Sola Scriptura

[WSD]

If I may insert my observations into this discussion:
The Church’s journey of faith in this world is like a space crafts’ journey to a distant planet. (engeneers please forgive me if I flub the Space travel part a bit). One can not plan a launch to Mars using location data for Mars, planatary speed for the Moon and diffrence of orbit between Earth and Venus. All three must agree. or the craft will not arrive at it’s destination.
The Church’s Teaching Authority can not contradict Sacred Tradition (and that is diffrent from clarify), nor can Sacred Tradition contradict Scripture. All 3 must be in harmony.

 

[teachccd]

If I may insert my observations into this discussion:
The Church’s journey of faith in this world is like a space crafts’ journey to a distant planet. (engeneers please forgive me if I flub the Space travel part a bit). One can not plan a launch to Mars using location data for Mars, planatary speed for the Moon and diffrence of orbit between Earth and Venus. All three must agree. or the craft will not arrive at it’s destination.
The Church’s Teaching Authority can not contradict Sacred Tradition (and that is diffrent from clarify), nor can Sacred Tradition contradict Scripture. All 3 must be in harmony.

The total deposit of faith is from God who cannot contradict Himself. The Magisterium, Sacred Tradition and Scripture is how God reveals Himself and there is only one Truth…teachccd

 

[epostle]

*2 Tim 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Tim 3:15 is one of the most abused verses. Verse 14 and 15 are always ignored by sola scripturists. because they miss the *definitons *given by St. Paul due to scriptural nearsightedness. Verse 14, 15, and 16 together is a rebutting defeater to the worn out abuses of verse 16.

Interestingly enough in Catholic Tradition the four uses of Scripture corresponded to the Quadriga, the four-fold method of exegesis for the Bible used in the medieval period: Literal (teaching), Analogical (reproof), Prophetic (correction), and Moral (training in righteousness).

The protestant reformers rejected this and tried to reduce biblical exegesis to the literal-historical method. In doing so, they were considered by their Catholic contemporaries as being unbiblical for ignoring 2 Tim 3:16.
*

 

[Old_Scholar]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against Sola Scriptura because if they believe it, they can’t claim that the New Testament writers viewed certain non-scriptural sources as authoritative oral tradition. They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture. Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

All Scripture is *God-breathed *and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).
Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.” Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Paul reminds Timothy of the “difficult” times coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (3:1-9). Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition.

What most Roman Catholics know about tradition is not correct. Once a Catholic tries to establish “tradition” to justify his beliefs, then he must show that it is Roman Catholic Tradition and not Eastern Orthodox Tradition that provides the truth. The Eastern Orthodox appeals to exactly the same tradition the Roman Catholic Church does and they both can’t be right because they differ in their beliefs. That is something a Roman Catholic cannot overcome. Roman Catholics cannot appeal to scriptures in this case because they already claim scripture alone is insufficient, even though it tells us it is sufficient. He can’t appeal to the early church fathers for a Roman Catholic belief because the Eastern Orthodox appeal to the same fathers for their tradition. It is up to the Roman Catholic to show their church tradition is authoritative and that can’t be done.

The only reason the Catholic Church wanted to canonize the scriptures is because of heretical figures, such as Montanius and others and the only way to prove them wrong is by scripture. There would be no way to prove tradition is correct without Scripture. They also appealed to the same fathers for their beliefs. If the Roman Church viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a ”rule” or “Canon” of scripture? In that case there would be no need for scripture at all; it would be quite sufficient to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next. There was no binding oral tradition not supported by Scripture before the last apostle and New Testament writer laid down his pen. Nothing written after 100 A.D. has ever been accepted for the Canon.

Church tradition that does not pertain to matters of salvation, morals or faith are the only oral things handed down that need not be proven by scripture. The early church fathers agreed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture or it was invalid; and I am talking about Biblical tradition and not the tradition of men.

