Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Tomster]

Can’t you see the problem in the question you’re asking? If you affirm that something from God is self-authenticating, then your question “what came from God?” can’t arise in the first place. The answer would be, “that which comes from God is from God.” In other words, it’s tautologous.

If you do answer the question, then you go down the path of infinite regress. For one can just keep pressing the “how do you know?” question until you get pushed back to the original principle–i.e., “that which is from God is self-authenticating,” which you affirm on the one hand, but then take away with the other, as soon as you ask, “what came from God?”

This strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, you really don’t believe in self-authenticating truth, but rather only the truth that you have been told to believe, along with the belief that the institution that told you this truth is at least trustworthy, if not infallible.

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

Miguel,

There are a whole host of problems with the extra-biblical, man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura. I hope you are up to addressing them.

(1) The Philosophical problems of Sola Scriptura
(2) The Problems of Coherence
(3) It is unbiblical
(4) It is logically inconsistent
(4) It’s problems of historicity
(5) It’s improbability
(6) It is inconsistent with the practice of the New Testament Church
(7) It overlooks extrabiblical influences on its adherents
(8) It overlooks the extrabiblical historical influence on itself
(9) It leads to a misrepresentation of the Church Fathers
(10) It leads to unhistorical understandings and distortion of facts
(11) It leads to hermeneutical anarchy
(12) It leads to denominational factionalism
(13) It leads to the undermining of pastoral authority and discipline

 

[ddarko]

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

Oh, I think that is a very good question and I will try my best clarify what you have wrong in the answer you gave.

We Catholics believe in the Catholic Church because it is what Christ instituted. So just to lay it out in chronological order how our faith comes to be

1. The existence of the person of Christ, his life, and his resurrection has been handed down by eye-witnesses to others and so forth till the church has handed it down to me
2. I believe that Christ was real because under extreme persecution, and extreme novel nature and absurdity of their position, these first eye-witnesses stood by their claim. I do not believe that Christ was real because he was self-evident. I don’t think anyone can claim that the existence of Christ is self-evident. So I know it from the Church, not because of its authority (at this point in time, I would not know the church has any authority) but because of the testimony it has guarded.
3. Then I use the Bible, merely as a historical text together with other manuscripts (Tradition) of that time to understand how the early church looked like and how Jesus’ closest followers interpreted Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
4. Then I see that there was indeed a church, with hierarchy who always preached and defended the faith. I also see that the position of Bishop and Papacy for an example continues on and does not end with the apostles. The apostles themselves replaced Judas with a new apostle. So whoever else they appointed next must have the same authority as well and so forth.
5. So now I know the Catholic Church represents the apostles.
6. Therefore I trust the Catholic Church because if I trace it back all the way, it carries the authority give by Jesus himself to the first apostles, handed down by them to their successors and whoever else they appointed.
7. Thus, I put my full trust in the Catholic Church as being guided by the holy spirit infallibly with respect to matters of teaching, just like the first apostles were after Pentecost.

Did that answer your question? Do you see what you might have misunderstood incorrectly?

God Bless

 

[pablope]

Can’t you see the problem in the question you’re asking? If you affirm that something from God is self-authenticating, then your question “what came from God?” can’t arise in the first place. The answer would be, “that which comes from God is from God.” In other words, it’s tautologous.

But where did you get that idea from? Oh–that’s right–from the very same institution. Thus you believe the Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church tells you that’s what you’re supposed to believe.

The same could be said and asked of you Miguel…who told you what to believe is true? You obviously learned from someone…your pastor, your teacher…so how do you know what they told you is true?

How do you know what Luther, Calvin, all the protestant denoms out there, all saying is true?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

That is not the matter in dispute. The issue is not whether the Bible is the Word of God, it’s how you know which books belong in the Bible. I have yet to receive an answer from a person advocating that all Christian beliefs are to be found in the Bible, explaining where he gets the belief that the 27 books in the New Testament are indeed the right books. And this is not something that is “self-evident.” There was controversy when the canon was originally formed; in fact, there was dispute over whether James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 3rd John, Hebrews, and Revelation belonged in the Bible (source: Where We Got the Bible by Henry G. Graham).

