What is "Sola Scriptura" ? Where is It Found In the Bible . . . ?
Sep 5, 2018 18:50:03 #
09/05/2018 What is "Sola Scriptura" ? Where is It Found In the Bible . . . ? (Part 1)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
06/15/2018 Introduction, The Reformation: C.C. Evans and my conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism
The realization that “Sola Scriptura”
Was not Biblical, brought me to study the Reformation and the Reformers in more detail, than I had before.
I had perused their commentaries on pertinent books during my study of the solas, and I had read some primary sources during high school and college so I turned to these first.
I reread Calvin’s Institutes and I reviewed some of Luther’s works like his First Principles of the Reformation, Small Catechism, Large Catechism and, of course, the infamous 95 Theses.
a. www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/first_prin.txt
b. www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/smallcat.txt
c. www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/large_cat/files/large_cat.html
d. www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html
I also read the Book of Concord and as many primary sources as I had access too.
www.bookofconcord.org/
I also began to study histories and included secular and opposing works to gain a more balanced understanding.
Two books that stood out were:
a. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) by Jaroslav Pelikan.
www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=53773&netp_id=124492&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW
b. And Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly.
www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=39111&netp_id=300501&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW
c. In Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church Volume VII
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.txt
He writes, “Luther refused to recant in the crisis at Worms, unless convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures and ‘cogent arguments’.” We find that this is accurate.
Luther said, “Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves),
I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”
72. WA, 7, 836-38. Luther – Diet of Worms
As you can see, Luther’s theological arguments were based on what he “adduced.”
His personal interpretation of the scriptures.
Luther’s accusations of error and contradiction were not substantiated, and he did not prove that he was free from error or contradictions.
Without the authority of the church, people interpret the Bible according to their own ideas, and Biblical interpretation is subjected to the tyranny of syncretistic relativism.
Throughout my study I was also dissatisfied with the character of the reformers and the reformation itself –
It was no “Great Awakening” of spiritual revival and renewal!
I began to ask myself questions like the following:
Are we to obey the authority God has established, or do what is right in our own eyes?
Did Christ teach doubt and rebellion, or faith and submission?
A few years later I would read the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI),
“The saints, as we said, are the true reformers.”
So What are two main interpretations of “Sola Scriptura” among Protestants.
a. One view is often referred to as solo or “Nuda Scriptura”
b. And the other is sometimes called “Prima Scriptura.”
Most Protestants hold to some form of one of these two views.
The solo or nuda forms use definitions like,
“Sola Scriptura means that you use the Bible alone for doctrine” Introduction, A. 3
www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
The prima forms usually define it more as, “Scripture alone is authoritative”
www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1078_Precursor_to_Sola_Scriptura/
“Sola Scriptura “ Is self-refuting because it is not taught in the Bible.
Definition:
Self-refuting ideas or self-defeating ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.
Many ideas are called self-refuting by their detractors, and such accusations are therefore almost always controversial, with defenders stating that the idea is being misunderstood or that the argument is invalid.
For these reasons, none of the ideas below are unambiguously or incontrovertibly self-refuting.
These ideas are often used as axioms, which are definitions taken to be true (tautological assumptions), and cannot be used to test themselves, for doing so would lead to only two consequences:
Consistency (circular reasoning) or exception (self-contradiction).
Which is the only infallible authority it recognizes;
This means that it is a tradition based on the fallible human intellect and reason of the Reformers.
This is why we say Sola Verbum Dei:
Which can be translated as “the word of God alone”, and is not limited to graphe (writings).
The real argument of the Reformation was not Scripture versus Tradition.
The core of the argument had to do with who had the authority to interpret scripture.
As Alister McGrath put it in his Introduction to Christianity’s Dangerous Idea,
“At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion:
Who has the authority to define it’s faith?
Who has the authority to define it’s Institutions or individuals?
Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?
Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to ‘official’ interpretations handed down by popes or other centralized religious authorities.
For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith.
Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity.”
Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 3
www.amazon.com/Christianitys-Dangerous-Idea-Revolution-Twenty-First/dp/0060822139/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219681258&sr=8-1
The radical idea that individuals could interpret the Bible for themselves spawned a revolution that is still being played out on the world stage today. This innovation lies at the heart of Protestantism's remarkable instability and adaptability.
World-renowned scholar Alister McGrath sheds new light on the fascinating figures and movements that continue to inspire debate and division across the full spectrum of Protestant churches and communities worldwide.
The idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible.
Likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible.
Furthermore, neither of these ideas is historically reasonable.
“Sola Scriptura” is not taught in the Bible:
It is not stated (explicit teaching) or implied (implicit teaching) in the Bible.*
It is contrary to the explicit and implicit teachings which are found in scripture.
*Passages often misinterpreted as supporting this speak of the inspiration, efficacy and worth of Scripture, but these passages do not teach that it usurps Apostolic authority;
There is an implicit authority in Scripture, since it is the inspired and infallible Word of God, but nowhere is it said to be the only infallible Word of God.
This tradition began with the Reformers.
“Sola Scriptura is not historically valid:”
Christ founded a Church; the Spirit did not inspire the New Testament writings until a few years later, and those writings do not claim to be inspired to replace the Apostles’ authority.
The canon was not written as part of the Bible. We all rely on our faith traditions or personal scholasticism to determine which books are inspired. Although canon is different subtopic, it relates to this one if you deny any infallible authority outside of the Bible.
As stated above, verses are sometimes taken out of context to support the idea of “Sola Scriptura.”
One passage commonly misused is in Paul’s second letter to Timothy which states,
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
a. ”Grammatically, one will note that the idea of authority is implicit, but that sole or primary authority is not mentioned at all. We also note that nothing is stated to show a future shift from Apostolic authority to Scripture.
(End Part 1)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
06/15/2018 Introduction, The Reformation: C.C. Evans and my conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism
The realization that “Sola Scriptura”
Was not Biblical, brought me to study the Reformation and the Reformers in more detail, than I had before.
