John Martignoni's new tract on Sola Scriptura

[Church_Militant]

The Bible…Alone? (The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura)

Introduction
Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. This belief is known as Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.

Catholic Christians, however, believe that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are authoritative and that both are necessary when deciding what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. Whose right? Let’s look at this situation from three perspectives: logical, scriptural, and historical.

1) The Logical Perspective
The biggest problem with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from this perspective is that there is no list, in the Bible, of what books should be, in the Bible. The table of contents is not part of the inspired Scripture! This is very important point to realize. There is no inspired list, in the Bible, of which books should be in the Bible.

                                           **Disputes Over Scripture**

You see, God didn’t just drop the Bible down out of the sky one day and say, “Hey, guys, here it is.” No. The Bible wasn’t put together as we have it today for more than 300 years after the death of Christ. 300 years! And, one of the problems in putting the Bible together was that there was a lot of disagreement, among Christians, over exactly what should be considered inspired Scripture. There were a lot of books back then that people thought were inspired; yet, these books did not end up in the Bible as we have it today. Books such as the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, the Letter of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, and many more.

There were also several books that did end up in our Bible that a lot of people did not think were inspired and should not be considered as part of Scripture. Books such as Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and others.

In other words, there was a lot of dispute over just what was and what wasn’t inspired Scripture. So, how did the early Christians settle the disputes? Well, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you just look in the Bible to find the authoritative answer to any question regarding the Christian faith, right? So, did they consult the Bible to find out which books should be in the Bible? No! They couldn’t consult the Bible because the Bible was what the disputes were over.

So, in order to decide one of the most fundamental issues of Christianity: Which books are and are not inspired Scripture - some authority outside of the Bible had to be relied upon. Some person, or group of persons, outside of the Bible, had to decide which books were, and which books were not, inspired Scripture. Think about it!

Full Text

 

[JonNC]

The Bible…Alone? (The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura)

Introduction
Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. This belief is known as Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.

Catholic Christians, however, believe that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are authoritative and that both are necessary when deciding what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. Whose right? Let’s look at this situation from three perspectives: logical, scriptural, and historical.

1) The Logical Perspective
The biggest problem with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from this perspective is that there is no list, in the Bible, of what books should be, in the Bible. The table of contents is not part of the inspired Scripture! This is very important point to realize. There is no inspired list, in the Bible, of which books should be in the Bible.

                                           **Disputes Over Scripture**

You see, God didn’t just drop the Bible down out of the sky one day and say, “Hey, guys, here it is.” No. The Bible wasn’t put together as we have it today for more than 300 years after the death of Christ. 300 years! And, one of the problems in putting the Bible together was that there was a lot of disagreement, among Christians, over exactly what should be considered inspired Scripture. There were a lot of books back then that people thought were inspired; yet, these books did not end up in the Bible as we have it today. Books such as the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, the Letter of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, and many more.

There were also several books that did end up in our Bible that a lot of people did not think were inspired and should not be considered as part of Scripture. Books such as Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and others.

In other words, there was a lot of dispute over just what was and what wasn’t inspired Scripture. So, how did the early Christians settle the disputes? Well, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you just look in the Bible to find the authoritative answer to any question regarding the Christian faith, right? So, did they consult the Bible to find out which books should be in the Bible? No! They couldn’t consult the Bible because the Bible was what the disputes were over.

So, in order to decide one of the most fundamental issues of Christianity: Which books are and are not inspired Scripture - some authority outside of the Bible had to be relied upon. Some person, or group of persons, outside of the Bible, had to decide which books were, and which books were not, inspired Scripture. Think about it!

Full Text

Hi Michael,
Mr. Martignoni’s apolegetic here isn’t really a new one. In fact, one sees it here all the time.
As Lutherans, we generally ignore the trite argument that scripture fell from the sky, as we know where scripture came from and the role the Church played in its compilation, and preservation. As a western Christian, I thank God for the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome for that, and many other things.
We also recognize the historic (pre-Reformation) disputes concerning certain books, and take that into account in how we use them.

Curiously:

Sacred Tradition
In other words, **we know which books are indeed part of the Bible, not because of Sacred Scripture, but because of - Sacred Tradition! ** All Christians believe that their Bible contains exactly the right books - no more and no less - not because of what Sacred Scripture tells us, but because of what Sacred Tradition tells us.

