What do those words mean?

[Xeno.of.athens]

"The bible is the sole infallible source of doctrinal truth"; what do those words really mean.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"The bible is the sole infallible source of doctrinal truth"; what do those words really mean.

Those words mean that those words are found in the Bible. Where? I can’t find them.

 

[ozso]

"The bible is the sole infallible source of doctrinal truth"; what do those words really mean.

I'd say it inevitably means all Christian doctrine has a foundation in scripture.

Some argue that it's not the bible, but the church. But how do they come to that conclusion? By what's written in the bible. Namely 1 Timothy 3:15.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'd say it inevitably means all Christian doctrine has a foundation in scripture.

Some argue that it's not the bible, but the church. But how do they come to that conclusion? By what's written in the bible. Namely 1 Timothy 3:15.

Well, what does bible mean? for example.

 

[ozso]

Well, what does bible mean? for example.

The point is, that wouldn't be known if it wasn't in scripture. And that one has to believe that what's written is infalible doctrinal truth to agree with it.

It can't really be said the church supercedes scripture, when the evidence used for that comes from scripture.

 

[jas3]

The point is, that wouldn't be known if it wasn't in scripture.

No, it would be known through the teaching of the Apostles handed down to their successors.

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. AD 180)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The point is, that wouldn't be known if it wasn't in scripture. And that one has to believe that what's written is infalible doctrinal truth to agree with it.

It can't really be said the church supercedes scripture, when the evidence used for that comes from scripture.

As far as I am aware the bible does not provide a definition of what the bible is.

 

[PloverWing]

"The bible is the sole infallible source of doctrinal truth"; what do those words really mean.

[ Disclaimer: I am describing here an idea that I no longer agree with. But I did study it in some depth when I was a Wheaton student, so I think I can represent it fairly. ]

The emphasis in the statement is on the word "infallible". The word "inerrant" is often used instead. The idea is that God guided the writers of the Bible so that as they wrote, they did not make any mistakes in facts or doctrines. Thus, when we read something in the Bible, we can be certain that it is true.

The statement does not say that the Bible is the only place from which we can learn doctrinal truth. We have preachers and Sunday School teachers and Christian theologians and so forth. But these are fallible sources of truth -- they can make mistakes -- in contrast to the Bible, which makes no mistakes in its teaching.

Some variations in the idea include:

1) Some writers distinguish "infallibility" from "inerrancy", with "inerrancy" describing the text of the Bible, and "infallibility" describing the communication act between the Bible and the reader.

2) Some writers distinguish inerrancy in doctrine from inerrancy in science and history. That is, these writers allow that the Bible might make some historical errors -- e.g., the Bible might say that king X destroyed city C, when it was really king Z who destroyed C -- but they assert that any doctrines that the Bible teaches will be free from error. It's possible that the writer you're quoting is making this distinction, based on their choice of wording.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No, it would be known through the teaching of the Apostles handed down to their successors.

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. AD 180)

That's not very Sola Scriptura, is it?

 

[ozso]

As far as I am aware the bible does not provide a definition of what the bible is.

Regardless of that everything of the church comes from scripture. I'd like to see anyone name what doesn't.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Regardless of that everything of the church comes from scripture. I'd like to see anyone name what doesn't.

The liturgy.

 

[ozso]

No, it would be known through the teaching of the Apostles handed down to their successors.

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. AD 180)

Name a tradition that's not found in scripture.

 

[ozso]

The liturgy.

What's the liturgy? What does it consist of?

 

[ozso]

That's not very Sola Scriptura, is it?

How so? Irenaeus was asking a what if question of where would the church be without scripture. And I have a feeling there's more to that paragraph which was said by him altogether.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Regardless of that everything of the church comes from scripture. I'd like to see anyone name what doesn't.

I named one thing already; the bible's own definition does not come from scripture.

 

[jas3]

How so? Irenaeus was asking a what if question of where would the church be without scripture. And I have a feeling there's more to that paragraph which was said by him altogether.

You can read it in context here:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

The full context is that he's arguing against heretics (mainly Gnostics) who say they have the proper interpretation of Scripture over and against the Church. His argument in the preceding chapters and in that chapter is that the proper interpretation of Scripture is consistent with the teaching of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Apostles is known to the Church by the succession of bishops from the Apostles and the handing down of the true faith through that line of succession. In the chapter I quoted, he points out that there are foreign nations that have been evangelized but don't have written copies of the Scriptures, and they preserve the true faith by Tradition.

I invite you to look through the whole of Against Heresies. I think you'll find that the quoted portion is representative of the arguments of St. Irenaeus throughout the whole work.

 

[ozso]

I named one thing already; the bible's own definition does not come from scripture.

Well there's 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that "all scripture is God breathed" meaning that scripture divinely inspired.
Also there's 1 Corinthians 4:6: "Do not go beyond what is written."
And Mark 7:6-9: where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for prioritizing tradition over the commands of God which is contained in the written Torah.

 

[ozso]

You can read it in context here:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.4 (St. Irenaeus)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

The full context is that he's arguing against heretics (mainly Gnostics) who say they have the proper interpretation of Scripture over and against the Church. His argument in the preceding chapters and in that chapter is that the proper interpretation of Scripture is consistent with the teaching of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Apostles is known to the Church by the succession of bishops from the Apostles and the handing down of the true faith through that line of succession. In the chapter I quoted, he points out that there are foreign nations that have been evangelized but don't have written copies of the Scriptures, and they preserve the true faith by Tradition.

I invite you to look through the whole of Against Heresies. I think you'll find that the quoted portion is representative of the arguments of St. Irenaeus throughout the whole work.

So he's saying the tradition of the church in his time was consistent with the teaching of the Apostles found in scripture. Which it was. As far as I know the reformers had no argument against what the church taught or church tradition in the 2nd century.

 

[jas3]

So he's saying the tradition of the church in his time

He added no qualifiers about "in his time."

was consistent with the teaching of the Apostles found in scripture.

If by that phrasing you mean that the teaching of the Church was authenticated by Scripture, then no, that's backwards. I will anticipate the response of, "so he didn't think the two were consistent?" by clarifying that Irenaeus was talking specifically about the proper interpretation of Scripture in relation to the Church. He was not commenting on a hierarchical relationship between the Church and Scripture; the sole infallible rule of faith in his argumentation is the deposit of faith given in the apostolic teachings. That rule, he argues, can be known through Tradition and Scripture.

Which it was.

That would invalidate Protestantism if so.

As far as I know the reformers had no argument against what the church taught or church tradition in the 2nd century.

They actually had lots of arguments against those. For example, they claimed that the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote extensively in the late 1st/early 2nd century about the centrality of the episcopate and the Eucharist in Christianity, were forgeries:

"Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, 13.29)

 

[chevyontheriver]

What's the liturgy? What does it consist of?

The liturgy is something that wasn't detailed in the New Testament. Which is probably why you have never heard of it. It is the common order of worship for Catholics and Orthodox and a few Protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans. It's been practiced since Pentecost, years before the New Testament was even written.