Sola Scriptura: Food for thought

[Shibboleth]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone can interpret Scripture infallibly but that Scripture is its own authority and that no one or no thing has authority over it. In an earlier argument I stated that Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Bible. This confused some people. What I am saying is that the Bible is simply the vesicle that transports the words and teaching of the Scriptures in the same way that a bowl can carry the water that nourishes us. Before the compilation of the Bible the nourishing water of the scripture was transferred from one person to another orally. The same happens today for children who cannot yet read, the illiterate, and the blind.

What does this mean? The whole, “We are the mother of the Bible not its daughter” statement is irrelevant. Its is not the compilations of man that is the nourishment but the words and teaching of Christ that it contains. The Catholic Church is not the mother of the words and teaching of Jesus, it is not the mother of Scripture.

I often get the argument “where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura taught.”
The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church. In numerous passages the Scriptures claim this authority for themselves as the inspired Word of God. For example, St. Paul writes in 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (RSV). Likewise, the apostle Peter declares that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21; RSV). It should be remembered that acceptance of the Bible as the sole authority for teaching comes not from rational arguments or human traditions, but is a conviction produced by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. In other words, it is a matter of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures themselves (see 1 Thess. 2:13)!
There is, of course, no contradiction between 2 Pet. 1:20 and what Peter says later in 3:15-16. That the Scriptures may be difficult for human beings to understand in certain places does not take away from their divine authority. In fact, St. Peter’s words underline the necessity and importance of praying for the Holy Spirit’s guidance to properly interpret Scripture as we “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).

 

[Melchior]

Shibboleth:

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone can interpret Scripture infallibly but that Scripture is its own authority and that no one or no thing has authority over it. In an earlier argument I stated that Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Bible. This confused some people. What I am saying is that the Bible is simply the vesicle that transports the words and teaching of the Scriptures in the same way that a bowl can carry the water that nourishes us. Before the compilation of the Bible the nourishing water of the scripture was transferred from one person to another orally. The same happens today for children who cannot yet read, the illiterate, and the blind.

What does this mean? The whole, “We are the mother of the Bible not its daughter” statement is irrelevant. Its is not the compilations of man that is the nourishment but the words and teaching of Christ that it contains. The Catholic Church is not the mother of the words and teaching of Jesus, it is not the mother of Scripture.

I often get the argument “where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura taught.”
The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church. In numerous passages the Scriptures claim this authority for themselves as the inspired Word of God. For example, St. Paul writes in 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (RSV). Likewise, the apostle Peter declares that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21; RSV). It should be remembered that acceptance of the Bible as the sole authority for teaching comes not from rational arguments or human traditions, but is a conviction produced by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. In other words, it is a matter of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures themselves (see 1 Thess. 2:13)!
There is, of course, no contradiction between 2 Pet. 1:20 and what Peter says later in 3:15-16. That the Scriptures may be difficult for human beings to understand in certain places does not take away from their divine authority. In fact, St. Peter’s words underline the necessity and importance of praying for the Holy Spirit’s guidance to properly interpret Scripture as we “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).

Well said.

 

[Vincent]

Check out Keith Mathison’s article, “A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura”.

Greg Krehbiel’s evaluation of Keith’s book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, is also worth examining.

One thing’s certain: there is a distinction between the Reformed “Sola Scriptura” and the Evangelical “Solo Scriptura”. If Catholics fail to get the distinction straight, then ecumenical dialogues with Reformed Christians and Evangelical Christians are bound to result in more heat than light.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Vincent:

One thing’s certain: there is a distinction between the Reformed “Sola Scriptura” and the Evangelical “Solo Scriptura”. If Catholics fail to get the distinction straight, then ecumenical dialogues with Reformed Christians and Evangelical Christians are bound to result in more heat than light.

Well said, Vincent. And the same to Mel, Phil, and others, too.

When I was first getting into apologetics, I got into a discussion with a Lutheran friend who was then in seminary (now a pastor). We discussed sola scriptura, and not understanding the difference between sola and solo scriptura and the positions they represent, I argued with him as if he were a fundamentalist or evangelical, which he was not. This created a good deal of difficulty, because I was attributing to him and refuting a position which he did not hold, and no amount of denial on his part could make me see that. I think it’s the “solo” position which gets the bulk of attention within Catholic apologetics circles these days, and rightly so: the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and its mostly fundamentalist and evangelical churches which are attracting ill-formed Catholics, not Lutheran or Reformed churches.

Having said all of that, I tend to think that the sola position will logically lead to the solo position, but that’s another story.

 

[Matt16_18]

The Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura are NOT doctrines about the authority of scriptures. They are doctrines about the rejection of the authority of the living Magisterium of Christ’s church.

The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church.

This is a perfect example of heretical Protestant teaching. Nowhere does the Bible claim for itself that it is the SOLE norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church. The Protestant position rejects the AUTHORITY that Jesus vested in the teaching office of the bishop and the teaching office of the papacy. The Popes and the bishops can speak in the name of Jesus, and their authority to do so is is attested to by the scriptures.

