Sola Scriptura Defined

[Randy_Carson]

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?

 

[Chipper]

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?

Oh man! Everytime I get in a debate and refer to Sola Scriptura, I get some counter-defintion. I really think there is no definition of “Sola Scriptura”, it is merely a rallying cry for the protestants, to say “see you don’t understand Sola Scriptura”! Over and over I have seen a hundred definitions, and when you p(name removed by moderator)oint one of them, then this what you always hear.

 

[runandsew]

What is the Latin word for “personal interpretation”?
I think we should just change the title to the Latin version of:

“Personal interpretation of scripture alone”.


You always have to include what it is and what it isn’t in your definition.

Every time Catholic apologists refute Sola Scriptura so that the protestant can’t answer it, then the definition changes.
They use to say that it was clearly taught in the bible, now they say well, it isn’t clearly taught in the bible, but it is inferred, and they used to say that the early church believed in Sola Scriptura, now the protestant apologists say, "well you don’t need Sola Scriptura in times of revelation”

If it is true doctrine, then why do Protestants find it necessary to keep changing the facts about it?

I hear Catholic Answers called “Canned Answers” because they keep giving the same answers time after time, but when I read the church fathers I find their arguments are the very same. Could it be that the ‘Catholic Answers’ never change because they are the truth and truth never changes?

 

[Alexius]

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.

Are you asking if I believe or accept this tenet? No, where does Scripture make such a claim? It doesn’t because it was pieced together…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Philthy]

Not a single non-Catholic prepared to endorse or reject the definition? I must confess Im not surprised in the slightest…

 

[colliric]

What is the Latin word for “personal interpretation”?
I think we should just change the title to the Latin version of:

“Personal interpretation of scripture alone”.


You always have to include what it is and what it isn’t in your definition.

Every time Catholic apologists refute Sola Scriptura so that the protestant can’t answer it, then the definition changes.
They use to say that it was clearly taught in the bible, now they say well, it isn’t clearly taught in the bible, but it is inferred, and they used to say that the early church believed in Sola Scriptura, now the protestant apologists say, "well you don’t need Sola Scriptura in times of revelation”

If it is true doctrine, then why do Protestants find it necessary to keep changing the facts about it?

I hear Catholic Answers called “Canned Answers” because they keep giving the same answers time after time, but when I read the church fathers I find their arguments are the very same. Could it be that the ‘Catholic Answers’ never change because they are the truth and truth never changes?

The book “Where did we get the bible from?” has been reprinted 30 times since 1911, and theres a reason TAN press has made it so. The fact of the matter is we got the New Testament from the Roman Catholic Church. No competent historian will doubt that it was in 397 that the RCC validated and ordered the New Testament.

The real question is why did God use the Roman Catholic Church to put the final touches on his masterpiece?
There’s just no refuting it or response to it. Thats why the Catholic viewpoint has never changed. And thats why protestants continue to dance around trying to find arguments against it, when there is no competent response to it.

“And I tell you, You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not rise against it”…

 

[EBSSTF4]

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?

No

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)

From the new advent Catholic encyclopedia

1. Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”)
   The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope. Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church], the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.

 

[larryo]

Where in Scripture does it say that the sole rule of faith is Scripture? St. Paul refers to both Scripture and oral teaching (Tradition) as being authoritative for Christians. The so-called doctrine of *sola scriptura *simply makes no sense logically and cannot be historically justified.

Every reference to Scripture in the Bible is to the Jewish Bible or Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t compiled and accepted as such until late in the 4th century. The Catholic Church determined the final contents of inspired Scripture, including 7 books found in the Greek Septuagint. At a council in Jamnia around AD 100, the Jews in Judaea dropped these books from the Jewish canon because they had not been written in Hebrew. Of course, the Jews refused to include any of the Gospels or apostolic epistles in their canon. They considered Chriistians to be heretics. So, it’s ironic that the Protestant “reformers” some 1,500 years later relied on the Jewish canon for their version of the Old Testament. It should also be noted that Greek Jews throughout the Roman empire continued to use the Septuagint version.

 

[Pug]

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

You didn’t mention the word “salvation” in there. Usually that matters to the Protestant when talking about Scripture Alone. I know, I’m sure you imply it, but from my experience, the word is spelled out, usually. Also, they will use the word “perspicacious” or a related term. Just some thoughts.

 

[Contarini]

Every time Catholic apologists refute Sola Scriptura so that the protestant can’t answer it, then the definition changes.
They use to say that it was clearly taught in the bible, now they say well, it isn’t clearly taught in the bible, but it is inferred, and they used to say that the early church believed in Sola Scriptura, now the protestant apologists say, "well you don’t need Sola Scriptura in times of revelation”

If it is true doctrine, then why do Protestants find it necessary to keep changing the facts about it?

They don’t. What you claim are “new” versions are actually as old as Protestantism itself. You simply don’t know much about Protestantism or you would not make these false accusations. In any debate people will be forced to refine their position under pressure from the other side, and reach more deeply into their tradition for more profound arguments. Certainly one can see this in Catholic apologetics all the time.

