Sola Scriptura, two possible definitions

[hapaxparadidomi]

The most common definition of sola scriptura that I see around the web is:

** ‘Scripture is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals.’**

It leads one to think that protestants allow for fallible authorities to define faith and morals. But I don’t really get the impression that this is how protestants view sola scriptura.

So it seems to me that the proper definition for sola scriptura should be:

’The infallible scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and morals.

The first definition allows for fallible authorities to define faith and morals where as the second one only allows for scripture to define them.

Would any protestants care to clarify which definition they feel best represent their view and elaborate on it, i.e., give examples from your own churches teaching or protestants writers.

 

[benjohnson]

Forced to chose between the two definitions at the end of a sharp stick, I’d pick definition #1

Lutheran’s don’t deny other authorities - creeds, councils, or tradition. We just make sure they measure up to what is in God’s Word in Scripture.

For example - the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t really spelled out very clearly in Scripture, but the doctrine is quite clear in the Athanasian Creed. Because Scripture doesn’t contradict the Creed, we accept it!

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Forced to chose between the two definitions at the end of a sharp stick, I’d pick definition #1

Lutheran’s don’t deny other authorities - creeds, councils, or tradition. We just make sure they measure up to what is in God’s Word in Scripture.

For example - the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t really spelled out very clearly in Scripture, but the doctrine is quite clear in the Athanasian Creed. Because Scripture doesn’t contradict the Creed, we accept it!

Thanks Ben. James White holds to #1 and gives this explanation when debating with Patrick Madrid on Sola Scriptura:

“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.”

Do you subscribe to that? If so, would you say that all the peripheral stuff that “isn’t really spelled out” is not binding upon the Christian conscience?

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks Ben. James White holds to #1 and gives this explanation when debating with Patrick Madrid on Sola Scriptura:

“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.”

Do you subscribe to that? If so, would you say that all the peripheral stuff that “isn’t really spelled out” is not binding upon the Christian conscience?

Lutherans do bind themselves to things that are not in scripture - the church, the sacraments, the confessions, the creeds and the traditions we inherited from our Catholic brothers. None of them are contradicted by scripture, but mostly scripture is silent on them.

Privately, I have witnessed very good bible centered christians to be sure, but I don’t think that method promulgates well over the course of time nor is it the normal mode of promulgating the Gospel and receiving the sacraments.

We defiantly need the church!

Put it this way - you can set your broken bones with branches and rope. But, it’s much better to go to the hospital.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

Lutherans do bind themselves to things that are not in scripture - the church, the sacraments, the confessions, the creeds and the traditions we inherited from our Catholic brothers. None of them are contradicted by scripture, but mostly scripture is silent on them.

But they really have no bearing on salvation either way i.e., nobody needs to know them to be saved or nobody needs to manifest them as evidence of salvation?

In other words, they fall in the area of just disciplinary? Example: If you don’t do them then the church can take disciplinary action. But that is simply the gist of it?

 

[steido01]

Lutherans do bind themselves to things that are not in scripture - the church, the sacraments, the confessions, the creeds and the traditions we inherited from our Catholic brothers. None of them are contradicted by scripture, but mostly scripture is silent on them.

I just want to point out that the church, the sacraments and everything in the three ecumenical creeds is laid out in Scripture.

But they really have no bearing on salvation either way i.e., nobody needs to know them to be saved or nobody needs to manifest them as evidence of salvation?

In other words, they fall in the area of just disciplinary? Example: If you don’t do them then the church can take disciplinary action. But that is simply the gist of it?

“I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but through me.”
-Christ is clear; there is no salvation outside of the church. Scripture tells us this. The church exists to administer the sacraments:

“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe shall not be saved.”
-God’s grace is received through baptism.

"Take and eat; this is my body…This is my blood, shed for you for the remission of sins.
-God’s grace is received through the Lord’s Supper.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

I just want to point out that the church, the sacraments and everything in the three ecumenical creeds is laid out in Scripture.

“I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but through me.”
-Christ is clear; there is no salvation outside of the church. Scripture tells us this. The church exists to administer the sacraments:

“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe shall not be saved.”
-God’s grace is received through baptism.

"Take and eat; this is my body…This is my blood, shed for you for the remission of sins.
-God’s grace is received through the Lord’s Supper.

I am not sure how your reply answers my question.

 

[JonNC]

I just want to point out that the church, the sacraments and everything in the three ecumenical creeds is laid out in Scripture.

“I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but through me.”
-Christ is clear; there is no salvation outside of the church. Scripture tells us this. The church exists to administer the sacraments:

“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe shall not be saved.”
-God’s grace is received through baptism.

