Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Hentenza]

That's the rationalization I'm talking about. It requires a radical reinterpretation of early Christian ecclesiology and a major redefinition of the nature of divine revelation. There is no logical reason to assume that the authority of the Councils ended with the declaration of the canon. By the way, the Councils that solidified the canon weren't even ecumenical. Furthermore, there is no historical evidence for protoprotestantism either. Various attempts to create lineage of such by revisionist historians have all failed miserably.


The only thing one is left with is to postulate such things without any actual evidence, saying that's how it "must have been." Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But there's a problem when there is tons of evidence to the contrary.

Is scripture the word of God?

There is no evidence of Sola Scriptura in the ECFs, just as there is no evidence of it in the Bible. The best you will get are quotes that reference a non-existent canon. It is historical fact, not opinion or conjecture, but fact that the Christian canon was not solid for the first four centuries of Christianity. For Sola Scriptura to work, the canon must be infallibly defined. The canon lists before the 4th century all disagreed with each other. Not good for Sola Scriptura.

Not talking about early canons. All early ECF used scripture not "T"radition. Again, you can rewrite the bible using the early works of the ECF.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Is scripture the word of God?

Such a question is irrelevant. Just because Scripture is the word of God does not mean that the authority of the Councils is invalidated when they proclaim teachings beyond the definition of the canon. And it certainly doesn't mean that Sola Scriptura is automatically true. Let's also not forget that the Bible explicitly tells us that there are events in Christianity not written down.

As I said, there is no reason to conclude that once the canon was solidified (note: not finalized) the Councils ceased to be authoritative. The nature of Christianity before the canon was solidified (note: not finalized) was through oral teaching with Scripture as a reference and record of God's message to man. It was not Sola Scriptura, because there was no canon.

You can't have Sola Scriptura without a definitive list of what constitutes the Scriptures. It's that simple. If the list is not definitive and finalized (note: not solidified), then the risk of heresy and uncertainty is too great. You don't truly note what constitutes the Scriptures and thus cannot reliably use them as your measuring stick. That is where Tradition came in and why it is necessary. It could not have worked any other way, and it's what makes Sola Scriptura inherently circular and fallacious. It uses a resource derived from Tradition while simultaneously rejecting that Tradition.

Not talking about early canons. All early ECF used scripture not "T"radition. Again, you can rewrite the bible using the early works of the ECF.

Then what, precisely, are you talking about? The early canon lists all disagree with each other. So you can't use those to rewrite the Bible. The ECFs espoused a very different theology than that of modern-day Protestantism. Isolated passages from specific ECFs may seem like they support Protestantism, but as whole the theology of the ECFs is far closer to that of the ancient Churches than the theology of Protestantism. They speak of bishops, a visible Church institution, and the Eucharist. They do not speak of credobaptism and Sola Scriptura and symbolic communion. And you certainly can't use their works alone to rewrite the Bible, as it's not like you can glean every single word of the Old Testament and New Testament from their writings.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And therein you have hit upon the one critical mistake which invalidates the underlying premise of the article. But alas, Anoetos, you can post this all day and the deniars of SS will never respond; beating a straw dog is better than no dog apparently.

So you deny that it was private interpretation which led to the development of the sola scriptura tradition (along with the other "sola's")?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Wikipedia? Mmmm.....give me about 30 minutes and I'll write a different wiki article.

No apostolic succession in Matt. 23 unless you are suggesting that I do as your church say but not according to what your church does. :o

If you can find a source that disproves the accuracy of the above statement regarding what the pharisees believed, I will gladly read it. You didn't address my point, btw. We all know that the pharisees were hypocrites. Yet Christ respected their authority enough as teachers to defer the people to their teaching. Given what we know about pharisees, they respected oral tradition as much as scripture. (e.g. sola scriptura was completely foreign to them). Therefore, Christ approves (nay commands) the teaching and handing down of both oral tradition and scripture by validating the teaching of the pharisees in this passage, because they taught both.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Of course, this whole article does not apply to sola scriptura, but solo or nuda scriptura. This also means that his entire article and argument is nothing but a useless strawman in regards to the reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. Oh yes, I suppose it could be quite devastating to solo scriptura ("the Bible and the Bible only!") folks (though I doubt they'd be convinced), but it's useless against the reformation doctrine that is still alive and well.



Well said. Sola scriptura requires the church, tradition, and a brain. You don't pick up a Bible and "do theology" all by yourself, nor did the reformers. You also don't pick up a Bible and completely ignore 2000 years of tradition, nor did the reformers, who constantly quoted from the Fathers.

