An explanation of Sola Scriptura

[jamil_joseph02]

Hi. this is a thorough?? explanation I’ve got from a Protestant regarding Sola Scriptura. I’ve read this a couple of times now, had some disagreements over it, but still I would like to hear from the more knowledgeable and experienced Catholics regarding this matter. After all two heads are better than one so could you spot the errors, contradictions or inconsistencies? Here it is:

What Sola Scriptura IS and ISN’T

This goes out to all the Catholics who have NEVER revealed their understanding of what Sola Scriptura teaches. This goes out to all the Catholics who continue to labor under the notion of SOLO Scriptura for the purpose of creating straw men. This goes out to all the Catholics who attempt to re-create Sola Scriptura into variant forms, claiming that it varies with each denomination or by how one structures their words. This goes out to all the Catholics who labor in taking one’s “admission” as representative of the “whole” of the argument. In short, this goes out to all the Catholics who have been corrected repeatedly, but continue to misrepresent what it truly means.

First, let’s begin by “de-strawing” the “SOLO” Scriptura straw men some have attempted to build:

1. Those who claim that we believe that all truth is found in the Bible are wrong. All truth is NOT in the Bible.
2. Those who claim that we claim that the Bible is perspicuous in ALL things are wrong. There are Bible verses that aren’t so clear to every reader.
3. Those who claim that Sola Scriptura means we cannot go outside of Scripture are wrong. SS recognizes valuable resources outside of Scripture.
4. Those who claim that we believe that the church has no value and ISN’T instrumental in teaching Scripture are wrong. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and this “community of God” is instrumental in keeping us in check with the rest of the Christian community. The church is the “interpreter” of Scripture, but the interpretation ISN’T relegated to certain men WITHIN the church.

The Protestant position on Sola Scriptura is as follows:

1. SS claims that all things necessary for salvation is taught clearly in Scripture.

John wrote in his gospel that Jesus did many “miraculous signs” that weren’t written in his book (note it doesn’t say “taught many things”. In 21:25, he says “did” again), but he wrote his book with the intention that you will believe in Christ and that believing, you might find eternal life (John 20:31).

2. SS claims that all things concerning faith and life are clearly taught in Scripture.

This is what is known as the perspicuity of Scripture. It doesn’t mean that all things are equally as clear, but only that which structures the Christian to live a life of holiness, peace, humility, etc. As Augustine stated:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

3. Scripture is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals.

The word “ultimate” doesn’t imply that there aren’t other truths, but only that Scripture is the deciding form of truth in what doctrine is and isn’t. Scripture is the only “theopneustos” (God-breathed) deposit of truth, thus giving it peculiar authority in these matters. Again, as Augustine stated:

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

4. Scripture is able to make us wise, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Paul didn’t state to Timothy that Scripture ***and ***“oral” traditions are able to “thoroughly” equip him for every good work, but only Scripture, even though the Jews had plenty of oral traditions as well. Paul didn’t use a generic “Word of God”, thus implying another “God-breathed” deposit, but only pointed to the Scriptures. If Scripture is fully capable of equipping us to all good works, why would Paul need to appeal to anything else? The Jews had oral traditions, but Jesus didn’t hold them to it. Whenever confronted, he quoted Scripture. When Satan attempted to tempt Him, he used Scripture.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

[continuation]

5. Sola Scriptura does not rise or fall on whether Jesus and the Apostles taught it

It is logically deduced from Christ’s actions against the Devil, the Pharisees, or any of His opponents and from verses such as 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21. As far as the NT goes, SS wouldn’t be active while the conduits of the “Scriptura” (the Apostles and disciples) are alive and writing the “Scriptura”, therefore the “Scriptura” that we advocate becomes the authority AFTER these conduits are gone. Evidently, by the writings of the earliest Fathers, nothing was to be promulgated UNLESS it had its backing in the “Scriptura” and THIS, ladies and gentlemen, IS the Sola Scriptura position.

6. Sola Scriptura doesn’t claim that the Apostolic use of the term “Word of God” means that they are referring to only Scripture.

What SS does claim is that Scripture is all we have today and that it is fully sufficient in leading us to salvation.

7. Sola Scriptura does not claim that traditions are invalid or that we cannot go outside of Scripture to validate truth.

There is a richness in the culture, history, and traditions of God’s people throughout the ages. SS doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but recognizes that these are all criterions for properly interpreting those things in Scripture which aren’t so clear. Yet, the type of “Apostolic” oral traditions that Rome claims for her distinctives are something else entirely. Rome has never been able to define what these traditions are. Others have attempted to point to the historical liturgies, but church practice isn’t the type of traditions that prove that the Apostles taught Roman distinctives.