I had perused their commentaries on pertinent books during my study of the solas, and I had read some primary sources during high school and college so I turned to these first.
I reread Calvin’s Institutes and I reviewed some of Luther’s works like his First Principles of the Reformation, Small Catechism, Large Catechism and, of course, the infamous 95 Theses.
a. www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/first_prin.txt
b. www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/smallcat.txt
c. www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/large_cat/files/large_cat.html
d. www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html
I also read the Book of Concord and as many primary sources as I had access too.
www.bookofconcord.org/
I also began to study histories and included secular and opposing works to gain a more balanced understanding.
Two books that stood out were:
a. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) by Jaroslav Pelikan.
www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=53773&netp_id=124492&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW
b. And Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly.
www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=39111&netp_id=300501&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW
c. In Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church Volume VII
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.txt
He writes, “Luther refused to recant in the crisis at Worms, unless convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures and ‘cogent arguments’.” We find that this is accurate.
Luther said, “Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves),
I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”
72. WA, 7, 836-38. Luther – Diet of Worms
As you can see, Luther’s theological arguments were based on what he “adduced.”
His personal interpretation of the scriptures.
Luther’s accusations of error and contradiction were not substantiated, and he did not prove that he was free from error or contradictions.
Without the authority of the church, people interpret the Bible according to their own ideas, and Biblical interpretation is subjected to the tyranny of syncretistic relativism.
Throughout my study I was also dissatisfied with the character of the reformers and the reformation itself –
It was no “Great Awakening” of spiritual revival and renewal!
I began to ask myself questions like the following:
Are we to obey the authority God has established, or do what is right in our own eyes?
Did Christ teach doubt and rebellion, or faith and submission?
A few years later I would read the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI),
“The saints, as we said, are the true reformers.”
So What are two main interpretations of “Sola Scriptura” among Protestants.
a. One view is often referred to as solo or “Nuda Scriptura”
b. And the other is sometimes called “Prima Scriptura.”
Most Protestants hold to some form of one of these two views.
The solo or nuda forms use definitions like,
“Sola Scriptura means that you use the Bible alone for doctrine” Introduction, A. 3
www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
The prima forms usually define it more as, “Scripture alone is authoritative”
www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1078_Precursor_to_Sola_Scriptura/
“Sola Scriptura “ Is self-refuting because it is not taught in the Bible.
Definition:
Self-refuting ideas or self-defeating ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.
Many ideas are called self-refuting by their detractors, and such accusations are therefore almost always controversial, with defenders stating that the idea is being misunderstood or that the argument is invalid.
For these reasons, none of the ideas below are unambiguously or incontrovertibly self-refuting.
These ideas are often used as axioms, which are definitions taken to be true (tautological assumptions), and cannot be used to test themselves, for doing so would lead to only two consequences:
Consistency (circular reasoning) or exception (self-contradiction).
Which is the only infallible authority it recognizes;
This means that it is a tradition based on the fallible human intellect and reason of the Reformers.
This is why we say Sola Verbum Dei:
Which can be translated as “the word of God alone”, and is not limited to graphe (writings).
The real argument of the Reformation was not Scripture versus Tradition.
The core of the argument had to do with who had the authority to interpret scripture.
As Alister McGrath put it in his Introduction to Christianity’s Dangerous Idea,
“At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion:
Who has the authority to define it’s faith?
Who has the authority to define it’s Institutions or individuals?
Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible?
Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to ‘official’ interpretations handed down by popes or other centralized religious authorities.
For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith.
Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity.”
Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, p. 3
www.amazon.com/Christianitys-Dangerous-Idea-Revolution-Twenty-First/dp/0060822139/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219681258&sr=8-1
The radical idea that individuals could interpret the Bible for themselves spawned a revolution that is still being played out on the world stage today. This innovation lies at the heart of Protestantism's remarkable instability and adaptability.
World-renowned scholar Alister McGrath sheds new light on the fascinating figures and movements that continue to inspire debate and division across the full spectrum of Protestant churches and communities worldwide.
The idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible.
Likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible.
Furthermore, neither of these ideas is historically reasonable.
“Sola Scriptura” is not taught in the Bible:
It is not stated (explicit teaching) or implied (implicit teaching) in the Bible.*
It is contrary to the explicit and implicit teachings which are found in scripture.
*Passages often misinterpreted as supporting this speak of the inspiration, efficacy and worth of Scripture, but these passages do not teach that it usurps Apostolic authority;
There is an implicit authority in Scripture, since it is the inspired and infallible Word of God, but nowhere is it said to be the only infallible Word of God.
This tradition began with the Reformers.
“Sola Scriptura is not historically valid:”
Christ founded a Church; the Spirit did not inspire the New Testament writings until a few years later, and those writings do not claim to be inspired to replace the Apostles’ authority.
The canon was not written as part of the Bible. We all rely on our faith traditions or personal scholasticism to determine which books are inspired. Although canon is different subtopic, it relates to this one if you deny any infallible authority outside of the Bible.
As stated above, verses are sometimes taken out of context to support the idea of “Sola Scriptura.”
One passage commonly misused is in Paul’s second letter to Timothy which states,
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
a. ”Grammatically, one will note that the idea of authority is implicit, but that sole or primary authority is not mentioned at all. We also note that nothing is stated to show a future shift from Apostolic authority to Scripture.
(End Part 1)
Sep 5, 2018 18:52:48 #
09/05/2018 What is "Sola Scriptura" ? Where is It Found In the Bible . . . ? (Part 2)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
So What are two main interpretations of “Sola Scriptura” among Protestants.
a. One view is often referred to as solo or “Nuda Scriptura”
b. And the other is sometimes called “Prima Scriptura.”
Most Protestants hold to some form of one of these two views.
b. Historically, we note that the New Testament canon was not complete at the time II Timothy was written; As we look deeper into the context of this passage we see from the two verses previous that Paul was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, possibly the Septuagint.
