Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[Randy_Carson]

Mainly that Paul, writing to Timothy, is speaking of the “Old Testament.” There is a major problem with this. Unless Paul wrote to Timothy after 90AD, then there was no “Old Testament” canon. That was the official formation of the Old Testament by Jews. It is the OT equivalent to the NT formulation in later centuries.

Any thoughts?

There had been 400 silent years between the last OT prophet and the coming of the messiah, so it seems reasonable to conclude that the Jewish understanding of scripture was fairly fixed at that point. Enough so that Timothy understood what Paul was talking about anyway.

 

[danielsgram]

I don’t believe anyones interpretation is infallible.

However, judging from your user name if I’m not mistaken you do believe yourself to be among the elect, correct? Since you are among the “anyone” referred to above, you are only guessing that only the “elect” are saved (which BTW we believe this as well but we have the correct interpretation of how one is “elect”) I and that you are one of those elect. If you are wrong and you are not “of the elect” then no matter what you do, you will be condemned at the end of time. And, you just don’t know if you are or not.

Seriously though, how did the Jews know what was and wasn’t scripture?

Like the early Church, there was no set canon of scripture but like the early Church much of the canon was the same from Jewish sect to Jewish sect but it was not exact and they new what was scripture because their Tradition handed on by their Priests and Rabbis.

Donna

 

[Philthy]

I’m in between views here. I don’t see the necessity of Sola Scriptura (even as a protestant)…however, I find one argument against Sola Scriptura lacking:

Mainly that Paul, writing to Timothy, is speaking of the “Old Testament.”

OK, so you are about to argue against the claim that Paul was referring to the OT when he wrote 2nd Tim, right?

There is a major problem with this. Unless Paul wrote to Timothy after 90AD, then there was no “Old Testament” canon. That was the official formation of the Old Testament by Jews. It is the OT equivalent to the NT formulation in later centuries.

I dont get your point. How does the lack of an OT canon refute the argument that Paul was speaking of the OT when he said that “all Scripture is God-breathed”?

So, if the Jews were operating under the sufficiency of the OT as formulated in the letter to Timothy, then such could equally be applied to the NT Church.

But Paul doesnt say that the Scriptures alone are sufficient - does he? He says the exact opposite! He specifically says that he is writing so that Timothy (who knows “all Scripture since his youth”) will know how to behave in the “pillar and foundation of truth - the Church of the living God”. The fact that Paul felt he needed to write Timothy a letter so that Timothy would know how to behave argues against the sufficiency of Scripture - not for it.
grafted limb:

In other words, Jews operated under an idea of sufficiency of Scripture (as Paul says) without an “officially declared canon” at that point in time. So too, it would follow that Christians operated on the sufficiency of Scripture WITHOUT a formal declaration of the books contained within.

The only way around this that I can possibly think of is that Jesus’ quoting from books made them “God declared” as canon. However, this isn’t implicit or explicit in my opinion. That’s just a hypothetical.

Any thoughts?

 

[Reformed1]

However, judging from your user name if I’m not mistaken you do believe yourself to be among the elect, correct? Since you are among the “anyone” referred to above, you are only guessing that only the “elect” are saved (which BTW we believe this as well but we have the correct interpretation of how one is “elect”) I and that you are one of those elect. If you are wrong and you are not “of the elect” then no matter what you do, you will be condemned at the end of time. And, you just don’t know if you are or not.

More or less that’s it. By your theological system you could commit a mortal sin at the very end of a grand life, die the next instant and be doomed forever and there is nothing you could do about it. I’m not sure what it is your getting at in regards to the ss issue.

Like the early Church, there was no set canon of scripture but like the early Church much of the canon was the same from Jewish sect to Jewish sect but it was not exact and they new what was scripture because their Tradition handed on by their Priests and Rabbis.
Donna

Donna,

I can’t debate the issue of the canon because I haven’t really given it too much thought, at least not until recently.

I do know that Jesus, the apostles and their audience seemed to know what the scripures were or are (Mat 21:42, Mat 22:29, Mar 12:24, Lk 24:27-32, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Rom 4:3, Rom 9:17, 1Ti 4:13).

Peter seemed to believe Paul’s letters were scripture (2Pe 3:16) which, while not answering the question of the canon entirely, goes to demonstrate the early church would have at least some idea of what was and what was not scripture even without an infallible church recognizing the canon. I don’t think the Jews ever claimed anything similar to what Rome claims in the way of infallibility.