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

Sorry, but history debunks that idea. As Graham points out, there was indeed controversy. It was not at all “self-evident.”

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

One cannot even approach the Bible without knowing which books compose it. I’m afraid you’re helping prove my point, which is that the Bible doesn’t cover which books belong in it.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

The belief that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is, well, a belief. So, when somebody claims all Christian beliefs are to be found within its pages, I have the right to ask where that particular belief is in the Bible.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

Sorry, but Parker’s claim in the very first post was
"Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture."

Since the word “everything” is all inclusive, I have every right to ask where he finds his belief that we have the correct New Testament canon. Please see my post questioning him about this (#59).

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sorry, but Parker’s claim in the very first post was
"Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scripture."

So far no one has answered as to how those who do not have access to the Bible (such as abortion victims, the poor, the illiterate, the mentally infirm, etc.) can achieve salvation. If there is some way to gain access to salvation without the Bible then there is some other authoritative source for “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation)” besides the Bible and sola scriptura is accordingly false.

Further, no one has responded to this:

I don’t really understand how a TULIP/Calvinist Presbyterian can claim that Scripture is necessary for salvation when, according to Calvin, the cause of salvation is predestination (unconditional election, the “U” in TULIP)–and NOT Scripture, faith, or anything else. In the Calvinist world you’re concieved either saved or reprobate, Psalm 51:5 and 2 Timothy 5:4 notwithstanding. So as long as you are a Calvinist (claiming election is unconditional) you cannot claim Scripture (alone) is necessary for salvation, as this necessarily presupposes that election is conditional on Scripture; these are two mutually exclusive positions.

For that matter, I don’t see how you can be any kind of Protestant and claim Sola Scriptura because Protestants have church buildings, and church buildings aren’t in the Bible.

To recap: sola scriptura destroys John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4 by making it impossible for God to save the above Scripture-less groups, and further, no Protestant actually practices sola scriptura because all Protestants practice tradition.

Before Protestants can even begin to defend sola scriptura they must first establish that it is actually possible for a Christian to practice it. This has not yet been done. All defenses of sola scriptura are moot if sola scriptura does not actually exist–which it doesn’t.

 

[stevekehl]

Let me pose this question, if an atheist is shipwrecked on an island alone with a Bible could they learn what they need to be saved?

 

[zz912]

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.

Funny, but I remember Jesus several times mentioning that His miracles were evidence that the Father was testifying and authenticating who He was. If Jesus held Himself to this standaed, why should I not require it of the Bible? The Bible needs someone/something outside itself to testify to it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let me pose this question, if an atheist is shipwrecked on an island alone with a Bible could they learn what they need to be saved?

This presupposes that salvation is obtained by intellectual capacity (meaning the mentally infirm cannot be saved) and as God desires the salvation of all, including the mentally infirm, that must be false.

 

[Newsy]

It appears to me that many of the protestant ideas stem from the same source, protesting the Church’s authority. The OT Jews had scripture and yet they still needed prophets to interpret the Word of God, to give them the message.The Ethiopian needed Phillip to explain to him what the book of Isaiah said. Christ explained the scriptures to the Jews in the synagog. There is always an authority to explain the scriptures to God’s people. As Catholics, we accept the Church’s authority to guide us in this matter. We are free to interpret scripture, inside of the Church Teaching, which was handed down from the Apostles.
As a former protestant, I found that there was more emphasis put on why we weren’t Catholic than why we believed what we did. This and all of the divisions in the protestant churches, led me to the conclusion that there has to be one truth. If all the protestant denominations were right then truth was no longer absolute. If there is no absolute truth then God cannot exist. I know God exists and sent His Son, therefore I know there is an absolute truth. Therefore, not all denominations are equally right. This and a prompting from the Lord led me to find the truth.

