Bible being the Sole Authority??

[JonNC]

I am sure there are many threads like this out there but they have a million post and most are older threads. I am wanting to start a new one.

My question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

Some thoughts.

1. When you say ,“sole authority”, what exactly do you mean? Different communions will have a different understanding of what this means. For some, it means no other creeds or confessions, etc. For Lutherans, it simply means that it is the final norm for holding accountable doctrine, etc.
2. One can’t expect, frankly, that a post-apostolic practice would have a specific scriptural quote regarding said practice, nor does one need it, while scripture does have implicit references to scripture in this manner.

Anglican James Kiefer offers this:

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

The point being, that sola scriptura is not a practice such that requires all things to be explicitly defined in scripture, but a practice of the Church that holds that to bind the conscience of the believer, there ought to be scriptural evidence. In this sense, there is a difference between doctrine and adiaphora, things that must be believed, and things that may be believed.
A good example, from a Lutheran perspective, would be marian teachings: Virgin Birth and Holy Theotokos are doctrine, sempre virgo and assumption are adiaphora.

Jon

 

[Miriam1947]

Read:

The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith by John Salza.

Here is his website:

scripturecatholic.com/johns_books.html

 

[batman1973]

The Jews of Jesus’ time, however, did use the Deuterocanonicals because the Septuagint was the only version around. It wasn’t until the 6th century that the Masoretic Text was even started. In any event Jesus and the Apostles and the rest of the Jews used the Septuagint and it was the only version of Old Testament at the time the Church canonized the sacred texts in 398 A.D. The same Church that canonized the books of the Bible never authorized the removal of any of them. That was a completely man-made decision by those outside of the Church.

They did use the DCs? I did not know that… I think myself that the DCs should be included in all bibles.

 

[pablope]

Let us take a real situation:

If the bible is the Tradition…(and why does this sound like solo scriptura) and the bible can not solve the women’s ordination question, there must be another Tradition to settle this matter. Or …there are “traditions”, plural, to settle this matter, in conflict with each other.



An anglican synod (or whatever they call it)…perhaps…but it is not the Bible that would setttle the question then…but an interpretative authority…:doh2:

But it looks like it is an authority of their own liking and creation…not the ancient Christian traditon of a council and bishops and the pope…perhaps…

 

[pablope]

Some thoughts.

The point being, that sola scriptura is not a practice such that requires all things to be explicitly defined in scripture, but a practice of the Church that holds that to bind the conscience of the believer, there ought to be scriptural evidence. In this sense, there is a difference between doctrine and adiaphora, things that must be believed, and things that may be believed.
A good example, from a Lutheran perspective, would be marian teachings: Virgin Birth and Holy Theotokos are doctrine, sempre virgo and assumption are adiaphora.

Jon

Well…Jon…can you show how Lutherans would address this issue, showing SS you proposed:

Let us take a real situation:

There are those in the Anglicans (and some Lutherans, I believe) who believe in women being ordained priests and those who don’t…so how will the Bible settle this dispute?

Both sides find scriptural support for both position…I think. Anyway…fire away…

 

[JonNC]

Well…Jon…can you show how Lutherans would address this issue, showing SS you proposed:

Let us take a real situation:

There are those in the Anglicans (and some Lutherans, I believe) who believe in women being ordained priests and those who don’t…so how will the Bible settle this dispute?

Both sides find scriptural support for both position…I think. Anyway…fire away…

Hi Pablo,
I haven’t seen any support for women in the clergy, except for the claim of silence regarding women in the clergy in Matthew 28. Those who take the historic Church stance look to the rather explicit statements in 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We turn to the practice of the historic Church, including Lutheranism, there is no support for ordained women, either.

**Augsburg:
Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. **

Luther’s Small Catechism on confession:

Pray, Propose to Me a Brief Form of Confession.

Answer.

You should speak to the confessor thus: Reverend and dear sir, I beseech you to hear my confession, and to pronounce forgiveness to me for God’s sake.

