Sola Scriptura dialogue

Bill, wrote, March 8, 2010 10:27 AM …  

Calvin indeed recognized the shipwreck and sought to rectify the problem by assuming the role of an Apostle and recreating a magisterial office of his own. He rejects the Catholic Magisterium in favor of one that follows his own personal guidelines of interpretation. Where does he get the authority to do that? If the Church does in fact have the authority to interpret Scripture then why does he deny the Catholic Church this mission? Where does he find the authority to establish a Church other than the one which Christ himself established? Because if there is anything one can draw from an honest examination of the 16th century it is that Calvin establishes a church over and against the One which had always existed.

And I don't mean to imply that you are defending Luther, only that we, as non-Catholics, all follow Luther in the decision he made to stand on the ground of sola scriptura.

Jim replied . . .

Bill, the point is that Luther was not the first to stand on the ground of sola scriptura, as I pointed out, so did Saint Augustine—although, I think you missed the point there. Yes, Augustine was a successionist; but he reverted to sola scriptura when in disagreement with the Bishop of Rome on the aforementioned occasion.

My argument is for sola scriptura not against papal infallibility, or sacred tradition. The pope (for the sake of argument) may or may not be infallible; and sacred tradition may or may not be true; however, in all occasions each must be attested by the standard of Scripture.

For the record, I do not know Godfrey, nor can I attest to his academic integrity on all occasions, but in this instance, he is right. Whether or not Augustine ever recanted, I do not know, either. However, in each of the cases you cited from St. Augustine, may I also quote him, in Chapter 2, verse 2, of the letter to Januarius, he states:

For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith, nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those among whom we live.

Notice he says, the custom is not contrary to faith (faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord) and is to be observed for the sake of fellowship. I think you will find that Augustine does not quibble over tradition as much as we would like to think. For example, he consults Ambrose, on one occasion, and Ambrose counseled,

Advice, by the way, that St. Augustine took to heart.

“When I visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offense by your conduct, nor to find cause of offense in another's.” chapter 3, verse 3, ibid.

Bill wrote . . .

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church." Letter of Augustine to 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

My comment to is,

“So?” There is nothing in the statement that indicates that such tradition trumps sola scriptura. In each of the cases cited, the intent of scripture is still maintained. It is for sure if tradition, in Augustine’s eye, had been contrary to scripture (which he says in the reference I made to chapter 3, verse 3, of the letter), he would have ceased the practice.

Please understand, I am not arguing against sacred tradition, or even papal infallibility. All I am saying is that in each instance, all must adhere to the intent of scripture.

Now, if you wish, we can examine some of the cardinal differences between Roman Catholicism and the rest of Christendom, and put that to the test of sola scriptura.

By the way, in closing, I have on my desk copies of the Selected Writing of Marin Luther, edited by Theodore G. Tappert, and nowhere in them do I find that Luther reject the Church, or even Church authority unless it did not meet the test of scripture. His beef was not against authority, but against abuse of authority and the heresy of papal infallibility and tradition that was contrary to scriptural practices. Please, however, let’s not get off on a side rail here on Luther. Luther is immaterial. As is Calvin. As is Jim or Bill.

All the best, Jim