Sola Scriptura help please

[zach_dunn]

Hello all! This thread it mainly directed at Protestants, I’m in need of your help. I am currently working on a sort of reference apologetic work for me to carry around (in a 3-ring binder) and I’m gonna start with the doctrine of sola Scriptura. What I wanted to do was draw up a working definition of the doctrine (reformed style), and I’ve used all Protestant resources to write a short essay type thing about what the doctrine does and does not entail. I’m basically just looking for feedback from all you knowledgeable Protestants. Please clear up any misunderstandings and help make my wording better. One thing I’d really like is if you guys could beef up the article with more Scripture for me!

I would like to get a definition that satisfies the majority of Protestants here at the forums because when I attempt to dismantle this belief (sorry ), I don’t want anyone accusing me of using straw man arguments! Here are the resources I used the most:

gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html
justforcatholics.org/a74.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
equip.org/articles/what-is-sola-scriptura-

I tried to put these ideas into my own words as much as possible, but I think that some of the time I sound like I’m quoting directly from the site…sorry! Anyway, thanks for your help! the essay thing will be posted in the next two posts!

 

[zach_dunn]

What is Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura (hereafter SS) is one of the five “solas” of the Protestant Reformation, the phrase is Latin for “Scripture Alone” and provides a solid glimpse into what the belief entails. SS essentially says that the Bible alone is the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and practice of a Christian 2 Tim 3:16-17], that the Bible alone is complete, authoritative, and true revelation of God Psalm 119:160]. SS states that the Bible is formally sufficient; that is, all the truths that we need to know in order to be saved are contained completely within the Bible, and that the saving message is clear enough for ordinary Christians to understand (often called “perspicuity”). After all, the Bible was written for the ordinary people of God in the first place, so they must be able to understand it. The way for ordinary Christians to understand the message of the Bible is to avoid interpreting the Scriptures themselves, this is forbidden by Peter 2 Pet 1:20]. God has, in His wisdom, given us a way to discern truth from fiction in the Scriptures; He has made it so that the Bible effectively interprets itself. By allowing the Bible to interpret itself (done by comparing Scripture passages to other passages that address the same subject), we can avoid letting our own theological opinions and presumptions get in the way of the true meaning of the Bible, and it keeps us from letting ourselves become a greater authority than the Scriptures themselves.

Scripture’s authority is universal and is based on the fact that it is inspired by God Himself; in the Bible, God has declared to each man what is expected of him and what he needs to be saved, therefore, everything that is affirmed in the Scriptures can be said to be affirmed by God Himself. The inspiration of the Scriptures is implied by most of the biblical books, but ultimate certainty of the inspiration of the Scriptures must come about through the witness of the Holy Spirit Himself to each and every Christian.

Like many essential doctrines, SS is not explicitly taught in the Bible; it is, however, implicitly taught. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and solely authoritative over the Christian’s faith and practice. Scripture is logically a superior authority to any kind of tradition because everyone knows exactly what is in it; the only way to know what God expects of us is to follow what we know to be His revealed will which is found completely in the Bible. We know the Bible to be inspired, authoritative, and true, the same cannot be said for tradition.

One issue that seems to come about with modern traditions is that these traditions are based on previous traditions, which were based on previous traditions, and so on and so forth back through the centuries; and it so happens that the original tradition, which turned into some modern tradition, was not in complete harmony with the Bible to begin with, thus rendering all subsequent traditions unbiblical.

 

[zach_dunn]

What sola Scriptura is not

Now that we have discussed what SS is, it is time to distinguish what SS is not. SS is not an attack on “tradition.” When traditions are based on Scripture and are in perfect harmony with the written Word of God, these traditions are good because they help clarify and organize Christian faith and practice. When human tradition is placed on equal authority or more with Scripture, it ends up morphing the teachings of Scripture and actually becoming contradictory with those teachings. This is precisely what happened in the Catholic Church over the many centuries before the Protestant Reformation. While SS is not an attack on tradition, it is an attack on unbiblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical doctrine. SS does not abolish church traditions; to the contrary: it gives churches a solid foundation on which to build their traditions.

