Sola Scriptura - questioning evangelical

[steveng]

Thank you! I agree that not all doctrines are in Scripture, but it interesting that once you know a bit more about Catholicism I have started to notice the seeds that are in Scripture. For example, something that has always stumped my Protestant brain is: why did Jesus mix his spit with dirt to heal a blind man? There seems to be no reason as to why He would do that when he managed to heal other people without even seeing them. But, if you have a concept of the sacramental principle, suddenly these words take on a whole new meaning. You can see that Jesus uses the material elements of this world to impart grace and healing to others.

Another thing I’ve seen in the Gospels, especially in relation to Infant Baptism, there are different patterns established for people coming to the Savior. There are those who come on their own, some who are brought by others, and some who have the Savior brought to them. For me this was a beautiful picture of Infant Baptism, where someone completely helpless is brought to the Savior through the Faith of someone else. Some may think that’s a stretch but for me it has helped to make sense of a lot of patterns in the Gospels that most Protestants would either claim to be trivial or just not see at all.

 

[TULIPed]

Reformed (Presby). Somewhere between a 3.5 and a 4.5 point Calvinist.

 

[TULIPed]

And if you look at Jesus’ pattern for Authority, it centered on the Church and the Apostles, not Scripture.

Here’s and example from scripture on those to be authority in the church from 1 Timothy 3:

“Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)”

Authority is a tricky subject - particularly since those in authority generally like to stay there. In this passage, the litmus test for leadership is the manner in which one manages his own family.

How do we hold those in authority accountable? Are we even allowed to do so?

Reformed Christians believe that each of us has a duty to both (a) submit to authority; and (b) hold authority accountable. The measuring stick we use to do this is scripture. And we get it wrong more than we get it right. We - like Catholics - trust that God in the end will guide us.

 

[catholicray]

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

Consider the following. The Gospel according to Protestants, is the Holy writings of the New Testament unaltered. That is to say, if you had the original writings of the New Testament authors you would have the true Gospel.

Sola Scriptura takes this a step further. All of reality must bend to the truth of Sacred Scripture. The authority, as pertains to truth, finds its apex in the Bible.

So the biggest question I have is how do the first Christians have the Gospel at all? It’s about 15 years between the death of Christ and the first letter written by St. Paul. Luke tells us that thousands converted before a single letter of the New Testament was written.

If the first Christians practiced Sola Scriptura the same way it is practiced today, then for the first Christians their scriptures could have only been the Old Testament. So then the question follows. By what authority in the Old Testament did the first Christians find it acceptable to add to Scripture? Where is the documented evidence that the first Christians had this conversation?

If someone came to you today and suggested adding books to the New Testament would you be okay with that? Likewise when the Apostles started adding books to the Old Testament, what do you think the first Christians thought of that?

The most consistent explanation is that the earliest Christians did NOT practice Sola Scriptura. That their authority was the apostles and that they practiced very similar to what the Catholic Church does today. Mainly we see one of the hottest debates of that time settled by convening a council by which only the Apostles and Elders were allowed to participate and by which the council gave the final say on a matter.

Yes they quote scripture but it doesn’t change the fact that this task of interpretation was entrusted by the many to the few. Not everyone got to have their opinion or options rather the Church formally states doctrine for all of the faithful. Now we could debate James leadership which most Protestants are want to do at this point but it doesn’t make a bit of difference as concerns Sola Scriptura and its use in the earliest Christian community, that is it wasn’t practiced at all and it is logically impossible that it was practiced.

 

[Julie4]

You might like to read “Rome, Sweet Home” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. I read it after I converted to Catholicism from being a nondenominational evangelical. It really encapsulated and validated everything that brought me to Catholicism.

You are on the right path! Prayers for your search!

 

[stoplooklisten]

The most consistent explanation is that the earliest Christians did NOT practice Sola Scriptura. That their authority was the apostles and that they practiced very similar to what the Catholic Church does today. Mainly we see one of the hottest debates of that time settled by convening a council by which only the Apostles and Elders were allowed to participate and by which the council gave the final say on a matter.

If Scripture was THE rule and therefore necessary for salvation, entire generations, which could not read or have access to the Scriptures which were often rare and expensive, would have been lost.

 

[TULIPed]

If Scripture was THE rule and therefore necessary for salvation

Please provide a source with respect to this concept. I’d be curious to read about how the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is necessary for salvation. Thanks.