So yup, the entire article simply does not apply to the reformation doctrine. At best, it's a pretty weak attack on solo scriptura. At worst, it's a strawman. Not much else to say....

Please explain how tradition is required for proper application of sola scriptura, and what you mean by 'tradition' here?

 

[Hentenza]

Such a question is irrelevant. Just because Scripture is the word of God does not mean that the authority of the Councils is invalidated when they proclaim teachings beyond the definition of the canon. And it certainly doesn't mean that Sola Scriptura is automatically true. Let's also not forget that the Bible explicitly tells us that there are events in Christianity not written down.

As I said, there is no reason to conclude that once the canon was solidified (note: not finalized) the Councils ceased to be authoritative. The nature of Christianity before the canon was solidified (note: not finalized) was through oral teaching with Scripture as a reference and record of God's message to man. It was not Sola Scriptura, because there was no canon.

You can't have Sola Scriptura without a definitive list of what constitutes the Scriptures. It's that simple. If the list is not definitive and finalized (note: not solidified), then the risk of heresy and uncertainty is too great. You don't truly note what constitutes the Scriptures and thus cannot reliably use them as your measuring stick. That is where Tradition came in and why it is necessary. It could not have worked any other way, and it's what makes Sola Scriptura inherently circular and fallacious. It uses a resource derived from Tradition while simultaneously rejecting that Tradition.

The question is very relevant. If the scriptures are the word of God then God knows His word and has preserved it. Nothing that the councils could have done could have changed the final outcome because no book that was not the word of God could have made it to the canon. See the quandary?

Then what, precisely, are you talking about? The early canon lists all disagree with each other. So you can't use those to rewrite the Bible. The ECFs espoused a very different theology than that of modern-day Protestantism. Isolated passages from specific ECFs may seem like they support Protestantism, but as whole the theology of the ECFs is far closer to that of the ancient Churches than the theology of Protestantism. They speak of bishops, a visible Church institution, and the Eucharist. They do not speak of credobaptism and Sola Scriptura and symbolic communion. And you certainly can't use their works alone to rewrite the Bible, as it's not like you can glean every single word of the Old Testament and New Testament from their writings.

You are stuck in the early canon lists which are irrelevant to the will of God. "T"radition grew progressively and most of what the RC considers "T"radition today was not "T"radition in the late first and second century. We can debate about bishops, ecclessiology, the Eucharist, credobaptism, symbolic communion, ect. but it would be irrelevant to this discussion since the authors of the scriptures related only one message (multiple applications) which man interprets privately and always has. Even your church interprets scripture (and "T"radition) privately so the argument related to multiple interpretations is a fallacy.

 

[sunlover1]

And therein you have hit upon the one critical mistake which invalidates the underlying premise of the article. But alas, Anoetos, you can post this all day and the deniars of SS will never respond; beating a straw dog is better than no dog apparently.

I agree, but to be fair, do you think it could be that they just don't "see" it?

 

[Anoetos]

I agree, but to be fair, do you think it could be that they just don't "see" it?

If they do not, long association with them has led me to the conclusion that it is because they will not. It is far more convenient for them to construct straw men and burn them than it is to deal with the full orbed idea.

Admitting that Protestants knowingly and humbly submit their understanding to a historical and confessional matrix would undermine a great deal of what they have to say.

The article cited in the OP for example, becomes pointless nonsense, which it is anyway, except to those who accept his premise, and really only those already committed to Rome (and Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, etc.) do that.

 

[Hentenza]

If you can find a source that disproves the accuracy of the above statement regarding what the pharisees believed, I will gladly read it. You didn't address my point, btw. We all know that the pharisees were hypocrites. Yet Christ respected their authority enough as teachers to defer the people to their teaching. Given what we know about pharisees, they respected oral tradition as much as scripture. (e.g. sola scriptura was completely foreign to them). Therefore, Christ approves (nay commands) the teaching and handing down of both oral tradition and scripture by validating the teaching of the pharisees in this passage, because they taught both.

This is the quote from the wiki article that you linked.

"The Pharisees believed that in addition to the written Torah recognized by both the Sadducees and Pharisees and believed to have been written by Moses, there exists another Torah, consisting of the corpus of oral laws and traditions transmitted by God to Moses orally, and then memorized and passed down by Moses and his successors over the generations. The Oral Torah functioned to elaborate and explicate what was written, and the Pharisees asserted that the sacred scriptures were not complete on their own terms and could therefore not be understood."

