Question about Sola Scriptura in actual practice

[zea_maize]

I was reading the membership booklet from an evangelical church and something really stood out to me:

Yet as we mentioned earlier, Scripture is not so clear on a formal process for membership. Indeed, there isn’t a single example in the New Testament that teaches or describes a specific, transferrable process for incorporating people into the local church. Because of this, some Christians have even claimed that the idea of local church membership lies outside the scope of the Bible’s teaching.
But simply because something is not explicitly taught in Scripture does not mean it is not biblical. Inferences from the Bible, if they are reasonably deduced from Scripture, are just as binding for Christians. When it comes to local church membership, even though there is no specific process for adding Christians to local churches, it’s apparent that one must have existed; otherwise, many Scriptures would simply make no sense.

bolding mine

This statement does not appear to be consistent with Sola Scriptura, IMO. The church I’m referencing clearly espouses Sola Scriptura in their belief statement (We believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, authenticity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.). In fact, I feel it’s a pretty Catholic interpretation. For those evangelicals on this forum, is this consistent with your beliefs? If so, how does this fit within Sola Scriptura?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I was reading the membership booklet from an evangelical church and something really stood out to me:

bolding mine

This statement does not appear to be consistent with Sola Scriptura, IMO. The church I’m referencing clearly espouses Sola Scriptura in their belief statement (We believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, authenticity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.). In fact, I feel it’s a pretty Catholic interpretation. For those evangelicals on this forum, is this consistent with your beliefs? If so, how does this fit within Sola Scriptura?

I think that might be closer to Prima scriptura

 

[Ron_in_minden]

Possibly inferring tradition without saying the word tradition?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Possibly inferring tradition without saying the word tradition?

Sure looks like it. I thought only we perfidious Catholics inferred things from Scripture.

 

[po18guy]

Sola scriptura, from Luther onward, has always meant “bible alone as well as what I may infer from it.” Some see doctrine via inference and others do not. Calvin and Zwingli had their versions of the same, and all separated from one another.

In actual practice, SS divides, as it must be made subject to man’s opinions. It’s all about authority - always has been. Possession of a bible does not confer authority.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I was reading the membership booklet from an evangelical church and something really stood out to me:

bolding mine

This statement does not appear to be consistent with Sola Scriptura, IMO. The church I’m referencing clearly espouses Sola Scriptura in their belief statement (We believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, authenticity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.). In fact, I feel it’s a pretty Catholic interpretation. For those evangelicals on this forum, is this consistent with your beliefs? If so, how does this fit within Sola Scriptura?

Yeah, “age of reason” for example on baptisms. This Church says 12, that one 13, another 14. Can’t be binding as it’s not in their bibles - it’s something that they just made up based off an assumption. And there’s no hierarchy so nobody outranks anybody else.

So i guess some things will just be very loosely defined. Or like benhur says, we aren’t meant to have all the truth yet…which I don’t buy for a second because Jesus came here to give us the truth, doctrinally.

Matthew 28:20New International Version (NIV)

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

[lanman87]

I was reading the membership booklet from an evangelical church and something really stood out to me:

bolding mine

This statement does not appear to be consistent with Sola Scriptura, IMO. The church I’m referencing clearly espouses Sola Scriptura in their belief statement (We believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, authenticity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.). In fact, I feel it’s a pretty Catholic interpretation. For those evangelicals on this forum, is this consistent with your beliefs? If so, how does this fit within Sola Scriptura?

They are talking about the Trinity. There is no verse that says “God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son make up a trinity”. However, you can deduce from different scriptures that the Trinity is a Scriptural doctrine. Sola Scriptura means that doctrine and practice can be found in scripture by examining the weight of scripture, the context of scripture, and the overarching theme of scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

They are talking about the Trinity. There is no verse that says “God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son make up a trinity”. However, you can deduce from different scriptures that the Trinity is a Scriptural doctrine. Sola Scriptura means that doctrine and practice can be found in scripture by examining the weight of scripture, the context of scripture, and the overarching theme of scripture.

