Defense of Sola Scriptura

[ntisawesome]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

If it is Fundamentalists that you seek look up David Hunt, MacArthur, John Piper and James White. Keep in mind however that Sola Scriptura means different things to different Christians and plays itself out differently. For instance SS plays out far differently within the Lutheran Church than it does in Baptists churches. Even among the four names that I gave you I am sure that there are differences in beliefs with regards to SS.

God bless you

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

If it is Fundamentalists that you seek look up David Hunt, MacArthur, John Piper and James White. Keep in mind however that Sola Scriptura means different things to different Christians and plays itself out differently. For instance SS plays out far differently within the Lutheran Church than it does in Baptists churches. Even among the four names that I gave you I am sure that there are differences in beliefs with regards to SS. [emphasis mine]

The grand difference between Dave Hunt and men like MacArthur or White is that Hunt subscribes to what some have called solo scriptura - or “only scripture” or “scripture isolated.” The true definition of sola scriptura can include history, tradition, patristics, etc., all of which MacArthur, White and others have at least some grasp on (MacArthur’s books Charismatic Chaos and The Truth War are full of elements from ancient Church history and the lives of the Fathers, including their struggle against the early heresies).

A good book on this topic - even if you disagree with it - is James White’s Scripture Alone. I don’t always agree with White, but like I said it’s a good book to read if you want to understand the teaching of sola scriptura in an easy-to-read manner while avoiding the rhetoric tossing of men like Hunt.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The grand difference between Dave Hunt and men like MacArthur or White is that Hunt subscribes to what some have called solo scriptura - or “only scripture” or “scripture isolated.” The true definition of sola scriptura can include history, tradition, patristics, etc., all of which MacArthur, White and others have at least some grasp on (MacArthur’s books Charismatic Chaos and The Truth War are full of elements from ancient Church history and the lives of the Fathers, including their struggle against the early heresies).

A good book on this topic - even if you disagree with it - is James White’s Scripture Alone. I don’t always agree with White, but like I said it’s a good book to read if you want to understand the teaching of sola scriptura in an easy-to-read manner while avoiding the rhetoric tossing of men like Hunt.

Thanks. I was pretty sure that there would be differences I just didn’t want to take the time on their websites comparing and contrasting

I may be incorrect but I believe Hunt still calls it Sola Scriptura even though it may be more along the lines of Solo Scriptura. This is why I said that Sola Scriptura is different and plays out differently depending on the Christian.

God bless

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I may be incorrect but I believe Hunt still calls it Sola Scriptura even though it may be more along the lines of Solo Scriptura. This is why I said that Sola Scriptura is different and plays out differently depending on the Christian.

God bless

Oh indeed, he calls it sola scriptura himself…but then again, Mormons call themselves Christians. The heart of his understanding of the doctrine is, like we said, solo scriptura, or the Bible and nothing else. Hunt has criticized the Orthodox and Catholic Churches for their traditions, and his associate T.A. McMahon has even attacked Protestants who look to the Church Fathers for research or guidance.

It’s sort of like how some Evangelical groups distort the definition of sola fide to mean what I nicknamed “solo fide,” which belongs to the “say the sinner’s prayer and bam! you’re saved for life” school of theology. That wasn’t what Luther and the other Reformers meant, and most rational Protestant sects are aware of this.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Oh indeed, he calls it sola scriptura himself…but then again, Mormons call themselves Christians. The heart of his understanding of the doctrine is, like we said, solo scriptura, or the Bible and nothing else. Hunt has criticized the Orthodox and Catholic Churches for their traditions, and his associate T.A. McMahon has even attacked Protestants who look to the Church Fathers for research or guidance.

That’s the problem with there being no universally accepted definition of what the term means or implies. For instance the Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura I would say (and this isn’t saying much) is much more along the lines of Prima Scriptura… then again that is my understanding of PS. Another term with no universally accepted definition.

God bless

 

[kms123]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

There is reference to Fundamentalist views if this helps.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I would disagree that sola scriptura has no “universally accepted definition” any more than there is no “universally accepted definition” for what the meaning of “the Church” is (a major topic between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants, sometimes even amongst the various Protestant sects themselves). Sola scriptura has a definition outlined and practiced among the early Reformers and well beyond them, but it has been distorted, especially recently with the rise of easy believism and false individualism.

However, a distorted definition does not mean that no distinct definition exists.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I would disagree that sola scriptura has no “universally accepted definition” any more than there is no “universally accepted definition” for what the meaning of “the Church” is (a major topic between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants, sometimes even amongst the various Protestant sects themselves). Sola scriptura has a definition outlined and practiced among the early Reformers and well beyond them, but it has been distorted, especially recently with the rise of easy believism and false individualism.

However, a distorted definition does not mean that no distinct definition exists.

What is the universally accepted definition of SS?

God bless

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

What is the universally accepted definition of SS?

Sola scriptura defines the scripture as our authority. It entails the supremacy of scripture, but again this must not be misunderstood (as it is often stereotyped) as meaning scripture by itself or scripture isolated - it acknowledges language, ancient culture, history and anything else that might affect our interpretation of scripture. It simply highlights the role of scripture above everything else as self-sufficient, as it comes almost literally from God Himself.

Here is how James White outlined sola scriptura in a debate with Patrick Madrid:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. (link)

 

[Reuben_J]

Here is how James White outlined sola scriptura in a debate with Patrick Madrid:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. (link)

I am sure Patrick Madrid has much more to say to counter this but for me Sola Scriptura cannot be defended simply because it was never meant to be that way in the beginning. Beside, who has the authority to interpret Scripture? In Catholicism that is obvious but not so with the various denominations.

