been arguing against Tradition 0, which is not sola scriptura at all. There is much confusion around this, since many supporters of Tradition 0, some Evangelicals and fundamentalists etc., claim that Tradition 0 is sola scriptura, when this is clearly not the case and never has been. Supporters of sola scriptura believe "the voice of the Bible [can] be plainly heard only if its text [is] interpreted broadly and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the historical practice of Christendom." The church fathers, classical reformers, and supporters of sola scriptura today all believe/d that scripture is to be interpreted within the church. But that does not mean the church's authority is equal to or greater than God breathed Holy Scripture.
|
| Bill R |
Posted - August 06 2003 : 3:56:52 PM
I would submit, it wasn't just "individuals" committing crimes or "heresies" with scripture as a justification. One of the biggest justifications for a crime against a person was the allegation of having committed a "heresy" and alleged by the church itself. Most of those acts (and the reasons given for them) would be considered crimes by governments today. Infallible? Nah. Don't agree and don't buy it. |
| securemann |
Posted - August 06 2003 : 3:02:03 PM
Remember, many Christological heresies came from individuals who were using Scripture to back up their claims.It took hundreds of years and many Councils of the Catholic Church to finally rectify the nature of Christ and the Trinity.The authority of the Roman Church with the Pope had to straighten it out and guard the Scriptures at the same time. |
| securemann |
Posted - August 06 2003 : 2:51:25 PM
St.Vincent of Lerins,a Church Father from the 5th century states why sola scriptura doesn't work: ...someone perhaps will ask,"Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything,and more than sufficient,what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?" For this reason,- because,owing to the depth of Holy Scripture,all do not accept it in one and the same sense,but one understands its words in one way,another in another,so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.For Novatian expounds it one way,Sabellius another,Donatus another,Arius,Eunomius,Macedonius,another,
photinus,Apollinaris,Priscillian,another,Iovinian,Pelagius,Celestius,another,lastly,Nestorius another.Therefore, it is very necessary,on account of so great intricacies of such various error,that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ECCLESIASTICAL and CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION. ( Commonitory 2:5) |
| Lainey |
Posted - July 30 2003 : 02:51:10 AM
And through all of this debating can anyone give me just one biblical proof for sola scriptura? Just one biblical statement that says the bible alone is the rule of faith or the bible alone is the means of salvation?
Just one? |
| Bill R |
Posted - July 26 2003 : 1:47:43 PM
Thanks Lainey! That puts the terms, at least, into context for me so I can better manage to understand some of what is said. You are putting a LOT of work into these discussions and it is appreciated. I'm learning stuff I've never known or considered. Most of these things I was completely ignorant of. Bad Christian! Bad Christian! *smacking myself on nose with rolled up Church Bulletin*. |
| Lainey |
Posted - July 26 2003 : 02:38:18 AM
This could sound a bit like the Tower of Babel without some definitions, couldn't it?
Canon of Scripture - "the catalogue or collection of books which the Church has declared to be divinely inspired, and which She regards as a partial, remote rule of faith and morals."
At this point it is necessary to make the clear distinction between inspiration and canonization. Inspiration precedes canonization in order of time and causality. It is only God who inspires and this occurs simultaneous with the book’s composition. Canonization takes place after the book’s composition and is dependent on inspiration and presupposes its previous existence. Therefore, all canonical books are inspired, but not all inspired books are necessarily canonical. It is of critical importance to note that while some of the above-mentioned Fathers, Doctors and Saints denied the canonicity of the Deuterocanon, none of them denied its inspiration, including Josephus. Protestantism, on the other hand, denies both the inspiration and the canonicity of the Deuterocanon.
