Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

  • Thread starter Thread starter haparker321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Newsy;7928899]Actually, he is using scripture, not sola scriptura. He is reading scripture and understanding it in light of the Church’s teaching, which was handed down to us from the Apostles. This is very different from using sola scriptura, in fact we still have no concrete definition of sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
Hi Newsy,
If I may, since Luther/Lutherans get the credit/blame for sola scriptura, it seems the default “definition” of the practice should be this, from the Book of Concord:
  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. **
    2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
Click to expand...
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t “prove” sola scriptura, but perhaps provides a definition of the practice.

Jon
 
To all of my separated Protestant brethren out there, it’s time to quit rebelling and come home.

AMEN! Preach it!
 
inkaneer said:
No, its not. That is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura implies there are other sources of information available but only scripture is accepted. But when there is no other source available then the only source of information that we have to rely on is scripture. In other words, with other sources of evidence available the sola scriptura doctrine forces one to go only with scripture. When no other sources are available then it is scripture that provides the only evidence. However, that is not to say that scripture is not used when other sources of evidence are available. There is no contradiction between the Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition. If you think there is then the problem lies with you [your interpretation] and not with either Tradition.
Click to expand...
See my above post. SS does not say “only scripture is accepted”. And, sola scriptura is not a doctrine, it is a practice.

Jon
 
Ignatius said:
Sorry my brother, but Yes he is indeed. According to protestant theology every christian is allowed to interpret scripture for themself, hence you have no basis on which to say that your interpretation is any better than his. The most you can do is give your personal opinion, and your opinion has no more weight than any one elses.
Click to expand...
*“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…” *
-Martin Chemnitz, second generation Lutheran reformer

Jon
 
fbl9 said:
Dare I call this practice a Tradition.
Click to expand...
fbl9, Lutherans have no qualms about Tradition. They simply don’t put it on the same level as Scripture. If you want to discuss SS with JohnNC, you would do well to start by paying attention to the definition of SS that he posted just a few posts ago.
 
JonNC said:
Jason, I wanted to make one more comment here, if I can. I’m not willing to say, the Bible is sufficient, and leave it at that. I’m only willing to say that scripture is the final norm, by which all teachings and teachers are held accountable. The former (the bible is sufficient) implies that no teachings and teachers are necessary, and I fully disagree with that. Why would Christ have established the Church to preach (teach) the Gospel and administer the sacraments, if teachers and teachings were not important?

We recently had “questioning day” for our confirmands, their last step prior to confirmation. The kids catechetical training is based on primarly the scripture and Luther’s Small Catechism. Luther wrote it in a simplified way so that fathers could teach their families the basics of the Christian faith. Obviously, I believe the Holy Spirit uses the creeds, and other human writings to spread the truth of the Gospel of Christ.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hey Jon,

I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and respect your position immensely. And honestly, I don’t think we’re that far apart, as I hope to demonstrate.

The Catholic Church teaches that God’s Word is the revelation of Truth, whether that revelation is written down or passed on orally to be later definitively explained as it meets challenges (for example, the Nicean definition of the Godhead, which wasn’t defined until challenged by the Arians or the Ephesian definition of the dual natures of Christ which wasn’t defined until challenged by the Nestorians). Sacred Scripture is the first (God’s Living Word written down) and Sacred Tradition is the other (God’s Living Word passed down orally).

Now, as Truth cannot contradict Truth, I think it would be fair to say that Sacred Tradition cannot contradict Sacred Scripture - thus putting us saying almost essentially the same thing when you say “scripture is the final norm, by which all teachings and teachers are held accountable.” To that, at least understood in one way, I say “Amen!”

The question then becomes how does one understand what scripture is saying? How do we decide whether it is (and I’ll use fake names here for the sake of not offending anyone) Bob’s interpretation of scripture or Billy’s interpretation of scripture? Because perhaps under Billy’s interpretation of scripture Doctrine X is not “biblical” while under Bob’s it is. And that is where we have the Magesterium - the Authority to Interpret Scripture (and for that matter, Church History, often used by the Magesterium to show continuity between the interpretation of scripture now and the interpretation of scripture by the ECFs). The Magesterium does not Trump scripture, it guards it - and it guards us from twisting Scripture to say what we want it to say.

