Question about Sola Scriptura

[Gene_C]

Hi all,

The first thing that went in my theological thinking was Sola Scriptura. Once that false doctrine is exposed, you can be led to the Truth.

I have run across two variations of Sola Scriptura. The first one says that we must only believe and practice what we find in Scripture. Everything else is forbidden.

The second view is that as long as something is not forbidden in Scripture, we can believe or practice it.

For instance, one evangelical Christian on another forum said he had no problem with Christians asking for the intercession of the saints in heaven because he sees nothing in Scripture that forbids it.

Now, since under Sola Scriptura, the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice, and no human can bind a Christian’s conscience to believe or practice anything, who is to say which of those two variations is the correct one? Or even if they are both wrong?

The Methodists believe that Scripture should be read and interpreted in the light of Tradition but that is another ball of wax.

Peace,
Gene

 

[Contarini]

When I say “everything” I mean everything, there is no need for any other authority.

That doesn’t make sense. What do you mean by “no need”?

If you mean that someone could conceivably deduce all orthodox Christian theology from the Bible, then I agree. But they would be highly unlikely to do so. It wouldn’t be quite as unlikely as monkeys typing Shakespeare, but it would be pretty darned unlikely.

I see no evidence whatever that God has promised to guide individual believers into all truth using Scripture alone, without regard for ordinary means such as language study (inevitably involving some deference to experts), listening to sermons, reading good books, participation in the Church’s common worship, reception of the Sacraments, discussion with fellow-Christians, etc.

If that’s what you mean by “no other authority,” then your view is as bankrupt as the Catholics here are saying it is, and furthermore I don’t see that your view adequately represents historic Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

That doesn’t make sense. What do you mean by “no need”?

If you mean that someone could conceivably deduce all orthodox Christian theology from the Bible, then I agree. But they would be highly unlikely to do so. It wouldn’t be quite as unlikely as monkeys typing Shakespeare, but it would be pretty darned unlikely.

I see no evidence whatever that God has promised to guide individual believers into all truth using Scripture alone, without regard for ordinary means such as language study (inevitably involving some deference to experts), listening to sermons, reading good books, participation in the Church’s common worship, reception of the Sacraments, discussion with fellow-Christians, etc.

If that’s what you mean by “no other authority,” then your view is as bankrupt as the Catholics here are saying it is, and furthermore I don’t see that your view adequately represents historic Protestantism.

Edwin

What I mean is that I understand the very point of Scripture to be, for the church, descriptive of how one gets a gracious God.

It is irremediably soteriological, this main point, this single lens.

And on this point the Bible is sufficient. No other authority is necessary.

On other points no other authority is necessary because they aren’t dogmas.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I don’t see that your post shows anything of the kind.

Then perhaps you’re not actually understanding what I’m really talking about.

Contarini:

The “argument from misunderstanding” is an extremely flimsy one.

This is a distinction without a difference.

Can you point out to me an example of anyone who doesn’t actually start their idea that other denominations’ incorrect interpretations of the Scriptures are the result of their misunderstanding the Scriptures?

More specifically are you actually trying to explain to me within this very thread that the points that you’ve pointed out are not likewise starting from an “argument from misunderstanding”?

Everyone starts their discourse from this position and then expands the dialogue out from there. In fact, even our own Lord used this appeal when he began his rebuke of the Sadducees as such…

You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God…

The point is not that Jesus stopped with this rebuke. Rather, he expanded this starting point further to fully explain the context of why they were misunderstanding the Scriptures and he specifically linked it with their misunderstanding of God himself.

So if you’re arguing that my sole argument against Sola Scriptura is actually reduced to an argument of misunderstanding, then you’re apparently not reading further and noticing that this is actually not what I’m concluding.

The argument I’m laying out is exactly what I’ve been asking from the beginning.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

It needs to be asked that if the Scriptures do not explicitly state that the Scriptures themselves are the most trustworthy way of knowing God’s will, then what do the Scriptures actually say in regards to those who were entrusted to correctly carry the Word of God?