The Deuterocanon -[Deutero means 'second'] this refers to the seven [note that number] books of the Old Testament [Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees, plus lengthier versions of others; such as Daniel & Esther & small verses of Jeremiah & Isaiah] recognized in the Canon of Sacred Scripture as inspired Scripture by the Catholic Church. Protestant bibles, thanks to Martin Luther & his peers, do not contain these seven books. The Hebrew Canon of Scripture that is most widely used also does not contain these seven books. However, there are Jewish communities that still to this day, not having been influenced by the post-Christian era Hebrew councils of Jamnia, STILL USE THE DEUTEROCANON USED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH & hold steadfastly that it IS & ALWAYS was Sacred Scripture. Ethiopian Jews have & venerate the exact versions claimed as sacred by the Church.
Of note is observations made by the great Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius;
"From the time of Artaxerxes to our own time, our history has been written down very particularly (accurately and in detail), but these books have not been considered worthy of the same credit as the books of earlier date, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets." [Revealing a reason for certain books having not been received into the protocanon.]
In other words, Josephus expected the Deuterocanonical books to be canonized by the appearance of a prophet. Even without this canonization the Deutero books were considered to be "inspired literature."
"But what credence we have given to all those books of our own nation is evident from our conduct; for, though so long a time has passed, no one has ever been so bold as to add anything to them whatsoever. But all Jews are instinctively led, from the moment of their birth, to believe that these books contain divine oracles and to abide by them and, if need be, gladly to die for them." [The boldness did come, however, to add & take away - as we'll see later in this discussion.]
As if to emphasize this point further, Josephus says that in the composition of his Jewish Antiquities he had used exclusively "sacred writings," yet he frequently quotes 1 Maccabees and the deutero fragments of Esther. Further, in the Talmud Baruch is referred to as a "prophetic book," Wisdom as "written by Solomon" and the Book of Sirach is quoted often.
In addition, excepting the Book of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees all the other parts of the Deuterocanon were previously written in Hebrew. This points to Palestine not only as their place of origin but also where the Alexandrian Jews received their belief in their inspiration and divine character. This is why there are no records of any schism or controversy on the subje |
| securemann |
Posted - July 24 2003 : 11:29:14 PM
Rome,Hippo,and Carthage were all in agreement right up to Trent.There were minor disagreements here and there but nothing that divided Christianity.The Eastern Church had problems with Revelation after these councils and the Syrian Church along with the Ethiopian Church had extended canons.The main thing is ALL Protestant and Catholic Bibles have 27 books in their N.T.And it was first authorized by the Decree of Damasus in 382A.D.in the Council of Rome.All 73 books were named,46 in the O.T.,and 27 in the N.T. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the ONLY Christian Bible from 400A.D.-till the revolters came along 1000+years later.It was a Roman Catholic Bible that the people had.It was the Roman Catholic Church that decided it. That's why Protestants don't follow the Syrian and Ethiopian N.T. canon.They follow what the Roman Catholic Church decided. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 24 2003 : 10:15:07 PM
Since much of this discussion is leaning toward canonicity, let's look at how the canon is formed.
The word canon comes from the Hebrew word qaneh and the Greek word kanon. Both words originally essentially meant a reed or measuring stick. As a reed could be used as a measuring stick or rule, so the inspired Word of God could be a rule of faith and practice. As God used people to convey His Word, and placed that Word in a particular context, it became important to determine which books came from God, and which only reflected man's opinions. There emerged three main tests for determining the canonicity of a book.
Test #1: Written by a prophet or prophetically gifted person To be considered canon, a book had to be written by a prophet or prophetically gifted person under the leading of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit assured the book was the word of God and not the opinion of man.
Test #2: Written to all generations God's message is not confined to one audience. Although it could originally be intended for a particular audience, it is profitable and applicable to all who read it.
Test #3: Written in accord with previous revelation A book that was considered canon could not contradict earlier revelations from God. God's Word reamins the same and cannot contradict itself. New revelation revealed further information about God's plan and purposes, but it did not contradict the old. Just as the NT reveals exactly who the messiah of the OT is.
