Sola scriptura?

[Albion]

Nonsense. A main question of this thread is whether or not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is workable as a means of sufficiently determining or ruling on Christian truths and I maintain that, without a designated interpreter, various interpretations are inevitable and give rise to various, significantly different, theologies.

Okay. It's fair to ask that. But what is your alternative, your solution to the problem you have identified?

Well, it's to turn to something that isn't the word of God. And even if we were to agree that Holy Tradition is that, the very same problem you pointed to with Sola Scriptura EXISTS WITH IT, NO LESS THAN IT DOES WITH SOLA SCRIPTURA.

This is undeniable. Yet you refuse even to address it.

Follow this: few disagree on what the RCC actually teaches even if they disagree with those teachings-while many disagree on what Scripture actually teaches.

Oh, so you are going to turn to that old gimmick of contrasting all the churches that adhere to Sola Scriptura, at once, against ONE church--yours--which rejects it. Of course the one will appear to be more united than the many.

But other people can play at that game, too. If we compare the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, for example, against all the Catholic churches, its people have been shown to be just about 100% in agreement on everything that their church teaches. Of course, the WELS is in agreement with itself on doctrine.

But how does that stack up again the various Catholic type denominations which use Holy Tradition instead of Sola Scriptura? That would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Old Catholic Churches, the Independent Catholic Churches, the SSPV, the SSPX and others.

Oh, they are in disagreement with each other, and they use Holy Tradition.

So this proves--to use your reasoning--that Holy Tradition causes disagreement and disunity whereas the WELS, which uses Sola Scriptura is united!

You know all of this, of course, but persist in pretending that the facts are otherwise.

 

[Lost4words]

There's nothing infallible about the RCC, as a multitude of statements made by Pope Franky over the years has made abundantly clear.

All Catholics know that. Even the Pope.

 

[fhansen]

There's nothing infallible about the RCC, as a multitude of statements made by Pope Franky over the years has made abundantly clear.

Franky's opinions are his own. When dogma or doctrine is officially changed, then we may have a problem.

 

[mark46]

Are you suggesting that Catholics in the 21st century rely on the Vulgate, and ignore the improved understanding in more recent translations. There is a reason that several modern translations are supported by the Church. There is also good reasons that the Chruch does NOT use the Vulgate for Mass or even as a primary bible for study.

it is easy to make such a claim. It is just as easy for me to say you are wrong. However, you provide no information for anyone to look at.

 

[concretecamper]

Are you suggesting that Catholics in the 21st century rely on the Vulgate, and ignore the improved understanding in more recent translations. There is a reason that several modern translations are supported by the Church. There is also good reasons that the Chruch does NOT use the Vulgate for Mass or even as a primary bible for study.

What is your point?

 

[mark46]

What is your point?

You seem to believe that we can rely on any Catholic bible, and that it doesn't make much difference which bible we as long as it comes out of Vatican.

I strongly disagree. There are many, many, many better translation of Scripture than the Vulgate upon which all early Catholic bibles were based. As we all know, the Church has accepted a revised version of the most popular Protestant bible. The Vatican accepts the RSV because it is a better translation than the early Catholic translations. Also, the Orthodox bible is much better also.

It really isn;t very difficult to understand why many modern translation are "better". They are derived from the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, and also based on centuries of scholarship in the Western Church, the Eastern, and in the Oriental Church. Most of us tend to ignore the first 1000 years of scholarship from the Oriental Church, primarily written in Arabic.

This is no small thing. We want to hear the words of Jesus and his followers. Jesus didn't speak Latin.

 

[concretecamper]

You seem to believe that we can rely on any Catholic bible, and that it doesn't make much difference which bible we as long as it comes out of Vatican.

Your comments show you have no idea what I was talking about. So with that, God Bless

 

[public hermit]

As I understand it, the primary driver of canonicity was doctrinal. Church tradition defined the scope of the canon on that basis.

Didn't the Rule of Faith or the Old Roman Symbol precede the canon and guide its formation? Irenaeus calls it the "tradition" he received. The "Rule of the rule" is what unified the sometimes disparate churches.

Irenaeus on The Rule of Faith - from Adversus Haereses

 

[public hermit]

If I don't believe in sola scriptura, or more precisely if I believe that church tradition is in some way authoritative, do you think I have an obligation to stop being a Protestant? Should I join the Catholic or Orthodox church instead? Or does church tradition (as an authority) flow through to Protestant churches on the basis of shared doctrinal convictions?

Or how should I think about that?

