Sola Scriptura?

[~Anastasia~]

This discussion seems to be devolving now. It seems like people aren't trying to understand eachother now but are just throwing around the same arguments that we've heard before.

LOL we are 12 pages in, to a discussion that has taken place tens of thousands of times ...

And sadly we are acting not completely in accordance with TT guidelines either (I'm talking about myself).

No, we're not engaging. Not progressing. I don't know what to suggest.

Forgive me, please.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This discussion seems to be devolving now. It seems like people aren't trying to understand eachother now but are just throwing around the same arguments that we've heard before.

There are no new arguments on this matter, are there? Even though that is the case, I still think it's a worthwhile discussion, and I think that (calm and reasonable) debate is allowed in this subform. If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

The only way to have a counterpoint on the subject is to have opinions from those outside of camp. If no counterpoint is or was desired then that is understandable, as the choir sometimes needs preaching to.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are no new arguments on this matter, are there? Even though that is the case, I still think it's a worthwhile discussion, and I think that (calm and reasonable) debate is allowed in this subform. If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

The only way to have a counterpoint on the subject is to have opinions from those outside of camp. If no counterpoint is or was desired then that is understandable, as the choir sometimes needs preaching to.

Discussion is allowed here. It is specifically not a place to argue who is wrong and who is right, but rather to share viewpoints.

Maybe this particular subject goes the way it does because we've (general we) debated it so many times.

I'm trying to think what it would even look like if we were following usual TT process.

It would be more like ... this is what SS means to me, and our Tradition supports/doesn't support it because xyz.

Questions could be asked about those reasons, but they really should not be debated.

And other opinions could be shared in the same way.

The problem is compounded because SS honestly means different things to different people. As I've said, Orthodoxy could support SS in some understanding, but when it is taken to mean other things (beyond what Luther originally intended), we can't. So we really need to define the subject before we can even discuss it.

 

[All4Christ]

There are no new arguments on this matter, are there? Even though that is the case, I still think it's a worthwhile discussion, and I think that (calm and reasonable) debate is allowed in this subform. If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

The only way to have a counterpoint on the subject is to have opinions from those outside of camp. If no counterpoint is or was desired then that is understandable, as the choir sometimes needs preaching to.

It just seems like people aren't listening and are assuming people believe things they haven't said, not to mention that people are talking past eachother. It is a good subject to discuss - within the limitations of the subforum.

While debate isn't strictly forbidden, this is the purpose of the subforum:

It was and still remains the desire of everyone involved in the formation of this forum that it be, as the Statement of Purpose says, first and foremost A forum dedicated to respectful discussion, and furthermore the focus of this forum is the discussion of traditional historic theological belief, thought and practice.

While everyone is welcome to participate in these discussions, this forum is NOT a place to refute these things, but a place to discuss, question and increase knowledge and understanding in these things in an atmosphere of Christian Fellowship.

My prayer is:

Lord God, Heavenly Father; Increase in us true knowledge of You and of Your Word, so that we may delight in Your Will and walk in Your ways, to the Glory of Your Holy Name. This I ask in name of Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit; one God, now and forever.

Amen.

Let us go in peace and serve the Lord!

Mark
Adviser Assistant

Welcome to Traditional Theology!

As some Traditional Christians believe in Sola Scriptura, it is a relevant topic for respectful discussion, though we don't try to prove that historic traditional beliefs are wrong, but rather discuss them to understand eachother. Alongside Sola Scriptura, Holy Tradition is another historic traditional belief.

Obviously, we do have debates here, but we try to make sure they are respectful and stay within the confines of the Statement of Purpose. Strictly speaking though, debates here aren't supposed to prove that another traditional Christian is wrong, but rather are to explore why we believe what we believe.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Btw, SS is NOT a subject defined by Traditional Theology as either supported or denied.

Lutherans are regarded as Traditional Christians, and Luther coined the phrase, afaik. Catholics are also certainly Traditional Christians, and I suppose SS was developed in opposition to their position at that point in history.

So there is no yes/no vote bestowed by virtue of being a Traditional Christian.

 

[Albion]

I should have been more clear. I was in full agreement with you.

