Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

  • Thread starter Thread starter haparker321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=paul c;7894935]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.
Paul,
Hope you don’t mind my responding to this. While our language may vary, I don’t disagree with thre substance of what you are saying here.
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.
Remember, the Lutheran reformers did not splinter, even though they had disagreements.
The Reformed and anabaptists, for example, were not splinters from Lutheranism.
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?
Other than when speaking sarcastically or with hyperbole, Luther never considered himself as a replacement pope. He never held a formal leadership position, other than priest.

Jon
 
Other than what you said above, perhaps most importantly the power and primacy of the Pope of Rome. As you know, Lutherans accept the Council of Nicea, and respect the position of the Bishop of Rome in the west. What we do not accept is universal jusrisdiction, as there is no evidence of it in the early, undivided Church. So, functionally, there is a good difference in polity, as well.
But every Lutheran church has its own magisterium. ELCA says one thing, LCMS another and WELS yet another. If they were going by just the Bible and confessions that wouldn’t be happening. It’s not the question of whether there is a papal tiara but rather who wears it.
Well, first, I’ve asked on occasion what Catholic doctrines are derived strictly from the deuterocanon, and there isn’t much, but I understand your point.
I agree that no doctrine comes purely from the deutero. However passages like Sirach 2 make it clear that righteousness is infused and not imputed. This is the biggest divide between Lutheranism and Catholicism.
On the rest, I don’t thik the Lutheran reformers or current day Lutherans would claim infallibility of, say, the Confessions, based on the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Last I checked, every Lutheran church celebrates Reformation Sunday with Holy Spirit themed colors and decorations and a homily or teaching on the Reformation supposedly being an act of said Spirit. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Do you mean doctrine or means of Salvation? The Church would have nothing to function on if the Scriptures did not come first because there would be nothing from them to preach on. I think this is the major disagreement here.

Parker
Yes, this is an excellent point. The Church started by Christ was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. They preached the Word of God that had been committed to them by Christ.

But for “Bible Christians” whose faith has been extracted from the pages of the Scriptures, without them there is nothing. The foundation of the Church, the connection with the apostles and prophets upon whom it was built was severed during the Reformation, and all that is now left are the Holy Scriptures. They severed themselves from connection with the part of the Word of God that was at work in and through the Church.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

This Word of God, like all of God’s Word, has been preserved infallibly in the Church.

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Catholics are able to still preach this word, because it has been handed down through the paradosis in the Apostolic Succession.
 
Wrong, the Church began to compiled Holy Scripture at 397 AD, before that, Christians used plenty of writings, letters.
Actually, both things are true. There were a variety of writings used, but we have full accounts of the 27 books of the NT from the local councils of Hippo and Carthage long before the canon was finalized in 382.

What I think this shows is that there were centuries between the collection of the documents (as soon as they began to be written) and the closing of the canon.
Some sees the Book of Enoch as divinely inspired. However, why don’t we see the Book of Enoch in the Bible? St.Jude used it in His writing as if it was Scripture, however, we don’t acknowledge it as inspired by God don’t we?
We certainly acknowledge the part he quoted as such. 😃

More proof that the Word of God is not confined to the NT.
Another thing is that Christians did not always have Bible. The Bible was limited for clergy only, so how did “true Christians” read the Bible and determine for themselves? Sola Scriptura by this point became silly
I think it is very difficult to understand the world of literature without the printing press.
 
Code:
This is a preposterous statement!
Not entirely. Scripture is the Word of God, just as the Word of God is also dwelling in the Church. But you are right, there are many of our separated brethren that confuse the written Word with the person of Christ, who cannot be confined to the written Word, and some that seem to worship their bibles as much as they think we prioritize the church. Imbalance can go in any direction, I suppose.
Code:
 Consider this:  it is possible for a Bible to be burned and reduced to a pile of ashes, effectively destroying it.  But let me ask you, is it possible for the Word of God to be burned and reduced to ashes?
But that Word of God, though reflected in the writing, is not confined to it, either.

Heb 4:12-13
2 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

When one reads the Scriptures, it can pierce to the deepest part of the human soul, because of the quality of it as inspired by God.
 