This is what Jesus said about the traditions of the Pharisees.

Matt. 15
3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

The context here relates to honoring your mother and father, however, Jesus expanded on this later in the chapter while responding to the disciples question regarding the Pharisees being offended (v. 13).

Jesus goes on to say in verses 13 and 14.

13But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. 14"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Them is the Pharisees)



Jesus did not think highly of the Pharisees teaching. What Jesus is referring in Matt. 23 is the way that the Pharisees taught the written law of Moses. The teaching of the written law is fine (do and observe) but the traditions (heavy burdens) are what the crowds and the disciples should not do.


God did not transmit a second or oral Torah to Moses instead spent a couple of 40 day stints transmitting the written word to Moses. The oral Torah is nothing more that what the Hadith is to the Muslim. No consistency exits in "T"radition and is easily corrupted.

 

[Anoetos]

Even your church interprets scripture (and "T"radition) privately so the argument related to multiple interpretations is a fallacy.

Just so...excellent work.

This is central; the Catholic/Orthodox epistemology breaks down at precisely this point. All they have done is add an authority to which they submit and which they must "interpret for themselves".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Admitting that Protestants knowingly and humbly submit their understanding to a historical and confessional matrix would undermine a great deal of what they have to say.

This would mean that the protestant ultimately submits not to the authority of scripture itself, but man's historical interpretation of it, and to the authority of the tradition handed down to them regarding it's interpretation.

 

[Anoetos]

So you deny that it was private interpretation which led to the development of the sola scriptura tradition (along with the other "sola's")?

I for one absolutely repudiate the idea and counter with the claim that all these things are taught in Scripture diligently read and that the "Church" lost sight of it and desperately required reformation.

As has been pointed out, the ECF's are consistent in their appeal to Scripture as the final authority and never present any authority as equal to it. This is Sola Scriptura by default, as it were. Similarly the earliest understanding was, clearly that men are elect, called, justified and finally saved, solely by the finished work of Christ working solely by Grace and solely by the agency of faith, itself gracious. We know this because it is what the Bible teaches.

That the "Church" lost sight of it, strayed from it, betrayed it as a single truth of salvation uniquely revealed and bestowed, is sin and a result of sin, as it always was with Israel when they whored after other gods. That God permitted us to languish under so much mummery and foolishness until the Reformation is a matter for His own purpose and will.

 

[Anoetos]

This would mean that the protestant ultimately submits not to the authority of scripture itself, but man's historical interpretation of it, and to the authority of the tradition handed down to them regarding it's interpretation.

No, it means that we value the opinions of men wiser than ourselves, but not that we subject the Bible to them. No one's conscience is bound against his will, but solely to the Word of God.

 

[Anoetos]

Let me put it this way: when men come to us and say, "I have no creed but the Bible" or "Isn't it enough just to love Jesus?", we say that the Bible is not all alike clear and that Christianity is a religion of doctrine as well as commitment. We are not free to read and interpret the Bible in a vacuum. We always do so in the context of the church, both currently and historically. We are not so arrogant as to believe that we can figure it all out alone.

But this does not mean that the Church judges Scripture, though it may mean that, for the sake of order, we require confessional subscription for officers and at least Baptism and a credible profession of faith for everyone else.

To say that it necessarily means that we subject Scripture to another authority is to read your own presuppositions into it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The question is very relevant. If the scriptures are the word of God then God knows His word and has preserved it. Nothing that the councils could have done could have changed the final outcome because no book that was not the word of God could have made it to the canon. See the quandary?

And again, that does not necessitate Sola Scriptura, nor does it automatically invalidate the authority of the Councils or the theology of Sacred Tradition. I have still never received a good answer as to why the authority of the Councils magically stop when they start declaring doctrines that don't have to deal with the defining of the canon.

At this point I suspect the reason is because the question is unanswerable if viewed through the lens of Sola Scriptura. By necessity, Sola Scriptura rejects the infallibility of the Councils. The viewpoint simply does not allow a good answer. Thus, it becomes a game of attempting to validate the Councils when they agree with a given set of beliefs and rejecting them when they disagree.

"T"radition grew progressively and most of what the RC considers "T"radition today was not "T"radition in the late first and second century.

Or so you say, anyway.

We can debate about bishops, ecclessiology, the Eucharist, credobaptism, symbolic communion, ect. but it would be irrelevant to this discussion since the authors of the scriptures related only one message (multiple applications) which man interprets privately and always has.