I’ve since laid out the end result of this open ended question clearly enough for anyone to examine too.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Contarini:

Protestants do not claim that the Bible is immune from misunderstanding. As I’ve told you before, you’re attacking a straw man.

Yes. I’ve heard this before.

I already responded to your claims against my ‘supposed’ strawman argument before the forums went through the upgrade. My memory is bad so I might be wrong and this post may still be in existence-- so if you could direct me to it I would be thankful. But if I recall correctly, you essentially claimed that many of the modern defintions of Sola Scriptura were apparently some kind of aberration of the orignal idea as it was classically formulated.

But, as I already pointed out, if this is the case, then this simply shifts the argument right back to the original premise that has since been apparently distorted by later aberrations of the original premise.

But all this essentially says, when broken down to its bare essentials, is that people are, once again, not understanding the Scriptures properly.

And yet, apparently, there still doesn’t appear to be anything explicitly stated within the Scriptures themselves which is precise enough to actually draw out the definition of Sola Scriptura you’ve suggested.

In other words, we’re right back to the beginning again.

Now, for all those reading, here’s one fairly accurate definition of a strawman…

An idea that is put forth to discuss and pick apart, as if the idea was a bundle of items tied together, but through discussion one part (like the arm) can be pulled off, and the rest retained. The hope is that in thinking about an idea as a strawman, no one in the discussion gets too attached to it so that the idea can be picked apart objectively.

Now will you stop doing that?

In order for my argument to be a strawman, it has to essentially be an untrue claim. And yet I have fairly presented a good range of definitions, incorporating strict, moderate, and permissive examples of it, in order to display that some people do in fact veiw Sola Scriptura in the way I’m presenting this.

In other words, I’m not just making this stuff up. And you yourself do admit that some people do hold a view of Sola Scriptura which matches the definition that you yourself are apparently arguing against.

To be fair, I’m not attempting to mischaracterize anyone’s arguments with ad hominems in the way you’re labeling my thoughts as a strawman right now. I think I’ve made this part clear.

In addition to this, I really am attempting to rationally and fairly debate the claims made by those who hold to some version of Sola Scriptura by presenting various views by those who actually hold this view. I’ve made this part clear too.

From here on in, I’ll be using your own words and tactics against you just to show you exactly how it feels.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Contarini:

It seems to me that you are taking this verse out of context and making it mean something it doesn’t necessarily mean.

How so?

This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you.

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

This sounds very much like a God-given, God-authorized, and God-guided eccleistical authority to me. It sounds remarkably similar to the Catholic understanding of the Church in our modern day to be perfectly honest-- and I’m not reading these words out context either.

In other words, it seems to me that I’m reading it by the Illumination of the Holy Spirit to fairly clearly understand it within the context that God himself intended it to be read.

Contarini:

You assume the Church’s infallibility on the grounds of your Church’s teaching.

It seems to me that this definition of church infallibility you put forth to discuss and pick apart has been presented as if the idea were a bundle of items tied together so that through discussion one part (like the foot) can be pulled off, and the rest retained.

But if the foot noted above should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.

And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body either.

In fact, if the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?

Or if the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?

In other words, it also seems to me that you’re hoping that no one in this discussion will get too attached to the idea of church infallibility being dependant of church teaching so much so that the idea can be picked apart objectively.

And you’re saying that my argument is a strawman?

No. I reject your definition.

And if this is your definition of Catholic teaching, then you don’t actually understand Catholicism at all.

I believe that God’s testimony through the Sacred Scripture mirrors God’s testimony through his Holy Church which can be easilly verified through the historical witness of the Early Fathers through to our present day exactly as God himself promised he would despite our own human ability to fail him just as the Holy Spirit teaches through the Magisterium chosen by Christ Jesus.

In the traditional Protestant view, Christians are placing the main thrust of the church’s inability to clearly teach within the parameters of human reason-- therefore stressing that since man is capable of failure that therefore we can only trust the Scriptures on these matters. But that conclusion is not Scriptural in any sense of The Word.

