Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[SteveVH]

adriftI 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’’.

Now, at the risk of asking the wrong question, I am just addressing this particular statement because I would like you to consider something implied in it.

How can the one authority that spiritually discerned and canonized the Scriptures be subservient to them in any way? It is the Church that proclaimed the texts as the inerrant, inspired word of God. Do you think they did this without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

We had all better hope not. And part of this discernment, a good part, was how they lined up with the truth already possessed. How could the Church discern the truth present in the sacred texts unless they already knew it? It was never meant to contain the complete rule of faith. It is a supporting document to Sacred Tradition. The Church was never a “Bible Church”. It has always been an Apostolic Church.

I think a big misunderstanding is that by touting Church authority and Sacred Tradition some may be under the impression that Sacred Scripture is somewhere below this, down the list a couple of lines. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the Catholic view, it is our Book and we believe it to be the inerrant, inspired word of God. No doctrine may conflict with it. It is read and proclaimed from the pulpit each and every day, from the setting of the sun to its rising and permeates Catholic life.

Peace.

Steve

 

[guanophore]

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

You have to admit, as a Lutheran you have been often maligned for espousing this particular view of SS, which you do not. You have had to do a lot of correcting and educating of members to help them understand that the definition in that article is not espoused by Lutherans.

 

[Covenanter]

Well it looks like this thread has, perhaps inevitably, escaped the bounds which were originally intended for it. OK, from now on I will debate Sola Scriptura in this thread.

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?

I don’t have any of Luther’s writings on this matter to hand. But I think that the following definition (given in my own words) would be happily accepted by Lutherans, Reformed and most Anglican and Evangelical Protestants:

“Scripture is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, and is the sole inerrant source of doctrinal authority.”

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?

I am attempting to speak broadly for Protestantism here, just as the article I am questioning did.

Personally, I identify broadly as Reformed. I am still finding my feet somewhat, but I think that I lean more towards Presbyterianism. I had originally attended a Presbyterian church after I was saved, however I left because it did not preach the Gospel, and also because it had abandoned its confessions and adopted several significant errors (ordination of women to the ministry, openly homosexual ministers, etc). Due to the absence of a faithful Presbyterian church which would be accesible for me, I now attend a local Evangelical church - although you will find different viewpoints amongst the congregation on certain matters of faith and practice (just as you would amongst a Roman Catholic congregation), we are all happy to join in worship as fellow Christians.

Now, at the risk of asking the wrong question, I am just addressing this particular statement because I would like you to consider something implied in it.

How can the one authority that spiritually discerned and canonized the Scriptures be subservient to them in any way? It is the Church that proclaimed the texts as the inerrant, inspired word of God. Do you think they did this without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I am familiar with this argument, that it was the church which proclaimed the texts as inerrant and as scripture. However as a Protestant, I would respond by saying that these texts proclaim themselves to be both innerant and scripture, hundreds of years before church councils granted them status as such. Consider 2 Peter 3:15-16:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; 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.

Peter here speaks of Paul’s epistles as scripture. The fact that he does it in such an indirect and casual manner indicates that they would have been commonly accepted as such.

Granted this does not establish exactly which writings would have been considered scripture, but there can be no doubt that in the days of the original apostles themselves, there was recognised New Testament scripture. Their scriptural value is therefore intrinsic, and not bestowed upon them by means of church councils hundreds of years later, however authoritative they might be.

 

[JonNC]

=Covenanter;12410046]
I don’t have any of Luther’s writings on this matter to hand. But I think that the following definition (given in my own words) would be happily accepted by Lutherans, Reformed and most Anglican and Evangelical Protestants:

“Scripture is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, and is the sole inerrant source of doctrinal authority.”

To the extent that the definition conforms to Lutheran doctrine and practice, ok, but that was my point…

I am attempting to speak broadly for Protestantism here, just as the article I am questioning did.

…speaking broadly about protestants typically ends up misrepresenting (unintentionally) about one or more communions identified under the umbrella “protestant”.

Personally, I identify broadly as Reformed. I am still finding my feet somewhat, but I think that I lean more towards Presbyterianism. I had originally attended a Presbyterian church after I was saved, however I left because it did not preach the Gospel, and also because it had abandoned its confessions and adopted several significant errors (ordination of women to the ministry, openly homosexual ministers, etc). Due to the absence of a faithful Presbyterian church which would be accesible for me, I now attend a local Evangelical church - although you will find different viewpoints amongst the congregation on certain matters of faith and practice (just as you would amongst a Roman Catholic congregation), we are all happy to join in worship as fellow Christians.

