Sola Scriptura Defined

[Contarini]

Oh so they are only around 490 years old.

A completely irrelevant remark, since you clearly were speaking of Protestants.

As for false accusations, I am just pointing out what I have heard in debates,

And I’m pointing out that relatively young as Protestantism is, its history goes way back beyond any debate you have ever heard, unless you were at Leipzig in 1519 or Heidelberg in 1518. Your proposed explanation for these two positions doesn’t work.

I have heard both answers, and I can’t understand if “Sola Scriptura is clearly defined in scripture”, how can it also “not be clearly defined in scripture, but it is implied”.

It can’t.

And how can Sola Scriptura be the “norm” during the early church, while at the same time it wasn’t practice, because it is not needed in times of revelation?
I am not making this up, I have listened to several James White Debates, and in the different debates he gives different answer. I know that he is forced to refine his position under pressure from the other side, but I really think that this is an “either/or” kind of thing, rather that a “both/and” issue.

Ah–Mr. White. I do not pretend to explain what goes on in Mr. White’s head. Why not take it up with him? Why are you taking White as typical of Protestants as a whole? He’s just one Baptist guy–in fact, as a strict Calvinistic Baptist he’s an oddity among both Calvinists and Baptists. The immense importance he assumes in the minds of online Catholics is truly odd. He has no more right to speak for all Protestants than I do.

Some Protestants have a very simplistic concept of Sola Scriptura, and some try to defend it in a more sophisticated way. I have come to the conclusion that the term does far more harm than good. It wasn’t even used by the Reformers (not that they were particularly wise in their choice of terminology a lot of the time). It’s a post-Reformation Protestant catchphrase that can mean a lot of things.

But the proposition that all divine revelation was written down in Scripture is IMHO a defensible one. I’m not sure it’s true–it’s possible that other things (particularly practices) were handed down orally. But the ambiguity of Trent about just what “Tradition” is presents just as many problems to my mind as the concept of Sola Scriptura. If we are going to have a meaningful discussion about the subject, we’re all going to have to shelve our slogans and define carefully every term we use.

Edwin

 

[runandsew]

Edwin

Oops, I shouldn’t have said “they” when referring to that book, I was typing faster than I could think, I know I should not lump all Protestants together, sorry…

So can you give me a definition of Sola Scriptura or lead me to a link which would give a good (but short) definiton.

I am not trying to beat up Protestants with Sola Scriptura, but I believe that it is the one main issue that divides us and needs to be dealt with.
I feel that every other issue that divides us stems from this one doctrine.

Because if the Church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture, and its teaching is as equally binding binding upon the Christian, then all the Church teachings that Protestants would have against the Church would be for naught.

 

[Contarini]

Oops, I shouldn’t have said “they” when referring to that book, I was typing faster than I could think, I know I should not lump all Protestants together, sorry…

So can you give me a definition of Sola Scriptura or lead me to a link which would give a good (but short) definiton.

Since I have decided the term is worthless, I am not likely to try to define it any more! Your best bet is to look at the traditional confessional statements of the older Protestant groups. The Lutherans tend to be relatively coy about the issue–it wasn’t as big for them as for the Reformed (though the Lutheran apologist Martin Chemnitz did probably the best job of defending SS of anyone I’ve read). The introductory “Solid Declaration” of the Formula of Concord (the Lutheran equivalent of the decrees of Trent, essentially) touches on the matter briefly. The Reformed confessions go into more detail. The “Three Forms of Unity” traditionally accepted by all Reformed are the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Synods of Dordt. For Presbyterians, the Westminster Confession is the most authoritative statement. The Belgic and Westminster Confessions both give good statements of the traditional Reformed position.

The Anglican 39 Articles are much more succinct and much closer to a position I would be willing to defend, though I’d lean even further in the Catholic direction.

All in all, though, Randy’s definition is carefully worded and about as good as any.

Edwin

 

[Vigis]

What I find strange is that Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura when the Holy Bible itself was composed out of TRADITION. How do they get around this? As far as I know they just take a verse from Revelations out of context and use it. God speed.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Edwin -

I always enjoy your posts and respect your opinion as one more informed than my own. I hope you do not feel I am being harsh or argumentative with my comments - I dont mean to be.

I don’t profess any form of Sola Scriptura…

I do believe that Scripture is the supreme source of divine revelation available to us, and that as such it has paramount authority in the Church. If that’s Sola Scriptura, I believe Sola Scriptura.