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity binding on all Christians? Who determines that?

 

[peter26]

Sounds a lot like the statement on the subject in the Anglican Articles of Religion (my emphasis)

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

 

[pablope]

They are talking about the Trinity. There is no verse that says “God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son make up a trinity”. However, you can deduce from different scriptures that the Trinity is a Scriptural doctrine. Sola Scriptura means that doctrine and practice can be found in scripture by examining the weight of scripture, the context of scripture, and the overarching theme of scripture.

But Arius, reading the same Scriptures…did not come up with the Trinity…

But came up with a totally different understanding that you have today.

 

[JonNC]

I was reading the membership booklet from an evangelical church and something really stood out to me:

bolding mine

This statement does not appear to be consistent with Sola Scriptura, IMO. The church I’m referencing clearly espouses Sola Scriptura in their belief statement (We believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, authenticity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.). In fact, I feel it’s a pretty Catholic interpretation. For those evangelicals on this forum, is this consistent with your beliefs? If so, how does this fit within Sola Scriptura?

Lutheranism has always taught that the “sola” in sola scriptura refers to scripture being the only final norm. For example, the ancient creeds are considered doctrine.
The intention of sola scriptura was to prevent personal interpretation, or institutional interpretation that is contrary to scripture. The Church, in short, uses scripture to hold teachers and teachings, doctrine and dogma accountable.

So, as far as it goes, it is in keeping with the traditional understanding of SS.

 

[lanman87]

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity binding on all Christians? Who determines that?

The church, of course, we have different ideas about what constitutes the church.

 

[lanman87]

But Arius, reading the same Scriptures…did not come up with the Trinity…

But came up with a totally different understanding that you have today.

Yes, thankfully the early catholic church did a good job of working this issue out. Of course, there are those today who call themselves Christians who don’t hold believe the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Sola Scriptura goes against the Bible, scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority (Mt 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk 10:16). Christ also promised that this Church would last until the end of time (Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16). Furthermore the Bible tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6)

The fact is that sola scriptura is not found in scripture! The Bible tells us not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in Scripture (John 21:25). Also that we must hold fast to oral tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25)! In 2 Pet 3:15-16 we are warned that Sacred Scripture can be very difficult to interpret, implying the need for an authoritative interpreter. If the Holy Spirit led everyone in their interpretation of the Bible wouldn’t we all be the same religion? Jesus Himself talks about His Church and how it will be always visible when He talks about no one putting a lamp under a bushel (Matt 5:14-15; Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18). Finally 1 Tim 3:15 reassures us that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Sola Scriptura goes against history! The history of the Bible attests that it was the Church exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. We need the authority of the Church to tell us what belongs in the Bible (1 Tim 3:15)

Sola Scripture goes against common sense! Any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee and officially interpret it. Otherwise chaos reigns as everyone interprets it at their own desires. For example the Founding Fathers of the United States put together the Constitution, a document to be authoritative in how we were to be governed. They also established a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret it: the Supreme Court!

The splintering of Christianity into over 33,000 denominations (Christian Encyclopedia statistic) is the direct fruit of Sola Scriptura. This idea does not come from God and was unheard of for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation.

So, does that mean that all those people from the death of St. John to the coming of whichever denomination a particular Protestant follow are to suffer the eternal fires of hell because they didn’t have the Sola Scriptura? If I am to believe anything tell me at what point did Jesus abandon His Church and say “okay, lets start all over”. He certainly did not abandon His disciples after they all abandoned Him! No He came and guided them, forgave them and reaffirmed their roles!

 

[pablope]

Yes, thankfully the early catholic church did a good job of working this issue out. Of course, there are those today who call themselves Christians who don’t hold believe the doctrine of the Trinity.

So, in this case…was it Scriptures that made the determination that Arius was wrong?

 

[lanman87]

So, in this case…was it Scriptures that made the determination that Arius was wrong?