 

[JonNC]

=Cat Herder;7892057]So far no one has answered as to how those who do not have access to the Bible (such as abortion victims, the poor, the illiterate, the mentally infirm, etc.) can achieve salvation. If there is some way to gain access to salvation without the Bible then there is some other authoritative source for “everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation)” besides the Bible and sola scriptura is accordingly false.

Let me try, Cat. First, one does not gain access to salvation by the Bible. It is a book. Everyone who gains salvation does so because, and only because of Grace.
So from there, let me respond to what sola scriptura is: it is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable. The "alone’ is not an “alone” by which one excludes all other teachings and teachers. It is simply a statement that scripture is the final norm.
The Lutheran Confessions state:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

As one can see, sola scriptura is not personal interpretation, nor an exclusion of teachers and teachings. It is a basis by which the Church practices hermeunetics. So, it is not inconsistent with sola scriptura for Lutherans to have a confessional document (Book of Concord), to accept the three ecumenical creeds, or the first 6 (and essentially the 7th) ecumenical councils of the Church. While these are not equal to scripture, they rightly reflect the truth of scripture, and we properly accept them as true teachings of the faith.
This is the practice of sola scriptura.

Further, as sola scriptura is not explicitly found in scripture, it is not a doctrine, and Catholic Christians as not condemned because they do not subscribe to it. The basis of salvation does not include an adherance to SS.

To recap: sola scriptura destroys John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4 by making it impossible for God to save the above Scripture-less groups, and further, no Protestant actually practices sola scriptura because all Protestants practice tradition.

I think my above statement renders this answered. Lutherans do practice sola scriptura, and we both agree that salvation is by Grace.

Before Protestants can even begin to defend sola scriptura they must first establish that it is actually possible for a Christian to practice it. This has not yet been done. All defenses of sola scriptura are moot if sola scriptura does not actually exist–which it doesn’t.

Hopefully, even though you disagree with the practice, you can see that, as defined by the Lutheran Confessions, it actually does exist, it doesn’t destroy John 3:16 or 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and it doesn’t condemn those who don’t practice it.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let me try, Cat. First, one does not gain access to salvation by the Bible. It is a book. Everyone who gains salvation does so because, and only because of Grace.

Indeed and this is why there is no point to arguing for sola scriptura from the “sufficiency” of Scripture to save people; Scripture doesn’t save people, reading Scripture doesn’t save people and understanding Scripture doesn’t save people. Grace does.

So from there, let me respond to what sola scriptura is: it is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable. The "alone’ is not an “alone” by which one excludes all other teachings and teachers. It is simply a statement that scripture is the final norm.

I was a Lutheran so I know that the Lutheran definition of SS is quite different from that used in the rest of the Protestant world. At least for a Confessional Lutheran, the model for authority is basically the same as that of the Catholic Church except that rank labels are assigned to Scripture, (Lutheran) tradition and (Lutheran) magisterium. The Catholic Church does not assign rank labels; the three sources of authority are coequal and none of them can contradict the other.

Notice the last part: none of them can contradict the other.

The challenge I put to you is to explain how the Lutheran position on authority is functionally any different than the Catholic position of authority.

Let’s say that a Fundamentalist walks up to you and says your church is not reformed enough because the Lutheran confessions contradict the Bible. What would your answer be? Probably that you believe that it would be impossible for the Lutheran confessions to contradict the Bible because the Bible is a check on the confessions.

Well, there are no Catholic doctrines that contradict the Bible and it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to contradict the Bible because the Holy Spirit would not allow it. Isn’t that functionally the same as the Lutheran position? (If so then the main difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism is not “sola scriptura” but rather whose tradition you use–including whose biblical canon.)