Well what are we supposed to take from this Edwin? You reject every other form or SS except your own? Its very confusing to start by stating explicitly that you “dont profess any form of SS” and then end with the possibility that you do, but are uanware, yourself, of whether or not that constitutes a belief in SS.
I would say that such a definition falls short of SS in that it fails to address how the “paramount authority” of Scripture manisfests itself in unambiguously and unanimously declaring
the fundamentals of the faith. The true debate IMHO is not how nuanced one gets in defining SS. The real debate is how the concept of SS functionally manifests itself in a world wide community of believers, and what the role of the Church is as the “pillar and foundation of truth” in this context. Stated alternatively, “How, exactly, is the unparalleled authority of Scripture as the rule of faith to be communicated to the whole of Christendom for all time?”

Contarini:

But I am not going to quarrel over the term one way or the other. I do not have a dogmatic opinion on whether all revelation was eventually written down or not, and I continue to struggle with the question of the Church’s infallibility, though I have no problem with infallibility “after the fact” (i.e., with saying that certain decisions of the Church in the past are irreformable).
Edwin

We all struggle with the question of the Church’s infallibility to varying degrees - so dont feel alone on that one! Out of curiousity, do you believe that there was an era during which the Church had the gift of infallibility - apart from writing Scripturre - and that the era ended?

Phil

 

[Contarini]

What I find strange is that Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura when the Holy Bible itself was composed out of TRADITION. How do they get around this? .

The claim is that the Bible (taken as a whole) contains all authoritative Tradition. It’s not that one thing (“Tradition”) created another (“the Bible”) but that one and the same thing ('divine revelation) was proclaimed orally by Jesus and the Apostles and then written down.

The question that Protestants have been posing for 500 years is: if there is specific content to Tradition that was not written down, then give us an exhaustive list of these Traditions. If Tradition is that sort of thing–i.e., a specific body of material only part of which went into Scripture–then after 2000 years the Church should have figured out exactly what that body of material is. Since Tradition (in the Catholic sense) is obviously far more nebulous than that, it is clearly not something that can be set over against the clearly defined body of material contained in Scripture. You must speak of it as something completely different in kind and therefore not necessarily different at all in content–which is what Vatican II did.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin -

I always enjoy your posts and respect your opinion as one more informed than my own. I hope you do not feel I am being harsh or argumentative with my comments - I dont mean to be.

Not at all. OK, you may be argumentative but I don’t have a problem with that!

Well what are we supposed to take from this Edwin? You reject every other form or SS except your own?

If you mean “I don’t believe in any form of SS except the form I believe in” then that is obviously true However, I made a point of directing runandsew to sources that would give a more mainstream, historic Protestant doctrine of the authority of Scripture (SS if you insist on using the term) than I myself hold.

Its very confusing to start by stating explicitly that you “dont profess any form of SS” and then end with the possibility that you do, but are uanware, yourself, of whether or not that constitutes a belief in SS.

I’m sorry if what I said was confusing. Let me try to clarify, because I think what I’m saying is quite simple

I have decided that the term “Sola Scriptura” can be defined in too many different ways to be useful. It’s generally used as a slogan by people (on both sides) who are quite confident what it means and are using it to avoid thinking more deeply about the nature of Scriptural authority. Thus, people fight endlessly over whether they are defining the term correctly, because if they can win the battle over definition they will gain a tactical advantage in the larger debate. For instance, the Webster/King crowd want to define SS in such a way that they can claim the Fathers for it, but at the same time they want to apply it in ways that the Fathers would have found horrifying. Similarly, Catholic apologists tend to define it in ways that are strictly true only of fundamentalism and then apply that definition to all of Protestantism, or at least argue that any more moderate definition “logically” resolves into the fundamentalist version.

I have spent way too much time trying to articulate what the historic Protestant definition of SS is (particularly since I have become clear in my own mind that I no longer believe this definition, so I have to explain first the traditional, mainstream Reformed understanding, and then my own different view–now that is *really *confusing!). The ideological weight put on it far overbalances any usefulness the phrase might have in summing up a complex issue. We waste time arguing over terminology that we might spend in discussing substance. Mind you, terminology is important–that’s precisely why terminology that obscures issues of substance is not just unnecessary but downright false.

I reject utterly “Sola Scriptura” as a slogan around which the Christian faith should be based. Part of that rejection is my refusal to argue any longer over what I believe can be called SS or not. I don’t *profess *any form of SS in the sense that I don’t have a stake in arguing that my views can be described by that slogan. If those of you who want to keep using the slogan find that my views fit your definition, then that’s fine.

I would say that such a definition falls short of SS in that it fails to address how the “paramount authority” of Scripture manisfests itself in unambiguously and unanimously declaring
the fundamentals of the faith.