In the meantime, I would tell you that most - if not all - mainline Protestant denominations would argue that faith in Jesus Christ is (alone - with evidence of this faith found in what we do - how we love each other, especially our enemies for example) necessary for salvation. We believe this because we read it here in Romans 10 (among many other places):

“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Salvation comes believing, knowing, loving and following Jesus Christ. That’s what most mainline Protestant Christians believe (certainly Reformed Protestants).

 

[catholicray]

Salvation comes believing, knowing, loving and following Jesus Christ. That’s what most mainline Protestant Christians believe (certainly Reformed Protestants).

How did the first Christians believe, know, love, and follow Jesus Christ without the New Testament after the resurrection of Christ?

 

[TULIPed]

How did the first Christians believe, know, love, and follow Jesus Christ without the New Testament after the resurrection of Christ?

Many of them knew Jesus - or the Apostles and disciples - personally.

It’s a good question though. Come to think of it - why did they bother to write anything down at all? (Makes you wonder why God had Moses write down the Law…)

 

[catholicray]

Many of them knew Jesus - or the Apostles and disciples - personally.

Surely many of them knew Jesus, the Apostles, and desciples personally. Yet they did not have the New Testament. If Sola Scriptura is practiced by the first Christians then the first Christians had to use the Old Testament as the word of God. Where is there support for a New Testament in the Old Testament? Where does the authority to add to Scripture come from?

Does the authority come from the Messiah? Does it come from the Apostles? Does it come from the disciples? Or does it come from the Old Testament. If Sola Scriptura was practiced by the first Christians then the answer is that it comes from the Old Testament.

So I’m just looking for the verse in the Old Testament that the earliest Christians relied on to authorize the addition of the New Testament. Hopefully you see by this that Judaism has every right to reject the authority of the New Testament according to the Old Testament vis a vis Sola Scriptura.

 

[TULIPed]

If Sola Scriptura is practiced by the first Christians then the first Christians had to use the Old Testament as the word of God. Where is there support for a New Testament in the Old Testament? Where does the authority to add to Scripture come from?

What do you think the principle of Sola Scriptura actually is?

 

[catholicray]

What do you think the principle of Sola Scriptura actually is?

“Sola scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.”

“The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.”

“Sola Scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. The Bible ruled reason and tradition because it alone was infallible as God’s word. All other authorities (including church leadership) were fallible and must submit to Scripture.”

“Scripture alone (from the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura ) is the teaching that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Indeed, if something is not found in Scripture, it is not binding upon the believer. This view does not deny that the Church has the authority to teach God’s Word. Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.”

 

[TULIPed]

Furthermore, while tradition is valuable, it but must be tested by the higher authority of the Scriptures.”

Excellent work. This last sentence is important. We have no issues with Sacred Tradition - as long as it conforms to scripture. Your earlier point is well taken though - who gets to decide what conforms and what doesn’t? Ultimately, we have an argument about authority.

 

[catholicray]

Excellent work. This last sentence is important. We have no issues with Sacred Tradition - as long as it conforms to scripture. Your earlier point is well taken though - who gets to decide what conforms and what doesn’t? Ultimately, we have an argument about authority.

Sure we do but the argument I offer is a little more nuanced. What I’m saying is that if you were applying the definitions I’ve shared to the first Christians they have no basis in Scripture at their time to support the addition of Scripture. My question is, by what authority do the first Christians judge their own traditions without a New Testament? By what authority do they write more Scripture? During the time when Christians did not have a New Testament how did the Church teach the Gospel without a New Testament? If they could teach the gospel strictly from the Old Testament why write the New Testament?

When you approach these questions carefully it must be said that it is logically impossible for the first Christians to have practiced Sola Scriptura. This highlights that the early Church, as we see it in it’s capacity to teach in Acts 15 was the authority on doctrine and tradition. The New Testament itself is a tradition of the Church we have account of in Acts 15. The Church exists in its teaching capacity prior to a single letter of the New Testament being written. The letters of the New Testament are teachings of the Church as opposed to the Church being a community that is built on the teaching authority of Scripture.

 

[OddBird]

When you approach these questions carefully it must be said that it is logically impossible for the first Christians to have practiced Sola Scriptura.

And from what I remember from my more and more distant studies in a Reformed seminary, this isn’t really a problem for the Reformed tradition. Simply, once Scripture comes into existence, it supersedes tradition. But no 16th-century Reformer than I know of would have contested that tradition is good and even necessary.

It still begs the question why what was authoritative before suddenly loses (some) authority afterwards.

