The issues with Sola Scriptura

[lesliedellow]

I said most of the NT books. The gospels all end with by the Resurrection, so we wouldn't expect them to include events that happened decades later.

Don't the gospels count? They, after all, were written as Graeco-Roman biographies. The epistles were mostly written to deal with specific practical and doctrinal issues, as the need arose.

 

[Monk Brendan]

It's only "Holy Tradition" that is opposed to Sola Scriptura (our topic here).

Albion, please. I understand that someone may have said something about Protestants, without putting a qualifier like "many," or "some".

But Holy Tradition is NOT against the Bible. Holy Tradition is the Bible and other writings that the early Church Fathers have preached. Holy Tradition is not about what color cope a bishop is to wear for a particular service, or how many bells are on an Eastern censer. It is also not about what that nasty Counter-Reformation did to silence Martin Luther, or about the various bad decision made by Pope and Prelates.

It is the lens to focus the light of Scripture where it is needed.

 

[Sibyl]

I want to thank everyone for not answering any of my questions. This blog seems to be a Babylon of people who have all of the answers. I confess that I have no answers only questions. This may not register but I will repeat it anyway: "piety and arrogance are not virtues".

 

[lesliedellow]

I want to thank everyone for not answering any of my questions. This blog seems to be a Babylon of people who have all of the answers. I confess that I have no answers only questions. This may not register but I will repeat it anyway: "piety and arrogance are not virtues".

I went back and looked at your first post in this thread, and you seem to expect to criticised, so why should I disappoint you?

"The Bible is an historical document commisioned by, and edited to, satisfy Helena Augusta (the mother of Roman Emporer Constantine). Helena directed and funded the building of many churchs and the preservation of religious artifacts.
Most of the books of the new testament were written by Paul, who was not an Apostle and who I consider a false (selfproclaimed) profit. The purpose of Pauls letters to the churches seems to be to promote the authority and organization of the male leaders of the church."

All of the texts in the New Testament were written in the first century. We know that because they were being quoted in the second century. By the time the fourth century came along, there would have been far too many manuscripts in circulation, throughout the Empire, for anybody to successfully gather them together and edit them, even if they wanted to.

Paul wrote 13 of the 27books of the New Testament. Although he had his disagreements with the other apostles, there is no indication that they resented him calling himself an apostle. To expect to find women's lib in first century Palestine is at best a bit naive.

 

[Sibyl]

I went back and looked at your first post in this thread, and you seem to expect to criticised, so why should I disappoint you?

"The Bible is an historical document commisioned by, and edited to, satisfy Helena Augusta (the mother of Roman Emporer Constantine). Helena directed and funded the building of many churchs and the preservation of religious artifacts.
Most of the books of the new testament were written by Paul, who was not an Apostle and who I consider a false (selfproclaimed) profit. The purpose of Pauls letters to the churches seems to be to promote the authority and organization of the male leaders of the church."

All of the texts in the New Testament were written in the first century. We know that because they were being quoted in the second century. By the time the fourth century came along, there would have been far too many manuscripts in circulation, throughout the Empire, for anybody to successfully gather them together and edit them, even if they wanted to.

Paul wrote 13 of the 27books of the New Testament. Although he had his disagreements with the other apostles, there is no indication that they resented him calling himself an apostle. To expect to find women's lib in first century Palestine is at best a bit naive.

Thank you for noticing me. In the first century I would have just been stoned.
When john the Elder referenced " a book"; what book was he referring to? In 90 AD there was no uniformity among the churches, the new testament wasn't even an idea yet,it was just a scattered and disorganized pile of letters hoarded by churches and followers.

 

[Albion]

Albion, please. I understand that someone may have said something about Protestants, without putting a qualifier like "many," or "some".

But Holy Tradition is NOT against the Bible. Holy Tradition is the Bible and other writings that the early Church Fathers have preached.

That is the standard response of Catholics of whatever denomination or communion. However, it's not accurate.

Even if you invoke the term "Holy Tradition," which Catholics made up for the purpose, so that we have Scripture plus custom, legend, and speculation defining doctrine, it still is adding something to God's word that is considered its (Scripture's) equal.

Holy Tradition is not about what color cope a bishop is to wear for a particular service, or how many bells are on an Eastern censer. It is also not about what that nasty Counter-Reformation did to silence Martin Luther, or about the various bad decision made by Pope and Prelates.

Right. And I'm glad to have you say that because most of the other Catholics here insist that this kind of stuff is what we're talking about.

 

[MichaelS]

Because if that doctrine is so important that the Pope lays it down as something Catholics must believe, you would think that the divine author of the Bible would arrange for at least a mention of it to appear somewhere - and before the fourth century.

Can't speak to that specifically, since the Orthodox don't have the same concept of "dogma". However, if there was no controversy or disagreement regarding the belief, there would not be any need to write it down. Those within the Church would hear about it as part of the regular teachings in the liturgical life of the Church; those outside the Church would need to be brought inside before it had any relevance to them.