It's relevant because Protestantism differs vastly in theology from the ECFs and between denominations. Sola Scriptura leads to nothing but contradictory beliefs, with everybody allegedly being led by the Holy Spirit and the contradictions brushed aside as "non-essential" doctrines to create a false unity. "Non-essential" is never actually quantified of course. The list of what is essential vs non-essential differs from denomination to denomination, person to person.

Even your church interprets scripture (and "T"radition) privately so the argument related to multiple interpretations is a fallacy.

Interpretation occurs merely by reading or hearing words. So of course everybody and every group interprets Scripture, just as they interpret anything else. The reason multiple interpretations can be leveled as a charge against Protestantism is because of the paradoxical nature of Sola Scriptura.

You would prefer to brush aside Tradition as an extraneous interpretive authority and put it on the same level as Protestant confessions or other commentaries. I mean, why not? If you could do that successfully, the entire model for the ancient Churches becomes irrelevant at best and wrong at worst.

But, such a thing cannot be done. Tradition as an interpretive authority stands apart from the Protestant confessions. It is historical fact that the Church was around before the Bible. It is historical fact that it took 400 years to assemble the Bible as we know it today. It is historical fact that it was assembled through Council proclamations. The Bible explicitly tells us there are teachings and events not recorded in the Bible. It also explicitly exhorts adherence to tradition.

Contrast those with the verses used to support Sola Scriptura. Absolutely nowhere in those verses is it explicitly, directly stated that Scripture is the final authority on matters of faith and morals. Absolutely nowhere is it explicitly, directly stated that the everything you need for salvation is in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:1 6 is about the closest you'll get on that front, but only if you stretch the meaning of the word "work" into meaninglessness.

By necessity, the early Church had to operate on a different ecclesiastical model than Sola Scriptura. There wasn't any Scripture to adhere to! Much of the New Testament wasn't even written until decades after the events of it took place. And even after that, no one was really sure what constituted the full canon. It took the Holy Spirit 400 years to make it sort of clear, and even the canon promulgated by those regional Councils is different from the Protestant canon.

There never was and still isn't any indication that the ecclesiastical model changed after the canon was solidified. God is unchanging. But by necessity, Sola Scriptura has to disagree with and reject the conciliar model of Tradition. At best, the Councils are simply in agreement with (someone's interpretation of) the Bible. At worst, they promulgate heresy.

So, we can either adhere to the ancient model that is backed up by historical evidence, or we can adhere to the model that was invented by Martin Luther in the 16th century.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

No, it means that we value the opinions of men wiser than ourselves, but not that we subject the Bible to them. No one's conscience is bound against his will, but solely to the Word of God.

You may not realize it, but when you are convinced of a particular interpretation of scripture, either by your own discovery or by that of someone else, you are not giving the final authority to scripture itself, but to the actual interpretation of that scripture. No matter how much one would like to believe it, scripture does not interpret itself. We all have different backgrounds, knowledge, intelligence, influences, etc. All protestant denominations say that they are based on the "Word of God". Yet, what distinguishes one denomination from another is not the Bible itself, but the interpretation of it (or perhaps less often, the translation). You must realize then that the interpretation is itself the active force that guides and shapes their very belief system and how it is practiced, not the scripture itself. Therefore, it is this then, the interpretation, which is the ultimate guiding authority for the protestant. And this interpretation is, as I have said before, nothing more than one of many varying traditions which are subject to change depending upon the given context of its application.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You may not realize it, but when you are convinced of a particular interpretation of scripture, either by your own discovery or by that of someone else, you are not giving the final authority to scripture itself, but to the actual interpretation of that scripture. No matter how much one would like to believe it, scripture does not interpret itself.

There is a grain of truth in what you say, I think you made a great point in a respectful manner, and we would probably agree there is only one true interpretation of Scripture, and only one true triune God. Where we most likely disagree is the source of that one true interpretation. While it is held the Scriptures alone are the final authority, it does not entail the notion that any one man can throughout their entire lifetime in every exposition of Scripture, in every "religious matter", give an infallible interpretation. To do so would entail the notion of God the Holy Spirit speaking through them, and even controlling their interpretation in every exposition of Scripture, in every "religious matter". So by your own logic, if Pope ________(fill in the blank) is an infallible Bible expositor and spokesperson on religious matters, he is given the final authority of interpretation, even if his interpretations do not agree throughout his entire lifetime. Houston we have a major historical problem. There are other problems, such a view undermines what God the Holy Spirit can and cannot do through the rest of us poor saps. Some Catholics would assert that the Popes throughout Church history are extensions as it were of Apostolic authority. But why the protest? Why the reformation? I guess we would have to read Martin Luther's 95 thesis, but from which infallible Father do we gain the true interpretation of indulgences in Scripture, assuming such is in Scripture?