I know. It just made me think that a bit more in the way of explanation from me might be called for.

If we think that those with histories closest to the earliest church are automatically correct, we fail to remember just how screwed up the early church was.

Well, that's right. One ECF may say one thing and a different one another. And although their testimony sometimes suggests a certain train of thought, their opinions also can dispel some cherished notions.

For example, the idea that Peter and then the later bishops of Rome might have been considered to be the head of the church universal. In the first generations of the church, we have some of these ECFs saying that it was Peter and Paul together, or that it was really James, or that it was all three, or that John was in that position along with one or more of the others.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I know. It just made me think that a bit more in the way of explanation from me might be called for.


Well, that's right. One ECF may say one thing and a different one another. And although their testimony sometimes suggests a certain train of thought, their opinions also can dispel some cherished notions.

For example, the idea that Peter and then the later bishops of Rome might have been considered to be the head of the church universal. In the first generations of the church, we have some of these ECFs saying that it was Peter and Paul together, or that it was really James, or that it was all three, or that John was in that position along with one or more of the others.

The Church generally understood the consensus to be the Truth. Sometimes a majority fell into error, and were corrected. It depends on the topic.

Who is "in charge of" the Church and what that means is really a more uniquely Catholic problem within the first millenium. Obviously, Catholics and Orthodox disagree, and a lot of history paints a fuller picture.

But that's another topic too.

Most questions are really very easily answered from reading the ECFs. Not all, but most.

 

[Albion]

You haven't really engaged with my reply, Albion.

I'm not demanding that you do, by any means. But that verse you quote doesn't say what many seem to expect it to support, nor does it refer to NT as Scripture ...

True, the NT was yet to be codified. But it's impossible to maintain that the church did right in codifying Scripture and also say that the decision as to what is Scripture isn't what that verse refers to. If it's Scripture, the verse refers to it. If it's not Scripture that the verse is referring to, the codification is wrong.

And of course I'm not suggesting latter day prophets or the Book of Mormon. This is Traditional Theology, I'm an Orthodox Christian

Of course. There was nothing personal in that sentence. It was a quick example of the slippery slope that would impend, of the open-ended nature of taking that approach which says that the Bible didn't say what IS NOT in the Bible, as though hypothetical information has equal standing with what we all agree comes from God in Scripture.

The history of how the Scriptures cane to be is essential to understanding them.

All right, but where people go wrong is in talking as though the history is the authority itself. I am quite comfortable agreeing that taking account of both church history and secular history is part of the effort to understand Scripture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

True, the NT was yet to be codified. But it's impossible to maintain that the church did right in codifying Scripture and also say that the decision as to what is Scripture isn't what that verse refers to. If it's Scripture, the verse refers to it. If it's not Scripture that the verse is referring to, the codification is wrong.


Of course. There was nothing personal in that sentence. It was a quick example of the slippery slope that would impend, of the open-ended nature of taking that approach which says that the Bible didn't say what IS NOT in the Bible, as though hypothetical information has equal standing with what we all agree comes from God in Scripture.


All right, but where people go wrong is in talking as though the history is the authority itself. I am quite comfortable agreeing that taking account of both church history and secular history is part of the effort to understand Scripture.

I agree that the passage applies to all of Scripture, and the NT has been recognized by the Church as Scripture. It wasn't what Paul was talking about when he wrote to Timothy though.

So yes, ALL Scripture is profitable. Even the NT, which had yet to be recognized, written. On our side of history, it has been, so yes, we consider it profitable.

But how does that "prove" Sola Scriptura? If it is interpreted to mean that nothing else is needed, or more importantly that nothing else is accepted, then the canonization of the NT would have been precluded by that "order".

It really goes back to what you consider SS to mean. But I really don't see how in any logical sense, what that passage actually says can be used to argue definitively for any interpretation of SS.

If you really believe that it does, I'm interested to hear how you regard that to be so, in detail. Not for the sake of arguing, but truly to understand. Because I can't imagine it in any way unless I read words that aren't there.

