Does Sola Scriptura even exist?

[Catherine_S]

Sola scriptura (“Bible only”) cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?
2. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
3. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

.

December 22, 2006

Bible Scholar of the Year
(Tim Jones)
.
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/images/biblescholar_1.jpg
.
Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A division of Nilsson/Schmilsson, a subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of a special edition of the Holy Bible that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.
The special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (made of lightweight reflective Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words “Bible Scholar of the Year”.
Nilsson Publishers’ CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet “This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip. culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends… to be phat and dope and poppin’ fresh.”.
Time magazine recently revealed their “Man of the Year” issue for 2006, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader’s face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn’t thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura… what we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It’s right there on the cover!..You!
Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse’s mouth?.. so to speak.".
Nilsson publishes mainly for the Evangelical Christian market, Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.
So, what does the Bible mean?.. “Whoa, whoa!” Blandish answers when asked about the meaning of Scripture "… that’s not for me to say… you have to decide for yourself. The question is, what does it mean… to you?"
The Sola Scriptura edition is available at bookstores, or on the Nilsson/Schmilsson website, for the cost of one million Quatloos (hardback)
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/12/bible_scholar_o.html
.

 

[tequilamac]

.

December 22, 2006

Bible Scholar of the Year
(Tim Jones)
.
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/images/biblescholar_1.jpg
.
Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A division of Nilsson/Schmilsson, a subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of a special edition of the Holy Bible that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.
The special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (made of lightweight reflective Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words “Bible Scholar of the Year”.
Nilsson Publishers’ CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet “This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip. culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends… to be phat and dope and poppin’ fresh.”.
Time magazine recently revealed their “Man of the Year” issue for 2006, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader’s face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn’t thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura… what we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It’s right there on the cover!..You!
Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse’s mouth?.. so to speak.".
Nilsson publishes mainly for the Evangelical Christian market, Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.
So, what does the Bible mean?.. “Whoa, whoa!” Blandish answers when asked about the meaning of Scripture "… that’s not for me to say… you have to decide for yourself. The question is, what does it mean… to you?"
The Sola Scriptura edition is available at bookstores, or on the Nilsson/Schmilsson website, for the cost of one million Quatloos (hardback)
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/12/bible_scholar_o.html
.

Fabulous.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What do you mean when you say handling of God’s Word:

Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the handling of God’s Word by the successors of the apostles.

You say Tradition is the handling of God’s Word. Is it then not God’s Word?

Is the Holy Spirit involved in translating the Scriptures into new languages-- or is this a purely human effort?

And if the Holy Spirit is not involved in translating the Scriptures into new languages, then how can we trust that what the Scriptures say is truly God’s Word in English for example?

 

[simbagizmo]

Is the Holy Spirit involved in translating the Scriptures into new languages-- or is this a purely human effort?

And if the Holy Spirit is not involved in translating the Scriptures into new languages, then how can we trust that what the Scriptures say is truly God’s Word in English for example?

Yes.

But how does this help me with my question? Your definition states that
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the handling of God’s Word by the successors of the apostles.

My question is, “what do you mean by handling of God’s Word?”.

 

[AlegreFe]

Bible Scholar of the Year
(Tim Jones)

Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A division of Nilsson/Schmilsson, a subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of a special edition of the Holy Bible that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.
The special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (made of lightweight reflective Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words “Bible Scholar of the Year”.
Nilsson Publishers’ CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet “This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip. culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends… to be phat and dope and poppin’ fresh.”.
Time magazine recently revealed their “Man of the Year” issue for 2006, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader’s face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn’t thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura… what we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It’s right there on the cover!..You!
Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse’s mouth?.. so to speak.".
Nilsson publishes mainly for the Evangelical Christian market, Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.
So, what does the Bible mean?.. “Whoa, whoa!” Blandish answers when asked about the meaning of Scripture "… that’s not for me to say… you have to decide for yourself. The question is, what does it mean… to you?"
The Sola Scriptura edition is available at bookstores, or on the Nilsson/Schmilsson website, for the cost of one million Quatloos (hardback)
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/12/bible_scholar_o.html
.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Duh.gif Why haven’t we thought of this before?! http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/laughduh.gif

“Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn’t thought of this before…?!?!?!”