Even the present doctrines of Christianity cannot be solely explained by the Bible alone; in many cases one needs to interpolate to justify them. Again it depends on the interpretation and implication of the Scripture, which brings us back to a square one – who has the authority to interpret it?

Sola Scriptura is surely an innovation of latter development in Christianity. Our ECFs did not have this. Besides, SS implies that the Church that Jesus left behind could not sustain that one has to depend on the Scripture alone. This in itself is against the Scripture.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Then there are the focus of the interpretation some ,like myself, focus on the Four Gospels that covered the life of Jesus as principle over the other books of the NT which were made by the Apostles. Noting that they may have applied their own biases and foibles into the mix making them lesser than the Four Gospels. Not that they are not important they are Apostles after all but not Jesus Himself, who we are to emulate.

For example if there is a conflict on a subject say women in ministry as pastorals (priests, pastors, heads of churches) Jesus never really said anything for or against it. But did always teach all were equal before God so it would make sense that women could be Called to serve in such roles to me. Others would naturally refer to Apostles for additional considerations which I consider lesser sources since cultural biases clearly were at play.

So how its applied is determined by what books one considers canon and which ones historical or supportive of a secondary nature.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

For the record, I do not necessarily agree with sola scriptura - merely believe positions should be presented accurately

I am sure Patrick Madrid has much more to say to counter this but for me Sola Scriptura cannot be defended simply because it was never meant to be that way in the beginning. Beside, who has the authority to interpret Scripture? In Catholicism that is obvious but not so with the various denominations.

Even the present doctrines of Christianity cannot be solely explained by the Bible alone; in many cases one needs to interpolate to justify them. Again it depends on the interpretation and implication of the Scripture, which brings us back to a square one – who has the authority to interpret it?

That is a hefty point. Protestant scholars often argue that scripture speaks for itself and sound exegesis can guide us to the right interpretation…then why are there so many different interpretations? The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism within Protestantism is one such example - both sides would argue vehemently that both have a “biblical” understanding of salvation.

Sola Scriptura is surely an innovation of latter development in Christianity. Our ECFs did not have this. Besides, SS implies that the Church that Jesus left behind could not sustain that one has to depend on the Scripture alone. This in itself is against the Scripture.

Thomas More actually makes an argument similar to that in his book Dialogue Concerning Heresies. A student makes the case that some people argue when Christ said, “I will be with you always,” He meant in scripture. More points out that most of what was later considered the New Testament didn’t come until some 20+ years after the Ascension - some books even 70 years later. Christ clearly says He will be with them always - not a few decades later.

 

[Cominghome89]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

I do not mean to push you, but I think you are catching on to something that has been the cause of many very intelligent Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians converting to the Catholic Church. There is only one Church that has an answer to every question

May I suggest you read anything written by Steven Ray or Scott Hahn? They are brilliant men and extremely well-versed in scripture.

God bless you on your faith journey, my friend.

Peace and blessings,
Frank

 

[ntisawesome]

Here is how James White outlined sola scriptura in a debate with Patrick Madrid:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. (link)

Any references to where he justifies that “The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.” ? That would be a pretty important premise in his argument.

I do not mean to push you, but I think you are catching on to something that has been the cause of many very intelligent Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians converting to the Catholic Church. There is only one Church that has an answer to every question

I don’t think you’re pushing. I’m believing that last line more and more every day.

 

[Cominghome89]

God bless you, I will certainly keep you in my prayers! I’m always praying for converts from other denominations. When Steven Ray converted from an evangelical baptist church to the Catholic faith, he compared the experience to a Jew finding Jesus their Messiah and becoming a fulfilled Jew. He felt like He had finally found Christ’s Church and become a fulfilled Christian. Him and Scott Hahn, like I said, are truly incredible and knowledgeable testimonies.

Peace and blessings,
Frank

 

[2nd_Adam]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

Here is a defense of sola scriptura. You will find that the Catholic view to be challenged unlike your RCIA class.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=403814

 

[ralphinal]

Ya’ll sit down for this now, and read it twice before you post.

Sola Scriptura is true under one and only one condition. In order for it to be true, both the reader of the Scripture and those who listen must, MUST be 100% guided by the Holy Spirit and MUST NOT allow their sinful nature or just plain human carelessness to corrupt the message.

If this is not the case, then we need the PILLAR and BULWARK of the TRUTH who was PROMISED to have the HOLY SPIRIT guide them to ALL TRUTH to help us understand.

Otherwise, you will have more than one person telling you what the Bible says, and they will not agree. Naturally, since all Protestant denominations agree on everything, Sola Scriptura is true and practicle.

 

[rein_me_in_Lord]

“Here is a defense of sola scriptura. You will find that the Catholic view to be challenged unlike your RCIA class”

Yes, but there was no Bible in the early Church; teaching was by word of mouth from the Apostles and passed down from there orally. The Canon of Scripture only recognized much later. Help us out here, 2ndAdam.

 

[Cominghome89]

The one tried and true scripture verse that doesn’t seem to have an answer within Sola Scriptura Christians (all you Catholics who engage in apologetics should have this memorized ) 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The letters of the apostles are certainly the Bible. The oral statements that we must hold fast to are…whatever our pastor says? Not quite. This is a disciple speaking guided by the Holy Spirit. The only oral statements that can be traced back to first Christians are none other than the teaching of the Catholic Church.

If any Protestant would like to comment on this verse, I would be very interested to hear.

Peace and blessings,
Frank