And there is much more. The discrepency coming from the more liberal synods of Lutheranism, which btw, are prevalent in the CC as well, results from a desire to view scripture and the confessions with an “in as much as” approach, “historical-critical method”, etc.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They did use the DCs? I did not know that… I think myself that the DCs should be included in all bibles.

They were, including Luther’s and the KJV.

 

[Eufrosnia]

For Lutherans, it simply means that it is the final norm for holding accountable doctrine, etc

How does one know the final norm to hold doctrine accountable without interpreting Scripture?

Is it not obvious that although Scripture might be authoritative to the highest degree, there is an issue in that you need to interpret what it says?

To give some simpler examples, what if someone asks a Lutheran if cloning is wrong? Or if artificial insemination is wrong? Or invitro fertilization is wrong? You cannot flip to a page in the Bible that says “Though shalt not clone”, yes?

So it seems to me like Lutherans miss the point that is not enough to have the Word of God is no one seems to have a clue regarding who can interpret it correctly. All you have are different people telling their take on it. That is better than pulling things out of thin air but certainly not that great either.

In short, I think it is somewhat obvious that the Lutheran position is lacking any certainty as to what anything means. Why? Because the Bible can just be interpreted anyway with mental gymnastics. Whether the gymnastics prove acceptable or not will just depend on your predisposed preferences.

 

[SteveVH]

Where is the original SteveVH post you quoted in this response? The little blue link box doesn’t seem to take me to it. I ask because I assume there is more information or perhaps a link to what Hascard wrote. I have found “A discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed Church of England” that may be what he was referring to, but it would be nice to know for sure.

Yeah that’s kind of wierd. Looks like it was deleted. I didn’t hear anything from the mods so I don’t know what’s going on.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Just when I start believing that Anglicans and Catholics are close in belief I read that “The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians.”

Are you not aware of the difference between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture? And please tell me how “The Bible is the Tradition” was believed by any ancient Christian? Do you have any documentation of this at all?

You are new here so welcome. I don’t mean to be harsh but unless I am very wrong I do believe the Anglicans have some sense of Tradition since they must trace their roots to the Catholic Church. Am I wrong here? Anyone?

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10337044]How does one know the final norm to hold doctrine accountable without interpreting Scripture?

Is it not obvious that although Scripture might be authoritative to the highest degree, there is an issue in that you need to interpret what it says?

Have you read some of the posts I’ve offered? the Church interprets. Hermeunetics is a role of the Church, for doctrine.

To give some simpler examples, what if someone asks a Lutheran if cloning is wrong? Or if artificial insemination is wrong? Or invitro fertilization is wrong? You cannot flip to a page in the Bible that says “Though shalt not clone”, yes?

I’d refer you to the CLMS website, myself.

So it seems to me like Lutherans miss the point that is not enough to have the Word of God is no one seems to have a clue regarding who can interpret it correctly. All you have are different people telling their take on it. That is better than pulling things out of thin air but certainly not that great either.

Only if you didn’t read my earlier post.

In short, I think it is somewhat obvious that the Lutheran position is lacking any certainty as to what anything means. Why? Because the Bible can just be interpreted anyway with mental gymnastics. Whether the gymnastics prove acceptable or not will just depend on your predisposed preferences.

So, your “mental gymnastics” refers to the Magisterium? Yours only has certainty if you accept the teachings of the Magisterium, and not say, the Lutheran confessions, or the Thrity-nine Articles, or those of Eastern Orthodoxy, regardless of how you interpret the primacy of the Chair of St. Peter.
I, in fact ,respect the certainty you have in the teachings of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. ISTM that for dialogue to be effective, each must come to the table with a level of respect for the beliefs, and yes, the certainty the other holds in those beliefs.
My certainty is in the interpetation of scripture as reflected in the following: the creeds and councils of the early Church, and the Lutheran confessions. That you see no certainty in this is both obvious and not unexpected, though I respect that as well. Its just that since your posts seem to indicate a level of respect of mine that is less than mine of yours, sometimes dialogue with you is difficult, though I pray your forgiveness if that difficulty comes off as uncharitable.