But I want to mention, once again, that I'm not arguing against SS, but only disagreeing with some interpretations and assumptions related to it. I really think Luther's quote (that if I ever find again, I plan to save) really expresses what Orthodoxy would say as well, which is that Scripture serves as the ultimate authority, but the way in which it is interpreted should be informed by Tradition. (Which I would be quick to add, and I think Luther would agree, is NOT what the current pope says ... Tradition, according to Orthodoxy, is that which has been believed by all people at all times in all places - meaning the Church.)

But of course there is no longer any agreement on much of anything at all by "everyone" since the occurrence of schisms and reformations.

 

[Albion]

But how does that "prove" Sola Scriptura? If it is interpreted to mean that nothing else is needed, or more importantly that nothing else is accepted, then the canonization of the NT would have been precluded by that "order".

As I've said many times before, the process of identifying something (Scripture, in this case) doesn't mean creating it. Timothy was already recognized as Scripture before the Bible was codified.

 

[All4Christ]

As I've said many times before, the process of identifying something (Scripture, in this case) doesn't mean creating it. Timothy was already recognized as Scripture before the Bible was codified.

Honestly, I don't understand how that says that only Scripture is authoritative, especially when considering other scriptures (Matthew 28:16-20; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Besides, even if Timothy was recognized as scripture when it was written, other things were written afterwards. It wasn't all created at that time and it certainly wasn't all recognized as scripture at that time.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The NT is almost painfully lacking in details regarding how we worship or govern. There is no book of Leviticus as part of the NT for us to reference. This must be intentional.

 

[All4Christ]

The NT is almost painfully lacking in details regarding how we worship or govern. There is no book of Leviticus as part of the NT for us to reference. This must be intentional.

Either that, or there already was a normal style of worship established, which didn't need many changes. Most of the epistles are about issues happening in the church at the time. Disorder, for example, is one problem they needed to address.

 

[Paidiske]

So yes, ALL Scripture is profitable. Even the NT, which had yet to be recognized, written. On our side of history, it has been, so yes, we consider it profitable.

But how does that "prove" Sola Scriptura? If it is interpreted to mean that nothing else is needed, or more importantly that nothing else is accepted, then the canonization of the NT would have been precluded by that "order".

I also don't think 2 Timothy 3:16-17 can be used to argue for Sola Scriptura. It gives us a high view of the role of Scripture, but doesn't preclude anything else.

And given that, by the time the canon was being codified, the church already had some well-established liturgical norms which framed the way Scripture was read and received, I'd say including that statement within the canon actually argues implicitly for other influences besides Scripture shaping Christian norms (whether they would, at that point, have talked about Tradition is unclear to me, but I get the sense that some of that sensibility had already developed).

 

[hedrick]

This strikes me as the same reply made by many Catholics or other people who don't know what Sola Scriptura means.

It’s true that mainline assessment of Scripture tends to be very similar to Catholic. The difference is that the Catholic Church assumes they have an authoritative source other than Scripture. I don’t.

To me, sola scriptura means that there's no source of public revelation other than Jesus and God's acts with Israel. Scripture is our only primary witness to it. That's not the same thing as what many Protestants believe, which is that Scripture itself is the revelation, in its entirety.

 

[DamianWarS]

It's rather hard to address generalities.

Style of music? Certainly, it can and does change for cultures.

Core beliefs, the things we pray for? The first must not change, the second is the same for us all anyway.

If you mean simply meet people AS people, then certainly. We are Christian, first and foremost. We should show them the love of Christ, not be primarily concerned with them joining our particular Church. I for one needed certain stepping stones on the way - God knew what He was doing, and I can acknowledge that in others. But we must not compromise Truth for that either. It's a balancing act, and unless we talk specifics, we may be speaking past one another.

there is truth but how we express that truth is through culture and this can overlap with core values. A hot topic I'm sure would be the observance of the Lord's supper. The Bible shows us broad strokes but there isn't a lot of detail of the hows. The church then fills in the gaps of how it is done and it's these gaps that reflect culture. Today we call it tradition but when the church first observed the Lord's supper the "hows" were more rawly about culture. Fast forward to today and those cultural values naturally express 2000 years ago have moved on and the church culture has evolved; they will both look very different than what they did 2000 years past.