 

[theDevolutionist]

The role of the Church is to separate true doctrine from false doctrine. That's why Jesus gave the Church his authority and the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them in all truth.

Tell me what Jesus taught during these 40 days:

Acts 1:3.... He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Actually, it is the duty of every believer to separate true doctrine from false:

2 Timothy 2:15: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If you concede that the Church is the totality of all individuals who have placed their faith in Christ for salvation, then I would agree with you. If you are insisting that the church is a visible organization, then we are using the same language to convey radically different understandings.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thank you for noticing me. In the first century I would have just been stoned.
When john the Elder referenced " a book"; what book was he referring to? In 90 AD there was no uniformity among the churches, the new testament wasn't even an idea yet,it was just a scattered and disorganized pile of letters hoarded by churches and followers.

Assuming that you are referring to the book mentioned in Revelation 5, it is a symbol or metaphor for the world's destiny, and its contents are revealed subsequently as each of the seven seals are broken.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can't speak to that specifically, since the Orthodox don't have the same concept of "dogma". However, if there was no controversy or disagreement regarding the belief, there would not be any need to write it down. Those within the Church would hear about it as part of the regular teachings in the liturgical life of the Church; those outside the Church would need to be brought inside before it had any relevance to them.

Tell me, why were the gospels written? After all, they could just have been handed down orally, couldn't they?

 

[MichaelS]

... then we are using the same language to convey radically different understandings.

I would say that's, unfortunately, quite accurate. I once saw a quote (can't recall the source) that went something like "language is a medium to facilitate miscommunication among people". That goes double for theological language.

 

[MichaelS]

Tell me, why were the gospels written? After all, they could just have been handed down orally, couldn't they?

And for some number of years - probably 20-35 years after the Crucifixion - they were. Or to be more precise, the stories of what Christ said and did were. The first Gospels were likely written somewhere in the 55-70 AD timeframe.

I believe Luke 1:1-4 holds the key as to why they were written (emphases mine):

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

I would infer from this passage that many "Gospels" were being written at that time, and that, even if they were being undertaken with good intent, there were apparently some degree of inaccuracies represented among them. So Luke is writing Theophilus saying, in effect, "You have already been informed of these things, but I want to make sure that what you know about them is the truth, so I have compiled for you an accurate account."

BTW, I don't know that there is any Orthodox "doctrine" on this point - I've never heard an explication of "why" regarding the Gospels being written at the time they were written. This is just what I infer from Luke. There may additionally be liturgical reasons - the Gospels have a central place in the Divine Liturgy - but I haven't done much research on that.

 

[DJKWord]

As far as SS goes, I never thought of myself as following a particular doctrine with a name. Rather I saw Christ's example in the beginning of Matthew 15 and Mark 7, and followed that.

The religious leaders of Christ's time added traditions to what had been written, and the former inevitably clashed with the latter; he gives an example.

Christ also refers people to the Old Testament again and again, both teaching and correcting from it when needed, including religious leaders like the Saducees who thought there was no resurrection. He always went to the book; he didn't go to traditions, and in fact criticized the Pharisees for adding them.

And we're all only human. What the Jewish religious leaders did with the Old Testament, people were bound to do with the New Testament. It started even while the NT was being written. The aforementioned Pharisees tried to bring in circumcision; Paul mentioned teachers who were downright enemies of the cross of Christ, and warned the Ephesians that people from among their own selves speaking perverse things.

And when I consider the worship of Mary, how does that square with the first commandment as well as "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" as Christ quoted to the devil? I also understand that the Mass is the dispensing of salvation little by little, in instalments. How does that go with what's taught in Hebrews about Christ offering himself up as the final sacrifice for all time?

 

[Gary Downey]

Please show where Rome has dogmatically defined the books of the Bible.

Chances are you won't believe any historical data relating to the Catholic Church but here you go none the less:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Third_Council_of_Carthage_(397)

 

[DJKWord]

Martin Luther...actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

I'd like to know, where did this presupposition come from that different sects/groups/denominations happen because of differing interpretations of God's book?

(I noticed that Martin Luther, in your quote, doesn't mention interpretation at all.)

In my experience, fringe groups start when people get certain ideas and then try to shoehorn them into Scripture. The Church of Christ's ban on all musical instruments is a perfect example of this. What verse did they misinterpret to get this idea? No, rather they got the idea first--from where, I'd like to know--and tried to wrench Colossians 3:16 out of shape in order to support it. A verse which makes not a mention of said instruments.

Speaking of Colossians, Paul says this in chapter 2 of that book:

Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...

This reminds me of things like the Jehovah's Witnesses claiming that only a select 144,000 are going (all right, have gone) to heaven. They cite Revelation 7 as proof. It doesn't mention it--and how, reading it, would a person ever get that idea?