Jon

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Have you read some of the posts I’ve offered? the Church interprets. Hermeunetics is a role of the Church, for doctrine.

What does that even mean? How do you make any doctrine without interpretation? Lets be frank here. Aren’t Lutherans a group of people who arbitrarily decide to construct/accept a creed, accept a group of people out of nowhere as “Church” and concepts such as “Scripture is the primary norm”? Its not like any of the claims are verifiable, yes?

Is it not true that such a theological framework might be all lies and not reflective of the truth in the first place? More importantly, is it not true that such an arbitrary construction is unworthy of assent?

I really don’t see how you have such a deep conviction that Lutherans are doing anything sensible. It seems like the whole thing is a word play. Interpretations, doctrine, creeds are all interpretations themselves from the final authority — Scripture. So unless one can say they can definitely interpret it correctly, I see no reason to think Lutheranism as a legitimate belief regarding the transcendent.

 

[billwh77]

Growing up in this world was very difficult, there was so much I could not understand. So many unexplainable patterns around the world that I could not fit into any type of framework. Accepting evolution growing up could not explain my many questions. Over 15 years of reading and researching all types of religions, delving into spiritism, meeting with wichans. I have read all the occult authors from Bailey, Pike, Crowley and many more and none provided any help. Only in the end I decided to read the bible a most difficult decision. I tried earnestly to throw out every thing in my mind that I had heard about the bible from believers and non believers. What I found was more amazing than any book I had read. It provide complete answers to what I had been seeing for years. It went straight to the heart as to speak providing the answers that could not be answered any where else concerning my own heart. It provide a complete framework concerning all the patterns I have witnessed in the governments of the world. Make no mistake I have tried to prove it wrong, tried to find errors, what I though were contradictions only ended up being my own fault in not a true having love for the truth. This is only a snip-it of why I believe the bible is the sole source of light and truth in the world.

Would been interesting for you to post the scripture that states otherwise for peer review.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Then include all the prophecies in the old testament that speak of Jesus and were fulfilled by Jesus the odds boggle the mind and how did the writers know?
2 PETER 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I am sure there are many threads like this out there but they have a million post and most are older threads. I am wanting to start a new one.

My question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

 

[CopticChristian]

Growing up in this world was very difficult, there was so much I could not understand. So many unexplainable patterns around the world that I could not fit into any type of framework. Accepting evolution growing up could not explain my many questions. Over 15 years of reading and researching all types of religions, delving into spiritism, meeting with wichans. I have read all the occult authors from Bailey, Pike, Crowley and many more and none provided any help. Only in the end I decided to read the bible a most difficult decision. I tried earnestly to throw out every thing in my mind that I had heard about the bible from believers and non believers. What I found was more amazing than any book I had read. It provide complete answers to what I had been seeing for years. It went straight to the heart as to speak providing the answers that could not be answered any where else concerning my own heart. It provide a complete framework concerning all the patterns I have witnessed in the governments of the world. Make no mistake I have tried to prove it wrong, tried to find errors, what I though were contradictions only ended up being my own fault in not a true having love for the truth. This is only a snip-it of why I believe the bible is the sole source of light and truth in the world.

