Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I have some experience from both sides of the camp (Catholic and Protestant). From what I understand (from a Mennonite and Baptist perspective) is that Scripture* is *tradition. Scripture is a record of the tradition we are to “hold fast” to. What better way to hold fast to something than to write it down? It was a way of recording, for future generations, the beliefs and practices of the early church.

 

[SteveVH]

I have some experience from both sides of the camp (Catholic and Protestant). From what I understand (from a Mennonite and Baptist perspective) is that Scripture* is *tradition.

We would agree that Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. That does not mean it takes the place of the Church which is charged with teaching all nations and given great authority along with the protection of the Holy Spirit. The sacred texts were canonized so that they might be used in the Church’s liturgies. They were never meant to replace the teaching authority of the Church or to stand on their own, apart from the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. Scripture itself tells us that it does not contain everything. Paul preached for, what, two years, every single day in the Temple? I’ll bet what he said was probably very important and “beneficial”. But not a word of it appears in the New Testament. Jesus gave the best Bible study ever given on the road to Emmaus, yet we see not a word of it in Scripture.

Scripture is a record of the tradition we are to “hold fast” to. What better way to hold fast to something than to write it down? It was a way of recording, for future generations, the beliefs and practices of the early church.

Or better yet live it, incorporate it into every aspect of one’s life. That is what the Church has done through Sacred Tradition. It “held fast” to the truth it received directly from the Apostles, before a word of it had even been written.

Peace.

Steve

 

[guanophore]

Hi,

I recently came across your article on Scripture and Tradition, and I feel that it makes a number of misrepresentations about what exactly the idea of Sola Scriptura entails.

Good for you, and thanks for posting.

My chief objections related to the following statement:

“Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology… anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong”

Sola Scriptura does not claim the Bible to be the only source of doctrinal authority. What is claimed is that the Bible is the only infallible source of doctrinal authority. While both Protestants and Catholics will agree that scripture is an infallible source of doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17), the Protestant position is that no other infallible source of doctrine is anywhere established.

However, Protestants do believe that other sources of authority exist outwith scripture, with perhaps the most significant of these being the church. Scripture itself shows that the church may make authoritative interpretations of scripture (Acts 15), and enforce these as a matter of discipline across the local churches (Acts 16:4).

There are many different interpretations of SS, which is not perhaps made as clear in the article as ought to be done. That statement does accurately describe some Protestant positions.

Catholics consider Scripture to be inspired and inerrant, but the quality of fallibility can only be found in persons, not books, however Holy.

Indeed, this is the very basis of the presbyterian church polity of the Reformed branch of Protestantism. An example of the application of such authority would be the almost universal implementation of creeds and confessions across Protestant churches, which are regarded as authoritative, despite not being part of the scripture. Some of these we will share with Catholics (eg the Nicene Creed), while others we will not (eg the Westminster Confession of Faith). So I feel that your article was very misleading when it stated Protestants believe that “anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong”.

I agree. I think that describes “solo scriptura” much better.

While Protestants and Catholics can agree that the church is invested with a certain authority to speak on doctrinal matters, their disagreement is about whether or not is it infallible in doing so. Protestants would say that the church is a subordinate authority to the scripture. Indeed, it is the scripture that establishes the authority of the church (Acts 15, Acts 16:4, Matthew 18;17-19 etc).

Yes. This is a drastic departure from the Apostolic faith.

Likewise, the scripture shows the church to be subordinate and subject to the scriptures. For example, the Thessalonians were commended for searching out the scriptures to prove the teachings of Paul himself (Acts 17:11) - if the words of the original apostles were subordinate to scripture

Actually no, but that is a common misinterpretation of that verse. On the contrary, what made the Bereans more “noble” than the others was that they first received the Apostolic instruction with eagerness, then turned to the scriptures in the light of what they were taught.

how can the ‘apostles’ of this day and age claim to speak with greater authority?

It is the same authority. Jesus gave authority to His Apostles, and they passed it to their successors, the Bishops. The Church and her authority preceded the Bible, and the New Testament came out of the Church, not the other way around.

This issue aside, one important point to note is that while Protestants do not believe the Bible to be the sole source of all doctrine and discipline, we do believe it to contain all that is necessary for salvation, and that its teachings in this particular matter are sufficiently clear that they are of themselves sufficient to preach salvation. Accordingly, 2 Timothy 3:15 states:

Yes, Catholics also believe in material sufficiency. But this verse has also been misinterpreted by Protestants. Scripture is profitable. In whose hands? Who did Jesus charge with the duty to equip the saints?

