Saint Luke and Sola Scriptura

+Come, Holy Spirit+

Since it is the Feast Day of Saint Luke I thought I would start a thread!

This thread is in regards to the concept of Sola Scriptura.

For those who adhere to this belief (or anyone), please explain the beginning of the Gospel according to Saint Luke:
**
(Chapter 1: Verses 1 - 4)**
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

My question:
What did Luke use for sole authority in his faith?

Being in the Order of St. Luke, it is a good day indeed.

But neither I nor my tradition adhere to sola scriptura.

Happy St. Luke day!

From seeing, doing and experiencing?

Had Bible sharing and reflection with some brothers from readings of this feast day. Strike me that God’s friends (Ps 145) are few. Friends who make known the glorious splendour of His reign. God, despite his omnipotence, needs them to do his harvesting (Lk 10). Friends of God grouped together to be friends (2Tim 4). Interesting to note that even among friends, some would desert the group ‘for the love of this life’; some not around in times of needs. Only Luke persisted. Eventhough deserted, God stood by his friends and gave power to proclaim his message.

I suppose this is basic characteristic of human beings - unfaithfulness. Blessed are those then who are faithful to the end.

There is much we can learn from Luke.

Amen. Come Holy Spirit.

Luke was an apostle. Christ was his sole authority.

It has always been my understanding as a Lutheran, that sola scriptura says that scripture is the final norm in the post-apostle era. Some other Lutherans might correct me if I’m wrong.

Jon

Oral delievery is fine until the oral account is written as offical record. We all believe the Bible to be God-breathed and the true testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. Don’t you agree that written testimony is superior than oral testimony? After-all, the oral testimony of the eye-wtness account occured 2,000 years agon. Consider the gospel of John for the eye witness account that has been written on our behalf. :slight_smile:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, [4] who is at the Father’s side, [5] he has made him known.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Where does it say that in the Bible?

It doesn’t need to say it because we both believe the Bible to be God-breathed and inspired. For both the Roman Catholic and Protestant, Sacred Scripture is superior revelation from God. Did you follow the Sacred Written and Oral Tradition thread? Heck, the Catholic theologians cannot even determine between themselves the actual contents or deposit of faith of Sacred Tradition.

Holy Scripture remains superior revelation than Sacred Tradition…according to Catholic theologians. Here’s the link for the Sacred Traditon thread:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=276435

Which? That Luke had Christ as his authority, or that sola scriptura refers to the post-apostle era?

Jon

I followed that thread with great interest. To be fair, it does seem like catholics continuously provide evidence when asked for from the catechism, church fathers, scripture, papal bulls, and so forth but it just keeps getting ignored by those that dont want to see or hear, and the non catholics just keep asking the same old stuff over and over and over, and when pinned for a specific answer sometimes chose not to provide one. There are several threads Ive been following where non catholics have consistently failed to answer very specific questions asked of them. I dont know why but as Im typing this the words ‘‘there are none so blind as they that will not see’’ has just popped into my head.

Wait, St. Luke was an Evangilist, as either St. Peter or St. Paul’s scribe, but, I have never heard he was an apostle. Is this true?

Mistyped, you are correct, but he lived in the time of the apostles.

Jon

Sorry for not clarifying Jon.

Let me try again.

Where does the Bible say that Scripture is the final norm in the post-apostle era?

I understand your point. I am not asking about what Catholic theologians say.

If the Bible is that important in guiding our faith. Don’t you think it would have the space for one sentence to say “This Book is all you need.” ???

Why does it need to be? It doesn’t say Trinity. The three creeds are not in it. Neither are the Lutheran Confessions, or the CCC. My point is that the Lutheran view of sola scriptura is not what you usually hear from American “Evangelicals”. In fact, what most of them teach isn’t sola scriptura at all, it is solo scriptura - 'if its not in the Bible it isn’t so".

All we are saying is that what we teach cannot conflict with scripture. I think Catholics say that, too - that Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium never conflict with scripture. Yes?

[Chapter 1: Verses 1 - 4)
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled **among us

, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
/QUOTE]

What St. Luke here is saying here, I believe, is that it was his intention to take what was still fresh in the minds of eyewitnesses,
write them down, so there would be certainty about what happened, and what He (Christ) did and taught. I would surmise that he didn’t want to leave it completely to oral tradition.
I’m curious if you would argue too very much with this.
Jon

I must apologize, though it is hard to sift through all the non-Catholic beliefs and make a good general topic concerning all Protestants. I fail to make that distinction of solo versus sola. So, again, I am sorry. I do really mean that too. I hate to be “that guy” who stereotypes and generalizes, but it happens…because…I need a savior!

