Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Monte1945]

The argument of “Sola Scriptura” here seems to be taking a hard right turn in a
different direction of what the actual question should be.

The only statement of of “Sola Scriptures” is:

“Can one find the way to their Salvation and learn of the Truths of God thorugh the scriptures ALONE?”

The one side, saids, that with the Bible alone and a person’s ability to “Reason” one can
find all one needs from scripture alone in order to receive their complete salvation.

One does NOT have to rely on the traditions of the church which indicates that one
needs “Sacraments” in order to be in God’s salvation plan or system.

This was brought in through what the Reformation leaders called:

“The Age of Enlightment” (salvation through being able to reason with our own personal perception of God’s revealed Truths from reading the scriptures only.

Which seems to say for many chruches… One one is enlightened to the formula
of how to find faith and only believe one is now completely covered by the Grace of God.

“Completely” from the postion that we are sinners and our sins are now covered by the
Grace of God. We do not receive Grace nor do we need to have any Sacraments in order to get anymore… Santification is not an actual enity added to the soul of the christian life. But merely for one to have a good “witness” for the lost of the world…

Which result in the basic fundemental postion of God and me alone with just my Faith
between us… It is not necessary for anyone to have to belong to any community, nor
use any Sacraments.

There fore the main question one has to address of this subject… is:

Does one need more than what one can learn from within their “reasoning” and the scriptures “alone” in order to experience their Salvation from God?

 

[JonNC]

2 Timothy 3:16

=joe370;6256888]Hey Jon…

Jon, N2 makes a really good point, don’t you think? Who or what is the extra-scriptural authority that decided that Scripture was/is to be the Christians final authority? I cannot identify any extra-scriptural authority that did this? I can only identify the extra-scriptural authority that resolved doctrinal disputes/differences, which included the correct inclusion exclusion of the books in the holy bible.

Which authority was that, Joe? How many different canons are there in Christianity today? It seems the authority of Trent applies only to the CC, and not even to Churches that practice Scripture - Tradition as a co-equal authority.

The holy bible did not become the Christians final authority until the 16th century Protestant reformation.

I have had Catholics tell me here that nothing in Catholic teaching condradicts scripture.
Somewhere, somehow, all Catholic teaching has been measured by scripture, and the CC states that its teachings are in keeping with scripture. Correct? Or, are there teachings in the CC that contradict scripture, but Tradition states they are true, and therefore are true?

If the sin of man (as opposed to SS) - is the cause of all the division in the church, (and we agree that there was plenty of sinning in the church for the first 1000 years, yet the church still remained one and united) - then why didn’t division ensue, when men left the CC and started new churches, (with scripture alone as their final authority) - until the PR? I agree that the east - west schism in the 11th century, eventually gave way to doctrinal variances, but they are minimal. Either the EOC continues to be the church of Matthew 16, which means that the CC is wrong about these minor doctrinal variances between the 2, or it’s the other way around. I know that I mentioned this already, but certainly one of these churches could be the church of Matthew 16, guided into all truth? I am not trying to defocus from all the other PC’s, for truth can be found in these churches as well, and I am in no way saying that the Lutheran church isn’t coalescing with these 2 churches, because, like you said: some of them are. I am simply suggesting that the EOC and the CC are the only 2 churches that have Jesus Christ as their founder. Of course Jesus only found one church and His church had a parting of ways, just as the CC and the reformers had a parting of ways. I believe that the first parting of ways was significantly less damaging to Jesus’ Mystical Body for the simple fact that the CC and EOC continued to defer to sacred scripture and sacred tradition for resolving doctrinal disputes.

Joe, I’m surprised that you would say that the great schism was significantly less damaging to His Church. They both continue to defer to Scripture and Tradition and still come to conclusions that vary in a number of areas - vary enough to prevent unity for almost 1,000 years!! If Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together is necessary to lead us into all Truth, why has it not done so for 1,000 years, half of the life of the Church Militant?

They never transfered final authority to the holy bible via the interpretation of each Christian. Is the holy bible the inerrant authoritative Word of God? Absolutely! But I know one thing for sure: I wasn’t entrusted with the final authority to arbitrate, evaluate and resolve anything, regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ. Perhaps if a Christian can locate this extra-scriptural authority, then maybe the fullness of truth can be found?

SS does not necessarily grant each Christian the right to interpretation, as the Lutheran reformers warned against that, and I know I lack that authority as well.

Either the EOC or the CC is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus, or one of the many PC’s is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus, or, the catholic church, small c (all churches included, even the churches considered heretical, for no one has the authority to label them as such, if SS is the Christians final authority) - is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ - right?

This presumes an interpretation of Church as meaning an institution, or organization. The Lutheran Confessions indentify the Church as anywhere the word is preached and the sacraments properly administered. My own sense is in agreement with that part of the CCC that says that His Spirit uses all of our institutional communions in ways He sees fit to make salvation possible. Beyond that, what authority we have to label others’ teachings as heretical means far less.