“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3 – NAB
It is valid to claim these same things for all inspired Scriptures, but a transition from Apostolic authority to Scriptural authority is not even alluded to here.
It is clear from Paul’s letters to Timothy that they knew each other beyond the written correspondence we have.
2 Timothy 1:4
These letters also assume that Timothy knows certain truths of the Christian faith, especially in his role of leadership.
The tone of the letters and the fact that the New Testament had not been completed make it likely that much of this was passed on orally.
We see this sort of communication referenced in another epistle, Paul’s second letter to the church at Thessalonica,
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 – NAB
When the early church had disagreements they couldn’t open up their Bibles to decide who was right; they held councils which made dogmatic decrees as we see in Acts 15:1-29.
Remember that some books of the Bible hadn’t been written at first, and later they hadn’t been formed into one book by the Church.
Sacred tradition and authority were necessary for us to even have a Bible today.
Heirs of the Reformation:
“Most heirs of the Reformation, not least evangelicals, take if for granted that we are to give scripture the primary place and that everything else has to be lined up in relation to scripture.
There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition.
We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any ‘tradition’.
This is rather like the frequent Anglican assumption (being an Anglican myself I rather cherish this) that Anglicans have no doctrine peculiar to themselves: it is merely that if something is true the Church of England believes it.
This, though not itself a refutation of the claim not to have any ‘tradition’, is for the moment sufficient indication of the inherent unlikeliness of the claim’s truth, and I am confident that most people, facing the question explicitly, will not wish that the claim be pressed.
But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern.
a. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort.
This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous.
b. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying.
And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. I
f we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’”
How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? by N. T. Wright:
www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
This is why the Catholic Church teaches the idea of sola verbum Dei (“the Word of God alone”), and that the successors of the apostles are infallibly inspired.
This is not a blanket inspiration, as what the human authors of Scripture wrote was not always inspired. This inspiration only applies to pronouncements regarding faith and morals.
It doesn’t apply to priests; it only applies to bishops when proclaiming things as an ecumenical council, and the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) when he makes proclamations ex cathedra.
(Purposefully making infallible proclamations on faith or morals from the chair of his office as Bishop of Rome at St. John Lateran).
In this way the Church acts as the Magisterium:
Supporting and protecting believers from error. It is impossible for these dogmatic proclamations to contradict scripture because both come from the same Spirit of truth – the Holy Spirit, third Person of the Trinity, God.
Can you find a Bible passage that teaches that the Bible is to be the sole or primary authority for the Christian or the Church?
The Primacy of the Church:
When we speak of primacy there are many fine points which are interconnected, but distinct.
The sloppiness of my referring to Sola Scriptura as Prima Scriptura or Solo Scriptura (I prefer Solo to the more grammatically correct, but slightly derogatory, Nuda).
May have caused this lack of clarity since it is a distinction which is more popular theology than high theology;
There is no disagreement as to the infallibly authoritative primacy or scope of God’s word.
The first pertinent distinction lies in the exclusivity of that infallible authority. Not to be confused with authority in terms of scope or sovereignty.
The unscriptural foundation of the protest was the idea that our sacred scriptures are the only infallible authority given to the Church;
An assertion which is neither explicitly or implicitly set forth in the Bible (the roles of priests, prophets and kings in relation to the Torah implicitly infer the opposite).
b. The second pertinent distinction lies in the interpretation of that infallible authority.
The unscriptural concept of the protest was that some specific individuals’ (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) personal interpretation of sacred scripture was more accurate than the Church’s leaders and councils.
The natural inference is that infallible interpretation is impossible and it is each individual’s responsibility to interpret sacred scripture (privately or in community as they choose);
The logical result is the emergent movement – each individual “adduces” their own fallible interpretation of their own fallible canon of infallible scriptures, as Luther did.
We believe that God’s word is bigger than what is written in our sacred scriptures; not only were our scriptures theopneustos (God-breathed) within the context of a faith community (Israel then, now the Church), but they were meant to be interpreted by the sacred traditions of that community which are also theopnuestos.
Note: that I am not just saying traditions (mutable and fallible).
But sacred traditions (immutable and infallible), just as I would differentiate between religious writings and sacred scripture.
The traditional churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican/ Episcopal) would say that the scriptures were to be taught, interpreted and studied within the context of God’s chosen people, as the Torah was;
Until the Reformation, Christendom (Rome, Byzantium and Canterbury) understood the Christian Scriptures as interpreted by the Apostolic Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, and not the individual.
What are the criteria for any traditions, interpretations, and writings outside of canon to be considered God-breathed?
The foundation for the criteria of one deposit of faith lies with the twelve disciples, and does not extend to writings.
The canon of scripture (written revelation) was closed with the book of Revelation.
The oral traditions which are inspired sometimes include interpretations, but categorically it would be most proper to classify “sacred tradition” as oral tradition.
In Acts 15 we see the first ecumenical council, where the apostles (led by the twelve) and bishops (elders) proclaimed that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be saved; in this council we see binding, infallible, Spirit-inspired, apostolic authority (not Sola Scriptura).
Of course, apostolic authority cannot contradict sacred scripture anymore than scripture can contradict itself – they are part and parcel of the same deposit of faith.
The Latter Day Saints (or Latter-day Saints, some are Mormons) split from Protestantism and adhere (like Islam) to a “newer” testament (The Book of Mormon – and/or Doctrine and Covenants and/or The Pearl of Great Price.
(End Part 2)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
So What are two main interpretations of “Sola Scriptura” among Protestants.
a. One view is often referred to as solo or “Nuda Scriptura”
b. And the other is sometimes called “Prima Scriptura.”
Most Protestants hold to some form of one of these two views.
b. Historically, we note that the New Testament canon was not complete at the time II Timothy was written; As we look deeper into the context of this passage we see from the two verses previous that Paul was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, possibly the Septuagint.