They should be embarrassed NOW!! http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/laughduh.gif

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes.

But how does this help me with my question?

My question is, “what do you mean by handling of God’s Word?”.

It means you have to be careful how you live-- because you may be the only Bible some people will ever read.

 

[loscampos]

First we must have a question or hypothesis: Which has more authority, the church or scripture? We could also make this into a statement: The bible has more authority than the church. The converse statement would be: the church has more authority than the bible.

After the question we must look for any scripture verses that explicitly state one or the other.

The argument for Biblical authority:

            2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

The argument for Church authority:

            Mat 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

            1 Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Now that we have some explicit scripture verses we must find their implied meanings. As a side note, we could bring points on what constitutes the church, what is the body of the church, how do we determine if a book in scripture is inspired if it isn’t explicitly stated and so forth? All of these topics we will dive deeper into in further essays, but in order to stay on the current topic we will not go into all of these points that could be brought up.

Our second task is the context and the meanings of theses verses. In 2 Tim 3:15 we find that scripture is important for teaching and reproving etc. An underlying problem with this verse to prove scripture has more authority than the church is; if two people are teaching two different things from the same scripture. If the two in dispute are using the same scripture for correction and reproof, how then shall the dispute be settled? Mat 18:15-18 clearly states they must go to the church to settle the matter. The next question is then, why do we go to the church to settle the matter and not only scripture? We go to the church because it is the pillar of truth. This is an important concept because Jesus himself is truth. He is passing down his authority on truth to the church. This is especially clear if we continue on and finish reading 1 Tim 3:16, he refers to binding and loosing. Although this topic can be further talked about, we will use only what is relevant. The church is the truth because it can leave things out of heaven, something the bible in itself cannot do.

Lastly do either one of these points contradict themselves or any other passages pertaining to authority. “The bible has more authority than the church,” contradicts itself and the authority of the church. Continuing from our example on two people disputing each other from the same verse, not only does the bible tell us to go to the church to settle disputes, it tell us that it is not for private interpretation. This is made clear in 2 Pet 1:20 “Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation,” We can go in many different directions with this verse, but we will stick to the framework of authority. The altercation between the two people has part of its roots in conflicting interpretations. Within a larger context, if these two were leaders of different churches in Christianity, if neither church has authority over each other, then aren’t they both just interpreting the bible as their own? The main point is that there is a singular reference to adjudicate differences and it is a singular church and not scripture.

Does the statement “the church has more authority than the bible,” contradict itself or other teachings. The answer is no, not only for the reasons stated above; we could also look at binding again in more depth, as well as the spirit leading us in truth and so forth. Used in conjunction with each other 2 Tim is a great leading point into the other two verses.

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

taken from:lococatolico.com/Essays.html

 

[justinthemartyr]

sola scriptura exists in that it is a book, and when seen as that book, with no human comments or addage, then you have sola scriptura. The moment the human even begins to think they have interpreted something in any way, sola scriptura ceases to be.

Then you have man+scriptura. man-a-scriptura

Therefore, no, it cannot exist.

 

[eisonapesteilen]

I am confused and saddened by these contentions and would qualify the following by stating that I mean no disrespect to anyone who belongs to Christ.
Isn’t it right to take Jesus’ own thoughts into account? Consider Mark 12:18-27. When asked of the Sadducees what should happen to a certain woman in the resurrection, our Lord answered directly from the book of Moses. He has all authority, of course, and is capable of speaking without any resort to proof outside himself, yet he chose to point out through scripture that those who failed to rely on the very wording of scripture were in error. Clearly in reading Exodus, chapter three, the reader is not struck by the explicit nature of the claim that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live. Nonetheless Christ fully expected those who professed to believe the pentateuch to be capable of extracting this message from the text. Why? Perhaps the very last stroke on the scroll was important and was needed to convey the precise message he wanted.