I know this is a sola scriptura heavy position that may conflict with a system that values not just scripture but tradition in their core beliefs, but one should be able to read the accounts of the Lord's supper from scripture, follow them, regardless of fore-knowledge of these systems and still glorify God in their actions. The way they do them will be their heart culture, this extends to clothing, officiators/facilitator, place, time, posture, titles/language and a whole lot of other stuff. You could even argue it could be done with more sincerity because the values they practice will be about a reflection of heart values than religious values. God wants the heart culture not the religious culture; sometimes those are the same but often not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

there is truth but how we express that truth is through culture and this can overlap with core values. A hot topic I'm sure would be the observance of the Lord's supper. The Bible shows us broad strokes but there isn't a lot of detail of the hows. The church then fills in the gaps of how it is done and it's these gaps that reflect culture. Today we call it tradition but when the church first observed the Lord's supper the "hows" were more rawly about culture. Fast forward to today and those cultural values naturally express 2000 years ago have moved on and the church culture has evolved; they will both look very different than what they did 2000 years past.

I know this is a sola scriptura heavy position that may conflict with a system that values not just scripture but tradition in their core beliefs, but one should be able to read the accounts of the Lord's supper from scripture, follow them, regardless of fore-knowledge of these systems and still glorify God in their actions. The way they do them will be their heart culture, this extends to clothing, officiators/facilitator, place, time, posture, titles/language and a whole lot of other stuff. You could even argue it could be done with more sincerity because the values they practice will be about a reflection of heart values than religious values. God wants the heart culture not the religious culture; sometimes those are the same but often not.

Yes, but with all due respect, your post seems to reflect an assumption that the early Christians could look at the Bible and figure out how to do communion (or at least you're saying that's what we should do?)

But that's absolutely not what they did. There was no Bible. The communion developed by the Apostles, as taught to them by Christ and/or the Holy Spirit, and as they went forth and established Churches, they would spend many months there teaching them doctrines, and how to conduct Church. The Church/Apostles came first, not the Bible. The Bible that addresses the Church was written to practicing Churches, mostly either to correct mistakes they were making, or to encourage them. It was never meant to be a "how-to" manual, and when Christians today strip it completely from its context and try to make it into what it was never intended to be, it creates a lot of confusion. Witness the Christian landscape today, with all of its factions and divisions.

The most ancient split was over Chalcedon, and involved Churches that had been separated by culture and distance already. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox of today are their successors. Yet if you compare these two, who have been separate longer than any other Christian groups, you will find them very, very, VERY similar in nearly every respect. And very little has changed in either of them since that early date. So there was conformity and unity within the Church over these matters before the Scriptures were ever ratified into a canon.

When you strip away all of that, and try to rebuild it using only the corrective and encouraging letters, a very great deal is lost and much misunderstanding creeps in.



I do believe that God accepts the intent of the heart, and many are born into a system where they never learn of such ancient practices. He will judge fairly, and with compassion - of that I am sure. But I do not think it is right to imply that only those who lack the procedures established by Christ and the Holy Spirit have the proper heart attitude. If that were so, God would never have provided those instructions.

 

[dzheremi]

The most ancient split was over Chalcedon, and involved Churches that had been separated by culture and distance already.

What do you mean by this?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It’s true that mainline assessment of Scripture tends to be very similar to Catholic. The difference is that the Catholic Church assumes they have an authoritative source other than Scripture. I don’t.

To me, sola scriptura means that there's no source of public revelation other than Jesus and God's acts with Israel. Scripture is our only primary witness to it. That's not the same thing as what many Protestants believe, which is that Scripture itself is the revelation, in its entirety.

Agreed; but as a confessional Lutheran, I must add that it does not preclude "tradition"; rather "tradition" reflects either Scripture or "pious opinion". Such traditional "pious opinions" that are neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture are considered "adiaphora", and can not be considered either "doctrine" or "dogma".

 

[All4Christ]

Such traditional "pious opinions" that are neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture are considered "adiaphora", and can not be considered either "doctrine" or "dogma".

This is the main area where Confessional Lutherans and Orthodox disagree. We agree with the "neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture", but it can be doctrine rather than just being adiaphora. (Of course, there are some things that are adiaphora in Orthodoxy as well).