Jon, can you imagine if the authority of the U.S. Constitution (the supreme law) - was transfered to each American citizen for arbitration/amendment?

Actually, the US Constitution is a great example of SS. Properly done, the Supreme Court measures all laws and actions by government against the Constitution alone. While the Court arbitrates, the Constitution is the final norm.

Jon

 

[jericho777]

The only statement of of “Sola Scriptures” is:

“Can one find the way to their Salvation and learn of the Truths of God thorugh the scriptures ALONE?”

Yes that is what Paul is telling Timothy here. 2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[JonNC]

=Monte1945;6257729]The argument of “Sola Scriptura” here seems to be taking a hard right turn in a
different direction of what the actual question should be.

Hi Monte,
By what source do you come to this conclusion? Certainly not from Catholic teaching, because the CC does not claim to practice SS. And clearly not from any Lutheran source.
And I guess since Luther is credited/blamed (not entirely true historically) for SS, shouldn’t Lutherans be the first in line to define what SS really is?

The only statement of of “Sola Scriptures” is:
“Can one find the way to their Salvation and learn of the Truths of God thorugh the scriptures ALONE?”

I make no such claim. Christ established the Church to lead me in this way. I have no access to the Eucharist, for example, except via the Church. It is the Church where I received, and continue to receive the means of Grace, through word and sacrament.

The one side, saids, that with the Bible alone and a person’s ability to “Reason” one can find all one needs from scripture alone in order to receive their complete salvation.

This is not sola scriptura!!! I absolutely will not rely on my own reasoning.

One does NOT have to rely on the traditions of the church which indicates that one needs “Sacraments” in order to be in God’s salvation plan or system.

The sacraments are only traditions of the Church?

Which seems to say for many chruches… One one is enlightened to the formula
of how to find faith and only believe one is now completely covered by the Grace of God.

How to find faith? Goodness, Monte, faith finds us, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
There is no formula that I know of. But when, by grace I come to faith, simply believing as an intellectual assent is not enough. Faith requires obedience.

“Completely” from the postion that we are sinners and our sins are now covered by the
Grace of God. We do not receive Grace nor do we need to have any Sacraments in order to get anymore… Santification is not an actual enity added to the soul of the christian life. But merely for one to have a good “witness” for the lost of the world…

A source for this, please.

There fore the main question one has to address of this subject… is:

Does one need more than what one can learn from within their “reasoning” and the scriptures “alone” in order to experience their Salvation from God?

I hope I answered your question.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

When interpreting scripture there are many factors as you have pointed out. The context and condition surrounding the original text, customs and traditions of the time and idiomatic phraseology to name a few. When one studies scripture in light of these it sharpens the meaning and can clarify any ambiguity.

You mention commentaries plural this is important because scripture being one word is not always clear or may have several valid interpretations. As you see there is no one clear thought or insight on the meaning of scripture. It is exceedingly deep in richness and meaning. On the essentials of scripture it is crystal clear as to what is necessary for salvation. Just as in the time of Jesus people were wrestling with the meaning of scripture. This is healthy.

When ever possible scripture should be used to define itself. This will minimize the effects of outside influences from tainting the original intent.

That doesn’t make any sense…how can scripture define itself? BTW, scriptural interpretation is a slightly different matter, methinks, than scripture authenticating itself as the sole authority on matters of faith i.e. that oral tradition should be excluded.

Well, Newbie, your statement required “…a quote from the bible that it is so…not a convoluted implication, but a clear statement.” Those of us who practice SS properly know that not everything is explicit. The typical verses used by us are well known.
It is, therefore, essentially in the same that Catholics (and Orthodox) use Tradition and Scripture together.
So, I’ll return the statement to you: “I’ll totally adopt, believe and propagate the notion of -]sola scriptura/-] Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium when someone shows me a quote from the bible that it is so…not a convoluted implication, but a clear statement.”

Touche’. I guess there is a big difference is the extreme SS to the exclusion of all Tradition viewpoint and the, as you put it, proper use of SS.

Obviously, there are various claims to that authority as well, since there are various canons throughout Christianity, many of whom have a canon larger than Rome. **But again, SS does not eliminate or exclude Tradition, but in fact embraces it. **Lutherans, as you know, value Tradition - the creeds, early councils, and our own Confessions. All that the practice of sola scriptura says is that Tradition, teachings and teachers, are subject to the norming of scripture.

Jon

I guess I’m addressing the more extreme SS viewpoint that excludes all Tradition…which if “sola” is taken literally, does exclude Tradition.

 

[JonNC]

Yes that is what Paul is telling Timothy here. 2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

You are welcome to believe this, but don’t claim it as sola scriptura, because this is not the practice or the intent of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Newbie2;6257802]
Touche’. I guess there is a big difference is the extreme SS to the exclusion of all Tradition viewpoint and the, as you put it, proper use of SS.

