Sola Scriptura and why do Protestants like it?

[Muze]

(I originally editted this down to the 6K character limit, and then eliminated the church history stuff, as it is off topic and in another thread, and this brings us to being back on topic. So, I did trim a lot of the quotes, but with the intent of posting, not trimming any points made.)

… think deeply of one more characteristic of the sola Scriptura issue.
If God intended us to follow sola Scriptura, you’d expect the Old Testament Church to follow sola Scriptura too.

[T]he ancient Hebrew language was a “consonantal language” (it was all consonants). You NEEDED oral tradition to pass it on accurately from person to person then. Why?

1. I know how the Hebrew language works.
2. The preservation of how individual words are pronounced is not necessary to preserve their meaning. Hebrew words are built around a three consonant root. Thus, if you identify the three root consonants, you’ve identified the word. Check out a Hebrew lexicon sometime.

Thus, your English example FAILS because English depends on vowels to identify specific words. Hebrew does NOT.

In fact, the Hebrew vowel system was added LONG after (like 600AD) to preserve the sounds of the individual words, although the meanings of these words was never in question.

How do you KNOW oral Tradition is protected? The same way you KNOW written Tradition is protected—by the assurance of God.

Actually, I know this (NT) because Peter tells us that this is the case, for the writings of those who saw Christ’s glory.

Please meditate on this.

I think you need to get your facts straight, especially about Hebrew words, before jumping out onot this ledge.

 

[Muze]

Umm Like it or not translations and copies of scripture do not carry any promise of infallibility and are man made.

Can you refute that argument?

No. In fact, I agree. That’s why the practice of textual criticism is important.

Of course, that would extend to the Latin Vulgate, too.

 

[Muze]

Yes, but the word “tradition” appears several times in the NT and the faithful are told to “hold fast to it”. Nowhere do we find the ideas regarding tradition that you promote and so we wonder where a sola scriptura adherent gets their notions regarding tradition if it is not from Scripture.

Ah, but as the giant in “Princess Bride” says…“I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Paul is speaking of the instructions given to them when he was there teaching them. There is no implication that these traditions are to be kept for all cultures and all time.

Three things:

1. there is no “Holy Spirit’s stamp of infallibility”, and the Scriptures that you have given the stamp of approval to were not “stamped” except by the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in declaring them Scripture…and you reject that.

Actually, this comes from 2 Peter 1. The Church simply applied these standards combined with the knowledge it had from early Church Fathers.

1. there is no “guarantee” of any of the books in the NT and, in fact, there is no Scriptural basis for including any of the texts we have in the NT.

Ever read 2 Peter 1:16-21?

3)Not all of the books we have in the NT are from “those who saw Christ’s glory”. Luke is one example, and he authored a gospel account and Acts. In addition, the authors of many NT books are anonymous.

From what I understand Luke is understood to be a disciple of Christ who saw his ascension. Furthermore, there is only one NT author in question, and that would be Hebrews, and at the time of the compiling of the canon, that was not in question.

I find neither conclusion in the verses you provide. That is because it simply isn’t there.

Or because it kinda destroys your point.

How about something simple like Peter saying: Hey, beloved, you know how as Jews we followed the sacred Scriptures? Well I, Paul, John, Luke etc etc am going to write some new Scriptures that will stand alone as the source of truth for the Christian faith.
Not a single author in the NT ever claims to be doing what you claim they did, so where did you get the idea? I submit you get it from Tradition because it is not contained in Scripture.

Um… Read 2 Peter 1 again. Peter knows he’s about to die, and wants to leave the Church with something to hang on to in the days of false teachers to come. So, he identifies those who saw Christ’s glory, and then says that their writings are spoken from God, and they are born along by the Holy Spirit… What more do you need?

Since Scripture is not limited to those who saw Christ’s glory (it is not all apostolic) your point has already been refuted.

Um… more than just the apostles saw Christ’s glory.