So, which Sacred Tradition is he speaking of? Amongst the various patriarchates of the early Church, we see various canons of scripture. Are Macc 3 and 4 scripture?

Again, in order to know which books should and should not be inside the Bible, we have to rely on some authority outside of the Bible to tell us. This is a logical inconsistency if you believe in Sola Scriptura. We got our list, of which books should be in the Bible, from a source other than the Bible! How then can we say the Bible is our sole authority on all matters of faith and morals, when the Bible doesn’t even tell us something as basic as which books should be in the Bible?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that said patriarchates of the early Church can’t agree on what Tradition says about some things.
But all that said, my apolegetics are probably as well know here at CAF as his on the subject.

Jon

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Jon,
You know that the biggest problem with sola scriptura is that without Tradition, no two people interpret the Bible in the same way. You read it through the lens of Lutheran Tradition, we read in through the lens of Catholic Tradition. Because tradition provides the decoder ring for understanding scripture, the actual text is subservient in a way to that Tradition. At the very least, it is very inaccurate to describe it as sola scriptura.

There are other problems with sola scriptura as well, but the one above I can just not get passed. And I know that many Lutherans describe Scripture as the the great arbiter of doctrine (if you can’t find it in scripture, its not true) but even in this context, you must rely on tradition to interpret what it really means (like the trinity)

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
You know that the biggest problem with sola scriptura is that without Tradition, no two people interpret the Bible in the same way. You read it through the lens of Lutheran Tradition, we read in through the lens of Catholic Tradition. Because tradition provides the decoder ring for understanding scripture, the actual text is subservient in a way to that Tradition. At the very least, it is very inaccurate to describe it as sola scriptura.

Hi Paul,
Hope you are well. I don’t think it at all inaccurate. Sola scriptura, properly understood, is a function/practice of the Church, not individuals. It is the way we understand and use sola scriptura.

There are other problems with sola scriptura as well, but the one above I can just not get passed. And I know that many Lutherans describe Scripture as the the great arbiter of doctrine** (if you can’t find it in scripture, its not true)** but even in this context, you must rely on tradition to interpret what it really means (like the trinity)

The bolded would be inconsistent with Lutheran teaching. The confessions are quite clear about adiaphora, things indifferent, which means that just because something is not in scripture, doesn’t mean its not true. It just means the consicence of the believer ought not be held to it. I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It isn’t doctrine, but I may believe it and still remain Lutheran.
And of course we rely on Tradition. The fact that we have confessional documents proves that, as well as the fact that we confess the three creeds and accept the 7 great councils of the Church. what we say about these things, however, is that they are not equal to scripture, but a right reflection and witness to it.
As for the Trinity, it is quite scriptural, for example, Christ’s Baptism.

Jon

 

[RevDon]

What are the names of Mary’s parents? On what authority do you have this information? The Bible is the product of two different communities who drew upon their experiences to describe as best they could their experience of God. These observations were tested by the larger community which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There are errors (as evidenced by variations in manuscripts) and at times people ask of scripture something that it was never intended to do (for example, scientific explanations), but for the sake of recording the revelation of God, the Bible serves as a reliable source. Perhaps we might also note that God’s revelation is on-going, and the process of interpretation is also subject to the Holy Spirit in the Church.

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul,
Hope you are well. I don’t think it at all inaccurate. Sola scriptura, properly understood, is a function/practice of the Church, not individuals. It is the way we understand and use sola scriptura.

The bolded would be inconsistent with Lutheran teaching. The confessions are quite clear about adiaphora, things indifferent, which means that just because something is not in scripture, doesn’t mean its not true. It just means the consicence of the believer ought not be held to it. I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It isn’t doctrine, but I may believe it and still remain Lutheran.
And of course we rely on Tradition. The fact that we have confessional documents proves that, as well as the fact that we confess the three creeds and accept the 7 great councils of the Church. what we say about these things, however, is that they are not equal to scripture, but a right reflection and witness to it.
As for the Trinity, it is quite scriptural, for example, Christ’s Baptism.

Jon

So, Jon, if you acknowledge Tradition and the confessional creeds, what again is the definition of “scripture alone” that you believe. Because I’m completely confused.