11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; Ephesians 4:11–14

The Scriptures were never meant to be separated from those to whom Jesus gave the gifts and responsibility for equipping the saints.

Protestants believe that the scriptures are indeed sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, independent of any supposed apostolic traditions, or the interpretations of church leaders. However this is only true of matters pertaining to salvation, and not the entirety of Christian life and discipline.

Then you have retained some Catholic teaching, in spite of the effort to reject it.

 

[guanophore]

I feel that perhaps the Catholic Answers article on this matter has been too influenced by the misunderstandings of Sola Scriptura that prevail within the highly individualistic and doctrinally lax culture of American Evangelicalism; rather than the more traditional understandings of mainstream Protestantism. With this in mind, I would appreciate it if you amended your article on ‘Scripture and Tradition’ so that it no longer misrepresents Protestant beliefs.

I agree with you, but what you probably dont understand is that no one here is responsible for the article, nor does anyone have the authority to change it. This is a member forum for people like you. Anyone who follows the forum rules can post their opinions. We are not responsible for the site, or it’s content.

 

[guanophore]

The subject is whether the referenced article is incorrectly representing Sola Scriptura. The subject is not “whether or not the Bible is the final authority in one’s faith”.

You certainly do seem cantankerous today!

One of the definitions of SS is that the Bible is the final authority in matters of faith. Granted, the article had a definition of SS that does not accurately represent the myriad of views that exist, but this is certainly one of them.

 

[pablope]

Hi,

I recently came across your article on Scripture and Tradition

 

[pablope]

Steve,

I have seen two arguments your statements that I would be interested in hearing a response to:

 

[Covenanter]

Wow, this is an active forum!

Thanks for the welcomes and the thoughtful replies. I think that there are reasonable arguments to be made both for and against Sola Scriptura, but Tomyris made an important observation:

The subject is whether the referenced article is incorrectly representing Sola Scriptura. The subject is not “whether or not the Bible is the final authority in one’s faith”.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether or not Sola Scriptura is true or not; rather it is was to question if the article in question made a fair representation of what Sola Scriptura actually means. I would be willing to debate the truth of Sola Scriptura, but that is another debate for another time.

To those who have pointed out that there are different undersandings of Sola Scriptura across Protestantism, I would say this - there is not one mainstream Protestant church that I am aware of that advocates what the Catholic Answers article argued against. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans and indeed the vast majority of Protestants in general recognise a number of sources of doctrinal authority outwith scripture. Whatever minor differences there are in their understanding of Sola Scriptura, none of them conform to the image of it presented in the article.

Only a tiny minority, consisting mostly of independent American Evanglical churches, do in fact argue for the extreme form of Sola Scriptura, which is not really Sola Scriptura at all (since that name is given to the belief as stated by the reformers). The examples given to me in this thread confirm this. One of those mentioned was the Christadelphians - a tiny non-Trinitarian cult, and as such arguably not even a Protestant denomination. It is not fair to represent Protestantism by such fringe views. It would be like me writing an article attacking Catholic doctrine based on something that some obscure sedevacantist group said.

Yes Protestant churches have their differences but no mainstream Protestant church believes in the sort of Sola Scriptura that that ‘Scripture and Tradition’ article presented.

I realise the article is just somebody’s opinion but it is not just a forum post, it is one of the first articles presented on the main page if you go to the “for other Christians” section. Is there anybody I could contact to make some sort of appeal to them on this?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

We would agree that Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. That does not mean it takes the place of the Church which is charged with teaching all nations and given great authority along with the protection of the Holy Spirit. The sacred texts were canonized so that they might be used in the Church’s liturgies. They were never meant to replace the teaching authority of the Church or to stand on their own, apart from the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. Scripture itself tells us that it does not contain everything. Paul preached for, what, two years, every single day in the Temple? I’ll bet what he said was probably very important and “beneficial”. But not a word of it appears in the New Testament. Jesus gave the best Bible study ever given on the road to Emmaus, yet we see not a word of it in Scripture.

Actually, I agree. I was citing that Mennonites and Baptists wouldn’t separate Scripture from Tradition; that they would consider Scripture to be Tradition. (Not sure I am using capital ‘T’ vs small ‘t’ correctly…) Now, why they believe the church somehow lost its authority after writing and compiling the canon, I do not know. I see no such indication in Scripture, and have never received a good answer for my inquiry.

