Sola Scriptura...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not sure if the old thread that was started regarding this topic will be back. But I sure am glad that Catholic Answers is back.

Anyway, I guess if I could sum up a few things that I personally noted in regards to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, its the inconsistency within which it is often employed. In this sense, if one is claiming that the Scriptures alone are the most reliable way of knowing God’s will, then why so many different interpreations when using the same Scriptures?

One can point to people misunderstanding the Scriptures because they are not aware of the cultures that the Scriptures portray. One can also point to people misunderstanding the Scriptures because they do not understand the original languages used to initially record the Scriptures. One can even point to people deliberately misunderstanding the Scriptures because they don’t like what the Scriptures have to say-- and so they distort the meaning of the Scriptures in order to justify themselves before God in their own minds.

While there is some truth to all these important points, I think it needs to be stated that claiming that all the varying interpretations are simply the result of everyone’s misunderstanding of the Scriptures doesn’t really answer the original question in light of the fact that the Scriptures never actually make this claim about themselves in the first place.

It seems more probable that the major reason why so many people misunderstand the Scriptures – a phenomenon which, although it existed prior to this time, can nonetheless be traced in history as having greatly multiplied shortly after the time of the Reformation – is because they’re reading through the Scriptures with the wrong expectations to begin with.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Although the thread appears to be missing now, I think I’ve fairly well covered some examples within the former thread where people cannot, despite the claims to the contrary, actually fully understand the Scriptures without some knowledge of the cultures the Israelites and Christians interacted with. The laws regarding the cutting of hair and trimming of beards within the Hebrew Scriptures may be but one minor example of this. The Greek concept of the logos within Stoic philosophy being baptized into the Christian Scriptures to explain the eternal divinity of Christ is another more powerful example of this.

It needs to be asked that if the Scriptures do not explicitly state that the Scriptures themselves are the most trustworthy way of knowing God’s will, then what do the Scriptures actually say in regards to those who were entrusted to correctly carry the Word of God?

In other words, how do we know the Spirit of Truth?

We know that John 4:24 clearly states that God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

We also know that John 14:17 clearly states that he, the Spirit of truth, will be known by us-- for he will live with us and is in us.

In addition to this, we also know that John 16:13 clearly states that Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth. The Scriptures even proclaim that he will not speak on his own-- he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell us what is yet to come.

According to John 18:37, when Jesus was facing off against Pilate, Jesus clearly stated:

You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

Later, according to, 1 John 4:6, we hear an echo of the Spirit from Jesus’s own apostles’ restating the same exact message:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

In Luke 10:16 we see this very same message being formulated:

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Clearly, if the Scriptures do not claim that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means of knowing God’s will (and they don’t), and yet the Scriptures do clearly proclaim that those who are from God do know God’s will (and they do), then who are we supposed to listen to according to the Scriptures?

The message behind the Scriptures is not that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means of knowing God’s will-- because the Scriptures themselves indicate that people are in error when they think they can diligently study the Scriptures in order to possess eternal life.

The message behind the Scriptures is that everyone on the side of truth listens to Jesus. Furthermore, we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood based on the fact that whoever listens to Jesus knows God. Contrary to the claim that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means of understanding God’s will, the Scriptures quite bluntly state that whoever knows God also listens to those who listen to and know Jesus. In other words, to reject those who know God’s will is the same as rejecting God himself-- because God is speaking through his chosen people to reveal his will to the world. And this is the way it’s always been since the beginning.

As 2 Corinthians 3:3 clearly intends, we are a letter from Christ, the result of Christ’s apostolic ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God-- not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. And, according to the Scriptures anyway, the Spirit of truth does not reside within the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Spirit of truth dwells within the Church that God himself has chosen to spead the Gospel message to the world.
Matthew 28:18-20:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

By the way, is there any chance of getting the old thread back? I relalize it was getting very heated. But I think there were a many good points brought up against the claim that the Scriptures are the only reliable way to know God’s will.

 

[LSK]

what a wonderful disertation to get things started again!

This is probably a silly and minor point, but one of the reasons I have never been able to be sold on the Sola Scriptura thing - even when I was away from the Church - is because there are so many translations of Holy Scripture how can one take what has been written on the page in front of you at face value? SO those who say to me, 'I know what I read and that’s what I believe" simply prove to me that they have a narrow interpretation and cannot be trusted in that interpretation.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

what a wonderful disertation to get things started again!

Thank you LSK.

I have to admit that I was really enjoying the discussion generated by the original thread before the forums went through the upgrade. It seemed as though they were some of my most clear thoughts on the subject since the Spirit led me to this conclusion several years ago now.

LSK:

This is probably a silly and minor point, but one of the reasons I have never been able to be sold on the Sola Scriptura thing - even when I was away from the Church - is because there are so many translations of Holy Scripture how can one take what has been written on the page in front of you at face value? SO those who say to me, 'I know what I read and that’s what I believe" simply prove to me that they have a narrow interpretation and cannot be trusted in that interpretation.