Finally, scripture is referred to as God breathed. I don’t recall any scripture describing tradition in such lofty terms. As I stated earlier on this thread or maybe on another thread, my main issue with tradition is that with a body claiming infallibility, there is no check on what is and what isn’t tradition. Many or at least some of the things your church recognizes as being in it’s Tradition (I think you guys refer to such things as the immaculate conception with a capital T), seem to logically make sense but that doesn’t necessarily make them true.

Like I said earlier, I am afraid I can’t give a well reasoned answer to how the canon was determined without an infallible church, at least not without giving subjective reaons…a burning in the bosom kind of thing…so I guess that’s it for me for now.

 

[Reformed1]

OK, so you are about to argue against the claim that Paul was referring to the OT when he wrote 2nd Tim, right?

There is a major problem with this. Unless Paul wrote to Timothy after 90AD, then there was no “Old Testament” canon. That was the official formation of the Old Testament by Jews. It is the OT equivalent to the NT formulation in later centuries.

I dont get your point. How does the lack of an OT canon refute the argument that Paul was speaking of the OT when he said that “all Scripture is God-breathed”?

So, if the Jews were operating under the sufficiency of the OT as formulated in the letter to Timothy, then such could equally be applied to the NT Church.

But Paul doesnt say that the Scriptures alone are sufficient - does he? He says the exact opposite! He specifically says that he is writing so that Timothy (who knows “all Scripture since his youth”) will know how to behave in the “pillar and foundation of truth - the Church of the living God”. The fact that Paul felt he needed to write Timothy a letter so that Timothy would know how to behave argues against the sufficiency of Scripture - not for it.

I would like to comment on the 2Tim3:16 issue. For clarity, the verse says that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,…”

Paul may have been referring to only the OT, but maybe not?

Peter writes “2 Peter 3:16 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Note that Peter says that people twist the content of Paul’s letters to their own destruction much as they do with the OTHER scriptures. By the phrase “other scriptures” it seems to me that Peter is recognizing Paul’s writings as scripture.

Also, Paul himself writes "1 Timothy 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” This of course references the gospel of Luke.

Note that 1 Timothy (as far as I know) was written before 2 Timothy and it is in 2 Timothy where Paul says that ALL scripture is breathed out by God.

So it seems that the “all scripture” in 2 Timothy may have referred to at least some of the NT based on:
a.) Paul’s recognition of Luke being scripture in 1 Timothy.
b.) Peter’s statement in 2 Peter recognizing Paul’s letters as being scripture.

What do you think?

 

[jimmy]

But, there is always a but, I don’t think one must have an infallible church to have a canon or to have the canon.

I just have a few rambling thoughts so bare with me.

Jesus held the Pharisees and Sadducees accountable to the scriptures and we see in the NT that all scripture is God breathed. We also know that Peter believed Paul’s letters to be scripture.

So we clearly see that…I am rambling.

I guess my point is how did a Jew in the year 75 bc know the Psalms were scripture? Clearly the Jews regarded the Psalms as scripture but they didn’t have an infallible church.

So, there you have it, a brilliant defense of sola scriptura

Seriously though, how did the Jews know what was and wasn’t scripture?

Whether Peter accepts it as scripture is irrellevant. We can’t be sure that Peter is scriptural either. It is the Church which tells us it is scripture. Peters epistles claiming that it is Peter does not mean it is actually Peter. After all, the pseudo-dionysius said that he was Dionysius the areopagite.

Actually the Sadduccees rejected the psalms. They only accepted the torah as scripture. That is why they also rejected a ressurrection of the dead and the idea of angels.

To tell the truth, I don’t think there was a question of what was scripture and what wasn’t in the pre-Christ days. There is no list of canonical books until Josephus in 95AD. So to tell the truth, the idea of an infallible canon was not part of ancient Judaism I don’t think.

 

[Reformed1]

Whether Peter accepts it as scripture is irrellevant. We can’t be sure that Peter is scriptural either. It is the Church which tells us it is scripture. Peters epistles claiming that it is Peter does not mean it is actually Peter. After all, the pseudo-dionysius said that he was Dionysius the areopagite…

Whether Peter accepts it is scripture is irrelevant? Peter was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was he not? I think you are arguing that without an infallible church we wouldn’t know Peter was inspired but we both agree that Peter was inspired.

