Sola Scriptura & Authority of Men

[saintboniface]

How do sola scriptura Christians put faith in the new testament bible as the word of God without accepting the authority of the men who selected the new testament books and declared them inspired?

I am asking about the authority of men. For the purposes of this question it doesn't matter the faith or denomination of these men. The point is that they were men.

I am not asking about the old testament. Yes, I know there are other posts similar to this. If you don't want to respond then don't.

 

[Albion]

How do sola scriptura Christians put faith in the new testament bible as the word of God without accepting the authority of the men who selected the new testament books and declared them inspired?

This is an old theme around here. The answer is that you're mixing real authority (What is the truth, what is revelation) with a merely administrative function (by a council approving of the Bible books). I don't have any objection to the council having recognized the inspired books of the Bible. I do have a problem when some people start saying that the Bible is their creation and so they, or any number of other such councils, can make up any doctrine that occurs to them.

I am asking about the authority of men.

Yes, but you are using the word "authority" in different senses. When it comes to religion, the authority of God is not the same as the sexton who has "authority" to unlock the church's doors.

 

[saintboniface]

I don't have any objection to the council having recognized the inspired books of the Bible. I do have a problem when some people start saying that the Bible is their creation and so they, or any number of other such councils, can make up any doctrine that occurs to them.

You don't have any objection to men (the council as you say) having recognized the inspired books of the bible because... why? Prove to me that the men had the ability to select certain writings (from among many Christian writings circulating at the time) and declare them inspired.

 

[hedrick]

To me there isn't a lot of debate on where the NT gets its authority. But I have a different idea about the authority of Scripture than some. I think it's really God that is the authority. To me, Scripture is authoritative because it's the primary source for what God did with Israel and Jesus. What we need out of the NT is to be the most direct witnesses to Jesus' life. There aren't any other 1st Cent accounts of his life than the 4 Gospels. The other "gospels" are much later. Similarly, the letters are the only things we have that might come from the first generation of Jesus' followers. I say might, because a lot of scholars have questions about some of the letters, but there's pretty good agreement on 7 of Paul's letters. And those are the ones that are most critical for doctrine.

 

[South Bound]

How do sola scriptura Christians put faith in the new testament bible as the word of God without accepting the authority of the men who selected the new testament books and declared them inspired?

Your question assumes that sola scriptura teaches that men don't have authority.

I am asking about the authority of men. For the purposes of this question it doesn't matter the faith or denomination of these men. The point is that they were men.

As opposed to what? Aardvarks?

 

[saintboniface]

Similarly, the letters are the only things we have that might come from the first generation of Jesus' followers. I say might, because a lot of scholars have questions about some of the letters, but there's pretty good agreement on 7 of Paul's letters. And those are the ones that are most critical for doctrine.

There were several other Christian writings at the time. See Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and especially the Didache. See earlychristianwritings.com.

 

[Albion]

You don't have any objection to men (the council as you say) having recognized the inspired books of the bible because... why?

Why would I object to anyone believing the Word of God for what it is when he has it placed in front of him?

Prove to me that the men had the ability to select certain writings (from among many Christian writings circulating at the time) and declare them inspired.

No one can prove that. Yet you accept the Bible as divinely inspired, do you not?

 

[hedrick]

There were several other Christian writings at the time. See Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and especially the Didache. See earlychristianwritings.com.

I think earlychristianwritings tends to date non-NT documents a bit early. But there is surely overlap between the later NT books and the earlier non-NT books. I'm not terribly bothered where you draw the line. Once you get beyond the undisputed letters of Paul, I tend to use them in much the same way I'd use the early extra-canonical material: to show what the early Church believed. Relevant, but not always decisive.

Part of this comes down to how you use the NT. If any verse from the NT can be cited in isolation to decide issues, then it matters a great deal where you draw the line. If you use the NT more critically, then a somewhat fuzzy boundary doesn't matter that much. That's why my original response identified the Gospels and the 7 letters of Paul as core.

I think if you use the NT intelligently, it's a perfectly reasonable collection. Would I care if 2 Peter or Jude wasn't included, or Hermas was? Nope. However I suspect the reason some letters are in the NT and some are not is because the ones that are were considered to be from the first generation of Jesus' followers. That's not necessarily a matter of date. However a lot of us would say that many of those judgements are dubious.

