Clarification on Sola Scriptura

[Gorgias]

This is basically my point, because any other definition of “tradition” leaves us right back at a bunch of individual interpreters shouting at each other, only this time instead of saying “no, I’m right about Scripture,” they’re saying, “no, I’m right about Scripture and tradition!”

Right. I can’t argue for what other denominations assert about authority, but I can point to the Bible and see to whom and to what extent Jesus gave it…

That is the one of the major problems I have with Catholic Theology. By that definition tradition isn’t what was taught by the apostles is it “whatever we say it is”.

But, under sola scriptura, isn’t the definition of doctrine whatever the individual interpreter of Scripture asserts “whatever I say it is”?

The church changes from the pillar and foundation of the truth (the Gospel of Christ) to the source of truth.

And, if the Church changed that truth, then I’d say you had a case. But, it hasn’t done that! (Yeah, it’s explained the meaning, but again, isn’t that what every preacher who preaches ‘sola scriptura’ does – and at that, without Scriptural authority to do so?)

The churches job is to teach and protect that truth, not make up new “truths” as it goes along.

And yet, in the New Testament itself, we see that the apostles were called upon to add to Jesus’ Gospel, and they did so! (After all, Jesus wasn’t asked the questions “must Gentiles be circumsized?”, “must Gentiles abide by kosher law?”, etc, etc… and yet, the Bible shows us that they felt that they had the authority to answer those questions!)

By that definition Tradition includes but is not limited to what was explicitly written down by the apostles.

Yep. That’s the position of the Church, alright. And… we see, not only in Scripture, but in the writings of ECFs, that this is precisely what they did!

 

[lanman87]

I had never heard of “solo scriptura” till now. Is it supposed to be a joke? It’s not a very good one.

Sorry, it is not a joke. It is the term used by traditional reformed churches to identify the theology that rejects all forms of tradition.

Here is a good definition of Sola Scirptura from Ligonier Ministries

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19).

I repeat my question: do you accept the inspiration of the Deuterocanon?

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, I know about sola scriptura. I’m asking about the non-English, non-Latin, apparently meaningless coinage “solo scriptura”.

 

[lanman87]

I repeat my question: do you accept the inspiration of the Deuterocanon?

Keep in mind the Deuterocanon was never canonized until the Council of Trent. Which was after the beginning of the reformation. Luther’s position on those books was not uncommon in the Catholic church as there had been an ongoing debate about those books for centuries.

After reading the arguments for and against the Canonization of the Dueterocannical books, I believe the Catholic church made a mistake to include them in the canon at the council of Trent.

 

[Vonsalza]

Luther’s position on those books was not uncommon in the Catholic church as there had been an ongoing debate about those books for centuries.

Oh yes. Luther wanted to cut more out, I’m assuming you’re aware?

If he had his way, your bible wouldn’t have James, Revelation, Hebrews… most of the latter half of the NT “Antilegomena”.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Keep in mind the Deuterocanon was never canonized until the Council of Trent. Which was after the beginning of the reformation. Luther’s position on those books was not uncommon in the Catholic church as there had been an ongoing debate about those books for centuries.

The Deuterocanon was listed as part of Scripture in four different Church councils, finally in Trent. There has never been a council declare it not a part.

By denying the authority of the Church in accepting the Deuterocanon in favor of your own claims for or against it, you’re not just deferring to your own judgment in interpreting Scripture; you’re giving yourself the power to define Scripture. Solo Scriptura, indeed.

 

[lanman87]

Yes, I know about sola scriptura. I’m asking about the non-English, non-Latin, apparently meaningless coinage “solo scriptura”.

It is an English term coined by Reformed Theologians for groups who abandoned all tradition. Keep in mind Sola Scriptura doesn’t abandon tradition, it just makes tradition subject to the Scriptures. If they are in conflict then scripture wins. Solo Scriptura totally abandons all tradition.

Here is the definition in the essay I linked earlier.

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura , the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of “solo” Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.

The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to “lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, what saith the Scriptures?” In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced “creed power” and argued for “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, “In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book.”

The radical American version of “solo” Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, “Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live.” Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be “consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified.” Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850) rightly observed, “the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics.”

 

[Vonsalza]

@lanman87

Luther’s NT would have been pretty light;

The gospels, Acts and good deal of Paul’s letters. That’s about it.