I don’t see what you see at all. I see a huge silence in Scripture and a huge silence in history regarding what should be a very fundamental, very transparent, very obvious doctrine of the Church. Many well - intentioned Christians simply ignore- or are ignorant of - the fact that it took decades for our current Scriptures to be penned and CENTURIES to finally arrive at a canon of Scripture as distinct from the hundreds of documents claiming inspiration. When is it ever declared that the “canon of Scripture is closed” and we are now shifting to “sola scriptura mode”? The answer, from Scripture and from history - is never, and the reason is simple: it never happened!

No? You’re saying that no councils declaring the canon of Scripture ever happened?

 

[asd72]

Muze,

What sort of traditions do you think Paul was teaching them? This an apostle of Jesus Christ, caught up in the 3rd heaven, set apart to deliver the gospel to the gentiles, the father of church planting…

Do you really propose he was teaching traditions that he did not want passed through the church, something just applicable to his time?

 

[Muze]

What sort of traditions do you think Paul was teaching them? This an apostle of Jesus Christ, caught up in the 3rd heaven, set apart to deliver the gospel to the gentiles, the father of church planting…

Do you really propose he was teaching traditions that he did not want passed through the church, something just applicable to his time?

Well, to the Corinthians, he taught them to have wives wear a veil in Church, especially if they are prophesying. I don’t think the RCC requires women to wear a veil to mass… Or to even keep long hair. (Or requires men to have short hair.)

He also advises women to remain silent when in the church… Again, I don’t see such a requirement from the RCC…

Clearly at least SOME traditions are intended for local application, and given the culture and the issues going on in those churches, the intent IS for local context.

And I think this is Paul’s intent for most traditions that he teaches. Clearly there may be some timeless instruction that we might derive from them, but we’d also need to know that they were Pauline, and what Paul intended them to learn from it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Muze,

I have seen a lot of quotes … but, I must admit, seeing one from ‘Fezzik’ (Andre The Giant ) did catch me by surprise… Ah, but on to more serious matters as I address just one of your items.

Ah, but as the giant in “Princess Bride” says…“I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Paul is speaking of the instructions given to them when he was there teaching them. There is no implication that these traditions are to be kept for all cultures and all time.

So while you admit that Paul is telling them about what he told them (and, that would be the Oral Tradition we are addressing) you think it had an expiration date or a geographic or cultural boundary attached to it? What do you base this on?

And, as you know, if Paul did and taught things in one community - he probably did and taught the same thing(s) in other communities. The fact that he is only telling one community to “…hold fast…” does not imply or suggest that the others could abandon what he taught them.

I submit that Paul’s identification of having provided Oral Tradition to a particular community is just as binding as the letter in which he identified he had given it and told them to “…hold fast…”.

As I see it, if you disagree with this, then the burden of proof lies with you to mount a convincing arguement (with objective references) that Paul’s admonition to “…hold fast…” allows for them to eventually “… let go…” at a later date or place.

God bless

 

[ivebeenshown]

Interestingly, the second epistle of St. Peter is brought up to somehow support Sola Scriptura, yet there are two passages from this letter which work against Sola Scriptura:

2 Peter 1
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
"We also have a more sure word of prophecy …] knowing this first, that [it is not] of any private interpretation."

2 Peter 3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
"Paul …] has written unto you …] his epistles …] which they that are unlearned and unstable twist …]"

Sola Scriptura ultimately leads to the matter of “whose interpretation is learned, stable, and public?”

 

[guanophore]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

It would probably do better in the non-Catholic forum. For some reason, most protestants don’t come over here to Apologetics, so if you want their opinon, it is better to go there.

You can search CAF, because this is a common topic, and you will find tons of threads on this with many Protestant viewpoints.

In Europe at the time of the Reformation there were a plethora of corrupt clerics who were fleecing the people by teaching wrong doctrine and misrepresenting the Gospel of God. The people wanted a more pure faith experience, and confused the condition of God’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with the wolves that were among the sheep. In order to jettison the corrupted persons, who are always in need of Reform, they redefined the Teachings of the Apostles. One of those redefiniitions was that the Church was given authority to govern the flock of God. In order to justify replacing the current authorities with themselves, they used the Holy Scriptures, claiming that they alone held the authority of the Gospel.