“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3 – NAB
It is valid to claim these same things for all inspired Scriptures, but a transition from Apostolic authority to Scriptural authority is not even alluded to here.
It is clear from Paul’s letters to Timothy that they knew each other beyond the written correspondence we have.
2 Timothy 1:4
These letters also assume that Timothy knows certain truths of the Christian faith, especially in his role of leadership.
The tone of the letters and the fact that the New Testament had not been completed make it likely that much of this was passed on orally.
We see this sort of communication referenced in another epistle, Paul’s second letter to the church at Thessalonica,
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 – NAB
When the early church had disagreements they couldn’t open up their Bibles to decide who was right; they held councils which made dogmatic decrees as we see in Acts 15:1-29.
Remember that some books of the Bible hadn’t been written at first, and later they hadn’t been formed into one book by the Church.
Sacred tradition and authority were necessary for us to even have a Bible today.
Heirs of the Reformation:
“Most heirs of the Reformation, not least evangelicals, take if for granted that we are to give scripture the primary place and that everything else has to be lined up in relation to scripture.
There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition.
We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any ‘tradition’.
This is rather like the frequent Anglican assumption (being an Anglican myself I rather cherish this) that Anglicans have no doctrine peculiar to themselves: it is merely that if something is true the Church of England believes it.
This, though not itself a refutation of the claim not to have any ‘tradition’, is for the moment sufficient indication of the inherent unlikeliness of the claim’s truth, and I am confident that most people, facing the question explicitly, will not wish that the claim be pressed.
But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern.
a. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort.
This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous.
b. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying.
And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. I
f we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’”
How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? by N. T. Wright:
www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
This is why the Catholic Church teaches the idea of sola verbum Dei (“the Word of God alone”), and that the successors of the apostles are infallibly inspired.
This is not a blanket inspiration, as what the human authors of Scripture wrote was not always inspired. This inspiration only applies to pronouncements regarding faith and morals.
It doesn’t apply to priests; it only applies to bishops when proclaiming things as an ecumenical council, and the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) when he makes proclamations ex cathedra.
(Purposefully making infallible proclamations on faith or morals from the chair of his office as Bishop of Rome at St. John Lateran).
In this way the Church acts as the Magisterium:
Supporting and protecting believers from error. It is impossible for these dogmatic proclamations to contradict scripture because both come from the same Spirit of truth – the Holy Spirit, third Person of the Trinity, God.
Can you find a Bible passage that teaches that the Bible is to be the sole or primary authority for the Christian or the Church?
The Primacy of the Church:
When we speak of primacy there are many fine points which are interconnected, but distinct.
The sloppiness of my referring to Sola Scriptura as Prima Scriptura or Solo Scriptura (I prefer Solo to the more grammatically correct, but slightly derogatory, Nuda).
May have caused this lack of clarity since it is a distinction which is more popular theology than high theology;
There is no disagreement as to the infallibly authoritative primacy or scope of God’s word.
The first pertinent distinction lies in the exclusivity of that infallible authority. Not to be confused with authority in terms of scope or sovereignty.
The unscriptural foundation of the protest was the idea that our sacred scriptures are the only infallible authority given to the Church;
An assertion which is neither explicitly or implicitly set forth in the Bible (the roles of priests, prophets and kings in relation to the Torah implicitly infer the opposite).
b. The second pertinent distinction lies in the interpretation of that infallible authority.
The unscriptural concept of the protest was that some specific individuals’ (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) personal interpretation of sacred scripture was more accurate than the Church’s leaders and councils.
The natural inference is that infallible interpretation is impossible and it is each individual’s responsibility to interpret sacred scripture (privately or in community as they choose);
The logical result is the emergent movement – each individual “adduces” their own fallible interpretation of their own fallible canon of infallible scriptures, as Luther did.
We believe that God’s word is bigger than what is written in our sacred scriptures; not only were our scriptures theopneustos (God-breathed) within the context of a faith community (Israel then, now the Church), but they were meant to be interpreted by the sacred traditions of that community which are also theopnuestos.
Note: that I am not just saying traditions (mutable and fallible).
But sacred traditions (immutable and infallible), just as I would differentiate between religious writings and sacred scripture.
The traditional churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican/ Episcopal) would say that the scriptures were to be taught, interpreted and studied within the context of God’s chosen people, as the Torah was;
Until the Reformation, Christendom (Rome, Byzantium and Canterbury) understood the Christian Scriptures as interpreted by the Apostolic Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, and not the individual.
What are the criteria for any traditions, interpretations, and writings outside of canon to be considered God-breathed?
The foundation for the criteria of one deposit of faith lies with the twelve disciples, and does not extend to writings.
The canon of scripture (written revelation) was closed with the book of Revelation.
The oral traditions which are inspired sometimes include interpretations, but categorically it would be most proper to classify “sacred tradition” as oral tradition.
In Acts 15 we see the first ecumenical council, where the apostles (led by the twelve) and bishops (elders) proclaimed that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be saved; in this council we see binding, infallible, Spirit-inspired, apostolic authority (not Sola Scriptura).
Of course, apostolic authority cannot contradict sacred scripture anymore than scripture can contradict itself – they are part and parcel of the same deposit of faith.
The Latter Day Saints (or Latter-day Saints, some are Mormons) split from Protestantism and adhere (like Islam) to a “newer” testament (The Book of Mormon – and/or Doctrine and Covenants and/or The Pearl of Great Price.
(End Part 2)
Sep 5, 2018 18:56:33 #
09/05/2018 What is "Sola Scriptura" ? Where is It Found In the Bible . . . ? (Part 3)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
So What are two main interpretations of “Sola Scriptura” among Protestants.
a. One view is often referred to as solo or “Nuda Scriptura”
b. And the other is sometimes called “Prima Scriptura.”
Most Protestants hold to some form of one of these two views.