Hi Paul,
You are always complimentary toward me, and I thank you for that. You know, I will accept the Magisterium making the final call if and when Orthodoxy does. This comes down to which Church, that practices Tradition and scripture, has that guidance of the Holy Spirit. Both claim it. Do both have it? My biggest disagreement with Rome is related to ecclesiology. Solve this, and I’m in RCIA the next day. But even this I view as human tradition.

Jon
I think you are brave to say such a thing, the Orthodox are working their way home. I look forward to your reception into the CC.👍 All joking aside, you are closer to the Tiber than I was on my journey.
You have been very fair in your statements, not letting things get too emotional, we all thank you for that.
Blessings,
Newsy
 
I think you are brave to say such a thing, the Orthodox are working their way home. I look forward to your reception into the CC.👍 All joking aside, you are closer to the Tiber than I was on my journey.
You have been very fair in your statements, not letting things get too emotional, we all thank you for that.
Blessings,
Newsy
Thanks for the nice words. I might add that I don’t consider it brave, but just honest. I have great respect for those things commonly held by east and west

Jon
 
Hi Paul,
You are always complimentary toward me, and I thank you for that. You know, I will accept the Magisterium making the final call if and when Orthodoxy does. This comes down to which Church, that practices Tradition and scripture, has that guidance of the Holy Spirit. Both claim it. Do both have it? My biggest disagreement with Rome is related to ecclesiology. Solve this, and I’m in RCIA the next day. But even this I view as human tradition.

Jon
Jon,
Why are your personal decisions defined by those of others? We are all ultimately responsible for ourselves.

How closely have you investigated the Orthodox? Unlike the Catholic Church, which is organized and unified, the Orthodox are defined by a series of National churches which sometimes do and sometimes don’t communicate with each other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_organization

In addition, when the Orthodox churches broke off from the Catholic church (30% of the church) in 1054, 30% of those churches broke off from the Orthodox and returned to full communion with Rome (these are the 21 Eastern Catholic Churches).

While Pope Benedict has made ecumenical progress with the Orthodox, I fear that Political and National issues will play a bigger role in maintaining separation than will issues of the faith, which are afterall, minor in the scheme of Christian doctrinal disagreements.

By ecclesiology, are you saying that you have difficulty in accepting papal authority? Why is that harder than accepting the authority of your Lutheran bishop. In fact, it should be significantly easier because the Pope has far greater credentials…
 
Quote:
=paul c;7894935]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 know we are close…
Quote:
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.
Remember, the Lutheran reformers did not splinter, even though they had disagreements.
The Reformed and anabaptists, for example, were not splinters from Lutheranism.
I recognize that there were at the beginning several different Protestant forms. This distresed Luther,didn’t it.
Quote:
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?
Perhaps not, but he felt personally empowered to redefine the faith, didn’t he. What were his credentials to do that.
 
Not entirely. Scripture is the Word of God, just as the Word of God is also dwelling in the Church. But you are right, there are many of our separated brethren that confuse the written Word with the person of Christ, who cannot be confined to the written Word, and some that seem to worship their bibles as much as they think we prioritize the church. Imbalance can go in any direction, I suppose.
I agree, and given the context the statement of Parker that I was responding to, it seem that he is dancing pretty close to the imbalance you mentioned (if he is not there altogether). I’m not sure who made the original statement that he was, in turn, commenting on - there are a lot of posts here and, as you know, Parker doesn’t use the quote function which credits the source. But I thought I would jump in on this aspect of the discussion nonetheless.
But that Word of God, though reflected in the writing, is not confined to it, either.
Actually this is what I was trying to convey in my example, but I don’t know how clear I was. In other words, the Bible contains the Word of God, is a reflection of it, but ultimately the Word of God transcends the material pages of the Bible. Hence, whereas a Bible can be reduced to ashes, the Word of God cannot.
 
Well, first, I’ve asked on occasion what Catholic doctrines are derived strictly from the deuterocanon, and there isn’t much, but I understand your point.
Jon
This is an important question that has great bearing on this thread. It seems to presuppose that doctrine is “derived” from scripture, which is not the case for Catholic doctrine.