The doctrine of SS does not deny authority over the church as a whole and individual pastors. Protestants believe that the church (as the “pillar and ground of truth,” 1 Tim 3:15), has the God-given duty to proclaim God’s Word and teach His Word faithfully. SS simply states that all authorities — whether they be the church, pastors or church traditions — must be subordinate to God’s known revelation in the Bible. While SS does not deny the authorities appropriate to the aforementioned positions, it does teach that these authorities must be subject to and corrected by the Scriptures: they can never teach a doctrine that is of human origin or that is contradicted by the Bible.

SS does not imply that the Scriptures contain all of the knowledge in the world, it only implies that the Bible contains all the truths that are necessary for us to be saved through faith in Christ and by His grace. The Bible is not a science textbook or an organized catechism: the information in the Bible is said to be enough “to make [us] wise unto salvation” 2 Tim 3:15], but not “exhaustive” in any sense of the word.

SS does not attempt to deny the fact that God revealed Himself in other ways besides the written Scriptures. It is true and evident that God actually spoke to the prophets of old and to the Apostles in Christ, but the Holy Spirit moved men to permanently record God’s revelation for the benefit of the people of the post-apostolic age as their sole infallible source of God’s message [cf. **2 Pet 1:21]. The Scriptures are more authoritative because they are tangible and definite where tradition has the capacity to change to benefit your own opinions.

This doctrine does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly or that there won’t be differences of interpretation among Christians, it is possible for a message to be simple and yet be misunderstood by some. This is evident from the example of Christ and His Apostles. Many times Christ’s point was painfully clear and yet they still could not understand Him at times: this is how the many heresies crept into the early church. The Bible was written for the ordinary people of God and is completely understandable once we get rid of all of our ignorance, theological prejudice, and our apathy.

 

[zach_dunn]

I also just wanted to say that I am currently writing a section on “solo Scriptura” which I will eventually post here when it is all finished, I currently only have the first sentence written! Thanks again you guys!!

 

[loneviking]

Well Zach, what you’ve written so far sounds like good Lutheran theology. We very much revere the Patristic writings and treat them as if they were written by wise pastors with years of experience and valuable counsel to share.

That, however, is not the case with many Protestants and especially Evangelicals. They really have no use for most of the Patristic writings and often if something is not found in the pages of Scripture—forget it!

And that extends to things such as how we worship. There’s no mention made of worshipping at an altar in the New Testament—so it’s not used; incense–ditto; candles—ditto; and the list goes on and on depending on which group you talk too.

Good luck with your project!!

 

[BrianH]

I am not Sola Scriptura but you just did not properly interpret 2nd Peter 1:20

In context it states

2Pe 1:18 and we ourselves heard this *utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

2Pe 1:19 *So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is stating that scripture, or the prophecy of scripture, is not the work of one independent person but by men who moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. It has to do with how scripture was written or spoken and not interpretation itself.
In my view, your interpretation does not take into account verses 19 and 21 and the context. It states in verse 16 they do not follow cleverly devised tales, that sets the framework for where the discussion is going. In other words, I think you are misusing the verse:shrug: Like I said I am not an advocate of Sola Scriptura but I do not agree with your interpretation

 

[JonNC]

What sola Scriptura is not

Now that we have discussed what SS is, it is time to distinguish what SS is not. SS is not an attack on “tradition.” When traditions are based on Scripture and are in perfect harmony with the written Word of God, these traditions are good because they help clarify and organize Christian faith and practice. When human tradition is placed on equal authority or more with Scripture, it ends up morphing the teachings of Scripture and actually becoming contradictory with those teachings. This is precisely what happened in the Catholic Church over the many centuries before the Protestant Reformation. While SS is not an attack on tradition, it is an attack on unbiblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical doctrine. SS does not abolish church traditions; to the contrary: it gives churches a solid foundation on which to build their traditions.

The doctrine of SS does not deny authority over the church as a whole and individual pastors. Protestants believe that the church (as the “pillar and ground of truth,” 1 Tim 3:15), has the God-given duty to proclaim God’s Word and teach His Word faithfully. SS simply states that all authorities — whether they be the church, pastors or church traditions — must be subordinate to God’s known revelation in the Bible. While SS does not deny the authorities appropriate to the aforementioned positions, it does teach that these authorities must be subject to and corrected by the Scriptures: they can never teach a doctrine that is of human origin or that is contradicted by the Bible.