Well then, I guess I don’t believe in SS. I don’t think the job of Scripture is to declare anything unambiguously. The job of Scripture is to provide a reliable record of the deposit of faith and thus give boundaries to the Church’s development and application of that deposit.

T

he true debate IMHO is not how nuanced one gets in defining SS. The real debate is how the concept of SS functionally manifests itself in a world wide community of believers, and what the role of the Church is as the “pillar and foundation of truth” in this context.

But if you don’t nuance your definition, you can’t possibly discuss this with any accuracy.

Stated alternatively, “How, exactly, is the unparalleled authority of Scripture as the rule of faith to be communicated to the whole of Christendom for all time?”

Through the Church, of course.

 

[Contarini]

We all struggle with the question of the Church’s infallibility to varying degrees - so dont feel alone on that one! Out of curiousity, do you believe that there was an era during which the Church had the gift of infallibility - apart from writing Scripturre - and that the era ended?

Phil

What do you mean by “the gift of infallibility”? And more importantly, what do you mean by “the Church”? Scripture was written not through a “gift of infallibility” which then continued to be exercised in other ways, but through direct divine inspiration, which we both agree did not continue. The councils and other authoritative declarations of the early Church (including the canonization of Scripture) were correct. We can be certain that they were correct without postulating a “gift of infallibility” by which one could be certain beforehand that they were correct. That only adds one more layer of things to worry about–it doesn’t actually help us believe that the Nicene Council, say, was true. In other words, I reject the idea that we can only be confident that the Church was right if we can identify some mechanism of authority that can in principle always be trusted to give us the right answer. That just raises the question–how do you know that you have the right mechanism? I see no answer to this that is not hopelessly circular or, worse, based on obviously false statements. (Karl Keating’s argument based on the alleged provability of the historical accuracy of Scripture is a clear example of the latter–since Biblical scholars are anything but agreed on the basic accuracy of the NT, the argument fails from the very start.)

I believe that 1 Nicea was right because that is the faith handed down to me. This is not blind faith–it is faith that is questioned and tested every day. But it cannot be reduced to a deduction from previously established principle of authority.

The usefulness of the gift of infallibility (as believed by Catholics) is not in determining that past Church decsions were right, but in deciding which side to take in present controversies whose outcome is in doubt, and in giving a basis for unwavering loyalty to a particular community of faith for the future, until the coming of Christ.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Abira]

Hi,

I’ve read the thread througha few times and I thought I should speak plainly about what I think.

I’m protestant… and I believe (for the purpose of a debate) that the definition given in the OP to be accurate.

I personally came full circle on this question. Because of the central position of the Bible I can not now agree with sola scriptura because for me, Scripture itself ells me it is not the sole source.

I don’t quite know where that leaves me as a protestant, but the more I try to feel at ease with sla scriptura the less evidence i can find for it in scripture alone!

Take care, S

 

[Philthy]

…I guess I don’t believe in SS. I don’t think the job of Scripture is to declare anything unambiguously. The job of Scripture is to provide a reliable record of the deposit of faith and thus give boundaries to the Church’s development and application of that deposit.

Yup, and this is where the trouble starts! IMHO this is where SS ( and pretty much every other system) breaks down on the functional level. A clear description of :

• A) What “the Church” is IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERPRETING THE RULE OF FAITH for the faithful and
• B) HOW the Church is recognized when it performs this function
  is absent altogether or impossibly vague in most systems and usually non-binding on the individual believer. I do think your approach is thoughtful and radically different than the standard non-Catholic, and in fact, is actually closer to the Catholic understanding than that of the modern day SS adherent - which I point out not because I didnt hear you emphatically separate yourself from the term, but because it is the topic of the thread.

 

[De_Maria]

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

Good question. It seems to be a moving target.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

Did you find this definition in the Bible? Or did you make it up? If you didn’t find it in the Bible, why should this definition be binding on the Church?

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church.

Provide the verse to support this claim. My Bible says we must believe the Church:

                                             [Matthew 18:17](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=47&chapterId=18&verseId=17&page=1#x)
                                             And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

That means that the Bible teaches that the Church is the rule or authority of faith for the Christian.

The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement.

No. Yet the Scriptures say that we should supplement the Word of God with teaching, preaching and rebuke:

                                             [Romans 10:14](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=52&chapterId=10&verseId=14&page=1#x)
                     How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?


                                             [2 Timothy 4:2](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=62&chapterId=4&verseId=2&page=1#x)
                                             Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.

Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation.

Into whom were they breathed?

