I really don't get "Sola Scriptura"?

[RomanRyan1088]

I think the Bible is a very HOLY book. The inspired word of God, but I don’t see how it can be the only rule for some protestant denominations. How can the bible be the only thing you need when it leaves out part of Jesus life? I am talking about finding him in the temple when he was 12, and after that their is a VERY big gap. How can you put ALL your faith in the bible when it is kinda incomplete. What is ya’lls take on this?

 

[JimG]

Not only does it leave out most of Jesus life (we are talking the New Testament here) but it is not so arranged as to provide answers to every religious question.

I mean, if Jesus wanted a book written, why is there no record that He ever commanded that one be written? Or that he ever wrote himself?

(There is one story of a letter he wrote, which is recounted by Eusebius in his Eccliastical History, but that’s another matter.)

We do believe that the bible is inerrant and inspired. We may even believe that it is materially sufficient. (i.e. all valid doctrine is contained therein, either explicitly or implicitly.)

It does not, however, talk back to you. If, in reading it, you come to an incorrect theological conclusion (Arianism, perhaps), the bible does not grab you by the arm and say “Wait a minute! That’s not what I meant!” That’s why Jesus left us a Church. The Church can say “wait a minute! That’s not what was handed down to us from the Apostles! That’s not what we have always believed!”

 

[Maccabees]

If the Bible is self interpretating and obvious in its truth why do Protestant minister attend seminary. Obviously to form thier minds and theology to a particular denomination or tradition point of view. However when a catholic goes to seiminary his tradition and theology goes back to the very apostles who were at the feet of Jesus. It’s one thing having the tradition of John Calvin of John Edwards its another thing of having the tradition of the apostles.

 

[RMP]

When did the Sola Scriptura actually become a doctrine for christians outside of the church?

 

[moira]

RMP:

When did the Sola Scriptura actually become a doctrine for christians outside of the church?

Beginning with the Reformation, Protestants have used the principle of Sola Scriptura. Martin Luther had to use it or his theories went right out the window. Funny because nowhere in Scripture does it claim to be the sole rule of faith.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

RomanRyan1088:

I think the Bible is a very HOLY book. The inspired word of God, but I don’t see how it can be the only rule for some protestant denominations. How can the bible be the only thing you need when it leaves out part of Jesus life? I am talking about finding him in the temple when he was 12, and after that their is a VERY big gap. How can you put ALL your faith in the bible when it is kinda incomplete. What is ya’lls take on this?

Sola Scriptura is not a:

1. Claim that the Bible contains all knowledge
2. Claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge
3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth
4. denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition

However, sola Scriptura says:

1. Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith
2. No other revelation is needed for the Church
3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture
6. SS only applies during the normative condition of the Church (i.e. today)

Let’s look at John 21:24-25:

"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. "
–John 21:24-25

Does this passage deride sola Scriptura? No.

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all knowledge, nor is it a claim that the Bible contains all religious knowledge. John 21:24-25 proves this, and Evangelicals affirm it.

However, there is this misconception that unless something is exhaustive in detail, it cannot be sufficient as a source of truth. Do we need to know what Jesus had for breakfast on his 30th birthday for the Bible to be a sufficient source of divine truth? Do we need to know who made Jesus’ sandals? Do we need descriptions of the clothing worn by Judas Iscariot? Of course we don’t! The Bible doesn’t need to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth. Instead, the Bible must provide us what God wants us to have to function in the manner described by the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Besides, even if it were the case that the Bible must be exhaustive in order to be sufficient, the same would apply to Rome. Because the Church can’t have all knowledge of Jesus’ day, like Jesus’ breakfast, then using your own reasoning, Rome’s rule of faith is invalid, too.

 

[RobedWithLight]

JimG:

I mean, if Jesus wanted a book written, why is there no record that He ever commanded that one be written? Or that he ever wrote himself?

Interesting. The only “words” Jesus wrote were unknown words in the ground as the Jews were about to stone a sinful woman.

If Sola Scriptura were true, Jesus should have commanded it to be so, that whatever is written is to be the one and only rule of faith. Alas, the earliest Gospels were only written decades after Jesus ascended.

Gerry

 

[c0achmcguirk]

I forgot to mention that if you would like to read more on the Evangelical position on Sola Scriptura, check out “Scripture Alone” by James White, or “Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible.”

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

RobedWithLight:

Interesting. The only “words” Jesus wrote were unknown words in the ground as the Jews were about to stone a sinful woman.