Would been interesting for you to post the scripture that states otherwise for peer review.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Then include all the prophecies in the old testament that speak of Jesus and were fulfilled by Jesus the odds boggle the mind and how did the writers know?
2 PETER 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Protestant one,

So how do you prove to me that you have the word of God?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Growing up in this world was very difficult, there was so much I could not understand. So many unexplainable patterns around the world that I could not fit into any type of framework. Accepting evolution growing up could not explain my many questions. Over 15 years of reading and researching all types of religions, delving into spiritism, meeting with wichans. I have read all the occult authors from Bailey, Pike, Crowley and many more and none provided any help. Only in the end I decided to read the bible a most difficult decision. I tried earnestly to throw out every thing in my mind that I had heard about the bible from believers and non believers. What I found was more amazing than any book I had read. It provide complete answers to what I had been seeing for years. It went straight to the heart as to speak providing the answers that could not be answered any where else concerning my own heart. It provide a complete framework concerning all the patterns I have witnessed in the governments of the world. Make no mistake I have tried to prove it wrong, tried to find errors, what I though were contradictions only ended up being my own fault in not a true having love for the truth. This is only a snip-it of why I believe the bible is the sole source of light and truth in the world.

Would been interesting for you to post the scripture that states otherwise for peer review.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Then include all the prophecies in the old testament that speak of Jesus and were fulfilled by Jesus the odds boggle the mind and how did the writers know?
2 PETER 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn’t disagree with those verses. However, can you post verses that go against Sacred Tradition abd why it has no authority? We Catholics give Sacred Scripture authority but not sole authority.

 

[PRmerger]

This is only a snip-it of why I believe the bible is the sole source of light and truth in the world.

Friend, I think this is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

JESUS, not the Bible, is the sole source of light and truth in the world.

 

[PRmerger]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Amen!

Then include all the prophecies in the old testament that speak of Jesus and were fulfilled by Jesus the odds boggle the mind and how did the writers know?
2 PETER 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Again, a hearty Amen! to this!

 

[joe370]

Why do we keep beating the same dead horse over and over? As an Anglican I believe that Scripture is the final authority, but not the only authority. I regonnize Sacred Tradition as well. I am sure our Lutheran brothers will say something similar.

Well then, this question is not for you. As a former protestant I am aware of many who embrace sola scriptura.

 

[joe370]

I am sure there are many threads like this out there but they have a million post and most are older threads. I am wanting to start a new one.

My question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

I have often wondered that…The holy bible (word of God) is a collection of books, and therefore cannot be the sole authority. Books cannot interpret anything; only people can interpret books i.e. people, not books, speak authoritatively. In my experience, sola scriptura advocates will insist that they do not embrace the practice of private interpretation, all the while claiming: I do not need to defer to the authority of the church when it comes to the interpretation and discernment of the word of God. The discussion sadly, goes round and round ad nauseum.

 

[joe370]

Attejohannes;10332759]
Regarding the authority of the OT, we have Jesus’ own words (Matt 5, 17-19). We can also see int the Bible that the first Christians recognised the OT as authoritative word of God (1 Timothy, 13; 2 Timothy 15 - 17).

The Bible, and Jesus failed to mention if the deuterocanonicals should be included. How can one know who is right?

Regarding the NT, Luke specifically says that his motivation to write his Gospel was to convince Theophilos (and naturally all the readers) how reliable and accurate the (presumably) oral teaching they have received is (Luke 1, 1- 4). In other words the Scripture was put as a standard for the accuracy of the teaching.

Where did the table of contents come from? The Bible did not come with a table of contents.

Where in the Bible, does Luke tell us that the Bible is the Christians sole authority? If it is the Christians sole authority then who, according to the Bible, can speak authoritatively about the doctrines found in the Bible?

So, while we do not know everything about Jesus and apostles, we have an apostolic quarantee that all essential was written down.

Where in the Bible does the Bible tells us that “all essential was written down?” If the Bible does not tell us that “all essential was written down” then why should a sola scriptura advocate believe it?

 

[joe370]

It seems like the whole thing is a word play. Interpretations, doctrine, creeds are all interpretations themselves from the final authority — Scripture.

This was my problem as a former protestant. What I saw was, ultimately: writings interpreting writings; books speaking authoritatively about books. However, books cannot interpret books; people interpret books. Books do not speak authoritatively about books; people speak authoritatively about books.

I believe Jon would tell us that the Lutheran Church teaching office, like the Catholic Church, is responsible for speaking authoritatively.