Although they call themselves Christian, they lack apostolic succession, historical continuity and historical consistency.
Their foundations are the prophecies of Joseph Smith (as Islam with Muhammad), not the apostles and scripture.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing “modern” about an apostolic concept which dates from the inception of the church.
Theologically, of course there are much more radical differences – especially in Christology, since they deny the uniqueness of the divinity of Christ, the hypostatic union, the trinity, etc.
There is really no parallel in terms of consistency with the written revelation of the Hebrew (either the c. 200 B.C. Septuagint or the c. 200 A.D. Tanakh) and Christian scriptures.
In summary, the source is different; the Catholic foundation is the twelve apostles: Their writings (scripture) and their successors;
The LDS foundation is Joseph Smith:
His visions, prophecies and writings;
The Christian Scientist foundation is Mary Baker Eddy:
Her reason and writings.
Throughout the New Testament there are many examples of apostolic authority (I assume several come to mind), but Acts 15 is one of the clearest.
In addition to apostolic authority the Bible clearly speaks of the Church as being divinely authoritative in passages like.
I Timothy 3:15b,
When it refers to the Church as, “…The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The Church and the apostles were not separate, nor was the church just an assembly of believers.
As we see in Acts 15, the apostles had pre-eminence, and what they decided was spread to all churches.
This well established ecclesiological structure poses a serious challenge to Protestant ecclesiology.
Philosophically, a text alone (even an infallible, inerrant and authoritative one) cannot interpret itself.
Tone, emphasis and, most importantly, meaning must all be interpreted.
Some things are perspicacious, but, as the Ethiopian eunich points out, scripture needs an interpreter.
Historical knowledge and a proper application of critical apparatus do make some things clear, but one can see why God established a Church to decide between various culturally and textually-valid interpretations.
Does scripture refer to individuals as the pillar and bulwark of truth?
Does scripture teach that it is the individual alone who should determine their canon and interpret it?
Does scripture teach individual church autonomy or submission to the apostles in Acts 15?
Considering facts like this brought me to realize that Catholic ecclesiology is much more sound.
Many Protestants understand apostolic authority –
It’s so clear in the Bible that it cannot be denied.
What I didn’t understand until I looked into it, was that there are also solid, textually-valid indications that this apostolic authority was something that was to be passed on: in Acts 1
Matthias is chosen to replace Judas, which is a post ascension anointing of a successor – i.e. apostolic succession.
Likewise we see Paul passing things on to the Bishops Titus and Timothy (the latter most clearly in 2 Timothy 4:1-6).
We also note the historical successors like Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement, and John, Polycarp and Irenaeus.
We read the understanding of the earliest apostolic fathers and see that apostolic succession is something that the church has held to since the earliest days;
This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in texts like and Adversus Haeresies where apostolic succession is the basis for the refutation of heresy by people who knew the twelve and were disciples of their successors.
a. www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
B. www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html
So a study of history (being careful to rely on sound sources) demonstrated that the early church’s ecclesiology was one of apostolic succession and authority.
Aside from primary sources, there were excellent non-Catholic historians who helped me understand this too: J. N. D. Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan.
I didn’t feel a need to avoid Catholic historical sources, but I avoided poorly-cited collections of assertions in favor of well-cited, cross-tradition works.
There were an alarming number of texts full of inexcusable misinformation, conjecture and even prevarication on the Protestant side.
Intellectual honesty has led to the refutation of some (See the comments on this page regarding things like the Baptist pamphlet entitled.
“The Trail of Blood”, but many have done their damage especially to those not inclined to do their “due diligence” in research.
www.fbinstitute.com/trail/intro.htm
The Protestant reformation wasn’t a return to the early church, but rather a protest against the established Christian church.
The ideas of apostolic succession and sacred tradition are not new – they have developed, but the root comes from sacred scripture – with historical continuity, and the modern fruit does not contradict sacred scripture or sacred tradition.
Most Catholic doctrines are explicit in the Bible.
The Churches Foundation Of Truth:
1 Timothy 3:15-16 is typically translated or analyzed in one of two ways:
a. “The household of God which is the church, the/a pillar and foundation of the truth.
And confessedly great is the mystery of piety: [Christ]”
b. “The household of God which is the church, the/a pillar and foundation of the truth.
And we confess how great is the mystery of piety: [Christ]”
However, there is another possible and even likely interpretation:
c. “The household of God which is the church.
A pillar and foundation of the truth and confessedly great is the mystery of piety: [Christ]”
It all depends where you put the period in the Greek. (And the placement of a period in a Greek text is an editor’s interpretation.)
In context, Paul has been talking about church order.
If piety in Greek is referring to the Christian ethical obligation, then it seems that the mystery of our ethical obligation is bound up in who Christ is.
In other words, all Paul’s talk of the holiness of the church that has preceded is revealed in Jesus Christ.
He is the foundation of our ethics.
See: http://www.agodman.com/blog/the-mystery-of-godliness-the-church-is-god-manifested-in-the-flesh-christ-living-in-us/
After such a confession, Paul goes on to show what piety is not in chapter 4.
If my analysis of Timothy so far is correct, it would be out of context to have the church be the pillar when it is Christ who is the central focus of the passage.
It would be a random proof-text in the middle of an otherwise well-constructed passage, though it is not unheard of for Paul to do this cf.
1 Tim. 2:15
Grammatically, the article the before “pillar and foundation” is lacking in the Greek.
If taken in its usual way it would be better to say “a pillar and foundation of the truth” (only 2 out of the 21 translations I’ve seen make this distinction;
To be fair, it is possible for a noun without an article in Greek to be definite, but I’d like to see some evidence before assuming). However, entirely more Pauline, in my view, and in keeping with the grammar of this passage is to take “pillar and foundation” with “and confessedly great” and make all of them the predicate of “the mystery of piety” who was revealed in the flesh – that is, Jesus Christ himself.