The effect of this was that each person interpreted the Scripture according to their own point of view (this is what causes so many diverse Protestant denominations). They do not see it this way, though, but each one sees himself being guided by the Holy Spirit, not realizing that the HS will not reveal a Truth to an individual 2000 years after the fact that is contrary to what has already been revealed to the Holy Bride of Christ.

 

[Muze]

Interestingly, the second epistle of St. Peter is brought up to somehow support Sola Scriptura, yet there are two passages from this letter which work against Sola Scriptura:

2 Peter 1
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
"We also have a more sure word of prophecy …] knowing this first, that [it is not] of any private interpretation."

The Greek word that is translated “interpretation” doesn’t fit. The word means something along the lines of “releasing” or “discharging.” I’ve actually written a paper that makes the case that this word is better translated “revelation”, given the context of the passage.

2 Peter 3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
"Paul …] has written unto you …] his epistles …] which they that are unlearned and unstable twist …]"

Sola Scriptura ultimately leads to the matter of “whose interpretation is learned, stable, and public?”

15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as 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.

Well, sola scriptura isn’t a rejection of tradition entirely. Indeed, Luther and Calvin respected the traditions of the Church, but only in that they did not disagree with the bible itself. If people are twisting words in such a way that they disagree with what Paul is saying or says elsewhere, then this is a valid criticism, and has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

 

[asd72]

The veiling of women is a matter of church discipline and not doctrine, it is not currently required, although some women continue to veil in church.

Women keeping silent in church must be taken in conjunction with the fact Paul has indicated women can pray and prophesy in church, so it does not mean they can not say anything at all.

Teaching and authority has remained male within the Catholic church, with the ordained Priesthood.

 

[Muze]

Hi, Muze,

I have seen a lot of quotes … but, I must admit, seeing one from ‘Fezzik’ (Andre The Giant ) did catch me by surprise… Ah, but on to more serious matters as I address just one of your items.

INCONCEIVABLE! (too bad we can’t do accents on here…) “Never get into a battle of wits with a Sicillian… especially when death is on the line…”

So while you admit that Paul is telling them about what he told them (and, that would be the Oral Tradition we are addressing) you think it had an expiration date or a geographic or cultural boundary attached to it? What do you base this on?

In part, the traditions Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11 with respect to head coverings and long hair. Clearly the RCC no longer enforces these traditions, and yet they are clearly commanded by Paul.

And, as you know, if Paul did and taught things in one community - he probably did and taught the same thing(s) in other communities. The fact that he is only telling one community to “…hold fast…” does not imply or suggest that the others could abandon what he taught them.

That may or may not be true. Again, different communities had different local cultural and historical problems to deal with. Clearly Paul could be a bit more loose with meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth than he could in Jerusalem.

I submit that Paul’s identification of having provided Oral Tradition to a particular community is just as binding as the letter in which he identified he had given it and told them to “…hold fast…”.

Well, examples exist to the contrary.

As I see it, if you disagree with this, then the burden of proof lies with you to mount a convincing arguement (with objective references) that Paul’s admonition to “…hold fast…” allows for them to eventually “… let go…” at a later date or place.

Well, either the RCC is failing to observe a couple of specific traditions, or this is the case.

 

[Muze]

The veiling of women is a matter of church discipline and not doctrine, it is not currently required, although some women continue to veil in church.

But Paul clearly identifies this as oral tradition, and its purpose is for a wife to honor her husband. Are you saying that a wife honoring her husband isn’t a moral issue?

Women keeping silent in church must be taken in conjunction with the fact Paul has indicated women can pray and prophesy in church, so it does not mean they can not say anything at all.

OK, does the RCC forbid women to speak, except when prophesying or praying?

Teaching and authority has remained male within the Catholic church, with the ordained Priesthood.

But Paul isn’t talking about teaching and authority. He’s telling them to remain silent. If anything, the prophesying objection would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The Greek word that is translated “interpretation” doesn’t fit. The word means something along the lines of “releasing” or “discharging.” I’ve actually written a paper that makes the case that this word is better translated “revelation”, given the context of the passage.

