Sola Scriptura

[NotWorthy]

Why bet, when you can know for sure? God doesn’t make it a mystery, but the devil wants us to think so.

It’s just a phrase, my brother.

The devil would love us to pick and choose religions as our “consciences” desire. I’m sticking with the Bride of Christ!

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s kind of a Lutheran “tradition”…

OK, it took me a little while… but I get it!!!

 

[mackbrislawn]

While verse 16 states, “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
verse 17 says, “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Paul was writing to Timothy, a man of God, a pastor he had ordained, explaining how scripture is a useful tool for Timothy to use in his pastoral and evangelical duties.

Paul expected scripture to be used by knowledgeable men of God as a means to evangelize and instruct, correct, etc, not for someone else to pick up cold and try to reconstruct doctrine from it.

See also 2Peter 3:16-17. In these verses Peter states that to understand scripture properly one has to be first taught. Hence the chances of an untaught or ignorant person of misunderstanding scripture is extremely high.

Understood in this way 2Timothy 3:16 actually argues against sola scriptura, because it assumes the presence of a pastor or evangelist using scripture in his duties.

 

[guanophore]

Paul was writing to Timothy, a man of God, a pastor he had ordained, explaining how scripture is a useful tool for Timothy to use in his pastoral and evangelical duties.

Paul expected scripture to be used by knowledgeable men of God as a means to evangelize and instruct, correct, etc, not for someone else to pick up cold and try to reconstruct doctrine from it.

See also 2Peter 3:16-17. In these verses Peter states that to understand scripture properly one has to be first taught. Hence the chances of an untaught or ignorant person of misunderstanding scripture is extremely high.

Understood in this way 2Timothy 3:16 actually argues against sola scriptura, because it assumes the presence of a pastor or evangelist using scripture in his duties.

Great points!

Looks like you ran Ginger2 off!

 

[po18guy]

Gutenberg’s was experimenting with printing and printed a translation of Jerome’s Vulgate. I saw nothing to suggest he translated anything. He simply invented some new way of printing and used the Vulgate as a test.

The Vulgate was not a test, it was a labor of love, as engravings had to be made by hand for each and every word on each and every page. Rather than translating, Gutenberg printed the approved translation. Gutenberg’s bible then became the most uniform bible in existance, due to the nature of the printing process. The dating on a known example places its printing 62 years prior to Luther’s “95 theses”. So clearly, pre-Luther German language bibles were out there in common Church use. The Vulgate did not have “allein” in Romans.

I contend that Luther, apparently to justify separation from the Catholic Church (why else?) began to alter, to change, to modify things to his own taste and “by my own authority”. This provided his followers with a marked difference between the Catholic Church and the one he founded. If the differences were not pronounced between the two, why change from one to the other?

The insertion of “allein” is 100% consistent with his subsequent actions, including the then novel “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” concepts.

 

[Ginger2]

The Vulgate was not a test, it was a labor of love, as engravings had to be made by hand for each and every word on each and every page. Rather than translating, Gutenberg printed the approved translation. Gutenberg’s bible then became the most uniform bible in existance, due to the nature of the printing process. The dating on a known example places its printing 62 years prior to Luther’s “95 theses”. So clearly, pre-Luther German language bibles were out there in common Church use. The Vulgate did not have “allein” in Romans.

I contend that Luther, apparently to justify separation from the Catholic Church (why else?) began to alter, to change, to modify things to his own taste and “by my own authority”. This provided his followers with a marked difference between the Catholic Church and the one he founded. If the differences were not pronounced between the two, why change from one to the other?

The insertion of “allein” is 100% consistent with his subsequent actions, including the then novel “sola scriptura” and “sola fide” concepts.

:banghead:

I did not mean the Vulgate was written by Jerome as a test.

It was Gutenberg’s new printing technique that was being tested using the Vulgate.

The claim Catholics have made is that there were other German translations before Luther’s that didn’t add the word “only”, therefore the word was not supposed to be there.

The difference is, Luther translated the Bible into German. Gutenberg printed the Bible in Latin.

Luther even stated, “this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage.”