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture. But what is the “rule of faith” among those who reject sola scriptura? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as sola scripture advocates do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with. Catholics disagree among themselves about just which papal decrees, council rulings, etc., are infallible and which ones are not. A Catholic, or an Eastern Othodox or an Anglican may refer to how he follows “the church” or “tradition”, but he’s not able to define just what that is. He can’t cite something authoritative or infallible, comparable to the evangelical’s 66 book canon. Look at how many times the RCC has changed their position on Baptism, Limbo and other subjects.

This is a good question, then, to opponents of sola scriptura. What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?

**I will list the early fathers and their views on Sola Scriptura in another post. I have seen several comments here that claim the early church fathers did not believe Scripture was the final authority and that is wrong. Most every one of the early church fathers believed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture. It was a much later move by the RCC that changed that.

 

[mo3]

All Scripture is *God-breathed *and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17)

This verse is from 2nd Timothy. The context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is that Paul is laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = “God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (RSV), and “. . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the “pattern” for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as “profitable” for Timothy’s ministry.

There was no binding oral tradition not supported by Scripture before the last apostle and New Testament writer laid down his pen.

Thank you for making this statement. It is true that all oral tradition is supported by scripture.

Look at how many times the RCC has changed their position on Baptism, Limbo and other subjects.

The Catholic Church has not changed its position on any of these items. Please provide documentation or retract.

This is a good question, then, to opponents of sola scriptura. What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?

Jesus Christ gave the authority to his church with Peter as it’s leader. 1 Matthew 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter knows that the truth of Christ will never pass away (Matt. 24:35) and that Christ’s authority to spread the gospel would last to the end of time (Matt. 28:18–20). He also knows that he, Peter, has been given special authority by Christ to keep the faith (Luke 22:31–32) and feed the flock (John 21:15–17). He must have realized that his authority had to be passed on. Other bishops are appointed by the apostolic representatives (Titus 1:5, 2 Tim. 2:2), so why not the bishop of Rome?

Peter must have realized that the defense of the faith could not depend on one leader alone, but that the apostolic role was to be shared amongst the next generation of leaders. Thus Peter refers to a whole group of men as his “fellow elders” (1 Pet. 5:1). Peter writes both of his letters not to specific churches but as universal epistles. He must therefore have seen that his ministry and authority was wider than simply being bishop of the Roman Church.
After Peter, this ministry was carried on by his successors. The first of these, Irenaeus tells us, was Linus, a member of the Roman Church mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:2. As Peter exercised authority over many churches, so his successors had authority over the rest of the Christian churches. One of them, Clement, wrote an authoritative letter around the year 95 calling the church of Corinth into line.

History records how the whole Church soon recognized a supreme role of authority for the Roman Church. It also recognized that the presiding elder of Rome was indeed the rightful successor of Peter and Paul, Christ’s prime minister on earth who holds the keys of the kingdom in trust until the final return of the King.

 

[nsper7]

Being a firm believer in Sola Scriptura and seeing dozens of threads about this topic, I feel I must comment on this issue (for all the good it will do).

The definition I will provide is the one found on wikipedia (I find it to be the most comprehensive definition of Sola Scriptura):

Sola scriptura: the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

For me, two key things are ‘rational reader’ and ‘final authority’. In some ways, because we are fallible and fallen in nature, there is no such as a truly rational reader of Scripture, but some readings are more rational than others. Thus, I would posit that a rational reading should take into account at least the following:

1. Linguistic issues (Ancient Greek and Hebrew versus the lingua franca)
2. Context (both cultural and textual)
3. Previous scholarship and interpretations of the topic

Further, note that Sola Scriptura recognizes Scripture as a ‘final authority’, not the ‘only’ authority (the face that Martin Luther wrote commentaries on Scripture implies that he felt of some interpretive authority).

People often confuse Sola Scripture with its two (perhaps three) bad relatives:

Sola Scriptura Extremis (coined by J. P. Holding): a refusal to be willing to use outside material (including cultural context and earlier interpretation) in interpretation of Scripture and a belief that if something is not in the Bible, it cannot be used to formulate Christian doctrine (basically, this is confusing extra-Scriptural with Anti-Scriptural).