I think, though, that Sola Scriptura is a wholly modern perspective which could not have been developed anywhere else than in a culture which had learnt to rely heavily on the written word (at least for the literate elite), was eagerly rediscovering the classics, and was fascinated by the new invention of printing machines. In that sense, I doubt it is universally relevant, and that, in itself, is a problem to me. There were plenty of times in history, and there are still places today, where orality is a culture’s main vector and writing plays little role. Positing as fundamental a hermeneutical principle which cannot be universally accepted, in a religion which sees itself as universal, has me scratching my head.

The other main problem it poses, to me, is that I have to often seen it lead to a kind of “religion of the Book”, where the word of the Bible is almost considered as God incarnate – or “inbooked”, if I may say it so – while God Incarnate is of course not a book, even a Holy Book, but very much a Person.

 

[TULIPed]

What I’m saying is that if you were applying the definitions I’ve shared to the first Christians they have no basis in Scripture at their time to support the addition of Scripture. My question is, by what authority do the first Christians judge their own traditions without a New Testament?

I think @Hodos can do a better job with this than I can so I’ll hand him the pen. However, I want to make sure I understand your argument correctly. Are you saying - to take the extreme - that because the early Christian leadership had the authority to add to scripture, they - via the same authority, in the Magisterium - can continue to develop it (so to speak) through Sacred Tradition?

 

[TULIPed]

And from what I remember from my more and more distant studies in a Reformed seminary, this isn’t really a problem for the Reformed tradition. Simply, once Scripture comes into existence, it supersedes tradition. But no 16th-century Reformer than I know of would have contested that tradition is good and even necessary.

(this is why I think I’m having such a problem trying to figure out what @catholicray is arguing - I think it’s probably a well thought out one that makes sense, I’m just too dense, or too Reformed, to solve the riddle)

 

[Hodos]

@TULIPed I am glad to contribute. I just need to be caught up on the conversation.

 

[TULIPed]

Consider the following. The Gospel according to Protestants, is the Holy writings of the New Testament unaltered. That is to say, if you had the original writings of the New Testament authors you would have the true Gospel.

Sola Scriptura takes this a step further. All of reality must bend to the truth of Sacred Scripture. The authority, as pertains to truth, finds its apex in the Bible.

So the biggest question I have is how do the first Christians have the Gospel at all? It’s about 15 years between the death of Christ and the first letter written by St. Paul. Luke tells us that thousands converted before a single letter of the New Testament was written.

If the first Christians practiced Sola Scriptura the same way it is practiced today, then for the first Christians their scriptures could have only been the Old Testament. So then the question follows. By what authority in the Old Testament did the first Christians find it acceptable to add to Scripture? Where is the documented evidence that the first Christians had this conversation?

If someone came to you today and suggested adding books to the New Testament would you be okay with that? Likewise when the Apostles started adding books to the Old Testament, what do you think the first Christians thought of that?

The most consistent explanation is that the earliest Christians did NOT practice Sola Scriptura. That their authority was the apostles and that they practiced very similar to what the Catholic Church does today. Mainly we see one of the hottest debates of that time settled by convening a council by which only the Apostles and Elders were allowed to participate and by which the council gave the final say on a matter.

Yes they quote scripture but it doesn’t change the fact that this task of interpretation was entrusted by the many to the few. Not everyone got to have their opinion or options rather the Church formally states doctrine for all of the faithful. Now we could debate James leadership which most Protestants are want to do at this point but it doesn’t make a bit of difference as concerns Sola Scriptura and its use in the earliest Christian community, that is it wasn’t practiced at all and it is logically impossible that it was practiced.

Here’s @catholicray’s original argument. It’s pointed toward the validity of the principal of Sola Scriptura. You guys are both way smarter than I am, so I look forward to the discussion.

 

[catholicray]

And from what I remember from my more and more distant studies in a Reformed seminary, this isn’t really a problem for the Reformed tradition. Simply, once Scripture comes into existence, it supersedes tradition.

I think it’s a massive problem for the same reasons that you highlight. The New Testament was not completed overnight. Given the earliest dates the last writing of the New Testament is dated near the end of the century. It’s not until even later that the question of canon comes up. You have generations of Christians who don’t have a concept of Sola Scriptura. You have generations of Christians that don’t have a canon at all. This dates beyond the death of the Apostles. This means that generations of Christians handed on the Gospel without Scripture at all.

We know that the Church held council before Scripture was written. This is the identifiable authority of the first Christians. When does the evidence suggest that the authority of the Church was superseded by Scripture? This event must take place. What evidence of such an event do we have?
The answer is that we have evidence of such an event during the Reformation and not before then.