Your point is well made. I am just happy that someone actually responded and so well, I might add!

I agree 100% that this was Luke’s intention. Though, I do not feel this is a condemnation of oral tradition as a means for passing on the faith either. The ancient Jews have proven that it was reliable. Our faith depends on that!

My ignorance gets in my way and I am sorry for not being as learned about your faith as I should be. Out of respect for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ I want a better understanding of the tenets of their faith. You will have to sympathize with me though when there are so many to learn about. I forget how closely related the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations actually are.

I guess the point I am trying to get at is Christian belief is dynamic and it goes beyond the pages of the Good Book! Maybe I do not fully understand the concept of Sola Scriptura, well, obviously I do not. I guess I still have a hard time accepting it because of how the earliest Christians could not have relied on it. This, to me, tells me that there is more to our faith than “meets the eye” (Pun intended!)

Again, please forgive my ignorance.

I kind of actually regret making this thread because there are so many on this topic already.

Good point about “Sola Scriptura” vs. “Solo Scriptura”.

But even leaving aside “Solo Scriptura”, another big problem is that a lot a Protestants “muddy the water” by not distinguishing between believing in “Sola Scriptura” and believing in “Sufficiency of Scripture”.

No, Holy Scripture isn’t superior to Sacred Tradition. Holy Scripture is central to Sacred Tradition.

In the same way, I wouldn’t say “The four Gospels are superior to Sacred Scripture.” but rather “The four Gospels are central to Sacred Scripture.”

Go to the Sacred Tradition thread and you will see that this issue is debated within the Catholic Church and Catholic theologians. Actually, one Catholic position is quite sola scriptura in a way.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=276435

I confess that I haven’t read all 15 pages of that thread, but your claim that “one Catholic position is quite sola scriptura in a way” sounds to me like a prime example of a Protestant not distinguishing between Sola Scriptura and Sufficiency of Scripture.

Check this out:

Quote:
Originally Posted by novaslasher
I understand your frustration in trying to pin down the content of Sacred Tradition. It sounds like what would most appeal to you would be a list of teachings that comprise Sacred Tradition as handed down from the Apostles; unfortunately you won’t find anything like this.

I’m also trying to get a better understanding of Sacred Tradition. I’m taking an intro graduate Catholic theology course at Christendom College and one of the lectures dealt with Tradition. According to our professor, Sacred Tradition complements Sacred Scripture and is coequal to Scripture. Tradition was the form in which the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles were handed down in the early Church before the Scriptures were completed and the canon was sealed. The Church Fathers do give an indication of the teachings of Tradition, but their combined written teachings are not the same thing as Tradition. Tradition is transmitted through the Magisterium and is not necessarily found in the individual teachings of each Church Father. The Fathers are not considered infallible and they can err (for example look at some of the writings of Origen). But when the Fathers agree on a teaching, it is a sign that they are teaching from Tradition.

There is a debate within Catholic theological circles about whether the entire content of Sacred Tradition is found within Sacred Scripture. Some theologians hold that there exists a subset of Sacred Tradition called constitutive Tradition. Constitutive tradition is extra-scriptural doctrines with no clear foundation in Scripture. Those who hold this view believe that some teachings of Tradition (like the canon of Scripture) are not in Scripture. A key point is that even though constitutive Tradition is extra-Scriptural, it does not contradict Sacred Scripture.

Other theologians believe that constitutive Tradition does not exist. Instead they believe that all Catholic teachings have at least a starting point within Scripture. Those who hold this view believe that Sacred Tradition is more akin to the authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Magisterium (those theologians who support constitutive Tradition also believe Tradition plays a large role in giving authentic interpretation to Scripture).

I’ll leave out the details of the debate between the two camps (such as whether the canon of Scripture is a true element of constitutive Tradition).

No matter which view is correct, Tradition should be viewed as an organic embodiment of the living teachings of Christ in the Church. It provides an authentic interpretation of the Scriptures and the living manifestation of those teachings (such as the Sacraments and liturgy). Hence you won’t find a laundry list of Traditions.

A good scholarly work to look at is “Tradition and Traditions” by Yves Congar. I’m

tgette,
I have never come across a post of yours well I felt you needed to apologize, this one included. You are one of the Catholic posters that I really enjoy reading and learning from. And I might admit that my post was a bit evasive in that I knew what you were driving at. So, mea culpa, as well.
But the obvious fact is that oral tradition has a higher value placed on it by Catholics than by Lutherans. I personally will accept oral tradition that doesn’t conflict with scripture.

Jon

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.