SS does not imply that the Scriptures contain all of the knowledge in the world, it only implies that the Bible contains all the truths that are necessary for us to be saved through faith in Christ and by His grace. The Bible is not a science textbook or an organized catechism: the information in the Bible is said to be enough “to make [us] wise unto salvation” 2 Tim 3:15], but not “exhaustive” in any sense of the word.

SS does not attempt to deny the fact that God revealed Himself in other ways besides the written Scriptures. It is true and evident that God actually spoke to the prophets of old and to the Apostles in Christ, but the Holy Spirit moved men to permanently record God’s revelation for the benefit of the people of the post-apostolic age as their sole infallible source of God’s message [cf. **2 Pet 1:21

]. The Scriptures are more authoritative because they are tangible and definite where tradition has the capacity to change to benefit your own opinions.

This doctrine does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly or that there won’t be differences of interpretation among Christians, it is possible for a message to be simple and yet be misunderstood by some. This is evident from the example of Christ and His Apostles. Many times Christ’s point was painfully clear and yet they still could not understand Him at times: this is how the many heresies crept into the early church. The Bible was written for the ordinary people of God and is completely understandable once we get rid of all of our ignorance, theological prejudice, and our apathy.

Hi Zach,
There is much that you have posted that I agree with. Just a couple of things, from a Lutheran perspective (and I know you are looking at this from a Reformed view).

1. At least for Lutheranism, SS is a practice, not a doctrine.
2. I would disagree with the very last line, which I bolded. Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran reformer, warns us against personal interpretation, even the most obvious scripture passages.

Finally, as you look to continue your work, a couple of resources you might consider:

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html
In the first section, under Revelation, Scripture and, Authority, there are a couple of articles regarding SS.

RE: Sola vs. Solo
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hello all! This thread it mainly directed at Protestants, I’m in need of your help. I am currently working on a sort of reference apologetic work for me to carry around (in a 3-ring binder) and I’m gonna start with the doctrine of sola Scriptura. What I wanted to do was draw up a working definition of the doctrine (reformed style), and I’ve used all Protestant resources to write a short essay type thing about what the doctrine does and does not entail. I’m basically just looking for feedback from all you knowledgeable Protestants. Please clear up any misunderstandings and help make my wording better. One thing I’d really like is if you guys could beef up the article with more Scripture for me!

I would like to get a definition that satisfies the majority of Protestants here at the forums because when I attempt to dismantle this belief (sorry ), I don’t want anyone accusing me of using straw man arguments! Here are the resources I used the most:

gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html
justforcatholics.org/a74.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
equip.org/articles/what-is-sola-scriptura-

I tried to put these ideas into my own words as much as possible, but I think that some of the time I sound like I’m quoting directly from the site…sorry! Anyway, thanks for your help! the essay thing will be posted in the next two posts!

You’re better off asking the person you are speaking with what the doctrine means to them and then going from there. It will aleviate a lot of headaches and confusion on both sides.

God bless

 

[Jon_Hus]

Zack old boy,

Maybe I’m a little old old school, but seems to me a report based on information gathered on the an internet chat group might be a little “thin” if you know what I mean.

Here is a wild and crazy thought. The reformed protestant “christians” spout Sola Scriptura alot, why don’t you read one of their books on the subject? At your local library or a bookstore near you. You could complement it by reading a catholic book on the same subject, taking notes and then WOW, your report might be really informative!

If you do something like that, I might even read it.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I think it’s quite useless to try and find a one-size-fits-all definition of Sola Scriptura. Like all doctrines or practices, every Protestant chooses the definition to which “the Holy Spirit leads him.” Who can argue with the Holy Spirit? Private interpretation prevails, thanks to Mr. Luther. Even Luther and Calvin couldn’t agree on the meaning, from the get-go.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Protestant, ecstatic to be Catholic

 

[zach_dunn]

Well Zach, what you’ve written so far sounds like good Lutheran theology. We very much revere the Patristic writings and treat them as if they were written by wise pastors with years of experience and valuable counsel to share.

That, however, is not the case with many Protestants and especially Evangelicals. They really have no use for most of the Patristic writings and often if something is not found in the pages of Scripture—forget it!

I understand what you’re getting at here; Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, IMO, hold on to “solo Scriptura” which is the essence of what you say about disregarding Patristic writings, etc., etc. I’m still working on that section.

