A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura

The Highway ^ | Keith Mathison

[lockeliberty]

I thought I should answer your post because it points out the errors I see in your perspective.

You quote: "For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures,"

And then ask: "Who chooses the most important points and by what authority?"

The Apostles choose the most important points and by the authority of being the Apostles of Jesus Christ. As I have stated previously the Apostles taught directly the early Church fathers. The reason this is important is because they established the rule of Faith. The rule of Faith was developed for 2 reasons. First, it allowed those who may have been illiterate to understand and accept the Christian Faith. Second, and more importantly for our discussion, it gave the framework for interpreting the Bible. It allowed the early Church Fathers to be able to harmonize the OT and NT to the overriding message of God and redemption.

These early Church Fathers did not rely strictly on the oral tradition. As I had shown in a earlier post these Fathers quoted from what was still the uncanonized NT.

Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.

Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.

Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.

So the rule of Faith was the framework, the lens, the grid by which these early Church Father used to interpret the yet uncanonized NT.

Then you quote: "we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

You bold "we" and "approve". Then you ask: "Who is "we" and by what authority do they approve the "intention of those writings"?"

I certainly do not disagree that God gives certain men gifts of interpretation and leadership. The authority to "harmonize with the intention of those writings" is given by God shown through those gifts that adhere to the rule of Faith.

I wonder if you would consider if you had bolded the "alone" in that sentence how that would have changed the meaning of the sentence.

"we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that ~alone~ which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

With the emphasis on "alone" the statement becomes a sola scriptura statement emphasizing the the necessity to interpret the Bible by the rule of Faith.

Then you posit the following:

Implicit in these commendations of Scripture are the following assumptions:

•The Church created, preserved, and canonized Scripture.
•The Church is the definitive authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
•The Church upholds Scripture and thereby upholds the idea that the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, that the Deposit of Faith included Scripture and Tradition and that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Well, that's quite a stretch to say that the two small quotations I provided implied all that you said above. Certainly implicit is that the leaders in the Church at the time of these two Fathers seemed to agree with the quotations rendered. It is only your perception because of your Roman Catholic background that the statements you rendered were implicit in those short quotations but any non-partial reading certainly would not arrive at the conclusions you stated.

This brings me to my final point which involves our different understanding of what the term "Church" means. I understand it to be the body of believers and that leadership within the Church is based upon the gifts God endows to cerain individuals. You believe that Church is the institutionalized organization through a linear apostolic procession.

Your view of apostolic procession must include a formal lineage of ordination in which the episcopate takes the role of apostleship. I think if you read carefully this idea of apostleship was foriegn to the early Church. It is not until the third century that we find (in the writings of Hippolytus and Cyprian) an identification of the episcopate with the apostolate. Prior to this, the bishops (and other ministers) were thought of as being in succession ~from~ the apostles rather than being ~actual~ successors to the apostles. If we then understand that this succession does not confer apostleship to the episcopate we realize that the succession is of those individuals who remain true to the Apostolic Tradition and the rule of Faith. It simply implies that the leader who adheres to these principles and by applying these rules he will remain faithful to the Tradition. The role of Apostle necessarly ended with the original Apostles because they were the eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ and the only individuals worthy of producing divine scripture.

[Iowegian]

Let me try this again in a different way. Since you apparently believe that the oral tradition and written Scriptures are different (I believe they are on in the same). What is different and what does this oral tradition contain?

[Catholicguy]

<> All that stuff happened 20 years ago<>

[Catholicguy]

<> I notice no "my mistake" or "oops" is forthcoming....<>

[Catholicguy]

<> About historical reality? No<>

[Catholicguy]

<> They were APOSTLES<>

[Aquinasfan]

The Apostles choose the most important points and by the authority of being the Apostles of Jesus Christ. As I have stated previously the Apostles taught directly the early Church fathers.

This begs the question of who definitively interprets the teachings of the early Church Fathers?

It is not until the third century that we find (in the writings of Hippolytus and Cyprian) an identification of the episcopate with the apostolate. Prior to this, the bishops (and other ministers) were thought of as being in succession ~from~ the apostles rather than being ~actual~ successors to the apostles.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Certainly the early history of the Church is murky in this regard. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Again, this points out the need for an authoritative interpretation of the writings of the early Church Fathers.

The Church has always taught that the bishops are successors to the Apostles but not that they are equivalent to the Apostles. In fact, Apostolic succession is recorded in Acts 1 when Peter, definitively interpreting Scripture, determines that a successor must be named for Judas:

Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[3] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus-- 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry." 18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,

   " 'May his place be deserted;        let there be no one to dwell in it,'[4] and,    " 'May another take his place of leadership.'[5]

21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the relationship between the Apostalate and Episcopate in this way:

VI. APOSTOLATE AND EPISCOPATE

Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church, it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts, xi, 30; xiv, 22; xv, 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; xvi, 4; xx, 17; xxi, 18; I Tim., v, 17, 19; Titus, i, 5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts, xx, 28; Phil., i, 1; I Tim., iii, 2; Titus, i, 7); presidents (proistamenoi, I Thes., v, 12; Rom., xii, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews, xiii, 7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Eph., iv, 11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts, xiii, 1; I Cor., xii, 28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts, xiii, 1; xv, 32; I Cor., xii, 28, 29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the "authorities" of the Christian community. All other names are less important; the deacons are out of the question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms for ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, and somewhat later elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the last changed with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop--and there is but one in each town--governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

Another and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the various above mentioned names, chiefly the presbyteroi and the episkopoi (priests and bishops).