"Take and eat; this is my body…This is my blood, shed for you for the remission of sins.
-God’s grace is received through the Lord’s Supper.

May I add Matthew 18:18 ? Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
-God’s grace is received through Absolution.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Forced to chose between the two definitions at the end of a sharp stick, I’d pick definition #1

Lutheran’s don’t deny other authorities - creeds, councils, or tradition. We just make sure they measure up to what is in God’s Word in Scripture.

For example - the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t really spelled out very clearly in Scripture, but the doctrine is quite clear in the Athanasian Creed. Because Scripture doesn’t contradict the Creed, we accept it!

Hi Ben,
I would counter that the Trinity is rather well spelled out, notably at Jesus’ Baptism.
Matthew 3 - And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

The voice of the Father, the Son being Baptized, the Spirit descending like a dove.

Jon

 

[steido01]

May I add Matthew 18:18 ? Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
-God’s grace is received through Absolution.

Jon

Yes, please! Sometimes the confessions and I forget how to count.

 

[JonNC]

The most common definition of sola scriptura that I see around the web is:

** ‘Scripture is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals.’**

It leads one to think that protestants allow for fallible authorities to define faith and morals. But I don’t really get the impression that this is how protestants view sola scriptura.

So it seems to me that the proper definition for sola scriptura should be:

’The infallible scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and morals.

The first definition allows for fallible authorities to define faith and morals where as the second one only allows for scripture to define them.

Would any protestants care to clarify which definition they feel best represent their view and elaborate on it, i.e., give examples from your own churches teaching or protestants writers.

The Lutheran confessions present it this way:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

ISTM the confessions present sola scriptura as a practice of the Church.

Jon

 

[steido01]

I am not sure how your reply answers my question.

It was more a clarification of Ben’s post. Lutherans, while professing Sola Scriptura, do recognize the church, the sacraments, the ecumenical creeds because they are found in Scripture. I was just adding some passages to firm it up.

I thought the passages I quoted would serve as a clear answer to your question. These things are not simply disciplinary; they are necessary.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

It was more a clarification of Ben’s post. Lutherans, while professing Sola Scriptura, do recognize the church, the sacraments, the ecumenical creeds because they are found in Scripture. I was just adding some passages to firm it up.

I thought the passages I quoted would serve as a clear answer to your question. These things are not simply disciplinary; they are necessary.

It seems your point though is, they are necessary because they are clear from scripture. But what of the knowledge used to supplement scripture but not itself found in it? In what way is it necessary? For example, is it necessary for salvation for one to hold that no other infallible authority exists except scripture?

 

[bzkoss236]

In relation to the actual meaning of the word, I would defined #2 as sola-scriptura (scripture is only authority), and #1 as prima-scriptura (scripture is supreme authority).

But obviously, as a Catholic, I reject both.

 

[PJM]

=hapaxparadidomi;10687172]The most common definition of sola scriptura that I see around the web is:

** ‘Scripture is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals.’**

It leads one to think that protestants allow for fallible authorities to define faith and morals. But I don’t really get the impression that this is how protestants view sola scriptura.

So it seems to me that the proper definition for sola scriptura should be:

’The infallible scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and morals.

The first definition allows for fallible authorities to define faith and morals where as the second one only allows for scripture to define them.

Would any protestants care to clarify which definition they feel best represent their view and elaborate on it, i.e., give examples from your own churches teaching or protestants writers.

Friend,

In either case; they would have to accept the ENTIRE bible and actually use the entire bible; [which few if any non-catholic faiths seem to do], and even then they would have to conclude that the “Bible alone” IS simply incomplete; and have too [YES HAVE TOO reply also on Tradition] because that bible itself say’s so

Still you make an interestering point.

 

[andrewstx]

I would think there are two definitions of sola scriptura. The one I mostly agree with is the Lutheran definition which comes across as more Prima Scriptura.

The other definition is held by fundamentalist sects such as the accapella “church of Christ” in which I was raised.

By them every teaching and practice must have a proof text a “permission from God or the bible” to be acceptable. They often confuse God with the bible.

So instrumental music is unacceptable, as are candles, vestments, liturgy as they have no permission from the bible/God.

Everything must have a “thus saith the Lord” to be permitted.

This of course comes from Calvinist “regulated worship” the Presbyterians abandoned it but the churchuhchristers kept it.

 

[benjohnson]

I just want to point out that the church, the sacraments and everything in the three ecumenical creeds is laid out in Scripture.

Yes indeed, thanks for the correction! The creeds do reflect Scripture!

My point is that an individual (or at least me) who was only exposed to scripture wouldn’t necessarily come up with the rather clear definition of the Trinity as in the Athenasian creed.