In Paul’s letters he continuously is going on, not about the importance of the people or the institution, but about the message.
He is so forceful in Galatians that he even says that if he himself or an angel of God were to preach another gospel than than which he preached, they should be ignored.
The message, to Paul was far more important than “the ones who seemed important” or who delivered the message (Galatians).
The foundation of truth could mean two things.
a. The foundation establishes truth;
b. The foundation testifies to the truth;
c. the foundation consists of truth;
d. The true foundation.
The Greek is not clear here until we get to the context. The last interpretation seems the best.
So the question is: is the church or the mystery of piety – the gospel message of Christ – the true foundation (cf. 1 Cor. 15)?
If my thesis is correct that the mystery of piety is a pillar and foundation of truth, then it would also support (no pun intended) the interpretation of what Jesus meant when he said.
“On this rock will I build my church.”
If the rock was the correct confession of the person of Jesus, then that would accord with two things:
a. Jesus quick turning on Peter when he made a false confession of Jesus (calling him Satan! rather than a rock) and.
b. The fact that Paul seems to say elsewhere that the bedrock, the foundation, the pillar of truth is that same correct confession of Jesus.
There is, I admit, a clear sense in which the church is “built on the foundation of apostles and prophets.”
Ephesians
(End Part 3)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
So What are two main interpretations of “Sola Scriptura” among Protestants.
a. One view is often referred to as solo or “Nuda Scriptura”
b. And the other is sometimes called “Prima Scriptura.”
Most Protestants hold to some form of one of these two views.
Although they call themselves Christian, they lack apostolic succession, historical continuity and historical consistency.
Their foundations are the prophecies of Joseph Smith (as Islam with Muhammad), not the apostles and scripture.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing “modern” about an apostolic concept which dates from the inception of the church.
Theologically, of course there are much more radical differences – especially in Christology, since they deny the uniqueness of the divinity of Christ, the hypostatic union, the trinity, etc.
There is really no parallel in terms of consistency with the written revelation of the Hebrew (either the c. 200 B.C. Septuagint or the c. 200 A.D. Tanakh) and Christian scriptures.
In summary, the source is different; the Catholic foundation is the twelve apostles: Their writings (scripture) and their successors;
The LDS foundation is Joseph Smith:
His visions, prophecies and writings;
The Christian Scientist foundation is Mary Baker Eddy:
Her reason and writings.
Throughout the New Testament there are many examples of apostolic authority (I assume several come to mind), but Acts 15 is one of the clearest.
In addition to apostolic authority the Bible clearly speaks of the Church as being divinely authoritative in passages like.
I Timothy 3:15b,
When it refers to the Church as, “…The household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The Church and the apostles were not separate, nor was the church just an assembly of believers.
As we see in Acts 15, the apostles had pre-eminence, and what they decided was spread to all churches.
This well established ecclesiological structure poses a serious challenge to Protestant ecclesiology.
Philosophically, a text alone (even an infallible, inerrant and authoritative one) cannot interpret itself.
Tone, emphasis and, most importantly, meaning must all be interpreted.
Some things are perspicacious, but, as the Ethiopian eunich points out, scripture needs an interpreter.
Historical knowledge and a proper application of critical apparatus do make some things clear, but one can see why God established a Church to decide between various culturally and textually-valid interpretations.
Does scripture refer to individuals as the pillar and bulwark of truth?
Does scripture teach that it is the individual alone who should determine their canon and interpret it?
Does scripture teach individual church autonomy or submission to the apostles in Acts 15?
Considering facts like this brought me to realize that Catholic ecclesiology is much more sound.
Many Protestants understand apostolic authority –
It’s so clear in the Bible that it cannot be denied.
What I didn’t understand until I looked into it, was that there are also solid, textually-valid indications that this apostolic authority was something that was to be passed on: in Acts 1
Matthias is chosen to replace Judas, which is a post ascension anointing of a successor – i.e. apostolic succession.
Likewise we see Paul passing things on to the Bishops Titus and Timothy (the latter most clearly in 2 Timothy 4:1-6).
We also note the historical successors like Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement, and John, Polycarp and Irenaeus.
We read the understanding of the earliest apostolic fathers and see that apostolic succession is something that the church has held to since the earliest days;
This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in texts like and Adversus Haeresies where apostolic succession is the basis for the refutation of heresy by people who knew the twelve and were disciples of their successors.
a. www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
B. www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html
So a study of history (being careful to rely on sound sources) demonstrated that the early church’s ecclesiology was one of apostolic succession and authority.
Aside from primary sources, there were excellent non-Catholic historians who helped me understand this too: J. N. D. Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan.
I didn’t feel a need to avoid Catholic historical sources, but I avoided poorly-cited collections of assertions in favor of well-cited, cross-tradition works.
There were an alarming number of texts full of inexcusable misinformation, conjecture and even prevarication on the Protestant side.
Intellectual honesty has led to the refutation of some (See the comments on this page regarding things like the Baptist pamphlet entitled.
“The Trail of Blood”, but many have done their damage especially to those not inclined to do their “due diligence” in research.
www.fbinstitute.com/trail/intro.htm
The Protestant reformation wasn’t a return to the early church, but rather a protest against the established Christian church.
The ideas of apostolic succession and sacred tradition are not new – they have developed, but the root comes from sacred scripture – with historical continuity, and the modern fruit does not contradict sacred scripture or sacred tradition.
Most Catholic doctrines are explicit in the Bible.
The Churches Foundation Of Truth:
1 Timothy 3:15-16 is typically translated or analyzed in one of two ways:
a. “The household of God which is the church, the/a pillar and foundation of the truth.
And confessedly great is the mystery of piety: [Christ]”
b. “The household of God which is the church, the/a pillar and foundation of the truth.
And we confess how great is the mystery of piety: [Christ]”
However, there is another possible and even likely interpretation:
c. “The household of God which is the church.