 

[paul_c]

What are the names of Mary’s parents? On what authority do you have this information? The Bible is the product of two different communities who drew upon their experiences to describe as best they could their experience of God. These observations were tested by the larger community which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There are errors (as evidenced by variations in manuscripts) and at times people ask of scripture something that it was never intended to do (for example, scientific explanations), but for the sake of recording the revelation of God, the Bible serves as a reliable source. Perhaps we might also note that God’s revelation is on-going, and the process of interpretation is also subject to the Holy Spirit in the Church.

.

There are at least two views int his short post that are in disagreement with Catholic teaching.

1. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant. Everything in it, properly understood, is the truth. Manuscript variations due to incorrect translation or deliberate changes are of course not included and can be resolved by going to Church approved manuscripts. Differences in viewpoints (between synoptic gospel authors for instance) can be resolved and shown to be complementary if properly understood through Catholic tradition.
2. The Catholic Church teaches that all the truths about the requirements of salvation were given to the apostles so from that perspective, divine revelation ceased. Our understanding of those doctrines continues to be refined, however as we learn about the faith

 

[JonNC]

So, Jon, if you acknowledge Tradition and the confessional creeds, what again is the definition of “scripture alone” that you believe. Because I’m completely confused.

Not mine, Paul, but the Lutheran understanding. Here, from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, the Summary, Rule and Norm:

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.

Scripture is the sole (alone) rule and norm by which we hold accountable all teachings and doctrines, a practice of the Church, not of individuals. It doesn’t exclude doctrines and dogma, or even teachers. By implication, the confessions recognize the necessity of Tradtion.

Therefore:

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.

We view Tradition as a witness to the truth found in scripture. Witnesses are extremely important! They are used to teach the faithful (another role of the Church).

How important?

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.

So important, we pledge ourselves to them!!!

In short, the"sola" in sola scriptura is simply that we hold scripture to be the “sole” final norm. It doesn’t exclude Tradition, not by any means. The “sola” only means that Tradition - councils, creeds, confessions - are held secondary and accountable to scripture.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Not mine, Paul, but the Lutheran understanding. Here, from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, the Summary, Rule and Norm:

Scripture is the sole (alone) rule and norm by which we hold accountable all teachings and doctrines, a practice of the Church, not of individuals. It doesn’t exclude doctrines and dogma, or even teachers. By implication, the confessions recognize the necessity of Tradtion.

Therefore:

We view Tradition as a witness to the truth found in scripture. Witnesses are extremely important! They are used to teach the faithful (another role of the Church).

How important?

So important, we pledge ourselves to them!!!

In short, the"sola" in sola scriptura is simply that we hold scripture to be the “sole” final norm. It doesn’t exclude Tradition, not by any means. The “sola” only means that Tradition - councils, creeds, confessions - are held secondary and accountable to scripture.

Jon

Jon, thanks for the clarification, but how can scripture be the final norm, if you need Tradition to understand how to interpret it? As we all know, different faith traditions often come up with widely different interpretation of the same scriptural text. How is that to be resolved without a final living authority to arbitrate?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, thanks for the clarification, but how can scripture be the final norm, if you need Tradition to understand how to interpret it?

It takes the Church to set doctrine. What does the Church** use** to determine doctrine? In the Lutheran practice, the Church uses scripture as the norming norm.
Confessions, creeds, and councils, OTOH, are normed norms, normed by scripture.
So, these Traditions do not interpret scripture, but are interpretations of scripture.

As we all know, different faith traditions often come up with widely different interpretation of the same scriptural text. How is that to be resolved without a final living authority to arbitrate?

If one reads further into the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, one of its intentions is to arbitrate differing understandings within early Lutheranism. The second generation Reformers used scripture, and earlier teachings, to clear up misunderstandings. So, in effect, we do have living authority to interpret. As an LCMS Lutheran, I look to the Synod. Parshes will do this when there is a theological disagreement.

But I know you mean beyond one synod or communion. Great Schism, and one might argue before (OO), further exacerbated by the divisions in the western Church, has left us without a universally agreed-upon Church authority for the purpose of interpretation. So, unfortunately, we end up relying on our own particular communions for determining doctrine.