Sola Scriptura Eisegesis (coined by me): a belief that one’s own interpretation of Scripture is sufficient (as opposed to Scripture itself). The more extreme form of this is Sola Scriptura Eisegesis Infallible, where one automatically assumes that their interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong to some degree.

Thus, I have noticed that some people who claim Sola Scriptura, are either falling into SS Extremis by refusing to study language, context, etc. or into SS Eisegesis by assuming their interpretation is the best or correct.

 

[teachccd]

Further, note that Sola Scriptura recognizes Scripture as a ‘final authority’, not the ‘only’ authority (the face that Martin Luther wrote commentaries on Scripture implies that he felt of some interpretive authority).

.

From Wikipedia: Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) :juggle:

 

[nsper7]

The literal words ‘Sola Scriptura’ may translate as ‘by Scripture alone’, but, as a doctrine, I firmly believe it is more nuanced than ‘only Scripture’. If that were so, how could there be any commentaries (Patristic, Reformation, etc.) since, by its very nature, a commentary or interpretation claiming some measure of authority; however, that authority is inferior to Scripture (i.e Luther’s interpretations should be judged based on the Scriptures, not the Scriptures judged based on Luther’s interpretations), but implicit in Scripture is their interpretation (I firmly believe we all have an interpretation of Scripture in the act of reading, after all, without interpretation, it is just scribbles on a page, right?).

Sola Scriptura Extremis might try to say ‘Scripture alone as the singular authority’ but I don’t see how it is defensible. After all, in reading Scripture and discussing Scripture, we are interpreting it and applying those interpretations to our lives. If one were to take SSE as their view, how could they accept Luther’s interpretation of Scripture (circular reasoning…ain’t it wonderful)?

Although I am not Methodist, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is an interesting way of describing Sola Scriptura. The WQ (as quoted in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church) is the idea that “the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.”

 

[teachccd]

The literal words ‘Sola Scriptura’ may translate as ‘by Scripture alone’, but, as a doctrine, I firmly believe it is more nuanced than ‘only Scripture’. If that were so, how could there be any commentaries (Patristic, Reformation, etc.) since, by its very nature, a commentary or interpretation claiming some measure of authority; however, that authority is inferior to Scripture (i.e Luther’s interpretations should be judged based on the Scriptures, not the Scriptures judged based on Luther’s interpretations), but implicit in Scripture is their interpretation (I firmly believe we all have an interpretation of Scripture in the act of reading, after all, without interpretation, it is just scribbles on a page, right?).

Sola Scriptura Extremis might try to say ‘Scripture alone as the singular authority’ but I don’t see how it is defensible. After all, in reading Scripture and discussing Scripture, we are interpreting it and applying those interpretations to our lives. If one were to take SSE as their view, how could they accept Luther’s interpretation of Scripture (circular reasoning…ain’t it wonderful)?

Although I am not Methodist, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is an interesting way of describing Sola Scriptura. The WQ (as quoted in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church) is the idea that “the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.”

There is no doubt that what is necessary for salvation is indeed in scripture. However even scripture alludes to the fact that Jesus did so many other things that if they were all to be written down the world could not contain the books. Apostolic Tradition is not an interpretive component of Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is contained in Scripture and in what has been handed down (paradosis) from the Apostles. In the first chapter of Luke, the inspired physician explains how he must put into text what has already been taught and continues to be handed down.

The canonicity of the New Testament was determined and acknowledged by the Early Church Fathers after many apostolic writings were read during the Liturgy of the Word at Sunday Liturgies. The Christian communities were either reflected or misrepresented in those letters. Those that misrepresented the early Christian community (seen in the light of the oral Tradition handed to them) were discarded. The early Church, with the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that guided the inspired authors, acknowledged the 27 books of the New Testament. No where in Scripture does it state which 27 books should be included. This was a process that took centuries and discernment from a Christian commnuity that stood firm in the Traditions that were handed down from the Apostolic era.

You are very articulate and I commend you on your ability to express your position. I would pray that I could mirror that ability but I can only express myself within the limits of my capacity.