How do you know your church is infallible? Afterall you are just as fallible as I am (hopefully your in better shape but perhaps not) so it would seem that you have just backed the question up one step. How do you as a fallible human know or recognize that your church’s claim is true?

Actually the Sadduccees rejected the psalms. They only accepted the torah as scripture. That is why they also rejected a ressurrection of the dead and the idea of angels.

To tell the truth, I don’t think there was a question of what was scripture and what wasn’t in the pre-Christ days. There is no list of canonical books until Josephus in 95AD. So to tell the truth, the idea of an infallible canon was not part of ancient Judaism I don’t think.

I’m not sure if I follow you here. You first say that the Sadduccees rejected the Psalms but we know that isn’t the case with Jesus since he quoted the Psalms as scripture and I believe the Psalms were quoted as scripture to the Pharisees so there must have at least been a dispute between the Saduccees and the Pharisees concerning the canon.

Anyway, how did a Jew before the Jesus know what was and wasn’t scripture? We see Jesus and the apostles refering to some of the OT works as scripture so there must have been some way to discern what was and what wasn’t scripture even without an infallible church.

If the rabbis and priests passed down the canon, they did so without any claim to infallibility.

I’m getting tired so hopefully the above makes some sense, even if you don’t agree.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Well one could argue then that the Septuagint was available, and possibly parts of the NT. It’s slippery but there is still a lot of Bible there. Of course this argument ignores availability of the text and the believer’s ability to even read it.

Jesus didn’t read the Septuagint in the synagogue when He went there in Luke 4 - He read Isaiah 61 in Hebrew**​

**As for availability - solution: see what Ezra did, reading the Scriptures in public. Availability to all or even most people is not an essential quality of SS (helpful as it undoubtedly is to it, by being evidence of how it may be acted on) SS is concerned with discerning what is Christian doctrine - not with Bible-reading as such. **

Which I think supports part of what you say, but also supports SS to some degree. ##

**

The problem with this is (as we’ve seen in other threads) that since it gives a foothold the above argument can be twist out into a never ending cork screw of one-sided scholarship and revisionist history.

**

By showing that the doctrine itself is not held up by its own standard the OP goes strait for the lifeline of the doctrine. So now the followers of that doctrine must either:

A) Acknowledge that extra-canonical doctrines must be acknowledged at some level.
B) Change the doctrine itself (which we are seeing happening)
C) Ackowledge that the doctrine is incorrect.

**## The doctrine is correct - but not in the forms in which it distorted by Catholics. ****Doctrines are not valid in all forms they might conceivably take: transubstantiation is valid, not in its distorted forms, but in the sense in which it is authoritatively intended & taught. So with Protestant (or other) doctrines - all versions of doctrine X, are not validated merely by being forms of that doctrine; they are valid only if they faithfully represent what the doctrine is intended to convey. **

A bit more detail about the meaning of A would be welcome ##

 

[tdgesq]

How do you know your church is infallible? Afterall you are just as fallible as I am (hopefully your in better shape but perhaps not) so it would seem that you have just backed the question up one step. How do you as a fallible human know or recognize that your church’s claim is true?

I think that this is the best argument I know of for sola scriptura. Glad you brought it up since I’ve been wanting to discuss it. Let me say though, just because it’s the best of the arguments, it still doesn’t make it a good one from where I stand.

It is true that it takes a fallible human being to decide for sola scriptura or for the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The Christian can’t make an infallible decision one way or the other. The reformed Christian could be wrong, the Catholic could be wrong. Prescinding for a moment from the run of the mill arguments about Scripture being silent with regard to sola scriptura, the evidence of the teaching authority of the Church, the canon, etc. I contend that the claim (based only on fallible human reasoning) for sola scriptura is not equivalent to the claim for the infallible teaching authority of the Church.

The reason why is that the Catholic is in the position of only needing to affirm one truth, in an intellectually honest and reasonable fashion - that the Catholic Church does teach the truths of Christianity without error. Look at where the holder of sola scriptura is left. He is left not only with using his fallible skills to come to sola scriptura, but also to interpret every major truth of Christianity accurately. Could any single fallible Christian reasonably be able to do this?