Catholicism was whole and entire when Jesus delivered the faith to His Aposltes, and they to the Church. It was so before a word of the NT was ever written. Although the faith that Jesus taught is reflected in the OT as well as the New, neither is the source of the faith, but only Jesus. It is more how He taught the Apostles to understand and use those scriptures.

Similarly, the NT reflects the faith of the Church, but is not the origin of it. The Deuterocanon sheds light on the faith that is already held by the Church.
 
=paul c;7897859]
Why are your personal decisions defined by those of others? We are all ultimately responsible for ourselves.
They’re not, Paul. But that would be one sea-change event that I could not ignore as aclear movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church. There are other ways I could find myself in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
While Pope Benedict has made ecumenical progress with the Orthodox, I fear that Political and National issues will play a bigger role in maintaining separation than will issues of the faith, which are afterall, minor in the scheme of Christian doctrinal disagreements.
I hope that’s not the case.
By ecclesiology, are you saying that you have difficulty in accepting papal authority? Why is that harder than accepting the authority of your Lutheran bishop. In fact, it should be significantly easier because the Pope has far greater credentials…
Yes. Universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility (ex cathedra). It would be quite easy, if I felt this reflected the early Church, as presented in Nicea. No argument about the current Pope - he probably knows as much about Lutheranism as our bishop. 😃 I do have great respect for him.

Jon
 
Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority** in the Church’s **faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures…

I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

Tell me what you think.

Parker
What I think is that without a visible, authoritative Church to articulate what the “essential Christian beliefs…derived from the Scriptures” are, exactly, that the concept of SS is practically useless. 500 years’ experience of those adhering to SS have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there is considerable confusion regarding what the “essential Christian beliefs” contained in Scripture are. **So what good is it, exactly, to know that the Word of God is “sufficient” to be the “sole source *the Church ***can go to for faith and practice” when the Church cannot be identified as the Church??

You have no answer to this very basic question, and without one your concept of SS is useless. Tell me what you think…
 
Quote:
=paul c;7897859]
Why are your personal decisions defined by those of others? We are all ultimately responsible for ourselves.
Yes. if the orthodox came back into the Catholic fold, it would indeed be a sea change. It may happen. The current Pope is the Pope of Christian Unity. His work with the Anglicans is awe-inspiring.
Quote:
While Pope Benedict has made ecumenical progress with the Orthodox, I fear that Political and National issues will play a bigger role in maintaining separation than will issues of the faith, which are afterall, minor in the scheme of Christian doctrinal disagreements.
Me too, butI think that has been the history…Imperial politics had a bigger role in the schism than ecclesiology.
Quote:
By ecclesiology, are you saying that you have difficulty in accepting papal authority? Why is that harder than accepting the authority of your Lutheran bishop. In fact, it should be significantly easier because the Pope has far greater credentials…
You know Jon, universal authority is absolutely required to maintain unity. And papal infallbility is requred not only for unity but for credibility. You see, if the pope didnt have infallibility when he spoke on faith and morals, you could never be sure what to believe and if he didnt have universal authority , then schism would follow whenever someone disagreed with the Pope. These things are just natural for the leader of the Church. The Pope needs to answer to God for his actions. He is accutely aware of that. It is a heavy burden. Thats why every ex cathedra decision is very thougtfully carried out with lots of (name removed by moderator)ut. And for Catholics, trusting the Pope is really about trusting that God willl guide the church appropriately…

As for Pope Benedict, I am absolutely sure he understand Lutheranism better than most Lutherans. He is an incredibly theologian. And that is helping with Christian unity

 
I recognize that there were at the beginning several different Protestant forms. This distresed Luther,didn’t it.

Perhaps not, but he felt personally empowered to redefine the faith, didn’t he. What were his credentials to do that.
You are right, Luther was extremely distressed about the divergences, and railed against those who followed his own doctrine of SS because using it, they came up with different theologies.

He did not mean to redefine the faith, only to bring out the original sense of it that he thought had been lost. In the course of that, he redefined certain terms and doctrines, creating some that, in the end, represented a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. The methods he created spawned a splintering that even he could not imagine.
 