Edwin

 

[Alexius]

The book “Where did we get the bible from?” has been reprinted 30 times since 1911, and theres a reason TAN press has made it so. The fact of the matter is we got the New Testament from the Roman Catholic Church. No competent historian will doubt that it was in 397 that the RCC validated and ordered the New Testament.

The real question is why did God use the Roman Catholic Church to put the final touches on his masterpiece?
There’s just no refuting it or response to it. Thats why the Catholic viewpoint has never changed. And thats why protestants continue to dance around trying to find arguments against it, when there is no competent response to it.

No, it was not the RCC, it was the entire Catholic Church, both east and west. The Orthodox have just as much of a claim to this as the Latin Church…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[colliric]

No, it was not the RCC, it was the entire Catholic Church, both east and west. The Orthodox have just as much of a claim to this as the Latin Church…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

yes, I know it was before the Schism. My point is still valid. It was the Catholic Church, which included the Latin/western Rite that would become known as “the Roman Catholic Church”.

 

[runandsew]

They don’t. What you claim are “new” versions are actually as old as Protestantism itself. You simply don’t know much about Protestantism or you would not make these false accusations. In any debate people will be forced to refine their position under pressure from the other side, and reach more deeply into their tradition for more profound arguments. Certainly one can see this in Catholic apologetics all the time.

Edwin

Oh so they are only around 490 years old.

As for false accusations, I am just pointing out what I have heard in debates, 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”.
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.
Either is is clearly defined in scripture or it isn’t, either is was practiced by the early christians, or it wasn’t.

I am really confused here.
But maybe that is the problem with Sola Scriptura, I believe that it is a conflicting doctrine which leads to disunity rather than unity in the Church.

 

[Like]

Sorry, but I am confused about the question.
Right now there are only 6 votes and all claiming to be Catholic (3 YES & 3 NO),yet 13 posts. I voted YES as to this:
“Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.”

In other words, I voted yes as I believe Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.
So, did I vote right?

 

[DeFide]

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.

Quite a few Sola Scripturaists do deny the Church’s authority.

Really, you have to take it on a person-by-person basis. The lack of an authentic decision-making authority among Sola Scripturaists gives rise to a multiplicity of definitions of what Sola Scriptura is.

And usually, the initial definitions given are as about as definite as fog, and require follow-up questions. It’s not something most of them like to think about.

 

[DeFide]

No, it was not the RCC, it was the entire Catholic Church, both east and west. The Orthodox have just as much of a claim to this as the Latin Church…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Which ecumenical council recognized by the EO lays out the canon of scripture?

 

[jmcrae]

I voted “Yes” not because I agree with the concept (no matter how one defines it), but because the definition given seems to conform to what most well-educated Protestants appear to mean when they say, “Sola Scriptura.”

By “the church’s authority” I’m assuming they’re referring to their local Protestant congregation; not to the Catholic Church.

 

[runandsew]

I think that it will be hard to define Sola Scriptura, I used a definition from Protestant book written by a notable Protestant biblical scolar, and put in a post. I had Protestants tell me that it was not the defintion of Sola Scriptura.
In fact didn’t they just write a three volume book on Sola Scriptura “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith”
If it takes them three volumes to defend it, do you really think you could define it in a paragraph?

I think that Sola Scriptura is a way of thinking, rather that an actual definable doctrine.

 

[Contarini]

Well is Sola Scriptura clearly defined in scripture or isn’t it.

It isn’t.

Does Sola Scriptura exist in times of revelation or not.

Are you saying that you’ve talked to Protestants who denied that the oral teaching of the Apostle Paul (later written down in letters) was authoritative? There are such people, but they’re generally people who don’t think very carefully. They might conceivably say that one couldn’t know for sure it was authoritative till it was written down. . . .

It can’t be both ways.

No one said it was.

I don’t need to know Protestant history, to recognize conflicting answers.

It’s not the fact that Protestants disagree among themselves that I quarrel with–or even the fact that the same Protestants might progress from a dumb argument to a better one. It’s your theory about why Protestants give different answers that I’m challenging. I have pointed out that your statement (that Protestants “used” to give the more extreme answers and have “now” started giving the more sophisticated ones) is utter nonsense historically. If you don’t care about history, don’t make claims about it. Don’t use words like “used to” and “now.” Those are historical claims and can be verified.

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. 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

 

[Contarini]

In fact didn’t they just write a three volume book on Sola Scriptura “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith”

Who’s “they”? You speak as if all Protestants in the world collaborated on this. Messrs. King and Webster are just two guys. It’s like saying that if Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid collaborate on something, it’s the doing of the Catholic Church as a whole. Most Protestants know and care nothing about King and Webster.

Sola Scriptura is an unworkable concept that does far more harm than good on all sides. However, right now I’m dealing with you guys, who are trying to use it as a stick to beat all Protestants. It won’t work.

Edwin