Look at the history of Protestantism. The Reformers couldn’t even agree on all of the major truths of Christianity - and it is worse today. I think that the example you gave later in your post illustrates this better than any example I could come up with.

I’m not sure if I follow you here. You first say that the Sadduccees rejected the Psalms but we know that isn’t the case with Jesus since he quoted the Psalms as scripture and I believe the Psalms were quoted as scripture to the Pharisees so there must have at least been a dispute between the Saduccees and the Pharisees concerning the canon.

Absolutely right. The Jews didn’t even know what the canon was for certian until Jesus came. They made quite a few mistakes, not the least of which was failing to identify Jesus as the promised saviour. I mean, what about the Deuterocanonical books? My understanding is that these are not accepted as inspired by the Jewish community today, nor by most Protestant denominations. Although strangely enough, there are some Protestants who do accept them. The appeal to the knowledge of the pre-Christian Church of the canon seems to work against you.

 

[jimmy]

Whether Peter accepts it is scripture is irrelevant? Peter was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was he not? I think you are arguing that without an infallible church we wouldn’t know Peter was inspired but we both agree that Peter was inspired.

That is exactly what I am saying. Without the Church there would be absolutely no knowledge of the scriptures. It is the Church that declared what was scripture. Of course you can say the Holy Spirit made the scriptures what they are, but He did it throught the Church. You can’t even prove to me that Peter wrote those two epistles. As I said above, Pseudo-Dionysius claimed to be Dionysius the Areopagite(The areaopagite is mentioned in acts of the apostles) and he fooled many people for many centuries. Christians put his writings just below those of the apostles.

How do you know your church is infallible? Afterall you are just as fallible as I am (hopefully your in better shape but perhaps not) so it would seem that you have just backed the question up one step. How do you as a fallible human know or recognize that your church’s claim is true?

Faith. I put my faith in that which Christ founded. I put my faith in that which came first(the Church came long before the NT writings and I could even say that it came before the OT writings as Cardinal Lubac said). I don’t have any infallible knowledge that says that I am right. But the fact is, from the beginning there was a dispute about what was scripture. The Johanine corpus was rejected by some, the catholic epistles were rejected by many, the Apocalypes was rejected by many. Some accepted the Apocalypse of Peter. It took church councils to decide the issue. Scripture is not self evident. You can’t look at a writing and say, ‘that book is scriptural’. That is something that is beyond our knowledge. What you can say is, ‘the Church accepts it as scripture therefore I can say it is scripture and without error because God wrote it.’

 

[jimmy]

I’m not sure if I follow you here. You first say that the Sadduccees rejected the Psalms but we know that isn’t the case with Jesus since he quoted the Psalms as scripture and I believe the Psalms were quoted as scripture to the Pharisees so there must have at least been a dispute between the Saduccees and the Pharisees concerning the canon.

The pharisees accepted the whole Hebrew canon(and they may have accepted even the whole Alexandrian canon).

Anyway, how did a Jew before the Jesus know what was and wasn’t scripture? We see Jesus and the apostles refering to some of the OT works as scripture so there must have been some way to discern what was and what wasn’t scripture even without an infallible church.

I can’t answer that because I don’t know enough about ancient Jewish society. But I would bet that acceptance by the high priest and the priests was a standard. What ever it was, there was a standard. It may have simply been accepted from the time of the writers and declared at that time to be scripture. It could have simply been Moses that declared the Torah to be scripture(that would be as good as any church council since Moses was the author and he had direct contact with God and performed many miracles.) The fact is though that we don’t have the history and I can’t give you what we don’t have(I can only tell you that the Torah indicates that Moses wrote it and therefore I accept that). The NT is different though, we do have the history of the acceptance of the canon of the NT.

If the rabbis and priests passed down the canon, they did so without any claim to infallibility.

I don’t know if I would say that they did not claim a charism of infallibility. Jesus says to listen to what the pharisees say because they sit on the seat of Moses but to not do as they do(Matt.23;1-2).

I’m getting tired so hopefully the above makes some sense, even if you don’t agree.

It makes sense but I don’t agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to comment on the 2Tim3:16 issue. For clarity, the verse says that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,…”

Paul may have been referring to only the OT, but maybe not?

Peter writes “2 Peter 3:16 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Note that Peter says that people twist the content of Paul’s letters to their own destruction much as they do with the OTHER scriptures. By the phrase “other scriptures” it seems to me that Peter is recognizing Paul’s writings as scripture.