***8. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that we are reliant on a decision from Popes and councils on what the “Scriptura” is or isn’t. ***

The Church ALWAYS had Scripture, even before popes commissioned councils to define them. The criterions these councils used were available to all and weren’t contingent on infallible declarations. A simple reading of the Scripture index of the Ante-Nicene Fathers reveals that they recognized the books of Scripture and were able to cite them freely.

***9. The meaning of Sola Scriptura doesn’t change by the use of emphatic terms. ***

This one goes out in particular to [a Catholic] who has attempted to use this to create “three” different variants of Sola Scriptura. The meaning of Sola Scriptura remains the same, even if I emphatically claim that if everyone follows the wisdom of Scripture, that it provides everything they need to live to the glory of God. This doesn’t mean that I created another faction of SS, but only that by doing so they bring glory to God.

My brother Evangelicals, please feel free to post your agreement with the above. That way, we can get rid of another straw man presented by the Catholics here–that depending on our denominational bias, we have variant forms of Sola Scriptura. Nothing could be further from the truth.

so there it is. tell me what you guys think about the Evangelical’s writing. Thanks]

 

[MarcoPolo]

#1 - not taught in Scripture

#2 not taught in Scripture#1 and #2 since adherents to SS disagree on a variety of doctrines, the claim that it is “clear” is a bit specious.#3 - again, not in Scripture, and using Augustine to argue against a Church authority is to be ignorant of history. I agree with the Augustine quote that Scripture holds a peculiar and unique position, but that doesn’t lead logically to SS.

#4 - No problem there. But again, faulty logic. If I say bread can satisfy your appetite, but you argue “But a whole cheese wheel can satisfy my appetite! Why appeal to any other source?!! Therefore, sola cheese wheel!” you would see the fault in the logic.

#5 - Like Jesus, Catholics appeal to Scripture too. The problem is the “sola” part in the Protestant tradition. All Catholic doctrines I know also have a backing in Scripture, but that, again does not logically mean sola scriptura.

#6 - not taught in Scripture

#7 - ironically contradicts #4 which discourages going anywhere else. And if “Rome” hasn’t been able to define any traditions, how have Protestants for a few centuries been able to argue against them? #7 also contradicts #1 and #2 in reference to the “clarity” of Scripture

#8 - complete nonsense to say we “always had Scripture.” That makes no sense and does not admit to the historical record. Also, whoever wrote this needs to identify which ante-Nicene fathers they appeal to, and also give cause as to why that person(s) is the authority. If any person(s) is named, SS is defeated. If any person(s) is not named, then the books in their Bible are admittedly sourceless, and SS is defeated. ECF canonical lists prior to Nicea are not universally identical either.

#9 - sounds like a personal issue this author has with someone else and the statement doesn’t belong here.

 

[MarcoPolo]

See also some of Dave Armstrong’s apologetics on the matter, such as here.

 

[bzkoss236]

Also, primacy of Scripture is Prima-Scripture, not Sola-Scriptura.

They are wrong in their use of the word.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

“Solo scriptura” is just bad grammar. Why not just drop the term “sola scriptura” altogether rather than becoming upset when people take the phrase at its plain meaning?

 

[JerryZ]

“Solo scriptura” is just bad grammar. Why not just drop the term “sola scriptura” altogether rather than becoming upset when people take the phrase at its plain meaning?

Ahhhhhh! But that is NOT what the reformers believed and as such it is one of the cornerstones of their teachings the other of course being Solo Fide.

And you are incorrect saying that it is “bad grammar”

“Solo scriptura” means plainly “Only Scriptures” and that is what they believed unfortunately for Calvin and Luther they made the mistake of assuming that the Bible had fallen out of the sky ready made.

That is why some many protestant, especially those that are well versed in scripture and history when they realize that the Bible had not been around at the time of the apostles nor for almost 300 years after they had gone to join Jesus start researching the early Church fathers to try to bolster the SS claim.
But what they find shocks them, and many eventually do what is right and accept the truth, that the Catholic Church IS the Church found on that rock that was Peter by Jesus.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

And you are incorrect saying that it is “bad grammar”

It is bad grammar because the genders do not agree. And Luther and Calvin certainly did not believe in “solo scriptura” as laid out in the OP.

 

[JonNC]

=JerryZ;10055875]Ahhhhhh! But that is NOT what the reformers believed and as such it is one of the cornerstones of their teachings the other of course being Solo Fide.

What is Solo fide?

And you are incorrect saying that it is “bad grammar”

Since Latin grammar isn’t my specialty, I don’t know. what I do know is there solo scriptura is a rather different practice than sola scriptura.

“Solo scriptura” means plainly “Only Scriptures” and that is what they believed unfortunately for Calvin and Luther they made the mistake of assuming that the Bible had fallen out of the sky ready made.