I guess I’m addressing the more extreme SS viewpoint that excludes all Tradition…which if “sola” is taken literally, does exclude Tradition.

Hi N2,
Don’t know if you’ve seen this before, but it is worth a read.
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Hi N2,
Don’t know if you’ve seen this before, but it is worth a read.
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

Thanks, Jon. I’ll take a gander at it later today; work calls.

 

[jlhargus]

The problem arises when the teaching we are examining has been put forward by the Catholic Church. It makes little sense to use the Catholic Church to determine what is good when it is the source of what is being examined. The Catholic Church puts forward that its teachings with respect to faith and morals are infallible. How do we examine this to see if it is true? You can say that Jesus promised it but to determine that He actually did promise it you would need to make a private interpretation of the evidence put forward. It is not enough that the Church says so because that is pulling itself up by its own boot straps.

JL: Sy, how do you examine any doctrine of your faith group and accept it as truth? The Catholic Church must be in agreement with Traditions whether by word and epistle…

The Orthodox Church holds ecumenical councils as infallible. We can see in the first Church council in [Act15:28 For it seemed good TO THE HOLY GHOST, AND to US, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;] They knew they were speaking for God, when speaking as one SENT body on matters of faith and moral. Acts15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, THAT CERTAIN which WENT OUT FROM US have troubled you with words, SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT:] The problem arose because of false teachers, those not SENT or authorithized by the Chruch. Teaching their own opinions.

My understanding the Orthodox have not held an ecumenical council, since the split in 1054, because the Church is not in complete unity, therefore cannot define infallibly. In my opinion that’s why they have not developed their understanding of many doctrines as the Catholic Church.

The way we can tell, if it is a false prophet, would be the contradictions to Traditions by word and epistle. Such as same sex marriage, abortion, etc… We can see even today many people docilely accept those teachings, from their own denominations. Although they are in total contradiction to scripture and the constant lived out teaching of their own denomination. As all Christian faith groups over a hundred years old have constantly taught form their beginning.

To accept that the Catholic Church is right because it says so is dangerous particularly as the claimed infallibility can be wielded by one man. I would never say that any Pope has been the anti-Christ but that does not guarantee that this could not happen in the future. If the Catholic Church is wrong in its claims, what more could the anti-Christ ask for than a Church whose members are required to accept his every teaching on his say so alone?

JL: I read a THEORY some years ago. Not anti-Christ, but his false prophet, thru deception will be invalidly elected pope and be in control of the Vatican. A third of the Church, bishops and people, will follow him. If a validly elected pope could be this false prophet, then Christ’s promises that Peter’s faith would NEVER fail once he was converted and the gates of Hades would NOT prevail against the Church, along with other promises, would be false and useless promises.

 

[jericho777]

That doesn’t make any sense…how can scripture define itself? BTW, scriptural interpretation is a slightly different matter, methinks, than scripture authenticating itself as the sole authority on matters of faith i.e. that oral tradition should be excluded.

.

That’s the point when scripture says one thing and tradition says another I believe scripture and you believe tradition.

 

[jlhargus]

When driving do you stop at a stop sign? Or only do people authorized to interpret what the sign says stop at the sign? In court may I present the defense that there was no authorized interpreter positioned at the stop sign? Would my defense hold up in court?This is incorrect.

JL: There IS an authorized interpreter of road signs and you are required to know that interpretation BEFORE you are authorized to drive. The State is the interpreter. For instance, if you come to a stop sign and interpret for yourself, I see no traffic coming, I will not come to a full stop. You are not following the correct interpretation as intended by the State, are you? The State’s interpretation, you must come to a complete stop. What would it be like if everyone interpreted signs on their own authority? Chaos, just as sola scriptura produces chaos. It would eventually render respect for the signs unimportant and unreliable, as an authority, as everyone interprets as they see fit.

 

[jlhargus]

That’s the point when scripture says one thing and tradition says another I believe scripture and you believe tradition.

JL: Scripture and Tradition MUST always be in agreement.

 

[jericho777]

You are welcome to believe this, but don’t claim it as sola scriptura, because this is not the practice or the intent of sola scriptura.

Jon

This is an answer to the question can salvation be found in scripture alone. No other external sources. Paul is confirming this point.

 

[jericho777]

JL: Scripture and Tradition MUST always be in agreement.

Scripture should define tradition.

 

[JonNC]

This is an answer to the question can salvation be found in scripture alone. No other external sources. Paul is confirming this point.

See, I’m not sure what you mean here. Earlier you wrote: "Yes that is what Paul is telling Timothy here. 2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Both statements seem to ignore Grace. Are you saying that by reading scripture and increasing our wisdom, that this is how we gain faith? IOW, is it our efforts - reading and studying scripture - that brings us to salvation through faith in Christ?