Also, Paul himself writes "1 Timothy 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” This of course references the gospel of Luke.

Note that 1 Timothy (as far as I know) was written before 2 Timothy and it is in 2 Timothy where Paul says that ALL scripture is breathed out by God.

So it seems that the “all scripture” in 2 Timothy may have referred to at least some of the NT based on:
a.) Paul’s recognition of Luke being scripture in 1 Timothy.
b.) Peter’s statement in 2 Peter recognizing Paul’s letters as being scripture.

What do you think?

Pardon me for jumping into the middle of your discussion. I’d like to share some scriptures and thoughts on the subject of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

First, I think we can both agree that Jesus condemned corrupt human tradition (notice the lower-case “t”) that set aside the Word of God. Next, let’s look at what Paul, Peter and John said about Tradition (which is used with a capital “T” - Paul didn’t capitalize it - we do to distinguish from “tradition”).

Here are some passages:

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you.

1 Corinthians 11:23
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Does this indicate that Paul’s preaching was “God-breathed” (theopneustos)? (I’m floating a pet theory here…)

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

2 Timothy 1:13
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

2 Peter 2:21
It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

2 John 12
I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

3 John 13-14
I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

+++

It is evident that these writers are exhorting the believers to hold firmly to teachings orally delivered that had been handed on previously. Since the Word of God is inerrant, these exhortations must be “God-breathed”. Therefore, one has to wonder how the Holy Spirit could inspire these men to exhort their readers to hold to teachings that were NOT inerrant and theopneustos.

Finally, and briefly since this post is getting long, Peter does acknowledge that Paul’s letters are scripture, but he also points out that they can be difficult to understand. This is actually a case against the “perspicuity” of scripture and sola scriptura, in general. You might also consider the example of the Ethiopian eunuch.

Thus, Catholics hold that Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient, and that the Church is necessary to rightly interpret the Word of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From www.scborromeo.org:

Several Protestant apologists have argued that in Acts 17:11, one finds clear support that the Bible is the sole and final authority. This is ironic, because the passage in question proves exactly the opposite.

In Acts 17:2, we learn that in Thessalonica, Paul not only read from scripture, but he also “reasoned”, that is, debated with the Jews from the scriptures. He attempted to convince them that the Christ had to suffer. In other words, Paul was interpreting the Old Testament in an effort to show that the messiah of their scriptures is Jesus of the New Covenant. (Acts 17:5-9) Regrettably, only “some” were persuaded by Paul’s explanation.

What did the Jews in Thessalonica reject? They did not reject the veracity or usefulness of scripture. Nor did they reject messianic prophecies. They rejected Paul’s interpretation of scripture which supported his claim that Jesus was the messiah. In short, like the Jews whom Jesus admonished in John 5:39, they were *sola scriptura *men who rejected the Word Who is God, Jesus, based upon their individual interpretation of the Word of God!

The Jews of Berea, on the other hand, “received the message [Paul’s preaching] with great eagerness.” (Acts 17:11) They “examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11) with an openness to accept a new revelation. That new revelation was not the Bible, but Paul’s oral teaching – for his preaching was “the word of God”. (Acts 17:13) The faith of the “many” mentioned in Acts 17:12 who accepted Christ in Berea wasn’t based on sola scriptura, but on their acceptance of Paul’s interpretation of the Old Testament in light of the fullness of God’s revelation, Jesus Christ.

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for *sola scriptura *is 2 Peter 1:20-21. That’s hardly surprising. In this passage, Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Then Peter warns: “But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there will be false teacher among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) Note that under divine inspiration, Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies!

The Greek word that is translated as “heresies” comes from the verb haireomai, which means “to take or to choose for one’s self.” In the first century, it had the negative meaning of going off on one’s own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14, some translations render it as “sect”.

The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to the idea of sola scriptura that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus, the New International Version (NIV) intentionally mistranslates “one’s own interpretation” with “by the prophet’s own interpretation.” However, tou prophetouis not found in the Greek text.

This highlights another problem with sola scriptura. Not only does it impose one’s individual interpretations on the text of the Bible, but individual interpretation becomes the basis of replacing the inspired text!

For the full article, see scborromeo.org/papers/solascri.PDF

 

[jcrichton]

Neither the availability of the texts or the believer’s ability to read have any bearing on SS being true or false.

