Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, Rather than quoting a quote within I Cor. 4:6, perhaps you should have quoted the actual verse in context. I Cor 3:1-4:7…

I quite agree that context must be taken into account. Since the Forum Rules advice us to post lengthy replies, one can only do so much justice to the context. I’d refer you to my blog article to see how I’ve attempted to do just that while responding to Catholic attempts to get around what Paul is saying.

Here Paul does not tell the Corinthians that they should adhere to “nothing beyond what is written,” as you mean it according to SS. He is instead responding to the fact that some people are trying to push devicive principles and that, as a result, there are factions of Christians bickering against one another.

Actually Paul is doing exactly what you say—that is, countering the divisions based on personality cults. But he is doing so on the basis of “what is written.” When he tells the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written, he’s assuming the very authority principle the Reformers called “sola scriptura.” You’re simply issuing a flat denial. But you haven’t at all explained what Paul did mean by the words “not beyond what is written.”

Sound familiar? That’s exactly what is happening today, right here on this thread and throughout the world because of Sola Scriptura.

You’re blaming sola scriptura for personality cults? Then what explains articles such as this one from Catholic Answers? I Will Be Where Peter Is, by William Reichert? That sounds exactly like the problem Paul was addressing. “I am of Peter,” is precisely what the true believer is to reject.

We can add to that the phenomenon of naming churches after saints. Could the man who scoffed at those who would say, “I am of Paul,” ever have been pleased with the fact that there are entire cathedrals named after him? In fact, if you read Luther, he was adamant that no one identify him or herself by Luther’s name. And yet it the label “Lutheran” stuck, despite his protests. Likewise, despite Paul’s efforts to stay Christocentric, the church has always formed personality cults around its leaders or other saintly people. That’s because the church—whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, is made up of human beings prone to idolatry.

Paul isn’t saying, “Please, throw off the Apostolic authority of the Church and bicker endlessly with one another based on the saying ‘Do not go beyond what is written’.”

I quite agree. But then no one is claiming otherwise, so your point—whatever it is exactly—doesn’t seem relevant to the issue at hand.

The foundation of my faith was lain by Calvinists, but as I followed God to the Fullness of Truth in the Eternal, Apostolic Teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, whatever in Calvinism was not of God - including, obviously, SS - was burned up, but that which was the Truth remained. For those things and for all others, I thank God not Calvin, as Calvin would have me do (at least, now that he has passed from death to… wherever he ended up… and can see the Catholic Church for what it is, rather than for what he wrongly believed it to be).

There seems to be a lot of emotion behind these words. I commend you to God and pray that you will keep seeking his light, wherever it may lead you.

If you boast that you have the wisdom to interpret for yourself, God will declare you a fool. But if, in humility, you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, He will declare you wise.

All boasting aside, what do you base this on? Walk me through the steps that lead you to conclude that “not beyond what is written,” really means “submit yourself to the authority of the Catholic Church.”

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

To what was St. Paul referring when he wrote “what is written”? Was he referring to the entire OT? To the decalogue? To the Septuagint?

He was referring to specific Old Testament texts that he cited in the letter to the Corinthians up to the point he said “not to go beyond what is written.” Those texts in 1 Corinthians are as follows:

1:19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (Citing Isaiah 29:14)

1:31 Therefore as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (Citing Jeremiah 9:2)

2:9 But, as it is written,“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— (Citing Isaiah 64:4)

2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (Citing Isaiah 40:13).

3:19 For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” (citing Job 5:13)

3:20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” (citing Psalm 94:11).

The phrase “it is written” is also commonplace in the New Testament and in Judaism for scripture. So it cannot be limited to particular texts or versions of texts alone; rather it is a categorical reference.

Clearly, Paul could not be referring to the NT, which was not yet written.

That is true. The question, however, is this. Does “what is written” now include the New Testament now that it is regarded as scripture? If so, then can we safely generalize Paul’s principle not to go “beyond what is written” to the entire Bible? If not, why not?

And, of course, Peter, James, the author of Hebrews seem to be disobeying Paul’s injunction, yes?

How so? Did they teach anything in those letters that contradict other scriptures?

Do you not consider the epistles of Peter and James to be theopneustos?

Yes I do. Your point in asking this, however, eludes me.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Actually Paul is doing exactly what you say—that is, countering the divisions based on personality cults. But he is doing so on the basis of “what is written.” When he tells the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written, he’s assuming the very authority principle the Reformers called “sola scriptura.” You’re simply issuing a flat denial. But you haven’t at all explained what Paul did mean by the words “not beyond what is written.”

