Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[steveng]

Hi everyone,

I’ve written a blog about my journey from fundamentalism to Calvinism to… I’m not sure yet. I’ve been exploring Catholicism for a few years now and I can really see the beauty in it, the coherence of its teaching, its faithfulness to historical Christianity, but I feel a bit like C.S Lewis who agreed with so many things but never quite made it all of the way there. The fears and prejudices instilled by Protestantism run very deep, and I so badly want to be rid of them. In this first post I explain my journey to exploring the faith and tackling some of the issues. The main one for me is Sola Scriptura. If you can disprove that, then I will accept Catholicism wholeheartedly. I’d appreciate you reading it and giving feedback, and also pointing me to any helpful material. I’ve read so many books and watched so many videos in the last few years, but I’d appreciate feedback to help me get over this last hurdle.

massleanings dot blogspot dot com/2020/07/starting-journey dot html

 

[otjm]

I suspect others will respond more directly.

Nowhere in Scripture is there any statement that Scripture alone is the source of all things Christian - primarily meaning authority as it relates to interpreting Scripture; in fact, the opposite appears true.

And if one wants a real world example of Sola Scriptura, one only needs to examine briefly Protestantism. Once influential individuals broke from the Church and the authority of the Church to be the final arbiter of interpreting Scripture, and within only a few years, Protestant leaders started the disagreements amongst themselves as to interpretation, and that process of disagreement has devolved into a multiplication of churches now by some counts somewhere around 35,000. So if one does not like the way one minister or theologian interprets this or that passage of Scripture or moral code, one simply moves along until one finds someone with whom they agree. In short, each individual becomes the "authority;, and disagreements are rampant.

It was John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801 - 1890) an English Theologian and Anglican priest, who eventually converted to Catholicism and became a priest and eventually Cardinal, who said that to read the Fathers of the Church is to cease to be Protestant.

In short, he was going back to the original Church and those who wrote, outside the Gospel and Epistle writers, of the early Church, up to about 700 AD. There is not a definitive list, the study of them is referred to as patristics.

One who reads them finds that Sola Scriptura was not in any way accepted by the Church, and is of much later vintage, starting with the Protestant Revolution.

One is often caught up in the theological battles of the Revolution; I would submit that theology was not always and necessarily the only or even main factor in the Revolution, as might be expounded upon by the reaction of a goodly number of germanic princes, who wanted the Catholic Church out of their hair and lives, and used the Revolution as a means of parting with Church authority over their decisions - a point which does not receive much press either by Catholics or Protestants.

Just some thoughts on the matter.

 

[HeDa]

It is possible to be a Christian without the Bible? There were Christians before the year 51/52AD when the first book in the New Testament was written.

When the NT Epistles talk about Scripture it is meaning the books from Jewish tradition. The last written book in the NT is The Book of Revelation which was not written until sometime in the last decade of the first century long after the early epistles written in the 50s and 60s. Not to make it any simpler but Pharisees and Saducees, as well as other groups, had differents canons at the time Jesus Christ walked on the earth.

The JudeoChristian tradition is an oral tradition. It is very clear when the different books are read in their original languages as it is a lot easier to remember rhythm, rhime, repeated words and synonyms. Psalm 119 with 176 verses is divided into groups of 8 verses. Each group starting with the same Hebrew letter. Next group of 8 is the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet ending with the last letter #24.

Scripture in the Catholic Church is equally important as the Teaching Office of the Church (bishops) and Sacred Tradition. How much was oral during a time when it cost a fortune to have something hand written on parchment or animal skins? The printing process wasn’t invented until sometime in the 1480s when they could reuse the wooden letters and use paper.

 

[BartholomewB]

For a start, here is your link in the form of a real, clickable link.

Starting the Journey

Next, allow me to point out that your blogpost runs to 2,700 words. It’'s not a productive approach to ask people to read such a long text before they even start to answer your questions. Unless you cut it down to a manageable size, you’re not going to get much of a response. I don’t want to sound discouraging, but that’s the way it is.

 

[adf417]

The main one for me is Sola Scriptura. If you can disprove that, then I will accept Catholicism wholeheartedly

Hi steveng and welcome to CAF-

For me the two biggest factors that disprove the notion of sola scripture is 1) the codification of the bible (the NT to be exact) did not happen until the late 4th century, and 2) if sola scripture was true there wouldn’t be so many sola scripturist with differing doctrine.

For proof of #1 above there has been much written on this subject-

Peace!!!

 

[Gorgias]

The main one for me is Sola Scriptura. If you can disprove that, then I will accept Catholicism wholeheartedly.

Does the Bible tell us that the Bible is the rule of faith? If not, then we’re done – no ‘sola scriptura.’