In the Catholic view, however, we are placing the main thrust of the church’s ability to clearly teach within the parameters of divine revelation-- therefore stressing that since God is not capable of failure we can trust God on these matters even though we make mistakes. And this conclusion is Scriptural in every sense of The Word.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Contarini:

I do not see anything in Scripture that clearly teaches or necessarily implies the infallibility of the Church.

Since you seem to be unable to break past the starting point of your own argument, I’ll only point out that your “argument from misunderstanding” you’ve presented here is an extremely flimsy one.

Sound familiar Contarini?

Contarini:

I do not think there is any way for Catholics or Protestants to prove each other wrong on this. Both assumptions–that the Church is infallible, and that only Scripture is infallible–are compatible with Scripture itself.

Actually, neither views are compatible with the Scriptures.

Both are required-- and even Catholics make an appeal to the divine revelation contained within the Scriptures. In other words, if God’s gift of the Sacred Scriptures were removed from the equation, the Catholic Church would be severely hindered in her ability to proclaim the gospel of Christ.

Like the living witness of the Church herself, the Scriptures lay down an important part of the building blocks which have been safely and securely layed upon the foundation which is Christ. The Church without the Scriptures would be like a teacher teaching history without ever using history books.

Contarini:

Neither of them is proven from Scripture.

Have you read the definition of strawman that I represented above?

Contarini:

That means that we as Protestants are obliged to consider the disagreement an inessential one.

Are you truly obliged to consider the disagreement an inessential one when the Scriptures themsleves clearly disagree with the Protestant conclusion that the disagreement an inessential one?

What do the Scriptures actually say regarding divisions within the church Contarini?

Contarini:

You obviously think differently, and that’s to be expected.

You obviously think differently, and that’s to be expected too, right?

Contarini:

We can’t do anything about that.

Well, I’m not sure what you personally can do about it-- although I do bid you well in your attempts wherever they may lead.

But as far as what the Church can and cannot do, the Scriptures are clear that the pillar and foundation of truth cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth-- because through the Church the manifold wisdom of God is being made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.

The Church sounds, based solely on the Scriptures, fairly infalliable to me.

And, no, I’m not reading these words out conext.

I’m reading it by the Illumination of the Holy Spirit to fairly clearly understand it within the context that God himself intended it to be read.

Contarini:

We can do something about the folks on our own side who hold up “Sola Scriptura” as one of the essentials of the Faith, which it obviously isn’t.

Could you present your ‘classical’ definition of Sola Scriptura?

I would like to examine it further.

 

[deb1]

That doesn’t make sense. What do you mean by “no need”?

If you mean that someone could conceivably deduce all orthodox Christian theology from the Bible, then I agree. But they would be highly unlikely to do so. It wouldn’t be quite as unlikely as monkeys typing Shakespeare, but it would be pretty darned unlikely.

I see no evidence whatever that God has promised to guide individual believers into all truth using Scripture alone, without regard for ordinary means such as language study (inevitably involving some deference to experts), listening to sermons, reading good books, participation in the Church’s common worship, reception of the Sacraments, discussion with fellow-Christians, etc.

If that’s what you mean by “no other authority,” then your view is as bankrupt as the Catholics here are saying it is, and furthermore I don’t see that your view adequately represents historic Protestantism.

Edwin

This makes sense. But there must be a big gulf between say a Baptist’s understanding of Sola Scriptura and historic Protestantism.

For example, my Baptist friend was told that if she simply had enough faith then the Holy Spirit would lead her to the correct theological interpretation of certain bible verses.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I would also like to note that we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

What, then, shall we say in response to this?

If God is for us, who can be against us?

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Interestingly, John once said, “Teacher, we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

In response to this, Jesus said, “Do not stop him. No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.”

Indeed, even before this, Jesus himself took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

Jesus speaking of himself, speaks of the last day of judgement, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

Some will also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?”

Jesus will reply on that day of judgement, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

 

[Syele]

If protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why do they have churches where they go and listen to a preacher tell them about what the scripture says? Why don’t they just read the bible and let the Holy Spirit guide them to the right interpretation?

