Does Sola Scriptura even exist?

[Atreyu]

As it can be so difficult to define a definitive definition* of sola scriptura, I will borrow Wikipedia’s. Here it is:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicacious) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.
In this thread I would like to focus on the last part of the definition, that Scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine”.

My question is, does this exist? Is there a Church out there, or even a single person, that uses the Scriptures themselves and nothing else? More importantly, is it possible to derive doctrine from the Scriptures apart from tradition - any tradition?

My contention is that it is not possible to do this, and hence sola scriptura doesn’t even exist. Can someone prove me wrong?

*Alliteration perhaps?!

 

[Syele]

Sola Scriptura was ment to be included in an argument that contradicts “sola” anyhow… there were 5 solas (How can there be only one if there are 5?) The 5 were not ment to be considered apart from one another. The word sola was meaning “This” without “that”, not “this” without “anything else ever”.

To Argue it you have to look at what the points were created for to begin with. IF you seperate them (as they weren’t intented to be) you can search online and find tons of varying definitions some will contradict one another. If you just want to seperate that one you found and debate it alone with someone who follows it… Well good luck with that.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sola Scriptura was ment to be included in an argument that contradicts “sola” anyhow… there were 5 solas (How can there be only one if there are 5?) The 5 were not ment to be considered apart from one another. The word sola was meaning “This” without “that”, not “this” without “anything else ever”.

To Argue it you have to look at what the points were created for to begin with. IF you seperate them (as they weren’t intented to be) you can search online and find tons of varying definitions some will contradict one another. If you just want to seperate that one you found and debate it alone with someone who follows it… Well good luck with that.

Then why bother saying Sola Anything?

If what you’re claming is true, then this confirms what Atreyu has stated rather well in my opinion.

In other words, as I said elsewhere, if Sola Scriptura requires all these things, then it’s not really Sola Scriptura at all. It’s various interpretations of the Scriptures masquerading as a self-evident truth by whoever claims to have the proper interpretation, an attempt by others to do their utmost to avoid the usage of the term Sacred Tradition.

 

[Syele]

also from wikkipedia:

In Thesis one (Sola Scriptura), the text asserts We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience. While this has a universal application, it is specifically aimed at the Roman Catholic church and its insistence that Scripture is to be interpreted by the church’s instutitions and historical councils, and of the Pope’s authority.

The point of Scripture alone was not necessarily to deny that we need any help in interpreting the Bible and that all traditions should be removed but** to deny that anything/anyone has more authority than the scriptures.** If you say someone or something has more power than the scriptures themselves then you violate sola scriptura. I may use tradition or commentaries or other sources to help me understand scripture, However I do so with the understanding that those sources as well as my ability are falliable while the scriptures themselves are not.

 

[Syele]

Then why bother saying Sola Anything?

I simply use the terms as they have come into being by others. I didn’t write the Canbridge declaration. I only read it. It is not for me to choose the terminology.

If what you’re claming is true, then this confirms what Atreyu has stated rather well in my opinion.

In other words, as I said elsewhere, if Sola Scriptura requires all these things, then it’s not really Sola Scriptura at all. It’s various interpretations of the Scriptures masquerading as a self-evident truth by whoever claims to have the proper interpretation, an attempt by others to do their utmost to avoid the usage of the term Sacred Tradition.

The point is that you should argue against the Cambridge declaration as a whole and ignore the various people who made up their own variations on it or at least pick a definition and go with arguing that one. Just remember that when you take a variant one, it’s not necessarily one that any mainstream group actually believes.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

also from wikkipedia:

The point of Scripture alone was not necessarily to deny that we need any help in interpreting the Bible and that all traditions should be removed but** to deny that anything/anyone has more authority than the scriptures.** If you say someone or something has more power than the scriptures themselves then you violate sola scriptura. I may use tradition or commentaries or other sources to help me understand scripture, However I do so with the understanding that those sources as well as my ability are falliable while the scriptures themselves are not.

Where do the Scriptures state that the Scriptures are the most authoritative source of revealing God’s will?

 

[simbagizmo]

As it can be so difficult to define a definitive definition* of sola scriptura, I will borrow Wikipedia’s. Here it is:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicacious) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.
In this thread I would like to focus on the last part of the definition, that Scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine”.

My question is, does this exist? Is there a Church out there, or even a single person, that uses the Scriptures themselves and nothing else? More importantly, is it possible to derive doctrine from the Scriptures apart from tradition - any tradition?

My contention is that it is not possible to do this, and hence sola scriptura doesn’t even exist. Can someone prove me wrong?

*Alliteration perhaps?!

I do not know if one could prove you wrong, since I would assume, like most, you have already made up your mind, but let me ask one question.

Who is the final authority on doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness?