I think that’s very true. Many who promote the idea of Sola Scriptura seem to give relatively no serious thought about how the Scriptures were actually handed down and brought together by the Catholic Church. I had discussed this in detail in the previous thread about how 99% of the Scriptures can be verified using the early fathers alone. I really hope I can retrieve some of that information because it really struck home in my opinion.

 

[here_i_stand]

I think that’s very true. Many who promote the idea of Sola Scriptura seem to give relatively no serious thought about how the Scriptures were actually handed down and brought together by the Catholic Church. I had discussed this in detail in the previous thread about how 99% of the Scriptures can be verified using the early fathers alone. I really hope I can retrieve some of that information because it really struck home in my opinion.

Yes, but what do the early church fathers say about the sufficiency of scripture?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)

St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)

St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)

St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)

 

[Steadfast]

What about when Catholics misunderstand the Bible?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, but what do the early church fathers say about the sufficiency of scripture?

I’ll come back to this tonight when the kids are to bed.

Please bear in mind that the original question was related to what the Scriptures themselves claimed about themselves-- not what the early father claimed about the Scriptures.

My noting of the early church fathers (in the previous thread which is now gone) was to illustrate how the early fathers can be used to verify the accuracy of the Scriptures as being in existence prior to the dates of the earliest manuscripts we have evidence of today.

But I’ll discuss this in more detail later tonight.

By the way, do you really want to quote these early fathers in defence of Sola Scriptura?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195)
St. Athanasius (c.296-373)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395)
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
St. John Chrysostom
St. Basil the Great
St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749)

Think about what you’re claming here…

 

[Steadfast]

In the same way, if I buy a manual which describes how to service my computer, and fail to properly service my computer is the fault with the manual or with me?

 

[Steadfast]

My point is that your argument necessitates an exhaustive interpretive infallibility.

I understand why you posit this necessity. Your church requires it.

But does the Bible? Does revelation? Did Christ or His Apostles require that the Church never be wrong, or, better, never permit differing opinions on doctrinal matters?

If so then why has your Church not seen fit in every instance to so clarify doctrine that differences of opinion become resolved?

Example:

Catholics are permitted to believe in any number of origin schemes, from what is usually termed “theistic evolution” to “strict creationism”. The Church has not considered it necessary to rule in this matter.

Why not if every detail of doctrine and practice must be defined?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In the same way, if I buy a manual which describes how to service my computer, and fail to properly service my computer is the fault with the manual or with me?

You’re missing the point Steadfast.

Where in the Scriptures do the Scriptures claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will?

I’m not talking about Scriptural passages which praise the usage of the Scriptures. I am familiar with these passages.

I’m also not talking about Scriptural passages which demonstrate the trustworthyness of the Scriptures. I am familiar with these passages too.

What I am asking for are the Scriptural passages which explicitly state that the Scriptures are the sole reliable means for knowing God’s will.

As a former Lutheran now Catholic, I have seriously tried to prayerfully defend this theological position in the past and found a large portion of the Sola Scriptura position to be seriously lacking. My creation of the former thread (now gone) was an attempt to recapture many of my thoughts on this Spirit led search as I came closer to the Catholic Church.

If you indeed believe that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means for determining God’s will, then you are somewhat obligated to provide the Scriptural passages which explicitly state this.

And, consequently, if you can’t produce the Scriptures which explicitly state that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means for knowing God’s will, and yet I can produce many Scriptural passages which indicate that God’s will can be known by many other means outside the Scriptures – especially by those who know God personally by the Holy Spirit – then it fairly stands to reason that those who are claiming that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means of knowing God’s will are quite simply wrong in their expectations of the full extent of what the Scriptures actually provide.

In other words, if it can’t be demonstrated from the Scriptures that the Scriptures alone are the sole reliable means for knowing God’s will, then it seems to be a fair observation for someone to conclude by the Spirit that the theological position of Sola Scriptura is in itself unscriptural.

I don’t think I can make my question any clearer than follows:

Where in the Scriptures do the Scriptures claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will?

 

[Steadfast]

And you make the same mistake so many Catholics do.

Sola Scriptura does not require the Bible to “claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will**”**

All it requires is for the Bible to be reliable and authoritative, the Bible is God’s Word and God’s Word is both of these things.

It’s soleness as such is a deduction drawn from consideration of a number of factors, the testimony of Scripture itself being primary but not without support from history, experience and the witness of the Holy Spirit within believers.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

My point is that your argument necessitates an exhaustive interpretive infallibility.

How so?

If I explain something to you about my Catholic faith, and you ask me where it is in the Scriptures, is your argument to prove it from the Scriptures not likewise necessitating an exhaustive interpretive infallibility?

Furthermore, if I logically inverse your question by answering with the question “Where in the Scriptures do the Scriptures claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will?”, how have I been in any way dismissive of the Scriptures?