                                                                                                                                                          [2 Peter 1:20-21](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=68&chapterId=1&verseId=21&page=1#x)

20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.

Yet it was the men of the Church who wrote the New Testament, approved Its Canon, approved the Canon of the Old Testament and safeguards the proper interpretation of its contents throughout the centuries.
CONT’D

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating.

Then why so many arguments of what it says?

The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith

Prove it from Scripture.

and the Church is always subject to the Word,

That is true. But the Word of God is contained in the Traditions by Scripture and Word:

2 Thessalonians 2:14

                     Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

                     Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the Word' of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the Word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

and is constantly reformed thereby.

The Word of God is absolute. It doesn’t change. The Catholic Church’s doctrines don’t change because they are the Traditions by Word, they are also the Word of God.

But the Church’s understanding of the Word does change. It gets deeper.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self refuting. Since the Bible does not say that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an extra-biblical rule which teaches that we should not believe any extra-biblical rules. ???

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

It is just as illogical as the original version by Martin Luther.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[NonDenom]

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura

does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

Hi All
I have a question. If you had two Church’s, one of them threw out the Bible and only taught tradition, the other Church threw out all tradition and only taught from the Bible, which Church would look more like Christianity is supposed to look like?

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi All
I have a question. If you had two Church’s, one of them threw out the Bible and only taught tradition, the other Church threw out all tradition and only taught from the Bible, which Church would look more like Christianity is supposed to look like?

Neither Church would “look more like Christianity”. The true Church has both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the Church threw out all Tradition, then it would have to throw out the Bible. For our Bible comes from Tradition. The spoken Word precedes the written Word. Sacred Tradition tells us what the Bible means to say. The Bible means to tell us what Sacred Tradition says. The Jews have the Old Testament, but for them the New Testament is not a full revelation of the Old. The Bible alone is not sufficient.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NonDenom]

Neither Church would “look more like Christianity”. The true Church has both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the Church threw out all Tradition, then it would have to throw out the Bible. For our Bible comes from Tradition. The spoken Word precedes the written Word. Sacred Tradition tells us what the Bible means to say. The Bible means to tell us what Sacred Tradition says. The Jews have the Old Testament, but for them the New Testament is not a full revelation of the Old. The Bible alone is not sufficient.

Pax vobiscum

Please don’t dance around the question and just answer it.

 

[Good_Fella]

I did answer it. Look again!

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It seems inaccurate because of your final statement that it does not deny the Holy Spirit’s guidance and enlightening of the Church.

I lean this way because the doctrine, as I understand it, is a response to the Church’s assertion that it has the authority to teach on matters that do not appear in Scripture – hence, those who did not wish to be subject to the Church created a doctrine that conveniently freed them from this obligation.

What good is it to grant that the Church is enlightened by the Holy Spirit if there is no need to be enlightened?

Peace,
Dante

 

[mozart-250]

The difficulty here (it seems to me) is that “deposit of faith” claims are difficult if not impossible to both prove and disprove. Contradictory deposit of faith claims really seem to me to be similar to different assumptions in the field of logic.

As for me, I start with an assumption (or belief) that the Bible is the written Word of God not because I can prove it either way but because:
(1) I have come to a living faith in Jesus Christ
(2) Historic Christianity has always recognized the authority of the Bible
(3) It seems reasonable that the God I have come to know through Jesus Christ would prove a written releation of Himself.

As far as I know, these are the only assumptions that I have in my faith. As far as anything else goes, I would like to have credible reason to believe based on the assumptions that I already hold before buying into it. Otherwise, you can get me to believe just about anything.

This holds true for additional items in the “deposit of faith”. Otherwise you could get me believing in the Book of Mormon.

If I am a “Sola Scripturalist” it is not out of a worked out theological position (to the extent I have a theology I would prefer “Prima Scriptura” anyway). It is simply that I do not have any good reason to give any other source the same authority that I have already given to the written Word of God.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi All
I have a question. If you had two Church’s, one of them threw out the Bible and only taught tradition, the other Church threw out all tradition and only taught from the Bible, which Church would look more like Christianity is supposed to look like?

The one that followed Tradition, assuming it followed it faithfully - but if they were following the Tradition faithfully, then they would be unable to throw out the Bible, because the Bible is a subset of the Tradition - we can’t have Mass or pray the Rosary without the Bible.

The one that followed the Bible alone would end up very bare and lonely - no Christmas, no Easter, no holy days, etc.

 

[Ginger2]

Every reference to Scripture in the Bible is to the Jewish Bible or Old Testament.

You are wrong. Off the top of my head…Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “Scripture”. 2 Peter 3:16