I do wish to emphasize that Scripture is held equally with Sacred Tradition as they both flow from the same wellspring of God’s revelation. Catholics do not undermine Scripture with our adherence to Sacred Tradition as to do so would be to undermine revelation in its entirety.

God Bless…teachccd

 

[bogeydogg]

Tell me O.S., where in the Bible does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura which includes the writings of the NT as well as the Old? Remember, before you answer, that when Paul said Scripture the word is “graphei” which is used only for the OT never for the New. So if you definition of S.S. includes the NT the I ask you from whence comes this definition. After all, were not John Calvin and Martin Luther heeled in the RCC and did they not learn the value and finality of Scripture from the Catholic Priests?

You have a lot of venom for the RCC which I suspect, this having been my own experience before I bothered to learn truth, is based upon ignorance of RCC Doctrine and is based in a vitriol for people who have never done you any harm at all. I believed the Church was wicked because I was told it was wicked. Then I learned about the Church and realized what I had been told was a lie. If you wish to argue specific points of Doctrine then by all means please do. If however you wish to proceed in your current vein with opinions based upon prejudicial presuppositions then don’t be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

Remember the very Canon of NT Scripture was established by the authority of the RCC by a council of Bishops to make plain and uniform the teachings of the Faith. As such, apart from Martin Luther, there have been very few until very recently who would substantially change the Bible and edit away the things which were not liked about it. Remember also that the divorce of Christian teaching from a universal Church has led to many terrible heresies which are now preached as Biblical truth from many pulpits in this country. Prosperity preachers talk about how one knows he is loved by God if God makes him rich which will apparently only happen if the believer first divests himself of his own wealth and gives it to the preacher. There are men who head huge churches in my home state of Texas who gladly admit that they have no interest in teaching Scripture at all and feel the purpose of the Church is to make people feel good about themselves.

You will point out Antiochian, Greek Orthodox, Arminian rites and say these are teachings different from those of the RCC but there is so little difference between the rites that all of the churches teach that one rite is sufficient as any other within this group including the Latin so don’t prop up these very minor differences as schism within the RCC because they are not.

Last, spend time getting to know your brethren in the RCC and find out that they are dedicated Christ loving God fearing Christians who take very seriously the tenants of their faith and have a grasp of what it means. If you do, I suspect that you, as I, will discover the truth and that it lies in the Mother Church and when you do you find a peace and security which extinguishes the cold biting what-if’s of once saved always saved theology. And safe in that knowledge you will grow without having to be out front, it is a marvelous thing to discover. God bless you and yours.

 

[nsper7]

You are very articulate and I commend you on your ability to express your position. I would pray that I could mirror that ability but I can only express myself within the limits of my capacity.

Thank you for your compliment (it’s always nice to hear positive feedback from others) and you seem knowledgable of the Scripture yourself. I must admit, my knowledge of Scripture has increased due to two key things:

1. Tekton Apologetics Ministries: this is probably one of the most helpful and thorough theology sites I have come across (a friend of mine who attends a church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya recommended it to me). I have met the owner of the site, J. P. Holding, and he is a very intelligent and knowledgable, yet humble and kind, man who is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Church. He helped me see through a lot of junk/heterodox/heretical theology. Also, his website linked me to this current site (www.catholic.com)).

Four articles related to the Scriptures, canon and Sola Scriptura that you might find interesting and informative:

Sola Scriptura Extremis
Sola, Not Solo
The Formation of the OT Canon
The Formation of the NT Canon

1. My involvement with the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church, which has helped to see the importance of the Magisterium and liturgical tradition, as it relates to Christian faith in general and Scriptural interpretation in particular.

I do believe Sola Scriptura to be a correct doctrine; however, I firmly believe it is more nuanced than many ‘Protestants’ might understand it. The major issue stems from people assuming their personal interpretations of Scripture are ‘true’ interpretations or, even worse, that their interpretations are not even interpretations, but actual Scriptural truth, and people using SS as an excuse to ignore scholarship, context, linguistics, other interpretations, etc.