If your interpretation were correct wouldn’t Paul’s very command to not go beyond, “what is written” go beyond, “what is written”?

God bless

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

If your interpretation were correct wouldn’t Paul’s very command to not go beyond, “what is written” go beyond, “what is written”?

God bless

God bless you too. To answer your question—no, I don’t think so. For one, we read about the command in scripture itself. But I don’t think it would have mattered if Paul told the Corinthians this in person. The principle the same. Scripture is the norm to which we are to conform, whether we read about it in scripture or not. But we do read about it in scripture–and not just in 1 Corinthians 4:6. When Jesus told the Pharisees, “You err because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24), he was taking the normative authority of scripture for granted. Nowhere did Jesus put Jewish tradition or teaching authority on the same level–though he sometimes regarded both of these as valid. For example, Jesus observed Hanukkah (John 10:22) and he affirmed the teaching the authority of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:3). But neither Jewish tradition or the authority of their leaders have the kind of weight that “It is written,” has. When disputing with the Devil, Jesus cites scripture, not tradition or magisterial authority to settle the matter.

 

[Tiberius1701]

When disputing with the Devil, Jesus cites scripture, not tradition or magisterial authority to settle the matter.

Or maybe Jesus knew that, as the first Protestant - the one who initially flouted the Magisterial Authority of God Himself before man was even created - maybe Jesus just used the devil’s own sola Scriptura against him because Jesus didn’t want to engage in a long, fruitless discussion with the blind-hearted creator of sola Scriptura, choosing instead to succinctly appeal to Scripture rather than letting the devil change the subject or dodge his probing questions so as to talk in circles forever…

 

[SimonArizona]

God bless you too. To answer your question—no, I don’t think so. For one, we read about the command in scripture itself. But I don’t think it would have mattered if Paul told the Corinthians this in person. The principle the same. Scripture is the norm to which we are to conform, whether we read about it in scripture or not. But we do read about it in scripture–and not just in 1 Corinthians 4:6. When Jesus told the Pharisees, “You err because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24), he was taking the normative authority of scripture for granted. Nowhere did Jesus put Jewish tradition or teaching authority on the same level–though he sometimes regarded both of these as valid. For example, Jesus observed Hanukkah (John 10:22) and he affirmed the teaching the authority of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:3). But neither Jewish tradition or the authority of their leaders have the kind of weight that “It is written,” has. When disputing with the Devil, Jesus cites scripture, not tradition or magisterial authority to settle the matter.

St. Paul commanded the keeping of traditions, in fact, he says have no part with those who don’t follow the traditions.

It is by tradition that we correctly understand Scripture. We ask “how has scripture been traditionally understood?” It’s a system of check and balance. This passage means x and not z because the saints traditionally understood it to mean x, z came along in the 16th century, etc.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

God bless you too. To answer your question—no, I don’t think so. For one, we read about the command in scripture itself.

Are you saying this command is specifically in other places in Scripture or that you think it’s implied through the examples that you offered?

But I don’t think it would have mattered if Paul told the Corinthians this in person. The principle the same. Scripture is the norm to which we are to conform, whether we read about it in scripture or not.

What about in 2 and 3 John where the author writes:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 2 John 12

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. 3 John 13

I find the subtle difference in 2 John very interesting. That those who the author is writing to won’t be “complete” by what he is writing but only when he comes to talk with them face to face. What you described as the norm doesn’t seem to me to be applied here. It appears to me that what this author says face to face has the same binding authority than if he were to write it. In fact he says he would rather come speak with them than write it. Kind of goes with what Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. It seems to me that the written and oral forms of teaching were not only both valid but authoritative. What am I missing?

But we do read about it in scripture–and not just in 1 Corinthians 4:6. When Jesus told the Pharisees, “You err because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God”

I agree with this. One does need to know the scriptures. I don’t think the Catholic position is opposed to this, niether is the Protestant position.

For example, Jesus observed Hanukkah (John 10:22) and he affirmed the teaching the authority of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:3). But neither Jewish tradition or the authority of their leaders have the kind of weight that “It is written,” has. When disputing with the Devil, Jesus cites scripture, not tradition or magisterial authority to settle the matter.

Again this wouldn’t appear to be opposed to the Catholic position. Or the Protestant position.

God bless you

 

[SimonArizona]

For ‘Christians’ they are the church of the book, but for Catholics the book is the book of the Church. Because authority was given to the Church by Christ. To decide which books of the Bible belong in it.

??What is the pillar and foundation of the Truth for any Christian??