A pillar and foundation of the truth and confessedly great is the mystery of piety: [Christ]”
It all depends where you put the period in the Greek. (And the placement of a period in a Greek text is an editor’s interpretation.)
In context, Paul has been talking about church order.
If piety in Greek is referring to the Christian ethical obligation, then it seems that the mystery of our ethical obligation is bound up in who Christ is.
In other words, all Paul’s talk of the holiness of the church that has preceded is revealed in Jesus Christ.
He is the foundation of our ethics.
See: http://www.agodman.com/blog/the-mystery-of-godliness-the-church-is-god-manifested-in-the-flesh-christ-living-in-us/
After such a confession, Paul goes on to show what piety is not in chapter 4.
If my analysis of Timothy so far is correct, it would be out of context to have the church be the pillar when it is Christ who is the central focus of the passage.
It would be a random proof-text in the middle of an otherwise well-constructed passage, though it is not unheard of for Paul to do this cf.
1 Tim. 2:15
Grammatically, the article the before “pillar and foundation” is lacking in the Greek.
If taken in its usual way it would be better to say “a pillar and foundation of the truth” (only 2 out of the 21 translations I’ve seen make this distinction;
To be fair, it is possible for a noun without an article in Greek to be definite, but I’d like to see some evidence before assuming). However, entirely more Pauline, in my view, and in keeping with the grammar of this passage is to take “pillar and foundation” with “and confessedly great” and make all of them the predicate of “the mystery of piety” who was revealed in the flesh – that is, Jesus Christ himself.
In Paul’s letters he continuously is going on, not about the importance of the people or the institution, but about the message.
He is so forceful in Galatians that he even says that if he himself or an angel of God were to preach another gospel than than which he preached, they should be ignored.
The message, to Paul was far more important than “the ones who seemed important” or who delivered the message (Galatians).
The foundation of truth could mean two things.
a. The foundation establishes truth;
b. The foundation testifies to the truth;
c. the foundation consists of truth;
d. The true foundation.
The Greek is not clear here until we get to the context. The last interpretation seems the best.
So the question is: is the church or the mystery of piety – the gospel message of Christ – the true foundation (cf. 1 Cor. 15)?
If my thesis is correct that the mystery of piety is a pillar and foundation of truth, then it would also support (no pun intended) the interpretation of what Jesus meant when he said.
“On this rock will I build my church.”
If the rock was the correct confession of the person of Jesus, then that would accord with two things:
a. Jesus quick turning on Peter when he made a false confession of Jesus (calling him Satan! rather than a rock) and.
b. The fact that Paul seems to say elsewhere that the bedrock, the foundation, the pillar of truth is that same correct confession of Jesus.
There is, I admit, a clear sense in which the church is “built on the foundation of apostles and prophets.”
Ephesians
(End Part 3)
Sep 5, 2018 18:58:33 #
09/05/2018 What is "Sola Scriptura" ? Where is It Found In the Bible . . . ? (Part 4)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
However, for Paul, an apostle is worthless if he preaches the wrong gospel Galatians.
The cornerstone is Jesus.
Not just any Jesus, but the one correctly preached.
I have a more technical Greek analysis, but I think this is a sufficient introduction for those who are not familiar with Greek.
“The Church Determined The canon”:
What the Church Canon is:
The ontologically and focuses more on epistemology (how we know the canon).
This also assumes that the canon wasn’t decided upon until later, which assumes an ecclesiastical pronouncement and that things were, historically speaking, neat and tidy.
Really, a Protestant trying to read something like “Prima Scriptura" or “Sola scriptura” back into passages is nothing different than what Roman Catholics try to do.
(I’ve heard this numerous times from RC’s) when they handle Matthew 16, or passages like Luke 1:28 (cf. CCC on this passage).
Your framework of a three-tiered authority of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is assumed when reading the Bible.
This isn’t simply a tu quoque (Latin. thou too: or You also).
That I’m using to try and prove my position is acceptable, just an assessment of what actually happens.
The merits of each position have to be decided by other factors, but it is helpful to acknowledge this.
My question to you is a little different:
If the infallible Magisterium (ex cathedra, of course) has determined what documents are in the Bible (the extent) and what they actually teach (the official interpretation of the content, of some at least) . . .
And the same is true of sacred Tradition…how does this not result in your position being self-defeating and/or circular?
‘I don’t actually have a problem with your argument being ‘circular’ to some degree. Everyone has to start somewhere, I just think that everyone involved has to do an honest assessment of the history and development of doctrine.
Most of the Roman Catholics I know are enamored by the supposed objectivity and logical superiority of their position, but in the end it is just as circular.
The Scripture as Authoritative.
John 7 shows that Jesus viewed scripture as authoritative; John 10 affirms that Scripture cannot be broken;
Galatians 1 speaks of the gospel that was preached, not just written, but preached, and although Revelation 22 is speaking in the literal sense about the book itself – not the library of books in the Bible – we may properly take it to include the other books and genres of Scripture in a spiritual sense.
All of these verses affirm and reveal that the Bible is materially sufficient, authoritative and binding, and none of them begin to state that the Church and sacred Tradition are not materially sufficient, authoritative or binding: quite the opposite.
Let’s look a little further into Galatians 1, at verses 11 and 12,
“Let me tell you this, brethren; the gospel I preached to you is not a thing of man’s dictation; it was not from man that I inherited or learned it, it came to me by a revelation from Jesus Christ.”
This passage by itself shows that Paul received authoritative and binding revelation that was not in Scripture alone (as did every prophet).
In addition look at Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where we read, “I must needs praise you for your constant memory of me, for upholding your traditions just as I handed them on to you”.
I Corinthians 11:2
And – lest some interpret this as only what was written in his letters – his letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes,
“Stand firm, then, brethren, and hold by the traditions you have learned, in word or in writing, from us”
2 Thessalonians 2:14, 15
The bottom line is not “tradition vs. no tradition,” but rather, “true, apostolic tradition vs. false traditions of men.”