I’ve never said the Scriptures are in error. I’ve only claimed that error-free does not mean only.

My point is simply this:

The Scriptures themselves do not claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will. And if the Scriptures do not claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will, then what do the Scriptures actually say in regards to safely know God’s will?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Steadfast:

I understand why you posit this necessity. Your church requires it.

And your church doesn’t?

Think about what you’re saying here.

Steadfast:

But does the Bible? Does revelation? Did Christ or His Apostles require that the Church never be wrong, or, better, never permit differing opinions on doctrinal matters?

It is clear from the Scriptures that people can sin and yet still nonethless hold the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. However, it is also clear from the Scriptures that Christ himself demanded unity among his followers despite our downfalls.

Steadfast:

If so then why has your Church not seen fit in every instance to so clarify doctrine that differences of opinion become resolved?

Because some things, such as your example regarding creation below, are not directly related to the issue of salvation. Furthermore, while the initial revelation in Christ is final until his return, it still remains for the church to expound upon the faith as it comes into contact with foreign thoughts that the early church hadn’t even fully considered yet in the light of the gospel message.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

But let’s continue with your example…

Steadfast:

Example:

Catholics are permitted to believe in any number of origin schemes, from what is usually termed “theistic evolution” to “strict creationism”. The Church has not considered it necessary to rule in this matter.

Why not if every detail of doctrine and practice must be defined?

How about we look to the Scriptures for our answer?

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Clearly, according to the Scriptures themselves by way, Christ apparently expected some divisions within the church over the course of history as she reached her whole measure of the fullness in Christ.

Paul even goes one step further and states that surely there have to be divisions in order to tell who are Christ’s true followers…

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

And yet, at the same time, these people who cause divisions from those who have God’s approval are also considered deplorable in God’s eyes.

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

Paul even goes further to berate those who cause divisions in such manner:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Steadfast, Paul isn’t talking about the beginning of the Church. He’s talking about the end of it. And I can’t think of anything which better captures the spirit of this passage any more than the divisions that have resulted in the church since the time that Sola Scriptura was introduced into Christianity.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now Stedfast, having answered your questions, let me now ask you a question:

Do the Scriptures explicitly condemn slavery?

If they do not, then was the church allowed to condemn it later on in church history without the explicit condemnation of the Scriptures to back up her decision to oppose it?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

And you make the same mistake so many Catholics do.

Sola Scriptura does not require the Bible to “claim to be the sole reliable source for knowing God’s will**”**

All it requires is for the Bible to be reliable and authoritative, the Bible is God’s Word and God’s Word is both of these things.

It’s soleness as such is a deduction drawn from consideration of a number of factors, the testimony of Scripture itself being primary but not without support from history, experience and the witness of the Holy Spirit within believers.

But if that’s the case, then you don’t actually believe in Sola Scriptura period.

You are essentially claiming that you believe the Holy Spirit has enabled your church to properly discern the true meaning of the Scriptures-- and that’s exactly what the Catholic Church claims too.

In other words, when you claim Sola Scriptura, what you actually mean is interpreting the Scriptures according to your own Sacred Tradition-- such as interpreting the Scriptures according to the traditions of Luther for example.

 

[Steadfast]

But if that’s the case, then you don’t actually believe in Sola Scriptura period.

You are essentially claiming that you believe the Holy Spirit has enabled your church to properly discern the true meaning of the Scriptures-- and that’s exactly what the Catholic Church claims too.

In other words, when you claim Sola Scriptura, what you actually mean is interpreting the Scriptures according to your own Sacred Tradition-- such as interpreting the Scriptures according to the traditions of Luther for example.

No, I don’t believe in your conflation of Sola Scriptura with Nuda Scriptura, a heretical position. A conflation all too common for its convenience among those who would take up the cudgels for Mater Roma.

The Church in its history is the proper context for interpretation of the Bible.

We just don’t happen to believe that those opinions latched on to by Rome and presented as necessarily true are always, therefore, necessarily true.

 

[Steadfast]

Now Stedfast, having answered your questions, let me now ask you a question:

Do the Scriptures explicitly condemn slavery?

If they do not, then was the church allowed to condemn it later on in church history without the explicit condemnation of the Scriptures to back up her decision to oppose it?

No, it does not, nor does it explicitly establish a form of political government.

It accepts certain secular practices and structures as being what they were.

It does however, explicitly condemn trafficking in slaves, see 1 Timothy 1:10.

The Bible distinguishes between those who sell themselves into servitude, or are sold into it due to debt. The OT never understood it to be an inherited state.

In the NT, as I’ve mentioned, taking slaves is explicitly condemned.

Since slavery as it came to be known in the post-medieval West involved the taking of men for the sole purpose of enslaving them, then I’d say yes, the Bible does explicitly condemn it.

But, even if it did not, the Church certainly has the duty and right to give opinion on practices about which the Bible is silent if the practice is immoral.