 

[lanman87]

The Deuterocanon was listed as part of Scripture in four different Church councils, finally in Trent. There has never been a council declare it not a part.

By denying the authority of the Church in accepting the Deuterocanon in favor of your own claims for or against it, you’re not just deferring to your own judgment in interpreting Scripture; you’re giving yourself the power to define Scripture. Solo Scriptura, indeed.

It is a historical fact that there was still an ongoing debate in the Catholic church over those books. Several attending the council of Trent opposed them being including in the canon. Those other councils were local councils without any binding authority on the entire church.

The Catholic church would have been better off letting the matter remain unsettled as it further split protestants and Catholics. There were efforts underway to reconcile the two groups and the decrees of the council of Trent further put a wedge between the groups.

 

[HopkinsReb]

It is a historical fact that there was still an ongoing debate in the Catholic church over those books. Several attending the council of Trent opposed them being including in the canon. Those other councils were local councils without any binding authority on the entire church.

The Catholic church would have been better off letting the matter remain unsettled as it further split protestants and Catholics. There were efforts underway to reconcile the two groups and the decrees of the council of Trent further put a wedge between the groups.

It is also a historical fact that the Catholic Church has repeatedly, in councils, included it in the canon of Scripture.

It is a fact that the Church is divided on the question of contraception right now. Does that mean that the Church should stop its opposition to contraception for the sake of unity?

 

[lanman87]

Luther’s NT would have been pretty light;

The gospels, Acts and good deal of Paul’s letters. That’s about it.

And yet Luther’s Bible ended up with all the New Testament books. Either he repented, changed his mind, or bowed to the historical belief of the church.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Luther’s NT would have been pretty light;

The gospels, Acts and good deal of Paul’s letters. That’s about it.

And yet Luther’s Bible ended up with all the New Testament books. Either he repented, changed his mind, or bowed to the historical belief of the church.

Neither.

Politics. The other Reformers would have made him an enemy.

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, I read that essay the first time. It doesn’t answer my question. Somebody coined the nonsense term “solo scriptura.” I suppose that unnamed person thought he was being funny. Is that what he thought?

 

[lanman87]

Yes, I read that essay the first time. It doesn’t answer my question. Somebody coined the nonsense term “solo scriptura.” I suppose that somebody thought he was being funny.

It is an attempt to differentiate between the Reformed Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and what is practiced by many Evangelicals today. Many of the Catholic arguments against “Sola Scriptura” are not arguments against the reformed position but against modern American Evangelical individualism in relation to the Scriptures.

 

[lanman87]

It is a fact that the Church is divided on the question of contraception right now. Does that mean that the Church should stop its opposition to contraception for the sake of unity?

That is up to the church. They have a right to teach whatever they want. And people have a right to accept or reject the teaching if they want. Does that mean that those Christians who believe it is okay to use contraception are not really Christians?

 

[HopkinsReb]

That is up to the church. They have a right to teach whatever they want. And people have a right to accept or reject the teaching if they want. Does that mean that those Christians who believe it is okay to use contraception are not really Christians?

It means they’re sinning. But Catholics don’t reject that Protestants are Christians, either. Point is, you don’t avoid speaking the truth to avoid angering the people who are in error.

 

[lanman87]

Neither.

Politics. The other Reformers would have made him an enemy.

Is that speculation or fact?

 

[lanman87]

Point is, you don’t avoid speaking the truth to avoid angering the people who are in error.

Well, the reformers believed (and still believe) they are speaking the truth and the Catholic church is in error. Basically you have two groups pointing fingers and each other and going “you are wrong”, “no you are wrong” and on and on…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Neither.

Politics. The other Reformers would have made him an enemy.

Is that speculation or fact?

Oh, we can always speculate about motivation.

What is known is that the Antilegomena that the Catholic Church sealed as part of the New Testament at the council of Florence (not Trent) was something he wanted to throw out and his Brothers-in-Arms were vocal about resisting him.
[Note: The Catholic Church effectively closed canon in the negative at Florence. Canon was first given by the Ancient Church in the affirmative at Carthage a few years before 400AD, if I remember correctly]

It was 100 years or so later at the Westminster Confession that they just began leaving Maccabees and others out.