Jon

 

[ahs]

It takes the Church to set doctrine. What does the Church** use** to determine doctrine? In the Lutheran practice, the Church uses scripture as the norming norm.
Confessions, creeds, and councils, OTOH, are normed norms, normed by scripture.
So, these Traditions do not interpret scripture, but are interpretations of scripture.

But that sounds very much like every other Sola Scriptura belief. Often I hear that it’s “just a hermeneutic practice” or something like that. But this sounds just like using Scripture as the end-all, be-all. Everything comes form Scripture…except Scripture.

Let’s pretend then, for a moment, that there are 2 opposing doctrines held by 2 opposing Christian groups who BOTH adhere to Sola Scriptura. One believes that OSAS is taught in Scripture…it is “normed” by Scripture…and this is their interpretation of Scripture. The other Christian group believes the opposite…that OSAS is NOT taught in Scripture. Their belief if “normed” by Scripture…this is their interpretation of Scripture.

Using Sola Scriptura, whatever SS means to you, whether you refer to it as a hermeneutic practice or whatever, please solve this [very real] conundrum.

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;10319459]But that sounds very much like every other Sola Scriptura belief. Often I hear that it’s “just a hermeneutic practice” or something like that. But this sounds just like using Scripture as the end-all, be-all. Everything comes form Scripture…except Scripture.

It is a hermeunetic practice - one that holds scripture as the final norm. OTOH, there are those who maintain that any “man-made” creed is to be rejected.

Let’s pretend then, for a moment, that there are 2 opposing doctrines held by 2 opposing Christian groups who BOTH adhere to Sola Scriptura. One believes that OSAS is taught in Scripture…it is “normed” by Scripture…and this is their interpretation of Scripture. The other Christian group believes the opposite…that OSAS is NOT taught in Scripture. Their belief if “normed” by Scripture…this is their interpretation of Scripture.

Using Sola Scriptura, whatever SS means to you, whether you refer to it as a hermeneutic practice or whatever, please solve this [very real] conundrum.

Well, yeah, you’re right, and its sort of like one communion uses Scripture and Tradition to say the pope has universal jurisdiction, and another uses Scripture and Tradition to say the pope does not. It is the same (very real) conundrum.

That said, Lutherans have no more control over what Calvinists say than Rome has over what Orthodoxy says. It is the very real conundrum of division and schism.

Jon

 

[ahs]

It is a hermeunetic practice - one that holds scripture as the final norm. OTOH, there are those who maintain that any “man-made” creed is to be rejected.

Well, yeah, you’re right, and its sort of like one communion uses Scripture and Tradition to say the pope has universal jurisdiction, and another uses Scripture and Tradition to say the pope does not. It is the same (very real) conundrum.

Yes, but we aren’t discussing whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church got it right when it comes to Authority…unless you saying you are ready to convert to one or the other and simply want to know which one to go to? In that case, it’s an easy question of “to whom alone did Christ gives the Keys to the Kingdom”.
But let’s not derail here. The topic of this thread is Sola Scriptura.

That said, Lutherans have no more control over what Calvinists say than Rome has over what Orthodoxy says. It is the very real conundrum of division and schism.

Jon

Okay, but Lutherans DO have control over what Lutherans say. So, as a Lutheran who believes in the hermeunetic of SS, please show me, using the hermeunetic of SS, how to resolve that conundrum.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but we aren’t discussing whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church got it right when it comes to Authority…unless you saying you are ready to convert to one or the other and simply want to know which one to go to? In that case, it’s an easy question of “to whom alone did Christ gives the Keys to the Kingdom”.
But let’s not derail here. The topic of this thread is Sola Scriptura.

Okay, but Lutherans DO have control over what Lutherans say. So, as a Lutheran who believes in the hermeunetic of SS, please show me, using the hermeunetic of SS, how to resolve that conundrum.

It isn’t a conundrum for us. We believe the Confessions are a right reflection of scripture.
And, pointedly, we believe they are wrong.

As to your first point, well yeah, solve the Schism and I’m in RCIA.

Jon

 

[ahs]

It isn’t a conundrum for us. We believe the Confessions are a right reflection of scripture.
And, pointedly, we believe they are wrong.