* Some authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that the episkopoi of Apostolic times have the same dignity as the bishops of later times, and that the episkopoi of the apostolic writings are the same as the priests of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity of bishop and priest in Acts, xx, 17 and 28, Titus, i, 5-7, Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, xliv.

* Another view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall call bishops--priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the bishops of the second century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern priests, and had not the plenitude of the priesthood. This opinion is fully discussed and proposed with much learning by A. Michiels (L'origine de l'épiscopat, Louvain, 1900).

* Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl., 1895, and Etudes d'hist. et de théol. positive, I, Paris, 1903) expresses the following opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions, as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some presbyteroi had no liturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) the episkopoi, several in each community, had a liturgical function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, the bishopric was divided: one of the bishops became sovereign bishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were the later priests. This secondary priesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitive priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between the bishop and the priest. Whatever may be the solution of this difficut question (see BISHOP, PRIEST), it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. (See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.

[gdebrae]

Have you ever called anyone "teacher" or "father"? This is hyperbole. If this was meant to be taken literally, then we would literally be prevented from using these words to call teachers "teacher" and fathers "father." The point of Jesus' use of hyperbole here is to emphasize that God is the supreme father and teacher.

How about apply this kind of logic to Matthew 26:26,26 - "this is my body" - "this is my blood"?

Or again applying it to John 6:48-59 where Jesus calls himself the bread that has come down out of heaven. Jesus is clearly equating "eating" with "believing".

This of course can't be literally true that at the last supper before the cross the disciples were ingesting and digesting the human flesh of Jesus. You may wish to argue that after the resurrection his human flesh (Luke 24:39) is everywhere present, which is impossible, but that certainly was not true before.

The omnipresence of a particular human body is based on an erroneous concept of bodily resurrection. If Christ was raised a spirit with no human body, then he is still dead. ( I Cor 15:13).

Phil 3:21 makes clear that our human bodies will be made like Christ's body. If his humanity is everywhere present, then our's will be also. He has the same human nature that we have.

To worship a piece of bread as if it were God himself is idolatry. Deut 4.

What part of his body is turned into bread? And why after all these centuries of eating his literal body, does he have any body left.

I know the Calvinist concept of the Lord's supper is ridiculed as devoid of the real presence of Christ. This of course is absolutely untrue. Christ does not need to turn his body into bread in order to be really present in the lives of believers. Christ is present not by the action of jaws and teeth but by FAITH.

Gal 2:20 I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST; AND IT IS NO LONGER I THAT LIVE, BUT CHRIST LIVETH IN ME: AND THAT LIFE WHICH I NOW LIVE IN THE FLESH I LIVE IN FAITH, THE FAITH WHICH IS IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO LOVED ME, AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR ME."

[Aquinasfan]

How about apply this kind of logic to Matthew 26:26,26 - "this is my body" - "this is my blood"?

You're proposing that Jesus was speaking figuratively. My example was one of hyperbole. Regardless, the context makes quite clear that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6.

•The Jews leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•The disciples say, "this is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" The question does not correspond to a figurative interpretation of the passage.

•The disciples leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•Jesus asks the Apostles, "will you leave me also?" They do not answer. Peter speaks for the twelve saying, "Lord you have the words of eternal life." He answers with a statement of faith. He doesn't indicate that Jesus is speaking figuratively.

•A figurative interpretation contradicts other Scriptures:

The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaias 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

•All related Scriptures indicate a literal meaning:

It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words of Institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread is a sign of Christ's Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word-setting, or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such mark as: "He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body." But nowhere do we discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then, natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria) — a supposition little in harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text. Moreover, we must not omit the important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (I Cor. 11:27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as "guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord". There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist. Further, if we attend only to the words themselves their natural sense is so forceful and clear that Luther wrote to the Christians of Strasburg in 1524: "I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forcible" (De Wette, II, 577).

•A figurative interpretation is illogical:

For figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of the case (e.g. from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by saying: "This is Lincoln") or from the usages of common parlance (e.g. in the case of this synecdoche: "This glass is wine"), Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is bread an apt or possible symbol of the human body. Were one to say of a piece of bread: "This is Napoleon", he would not be using a figure, but uttering nonsense. There is but one means of rendering a symbol improperly so called clear and intelligible, namely, by, conventionally settling beforehand what it is to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: "Let us imagine these two pieces of bread before us to be Socrates and Plato". Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that he intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the promise: "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" (John 6:52), Such language, of course, could be used only by a God-man; so that belief in the Real Presence necessarily presupposes belief in the true Divinity of Christ. The foregoing rules would of themselves establish the natural meaning with certainty, even if the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", stood alone, But in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as "given for you" and the Blood as "shed for you [many]"; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation.