I think this is not unlike (and I’m sorry I’m going to butcher his name I think) Melanch… (oh bother, I can’t remember… but I’m betting you’ll get who I mean 😉 ) his way of showing what he believed to be happening in the Eucharist. He used scripture, then some ECFs. And if you look at our Catechism, everything the Church teaches is derived in very much the same way: with scripture, interpreted by the Magesterium, using history and exegesis to do it. While it may have taken time for certain doctrines to be stated, I’ve come to see how ancient all of those doctrines are.

I started out Protestant. My journey to the Catholic Church was a long and interesting one. I’ve studied and studied Catholic Doctrines - pretty much most of them, if not all - and I know that all of them are both Scriptural and Historical - their roots can be found in the bible and the faith of the Early Church.

And, like you, I reject the twisting of your version of SS (perhaps it was the original… unfortunately, it started the mess that became the present conception of SS as other reformers picked up and modified the mantra. To Luther, as I understand it, unless Scripture condemned it, it was permissible. To Zwingli, Calvin, and the Puritans, unless scripture commanded it, it was condemned. The burden to “prove” this doctrine or that doctrine using only scripture is quite often what we Catholics are bludgeoned with - and one that I staunchly reject. I don’t mind showing how what I believe is biblical, but I refuse to play with one hand tied behind my back.) into what it has become among the vast majority of Protestants that I encounter, such as the stated “definition” in the Original Post.

I guess what I’m really saying is maybe we’re not far off from complete agreement on this at all 😉
 
Hi Elisa,
I must go this evening, but will respond later to your very nice post. I wanted to mention to you and to Tiberius, considering your signature picture, I just received a picture text from my daughter in law, an ultrasound of our granddaughter at 23 weeks gestation. She has her mouth open as in a yawn. My granddaughter is not merely a fetus.
Just thought I’d share that.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Hi Elisa,
I must go this evening, but will respond later to your very nice post. I wanted to mention to you and to Tiberius, considering your signature picture, I just received a picture text from my daughter in law, an ultrasound of our granddaughter at 23 weeks gestation. She has her mouth open as in a yawn. My granddaughter is not merely a fetus.
Just thought I’d share that.

Jon
Click to expand...
Not to be off topic…but a big congratulaitons, Jon, to you and to your son and d-i-l! Is this your first grandkid?

👍
 
JonNC said:
Hi Elisa,
I must go this evening, but will respond later to your very nice post. I wanted to mention to you and to Tiberius, considering your signature picture, I just received a picture text from my daughter in law, an ultrasound of our granddaughter at 23 weeks gestation. She has her mouth open as in a yawn. My granddaughter is not merely a fetus.
Just thought I’d share that.

Jon
Click to expand...
Congratulations on the Granddaughter!

No, our little “Bean” isn’t a fetus either - as he loves to remind me ever so often with his little kicks 🙂 Babies are precious. We got our ultrasound at 19 weeks - just a couple of weeks ago and I treasure those pictures 🙂 And we had a treat early on - one of our first ultrasounds (we had a few extra for health reasons) showed “Bean” waving his arms like he was conducting a symphony - a priceless treasure for the music-loving me.

I look forward to reading your response - and thanks for the reply!
 
JonNC said:
*“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…” *
-Martin Chemnitz, second generation Lutheran reformer

Jon
Click to expand...
Brother Jon, I certainly have no argument with that statement, but I think St. Paul actually said it first. You have a very Catholic understanding of this. Unfortunately not all Protestands hold to your interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Also, if it isn’t really Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) why use the the term Scripture Alone, why not have a term that is accurately states the theology that it is trying to represent and remove the controversy?

Congratulations on your blessed event, may God bless your new Grandaughter in every way.
 
PRmerger said:
If Sola Scriptura is a practice, what doctrine is it based on?
Click to expand...
I actually had the same question but forgot to ask it.

And I have to also ask, in what way do you define doctrine (since different people define doctrine as different things)? I’m no stranger to distinguishing doctrine from “other” (although I’m more used to distinguishing doctrine from discipline as both result in practices), but I’m curious to know how you’re doing it here.

And would that hold for other Protestants or only your Tradition? I can’t say one way or another (because my mom doesn’t really use the term “doctrine”) but the way I’ve often seen it treated, certainly makes it seem like how we (Catholics) would define doctrine…
 
DrPiano said:
I actually had the same question but forgot to ask it.

And I have to also ask, in what way do you define doctrine (since different people define doctrine as different things)? I’m no stranger to distinguishing doctrine from “other” (although I’m more used to distinguishing doctrine from discipline as both result in practices), but I’m curious to know how you’re doing it here.