If you think that it does, then where in the Bible does it tell us what the contents of the Bible are supposed to be? If it doesn’t (and it doesn’t!), then the authority that defines the contents of the rule of faith must itself be extra-Biblical (and therefore, no sola scriptura).

 

[OddBird]

You’ve been given excellent answers already.

I suspect you’re already aware of what the New Testament names as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” - and it’s not the Bible, but “the church of the living God” (1 Timothy 3:15).

I stopped upholding Sola Scriptura as an hermeneutical principle the day I realized that we wouldn’t even have the Bible as it is today, we wouldn’t have the canon of Scripture as we know it, had there not been a Tradition which preserved the words and stories, put them into writing, and defined the canon.

Scripture is the child of Tradition.

 

[Ilija]

The main one for me is Sola Scriptura. If you can disprove that, then I will accept Catholicism wholeheartedly.

Hello, your requirement is pretty much easy to answer, “Sola scriptura” or “the bible a lone” is un-biblical and thankfully the bible a lone tells us that the “bible a lone” is not exclusive word of God!

" So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings, we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

2 Thessalonians 2:15

As you can see this quote from the bible is telling us that not only the word of letter “Sola scriptura” is the only source of the word of God but also the “word of mouth” is the source!

Recall that Jesus also teach their disciples by “word of mouth”, by telling them things that were not in the scriptures, so according to “Sola scriptura” it looks like Jesus made it up, which is why Jews accused him of blasphemy! because they refused the word of God.

Now you next question may be “Who is considered trustworthy for the word of mouth”?
The bible gives us the answer to that too!
It is disciples of Jesus, his 12 disciples who first received the holly spirit and which teach new generations of disciples by very same “word of mouth and letter”

Who are these disciples today?
They are Bishops and Patriarchs or Catholic and Orthodox Church which was formerly the original church that Jesus established.

Why not Protestant bishops too??

“Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?”
Luke 6:46

And what does Jesus say?

" For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. "

Mark 10:8

Neither Ortodox nor Catholic church marry 2 men or 2 woman, but (I guess some only) protestants do!
This is a bad fruit that Jesus was talking about:

“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.”

Luke 6:43

 

[stoplooklisten]

In this first post I explain my journey to exploring the faith and tackling some of the issues. The main one for me is Sola Scriptura. If you can disprove that, then I will accept Catholicism wholeheartedly.

There is only one thing that Jesus Christ says seven times in the New Testament. In the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, Jesus says:

“He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches”.

Sola Scriptura is not found in the Scriptures. In Revelation 2-3, Jesus says seven times to hear. Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches and this is more than what’s contained in “sola scriptura”. Jesus founded only one Church. King Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church. Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Churches. Only one Church was founded by Jesus Christ, that’s the Catholic Church and it still continues across 21 centuries. The Catholic Church has more than sola Scriptura, it also has the Holy Spirit, Sacred Tradition, the Teaching Magisterium, the Sacraments, more.

 

[ReaderT]

Welcome @steveng!

Nowhere in Scripture is there any statement that Scripture alone is the source of all things Christian - primarily meaning authority as it relates to interpreting Scripture; in fact, the opposite appears true.

Agreed with otjm: Where in the Bible does it say to only follow things found in the Bible? It doesn’t. So “Sola Scriptura” itself is an extrabiblical idea, thus self-contradictory.

 

[Ilija]

Only one Church was founded by Jesus Christ, that’s the Catholic Church and it still continues across 21 centuries.

Note also:

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:19-20

I agree with you that King Henry VIII, Martin Luther and similar enthusiasts don’t fall into this category above, but let’s not forget great schism did not nullify validity of inherited discipleship.

 

[stoplooklisten]

but let’s not forget great schism did not nullify validity of inherited discipleship.

Agree. I almost mentioned the Eastern Churches.

 

[stoplooklisten]

In a “red letter” version of the Bible where the words of Jesus Christ are written in red, Jesus Christ’s messages to the seven Churches of Asia minor in Revelation 2-3 are written in red.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[CRM_Brother]

Hello @Steveng,

I think one of the biggest issues with arguing for/against Sola Scriptura is that Catholics and Protestants approach the concept of ‘Scriptura’ from different perspectives. We try to understand the other side’s argument based upon our own viewpoint and we immediately encounter stumbling blocks. I am not going to argue against Sola Scriptura, per se, but rather explain why Catholics believe that Scripture must always be taken within the context of the larger Church.

To begin, let’s go back to the earliest days of the Church. I am not speaking of the time when the Apostles were alive but the time period immediately after (circa 100 AD - 190 AD). If you read what the Fathers of the Early Church have written, they emphatically separated the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists from the Scriptures. They recognized the Jewish Scriptures as divinely inspired human writings which contain what we would call Public Revelation. The writings of what we would call the New Testament, however, were considered to be totally different.