We all have different backgrounds, knowledge, intelligence, influences, etc. All protestant denominations say that they are based on the "Word of God". Yet, what distinguishes one denomination from another is not the Bible itself, but the interpretation of it (or perhaps less often, the translation). You must realize then that the interpretation is itself the active force that guides and shapes their very belief system and how it is practiced, not the scripture itself. Therefore, it is this then, the interpretation, which is the ultimate guiding authority for the protestant. And this interpretation is, as I have said before, nothing more than one of many varying traditions which are subject to change depending upon the given context of its application.

Tell me friend, how many divisions exist in Catholicism? How many Catholic denominations? Yes Protestantism consists of many denominations, but for all our differences, there is much agreement to be found in creeds and confessions in major denominations, and depending on the extent of finer details. What if the label "Protestant" could only be ascribed to those who hold "Reformer" beliefs, would that narrow down the denominations ascribed to Protestantism? The way I see it, there's Rome, and there's Christianity, the two are at odds and for good reason. One is built on ancient Greek philosophy, the other on Biblical philosophy.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

This is the quote from the wiki article that you linked.

This is what Jesus said about the traditions of the Pharisees.

Matt. 15
3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

The context here relates to honoring your mother and father, however, Jesus expanded on this later in the chapter while responding to the disciples question regarding the Pharisees being offended (v. 13).

Jesus goes on to say in verses 13 and 14.

13But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. 14"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Them is the Pharisees)


Jesus did not think highly of the Pharisees teaching. What Jesus is referring in Matt. 23 is the way that the Pharisees taught the written law of Moses. The teaching of the written law is fine (do and observe) but the traditions (heavy burdens) are what the crowds and the disciples should not do.

God did not transmit a second or oral Torah to Moses instead spent a couple of 40 day stints transmitting the written word to Moses. The oral Torah is nothing more that what the Hadith is to the Muslim. No consistency exits in "T"radition and is easily corrupted.

Interesting, did He tell you that? I wonder why Jesus taught using jewish traditions outside of scripture Himself then...(see bosom of Abraham) how ironic it is that the idea of the "Pharisees sitting on the judgment seat of Moses" is found nowhere in the OT,...could it be Jesus is referencing some extra-biblical tradition here?? Surely not...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There is a grain of truth in what you say, I think you made a great point in a respectful manner, and we would probably agree there is only one true interpretation of Scripture, and only one true triune God. Where we most likely disagree is the source of that one true interpretation. While it is held the Scriptures alone are the final authority, it does not entail the notion that any one man can throughout their entire lifetime in every exposition of Scripture, in every "religious matter", give an infallible interpretation. To do so would entail the notion of God the Holy Spirit speaking through them, and even controlling their interpretation in every exposition of Scripture, in every "religious matter". So by your own logic, if Pope ________(fill in the blank) is an infallible Bible expositor and spokesperson on religious matters, he is given the final authority of interpretation, even if his interpretations do not agree throughout his entire lifetime. Houston we have a major historical problem. There are other problems, such a view undermines what God the Holy Spirit can and cannot do through the rest of us poor saps. Some Catholics would assert that the Popes throughout Church history are extensions as it were of Apostolic authority. But why the protest? Why the reformation? I guess we would have to read Martin Luther's 95 thesis, but from which infallible Father do we gain the true interpretation of indulgences in Scripture, assuming such is in Scripture?



Tell me friend, how many divisions exist in Catholicism? How many Catholic denominations? Yes Protestantism consists of many denominations, but for all our differences, there is much agreement to be found in creeds and confessions in major denominations, and depending on the extent of finer details. What if the label "Protestant" could only be ascribed to those who hold "Reformer" beliefs, would that narrow down the denominations ascribed to Protestantism? The way I see it, there's Rome, and there's Christianity, the two are at odds and for good reason. One is built on ancient Greek philosophy, the other on Biblical philosophy.

I really don't have much to say in response to your post since I am not Catholic. Perhaps a Catholic might care to take up this discussion with you...

 

[Memento Mori]

Tell me friend, how many divisions exist in Catholicism? How many Catholic denominations?

There's only one that I know of.