The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority

Christian Research Institute ^ | Unknown | Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie

[HarleyD]

Another perspective

[Gamecock]

Bump to self for a later read.

[Gamecock]

Ping

[Ohioan from Florida]

Bookmark for later reading.

[AlbionGirl]

HarleyD, you post some really good threads. Did you notice how your Luther vs. Erasmus thread is still alive?

Anyway, thanks and bump for later read.

[Claud]

I'm curious how one is supposed to believe that Sola Scriptura ever worked in a society where there was not widespread literacy and where handcopied books were too expensive to be owned by the non-wealthy.

Most people back then knew the Scriptural text via the liturgy, not through having copies at home. And most of you, my friends, only know the Scriptures through translators. Translators who are fallible. And even those lucky few who can read Greek only know Scriptures through the manuscript evidence, which does not, I might point out, take us back to the original autographs of the Apostles but only to manuscripts which were copies of copies of copies.

None of us, I'm afraid, can claim a direct link to the Apostles via Scripture. We don't have Matthew, Luke, Mark, or John, or Paul in the originals. Any way you slice it, the Apostolic teaching had to reach us by being preserved and promoted and copied by those who lived after the Apostles. So the infallible Scripture doesn't get to us any other way but the ever-fallible hand of men.

You may say that God's ineffable wisdom deigned that it would be preserved, and preserved accurately. We agree. And He did so via the Church.

[pegleg]

The real question is what is the truth? So the question all Christians need to consider is where can it be found? The answer to that question can be found in 1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

So fundamental to this question is what Church can the truth be found in since no Christian can deny that Christ established a Church.

For example the author states “Only the Bible is infallible” however he fails to addresses who has the authority to infallibly interpret it. He addresses this question by stating “For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible.” This is nonsense. It is a well established fact that Protestants read the same bible yet come to a wide variety of interpretations. Thus the many denominations all claiming to have the truth. Perhaps he could have shared with us what Church has it right. Instead, he argues under the umbrella of Protestantism which can lead one to a number of different conclusions.

St. Francis De Sales hit the nail on the head when he said, “ We do not deny, to speak clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through the medium of the Church. Indeed if God had a thousand times revealed a thing to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless he stamped it so clearly that we could no longer call its validity in question. But we see nothing of this among your reformers. In a word, it is to the Church General that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his inspirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of the Church, he communicates them to private persons. It is the Spouse in whom the milk is produced, then the children suck it from her breasts. But you would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires private persons, and by these means the Church, that the children receive the milk and the mother is nourished at their breasts; an absurdity.”

[Campion]

Unfortunately, Roman Catholicism has not followed their lead and has elevated extrabiblical tradition to the same level as the Bible.

The Bible elevates extrabiblical tradition to the same level as the Bible. Else, Dr. Geisler, how do you even know what books belong in the canon? For, as Paul told the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

[nathanbedford]

sola scriptura ping

[Campion]

Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters.

Harley, I have a simple question for you and the people at CRI. If the Bible is both sufficient and "possesses final authority," why does an organization like CRI need to exist? CRI (I used to listen to the "The Bible Answer Man" as much as I could stand it) essentially sets themselves up as a Protestant magisterium, and anoints themselves the defenders of something they call "the historic Christian faith" (Who decides what that is? CRI, of course!).

But, according to their own doctrine, there should be no need for them to exist. If the Bible is perfectly sufficient, possesses final authority, and requires no authoritative human interpreter, then CRI's own doctrine precludes CRI's need to exist as much as it precludes the Pope's.

I'm pinging jude24 because he has some good insights on this.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Lee Strobel (MSL, Yale Law School), former Legal Affairs Editor for the Chicago Tribune, quotes Dr. Bruce Metzger (Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Princeton Theological Seminary) in this regard in his book The Case for Christ:

"When the pronouncement was made about the Canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the Church had already determined. You see, the Canon is a List of Authoritative Books more than it is an *authoritative list* of books.

These documents didn't derive their Authority from being selected; each one was Authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.

For somebody now to say that the Canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'THANKS FOR NOTHING! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.' We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the Canon." (emphasis mine)

Best, OP

[Petronski]

Sola scriptura is an extrabiblical protestant tradition. My God, the irony!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

See my #12.

OTOH, Campion... Perhaps you're the sort who requires an counter-signed Affidavit, in triplicate, from a General Synod of Royal Musicians... in order to know that the music of Beethoven is wonderful.

Best, OP

[NYer]

Note ... drstevej has been banned from FR.

[Campion]

These documents didn't derive their Authority from being selected; each one was Authoritative before anyone gathered them together.

I need that "master of the obvious" .gif.

Everyone knows they didn't "derive their authority from being selected" and were "authoritative before anyone gathered them together".

That's sort of like observing that diamonds are diamonds before anyone goes into a diamond mine and hacks them out of the rocks in which they're embedded. Sure enough, they are. That doesn't make diamond miners irrelevant to the process of acquiring a diamond ring.

It's hard to attach any real authoritative quality to a work before you know which work to attach it to. It's hard to attach authority to "Scripture" over and above anything else when you're not sure whether the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Didache, or the "Shepherd of Hermas" are "Scripture" or not.

[Campion]

OTOH, Campion... Perhaps you're the sort who requires an counter-signed Affidavit, in triplicate, from a General Synod of Royal Musicians... in order to know that the music of Beethoven is wonderful.

Whether the music of Beethoven is wonderful or not is a matter of personal taste. (I happen to think that it is.)

The question of the composition of the NT canon is not a matter of esthetics or personal taste. I think you and I both know that it's a bit more important than that, and if you look at the history of canon formation, you'll find out that it's not as cut-and-dried as you like to pretend.

[jude24]

I don't disagree with Lee Strobel, that what happened was that the church councils recognized what was inherently authoritative. My question, however, is more subtle - how do we know, without resorting to some sort of Magesterium, that Hebrews belongs in the canon, but the Didache does not? There were 200-some gospels and epistles floating around the early church. Some (like the Didache) are of unquestioned orthodoxy. Others are not - but how do we define those without either a Magesterium or consensus patronum?

These are the philosophical questions that bother me - and I have not heard a satisfying answer yet. I'm still listening for one, however.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Sola scriptura is an extrabiblical protestant tradition. My God, the irony!

Um, no.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be *perfect*, *thoroughly* furnished unto *all* good works. (II Timothy 3:16-17)

Aw, shucks... it's right there in God's Word, the Holy Bible.

The notion that "Sola scriptura is an extrabiblical protestant tradition" is... um... Well, just another Papist-Roman Extrabiblical Tradition of Men.

But y'all just go on worshipping the Honkin' Great Big Three-Tiered Hat. Ain't no skin off my back, if y'all wanna worship a guy wearing a multi-leveled Confectionary Cake on his head.

Cordially, OP

:-)