So the Catholic argument is based on a false premise.

The Vulgate did not have “allein” in Romans.

Of course not Luther said in the above quote it would not have been proper grammar in the Latin or Greek.

 

[po18guy]

I did not mean the Vulgate was written by Jerome as a test.

Nor did I. To print the bible in any language, using Gutenberg’s primitive printing technology, would have taken an immense amount of time and effort. Likely any test would have been a much simpler text.

It was Gutenberg’s new printing technique that was being tested using the Vulgate.

Quite a laborious test, if that was the case.

The difference is, Luther translated the Bible into German. Gutenberg printed the Bible in Latin.

Luther even stated, “this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage.”

And, I have not yet located Martin’s credentials to even conduct a translation, popular though it became. And no one, other than Luther, signed off on his translation. He became his own pope - that which he loathed. He massaged 1,500+ years of consistent Christian word to suit his personal agenda. His extreme temper crove his closest allies away from him. That is a foundation of sand, as the continually fracturing Protestant world readily attests.

Also, recall that Martin did not like the the letter of James. Especially since it tells us, inerrantly, that we are not saved by faith alone. How do we get around that? Seems he was perilously close to forming his personal canon of scripture.

 

[Ginger2]

Nor did I. To print the bible in any language, using Gutenberg’s primitive printing technology, would have taken an immense amount of time and effort. Likely any test would have been a much simpler text.

I understand what you are saying, now. That means you are off topic because you are not replying to “German Bible before Luther” question, but instead nit-picking over my wording.

And, I have not yet located Martin’s credentials to even conduct a translation, popular though it became.

Now you’re just being silly. What are Gutenberg’s credentials? Luther was a scholar, Gutenberg a printer. Of course, Gutenburg didn’t actually translate, he only printed copies of the Vulgate.

So, we are left with your proof the there were other scholars who had previously translated the Holy Scriptures into the German language AND that those scholars knew not only the Greek, but also the German as did Luther to ensure a literal translation and not just simply a direct translation. Someone qualified to choose the best word with the closest meaning to the Greek or Hebrew word. Someone qualified to understand the differences in Grammar between the two languages.

Please try again.

 

[po18guy]

Please try again.

No reason to. You have made your choice and I have made mine.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Paul was writing to Timothy, a man of God, a pastor he had ordained, explaining how scripture is a useful tool for Timothy to use in his pastoral and evangelical duties.

Paul expected scripture to be used by knowledgeable men of God as a means to evangelize and instruct, correct, etc, not for someone else to pick up cold and try to reconstruct doctrine from it.

See also 2Peter 3:16-17. In these verses Peter states that to understand scripture properly one has to be first taught. Hence the chances of an untaught or ignorant person of misunderstanding scripture is extremely high.

Understood in this way 2Timothy 3:16 actually argues against sola scriptura, because it assumes the presence of a pastor or evangelist using scripture in his duties.

Sola scriptura is not “solo scriptura”. Sola scriptura does not eliminate teachers, pastors, study aides such as lexicons and commentaries, or even tradition.

If you google “Westminster Confession of Faith” and locate the document you will find a section which defines “sola scriptura”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sola scriptura is not “solo scriptura”. Sola scriptura does not eliminate teachers, pastors, study aides such as lexicons and commentaries, or even tradition.

By definition, yes. But I’m not sure the practice is so pure.

The practice seems to be (in my opinion, mind you):
a) We look to Scriptures to teach us about morals and faith.
b) The Holy Spirit guides us how to interpret Scriptures
c) Now, I’m (the Pastor, that is) am going to show you how the Holy Spirit has taught you what this Bible verse means.

I don’t know, maybe I’m getting a little cynical in my old age!

If you google “Westminster Confession of Faith” and locate the document you will find a section which defines “sola scriptura”.

I think this document defines Sola Scriptura as our Lutheran (or is this the Methodist?) brothers see it. How many other organized faiths feel beholden to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[Pwrlftr]

By definition, yes. But I’m not sure the practice is so pure.