 

[saintboniface]

Why would I object to anyone believing the Word of God for what it is when he has it placed in front of him?
No one can prove that. Yet you accept the Bible as divinely inspired, do you not?

How do you know it is the Word of God? How do you know that the letters of Clement or Polycarp are not the Word of God (inspired).

I accept the books of the bible as divinely inspired because the Catholic Church said they are. That is my reason why I believe they are inspired, what is yours?

 

[saintboniface]

To me there isn't a lot of debate on where the NT gets its authority. But I have a different idea about the authority of Scripture than some. I think it's really God that is the authority. To me, Scripture is authoritative because it's the primary source for what God did with Israel and Jesus. What we need out of the NT is to be the most direct witnesses to Jesus' life.

Hedrick - Thanks for the responses. I see what you are saying. You don't really care whether it is inspired or not because at the least it gives a direct witness account to the life of Jesus and the life of early Christians.

That is a reasonable position. Although, I think you would have to concede any ammunition that St Paul adds to your arguments on different topics. If you say that X is sinful because St Paul says in the letter to the Corinthians, well, that doesn't hold much water unless the letter to the Corinthians is inspired by God.

 

[Albion]

How do you know it is the Word of God?

How do you know there is a God? These are basics of our religion. If you don't believe that the Bible is revelation, you immediately put yourself out of the Christian consensus. Your church considers the Bible to be divine revelation no less than mine does, so the question--if you want to pursue it--seems more appropriate for the Philosophy forums than this one.

And as for your comment that you believe it (only) because your church tells you to believe it only puts the issue one degree further away. We then would have to ask, in reply, why do you believe your church to be automatically correct about this? Sooner or later you're going to refer to some Bible passage to "prove" that your church has that authority, aren't you?

In any case, if we both agree that the Bible IS the word of God, what is your reluctance to treat it as such???

 

[miamited]

How do sola scriptura Christians put faith in the new testament bible as the word of God without accepting the authority of the men who selected the new testament books and declared them inspired?

I am asking about the authority of men. For the purposes of this question it doesn't matter the faith or denomination of these men. The point is that they were men.

I am not asking about the old testament. Yes, I know there are other posts similar to this. If you don't want to respond then don't.

Hi SB,

I do it in the same way that I put faith in the old covenant writings whose canon was established by men. You do realize that we have no record that God ever visited upon any man of Israel one day and said, "Oh, listen, gather up the writings of the Kings and Chronicles. Don't forget to set the Pentateuch in front. David wrote some pretty cool stuff so be sure and throw the Psalms in there and I really like what Solomon wrote so let's not forget that. Now listen, these prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Malachi, etc. They are the only prophets I want you to put in there with these other writings."

I believe that God's Spirit has always and will always be working in the hearts of men to cobble together what He wants us to know. Now, does that mean that I necessarily have any faith that the men themselves were faithful men, well, you know...God made an ass talk once. Even Joseph realized and tells us that God can work through the hands of wicked men to bring about good...if that is what He chooses.

Finally, let's be sure that we understand exactly what these men that you are trying to glorify really did. As I understand it, they didn't so much pick and choose which books to include. There was already a reasonably agreed canon that the early church had adopted, but the days were fast approaching when men were trying to add a lot of other writings to the mix that were not accepted as either apostolic or inspired by the church at large and so these men established that the early canon should be closed without adding any of the newer or spurious writings that were being thrown in by some.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[saintboniface]

How do you know there is a God? These are basics of our religion. If you don't believe that the Bible is revelation, you immediately put yourself out of the Christian consensus. Your church considers the Bible to be divine revelation no less than mine does, so the question--if you want to pursue it--seems more appropriate for the Philosophy forums than this one.

And as for your comment that you believe it (only) because your church tells you to believe it only puts the issue one degree further away. We then would have to ask, in reply, why do you believe your church to be automatically correct about this? Sooner or later you're going to refer to some Bible passage to "prove" that your church has that authority, aren't you?

In any case, if we both agree that the Bible IS the word of God, what is your reluctance to treat it as such???