And that extends to things such as how we worship. There’s no mention made of worshipping at an altar in the New Testament—so it’s not used; incense–ditto; candles—ditto; and the list goes on and on depending on which group you talk too.

And this is a bit of the substance of the debate, no? You say you don’t do these things because they don’t appear in Scripture, I — as a Catholic — worship using these items because it is for the most part historical . . . that’s how our liturgy has been from the get-go. And, after all, these practices aren’t contrary to the Bible, are they?

Good luck with your project!!

Thanks you so very much! Your regards are much appreciated!

 

[zach_dunn]

I am not Sola Scriptura but you just did not properly interpret 2nd Peter 1:20

I’m not sola Scriptura either and the verse is interpreted the way one or more of the articles interpreted it. But I think you also mean to say that Catholics misuse this verse as well when we use it to chastise our Protestant brethren for private interpretation, right?

In context it states

2Pe 1:18 and we ourselves heard this *utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

2Pe 1:19 *So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is stating that scripture, or the prophecy of scripture, is not the work of one independent person but by men who moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. It has to do with how scripture was written or spoken and not interpretation itself.

I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think you are quite on the mark. I believe that verse 20 is indeed speaking about interpretation, and about private interpretation at that. What Peter is trying to say here is basically “we as humans cannot interpret the Scriptures on our own [private interpretation] because we did not write the Scriptures on our own, but holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write them.” So really Peter is saying that a human cannot interpret something divine without the assistance of the divine. That’s how I look at it anyway, you’re right that the passage addresses how the Bible was written and prophecy told, but this is emphasized so that we can understand that we have no hope of interpreting the Scriptures and its prophecies without assistance.

In my view, your interpretation does not take into account verses 19 and 21 and the context. It states in verse 16 they do not follow cleverly devised tales, that sets the framework for where the discussion is going. In other words, I think you are misusing the verse:shrug:

You’re right here in saying that verse 16 sets up the passage, we just disagree about what the passage is talking about.

Like I said I am not an advocate of Sola Scriptura but I do not agree with your interpretation

Neither am I and it’s not my interpretation.

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi Zach,
There is much that you have posted that I agree with. Just a couple of things, from a Lutheran perspective (and I know you are looking at this from a Reformed view).

1. At least for Lutheranism, SS is a practice, not a doctrine.

Could you explain the importance of the distinction please?

1. I would disagree with the very last line, which I bolded. Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran reformer, warns us against personal interpretation, even the most obvious scripture passages.

How can you not interpret the Bible personally if there is nothing given the authority to definitively interpret the Scriptures?

Finally, as you look to continue your work, a couple of resources you might consider:

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html
In the first section, under Revelation, Scripture and, Authority, there are a couple of articles regarding SS.

RE: Sola vs. Solo
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Jon

Thank you very much for the helpful links!

 

[zach_dunn]

You’re better off asking the person you are speaking with what the doctrine means to them and then going from there. It will aleviate a lot of headaches and confusion on both sides.

God bless

I completely agree and will do that of course, but I didn’t know how to start this project and this popped into my head, plus it will give me a solid starting point for discussing with (at least) Lutherans apparently.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zack old boy,

Maybe I’m a little old old school, but seems to me a report based on information gathered on the an internet chat group might be a little “thin” if you know what I mean.

I would know what you meant if this information was gathered from an internet chat room, but it’s not. If you had visited the links I provided you would see that they are actual articles written by people who are much more knowledgeable than me on the subject. A few of the articles I read and used were written by Keith Mathison who, as I’m sure you know, wrote the book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, a monumental book about the doctrine/practice of sola Scriptura.

Here is a wild and crazy thought. The reformed protestant “christians” spout Sola Scriptura alot, why don’t you read one of their books on the subject? At your local library or a bookstore near you. You could complement it by reading a catholic book on the same subject, taking notes and then WOW, your report might be really informative!

I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, but the way I’m reading this your remarks sound somewhat condescending and I don’t appreciate it. What exactly do you mean when you put Christians in quotation marks above? Are you saying that reformed Protestants aren’t Christian?

If you do something like that, I might even read it.

Just a suggestion.

It sounds as though you’d only be willing to read something as well researched and documented as The Shape of Sola Scriptura or some other lengthy tome, and I can tell you that is not what this is going to be.