It is not what Luther believed (I’ll let Calinists speak for Calvin). Nor is it what Lutherans believe. The Lutheran view of sola scriptura is that it is a practice of the (Lutheran) Church to use scripture as the final norm in holding accountable teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogma. It doesn’t eliminate the importance of Tradition, but instead holds Tradition subject to scripture. Hence, the Catholic view (from my understanding) Tradition and scripture are equal sources of divine truth. Lutheran view, Tradition is subject to scripture.

…that the Bible had fallen out of the sky ready made

Polemical nonsense. Luther had a doctorate in theology. He knew exactly where scripture came from, and he probably knew more about the hstory of scripture than you and I together could ever hope to know.
Luther - * “Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"*
No mention of anything falling from the sky. It ok to disagree with Luther, as you as a Catholic should, but disagree with what he actually taught, not some strawman caricature.

That is why some many protestant, especially those that are well versed in scripture and history when they realize that the Bible had not been around at the time of the apostles nor for almost 300 years after they had gone to join Jesus start researching the early Church fathers to try to bolster the SS claim.

To claim that scripture was not around is silly. How many times did Christ say, “It is written…”? And why would you think that the teachings and writings of the Apostles and their disciples were somehow hidden before Nicea?
The “SS claim” doesn’t make this claim in the first place.

But what they find shocks them, and many eventually do what is right and accept the truth, that the Catholic Church IS the Church found on that rock that was Peter by Jesus.

And this is why even the Orthodox are clammering to join RCIA.

Jon

 

[EricFilmer]

Hi. this is a thorough?? explanation I’ve got from a Protestant regarding Sola Scriptura…

Others have already started addressing the points in the definition of Sola Scriptura itself, so I thought I would take a moment to comment on some of this person’s opening address.

What Sola Scriptura IS and ISN’T

This goes out to all the Catholics who have NEVER revealed their understanding of what Sola Scriptura teaches.

For the record, because there are different understandings of what Sola Scriptura is out there, when I debate with an adherent of Sola Scriptura, I ask them to clearly define it for the sake of the discussion. Some will do that, and I will then refer to their definition for the course of that debate. Many others will refuse to provide a clear explanation.

This goes out to all the Catholics who continue to labor under the notion of SOLO Scriptura for the purpose of creating straw men.

If this person thinks that a Catholic needs to refute Sola Scriptura by use of a straw man then he is welcome to come to CAF for a debate.

This goes out to all the Catholics who attempt to re-create Sola Scriptura into variant forms, claiming that it varies with each denomination or by how one structures their words. This goes out to all the Catholics who labor in taking one’s “admission” as representative of the “whole” of the argument. In short, this goes out to all the Catholics who have been corrected repeatedly, but continue to misrepresent what it truly means.

As a former Protestant, this comment is way off base. Generally speaking, it is not Catholics who re-create Sola Scriptura, but Protestants. In my experience, very few Protestants can define Sola Scriptura in the manner of the Reformers, or even know where to look it up. As a matter-of-fact, there are many Protestants who are unfamiliar with simply the term “Sola Scriptura” itself.

When Catholics engage Protestants over doctrine in the context of Sola Scriptura, I would say that the vast majority of the debates proceed in a manner such as this:

Catholic: “According to the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was conceived without sin.”

Protestant: “Where does it say that in the Bible?”

Catholic: “It’s implied in the Bible but is mostly derived from Sacred Tradition.”

Protestant: “I’ve read the parts of the Bible where you say it’s implied. You’re not interpreting the Bible correctly. If a doctrine is not really found in the Bible then we shouldn’t accept it.”

In terms of the Protestant mindset I’ve presented here concerning Sola Scriptura, it doesn’t seem to match up well with the definition of Sola Scriptura provided by the OP. And yet, the person described by the OP accuses Catholics of intentionally misrepresenting Sola Scriptura. So my point in this particular post is that it is, by and large, Protestants who have muddied the definition, not Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

In terms of the Protestant mindset I’ve presented here concerning Sola Scriptura, it doesn’t seem to match up well with the definition of Sola Scriptura provided by the OP. And yet, the person described by the OP accuses Catholics of intentionally misrepresenting Sola Scriptura. So my point in this particular post is that it is, by and large, Protestants who have muddied the definition, not Catholics.

I actually agree.

Jon

 

[EricFilmer]

The Protestant position on Sola Scriptura is as follows:

If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then it needs to play by its own rules. If it requires certain standards for doctrinal validity but then violates those standards itself, then it likewise violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (and should be rejected as a false principle).

1. SS claims that all things necessary for salvation is taught clearly in Scripture.

John wrote in his gospel that Jesus did many “miraculous signs” that weren’t written in his book (note it doesn’t say “taught many things”. In 21:25, he says “did” again), but he wrote his book with the intention that you will believe in Christ and that believing, you might find eternal life (John 20:31).