Even the root word has a meaning of ‘explain’ or ‘expound’. Not to mention the numerous translators through history who agree that ‘interpretation’ is the proper word. To me, this is a fine example of ‘wresting the Scriptures’. Interestingly, you will not find this word or its root word translated as ‘revelation’ anywhere in the Scriptures. Yet you wish it to read ‘revelation’. Why is this? Do you feel threatened by the passage when it is translated that way?

Well, sola scriptura isn’t a rejection of tradition entirely. Indeed, Luther and Calvin respected the traditions of the Church, but only in that they did not disagree with the bible itself. If people are twisting words in such a way that they disagree with what Paul is saying or says elsewhere, then this is a valid criticism, and has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

And there’s another problem, Catholics say Protestants twist Paul’s words into contradiction and vice versa, but who is right? It’s a matter of interpretation, and determining who has the most learned, most stable, and freely available/public interpretation.

 

[Muze]

Even the root word has a meaning of ‘explain’ or ‘expound’. Not to mention the numerous translators through history who agree that ‘interpretation’ is the proper word. To me, this is a fine example of ‘wresting the Scriptures’. Interestingly, you will not find this word or its root word translated as ‘revelation’ anywhere in the Scriptures. Yet you wish it to read ‘revelation’. Why is this? Do you feel threatened by the passage when it is translated that way?

No. I’ve studied this word in Classical Greek, and it is most often used in discharging a debt. If you look up the word in Liddell and Scott, the word takes on a different meaning.

yes, the ECFs use it in this way, but I think they do so because they like how this verse works out when they do.

And there’s another problem, Catholics say Protestants twist Paul’s words into contradiction and vice versa, but who is right? It’s a matter of interpretation, and determining who has the most learned, most stable, and freely available/public interpretation.

And those are questions that should be constantly asked and answered, especially for those things that aren’t fundamental to being a Christian. Too often theologians (both protestant and catholic) are dealing with a crisis, and form theology for that task, and succeed, but then we codify exactly what they said as eternal doctrine, rather than going back and asking what aspects of their work stepped over a few lines for the purpose intended, and need to be returned to a biblical standard.

Calvin has these issues. So does Augustine. And Aquinas. And most theologians, including the ECFs. And even those things declared by the RCC.

Not that we dont’ respect the work that these people did. But we should all have the ability to question it and study it. That’s the only way to prevent corruption of doctrine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Muze,

Let me get a clarification for you on one item…

Well, sola scriptura isn’t a rejection of tradition entirely. Indeed, Luther and Calvin respected the traditions of the Church, but only in that they did not disagree with the bible itself. If people are twisting words in such a way that they disagree with what Paul is saying or says elsewhere, then this is a valid criticism, and has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Most Protestant groups do not believe that Holy Communion, as taught by the Catholic Chruch, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Yet, Christ clearly tells His listeners that this is so in John 6 - and, unless they eat His Flesh, they have no life in them. The Synoptic account of the Last Supper reinforce this idea and identify how this is to be accomplished.

Yet, SS is able to deny this reality.
Most Protestant do not believe that confessing one’s sins to another man who has the delegated power of God to forgive sin, as taught by the Cathoic Church is appropriate. Yet Christ clearly confers this authority to forgive or hold bound to the Apostles in John 20.

Yet, SS is able to deny this reality, too.

As I see it, you have the traditions of men conflicting with the written Word of God and men claiming that their interpretation is correct. And, that the guidance given by Christ to the Apostles (John 16:13) is no longer valid.

This looks like excellent evidence for the ‘fruit’ produced by SS (Matt 7:16) If I have missed something here, please let me know.

God bless

 

[ivebeenshown]

No. I’ve studied this word in Classical Greek, and it is most often used in discharging a debt. If you look up the word in Liddell and Scott, the word takes on a different meaning.

yes, the ECFs use it in this way, but I think they do so because they like how this verse works out when they do.

Interesting, because its appearances in the Bible (including the root word) indicate no such meaning. Furthermore, we have the Latin which is very clear in its meaning:
**
2 Peter 1:20**
hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit

 

[Muze]

Most Protestant groups do not believe that Holy Communion, as taught by the Catholic Chruch, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Yet, Christ clearly tells His listeners that this is so in John 6 - and, unless they eat His Flesh, they have no life in them. The Synoptic account of the Last Supper reinforce this idea and identify how this is to be accomplished.