AFTER I HAD WRITTEN THIS, I WAS NOTIFIED THAT IT WAS TOO LONG. THE 8676 CHARACTERS HAD TO BE TRIMMED TO 6000. I THINK WHAT I WROTE IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT, SO I’LL PUT IT DOWN AS PART I, AND PART II.

PART I

I read with interest ALL the responses my very first post to this forum provoked. I didn’t intend to cause such a flurry of activity, but I was somewhat naïve about how or what to say when introducing myself for the first time.

I was educated at private preparatory schools in suburban Philadelphia, and the only “Catholic” education I had, was as an undergraduate at Villanova. I was a Latin scholar, having studied the ''dead" language between the ages of 8 and 18. While an undergraduate I was required, as a Catholic, to take only 3 semesters of Theology for my degree requirement.

“Sola Scriptura” is literally translated from the Latin to English as: “The sole source of Scripture is the Bible.”

You can jockey the words around like; “The Bible’s sole source is scripture,” or other such mixing up of the words. Don’t forget that the English language has more than a half million (500,000) words more in it’s dictionaries than any other language. The closest languages that come anywhere near English for the actual number of words are; French and German.

Before I go on to my next point, I want to preface that by saying to you: “Have you ever head a verbal rumor, then about 6 months later heard the same rumor again, but this time it has been embellished?” Sure, we all have.

We consider that the first 5 books of the Bible (The Pentateuch) were attributed to Moses. But when were the books of the Bible actually written down on paper? According to recent finds and what Historians have been saying all along, the Bible was first actually written down when the Israelites were taken into captivity and taken as prisoners to Babylon. While prisoners of King Nebuchadnezzar II, the king set the Scribes of the Isralites to work putting down onto paper the oral traditions that had been nothing more than that, oral traditions, since the time of Moses.

Just like the Greek poet Homer, whose poems the Illiad and the Odyssey were oral poems handed down from one generation to another, the same thing held true with the scriptures of the Hebrews. No where can ANY written document be found that is older than c. 550 BC. 605 BC was the year that King of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar II came to power. His reign was notable for his undertaking of the restoration of Babylon, which became one of the wonders of the world. In 586 BC he marched on the Kingdom of Judah and destroyed the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Many hostages were subsequently removed to forced labour in Babylon.

It was during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II that he had the scribes of the captured Hebrews put down on paper their oral traditions, beliefs, and their sacred scripture.

Well just like Homer’s poems, the oral traditions that went onto become the Pentateuch were finally written down. In the case of the Israelites, the time between Moses, who lived c.1500-1300 BC and the time of the Babylonian captivity in 586 BC, was anywhere between 900 to 700 years of nothing but oral stories being handed down from one generation to another. There HAD to have been some embellishments! It is NOT possible that something like the Pentateuch was handed down verbatim for 800 years intact.

Going on that premise, and the story that the Books of the Bible (from where we get our Scripture [Scriptura] from ), were attributed to men (Human beings) on the inspired word of God. I will go on to point out some simple stories and embellishments.

As I said from the start I am NO Biblical Scholar. I only wished I had taken more classes in Theology. But as a practical individual, educated in the Liberal Arts (my undergraduate degree in the Humanities) I have to believe that most of the historical books of the Old Testament, by the time they were finally put down on paper had been embellished over the centuries since the stories were first told.

For Example: How do you tell a child, around the time of 1,000 BC, the reason that people speak many, many different languages. The Biblical story is told that during the building of the Tower of Babel God came down and saw that a Tower was being built, and he said:

“If now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to do this, nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do. Let us go down and therefore confuse their language, so that one will not understand what another says.” (Genesis, Chapter 11, vers. 6-7)

Now really, be practical. To a child asking a simple question like; “Why do people speak different languages?” That to me, (the above verse from Genesis) is a very simplistic way of mixing an answer that a child will understand with religious beliefs.

I don’t want to debunk the Old Testament, but many, very many, times in the Old Testament a very, very simplistic answer was given to a child like question. Don’t forget that at the time of Moses to, probably, the middle of the 17th century AD, the vast majority of people on the earth were illiterate, uneducated, poor Farmers and Shepard’s. Especially around the areas of the Middle East and the Holy Land.