I'm late to the conversation, but I just wanted to say I am Protestant and yet believe the church tradition is authoritative. My goodness, the first generation or two of Christians didn't even have the New Testament. How did they come to faith? Certainly by oral proclamation or by letter, but it seems fairly early a "Rule of Faith" developed. It was the tradition about Christ that was handed down. Irenaeus and Tertullian mention it. I already posted Irenaeus. Here is Tertullian's mention:

Tertullian on The Rule of Faith

Edit: By the by, not trying to dissuade you from making a decision about denominations or whatever direction God may be leading you. I just didn't want you to feel like the Lone Ranger on this issue.

 

[concretecamper]

.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.

The removal of books from the original canon is a very good point. You can’t say we believe in sola scriptura oh except for these books. That’s rejecting some scriptures that were deemed as inspired writings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The apostles relied on divine inspiration and revelation to create the NT. God has been revealing His messages to man by divine revelation since creation. I see no reason that He would stop now. He did it for the first 4000 years why not in the last 2000?

 

[Albion]

There's nothing infallible about the RCC, as a multitude of statements made by Pope Franky over the years has made abundantly clear.

All Catholics know that. Even the Pope.

Are not the pronouncements made by the councils considered to be "Ecumenical" by the Catholic Church, such as Vatican I, and also ex cathedra Papal decrees...both considered by Catholics to be infallible?

 

[Concord1968]

Are not the pronouncements made by the councils considered to be "Ecumenical" by the Catholic Church, such as Vatican I, and also ex cathedra Papal decrees...both considered by Catholics to be infallible?

Indeed they are, as is the overall Magisterium of the church.

 

[fhansen]

Okay. It's fair to ask that. But what is your alternative, your solution to the problem you have identified?

Well, it's to turn to something that isn't the word of God. And even if we were to agree that Holy Tradition is that, the very same problem you pointed to with Sola Scriptura EXISTS WITH IT, NO LESS THAN IT DOES WITH SOLA SCRIPTURA.

This is undeniable. Yet you refuse even to address it.

It's more than that. There are two aspects involved in this. One is that Tradition is necessary-that a lived legacy and experience, issuing from the beginnings of the faith rather than biblical exegesis alone, for example- is critically important in coming to accurately know the gospel-and resolve questions that may arise, often arising due to biblical ambiguity incidentally.

The other aspect involved is the necessity of an entity that can interpret the sources of revelation, which are Scripture and Tradition according to the RCC.

Oh, so you are going to turn to that old gimmick of contrasting all the churches that adhere to Sola Scriptura, at once, against ONE church--yours--which rejects it. Of course the one will appear to be more united than the many.

Ok, and that gets to the heart of the question. If a single designated entity is logically necessary in order to maintain a sufficiently correct and unified body of beliefs then ONE church would be the order of the day (and I'd think this would be God's will anyway) and what might appear to be a "gimmick" would simply be a recognition of that need.

But other people can play at that game, too. If we compare the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, for example, against all the Catholic churches, its people have been shown to be just about 100% in agreement on everything that their church teaches. Of course, the WELS is in agreement with itself on doctrine.

What I'm saying is that we need that entity, wherever it may be found. And that entity will necessarily have a historical lineage traceable to the beginning. Now, especially if one disagrees with the RCC on doctrine, then they may look for various ways to disassociate her from having that lineage. But either way we must find that source of unity, and Scripture cannot provide it IMO.

But how does that stack up again the various Catholic type denominations which use Holy Tradition instead of Sola Scriptura? That would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Old Catholic Churches, the Independent Catholic Churches, the SSPV, the SSPX and others.

Oh, they are in disagreement with each other, and they use Holy Tradition.

Can we trace splits and spin-offs, schisms, IOW, to a single Church that Christ established? Again, it gets back to the need for a designated entity, having Tradition, in order to interpret both Scripture and Tradition correctly.

So this proves--to use your reasoning--that Holy Tradition causes disagreement and disunity whereas the WELS, which uses Sola Scriptura is united!

All denominations are pretty well united internally, within themselves, on beliefs, of course, regardless of the source(s) of revelation they employ. This by itself doesn't ensure that those beliefs are right.

 

[Albion]

It's more than that. There are two aspects involved in this. One is that Tradition is necessary-that a lived legacy and experience, issuing from the beginnings of the faith rather than biblical exegesis alone, for example, is critically important in coming to accurately know the gospel-and resolve questions that may arise, often arising due to biblical ambiguity incidentally.

From our POV, you said it correctly there. However, you are referring to traditions, not the doctrine-setting mechanism that has been dubbed "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition."