 

[Syele]

Where do the Scriptures state that the Scriptures are the most authoritative source of revealing God’s will?

If the Bible is not the most authoritative source, why should I bother citing it at all?

 

[jmcrae]

I do not know if one could prove you wrong, since I would assume, like most, you have already made up your mind, but let me ask one question.

Who is the final authority on doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness?

According to St. Paul, the Scriptures (in his case, the 46-book Old Testament) are useful for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness - but he places the Church in authority over both the written word and the oral tradition. (II Thessalonians 2:14; II Thessalonians 3:6) - and we see that Jesus made no commandment to write a book, but rather, He established a Church, and gave His Church authority to settle disputes of every kind. (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17)

 

[Syele]

Where do the Scriptures state that the Scriptures are the most authoritative source of revealing God’s will?

quote=Steve Hays Even on its own terms, the Roman Church has failed to offer a coherent alternative inasmuch as the concept of tradition has become a plaything in the hands of the Magisterium. What is meant by sacred tradition? Is it oral tradition? Early tradition? The consent of the Fathers? The consent of the Doctors? The consent of the faithful? The charism of the Magisterium? The concept has mutated from being a body of unwritten instructions that Christ committed to the Apostles to a “process of living Tradition.” This is not a natural evolutionary continuum, but rather a revolutionary break with the original point.
Just consider the historical revisionism of Ratzinger: “Before Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative… ’Tradition’ was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner,
the patrologist from Würzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the ‘apostolic tradition.’ And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand ‘tradition’ strictly as the handling down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of ‘tradition’ as a living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent ‘remembering’ (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet w as handed down in the original Word,” Milestones (Ignatius, 1998), 58-59. Aside from reversing the traditional basis of Catholic apologetics, hindsight presupposes a sighting; absent historical documentation, there is nothing to remember and reflect on.

Such a ductile definition, which resembles the house that Jack built, may save appearances, but the reluctance to stake out a firm position means that your position never takes the shape of an identifiable alternative. And so it doesn’t challenge people to believe otherwise.
(ii) It is instructive to observe how even Leo XIII must fall back on the Protestant rule of faith in order to establish the Magisterium:
Since the divine and infallible Magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the Divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors," The Papal Encyclicals (Perian 1990), 2:333b.
(iii) The principle of sola scriptura is implicit in the finality of the canon. There is always more that could be said. Scripture itself concedes this possibility (cf. Jn 20:30-31; 21:25; Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9; Heb 9:5b). In that respect there is never any absolutely natural cut-off point. But for that selfsame reason, a somewhat arbitrary line has to be drawn, for a complete record would be completely unmanageable. To admit an element of arbitrariness here is not to say that it’s unreasonable or unnecessary. The point is not to say everything, but to say enough.

Scripture is the necessary and sufficient source of saving knowledge (2 Tim 3:15-17). Not only is further information gratuitous, but Paul expressly warns the Church not to go beyond what is written—employing a stock citation formula for Scripture (1 Cor 4:6). This is, of course, pegged to progressive revelation, but the canon is closed.

The very fact that, unlike some other religions and cults, Christianity does not have an open canon implies that ongoing revelation or its functional equivalent (the Magisterium) is both unnecessary and presumptuous. God himself drew the boundaries by withholding further revelation.
(iv) It should go without saying that sola scriptura is mainly a norm for the readers of Scripture and not the writers of Scripture. An inspired author doesn’t have to appeal to Scripture in order to advance a claim since his own words enjoy canonical authority. This is where Scripture comes from. He is making up inspired Scripture as he goes along. Again, it is obviously anachronistic to expect that a NT writer would make systematic appeal to the NT. When, therefore, it is asked, Where does Scripture teach sola scriptura?—we have to keep these elementary distinctions in mind. What is remarkable is how often the sacred authors do invoke prior revelation, even though they could speak on their own authority. In so doing they are conditioning the reader to honor the principle of sola Scriptura.

[/quote]

Continued…

 

[Syele]

(v) Loyalty to God’s revealed will, and not tradition, is always made the acid test of religious fidelity in sacred history. As John Frame has remarked, after copious citation, “The whole OT history is a history of obedience and disobedience: obedience and disobedience to what? To God’s commands; and after Exod 20, to God’s written word!” (“Scripture Speaks for Itself,” God’s Inerrant Word, J.W. Montgomery, ed. [Bethany, 1974], 199). Some of its contents originally took the form of oral address, but that doesn’t amount to oral tradition since the practice was to immediately commit such disclosures to writing (e.g. Exod 17:14; 24:3-4; Deut 33:9,22,24-28; Josh 24:26; 1 Sam 20:25; Rev 1:11,19; 21:5).
(vi) Since so much of Christian doctrine consists in truths that are far removed from us in time and space—from events in the distant past or future, the invisible present (E.g. spiritual warfare; the intermediate state), and God’s delitescent decree, to the afterlife and age to come—our only access to such information is via a public revelation. So the principle of sola scriptura is also rooted in the principle of a revealed religion.