And would that hold for other Protestants or only your Tradition? I can’t say one way or another (because my mom doesn’t really use the term “doctrine”) but the way I’ve often seen it treated, certainly makes it seem like how we (Catholics) would define doctrine…
Click to expand...
Even though you were quoting my post, I’m assuming you’re addressing your questions to Jon?
 
PRmerger said:
Even though you were quoting my post, I’m assuming you’re addressing your questions to Jon?
Click to expand...
Aye - sorry if that was unclear. My questions are directed at our Brother Jon 😉 Your question prompted me to remember my own questions as I was going to ask the same one first off anyway!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
No, its not. That is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura implies there are other sources of information available but only scripture is accepted. But when there is no other source available then the only source of information that we have to rely on is scripture. In other words, with other sources of evidence available the sola scriptura doctrine forces one to go only with scripture. When no other sources are available then it is scripture that provides the only evidence. However, that is not to say that scripture is not used when other sources of evidence are available. There is no contradiction between the Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition. If you think there is then the problem lies with you [your interpretation] and not with either Tradition.
JonNC said:
See my above post. SS does not say “only scripture is accepted”. And, sola scriptura is not a doctrine, it is a practice.

Jon
Click to expand...
Well I will beg to differ with you. Sola scriptura is one of the two basic doctrines that underlies all non Catholic denominations [protestant denominations]. The other basic doctrine is private interpretation of the scriptures. These doctrines are obviously practiced by protestants but that is to be expected if they are doctrines. As for what sola scriptura says it does say that only scripture is accepted as an authority. Here is one of the areas where modern protestantism has forgotten it’s past, even though that was only 500 years ago. The original dispute was over Church authority. By rejecting Church authority the early protestants were left with only the scriptures as acceptable authority. .
 
Tiberius1701 said:
fbl9, Lutherans have no qualms about Tradition. They simply don’t put it on the same level as Scripture. If you want to discuss SS with JohnNC, you would do well to start by paying attention to the definition of SS that he posted just a few posts ago.
Click to expand...
That i know. I know also that i have a high regards for JohnNC.
Since SS is a practice it is thus a tradition, which those who do not follow the Lutheran confession will shrink to say it is so. Rather they will call SS a doctrine, not tradition. Which leaves us to wonder if Luther got it ,SS, wrong by declaring it to be tradition rather than doctrine,if it was even right in the first place.
 
fbl9 said:
That i know. I know also that i have a high regards for JohnNC.
Since SS is a practice it is thus a tradition, which those who do not follow the Lutheran confession will shrink to say it is so. Rather they will call SS a doctrine, not tradition. Which leaves us to wonder if Luther got it ,SS, wrong by declaring it to be tradition rather than doctrine,if it was even right in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well, if Luther created it and meant it to be a tradition/practice, then wouldn’t it be those who call it a doctrine who are mistaken?

Still, I think, either way, it boils down to two questions:
  1. If it’s a practice, on what clear, ancient Christian doctrine is it founded?
  2. If it’s a doctrine, on what authority is it defined as such?
 
I feel like I am jumping in the middle of a discussion, but I thought I would put in my 2 cents. I think Catholics and Protestants agree that the final authority should be the Word of God. Protestants don’t believe that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, but Catholics do.
So I don’t see the debate so much about SS, or the definition of SS, but is Sacred Tradition the Word of God? If you can show a Protestant that ST is the Word of God, then the SS debate goes away. Conversely, if you can show a Catholic that Sacred Tradition is not the Word of God, all you have left is the Bible. Either way both sides will agree that the church has authority, but for the Catholic it is a sometimes infallible authority. But when not infallible it has the same kind of authority to the Catholic as the Protestants church does to the Protestant, that is an authority that must be tested by the Word of God.
The Catholic Church and Protestant Church have no authority apart from the Word of God. For example if either church started to teach that abortion was acceptable, she would be outside of her God given authority.
 
I don’t really have anything to add because I’m nowhere NEAR as learned as all of you.

I just find it amazing though (and I thought I’d throw this out there as a nice congrats to you who fought the argument against SS) that in every thread I’ve seen since I’ve started CAF that has to deal with SS, the one or two guys that make the biggest rant and rave in favor of SS end up disappearing…almost like they “accidentally” forgot their password to get back on here or something. LOL

When I first saw this thread get posted a while back, all I could think was “oh no, wrong thing to post buddie. Lord…be gentle with him, he knows not what he does.”

Good job ladies and gentlement!!!

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top