”If he refuse to listen to even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican”.
Matt. 18:17

“He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me”.
Luke 10:16

The Protestant refuses to listen to the Church. The Protestant rejects the teaching authority of the bishops of Christ’s church, and by that rejection, the Protestant is rejecting both Jesus and his Father.

 

[Athanasiy]

Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) and “Sola Fide” (Faith alone) hangs together. Your faith in Christ shall guide you and help you (through the Holy Spirit) to understand your Bible (alone).

But you live in a society, and your understanding will be filterd through the lenses of what exactly your church teach. And that is what bothers me. You come up with different understanding of how to understand The Holy Book, The BIBLE.

As an example how will you understand the following? “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. 2Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins” (Is 40:1-2)

Most catholics will say that we have to understand the OT in the light of NT. Most catholics will think of Jerusalem as the New Jerusalem (the Church). So the interpretation will be that there is hope for the sinners in the Church. Catholics will also see the same Bibleverses telling something about the Jews **in the past ** (Here Isaiah is talking to the Jews about comfort after the long period in Babylon). As God wanted to comfort the Jews, HE will comfort us.

I have met :bible1: protestants that has clamed that the meaning of these verses is that our saving goes through being kind to the Jews, especially.

As christians we are called to be kind to all our sisters and brothers in the human race, not only to one particular group of humans.

The two different interpretations can eventually give rise to to different kinds of trusting in God. The catholic interpretation gives HOPE. The protestants version can give rise to FEAR. If you are not good enough to the jews, may be God will punish you.

May be you don’t recognice the protestantinterpretation of Is 40:1-2? That’s what is all about! Catholics (hopefully) will recognice my interpretation (The Church as Jerusalem, the new, and the hope). Protestants will be diveded. There are too many authoroties among the protestants.

(Please excuse any spellinmistake. English is not my first language).

Blessings

G.G.

 

[Bishopite]

I thought about this while reading some of the threads concerning Sola Scriptura.

I don’t know how many of you remember the news story last summer about the woman who was stopped by state trooper on the Ohio turnpike. She was given a citation for breastfeeding her baby while tooling down the turnpike at 70 miles-per-hour.

She and her husband decided to contest the ticket in court, her husband acting as counsel in her defense. Their defense was based on “religious” grounds. Exactly what their defense was, I don’t remember.

During the course of the trial, her husband requested to present evidence. The evidence, if you haven’t guessed, was a Bible. (a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, no less!)

Needless to say, the judge refused his request.

Kind of makes me wonder what will happen when Sola Scriptura believers stand before THE judge?

It has been said that Protestantism is a religion of the book, but Catholicism is a religion of the word which is written and oral. And for those who don’t like the word religion, see James 1:27—“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

 

[RNRobert]

It has been said that Protestantism is a religion of the book, but Catholicism is a religion of the word which is written and oral. And for those who don’t like the word religion, see James 1:27—“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

Yes, many Protestants see ‘religion’ as a dirty word.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone can interpret Scripture infallibly but that Scripture is its own authority and that no one or no thing has authority over it. In an earlier argument I stated that Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Bible. This confused some people. What I am saying is that the Bible is simply the vesicle that transports the words and teaching of the Scriptures in the same way that a bowl can carry the water that nourishes us. Before the compilation of the Bible the nourishing water of the scripture was transferred from one person to another orally. The same happens today for children who cannot yet read, the illiterate, and the blind.

What does this mean? The whole, “We are the mother of the Bible not its daughter” statement is irrelevant. Its is not the compilations of man that is the nourishment but the words and teaching of Christ that it contains. The Catholic Church is not the mother of the words and teaching of Jesus, it is not the mother of Scripture.

I often get the argument “where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura taught.”
The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church. In numerous passages the Scriptures claim this authority for themselves as the inspired Word of God. For example, St. Paul writes in 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (RSV). Likewise, the apostle Peter declares that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21; RSV). It should be remembered that acceptance of the Bible as the sole authority for teaching comes not from rational arguments or human traditions, but is a conviction produced by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. In other words, it is a matter of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures themselves (see 1 Thess. 2:13)!
There is, of course, no contradiction between 2 Pet. 1:20 and what Peter says later in 3:15-16. That the Scriptures may be difficult for human beings to understand in certain places does not take away from their divine authority. In fact, St. Peter’s words underline the necessity and importance of praying for the Holy Spirit’s guidance to properly interpret Scripture as we “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).

Thank you and well said.

 

[Altesse]

I thought about this while reading some of the threads concerning Sola Scriptura.

I don’t know how many of you remember the news story last summer about the woman who was stopped by state trooper on the Ohio turnpike. **She was given a citation for breastfeeding her baby while tooling down the turnpike at 70 miles-per-hour. **
She and her husband decided to contest the ticket in court, her husband acting as counsel in her defense. Their defense was based on “religious” grounds. Exactly what their defense was, I don’t remember.