Because contrary to popular Catholic belief, Protestants go to Church to worship God and fellowship with other Christians. Not just to study Scripture. The fellowship allows for accountability, oppurtunities to show love to one another and prayer support. If you think I’m making it up… go to a protestant service after Mass some Sunday… the protestants will spend 5-10 minutes during the time Catholics would have the sign of the peace hugging one another and inquiring how each other are doing and occasionally using the time for it’s purpose… reconciling with people thay have issues with. (this is a last chance to get right with God and others before communion, though I think some Denominations do it just cause they like to talk!) They don’t just greet people near them either… they get up and go all over the building to get to the person they need to see. Try attending with a Female protestant… you may have difficulty leaving after the service is over due to excessive fellowship.

Why is there a preacher? Well we all have a natural desire to have someone in place as a leader. Protestants don’t believe humans are ever infalliable. If everyone is prone to make mistakes, anyone can stop listening to the Holy Spirit at any point (even the pastor). Precautions must be taken to keep people on track, rather than a central authority, the entire congregation is responsibile for helping their brothers and sisters in Christ stay on track. The track used is scripture.

 

[Scottgun]

I problem many will find in this is the tendency for Sola Scriptura definitional hopscotch. That is, many non-Catholics are perfectly content to operate in the that’s-not-in-the-Bible mode, but when the mode itself is in question, the accusation comes out that the questioner does not know what Sola Scriptura is. Some make the distinction of *SolA Scriptura vs. *SolO* Scriptura. *In the end, it is a distinction without a difference. See:

How Different are SoLO Scriptura and SolA Scriptura–Part I

Part II

SoLA Scriptura and SolO Scriptura, or, "Why History is Important for all Christians

---

---

 

[Steadfast]

That doesn’t make sense. What do you mean by “no need”?

If you mean that someone could conceivably deduce all orthodox Christian theology from the Bible, then I agree. But they would be highly unlikely to do so. It wouldn’t be quite as unlikely as monkeys typing Shakespeare, but it would be pretty darned unlikely.

Ideally though, something like this is exactly what we expect, without the monkeys of course.

As history unfolds and godly and intelligent men reflect upon Scripture and what it says to the Church, doctrine unfolds accordingly.

Now, without a commitment to certain hermeneutical and exegetical standards, and with a rather deviant fetish for analogical speculation and bizarre typological excursion, you’re likely to come up with all sorts of nonsense (and we have), but I’m giving a thumbnail.

I see no evidence whatever that God has promised to guide individual believers into all truth using Scripture alone, without regard for ordinary means such as language study (inevitably involving some deference to experts), listening to sermons, reading good books, participation in the Church’s common worship, reception of the Sacraments, discussion with fellow-Christians, etc.

I haven’t said anything like that, Edwin. Surely you know, though that, as a Lutheran I do take the soteriological principle to be THE exegetical key. So, I consider it absolutely true to say that a person may learn from Scripture everything they need to know in order to “get a gracious God” without necessary recourse to language studies and so on.

If that’s what you mean by “no other authority,” then your view is as bankrupt as the Catholics here are saying it is, and furthermore I don’t see that your view adequately represents historic Protestantism.

Hopefully I’ve corrected your concern.

 

[Steadfast]

Ideally though, something like this is exactly what we expect, without the monkeys of course.

As history unfolds and godly and intelligent men reflect upon Scripture and what it says to the Church, doctrine unfolds accordingly.

Now, without a commitment to certain hermeneutical and exegetical standards, and with a rather deviant fetish for analogical speculation and bizarre typological excursion, you’re likely to come up with all sorts of nonsense (and we have), but I’m giving a thumbnail.

I haven’t said anything like that, Edwin. Surely you know, though that, as a Lutheran I do take the soteriological principle to be THE exegetical key. So, I consider it absolutely true to say that a person may learn from Scripture everything they need to know in order to “get a gracious God” without necessary recourse to language studies and so on.

Hopefully I’ve addressed your concern.