 

[paul_c]

Let me try, Cat. First, one does not gain access to salvation by the Bible. It is a book. Everyone who gains salvation does so because, and only because of Grace.
So from there, let me respond to what sola scriptura is: it is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, by which all teachers and teachings are held accountable. The "alone’ is not an “alone” by which one excludes all other teachings and teachers. It is simply a statement that scripture is the final norm.
The Lutheran Confessions state:

As one can see, sola scriptura is not personal interpretation, nor an exclusion of teachers and teachings. It is a basis by which the Church practices hermeunetics. So, it is not inconsistent with sola scriptura for Lutherans to have a confessional document (Book of Concord), to accept the three ecumenical creeds, or the first 6 (and essentially the 7th) ecumenical councils of the Church. While these are not equal to scripture, they rightly reflect the truth of scripture, and we properly accept them as true teachings of the faith.
This is the practice of sola scriptura.

Further, as sola scriptura is not explicitly found in scripture, it is not a doctrine, and Catholic Christians as not condemned because they do not subscribe to it. The basis of salvation does not include an adherance to SS.

I think my above statement renders this answered. Lutherans do practice sola scriptura, and we both agree that salvation is by Grace.

Hopefully, even though you disagree with the practice, you can see that, as defined by the Lutheran Confessions, it actually does exist, it doesn’t destroy John 3:16 or 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and it doesn’t condemn those who don’t practice it.

Jon

Jon,
You are very reasonable in your apologetics. However, I must take issue with the concept that scripture is the final norm. The reason for my objection is that the bible is not self interpreting- two reasonable people can and do come to different conclusions from the same reading of scripture. This is evident to all. Therefore, we must rely on an infallible authority - the magesterium of the Catholic Church - to make the final call on anything having to do with Faith, morals and salvation. If you can not accept the Catholic Church as the final authority, then you must propose a credible alterative- the Bible itself can not be that authority because it is incapable of resolvig disputes.

 

[paul_c]

Indeed and this is why there is no point to arguing for sola scriptura from the “sufficiency” of Scripture to save people; Scripture doesn’t save people, reading Scripture doesn’t save people and understanding Scripture doesn’t save people. Grace does.

I’d be a little careful in this definition. We are indeed saved by Grace when we are baptized and enter into the state of grace. But we must stay in the state of grace to go to heaven and reading scripture does indeed increase the grace within us. I just find it good to consistently remind myself and others that while entering into the state of grace requires nothing more than the desire to repent and be baptized, STAYING in the state of grace requires love of God and Neighbor. We are strengthened to do so by the sacraments and acts of love and devotion.

I was a Lutheran so I know that the Lutheran definition of SS is quite different from that used in the rest of the Protestant world. At least for a Confessional Lutheran, the model for authority is basically the same as that of the Catholic Church except that rank labels are assigned to Scripture, (Lutheran) tradition and (Lutheran) magisterium. The Catholic Church does not assign rank labels; the three sources of authority are coequal and none of them can contradict the other.

Notice the last part: none of them can contradict the other.

The challenge I put to you is to explain how the Lutheran position on authority is functionally any different than the Catholic position of authority.

Let’s say that a Fundamentalist walks up to you and says your church is not reformed enough because the Lutheran confessions contradict the Bible. What would your answer be? Probably that you believe that it would be impossible for the Lutheran confessions to contradict the Bible because the Bible is a check on the confessions.

Well, there are no Catholic doctrines that contradict the Bible and it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to contradict the Bible because the Holy Spirit would not allow it. Isn’t that functionally the same as the Lutheran position? (If so then the main difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism is not “sola scriptura” but rather whose tradition you use–including whose biblical canon.)

I have recently been contemplating the fact that Luther denounced the authority of the church but in fact, tried to claim similar authority for himself. He was dismayed that the reformers quickly denounced his authority as well and splintered into smaller and smaller groups.