Certainly, writing something does not guarantee a clear understanding of the contents by the reader. Take, for example, Peter speaking of Paul:

… in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Also for consideration:

"And behold, a man of Ethiopia…sitting in his chariot…was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

Also, you said:

Or better yet live it, incorporate it into every aspect of one’s life. That is what the Church has done through Sacred Tradition. It “held fast” to the truth it received directly from the Apostles, before a word of it had even been written.

Peace.

Steve

Thank you Steve!

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Sorry, Covenanter, for getting slightly off topic. I thought it might be beneficial to point out the many Protestants consider Scripture to be Tradition; not necessarily pitting one against the other. I certainly do know some who seem to think the Bible dropped from the Heavens, as if man had nothing to do with it.

 

[adf417]

I keep wondering why the definition of sola scripture matters. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the application of this and whether or not the application is consistent through all of Christianity? Whether someone misunderstood the definition is somewhat important but I think it more important whether or not the result of the practice is correct. If the result of the practice is not consistent wouldn’t that be more of a concern?

Peace!!!

 

[adrift]

Wow, this is an active forum!

Thanks for the welcomes and the thoughtful replies. I think that there are reasonable arguments to be made both for and against Sola Scriptura, but Tomyris made an important observation:
The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether or not Sola Scriptura is true or not; rather it is was to question if the article in question made a fair representation of what Sola Scriptura actually means. I would be willing to debate the truth of Sola Scriptura, but that is another debate for another time.

Posters will naturally answer what you post. If you post that scripture is infallible you must expect it will be answered.

I realise the article is just somebody’s opinion but it is not just a forum post, it is one of the first articles presented on the main page if you go to the “for other Christians” section. Is there anybody I could contact to make some sort of appeal to them on this?

Actually, it is not a forum post at all. You are on the main site of Catholic Answers which has many different kinds of articles.
On that page you will find Contact Us

There is another article by James Akin Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles. I would be interested in your comment on his article

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Covenanter;12407683]… I would say this - there is not one mainstream Protestant church that I am aware of that advocates what the Catholic Answers article argued against. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans and indeed the vast majority of Protestants in general recognise a number of sources of doctrinal authority outwith scripture. Whatever minor differences there are in their understanding of Sola Scriptura, none of them conform to the image of it presented in the article.

Upon your above view, your protest against the article becomes another subject matter that digresses into another subject from Sola Scriptura, when it appears the article addresses the protestant first authority begins with Sola Scriptura and all others are secondary. Your protest against the article only exposes Sola Scriptura to support the article’s view.

As per your commentary quote above, your not advocating for Sola Scriptura here; You are denying Sola Scriptura to be the Sola, when you “recognize a number of sources of doctrinal authority outwith (without scripture)” parenthesis mine.

Drop your Sola from Scriptura, and you will find your above commentary in line with Catholicism from which Protestantism left. If you feel the article does not address your view of Sola Scriptura which today falls in the minority? it addresses the protestant view from which Protestantism begins it’s authority from Sola Scriptura.

The article segment you posted, is not addressing the changes that has occurred with Sola Scriptura throughout Protestantism, which you clearly demonstrated of recognizing other sources authority outside the Sola Scriptura, which appears as the growing minority view , that moves away from the original Sola Scriptura teaching which pulled many ignorant Catholics from their pews. Now Protestantism are revisiting their original protestant Catholic founders and writings, who gives what appears to be a new form of Sola Scriptura which you call the original Sola Scriptura that holds that recognizes other sources as authoritative outside Sola Scriptura.

Maybe it is finally come to that time, for Protestantism to retire and drop their Sola from Scriptura, and hold fast to the Traditions which the apostles gave us by both Oral Tradition and by Letter. There exist no sola scriptura, when the apostles gave us divine revelations and teachings from two sources their Oral Traditions in practice supported by their written letters which the written survived the Catholic Church’s extreme canonization process in order to declare them God breathed.

Yes Protestant churches have their differences but no mainstream Protestant church believes in the sort of Sola Scriptura that that ‘Scripture and Tradition’ article presented.

Protestantism has a problem with it’s own teaching of Sola Scriptura which splinters as time exposes it as a doctrine of men and not from a divine revelation.

Peace be with you

 

[Covenanter]

adrift, thanks for the ‘Contact Us’ link.

I will try to read that article you linked to tomorrow.