1. SS is not “clearly taught in Scripture”.
2. In order to demonstrate that SS is in Scripture, the author relies upon his personal interpretation of Scripture. The principle is supposed to be “Scripture Alone”, not “Scripture & Personal Interpretation Alone.”
3. As far as I know, no one interpreted the above passages of John in a SS-oriented way until the Reformation. As such, this interpretation is neither historical nor apostolic.

2. SS claims that all things concerning faith and life are clearly taught in Scripture.
This is what is known as the perspicuity of Scripture. It doesn’t mean that all things are equally as clear, but only that which structures the Christian to live a life of holiness, peace, humility, etc.

This makes a claim about Scripture that Scripture does not even make about itself.

As Augustine stated:
“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

Instead of showing where Scripture teaches perspicuity, the author resorts to a quote from St. Augustine. As I mentioned before, Sola Scriptura needs to play by its own rules. It is supposed to be “Scripture Alone,” not “Scripture & Patristic Writings Alone.”

Plus, what happens in most debates between Catholics and Protestants when Catholics start quoting the ECFs? Are patristic writings truly accepted by Protestants as permissible sources for doctrinal validity? Some do, but most say, “Stick to what is in the Bible!”

 

[EricFilmer]

3. Scripture is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals.

The word “ultimate” doesn’t imply that there aren’t other truths, but only that Scripture is the deciding form of truth in what doctrine is and isn’t.

This makes a claim about Scripture that Scripture does not even make about itself.

Scripture is the only “theopneustos” (God-breathed) deposit of truth, thus giving it peculiar authority in these matters.

The “God breathed” translation from 2Timothy, while not entirely incorrect, is only accepted by a minority of Biblical scholars. Most Bible translations interpret the Greek as saying, “inspired by God” rather than “God breathed.” Moreover, neither phrase (“God-breathed” or “inspired by God”) clearly demonstrate SS, but one must rather rely upon a personal interpretation of such phrases to do the job.

Also, Scripture says that Adam as well as the Apostles were “God-breathed” (Gen 2:7; John 20:22). It could be argued that Adam, at least to some extent, was a “deposit of truth”, and I think this can certainly be said of the Apostles.

Again, as Augustine stated:

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

1. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged that Scripture is authoritative. The question at hand is whether or not Scripture alone has authority in doctrinal matters.
2. Once again, the author attempts to make his case by appealing to the patristic writings of St. Augustine, rather than appealing to Scripture. As I stated before, the principle of SS is “Scripture Alone”, not “Scripture & Patristic Writings Alone.” If I debated the author and started quoting St. Augustine and other ECFs to support Catholic teachings, I wonder how open he would be to accepting it.

 

[EricFilmer]

4. Scripture is able to make us wise, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Paul didn’t state to Timothy that Scripture ***and ***“oral” traditions are able to “thoroughly” equip him for every good work, but only Scripture, even though the Jews had plenty of oral traditions as well. Paul didn’t use a generic “Word of God”, thus implying another “God-breathed” deposit, but only pointed to the Scriptures. If Scripture is fully capable of equipping us to all good works, why would Paul need to appeal to anything else?

But Paul did appeal to something else. Consider the following elaboration on the teachings of Paul:

2Timothy 3:16
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2Timothy 3:16). The usual argument goes like this: if “all Scripture” makes a person “complete” and “equipped for every good work” then a Christian need not turn to anything else (such as Sacred Tradition). Therefore, believing in Sacred Tradition puts someone in opposition to what Paul wrote in 2Timothy 3:16.

Notice though…

**1) **Paul does not say “only” Scripture.

2) Also in 2Timothy (this time from 2:21-26) Paul states that purifying oneself from “what is ignoble” makes one “ready for any good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul is telling Timothy how a person is equipped, or ready, for good works. But when Paul describes (in 2Timothy 2:21-26) how a person is purified from being ignoble, he does not mention the use of Scripture. Instead he talks about shunning youthful passions, aiming at righteousness, faith, love and peace, avoiding senseless controversies, not being quarrelsome, being kind and gentle, etc.

3) In 2Corinthians 9:8, Paul states, “And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.” So, like in 2Timothy 3:16, Paul writes about what provides for “every good work.” But in this passage from 2Corinthians, Paul does not mention Scripture, but instead points out that the blessings of God are what provide for every good work. Obviously God can bestow his blessings on us independent from Scripture, can he not?

In light of all this, what Paul must be saying in 2Timothy 3:16 is that what “equips us for every good work” is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, for which all Scripture is profitable (in knowing how to do such things). And, in the context of everything Paul wrote, many other things aside from Scripture are profitable for this as well, such as acquiring the blessings of God and refraining from what is ignoble. By considering all this biblical evidence, Paul cannot truly be teaching people that the Bible is the only source of authoritative Christian teaching, and therefore Paul does not teach Sola Scriptura in 2Timothy 3:16.

*(It’s a busy weekend so, unfortunately, this is all I have time to comment on for the moment)
*