In Matthew 5:18 – For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. –

and again

Revelation 22:18,19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This seems to make the very word of scripture vital. This does not emphasize the message content, it emphasizes rather the very last letter of the text. Surely such a text is authoritative.

Also somewhat more specifically, I don’t find the choice of John 6:29 very helpful in establishing the authority of the Church.
We ought to believe in the one sent, but here we are told to believe only in the one, not in the many sent. Later in John’s Gospel we find a little more testimony, namely John 12:44.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

Jesus was speaking of himself as being sent. He was not speaking of others. In 6:29 the relative ‘hon’ is masculine singular. To generalize from God, the one sent, to ourselves is probably not acceptable. Can one then draw the conclusion that the work of man is to believe on the Church itself?

 

[Steven_John]

I like this thread,

Sounds to me that Solo Scriptura with the spirit is the way to ensure we get all the parts of the one body.

Better than clones of one that is not perfect.

May God guide us all.

 

[jmcrae]

In Matthew 5:18 – For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. –

This is referring only to the Law, yet Protestants also hold to at least some portions of the Wisdom, and the majority of the Prophets as well, and added to these, also the New Testament.

and again

Revelation 22:18,19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

St. John was referring only here to the Book of Revelation itself - he had no concept of “a Bible.” Such a thing did not exist until much later, by the authority of the Catholic Church in the person of Pope St. Innocent I.

 

[ChristianRoots]

I am confused and saddened by these contentions and would qualify the following by stating that I mean no disrespect to anyone who belongs to Christ.
Isn’t it right to take Jesus’ own thoughts into account? Consider Mark 12:18-27. When asked of the Sadducees what should happen to a certain woman in the resurrection, our Lord answered directly from the book of Moses. He has all authority, of course, and is capable of speaking without any resort to proof outside himself, yet he chose to point out through scripture that those who failed to rely on the very wording of scripture were in error. Clearly in reading Exodus, chapter three, the reader is not struck by the explicit nature of the claim that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live. Nonetheless Christ fully expected those who professed to believe the pentateuch to be capable of extracting this message from the text. Why? Perhaps the very last stroke on the scroll was important and was needed to convey the precise message he wanted.

In Matthew 5:18 – For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. –

and again

Revelation 22:18,19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This seems to make the very word of scripture vital. This does not emphasize the message content, it emphasizes rather the very last letter of the text. Surely such a text is authoritative.

Also somewhat more specifically, I don’t find the choice of John 6:29 very helpful in establishing the authority of the Church.
We ought to believe in the one sent, but here we are told to believe only in the one, not in the many sent. Later in John’s Gospel we find a little more testimony, namely John 12:44.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

Jesus was speaking of himself as being sent. He was not speaking of others. In 6:29 the relative ‘hon’ is masculine singular. To generalize from God, the one sent, to ourselves is probably not acceptable. Can one then draw the conclusion that the work of man is to believe on the Church itself?

Catholics affirm that Sacred Scripture** is vital and authoritative. **However, we don’t believe it is the sole and final authority on all matters of the Christian faith as you believe it to be. We hold Sacred Scipture alongside Sacred Tradition on a equal footing. Together, they guide our Church.

If you think the Bible is the sole authority on all religious matters, then please tell me the chapter and verse number that says this. (Trust me, you will not find any.)

There’s also so much to say about the rest of your post, I don’t know where to begin. For starters, Jesus does reference the Scriptures, thus validating their authority. (Remember, no disagreement here.) But where does Jesus say that ONLY THE SCRIPTURES ARE AUTHORITATIVE??? As a matter of fact, Jesus often says, "You have heard it was said (in response to the Scriptures)…, but I say to you…He modifies the Scriptures on several occasions. How do you reconcile that?

By the way, how do you even know the New Testament is God-breathed? Where in the Gospels does it say the words themselves were inspired by God? So why do you believe in the Gospels’ canonicity?