We who believe in the supremacy of God's word certainly do not say that we must never make use of tradition (or reason) when seeking to understand the meaning of Scripture. It's just the opposite.

The other aspect involved is the necessity of an entity that can interpret the sources of revelation, which are Scripture and Tradition according to the RCC.

...which, however, is not what we have been discussing.

WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY? is the first question--the one we have been debating. ONCE IT IS IDENTIFIED, we move to discussing how or by whom it is to be understood.

Ok, and that gets to the heart of the question.

Uh, no. The two sticking points or misunderstandings, if that is a better way to put it, which I have put to you come before any subsequent issues. In fact, no subsequent issues are possible unless the above are resolved.

 

[fhansen]

From our POV, you said it correctly there. However, you are referring to traditions, not the doctrine-setting mechanism that has been dubbed "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition."

What I'm speaking of is the same. Sacred Tradition is necessarily that unwritten experience that will have been received and passed down as part of the legacy of the Christian faith. Small "t" traditions are passed down in similar fashion but involve practices, etc, that aren't considered de fide doctrine.

WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY? is the first question--the one we have been debating. ONCE IT IS IDENTIFIED, we move to discussing how or by whom it is to be understood.

Yes, the issue is, WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY? Either we decide that a particular interpretation of Scripture is authoritative because it aligns with our own in which case individual human interpreters are actually the authority, a rather subjective affair, or we look for a more objective, external authority which comes prior to that, a designated authority having the right interpretation.

 

[Albion]

What I'm speaking of is the same. Sacred Tradition is necessarily that unwritten experience that will have been received and passed down as part of the legacy of the Christian faith. Small "t" traditions are passed down in similar fashion but involve practices, etc, that aren't considered de fide doctrine.

Well, you defined traditions at the onset of that article as though you meant it to apply to Sacred Tradition. They absolutely are not "the same."

Yes, the issue is, WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY? Either we decide that a particular interpretation of Scripture is authoritative because it aligns with our own in which case individual human interpreters are actually the authority, a rather subjective affair, or we look for a more objective, external authority which comes prior to that, a designated authority.

Don't you see that you have just sidestepped the issue? You begin by saying "Yes" to WHAT IS … and then immediately move to an interpretation of it!

There was no resolution of "What is the authority?" (which might need to be interpreted and certainly needs to be understood).

 

[fhansen]

Well, you defined traditions at the onset of that article as though you meant it to apply to Sacred Tradition. They absolutely are not "the same."

The transmission is essentially the same. I may have misunderstood your previous post but either way, yes, Sacred Tradition is what I've been referring to.

Don't you see that you have just sidestepped the issue? You begin by saying "Yes" to WHAT IS … and then immediately move to an interpretation of it!

There was no resolution of "What is the authority?" (which might need to be interpreted and certainly needs to be understood).

Ok, the authority is God, who revealed Himself down though man's history in various ways, most exhaustively through the words and deeds of Christ, some written and some unwritten. He has spoken to us in this way and these revelations must be understood and conveyed accurately, for which He established a church to carry out.

 

[zippy2006]

It seems to hold to sola scriptura, one has to presuppose Holy Tradition, at least in the past, in order to have a scriptura to sola about. At some point in Christian history, there was an authority outside of the scriptures beyond the apostles themselves, or we would have no Canon. It gets fuzzy for me to say that at some point Holy Tradition stops being authoritative. How can we claim that? When did that authority cease and on what basis?

Right, there are two basic questions you identify here: what is the role of tradition before the formation of the NT canon, and what is the role of tradition after the formation of the NT canon? Although the first question is probably sufficient to guide one away from Protestantism, the second is also important.

The key to the second question is that at some point scripture becomes ubiquitous and therefore does not function as a normative rule of faith. In Christian history heresy very often springs from the scriptures, or is at least justified by them. Although this fact is most easily seen after the codification of the NT canon, even early figures such as Arius were faithful to the scriptures in the sense that they provided a great deal of scriptural support for their view. Thus you have two competing, scripturally-supported views. How do you tell which view is correct? How do you adjudicate?

For the strong Sola Scriptura Protestant, the answer will be exegesis. For Protestants more towards the Anglican position the answer will be exegesis and tradition. For Catholics or Orthodox the answer will be exegesis, tradition, and recourse to a living voice of authority. In the course of Christianity that living voice with the authority to resolve intractable disagreements has manifested in the form of bishops, councils, and popes.

It gets fuzzy for me to say that at some point Holy Tradition stops being authoritative.

Fuzzy indeed.