Catholics arguing against SS seem to be pushing the idea that the Bible is like a Rorschach test, that if ten people read it for themselves, they'll come away with ten different interpretations. That hasn't been my experience reading it over the years. Peter mentions some of Paul's letters that are hard to understand, and the book of Revelation is a fireworks display of symbolism; but those are the exceptions, not the rule. The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.

Our Creator, who wishes for all to be saved, wouldn't make his revealed word so difficult to understand that only a select few can interpret it correctly. Why would he do that?

 

[theDevolutionist]

Catholics arguing against SS seem to be pushing the idea that the Bible is like a Rorschach test, that if ten people read it for themselves, they'll come away with ten different interpretations. That hasn't been my experience reading it over the years. Peter mentions some of Paul's letters that are hard to understand, and the book of Revelation is a fireworks display of symbolism; but those are the exceptions, not the rule. The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.

Thanks! What I was trying to say earlier. Catholics and their close relatives seem bent on portraying protestants (for lack of a better term) as a completely fragmented group when most have much more in common than the various debates over secondary issues like sign gifts and cessation, predestination, dispensationalism, etc. would indicate.

 

[MichaelS]

Much of what you say regarding tradition has already been addressed; I have to assume we're having a problem of communication / definition / understanding, and I'm not sure how to address that right now (especially as I'm past ready for bed). Not that solving that would lead to agreement, mind you, just that maybe we'd stop talking past each other. As to the two other main thoughts

And when I consider the worship of Mary, how does that square with the first commandment as well as "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" as Christ quoted to the devil?

In Orthodoxy the proper term for what is given to Mary is veneration, not worship, and I believe that's also true for Catholics. Not to say some don't transgress that distinction, but the distinction is there.

I also understand that the Mass is the dispensing of salvation little by little, in instalments. How does that go with what's taught in Hebrews about Christ offering himself up as the final sacrifice for all time?

That one's new to me, but then I'm not Catholic; however, that doesn't sound at all like anything I recall from my past discussions of the Mass/Liturgy and the Eucharist with Catholics. Possibly another issue of understanding the different ways we use theological language. In the Orthodox view the Eucharist (Holy Communion) is partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[lesliedellow]

And for some number of years - probably 20-35 years after the Crucifixion - they were. Or to be more precise, the stories of what Christ said and did were. The first Gospels were likely written somewhere in the 55-70 AD timeframe.

I believe Luke 1:1-4 holds the key as to why they were written (emphases mine):

Theophilus could be a pun. Φιλος Θεου means friend of God. In any case, it seems likely that the Gospel writers had an audience greater than their immediate audiences in mind when they wrote.

A few decades of oral transmission, with eye witnesses still around, is not the same thing as 2,000 years. One motive for the composition of the gospels is likely to have been a growing realisation that the Parousia wouldn't be any time soon, and there was a need to preserve a record of events for future generations.

Mark's Gospel is generally dated to 65-70, but we have no knowledge of what written sources might have been available to him.

 

[MichaelS]

Theophilus could be a pun. Φιλος Θεου means friend of God. In any case, it seems likely that the Gospel writers had an audience greater than their immediate audiences in mind when they wrote.

Quite likely. Even the epistles, written to specific people or congregations, were passed around to a wider audience, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't anticipated by the authors. It doesn't affect my point.

Mark's Gospel is generally dated to 65-70, but we have no knowledge of what written sources might have been available to him.

I'm not sure why that's needed. Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas, he undoubtedly spoke with eyewitnesses of the events.

A few decades of oral transmission, with eye witnesses still around, is not the same thing as 2,000 years. One motive for the composition of the gospels is likely to have been a growing realisation that the Parousia wouldn't be any time soon, and there was a need to preserve a record of events for future generations.

I moved this out of order because your previous statement - about not knowing what written sources might have been available to Mark - can also apply to those things where the earliest written record came around 400 years later (where'd 2,000 come from?). We don't know if there were earlier written manuscripts they were based off of or copied from. That possibility tends to get consideration for things we accept, but dismissed for things we do not believe.

But aside from that, the culture in the Levant in the first century was strongly oral. We err if we impose our print-centric views on a culture that did not share them. The Church maintained and passed down the teachings and traditions, and even where those were written down the transmission was primarily oral (both due to the culture and because literacy was not universal). Today we seem to think that something is not truly "real" unless and until it has been put in print; they did not share that view.

 

[Albion]

But aside from that, the culture in the Levant in the first century was strongly oral. We err if we impose our print-centric views on a culture that did not share them. The Church maintained and passed down the teachings and traditions, and even where those were written down the transmission was primarily oral (both due to the culture and because literacy was not universal). Today we seem to think that something is not truly "real" unless and until it has been put in print; they did not share that view.

This ^, however, is not about Sola Scriptura, which is the topic of the thread. Even if it were intended as some sort of rebuttal, no one in later times such as our own can make much of a case in favor of "traditions" that are not known to them or verifiable. Simply to insist that there were some is of little value when it comes to what the church teaches its members and requires them to believe.