My simple answer to people believing the first book of Genesis about the world and the universe being created in six days can be debunked by just reading the play “Inherit the Wind” but I don’t want to talk about that now.

But a better reason that God works on his own time is from Psalm 90. In Psalm 90, a prayer of Moses, he (Moses) states that “A thousand years in your (God’s) eyes are merely a yesterday to us.” (Psalm 90, I, 4)

END OF PART I, GO ON TO PART II
 
PART II of my response to "Sola Scriptura Biblical.

And keep in mind that the Bible that we all read today, comes from the 'Authorized, King James Version, IN ENGLISH ! ) even European translations of the bible into German, French, etc. are a translation of the King James Version.

But try reading the Bible in its original languages of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. There is a whole difference in the understanding of what you are actually reading. But the English translation has bastardized the Bible for most of the world today. I would like to see a very faithful translation of the Bible into English from the original Aramaic, Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It would probably make 99% of the people take an entirely different look at their beliefs today.

But be happy with what you have today. Not all of us are Ancient Aramaic, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew scholars. The current English translation of the Bible, the first being from the Douay- Rheims translation in 1582 led to the King James version in the early 17th century, is the best we can hope for at the present time.

So as far as “Sola Scripture Biblical” is concerned I think that you should read the Bible, but keep in mind that it is a book that is supposed to guide you morally through life. To totally believe everything you read in the bible, keep in mind that in the State of Tennessee there are believers that say if you actually, and truly believe, then you can pick up serpents without fear of being bitten, like it says in the Bible. These people actually dig pits and fill them full of Rattlesnakes and jump in with them and try to pick the snakes up and “pet” them.

Are you actually willing to jump into a pit filled with Rattlesnakes and Cobras and expect to continue to live just by saying you believe? Of course not. Well the same thing is with the Bible.

In the New Testament, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christ gets his point across by teaching parables. Think of the Old Testament in the same way. These histories are something like parables that were told to young children, and people who were ignorant, uneducated, and illiterate people. They had to be told something that they simplistically could understand.

Can you imagine trying to explain Thermo-Nuclear Dynamics to someone who is uneducated and illiterate, and expect them to understand? Of course they won’t understand a word you are saying. Thankfully God gave man the one thing that sets him apart from all the other creatures on earth…The ability to think! When is the last time you went to the library to read a book written by a horse or cow or a snake ?

My own priest at the parish I belong to today, tells me that I can believe what I want as far as the Bible is concerned, as long as God is behind it !
 
It seems silly to me that when protestants are provided with Biblical passages in support
of Sacred Tradition – they reject them in favor of sola scriptura for which there are no passages.

I would like to know more about the sola scriptura argument as it relates to historical context.

When was this argument first proposed?
Was it ever argued prior to the invention of the printing press?
 
As the debate starts to get uglier in the debate, I think half of the debate is surrounded on the nature of Sola Scriptura. In this case, the central question is this: Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Although there is no way to cut through the fog here, there needs to be a concise definition of this theological practice. For starters, I have posted this definition of Sola Scriptura multiple times on this thread. Here it is:

[sign]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/sign]

With all that said, I want to see if anyone could prove the following:
  • Sola Scriptura denies Church Authority
  • Sola Scriptura forbides Church Discipline
  • Sola Scriptura denies scriptural tradition
  • Sola Scriptura deines the word of God speaking at one point or another.
I would however would like to add the additional scriptural passages that suggest (by implication) that the Word of God is sufficient enough to be the sole source the Church can go to for faith and practice.

    • Proverbs 30:5
    • Hebrews 4:12
    • Matthew 4:4
    • 2 Timothy 3:16
    • Deuteronomy 8:3
    • Jos. 8:8 (Note: Joshua’s obedience/actions were done so according to whatever God said, i.e. his word. By implication, it shows that we are to follow whatever source is his Word.)
    • Acts 13:44
    Tell me what you think.

    Parker

  1. There is the written Word; there also is the spoken Word. The Scriptures are inspired and holy, yet they are not more holy or authoritative than the words spoken by the prophets, Jesus and the Apostles which are not recorded in Scriptures. The Church continues to be inspired in teaching the true meaning of the Gospel, which has been passed down through the ages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top