Well, John 6 isn’t about Holy Communtion. I actually did a paper on the concept of bread in John 6, and its intent isn’t eucharistic at all. Jesus’ flesh as bread is being compared to Moses’ bread, manna (see verses 30-35). Furthermore, Jesus tells them to “work for the bread that leads to eternal life” (John 6:27).

So, while the bread is Jesus’ body, this analogy isn’t in a eucharistic sense, but rather as a way of telling the Jews that a new way is coming, the New Covenant is upon them, and it is coming time to put Moses away and follow Him.

And we can see this analogy further played out by John in verses 41-43, where the Jews grumble. Now, if we think back to the time of the Exodus, we recall the generation that wandered 40 years did so because the grumbled repeatedly. John is making a clear connection between the Jews in the Exodus and those in Jesus’ generation.

So, when we come to the point where Jesus says that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he’s not referring to Eucharist, but rather to giving up following the ways of Moses and following the ways of Jesus, instead.

This is why many of His disciples stopped following Him. He was telling them that the way of life they’d lived, and that their ancestors had lived for 1800 or so years was coming to an end.

(You’ll also note that neither the Last Supper nor any Eucharistic ritual is mentioned anywhere in John 6.)

Yet, SS is able to deny this reality.
Most Protestant do not believe that confessing one’s sins to another man who has the delegated power of God to forgive sin, as taught by the Cathoic Church is appropriate. Yet Christ clearly confers this authority to forgive or hold bound to the Apostles in John 20.

Seems to me that any who receive the Holy Spirit are given this power.

Yet, SS is able to deny this reality, too.

Because the text doesn’t support the RCC expansion of it.

As I see it, you have the traditions of men conflicting with the written Word of God and men claiming that their interpretation is correct. And, that the guidance given by Christ to the Apostles (John 16:13) is no longer valid.

Well, again, you’re imposing upon this text that the Pope and Bishops inherit this, rather than all Christians generally. This is what the RCC commonly does. It claims for itself the authority of the apostles, when there isn’t any basis for such a claim.

This looks like excellent evidence for the ‘fruit’ produced by SS (Matt 7:16) If I have missed something here, please let me know.

What you’re missing is the RCC imposition that it (alone) is the sole inheritor of what is given to ALL of the apostles, to the exclusion of everyone else, without textual mandate.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Muze,

We need to make a distinction here between Oral and Written communications. 1Cor 11 is an example of written. There is no written example of oral - it is spoken and handed down word of mouth.

It was previously identified that head coverings was a discipline - like not eating meat on Friday - and both are examples of disciplines that have been modified at the direction of the Church. Observing Christ’s command to baptize all nations and preach the Good News is a requirement that the Church must follow.

Note that the early Church in Acts 2:45 held everything in common, with private property being sold and the proceeds being shared with the group. This was a practice that is no longer followed except in religious communities.

And, honestly Muze, if you have, “…examples to the contrary…” identify them - so we know what they are. I do not want you slipping back into those one line quips…

SS is a basic problem because it denies the teaching authority of the Church - and, that would be exactly what those leading the Protestant Revolt intended. Of course, looking at 30,000+ competing groups is probably not what they intended either.

God bless

In part, the traditions Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11 with respect to head coverings and long hair. Clearly the RCC no longer enforces these traditions, and yet they are clearly commanded by Paul.

Well, examples exist to the contrary.

Well, either the RCC is failing to observe a couple of specific traditions, or this is the case.

 

[asd72]

Muse,

The ‘silence’ in that passage seems to relate to teaching and authority, and as I’ve said teaching and authority in the Catholic church is male. What about in your church?

 

[Muze]

Interesting, because its appearances in the Bible (including the root word) indicate no such meaning.

Um… This is the only place in the bible that this word is used. In scholaraly terms, it is known as a “hapax legomenon.”

(consider yourself shown.)

Furthermore, we have the Latin which is very clear in its meaning:
**
2 Peter 1:20**
hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit

Not a surprise, given that Jerome did the Vulgate.