Could you explain how you think these two issues negatively impact SS?

***Hi, Reformed!

For sola Scriptura to be true would Jesus not have been wrong?

The Gospels place Jesus with some regularity teaching at the Temple and in synagogues… but for the most part Jesus taught without the Scrolls. And when He sent His disciples out into the near towns none of them took any written teachings (Scriptures) with which to study and teach.

Since at least the Torah was accessible to Jesus and the disciples, for sola Scriptura to be true Jesus would have had to establish such norm!

Once established, sola Scriptura would make no sense unless the disciples made copies of the Torah and the subsequent writings accessible to the Church…

But even the Holy Scriptures do not say that beautiful are the feet of those who provide you with copies of the Sacred Writings; rather, it is the feet of those who preach the Gospel!

Then there’s the problem of printing (no Kinkos/Staples) and illiteracy was predominant amongst the poor which means that they would not have been able to read the printed Scriptures.

Oral teaching (Oral Tradition) would have given the illiterate access to the Word of God (as it did).

Sola Scriptura is simply another way to nullify the Church’s Authority.

God Bless!

Angel***

 

[WayneTalbot]

Though very much a novice student of the history of Scripture, it seems to me that this thread on Sola Scriptura misses some issues of significance as to the origin and meaning of the doctrine.
It is akin to trying to understand Scripture itself without some contextual understanding of the culture prevalent at the time of writing, and of the historical events surrounding the writers.
At the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church denied its followers the opportunity to read the Bible for themselves. The reasons for this “tradition” are difficult to determine with certainty, the reformers arguing that the Church was deliberately hiding the truth so as to avoid opposition to their corrupt practices, such as selling indulgences, and the Church arguing that only the Church was capable of correct interpretation of Scripture, and was thus protecting against heresy. There was probably some truth attaching to both sides of the dispute.
But the other argument was in relation to Scripture itself – just what was it?
The Catholic Church used the Latin Vulgate, and claimed that other versions had been corrupted either through transcription error or deliberate malice. The Reformists argued that it was the Latin Vulgate that was in error, and that the earlier Greek and Hebrews writings should be used. This was not just a dispute as to which books should form the Canon, but which versions of the books. Even within the Catholic Church, there had been much debate over the scope of the Canon, a debate which continued even after Rome had ruled. You can read of the difference of opinion held by Jerome and Augustine for example.
So the early arguments on Sola Scriptura were not principally those that have been raised on this thread, valid as they are, they related more to the belief by the Reformists that the Catholic Church had corrupted Scripture by Tradition and the Magisterium, and had introduced practices that were not only not in the original Scripture, but were directly contrary to it.
The Catholic Church has had some dark days, as any reading of history will show. There have been events and practices which today we would declare as abhorrent, even recent Popes have seen fit to apologise. There have been traditions which, while not contrary to Scripture in a strict sense, can be seen to be contrary to the spirit of Scripture; for example, view the practice of not eating meat on Friday with 1 Timothy 4:3, or the celibacy of the clergy with 1 Timothy 4:3 and 1 Timothy 3:2-5. There are beliefs in the Catholic Church which to many other Christians, are directly contrary to Scripture; for example, that Mary was without sin: there are many statements that say that only Jesus was without sin.
My point then is that to understand the origin and intent of Sola Scriptura, one has to travel back 400 years and understand the context in which the dispute arose. The Catholic Church of that time was very different to the Church of today, as was the culture of the people both within and without. As with most disputes, people get to the stage of overstating their position, and then find it difficult to retreat to a more moderate stance. The longer the dispute continues, the more extreme the position taken by the protagonists. While today Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible, discuss it, and even air different understandings, that was not the case in earlier times: anything but 100% total acceptance was viewed as heresy and dealt with severely.
The Reformation advancement of Sola Scriptura was not simply to say that Scripture was the only source of God’s truth, it was to a large extent an endeavour to wrestle power from Rome, to challenge the secrecy of the Church hierarchy, to make God’s word available as originally written to all people independent of the Church influence and interpretation at a time when arguably, the Catholic Church had strayed in a number of areas.
…… Continued in the next post ……

 

[WayneTalbot]