This just sounds Pelagian to me, but I may be simply misunderstanding.
Jon

 

[Newbie2]

That’s the point when scripture says one thing and tradition says another I believe scripture and you believe tradition.

Can you give an example of this?

BTW, we Catholics distinguish between tradition and Tradition, the little t tradtions being things like genuflecting and crossing ourselves and the big T things are dogmatic and doctrinal. I assume you mean big T Tradition, correct me if I’m mistaken.

 

[ncgolf]

Actually, the US Constitution is a great example of SS. Properly done, the Supreme Court measures all laws and actions by government against the Constitution alone. While the Court arbitrates, the Constitution is the final norm.

Jon

The Court is the living transmission of the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The Court is what we Catholics call Tradition. What other body has the authority to rule on the norm and to make it binding. How do you think the filling of the Canon occured.

We as citizens can discuss, argue, whatever on what the Constitution means but only one body has the authority to make it so.

 

[jericho777]

See, I’m not sure what you mean here. Earlier you wrote: “Yes that is what Paul is telling Timothy here. 2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
Both statements seem to ignore Grace. Are you saying that by reading scripture and increasing our wisdom, that this is how we gain faith? IOW, is it our efforts - reading and studying scripture - that brings us to salvation through faith in Christ?

This just sounds Pelagian to me, but I may be simply misunderstanding.
Jon

Someone had made the statement you could not find salvation or know who God was by reading scripture. Implying you would have someone presumably tell you or explain for you to know salvation.

Obviously the Holy Spirit must enlighten the believer and impart grace to be able to believe.

Reading and studying scripture reveals who God is and what His will is for us. Just reading scripture will not save anyone.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Court is the living transmission of the intent of the authors of the Constitution. The Court is what we Catholics call Tradition. What other body has the authority to rule on the norm and to make it binding. How do you think the filling of the Canon occured.

We as citizens can discuss, argue, whatever on what the Constitution means but only one body has the authority to make it so.

The Rule of Law is embraced in the USA. It means that ALL are accountable, and that the rule/canon for such is the Law - objective, written, knowable by all, alterable by none, embraced by all as normative.

The Supreme Court – specifically authorized by the Law - is to arbitrate according to the Rule of Law. I agree that often it has acted too much like the modern Catholic Church; we call these judges “liberal, activist judges.” That they could argue that THE CONSTITUTION mandates abortion-on-demand is but one example, but even here, it has agreed that it is subject to the law and must arbitrate according to the Rule of Law.

Protestants often compare the Rule of Scripture with the Rule of Law. It helps in understanding a very important aspect of epistemology and an essential part of norming - WHAT is embraced as or serves as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is technically called in epistemology. But the analogy has its limits. For example, our laws are errant - Scripture is not. Our laws are constantly changing - Scripture is not. But the function (which is the entire issue in Sola Scriptura) is largely the same.

While the RULE of Scripture is infallible, no one is suggesting that the ARBITRATION according to it is. Just as the Supreme Court can rule wrongly, so that can happen among Christians. But as I look at the true ecumenical councils (the last held some 1200 years ago), I’m stunned (I mean that!) by the wisdom of such. I wouldn’t exactly call them infallible (that would mean they are unaccountable and equal to God) but profoundly wise - often.

In discussing with The Catholic Church - the “problem” is it rejects accountablity - by any rule/canon. We don’t agree on the most sound rule/canon for this (we embrace Scripture for this - the words on the page), The Catholic Church rejects that. We embrace accountability for all teachers, The Catholic Church inists on exempting ONE: itself. Insisting that just ONE teacher be exempt from all this and simply be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking (itself, exclusively). With Protestants, the issue is different. We tend to agree that Scripture is the most sound Rule, but we have no agreed upon arbitration. Lutherans lament BOTH of these situations. But sadly, the present milaeu - supersaturated by pride, individualism, institutionalism/denominationalism - just doesn’t lend itself to much progress here. IMHO, we need to re-embrace the concept that the church is US and that teachers are accountable - recapture a sense of HUMILITY, COMMUNITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. And Christians today have a LOT of work to do in these matters. If you doubt it, read The Catholic Catechism # 87. And this work is made a LOT more difficult because we also need to avoid relativism and minimalism. Perhaps, in my lifetime, progress can be made. Frankly, I doubt it - but I’ll WORK toward that nonetheless.

Pax

.

 

[jericho777]

Can you give an example of this?

BTW, we Catholics distinguish between tradition and Tradition, the little t tradtions being things like genuflecting and crossing ourselves and the big T things are dogmatic and doctrinal. I assume you mean big T Tradition, correct me if I’m mistaken.

If a dogma or doctrine was not necessary for salvation in the first century why should it be necessary now? Does this violate scripture?