I thought we were all Trinitarians here. If you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that God wrote Scripture–Jesus, of course, being God.

c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

moira:

Beginning with the Reformation, Protestants have used the principle of Sola Scriptura. Martin Luther had to use it or his theories went right out the window. Funny because nowhere in Scripture does it claim to be the sole rule of faith.

Nowhere does Scripture assert another God-breathed rule of faith for the normative condition of the Church.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Maccabees]

c0achmcguirk:

Nowhere does Scripture assert another God-breathed rule of faith for the normative condition of the Church.

God bless,
c0ach

Well that comment along with you other statement contradict the church found in scripture.

1. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture

When the church went against the Judaizers and made circumcision and dietary laws of the Jews not necessary to the church was the appeal made to scripture?
No the appeal was to the authority the holy spirit gave the church.
The church did not use scripture form changing the observance of the sabbath from saturday to Sunday the Lord’s day. IT used it own authority.
The church doesn’t use scripture for its tradition of monagamy.
In fact the Bible has far ample evidence ifor the practice of Sabbath observance, Pologomy, than worhsip on Sunday or Monogamy. The practice of abortion has always been condemned by the church but it is nowhere to be found in scripture. Surely if this would be an essential element of the christian faith it would be found explcitly found in scripture. How about birth control, stem cells, cloning, artificial insemination, the many chanllenging moral questions that have no or very little scriptural guidance for the modern christian. Surely Christ would give us a guide to lead Christians in the modern age an not just 2000 year old stories.
Jeus gave us a living church to make the word of God alive in todays world never to be just guessed at its revleance for the modern man.
Sola scriptura leaves us wanting and since the early church went against previous scripture on the surface and went with the church’s authority over and above scripture you have a real problem using only sola scriptura. Luterh and Josepsh Smith both used scripture to justify pologomy heck Smith used scripture to justify murder so you can see you sola scriptura can be a dangerous thing when not apart of the church.
IN many decrees of the church councils the church used its authority to denoucne heresey for you see the heretics too used scripture to support their views. As a casual of the reader has to admit the devil used scripture and the false prophets used scripture. Scripture in the hands of the devil or a falliable institution is no longer infalliable unlees you have an infalliable interpertere. Many well meaning christian have various interpretationfs of fundamental Christian dogmas. How can the evangelical, the Lutheran and the Calvanist all come to differnt truths if scirpture is infalliable, Simple becasue it is not , Scripoture is inerrant it is only infalliable in the hands of the infallliable church it came from through the inspriation on th holy spirit which spoke though one church. The holy spirt cannnot guide 30.000 differnt interpretations and truths their is one turth, one faith and one baptism.

 

[mrS4ntA]

c0achmcguirk:

Nowhere does Scripture assert another God-breathed rule of faith for the normative condition of the Church.

God bless,
c0ach

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“And I will send you a great Paraclete, … the Spirit of Truth … who will guide you into all truth.”

“And on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

[to Peter]“I pray that your faith is strengthened, so that you can strengthen the faith of your brethren.”

-- Jesus.​

 

[mrS4ntA]

c0achmcguirk:

I thought we were all Trinitarians here. If you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that God wrote Scripture–Jesus, of course, being God.

c0ach

Well, of course.

But Jesus didn’t write the Scriptures directly. Certain human writers did, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Aris]

c0achmcguirk:

I thought we were all Trinitarians here. If you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that God wrote Scripture–Jesus, of course, being God.

c0ach

Trinity? It is not said in black and white. It is something taught from Tradition and kept faithfully by the Catholic Church.

Just go ask a Jehovah witness, an Iglesia ni Kristo (Church of Christ). Bible only Christians.

 

[PastorVW]

Hi everyone!

First, by way of introduction, I am an evangelical Pastor who strongly supports the ECT and Gift of Salvation documents. I do not view myself as anti-catholic in any way shape or form. I visit here mostly to listen to the broadcasts in order to better understand what the Catholic Church really believes and teaches.

Now to the topic: I am not an authority on what all evangelicals believe - but I do know what I believe and what most Wesleyans believe (I am an Ordained Elder in the Free Methodist Church). Here are my thoughts:

1. For me, the cannon of Scripture is authenticated by the church. They were in the best position to know what was and was not authentic. This can be established not only by the councils, but by what the early church fathers quoted (I’m currently working my way through them)

We establish the text of Scripture by careful textual research – which continues to prove that the Greek texts we now have are incredibly reliable. It is the orginal text of Scripture which is inspired – not the translations. These should be judged by the credentials of the scholars who produced them. I think most of the widely accepted modern translations are good – including the RSV which involve Catholic scholars.