 

[zach_dunn]

I think it’s quite useless to try and find a one-size-fits-all definition of Sola Scriptura. Like all doctrines or practices, every Protestant chooses the definition to which “the Holy Spirit leads him.” Who can argue with the Holy Spirit? Private interpretation prevails, thanks to Mr. Luther. Even Luther and Calvin couldn’t agree on the meaning, from the get-go.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Protestant, ecstatic to be Catholic

Yeah, I’m not going for a “one-size-fits-all” definition, I’m just looking for a starting point from where I can begin creating a defense against it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[loneviking]

Zach wrote, in response to my observations about candles, incense and the rest:

And this is a bit of the substance of the debate, no? You say you don’t do these things because they don’t appear in Scripture, I — as a Catholic — worship using these items because it is for the most part historical . . . that’s how our liturgy has been from the get-go. And, after all, these practices aren’t contrary to the Bible, are they?

Zach, I’m Lutheran and I don’t have any problem with these things. Over on CARM.org in the Roman Catholic forum though, there are a lot of prots that do and won’t hesitate to tell folks like you and me exactly why we are pagans and how unChristian these things are!

Go over and find the thread on ‘symbols’ started by TP2 who is a RCC parish priest. I think you’ll find the responses nothing short of amazing.

 

[look3467]

The object for me in the scriptures being the “sola escritura” is its true basis for determining the “works of God” in behalf of mankind.

That is what has to be determined and not what mankind thinks is that God should require of mankind.

If you can set aside for a moment all your beliefs, regardless of who you are, and concentrate on determine just what the works of God are in the whole of the scriptures, you will be pleasantly surprised at wonderful and loving our God is!

The argument amongst all of us is never ending, and one which is good for the exercise, for in the argument some may come to realize the truth about the works of God verses the works of mankind.

Your work in determining the validity of the “Sola escritura” should be in determining what part of it is the fabrication of mankind and what part of it is God’s.

I see the Bible as containing the whole works of God as described by Him in words, stories, similitudes, symbols, numbers, visions and human history.

The bible is inspired by God as He led numerous man with short comings to write in His behalf.

The whole bible is as like a puzzle, the more we look at it the more the pieces seem to fall into place, that is if the Holy Spirit deems it necessary according to your growth spiritually.

I hope that in this your work, you will define both sides for yourself, and present it objectively to others, so that they to may have the opportunity to decide for themselves what is truth.

Blessings on your endeavor, AJ

 

[JonNC]

=zach dunn;6925412]Could you explain the importance of the distinction please?

Personally, doctrine is that which must be believed. For Lutherans, doctrine has explicit roots in scripture. SS is not explicit in scripture, and therefore not a requirement to be believed (no reason to think there won’t be Catholics and Orthodox in Heaven).
It is, however, a reasonable practice to require that teachers and teachings, in the post apostolic era, to at least not contradict scripture.

How can you not interpret the Bible personally if there is nothing given the authority to definitively interpret the Scriptures?

The Church - through the Lutheran Confessions - are the authority of Lutheran belief. We also accept the 7 early councils as authoritative. To remain a confessional Lutheran, I must conform to the confessions.
I’m certainly free to create my own religion, but then I would no longer be Lutheran.

Thank you very much for the helpful links!

My pleasure,
Jon

 

[BrianH]

I’m not sola Scriptura either and the verse is interpreted the way one or more of the articles interpreted it. But I think you also mean to say that Catholics misuse this verse as well when we use it to chastise our Protestant brethren for private interpretation, right?

I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think you are quite on the mark. I believe that verse 20 is indeed speaking about interpretation, and about private interpretation at that. What Peter is trying to say here is basically “we as humans cannot interpret the Scriptures on our own [private interpretation] because we did not write the Scriptures on our own, but holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write them.” So really Peter is saying that a human cannot interpret something divine without the assistance of the divine. That’s how I look at it anyway, you’re right that the passage addresses how the Bible was written and prophecy told, but this is emphasized so that we can understand that we have no hope of interpreting the Scriptures and its prophecies without assistance.

You’re right here in saying that verse 16 sets up the passage, we just disagree about what the passage is talking about.

Neither am I and it’s not my interpretation.

If the passage is referring to what not to do as you contend in terms of biblical interpretation, does 2nd Peter say what you should do?