Unlike the Hebrew Scriptures which were textually definite, the words of the Christian writings only mattered insofar as they transmitted the message of Christ. It was Christ, himself, which was the Gospel, not the books.

It was only after a great upheaval and twisting of Christ’s message by the heretic Macion that the Church began to denote certain writings thought to be written by the Apostles as authentic and providing a Public Revelation similar to that of the Jewish Scriptures. The new Scriptural books were not just chosen because they were written by an Apostle. Instead, while the message contained within them must have been able to been traced back to an apostle, they must also fully confirm to the Gospel which had been handed down within the Church, bishop to bishop from the Apostles themselves. This was done to preserve the Church in face of later Heresy like that of Marcion.

In those early years, the Church, never held the Old Testament or the New Testament to be the Authority over the Church. Instead, the Church elevated the chosen Christian writings to reinforce what was already held in belief. For the next 1300 years, the Church used the Scriptures as a way to preserve the Church against new ideas which contradicted the original Gospel of Christ’s life and also to guide the Church into deepening their understanding of that living Gospel.

Many Protestants believe that their faith must only come from the Scriptures. This is Sola Scriptura.

Catholics, however, believe that their faith must only come from the Gospel, in the truest sense of the word: Christ’s life. St. John the Evangelist, himself, tells us that there were an untold number of things which Christ did in his earthly life which were not related within his version of the Gospel. Catholic faith is rooted in these things also, which were passed down person to person and never made it to the printed page. These things which are believed, however, while not contradicting Scripture, helps us to interpret it.

The Catholic viewpoint, in this sense, can be considered Sola Evangelium, ‘The Gospel Alone’.

God Bless,
Ben

 

[julietteamdg]

Hi!
There’s tons of great answers already so excuse me if I repeat anything:

1. As others have said, there is nowhere in the bible that says the bible is the only authority, and, plus, Our Lord specifically says that He came to build a Church (on St. Peter!), not a bible. If the bible was supposed to be the main thing He left for us to guide us, wouldn’t He have mentioned it? Or wouldn’t He have written it Himself physically?
2. My Personal biggest issue with Sola Scriptura is the disunity among protestants. There’s so many different denominations, and so many of them have different interpretations and teachings. Some even have women priests and homosexuals! I can read a passage in Scripture, and think something completely different from what you understood from it. There is a universal truth, and how will we be able to discern it when all these “churches” are saying different things?

I’ll be praying for you, God bless you!

 

[OddBird]

Many Protestants believe that their faith must only come from the Scriptures. This is Sola Scriptura.

I agree with most of what you write here, but the classical definition of Sola Scriptura (from the perspective of historical Protestantism at least) is that Scripture is the ultimate norm of faith - which is not quite the same as saying that everything we believe has to come from Scripture.

But, indeed, this isn’t how it worked in the Early Church.

 

[steveng]

Thanks so much to everyone for the feedback! And @BartholomewB, I take your point. Sorry for making it so long. I should have broken it into more posts. I will be going through all of the feedback this week and post more questions.

God bless!

 

[Bithynian]

the classical definition of Sola Scriptura (from the perspective of historical Protestantism at least)

Yes, I think this is important to note. Sola Scriptura is not, as I’ve read, an especially homogenous concept in contemporary Protestantism. It can vary from the classical paradigm as articulated by @OddBird, to (what is termed) Solo Sciptura amongst some late 20th century North American evangelicals who wanted to dispense with the Apostles and Nicene Creed, to the postmodern theology of Anglicans such as Rowan Williams (previous Abp. of Canterbury) and the Radical Orthodoxy (Anglican, not EO) school which is a lot closer to Catholic/Eastern Orthodox paradigms than classical Protestanism.

 

[CRM_Brother]

But, indeed, this isn’t how it worked in the Early Church.

Please provide proof of your dismissal.

I’ve actually read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (those writers who directly received their faith from the Apostles) from the late first to second centuries and this is the view of Scripture which they describe. Both St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Clement of Rome (who wrote in 96 AD) speak of the Gospel of Christ being separate from the Christian writings and Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures were illuminated in the light of that Gospel and the Christian writings. So, too, did the Chrisitan writings find value in that they related Christ’s Gospel. It isn’t until the Muratorian Fragment (circa 190 AD) that we encounter a ‘New Testament’ of Scripture. Even then, the Fragment treats the Gospels of the Evangelists as books which only relate to the higher message of Christ’s Gospel.

 

[Bithynian]

Please provide proof of your dismissal.

Your post wasn’t directed at me, and I hope @OddBird will forgive me for responding, but I think there might be some miscommunication. I think what OddBird is saying that Sola Scriptura, both in its classical definition and in some of its contemporary paradigms, is not how Scripture was received in the Early Church. Not that what you wrote is incorrect (rather, she agreed with it).