(vii) The burden of proof doesn’t rest on the Protestant. All the major branches of Christendom—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant—at least pay lip-service to the supreme authority of Scripture. And they all formally deny the continuance of revelation—at least of the canonical variety. That being the case, the Protestant doesn’t even have to show where Scripture itself expressly or implicitly rules out such a role for sacred tradition. It is sufficient for him to show that, as a matter of inevitable practice, this appeal interferes with the authority and authentic interpretation of Scripture. It subordinates the voice of Scripture to the voice of tradition.

One should add that the antiquity of tradition is no evidence of apostolicity, for orthodoxy and heresy coexisted in the apostolic churches. The bulk of the NT correspondence was addressed to doctrinal and disciplinary crises that arose in Apostolic sees. So even if we could trace a tradition all the way back to Apostolic times, or to an Apostolic See, no less, that wouldn’t be the same as tracing it back to Apostolic teaching, for as soon as an Apostle was away from one church to minister to another, error could quickly flare up in his absence. This lies on the face of many NT letters. So it is quite blind to contend that the antiquity of tradition carries any presumption in favor of its apostolic pedigree. By that measure, Simon Magus was a greater champion of orthodoxy than Athanasius!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If the Bible is not the most authoritative source, why should I bother citing it at all?

Because the Scriptures do speak authoritatively on many things. But without the proper Spirit led exegesis of what the Scriptures mean, they can be dangerously misunderstood.

This is to say, the Scriptures do have authority to bind the conscience-- but not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, notwithstanding their God-breathed nature, they do not contain a complete and autonomous authority which interprets itself for us.

More to the point, the Scriptures are not a self-contained reality which is self-evident to all who read the Biblical record. The fact that there are many denominations which claim some form of Sola Scriptura (and yet disagree amongst each strongly) renders the claim that the Scriptures hold the only reliable authority moot.

Without the Living Witness of the Church as ultimately guided by the Holy, an unguided reading of the Scriptures can be extremely dangerous and very hard to understand. History has demonstrated this over and over again over the last two-thousand years.

And even Peter during the apostolic age admits that some ignorant and unstable people were distorting the meaning of Paul’s words, as they did the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This does not bode well for any reasonable discussion of Sola Scriptura in my opinion. And it strongly indicates that some teaching authority must have been conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the apostles in order to avoid these dangerous teachings.

 

[rr1213]

In this thread I would like to focus on the last part of the definition, that Scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine”.

My question is, does this exist? Is there a Church out there, or even a single person, that uses the Scriptures themselves and nothing else? More importantly, is it possible to derive doctrine from the Scriptures apart from tradition - any tradition?

My contention is that it is not possible to do this, and hence sola scriptura doesn’t even exist. Can someone prove me wrong?

Everyone interprets Scripture, even advocates of sola scriptura. To interpret Scripture is not an abandonment of sola scriptura. As in the interpretation of any document, if the words are unambiguous little interpretation is needed. If ambiguity exists, then knowledge of context, history, language, etc. can help a reader to discern the meaning intended by the author. As Christians we believe that our interpretations should be guided by the Holy Spirit. A good reference source by learned biblical scholars also helps. I doubt that you will find many Protestants who have a problem with this approach to reading scripture. Or Catholics for that matter, although I suppose the first place they would turn on an ambiguous passage would be to the CCC or other authoritative teaching of the Church.

With that as background, let me focus more directly on the question you ask, “is it possible to derive doctrine apart from tradition?” As Protestants, we believe that doctrine should be based on Scripture because Scripture is the written word of God. Were there other “words” given orally to the Church? Of course, this can be gleaned from Scripture itself. The real issue is to what extent, if any, does this oral tradition differ from the written Scripture. I suspect that Catholics would contend that oral tradition does not in any way contradict written Scripture but, in certain cases, expands upon or supplements the written tradition. That’s the rub. In the eyes of Protestants, the further Catholics go in reliance on the oral word or teaching, the further you seem to depart from the written word.

In the secular world, a good example of this is the development of the common law, law created by the courts through case decisions and precedent and not by the legislature. Or, in the USA, Constitutional law. Look at the Constitution and tell me where you find the unbridled right of a mother to abort her unborn child? You will not find that, yet by departing from the written words of the Constitution our Supreme Court has made that the law of the land. Without debating the merits of these doctrines or dogmas, theological examples from the Protestant perspective of this phenomena would be many of the Marian doctrines such as the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and the assumption. We both know that you can cite Scriptural passages in a building block approach to substantiate these doctrines. But it is a block by block process. You cannot point to explicit passages in the bible which unambiguously establish these doctrines.