•A figurative interpretation would result in an inferior type. By definition, Old Testament types are inferior to what they foreshadow in the New Testament:

Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type.

The Real Presence
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909

[Tantumergo]

" " 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'[4] and, " 'May another take his place of leadership.'[5]"

If I may interject with a comment on this text, I find that "place of leadership" is a poor translation for the Greek original which is "episcope", from which we derive the word bishop.

This is where the KJV renders it much more accurately in English as:

"Let his bishopric another take."

which makes the connection between the Apostles and episcopate quite obvious.

[gdebrae]

Regardless, the context makes quite clear that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6.

It is quite clear in John 6 that Jesus is speaking literally of faith and is using the analogy of eating food to indicate how completely and thoroughly the blessings and benefits of his sacrifice become ours. The believer does fully and completely participate in all the spiritual blessings Christ has for us (Eph 1). But these are ours by faith, not by the mouth.

You have not answered how the human body of Christ can be everywhere present. That is a very strange concept of the human body. It destroys the physicality of the new immortal, incorruptible spiritually enable body of the resurrection at the last day when our bodies will be made just like Christ's body. Furthermore, acc. to Romans 8 the physical stuff of all creation will participate in our adoption, the redemption of our bodies at the last day. If our bodies are not localized but everywhere present then all creation could also be everywhere present.

•A figurative interpretation contradicts other Scriptures:---Assumed - not proven.

•All related Scriptures indicate a literal meaning:----Assumed - not proven.

•A figurative interpretation is illogical:----Human conjecture - assumed and not proven.

It is clear that we have very different concepts of created reality which includes our bodies.

[Quester]

•The Jews leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•The disciples say, "this is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" The question does not correspond to a figurative interpretation of the passage.

•The disciples leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•Jesus asks the Apostles, "will you leave me also?" They do not answer. Peter speaks for the twelve saying, "Lord you have the words of eternal life." He answers with a statement of faith. He doesn't indicate that Jesus is speaking figuratively.

This representation of the passage in question conveniently leaves out (and even denies) the fact that JESUS did provide an explanation for His words in verse 63 ...

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is to this explanatory statement by JESUS that Peter refers to when he later says, when the apostles are asked if they will leave also ...

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

[lockeliberty]

First, let me apologize for the tag line. I used that in a post to MarMema and did not realize it would carry over to the next post. Please accept my apologies.

Please help me understand the logic of the RCC and its claims to sole right to biblical interpretation. I thought the whole arguement was based on apostolic succession?

You quote: "The Church has always taught that the bishops are successors to the Apostles but not that they are equivalent to the Apostles."

When you say that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth is that not equivalent to apostleship? I thought the whole idea of the apostolic succession had to do with confering to the Pope the right to make divine proclamations? If the Pope can make divine proclamations does this not make them equivalent to the Apostles as conduits for God's divine inspiration? Isn't then these proclamations equivalent to scripture in authority? How then can the RCC say that the canon is closed?

I appreciate your answers in advance.

[lockeliberty]

Uh, you need to either apologize for or put up evidence to support post 159.

Until that time I consider anything you post to be irrelevant.

[Domestic Church]

"You have not answered how the human body of Christ can be everywhere present."

The mystery of faith is beyond enormous and we can't fathom it as our weak human minds are incapable...can any of us comprehend fully the miracle at Cana or any of the other astounding miracles? These astonishing events didn't stop after the Ascension. All Christians have heard of blatant miracles but there are countless ones that are subtle events of tremendous Grace in which we only glimpse the supernatural reality of Christ. It might be in the unexpected generosity of the unnoticed derelict to someone with an immediate need or the assistance given to an accident victim that saves a life when later no one can verify the helper being present. These events, pure gifts, are signs of Christ and His Love for us and His Presence among us. The Body of Christ is still here in those working to bring about His Kingdom. If you could touch such a moment again and again and again, knowing that you are drawing closer to the Body of Christ wouldn't you do it? Even if it meant living through a harrowing moment over and over prior to that point of Grace you would because your Faith in Christ would push you to do so. The Catholic sees the Sacraments as signs of Christ given to us by Christ.

[gdebrae]

The Body of Christ is still here in those working to bring about His Kingdom.

I would counter that it is not the risen glorified human nature of Christ that is residing in the person of believers but it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Risen Christ, as Jesus himself promised in John 16. It is the Holy Spirit through whom we receive all the benefits of Christ.

You still have not explained how the resurrected flesh and bone body of Christ can be everywhere present. You are simply assuming it to be so.

[Tantumergo]

"you need to either apologize for"

Apologise for what? This?:

"In actuality, the LDS use the exact same method to prove their interpretations are correct as the Roman Catholic Church."

[Domestic Church]

If you have Christ you have the Holy Spirit and you have the entire Blessed Trinity...One God.

[lockeliberty]

yup