…. Continuing from my previous post …
Remember too that tradition has a way of corrupting itself. Bureaucracies have an innate tendency to self preservation, sometimes with the best of intentions, believing that the organisation is more important than its function. We see this even within the Catholic and other Christian churches, for example, in the way that they have protected paedophiles within the clergy, believing that exposing the error would bring the Church into disrepute, thus eroding its influence. They would have done well to ask themselves the simple question: what would Jesus have done on this occasion?
Tradition feeds on itself, the longer it has been practised, the more it grows and the more it is held to be true. Just as scientists who have built their careers and reputations espousing some particular theory fight vigorously against a new theory which would invalidate their lifetime work, so too does the Church hold to traditions which themselves were possibly established on debatable foundations, and now having grown that tradition well beyond its original intent, find it impossible to relinquish.
For example, I suspect that the Marian philosophies being advanced in some quarters would horrify the early Fathers, and I refer specifically to the suggestion that Mary should be honoured as Co-Redeemer, the claim that a human, as blessed as Mary was, could participate in the divine sacrifice for the redemption of sin. To some Christians, any equating of Mary with God is tantamount to idolatry, and while I respect the reverence with which Mary is held by Catholics in particular, it should be possible for Catholics to understand why not all Christians hold the same view.
If one were to trace the history of Marian philosophy, it would be possible to show how it has developed over time, and it would be interesting to understand the evidence, thinking, or Divine Revelation that accounted for each increment in the growth of the philosophy.
There are other examples in Catholic tradition, theology, and philosophy that one could point to. An external observer could look at Scripture on the one hand, and the totality of Catholic practice and belief on the other, and legitimately wonder how you could get from one to the other. The Catholic Church of today is vastly different to the early Christian church of the first and second century, and the question that some ask is: why?
My point then, in this second post, is that to many Christians, the belief in Sola Scriptura cannot be reduced to a debate as evidenced in this thread so far. It is much more than that, and in some ways less.
As was the case 400 years ago, Sola Scriptura can be seen as a banner, or rallying call, for those who believe that the Catholic Church has moved beyond the original purpose and intent of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To many, the totality of Catholic tradition, practice, and belief exceeds that which is given in the Bible, and is evidence of mortal rather than Divine inspiration. Would Peter, Paul, or John recognise the Church of today?
Similarly, many conservative Christians quote Sola Scriptura in defence against those denominations that compromise on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, gay priests, observance of the Sabbath as being Saturday or Sunday as a matter of convenience, and so on.
To be sure, this makes the definition sloppy and thus difficult to contend with. But understand that to many conservative Christians, it is not simply about the authority of Scripture, but a desire to return to the roots of Christianity, a church of simplicity rather than bureaucracy and hierarchy, a church with a simple devotion to Jesus Christ, a church where our relationship is directly with Jesus Himself with no need of intercession through clergy, saints, or anyone else, a church where we pray to God, directing our prayers to the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit depending on our need, without predefined liturgy, ceremonies, or sacraments.
Perhaps Sola Scriptura, as believed and practised by many conservative Christians, is best understood as: Simple Scripture.

 

[jcrichton]

…. Continuing from my previous post …
Remember too that tradition has a way of corrupting itself. Bureaucracies have an innate tendency to self preservation, sometimes with the best of intentions, believing that the organisation is more important than its functionas…

Perhaps Sola Scriptura, as believed and practised by many conservative Christians, is best understood as: Simple Scripture.

***You are correct in many aspects of your post… Luther did not necessarily set out to create a schism and promote dissertion or create his own brand of “church,” but things snowballed… he accepted the protection of a lord and during the infancy of his movement over 300 thousand people were injured/killed (old program on 13 NY’s PBS). And to further attest to your statement several minor schisms ensued his protestant movement… say, aprotestant movements but definetely not pro-Catholic…

The error in the Church has existed from her inseption… Scripture attest to some taking what was written by Paul or others and twisting their meaning… Paul personally addressed a mini movement where the “preacher of the day” would have fans swearing by him and only him… these errors did not abate but the early Church did not fall into schism because it was understood that it was Christ’s Church and that it contained the Truth:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

Noticed how Paul did not command them to huddle together with the Scriptures and rely on their own interpretations?

The Apostles fought against many heresies and so has the Church.