It was the interpretation of the Scriptures by leaders in the church, in particular Athanasius, that developed the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[JonNC]

=USMC_Convert;14667673]Sola Scriptura goes against the Bible, scripture tells us that Christ left a Church with divine authority (Mt 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk 10:16). Christ also promised that this Church would last until the end of time (Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16). Furthermore the Bible tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, 3:6)

Properly understood, SS denies neither the authority of the Church, nor sacred Tradition. It simply maintains that Tradition be held accountable to scripture as the final norm by the Church.

The fact is that sola scriptura is not found in scripture! The Bible tells us not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in Scripture (John 21:25).

Since not everything He said is in scripture, then SS not being explicit in scripture shouldn’t be an issue.

Also that we must hold fast to oral tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25)! In 2 Pet 3:15-16 we are warned that Sacred Scripture can be very difficult to interpret, implying the need for an authoritative interpreter.

Agreed.

If the Holy Spirit led everyone in their interpretation of the Bible wouldn’t we all be the same religion? Jesus Himself talks about His Church and how it will be always visible when He talks about no one putting a lamp under a bushel (Matt 5:14-15; Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18). Finally 1 Tim 3:15 reassures us that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Agreed

Sola Scriptura goes against history! The history of the Bible attests that it was the Church exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. We need the authority of the Church to tell us what belongs in the Bible (1 Tim 3:15)

Correct, but that doesn’t violate SS.

Sola Scripture goes against common sense! Any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee and officially interpret it. Otherwise chaos reigns as everyone interprets it at their own desires. For example the Founding Fathers of the United States put together the Constitution, a document to be authoritative in how we were to be governed. They also established a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and officially interpret it: the Supreme Court!

Of course written documents need official interpretation. SS doesn’t contradict that. I would suggest that, historically, papal supremacy contradicts this more.

The splintering of Christianity into over 33,000 denominations (Christian Encyclopedia statistic) is the direct fruit of Sola Scriptura. This idea does not come from God and was unheard of for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation.

That may be your opinion, but a hermeneutical principle lacks that ability, ISTM.

So, does that mean that all those people from the death of St. John to the coming of whichever denomination a particular Protestant follow are to suffer the eternal fires of hell because they didn’t have the Sola Scriptura?

And this is simple nonsense. SS doesn’t hold to that kind of triumphalism. In fact, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is more triumphalist than SS.

If I am to believe anything tell me at what point did Jesus abandon His Church and say “okay, lets start all over”. He certainly did not abandon His disciples after they all abandoned Him! No He came and guided them, forgave them and reaffirmed their roles!

SS doesn’t claim that Christ abandoned His Church. I do not understand the tendency of some Catholics to blame Christ or His Spirit for our sinful division. It is a sparse few that teach the "great apostasy ".

Jon

 

[USMC_Convert]

Properly understood, SS denies neither the authority of the Church, nor sacred Tradition. It simply maintains that Tradition be held accountable to scripture as the final norm by the Church.

Since not everything He said is in scripture, then SS not being explicit in scripture shouldn’t be an issue.

Agreed.

Agreed

Correct, but that doesn’t violate SS.

Of course written documents need official interpretation. SS doesn’t contradict that. I would suggest that, historically, papal supremacy contradicts this more.

That may be your opinion, but a hermeneutical principle lacks that ability, ISTM.

And this is simple nonsense. SS doesn’t hold to that kind of triumphalism. In fact, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is more triumphalist than SS.

SS doesn’t claim that Christ abandoned His Church. I do not understand the tendency of some Catholics to blame Christ or His Spirit for our sinful division. It is a sparse few that teach the "great apostasy ".

Jon

Yeah, one of those sparse few that teach the great apostasy is God (2 Thess 2:3-4).

 

[rcwitness]

The church, of course, we have different ideas about what constitutes the church.

Yes, we must. But I’m sure we have agreement about what constitutes the Church as well.

 

[pablope]

It was the interpretation of the Scriptures by leaders in the church, in particular Athanasius, that developed the doctrine of the trinity.

Oh…so you believe and agree that doctrine develops then?

And going back to Athanasius…did he use the authority of Scripture or the authority of the Church in telling Arius he is wrong?