Not everyone used these rules of canonicity when compiling their lists of books they thought were canon. Some of these early lists are just lists of what was generally considered canon. The Apocrypha does not meet all these rules. In addition some of these books have demonstratable historical errors. People make mistakes, even if a Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit they can still err if they do not listen to the Spirit. But the compiled testimony of the Spirit over the centuries has lead to the acceptance of what is the canon. Councils can err and have, that is why some coucils have prounounced the decrees of earlier councils erroneous. Even after the pronouncements of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century there was disagreement and confusion.
The pronouncement of a fact does not make the fact so. A conciliar decree or pronouncement, is the pronouncement of an opinion, not a fact. It is pronouncement of the opinion of agreement with what is believed to be fact or truth, not the making of fact or truth. Man does not have the authority to create truth, no matter how hard he tries, he can only recognize what he believes to be truth.
|
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - July 24 2003 : 9:06:55 PM
Don't feel bad, Bill! I'm hangin' by my fingernails on this one!
 |
| securemann |
Posted - July 23 2003 : 10:28:44 PM
Hang on Bill,we're going to have a widdle fun. |
| Bill R |
Posted - July 23 2003 : 8:16:05 PM
Wow! This one is WAY over my widdle head. Interesting, but half the time I have no clue. Other half the time, huge headache pounding my widdle head trying to follow along. |
| securemann |
Posted - July 23 2003 : 4:24:18 PM
Who were these humans that excluded the Epistle of Barnabas,Shepherd of Hermas,The Didache,etc from the canon over the course of 2000 years? Who were the humans that put Hebrews,James,1&2Peter,3 John and Jude in the canon over the course of 2000 years? |
| securemann |
Posted - July 23 2003 : 3:55:47 PM
Hmm... The Holy Spirit working through humans makes the canon without councils or conciliar decrees.I guess the Holy Spirit was working through Luther who wanted to throw out James and other writings from the N.T.canon in the 16th century. |
| Lainey |
Posted - July 23 2003 : 11:20:01 AM
"Where the heck did you get the idea that sola scriptura means Scripture has to be written?"
Most likely from the fact that 'scripture' means what 'is written.'
Not spoken - not believed - not tradition - not gospel. The word means 'to be written' or 'to write.'
Infallibility, Canonicity, Word of God, etc. ... yes, agreed. It isn't the pronouncement of the fact that makes the fact so. The fact is already & always the fact. Inspired, Sacred Scripture has always been inspired, Sacred Scripture. The point is not one of making it so, but of pronouncing it so. The official, authoritative declaration of the Canon of Scripture defines what IS so that we might all KNOW it is so.
"Where Peter is there am I."
"If a tree falls in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, it still makes a noise."
And if the Church speaks to the world, even if some choose to not hear it, the Church still speaks Christ's Will.
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 23 2003 : 12:00:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
The Muratorian Canon excludes Hebrews,James,1&2Peter and 3John.Now,who put them back in? You did not have an immediate agreeable canon.This is not hard to understand.It took 360+ years to come up with the canon of Scripture.Sola scriptura is impossible.You say Scripture is the only infallible source.What Scripture in the early Church? Cite me a reference with the Canon of all 27 books accepted by 100A.D.All 27 books that are now in our N.T. as such.All 27 were written by then but not all accepted.Sola scriptura does not work.
First of all, the Muratorian Canon is an incomplete fragment, many believe Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and 3 John were probably included, but that is irrelevant. Second, I have never stated that everyone immediately agreed on the canon of Scripture. There was confusion among men as to what was to be considered canon well into the Middle Ages, when some considered the Shepard of Hermas and others as being equal with the 27 book canon. But what has emerged over the last 2000 years is a nearly unanimous acceptance of the 27 book NT canon of Scripture. This acceptance is the work of the Holy Spirit working through humans, not conciliar decrees or coincidence. But Sola Scriptura does not depend on this unanimous acceptance of the 27 book canon of the NT. The 27 book canon of the NT accepted today has always been the infallible Word of God. Human recognition does not make the Word of God, nor does it make it infallible. Nor does recognition of other books negate the ifallibilty or authority of the true Word of God. The infallibility and authority of the Word of God is completely independant of human recognition. If a tree falls in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, it still makes a noise.