The bible is the Word of God and I have no reluctance to treat it as such. That the Catholic Church has the authority has been passed down through the generations starting with Peter. The bible is not needed to prove this. The disciples handed the faith off to new leaders who did the same down to the present. The early Christian writings not deemed inspired actually do a better job than the bible in establishing the Church's authority.

Your answer to the initial questions seems to be a no answer. You believe the bible is inspired just because.

 

[shturt678s]

How do sola scriptura Christians put faith in the new testament bible as the word of God without accepting the authority of the men who selected the new testament books and declared them inspired?

I am asking about the authority of men. For the purposes of this question it doesn't matter the faith or denomination of these men. The point is that they were men.

I am not asking about the old testament. Yes, I know there are other posts similar to this. If you don't want to respond then don't.

Premise fallacy: Sola Scriptura (one of the 5 Solas) = Inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God = / = translated Bibles (93-85% accurate Text wise. iow the Bible = / = Word of God as most today believe, ie, not even preserved enough, however are excellent aides.

Old Jack's opinion

btw not understanding the former, ie, not even caring to, leads to diverse statements of faith where each think they have the one valid profession :o

 

[Albion]

The bible is the Word of God and I have no reluctance to treat it as such.

I would think that anyone who feels that way would not also criticize other Christians for seeing it the exact same way.

That the Catholic Church has the authority has been passed down through the generations starting with Peter.

That's what one denomination teaches. Others, including the oldest Christian churches--the Eastern Orthodox--have a different view, and still others their own. There's nothing in God's word that settles it one way or the other, but people will repeat what their own denominations tell them.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, the EOC is directly from the apostle Andrew while the RCC is directly from Peter, both believe and follow the same Church Doctrine. Protestantism is as a smorgasbord where one can take only that which whets his individual appetite and will leave the rest.
That type of church [s ] is against the teaching of God's holy Word' as we find in {Romans16:17-18 ] I appeal to you brethren, to take note of those who create dissentions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple minded".

[ 1 Cor. 1:10 ] ' I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there me no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and same judgment".

Jesus wants His Church always be united in the same Doctrine

[ Eph.4: 3-6 ] " Preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace : one body and one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all "

 

[Albion]

Albion, the EOC is directly from the apostle Andrew while the RCC is directly from Peter, both believe and follow the same Church Doctrine.

I wonder if that's why the EO have called the RC Pope "the first Protestant" ... because "both believe and follow the same Church Doctrine."

 

[shturt678s]

Sola Scriptura doesn't taste too bad for an appetizer.

Old Matt.4:4 Jack

 

[saintboniface]

I would think that anyone who feels that way would not also criticize other Christians for seeing it the exact same way.
That's what one denomination teaches. Others, including the oldest Christian churches--the Eastern Orthodox--have a different view, and still others their own. There's nothing in God's word that settles it one way or the other, but people will repeat what their own denominations tell them.

Suppose there is a verse or verses of the bible and you say they mean one thing and I say they mean another thing. Say it is something of grave importance. Who is right? Both of us?

Would God have given us a first century set of writings written in the style of the times, in the language of the times, with seemingly endless interpretations without providing us with an interpreter?

 

[Albion]

Suppose there is a verse or verses of the bible and you say they mean one thing and I say they mean another thing. Say it is something of grave importance. Who is right? Both of us.

Would God have given us a first century set of writings written in the style of the times, in the language of the times, with seemingly endless interpretations without providing us with an interpreter?

Absolutely.

And if you are thinking that some "interpreter" will solve all the problems, think again. No matter who that interpreter is, we will still be faced with deciding if he is indeed the real one, if his interpretations are right, and/or what they mean. The interpretations do not settle anything; they merely require a debate on the interpretations just as much as there is a debate over the material that's being interpreted.

There was no "interpreter" for the Old Testament--that's 2/3 of the Bible, you know--and yet we know from the New Testament that Jesus and the Apostles read and frequently referred to passages from the Jewish Bible...all without any "interpretation."

And, BTW, if I were to agree with you about this, it's not what separates the Catholic churches from the Protestant churches anyway. The Catholic Churches do not base their doctrines on Scripture AS INTERPRETED BY anyone in particular. They based them upon Tradition and blast the idea (as we read here all the time) of going by Scripture, period.