But that’s what I’m driving at. The Confessions are right reflection of Scripture based on what (or who)? There is a dependence upon an Authority outside of Scripture…which I think you are saying is this hermeunetic. But here’s where I see if going flat…the Authority outside Scripture only goes back to the 16th century. The hermuenetic AND the Confession that is viewed as being a right reflection are NEW. The hermuenetic is a “new addition” to Christian Doctrine. If you go back any further than the 16th century…it isn’t there.

As to your first point, well yeah, solve the Schism and I’m in RCIA.

Jon

Well, I wish I could! Seriously, for me it’s as easy as to whom alone Christ gave the keys and the commission to strengthen his brothers and shepherd Christ’s Flock. But that’s a different topic.

 

[paul_c]

It takes the Church to set doctrine. What does the Church** use** to determine doctrine? In the Lutheran practice, the Church uses scripture as the norming norm.
Confessions, creeds, and councils, OTOH, are normed norms, normed by scripture.
So, these Traditions do not interpret scripture, but are interpretations of scripture.

let’s use a real life example to test this norming norm theory. Let’s take sola fide. If I read James 2, I see that the norming norm would be that faith without works is dead, thus nullifying sola fide. You however, see it differently. so how is scripture the norming norm? And of course, its interesting to me that Luther also saw this problem. He had three solutions. The first was to try to discredit the epistle of Saint James as an epistle of straw. But he couldn’t get consensus to throw it out of the canon. Then in his translation, he inserted “Faith Alone” into St. Paul’s epistle as a counterbalance. Finally, he developed an alternative interpretation of the words of St. James. So how you can claim that scripture is a norming norm eludes me.

If one reads further into the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, one of its intentions is to arbitrate differing understandings within early Lutheranism. The second generation Reformers used scripture, and earlier teachings, to clear up misunderstandings. So, in effect, we do have living authority to interpret. As an LCMS Lutheran, I look to the Synod. Parshes will do this when there is a theological disagreement.

But I know you mean beyond one synod or communion. Great Schism, and one might argue before (OO), further exacerbated by the divisions in the western Church, has left us without a universally agreed-upon Church authority for the purpose of interpretation. So, unfortunately, we end up relying on our own particular communions for determining doctrine.

So scripture is not the norming norm. It is your synods and Parishes. Seems to me that Lutherans have just exchanged one authority (the Pope) with one they find more to their liking. Is that anyway to understand the truth?

 

[Church_Militant]

Lutherans are not the real problem here, and Jon is good for offering a balanced explanation of what they believe in this regard, so we might be better off to move on and deal more with the fundamentalist sort of adherent to SS.

One brief article I have found helpful was Jmmy Akins MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

 

[paul_c]

Lutherans are not the real problem here, and Jon is good for offering a balanced explanation of what they believe in this regard, so we might be better off to move on and deal more with the fundamentalist sort of adherent to SS.

One brief article I have found helpful was Jmmy Akins MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

this was helpful for the discussion. thank you

 

[zz912]

As to your first point, well yeah, solve the Schism and I’m in RCIA.

Jon

A bit off topic, but why wait for that? What if there was set up something akin to the process for bringing Anglicans into the Church as a community? Wouldn’t it be prudent to approach the Church and see if something could be set up now for Lutherans?

 

[zz912]

What are the names of Mary’s parents? On what authority do you have this information?

This is irrelevant to the topic. You must be confused about the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition. The names of Mary’s parents is part of tradition, and is not related to the economy of salvation.

The Bible is the product of two different communities who drew upon their experiences to describe as best they could their experience of God. These observations were tested by the larger community which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Who were these two different communities? Some communities of Jews viewed only the Torah as Scripture. Others viewed the Septuagint as Scripture (including Jesus, as He quoted from the Septuagint.)

And who is the larger community? How did they test these observations? What standards did they use?

There are errors (as evidenced by variations in manuscripts) and at times people ask of scripture something that it was never intended to do (for example, scientific explanations), but for the sake of recording the revelation of God, the Bible serves as a reliable source.

Who declared this to be true? Could you link to the prior “larger community” declaration where they declare the Bible as a reliable source? And which Bible, the one with 73 books, or Martin Luther’s 66-book edited version?

Perhaps we might also note that God’s revelation is on-going, and the process of interpretation is also subject to the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Could you bring some substantiation for this claim?