So, Protestants believe that the Bible contains everything that is necessary to our salvation from the standpoint of doctrine. If it is important, God ensured that it was written down in Scripture. Traditions that exist apart from Scripture, or cannot reasonably be proven by reasoning directly from Scripture, cannot be binding. It may be correct, it may be wrong. It may be worth doing, maybe it should be avoided. But it is not required.

A good statement of this principal from the Anglican perspective is set forth in the language quoted below from the 39 Articles. Similar passages are also found in the Westminster Confession (Calvinists and Presbyterians) and the Augsburg Confession (Lutherans). The Anglican passage reads:

**"VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."**

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

Maybe this will help you understand where we are coming from a bit better.

 

[simbagizmo]

According to St. Paul, the Scriptures (in his case, the 46-book Old Testament) are useful for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness - but he places the Church in authority over both the written word and the oral tradition. (II Thessalonians 2:14; II Thessalonians 3:6) - and we see that Jesus made no commandment to write a book, but rather, He established a Church, and gave His Church authority to settle disputes of every kind. (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17)

Yes, and under inspiration and direction of the Spirit, the Gospel and traditions taught were written down formed into the New Testament of Scripture. And the Church is suppose to discipline (Matthew 18:17). But under what authority is used by the church to show the person his sin?

 

[lak611]

Sola Scriptura was ment to be included in an argument that contradicts “sola” anyhow… there were 5 solas (How can there be only one if there are 5?) The 5 were not ment to be considered apart from one another. The word sola was meaning “This” without “that”, not “this” without “anything else ever”.

What are the 5 solas?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I simply use the terms as they have come into being by others. I didn’t write the Canbridge declaration. I only read it. It is not for me to choose the terminology.

Then that means you’re carrying on a Cambridge tradition which is not expressly written with the Scriptures.

Right?

Syele:

The point is that you should argue against the Cambridge declaration as a whole and ignore the various people who made up their own variations on it or at least pick a definition and go with arguing that one. Just remember that when you take a variant one, it’s not necessarily one that any mainstream group actually believes.

Can you show me where the Cambridge declaration can be found within the Scriptures?

 

[Syele]

Because the Scriptures do speak authoritatively on many things.

Please cite for me which parts of scripture are not authoritative. Also tell me by what authority you believe this.

This is to say, the Scriptures do have authority to bind the conscience-- but not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, notwithstanding their God-breathed nature, they do not contain a complete and autonomous authority which interprets itself for us.

You know from talking with me before that I do not believe the scriptures can be interpreted without the help of the Holy Spirit. Some reason you are trying to get me to argue for something I do not believe?

More to the point, the Scriptures are not a self-contained reality which is self-evident to all who read the Biblical record. The fact that there are many denominations which claim some form of Sola Scriptura (and yet disagree amongst each strongly) renders the claim that the Scriptures hold the only reliable authority moot.

Again the origional point of Sola Scriptura was to say deny the authority of the magistrate as being MORE authoritative than scripture, not to deny all forms of help in interpretation. Are you arguing against the Cambridge Declaration or just a random definition of Sola Scriptura that you particularly dislike?

Without the Living Witness of the Church as ultimately guided by the Holy, an unguided reading of the Scriptures can be extremely dangerous and very hard to understand. History has demonstrated this over and over again over the last two-thousand years.

And even Peter during the apostolic age admits that some ignorant and unstable people were distorting the meaning of Paul’s words, as they did the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This does not bode well for any reasonable discussion of Sola Scriptura in my opinion. And it strongly indicates that some teaching authority must have been conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the apostles in order to avoid these dangerous teachings.

You only relocate the same problem. The lay people cannot possibly comply with the magisterium unless they fully understand them. the people are still falliable and proone to error. You still have to excercise private judgement in order to understand and follow the law. It is very Good that people can be personally guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[lak611]

Then that means you’re carrying on a Cambridge tradition which is not expressly written with the Scriptures.

Right?

Can you show me where the Cambridge declaration can be found within the Scriptures?

What is the Cambridge declaration?

 

[Syele]

What are the 5 solas?

Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Soli Deo Gloria

You can read the Cambridge Declaration here.

 

[Syele]

Then that means you’re carrying on a Cambridge tradition which is not expressly written with the Scriptures.

Right?

Can you show me where the Cambridge declaration can be found within the Scriptures?

Uh, I said I read it and that the 5 solas were ment to go together as a grouping, I didn’t say I accept the Cambridge Declaration as my authority nor did I claim the declaration was in scripture.

I DID ask you a question, do you intend to discuss the Cambridge declaration or do you want to debate your pet definition of sola scriptura? I cannot debate some vague idea with no precise definition.