 

[JonNC]

=DrPiano;7936310]I actually had the same question but forgot to ask it.

Is not hermeunetics a practice of the Church? SS is the basis upon which our Church practices hermeunetics.

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.

As one often sees here, SS is not explicitly defined in scripture, which is the source of doctrine. Anglican James Kiefer makes this comment:

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

It seems to me that a doctrine is something one must hold to. I see no reason to believe that sola scriptura is a doctrine in this sense.

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…

I really can’t say I know what non-Lutheran communions do in this way.

Jon

 

[SimonArizona]

what is LCMS?

 

[Tiberius1701]

what is LCMS?

LCMS stands for Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

Is not hermeunetics a practice of the Church? SS is the basis upon which our Church practices hermeunetics.

So, just so we understand, the hermenuetics of the LCMS is a practice based on the practice of SS based on… what?

Practices are meant to have their basis either in Apostolic Tradition or in Doctrine, are they not? So, if SS is a practice, what is its basis?

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;7936415]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.

Here is what the Formula of Concord says:

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.

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.

The third paragraph sounds to me like an acceptance of extra-biblical writings, namely, the three creeds. And this does not fit into your presentation of sola scriptura.

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.

Martin chemnitz:

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…

As a Lutheran, I have no room or place to privately interpret scripture where doctrine of the Lutheran Church is concerned (not speaking here of adiaphora).
Now, if I am to choose between your account above, and that of my communion, whom do you think I should believe is correct?

If someone comes on here and claims that Catholic Marian Dogmas are idolatry, and you (rightly) say it is not, I am obligated to believe what you say about your faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

I’m still here, my friend. And the reason is twofold:

1. to learn from and dialogue with Catholics of good will.
2. to try as best I can, and I’m no theologian, to express my understanding of Lutheran beliefs. I trust other Lutherans will correct me if I’m wrong.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=mphuber;7937179]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.

You’ve hit on something that I think answers the question regarding why Lutherans turned to sola scriptura, and that is that, prior to the Reformation, Sacred Tradition seems to have failed to hold Christian unity - The Great Schism.
Both east and west hold a claim to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. How can both be right? How can the west, for example, hold that there are twenty-something ecumenical councils, and the east lay claim to 7 (or is it 8).

The single best way to dissolve sola scriptura is reconciliation of the patriarchates of the early Church.

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The single best way to dissolve sola scriptura is reconciliation of the patriarchates of the early Church.

Jon

This is perhaps what would convince you but I am not so sure the reconciliation would matter to the more fundamentalist flavors of Protestantism. I think they would look at such a reconciliation as, what they believe, the coming of the “one world religion”. This is just coming from my experience with Fundamentalists. It appears to be Sola Scriptura or bust for them.

God bless Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

As one often sees here, SS is not explicitly defined in scripture, which is the source of doctrine. Anglican James Kiefer makes this comment:

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

This is an interesting angle Jon. Correct me if I am wrong but is Kiefer trying to say that Sola Scriptura not an essential belief?

If this is so I think this admission would shock a large majority of Protestants.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

This is perhaps what would convince you but I am not so sure the reconciliation would matter to the more fundamentalist flavors of Protestantism. I think they would look at such a reconciliation as, what they believe, the coming of the “one world religion”. This is just coming from my experience with Fundamentalists. It appears to be Sola Scriptura or bust for them.

God bless Jon

No question. I really can’t speak for them, as you know. I certainly don’t think I’d be alone, however.

JOn

 

[JonNC]

This is an interesting angle Jon. Correct me if I am wrong but is Kiefer trying to say that Sola Scriptura not an essential belief?

If this is so I think this admission would shock a large majority of Protestants.

God bless

I believe he is, and I agree with him. I in no way believe that, just because Catholics and Orthodox use Sacred Tradition as a co-equal to Sacred Scripture, they are condemned. I see no scriptural support for that at all.

Jon

 

[Tiberius1701]

No question. I really can’t speak for them, as you know. I certainly don’t think I’d be alone, however.

Jon

I agree. God is leading plenty of people Home to the Catholic Church even without the reconcilliation of East and West. When the Catholic Church and the Orthodox patriarchates do reconcile, I bet the ensuing Tiber Swin Team will overflow the river…

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I believe he is, and I agree with him. I in no way believe that, just because Catholics and Orthodox use Sacred Tradition as a co-equal to Sacred Scripture, they are condemned. I see no scriptural support for that at all.

Jon

Yes if only there were more like yourself Jon. Thanks for offering that quote.

God bless