 2) I believe that the Bible “contains all thing necessary *for salvation*” As one who is theologically Wesleyan, I also recognize the value of tradition and reason as sources of spiritual truth.  These I believe are subject to correction by the Scriptures.  I believe that experience should be tested by all three.

So in reality when I use the term “Sola Scriptura” – I am using it only in regards to doctrines absolutely essential to salvation.

I regards to other teachings, my position (and, I believe that of many other Protestants – at least in practice) might be called “Prima Scriptura”. Let me give an example of how this works in practice.

 First, I reject the so-called pre-tribulation rapture not only because it is unbiblical – but because it was unknown in the history of the Church prior to 1830.  If it were truly Biblical, how could EVERYONE – every scholar, Catholic and Protestant, have missed it?  So I reject it based on Scripture and the collective wisdom of the Church.

I hope this helps everyone better understand what at least some of your evangelical brothers and sisters believe on this topic.

 Blessings,

Vince

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RomanRyan1088:

I think the Bible is a very HOLY book. The inspired word of God, but I don’t see how it can be the only rule for some protestant denominations. How can the bible be the only thing you need when it leaves out part of Jesus life?

That is not what Sola Scriptura is about, though - we have as odd ideas about Protestants as they do about us, IMO ​

I am talking about finding him in the temple when he was 12, and after that their is a VERY big gap. How can you put ALL your faith in the bible when it is kinda incomplete. What is ya’lls take on this?

Some links to all five “Solas”:

• Sola Gratia
• Sola Fide
• Solus Christus
• Sola Scriptura
• Soli Deo Gloria

Each link leads to plenty of others ##

 

[JimG]

Pastor VW: Thanks for your concise and nuanced explanation of Wesleyan belief regarding scripture. That was enlightening. Sometimes in apologetics people tend to talk past one another without first understanding what a persons beliefs actually are.

 

[p90]

c0achmcguirk:

I forgot to mention that if you would like to read more on the Evangelical position on Sola Scriptura, check out “Scripture Alone” by James White, or “Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible.”

God bless,
c0ach

Thanks for your posts on Sola Scriptura in this thread. They are appreciated.

However, I would actually not recommend “Sola Scriptura!” I found the book to be rather unorganized due to the multiple authorship and it did not help in my understanding of the doctrine very much. I found Keith Mathison’s The Shape Of Sola Scriptura to be much more effective in this regard and would recommend it to any Catholic who wants to learn about Sola Scriptura.

~Matt

 

[Maccabees]

p90:

Thanks for your posts on Sola Scriptura in this thread. They are appreciated.

However, I would actually not recommend “Sola Scriptura!” I found the book to be rather unorganized due to the multiple authorship and it did not help in my understanding of the doctrine very much. I found Keith Mathison’s The Shape Of Sola Scriptura to be much more effective in this regard and would recommend it to any Catholic who wants to learn about Sola Scriptura.

~Matt

The Shape of Sola Scriptura is 30,000 denominations later after Luteher invented this doctrine. It doesn’t work thats all we need to know.

 

[Chris_W]

c0achmcguirk:

"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. "
–John 21:24-25

Does this passage deride sola Scriptura?

Well let’s have a look at other verses and perhaps we will be able to answer that question:

"It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’("Matt4, 4).

So we know everything wasn’t writen down, as you pointed out, yet we hear we are supposed to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

We have some of what Jesus said in the Gospels, but Jesus spoke figuratively and in parables throughout much of the gospels. But we read in the gospel of John that after Jesus’ passion, he would speak plainly to the Apostles:

"I have said this to you in figures; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures but tell you plainly of the Father. (John 16, 25)

Then we read, "To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. (Acts1, 3).

So we know Jesus told the Apostles a time would come when He would speak plainly to them about the Father, and we know Jesus taught the Apostles for 40 days after His passion, yet we have no written record of what He said, even though these teachings could very well be the clearest, most comprehensive teachings of all.

The question then is: How could God expect us to live by His every word, if forty days worth of Jesus’ teachings were not written down in the Bible? Hmmm. There must be another way to learn the Word of God in addition to the Bible.

So getting back to the initial question, I’m gonna have to say, yes, the Bible does deride Sola Scriptura.