Gabriel of 12, I believe that I am presenting the mainstream and the historic view of Sola Scriptura, indeed the form in which it was presented by the original reformers. I am not backtracking and returning to Catholicism by saying what I have been saying. Neither does what I say suggest that I should drop the ‘Sola’ from ‘Sola Scriptura’. I maintain that the Bible is the sole inerrant source of doctrine and that all other authorities are subordinate to it. Scripture alone is inerrant, not scripture and tradition or scripture and the church - so it is very much still a case of ‘Sola Scriptura’’.

I am confident that what I am saying is not a minority view within Protestantism or an abandonment of the ‘Sola’ aspect. Consider the following passages from mainstream Protestant churches/confessions which declare the authority of the church, which is true yet also subordinate to scripture:
39 Articles (Church of England:

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Westminster Confession of Faith (Church of Scotland:

we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

 

[pablope]

adrift, thanks for the ‘Contact Us’ link.

I will try to read that article you linked to tomorrow.

Gabriel of 12, I believe that I am presenting the mainstream and the historic view of Sola Scriptura, indeed the form in which it was presented by the original reformers.

yet also subordinate to scripture:

Well…why don’t you provide us the actual definiton of SS from the Reformers…and why don’t you start with Martin Luther’s definition of what SS actually is?

 

[guanophore]

I keep wondering why the definition of sola scripture matters. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the application of this and whether or not the application is consistent through all of Christianity? Whether someone misunderstood the definition is somewhat important but I think it more important whether or not the result of the practice is correct. If the result of the practice is not consistent wouldn’t that be more of a concern?

Peace!!!

This is a good point, since from our point of view, all of them are wrong! But if we are going to have any meaningful discussion, we need to use the definition that is held by the person with whom we have dialogue. I think the OP is doing well to identify that this is not a definition that is used by her communion, and in fact, is not used by the vast majority of Protestants who do accept the creeds, Tradition, and authority outside of Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Well…why don’t you provide us the actual definiton of SS from the Reformers…and why don’t you start with Martin Luther’s definition of what SS actually is?

Two thoughts.

1. I’m not sure why you think a written definition of* sola scriptura *is important. I’m Lutheran, and it isn’t particularly important to me.
2. While Covenanter, referred to the “original reformers”, there has been no indication that he is Lutheran, which means a Luther definition would be even less important to him than it is to me.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, I agree. I was citing that Mennonites and Baptists wouldn’t separate Scripture from Tradition; that they would consider Scripture to be Tradition. (Not sure I am using capital ‘T’ vs small ‘t’ correctly…) Now, why they believe the church somehow lost its authority after writing and compiling the canon, I do not know. I see no such indication in Scripture, and have never received a good answer for my inquiry.

Certainly, writing something does not guarantee a clear understanding of the contents by the reader. Take, for example, Peter speaking of Paul:

Also for consideration:

Also, you said:



Thank you Steve!

Great quotes. Thanks for your post.

 

[JonNC]

adrift, thanks for the ‘Contact Us’ link.

I will try to read that article you linked to tomorrow.

Gabriel of 12, I believe that I am presenting the mainstream and the historic view of Sola Scriptura, indeed the form in which it was presented by the original reformers. I am not backtracking and returning to Catholicism by saying what I have been saying. Neither does what I say suggest that I should drop the ‘Sola’ from ‘Sola Scriptura’. I maintain that the Bible is the sole inerrant source of doctrine and that all other authorities are subordinate to it. Scripture alone is inerrant, not scripture and tradition or scripture and the church - so it is very much still a case of ‘Sola Scriptura’’.

I am confident that what I am saying is not a minority view within Protestantism or an abandonment of the ‘Sola’ aspect. Consider the following passages from mainstream Protestant churches/confessions which declare the authority of the church, which is true yet also subordinate to scripture:

It would be particularly helpful if you identified your faith community beyond “protestant”. That way, you are obliged to defend views and definitions beyond your own communion.

I take it, by the listing of the 39 Articles and the Westminster Confession that you are Reformed or Anglican of some variety. Yes?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I keep wondering why the definition of sola scripture matters. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the application of this and whether or not the application is consistent through all of Christianity? Whether someone misunderstood the definition is somewhat important but I think it more important whether or not the result of the practice is correct. If the result of the practice is not consistent wouldn’t that be more of a concern?

Peace!!!

Agreed. And the same applied to Sacred Tradition.

I’m particularly concerned as to why SS has been essentially abandoned by some of the liberal synods of Lutheranism.

Jon