|
| securemann |
Posted - July 17 2003 : 11:20:12 AM
The Muratorian Canon excludes Hebrews,James,1&2Peter and 3John.Now,who put them back in? You did not have an immediate agreeable canon.This is not hard to understand.It took 360+ years to come up with the canon of Scripture.Sola scriptura is impossible.You say Scripture is the only infallible source.What Scripture in the early Church? Cite me a reference with the Canon of all 27 books accepted by 100A.D.All 27 books that are now in our N.T. as such.All 27 were written by then but not all accepted.Sola scriptura does not work. |
| securemann |
Posted - July 16 2003 : 8:50:53 PM
I need to remind you CT that the Sheperd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas was in the Codex Sinaticus with all the other 27 books of the N.T.So they were considered Scripture at one time.They are considered scripture no more.Sola Scriptura? Think about it.Some authority decided to remove them.Who?? |
| securemann |
Posted - July 16 2003 : 8:30:56 PM
CT,I might be wrong about the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Preaching of Peter but most definitely,as any Scripture scholar knows,the Sheperd of Hermas,the Didache,the Epistle of Barnabas and 1Clement were considered scripture at one time.You might not agree with that,but it's history.That would dismiss sola scriptura because they are not scripture anymore.Don't worry about any time frames here with your computer.There's no rush.I enjoy the interaction and education. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - July 16 2003 : 8:13:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
You lost me now.Good luck in explaining sola scriptura which is not biblical.As I stated before there were many Christians who lived and died after the ascension of Christ that never had a "Bible" to follow which pertained to the N.T.So no sola scriptura for them.The only scriptures they had was the O.T.In that case,that makes the O.T.the only rule to follow.That makes a lot of Christians who died that never had "Scripture only".N.T.,that is.
Securemann, thanks for thinking this through and raising up issues you find problematic, I will do my best to explain. To answer the issue you have raised, sola scriptura, "scripture only" does not mean everyone must read the Old and New Testament to come to salvation. The word "Scripture" in "scripture only" does not mean a written or printed Bible. The term "scripture only" is highly problematic when taken at its simplest literal meaning, which was never the intention. Scripture is Scripture whether it is spoken, written, or printed. Nowhere in the doctrine of sola scriptura is there any claim that to be saved, one must read the N.T. These Christians who died before they had a written N.T. obviously heard the gospel orally communicated by the apostles or another Christian or else they would not have been Christians. In its simplest, most condesned version, the doctrine of "scripture only" means that Scripture is the only infallible source of revelation. But the issue is more complex.
As for your assertion that Sheperd of Hermas, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, 1Clement, Preaching of Peter and the Gospel of the Hebrews were recognized as Scripture at one time, I simply disagree. As I've stated before, I believe Scripture, the Word of God, exists independant of any human recognition. If a fallible man believes something to be the infallible Word of God, which is not, then that man's belief does not make it so.
Please forgive me for taking so long to continue with this topic, but my access to a computer is severely limited these days. |
| securemann |
Posted - July 16 2003 : 7:32:31 PM
I think we are going in circles now.Sola Scriptura,recognized as Scripture at one time:Sheperd of Hermas,Didache,Epistle of Barnabas,1Clement,Preaching of Peter and the Gospel of the Hebrews.Scripture only.They were believed as scripture.They are Scripture no more.They were removed-Who removed them? When? Sola Scriptura,not logical.Very simple.These writings were believed at one time as scripture.Some authority said no to them.I wonder who? |
| securemann |
Posted - July 16 2003 : 6:20:42 PM
You lost me now.Good luck in explaining sola scriptura which is not biblical.As I stated before there were many Christians who lived and died after the ascension of Christ that never had a "Bible" to follow which pertained to the N.T.So no sola scriptura for them.The only scriptures they had was the O.T.In that case,that makes the O.T.the only rule to follow.That makes a lot of Christians who died that never had "Scripture only".N.T.,that is. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
