Sola Scriptura is dead in the water from the get-go simply because it uses a Sacred Tradition, namely, which books are indeed inspired, whilst rejecting the very same Sacred Tradition, namely, SS accepts the NT Canon but rejects the OT Canon. Instead, SS accepts the OT Canon of the Masoretic Jews which was not officially formulated until about A.D. 500. This Masorete Canon is now magically transformed into the Palestinian Canon. Yet, no historical record exists anywhere in the world which proclaims the existence of the Palestinian Canon at the time of Christ. What history does teach us about the OT Canon -- what the written record clearly shows without contradiction -- is that from the very beginning of the Christian Religion the OT Canon universally used was the Alexandrian Canon, not the mythical Palestinian Canon. Then later, from at least the year A.D. 396 we have Councils proclaiming the Canon of Scripture containing the books found in the Alexandrian Canon.

Saint Paul writes to Saint Timothy concerning the "Scriptures he has known since his childhood" and reminding him that "all Scripture is inspired of God". But, who were these guys? They were Jews of the Diaspora, and the Canon of Scripture used exclusively by the Jews of the Diaspora was the Septuagint Greek Scriptures of the Alexandrian Canon.

So in reality what we see from Scripture is Saint Paul telling Saint Timothy that the Alexandrian Canon is in fact the Scriptures which are inspired by God.



http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/canon1.html

I didn't know that. But excellent.

Yes, and I am afraid that is the end of Parker. I am sure he had all his biblical verses all ready to go, but this venture down the path of history is just too much of an assault on his faith.

But, I will make this promise to him: If he can show me a Palestinian Canon from the first half of the first century, which corresponds exactly with the OT Canon found in Protestant bibles, then I will confess the holy Catholic Church does not have the witness of history entirely on Her side.

Are you quoting me or some authoritative source? If the former, you might want to focus on the concept that what I offered is something in a nutshell. If the latter, you might want to focus on something more intricate, like reading the book 'The Shape of Sola Scriptura' by Keith Mathison or "Scripture Alone" by James White.

Parker

Sola Scriptura has never claimed to deny Sacred Tradition; we have always accepted sacred tradition. There are at least four different views on the topic of Sacred Tradition and they can be defined as follows:

Tradition (0)- Tradition does not exist.
Tradition (1)- Tradition does exist; however, these are traditions that are complementary to the scriptures.
Tradition (2)- Tradition does exist; however, these are traditions that are not only complementary to the Scriptures, but also are supplementary.
Tradition (3)- Tradition does exist; however, these are traditions that are not only complentary and supplementary to the Scriptures, but are also revelational.

In these views, I stick to the 'tradition (1)' scheme, just like the rest of the Reformers. Unfortunately for most Roman Catholics, their understanding of tradition (as posted in tradition #3) is not supported either by history or Scripture. Although Scripture and the Fathers do mention 'tradition' in their writings, whenever they do mention them, the term is not used in the same way Catholics like it to be used.

Parker

P.S.
I can back this one up; would you like a Keith Mathison or a James White quote?

How do Catholics like the term "tradition" used?



Neither. They have the same authority that you do and I am discussing this with you.

See Tradition (3).


Not so.

Parker

Ok.



In what way do they have authority that differs from your authority?

I'm not strong on bibliology, or formal logic, but it seems that Parker just said that (1)"we always accepted sacred tradition", but only as "complementary to the scriptures". Thus Sacred Tradition exists.

He then proceeds to tell us how Catholics understand tradition and then states that our understanding is incorrect -- that we wish tradition to mean something that it does not.
He acknowledges that both Scripture and the Fathers cite tradition, but that neither defines tradition in the Catholic sense. He relies upon his omniscience in this, I suppose -- since he does not explicate on the specific content of either Scripture or the Fathers to support his assertion.
He further states that the Catholic definition is not supported by either history or Scripture. In this he ignores the bald historical fact that Scripture, as currently aggregated, did not exist until either or all of the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa or the Councils of Carthage. And he will be able to point out, I'm sure, how Scripture clarifies and differentiates between, using his model, Traditions (1) and (3).


And then -- and those more versed in logic than I can comment -- he supports his assertion that Scripture confirms Tradition (1) by citing, not Scripture, but two contemporary Sola Scriptura advocates.

Honestly, without sarcasm, isn't Parker just parroting the opinions of others without providing any evidence from the Scripture he will not cite and without addressing the history he casually dismisses?

Bumble, I feel your pain.

Matt 15:14.

Spot on.

Zing!