I think you are spot on in saying that the Lutherans and Catholics have a similar view of the need for authority. The question then becomes : What made Luther a credible replacement for the Pope?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’d be a little careful in this definition. We are indeed saved by Grace when we are baptized and enter into the state of grace. But we must stay in the state of grace to go to heaven and reading scripture does indeed increase the grace within us. I just find it good to consistently remind myself and others that while entering into the state of grace requires nothing more than the desire to repent and be baptized, STAYING in the state of grace requires love of God and Neighbor. We are strengthened to do so by the sacraments and acts of love and devotion.

Correct. I did not intend to speak to what is required to obtain or keep grace so as to avoid derailing the thread.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

At the end, I still must ask a question: “Where is Sola Scriptura in Scripture?”

Many of you assume that “Word of God” is Scripture. It is right, but not always. For the Jews, the WQord of Go also came from the prophets (some kind of religious leader like the pope), or from the teachers and rabiis and whatnot.

Into the Apostolic age, Sola Scriptura was never practiced. Though all realized the importance of Scripture, no one denied the authority of the Church. If Sola Scriptura was ever practiced, we must all question ourselves how they operated. Where did each person get their own Scripture? Who guided them?

Last but no least, since Protestant were the first to propose the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, they must be the ones to prove their points. Their failure to prove Sola Scriptura mean Sola Scriptura itself is false. Since Magisterium and the Church is notin session, I suggest that we all get back track to for my Protestant friends to come back and prove Sola Scriptura. No other topics must be discussed except that of Sola Scriptura.

 

[haparker321]

Into the Apostolic age, Sola Scriptura was never practiced.

Of course it was, the point here is that they always looked to Scripture to justify the doctrines they teach. The problem is that you want Scriptures to provide something they never claimed.

The gist of SS is this: That Scripture be the means the church uses to justify its doctrinal beliefs and submit to its plain commands.

Parker

 

[haparker321]

Hey folks!

My book ‘The Resurrection’ is now available through Kindle and hard copy. In order to make a purchase for the hard copy, follow this link.
Have fun!

Parker

 

[haparker321]

The Bible is a set of documents that contains an account of the Word of God

No, the Bible IS the Word of God.

Jesus gave us the Church, the Holy Spirit, and appointed leaders to guide us (all of which is documented in the Bible).

Which isn’t denied, but we are saying the Church must submit to Scriptural command.

“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” - 2 Peter 1:20

So how did you come to the conclusion of Rome being ‘the one and true church’? Did you have one true infallible interpreter to help you with the understanding or did you use yourself to agree?

Parker

 

[paul_c]

Of course it was, the point here is that they always looked to Scripture to justify the doctrines they teach. The problem is that you want Scriptures to provide something they never claimed.

The gist of SS is this: That Scripture be the means the church uses to justify its doctrinal beliefs and submit to its plain commands.

Parker

Parker, you have this backwards. The Church teaches the faith that was handed down verbally by Jesus to the apostles. What we now define as New Testament scripture is actually the Church documenting what it teaches. The Church was commissioned to spread the gospel and to administer the sacraments (Matthew 28: 18-20) and from that authority came scriptures. When you take the position that you believe the Bible but not the way the Catholic Church teaches it, you are taking the peculiar position of not believing the author’s words unless they are written down. And lets dispence with your likely objection that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the source of the scriptures: of course they were. But they promulgated this through the Catholic Church for a reason: because the truth was entrusted to it from the day of Pentacost onward. When you diverge from what the Catholic Church teaches, you are diverging from the truth.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Of course it was, the point here is that they always looked to Scripture to justify the doctrines they teach. The problem is that you want Scriptures to provide something they never claimed.

The gist of SS is this: That Scripture be the means the church uses to justify its doctrinal beliefs and submit to its plain commands.

Parker

How? You mean they looked toward a book that was compiled hundreds of years after them? If the Church looked for something to jusfify their doctrine, that mean you agree that Scripture and traditions must go together.