It was regarding the Church, not just Scripture in a vacuum, that Paul wrote, “so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s household.
By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation upon which the truth rests.”
I Timothy 3:15
This is how it has always been with God’s people – even before the advent of Jesus, the Christ.
In the Old Covenant we find an oral tradition, alongside sacred Scripture, that is ultimately fulfilled in Christ. \
The law of Moses, the written Torah (or Pentateuch) never speaks of a Temple other than the Tabernacle and only briefly alludes to a special place the Lord would choose for himself
Leviticus 18:3
But it’s oral tradition that David and Solomon rely on to know that this holy city is Jerusalem.
Note that in Deuteronomy 4:1, 2 it is written,
“And now, Israel, pay good heed to the laws and the decrees I am making known to you. It is yours to observe them, if you would have life; if you would find your way into the land promised you by the Lord God of your fathers, and take possession of it.
There must be no adding to this message of mine, no retrenching it; the commands I lay upon you are the commands of the Lord your God; keep them well.”
Yet Jesus frequented the temple and referred to it as His Father’s house when driving out the moneychangers.
Since God chose to form Israel as His nation, God’s people have his scriptures, his priests and his Spirit to lead them to the fullness of revelation (Christ) and into all truth.
Be warned by the words you quoted from Revelation:
“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”
Adding the Sola concept to these verses of Scripture is adding to these things!
(End Part 4)
C.C. Evans
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/what-do-catholics-really-believe-about-salvation/
https://protestantnomore.wordpress.com/author/scouserevans/
However, for Paul, an apostle is worthless if he preaches the wrong gospel Galatians.
The cornerstone is Jesus.
Not just any Jesus, but the one correctly preached.
I have a more technical Greek analysis, but I think this is a sufficient introduction for those who are not familiar with Greek.
“The Church Determined The canon”:
What the Church Canon is:
The ontologically and focuses more on epistemology (how we know the canon).
This also assumes that the canon wasn’t decided upon until later, which assumes an ecclesiastical pronouncement and that things were, historically speaking, neat and tidy.
Really, a Protestant trying to read something like “Prima Scriptura" or “Sola scriptura” back into passages is nothing different than what Roman Catholics try to do.
(I’ve heard this numerous times from RC’s) when they handle Matthew 16, or passages like Luke 1:28 (cf. CCC on this passage).
Your framework of a three-tiered authority of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is assumed when reading the Bible.
This isn’t simply a tu quoque (Latin. thou too: or You also).
That I’m using to try and prove my position is acceptable, just an assessment of what actually happens.
The merits of each position have to be decided by other factors, but it is helpful to acknowledge this.
My question to you is a little different:
If the infallible Magisterium (ex cathedra, of course) has determined what documents are in the Bible (the extent) and what they actually teach (the official interpretation of the content, of some at least) . . .
And the same is true of sacred Tradition…how does this not result in your position being self-defeating and/or circular?
‘I don’t actually have a problem with your argument being ‘circular’ to some degree. Everyone has to start somewhere, I just think that everyone involved has to do an honest assessment of the history and development of doctrine.
Most of the Roman Catholics I know are enamored by the supposed objectivity and logical superiority of their position, but in the end it is just as circular.
The Scripture as Authoritative.
John 7 shows that Jesus viewed scripture as authoritative; John 10 affirms that Scripture cannot be broken;
Galatians 1 speaks of the gospel that was preached, not just written, but preached, and although Revelation 22 is speaking in the literal sense about the book itself – not the library of books in the Bible – we may properly take it to include the other books and genres of Scripture in a spiritual sense.
All of these verses affirm and reveal that the Bible is materially sufficient, authoritative and binding, and none of them begin to state that the Church and sacred Tradition are not materially sufficient, authoritative or binding: quite the opposite.
Let’s look a little further into Galatians 1, at verses 11 and 12,
“Let me tell you this, brethren; the gospel I preached to you is not a thing of man’s dictation; it was not from man that I inherited or learned it, it came to me by a revelation from Jesus Christ.”
This passage by itself shows that Paul received authoritative and binding revelation that was not in Scripture alone (as did every prophet).
In addition look at Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where we read, “I must needs praise you for your constant memory of me, for upholding your traditions just as I handed them on to you”.
I Corinthians 11:2
And – lest some interpret this as only what was written in his letters – his letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes,
“Stand firm, then, brethren, and hold by the traditions you have learned, in word or in writing, from us”
2 Thessalonians 2:14, 15
The bottom line is not “tradition vs. no tradition,” but rather, “true, apostolic tradition vs. false traditions of men.”
It was regarding the Church, not just Scripture in a vacuum, that Paul wrote, “so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s household.
By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation upon which the truth rests.”
I Timothy 3:15
This is how it has always been with God’s people – even before the advent of Jesus, the Christ.
In the Old Covenant we find an oral tradition, alongside sacred Scripture, that is ultimately fulfilled in Christ. \
The law of Moses, the written Torah (or Pentateuch) never speaks of a Temple other than the Tabernacle and only briefly alludes to a special place the Lord would choose for himself
Leviticus 18:3
But it’s oral tradition that David and Solomon rely on to know that this holy city is Jerusalem.
Note that in Deuteronomy 4:1, 2 it is written,
“And now, Israel, pay good heed to the laws and the decrees I am making known to you. It is yours to observe them, if you would have life; if you would find your way into the land promised you by the Lord God of your fathers, and take possession of it.
There must be no adding to this message of mine, no retrenching it; the commands I lay upon you are the commands of the Lord your God; keep them well.”
Yet Jesus frequented the temple and referred to it as His Father’s house when driving out the moneychangers.
Since God chose to form Israel as His nation, God’s people have his scriptures, his priests and his Spirit to lead them to the fullness of revelation (Christ) and into all truth.
Be warned by the words you quoted from Revelation:
“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”
Adding the Sola concept to these verses of Scripture is adding to these things!
(End Part 4)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.