The Apostles committed errors (Peter double faced; Paul mad with Mark (John) because he left him and Barabas in mid ministry, the sons of thunder requesting prefered treatment…) these errors did not define who they were nor did it prevent them from bringing the Gospel to others… the Church moving in time committed errors (in recent Church history we’ve experienced sexual and financial scandals) but the Gospel is being preached and correction (though slow now as it was then) is being made…

Sola Scriptura is just such a thing–it happens… It happened to be a good intention that has proliferated itno over 30, 000 groups whose sole desire is to serve God in a pure an direct way–without control and without guidance, other than the personal claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding each and every single person to do God’s will; even if that guidance anulls Christ’s Command to be one, to love one another, to obey His Commandment!

God Bless!

Angel

---

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I think the ultimate definition of sola scriptura is the simple protestant claim that only the Scriptures have withstood the test of time whereas the people who carried along the Scriptures have often failed to do what the scriptural record asked them to do. And if protestants would simply start with this point, I think we could dispense with much wrangling in trying to define exactly what sola scriptura actually means.

Ultimately, even though I still think this claim is in error, I would have much more repsect for those who uphold some form of sola scriptura if they simply claimed this to be the case to begin with.

Nonetheless, as is often the case, the debates always seem to degrade into various peripheral arguments of “you need to understand the language…” or “you need to understand the culture…” or *“you need to understand the logic…” *or some combination of these arguments-- all of which undermine the central claim that the Scriptures are sufficient in and of themselves to soley and inerantly reveal all the truths pertained to faith.

Sola scriptura, when it’s all dissected to its most finite parts, basically comes down to, "Look at how much evil has happened in your church. This must have somehow happened because you’ve misunderstood the Scriptures."

Obviously, I disagree with their claim. But it would be nice if they would just start at this point instead of having to peel away all these peripheral layers to get to the main point of discussion.

It gets really tiresome after a while trying to target the multitude of all the satellite discussions when, in actuality, is seems to come down to this one single point each and every time.

 

[WayneTalbot]

I think the ultimate definition of sola scriptura is the simple protestant claim that only the Scriptures have withstood the test of time whereas the people who carried along the Scriptures have often failed to do what the scriptural record asked them to do. And if protestants would simply start with this point, I think we could dispense with much wrangling in trying to define exactly what sola scriptura actually means.

Ultimately, even though I still think this claim is in error,

There is much truth in what you state, but from my own experience in a number of churches, and in reading books and articles by members and clergy of various denominations, I don’t think that there is actually any commonly accepted definition as practised.
I hear ministers claim to be true to Sola Scriptura, then give a lie to that statement by their own stated beliefs.
I read one evangelical minister claiming that “Evangelicals go the the Bible for their beliefs, Catholics take their beliefs to the Bible.”
Sadly, I think this is a human trait of which all Christians are probably guilty to some degree - in attending evangelical churches, I have found numerous instances where the pastor has done exactly what is claimed about Catholics.
I doubt that there is any resolution to this issue, this side of facing our Maker for our own personal judgement.
People are predisposed to beliefs and unbeliefs for a variety of cultural, historical, environmental, and personal reasons: we attach varying levels of importance to different issues, and particularly personal experiences we may have faced in church environments. We are influenced by the personality and eloquence of our clergy, and particularly by their personal example. We are influenced by the history and practice of the Church, and its constancy or otherwise in dealing with social issues of the day.
It is this cacophony and diversity of influence that leads individuals such as myself to want to stay close to Scripture, its simplicity of message and practice, and through its sufficiency, stay close and personal with our Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I know that many stress unity of the Church, but my own understanding is that it is unity in Jesus Christ that we must strive for. Some may say there is no difference, but I am not so sure.
May God bless your days with peace.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I know that many stress unity of the Church, but my own understanding is that it is unity in Jesus Christ that we must strive for. Some may say there is no difference, but I am not so sure.

I think that you have a good point here (actually, many good points but I can’t respond to all of them right now-- putting son to bed soon).

I guess it comes down to Matthew 7:21 in contrast to Matthew 10:40. I think there’s an important distinction here that is often overlooked.

It remains a sad fact that the Gentiles sometimes do not blaspheme the Lord on their own. We sometimes assist them apparently. As Romans 2:24 recalls, God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of us.

I think this has happened at various times on all sides-- Catholic, Orthodox, and all Protestant and Evangelical groups as well.

May God bless your days with peace.

And may the Lord bless you and keep you as well.