I did read The Shape of Sola Scriptura several years ago, which advocates this Tradition 0-3 schema you've mentioned. I'm a bit rusty on it as it has been 3 years or more since I read it. I remember thinking it was an okay read and it did make some careful distinctions. It was a decent defense of "classical" Sola Scriptura and it does show that a Tradition 1 viewpoint is in many ways superior to Tradition 0. That being said there were a few things that I found weak in his approach (not that I am God's gift to apologetics or anything, this is just how I saw it)...

1) It seemed to me Mathison spent more time claiming that Catholic apologists (et al) confused the warped, strawman view of Tradition 0 with the classic Tradition 1 than he did in actually defending the Tradition 1 viewpoint. He simply dismissed most arguments against Tradition 1 by saying things similar to 'that is a Catholic argument against the wrong-headed view of Tradition 0, but they have failed to note my distinction of Tradition 1. This argument can be dismissed because these apologists are attacking a different view from mine." IIRC, that was about 75% of his book. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but he did seem to spend more time making his theoretical distinction than he spent actually setting forth (in a practical way) how his Tradition 1 really functions in the real world. He dealt with many arguments against Sola Scriptura by labeling them as Tradition 0 stawmen and then ignoring them; this "debate tactic" sounds familiar, right?

2) As I read it (and I am admittedly not the scholar Mathison is), I couldn't help but think that while his Tradition 1 gives more credit to tradition and is not strictly speaking anti-tradition (like his Tradition 0 category), that in principle they function the same. There didn't seem to be, at least to me, any real, functional difference between the two. Tradition 0 pays no attention to tradition at all; Tradition 1 seems to only pay it lip service. In the end it still comes to down individual interpretation... it is just that that in Tradition 1 individual interpretation can be more embracing of tradition as it interprets. So, as it turns out, while Mathison spends most of his time defending his distinctions between Tradition 0 and Tradition 1 and dismissing arguments that do not recognize his distinction he doesn't spend a lot of time dealing with the many problematic similarities between his Tradition 0 and Tradition 1. This really bothered me.

That was the impression the book left on me at least. But I'm not sure I want to get drawn into a long discussion that is "stressing on something I am not interested in answering."

I'm not getting much from Parker's .... well, assertions. But I am learning from you others, both Catholic and Baptist.

And yet none of parkers definitions of Traditions reflects the Catholic view of Tradition. #3 is close but fails in that Apostolic Tradition is not a "Supplement". Rather Scripture is a sort of crystallization, in writing, of prior Tradition.

Exactly! Saint Paul went throughout the Diaspora and entered the syagogues and showed the Jews in their own Scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the long awaited Messiah.

What Books, chapters and verses did he use to prove the Messiah was a carpenter from Nazareth named Jesus?

Did he use the Palestinian or the Alexandrian Canon?

This is preemptive.

Parker will not be able to cite this to support his arguments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

bb,

Would it be a fair statement to say: You either have all the confused muddle of quibbling, hedging and hairsplitting you noted above; or you have the 2,000 year tradition of the Church?

(Now... this is not to say that everything in Catholic tradition is crystal clear, but al least you know the limits of the pool you are swiming in.)

You have done a service. Your analysis of Bumble's explication of Parker's thought above is the clearest example of Parker's thinking that I have read. It is all clear now.

He didn't. They, in fact, had to take his word for it. Had to take him at his word that the one referred to in the Law and Prophets was the Carpenter from Nazareth. Which is why the Bereans were more noble than the Thesselonians, because the Bereans "Believed Paul" and "Searched the Scriptures" whereas the Jews of Thesselonica did NOT believe Paul and so the Scriptures remained closed to them.

The question is rather anachronistic and overly simplistic considering neither existed as such. The Jews of Palestine had various collections of books...From the Temple priesthood who only accepted the Books of Moses as inspired and only where God spoke as "The Word of God" to the Esssense who held to many extra books, most Pharisees falling somewhere in the middle, holding to smaller or larger collections of book. NONE of these collections can be called a Canon as we use the word today. (the common opinion among rabbis rejected all of Esther and Canticle of Canticles and accepted Sirach until the 4th century) And the Jews of the Diaspora? No two Septuagint codices contain the same books and none of the ones we know about existed at the time of Paul, they are all 4th century or later Christian documents.

Looking at the NT it appears Paul quoted from a Greek source, a Hebrew source (not all of which completely match either the current Hebrew or known LXX texts) and he also quoted from Aramaic Targums and some of his quotes appear to be his own "off the cuff" renderings.