During the course of the trial, her husband requested to present evidence. The evidence, if you haven’t guessed, was a Bible. (a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, no less!)

Needless to say, the judge refused his request.

Kind of makes me wonder what will happen when Sola Scriptura believers stand before THE judge?

The woman and her husband are idiots.
The citation would have been for speeding.
They were extremely fortunate that the nice officer didn’t arrest them for child endangerment for not having the kid in a car seat!

There is no Bible verse in the Bible defending that kind of behavior.

There is a place for dissent and protest of injust laws, but no defense for breaking just ones.

People like them give all Christians a bad name.

Anyway, from a former Lutheran who is now Catholic…

Solo Scriptura means that the sole authority of life and faith is from the Word of God, not the opinions of man.

This is comes out of the Reformation. Martin Luther was dissenting and protesting during a time of great corruption in the Church.

Catholic Tradition that holds the teachings of church elders with equal value as the Bible was not appropriate in his eyes.
So he based his faith on the authority of the scripture alone.

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man (or woman )of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It was a protection of the faith against bad leaders.

Technically, Church Tradition is Church leadership’s interpretation and application of the Sacred Scripture.

So if you continue that thought - That the Traditions are based on the Scripture - Catholics leaders are following Solo Scriptura.

 

[mepatri]

St. Timothy didn’t see it they way most of you folks here do. But please, if you feel the authority of the Catholic Church supercedes what Timothy said, then by all means, follow it.

…that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 3:15.

Ask yourself - does the above scriputure show that the Scriptures alone were sufficient in providing Timothy with what he needed to know to be saved?

If they were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t they sufficient for us?

Doesn’t 2 Tim. 3:15 tell us that wisdom and salvation come from faith that is in Christ, and not through faith in the church?

 

[tz620q]

To add context to this, lets look at the whole chapter of 2 Timothy 3:

*1 But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days.
2 People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them. *

Sounds to me like Paul is admonishing people in the last days for acting religious but denying the true power of the love of God.

*6 For some of these slip into homes and make captives of women weighed down by sins, led by various desires, **always trying to learn but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth. **
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth–people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith.
9 But they will not make further progress, for their foolishness will be plain to all, as it was with those two. *

So Paul warns not to be deceived by those unqualified in the faith who do not know the truth.

*10 You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me. *

How does Paul tell us to discern the truth?

1. by following his teachings (oral gospel)
2. by following his way of life motivated by faith and firmly set on God’s purpose
3. by showing patience and love to others
4. by enduring persecutions and suffering
   Almost sounds like the rules to a monastic order, doesn’t it.

*12 In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
13 But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, *

Every time I have seen 2 Timothy 3:15-6 quoted by someone making a case for sola scriptura, they have not included 2 Timothy 3:14, which is the start of Paul’s sentence to Timothy. The first part of the sentence continues with Paul’s criteria for discerning truth. It emphasizes the importance of knowing the source of the beliefs to which you are faithful. He exhorts Timothy to use that which he (Paul) has taught him orally and the sacred scriptures passed down from their ancestors as a source of wisdom for continuing Paul’s teaching.

15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

St. Timothy didn’t see it the way most of you folks here do. But please, if you feel the authority of the Catholic Church supercedes what Timothy said, then by all means, follow it.?

This raises an interesting question. Would Timothy have taken Paul’s text to have meant that he only needed the Septuagint Old Testament, which he had available as scripture at that time, to teach people about Christianity and the good news of Christ?

Ask yourself - does the above scriputure show that the Scriptures alone were sufficient in providing Timothy with what he needed to know to be saved?

If they were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t they sufficient for us?

Doesn’t 2 Tim. 3:15 tell us that wisdom and salvation come from faith that is in Christ, and not through faith in the church?

mepatri,
To give you a Catholic apologist’s viewpoint on this text, I would point out that the Greek word, ophelimos, is translated as “is profitable” and not sufficient. The difference in meaning is that profitable implies that though it is useful in instruction, it is not the only source. Sufficient has often been applied to this text to imply that Paul meant that scripture was the sole source to be used for instruction and that his oral teachings could be ignored. Catholics hold that both the scriptures and the apostolic oral teaching are the word of God and are both profitable for our instruction.
As to your last question about faith in Christ, it has always been the Catholic position that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation. I will try not to read anything more into your question that can be literally inferred.
Please take this post only as an attempt to explain the Catholic position, while acknowledging you as a fellow Christian with love.

 

[martino]

It shouldn’t sadden you to see Catholics misrepresenting Protestant teaching, most of us learned it from them! In refuting Catholic doctrine, Protestants almost in every instance rely on the “me and my Bible” approach to Scripture. So the Catholic merely refutes the Protestant’s argument exactly how it was given. Are we supposed to sharpen their arrows for them before they attempt to put holes in us?

i just have to say i have no recollection of writing this. i just reread it and was thinking it sounded pretty darn good!