The practice seems to be (in my opinion, mind you):
a) We look to Scriptures to teach us about morals and faith.
b) The Holy Spirit guides us how to interpret Scriptures
c) Now, I’m (the Pastor, that is) am going to show you how the Holy Spirit has taught you what this Bible verse means.

I don’t know, maybe I’m getting a little cynical in my old age!

No, you are partially correct. Much of American evangelicalism has departed from what the reformers taught.

Still, I don’t know many people who belive in the old “the bible and me alone under a tree”. I guess if they did, they wouldn’t believe in SS either.

The historic definitions of SS can be found in the confessions that came out of the reformation such as the West Minster Confession and other similar confessions. It would probably help if someone at the beginning of threads on SS actually defined it in a way that is meaningful to a discussion.

NotWorthy:

I think this document defines Sola Scriptura as our Lutheran (or is this the Methodist?) brothers see it. How many other organized faiths feel beholden to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) is similiar (almost identical) to many other confessons that came out of that time period such as the London Baptist Confession. Those churches which hold to reformed theology would certainly recognize the definition. I’m not sure about the Methodists…I think one of the Methodist posters here said that the Methodists don’t hold to the historic belief in sola scriptura. I suspect the Lutherans would agree with the WCF of the LBC but am not sure.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, you are partially correct. Much of American evangelicalism has departed from what the reformers taught.

Still, I don’t know many people who belive in the old “the bible and me alone under a tree”. I guess if they did, they wouldn’t believe in SS either.

I here many of the posters here claim that. They claim it… and then follow whatever their pastor tells them it means.

The historic definitions of SS can be found in the confessions that came out of the reformation such as the West Minster Confession and other similar confessions. It would probably help if someone at the beginning of threads on SS actually defined it in a way that is meaningful to a discussion.

The Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) is similiar (almost identical) to many other confessons that came out of that time period such as the London Baptist Confession. Those churches which hold to reformed theology would certainly recognize the definition. I’m not sure about the Methodists…I think one of the Methodist posters here said that the Methodists don’t hold to the historic belief in sola scriptura. I suspect the Lutherans would agree with the WCF of the LBC but am not sure.

OK. But does Sola Scriptura, in practice today, mean what the Presbyterians and the others originally meant? Or has it evolved?

 

[Pwrlftr]

OK. But does Sola Scriptura, in practice today, mean what the Presbyterians and the others originally meant? Or has it evolved?

In reformed theology sola scriptura hasn’t changed much if any since the reformation.

 

[Ruthie]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat something others have already said.

Since I have not yet studied the history of the Reformation, I am *guessing *that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura came from a firm (but errant) belief that the Magisterium was corrupt, and therefore wrong.

I do not think Sola Scriptura was *ever *intended to be taken *absolutely *literally. Otherwise, why have Bible studies, or commentaries? Why the Scofield Bible?

It was intended to define the Bible as the sole rule of faith, the sole authority by which people are to guide their lives. It did **not **mean that each person was to form his own interpretation in the absence of outside guidance.

Yes, there are a few non-Catholic Christians (NCCs) who take Sola Scriptura absolutely literally, but they are a tiny minority. We should **not **treat all NCCs as if they take it that way - something I have been guilty of, now and then.

Heart of Jesus, source of justice and love, have mercy on us.

Ruthie

 

[Pwrlftr]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat something others have already said.

Since I have not yet studied the history of the Reformation, I am guessing that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura came from a firm (but errant) belief that the Magisterium was corrupt, and therefore wrong.

I do not think Sola Scriptura was *ever *intended to be taken *absolutely *literally. Otherwise, why have Bible studies, or commentaries? Why the Scofield Bible?

It was intended to define the Bible as the sole rule of faith, the sole authority by which people are to guide their lives. It did **not **mean that each person was to form his own interpretation in the absence of outside guidance.

Yes, there are a few non-Catholic Christians (NCCs) who take Sola Scriptura absolutely literally, but they are a tiny minority. We should **not **treat all NCCs as if they take it that way - something I have been guilty of, now and then.

Heart of Jesus, source of justice and love, have mercy on us.

Ruthie

Ruthie,

I am actually converting to the Catholic Church this year. Anyway, I have noticed that Catholic’s mis-understand all things Protestant at least as much as Protestants mis-understand Catholicism.

Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura. In a nutshell, sola scriptura means that only scripture is infallible, not that it’s the only guide. SS does not do away with bible commentaries, lexicons, teachers or even tradition but it does place them under scripture.

If you want to learn what sola scriptura is and not what some Catholic apologist invents as a straw man you would do well to start with either the Westmisnter Confession or the London Baptist Confession…they are both short and easily accesible on the internet.

If you would like, PM me and I’ll give you some more information.

 

[guanophore]

Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura. In a nutshell, sola scriptura means that only scripture is infallible, not that it’s the only guide. SS does not do away with bible commentaries, lexicons, teachers or even tradition but it does place them under scripture.

It is still a ridiculous doctrine. Scripture cannot be “infallible” because scripture cannot “act”. Actions require discernment, willpower, and decision making capacity. Without these qualities, characteristic only to persons, one is not able to act, and therefore, cannot BE fallible or infallible.

Scripture is inspired-inerrant, but cannot “act” of it’s own accord. That is why it must not be separated from the authority that Jesus appointed to protect it.

 

[Parce_Domine]

That was in Luther’s explanation. He said he painstakingly search for the exact word (not only in Romans, but in the entire translation) that would portray the sentiments of the original author.

How could Luther know the sentiments of the original author? Obviously he couldn’t and didn’t, so he couldn’t be sure to accurately portray the original author’s meaning, sentiments, or ideas. He could only portray what he thought the the author meant, what he wanted the author to have meant, or what he wanted other people to believe the author meant. (I prefer to think it was the first.) If he was wrong about the original author’s meaning, he did no more than painstakingly search for the wrong word to portray it. This is the danger of private interpretation. It separates and divides.

Maybe this is why Jesus spent three years establishing His Church rather than sitting in the Upper Room writing the New Testament and a list of Old Testament books to be included in the Canon.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It is still a ridiculous doctrine. Scripture cannot be “infallible” because scripture cannot “act”. Actions require discernment, willpower, and decision making capacity. Without these qualities, characteristic only to persons, one is not able to act, and therefore, cannot BE fallible or infallible.

Scripture is inspired-inerrant, but cannot “act” of it’s own accord. That is why it must not be separated from the authority that Jesus appointed to protect it.

As you know I am converting to the Church but the thing I find most interesting about this board is not the defense of the Catholic faith but rather is the pious hypocrisy of many Catholic posters.

If a protestant came here and said:
“…such and such “insert Catholic belief” is ridiculous…” you would be outraged but don’t seem to have any problem engaging in the same behaviour that you would no doubt find offesive were it directed either at you or the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ruthie,

I am actually converting to the Catholic Church this year. Anyway, I have noticed that Catholic’s mis-understand all things Protestant at least as much as Protestants mis-understand Catholicism.

Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura. In a nutshell, sola scriptura means that only scripture is infallible, not that it’s the only guide. SS does not do away with bible commentaries, lexicons, teachers or even tradition but it does place them under scripture.

If you want to learn what sola scriptura is and not what some Catholic apologist invents as a straw man you would do well to start with either the Westmisnter Confession or the London Baptist Confession…they are both short and easily accesible on the internet.

If you would like, PM me and I’ll give you some more information.

Pwrlftr-

Congratulations on joining the Church…I made the same decision 30 years ago come August.

Regarding sola scriptura, I think one of the difficulties that Catholics have with this doctrine (aside from the error itself) is that there does not seem to be a single definition of sola scriptura.

Dave Armstrong recently posted three definitions by prominent Protestant apologists that were similar in many respects but still different in wording and emphasis.

I understand why you have taken issue with some Catholics who “dish it out” but can’t “take it”…that is a separate problem.

However, it is also understandable that Catholics are mischaracterizing sola scriptura given that Protestants themselves do not appear to be in complete agreement over what it means.

On the other hand, there are many Catholics who are converts and they understand ALL TOO WELL what the core beliefs of their former “churches” were and what the doctrine of sola scriptura in particular means…and they still reject them and it.

Peace.