Thanks, as this helps others, at least me, understand your perspective.

Jon

 

[adf417]

“Scripture is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, and is the sole inerrant source of doctrinal authority.”

Covenanter could you clarify one more thing please, If we were having this discussion in the year 200 AD, which books would you have considered “scripture”?

Peace!!!

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Is there evidence, in Scripture, that the Holy Spirit would suddenly stop authoritatively guiding the church “into all truth” after some men in the early church infallibly wrote the inerrant Word of God by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

Also, I would not dismiss so quickly the process that was used to determine which books would be canonized. If the Holy Spirit is guiding “all truth”, it stands to reason that the Holy Spirit was not only guiding while the Scriptures were being written, but also when the canon was being compiled and canonized.

I have done some church hopping myself, and I admit that I do not agree with all things Catholic (at least, not intellectually), but I simply cannot look at the denominational chaos that exists today and believe that it is every man for himself; that Jesus left us orphans after all. It is more reasonable, imho, to consider that the Holy Ghost was guiding during the writing, and canonization of, the Scriptures, and is also “rightly dividing” His Word today, through the Church.

 

[Covenanter]

To the extent that the definition conforms to Lutheran doctrine and practice, ok, but that was my point…

…speaking broadly about protestants typically ends up misrepresenting (unintentionally) about one or more communions identified under the umbrella “protestant”.

Of course, but then I think there is a widespread understanding that there is significant variety within Protestantism and so when somebody is speaking about ‘Protestantism’, they do so only in the general sense.

That is why I did not object too strongly to the article speaking generally about Protestantism.

Covenanter could you clarify one more thing please, If we were having this discussion in the year 200 AD, which books would you have considered “scripture”?

Peace!!!

The same ones as I do today!

Is there evidence, in Scripture, that the Holy Spirit would suddenly stop authoritatively guiding the church “into all truth” after some men in the early church infallibly wrote the inerrant Word of God by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

Did God leave the church for hundreds of years without the written word, or just disputed fragments of it? The very word which is said to make us wise unto salvation?

 

[simspt]

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. My chief objections related to the following statement:

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). 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”.

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

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:

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.

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.

At the end of the day or where the rubber meets the road SS denies the interpretive authority of the CC and places that interpretive authority or doctrinal authority that is derived from one interpretation over another in the hands of the reformers and subsequent individuals. There is no such thing as an uninterpreted Bible, “the authority of Scripture” vs other’s interpretations… this is very misleading by those who espouse SS. You submit to your own interpretation or that of your favorite Reformer and I that of CC. Thats the bottom line, not who hold Scripture as more or exclusively authoritative in norming faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Covenanter;12408458 I maintain that the Bible is the sole inerrant source of doctrine and that all other authorities are subordinate to it.

That sounds nice, until you investigate the Sola for what it really is, never has scripture to support or teach the Sola Scriptura as you present it here.

As a Catholic we believe the scriptures to be gospel and God breathed including the seven deuterocanonical books and hold these in the most humanly highest esteem possible, without adding or subtracting from the scriptures.

What I as a Catholic, do not believe is; the writings from the apostles is the “Sole” source from which God gives His revelation and teachings to the Apostolic Church.

For the fact that Jesus never writes His teachings, and the apostles never write everything what Jesus did, for had they attempted to do so, there would not be enough books in the world to contain them. see John 21:25. Thus Sola Scriptura is blind that leads the blind away from the full deposit of faith, because the full revelation of Jesus Christ is not all written.

Secondly for me; Sola Scriptura “alone” places the personification of Jesus Christ living, walking with and teaching His apostles in a secondary pretense. It is here, where the Sola Scriptura takes on a first century Sadducee Jewish view of the Law. which holds to only what is written, (your Sola Scriptura is revealed here), while neglecting the full deposit of faith from the oral sacred Traditions of the Messiah Jesus, that is handed down in faith practice that is not written.

Thirdly; The Sola Scriptura pretends to leave the living Christ as the only written record from the first century as a past event of God’s revelation that must remain as a Sola recorded event by scripture alone. The Sola attempts at a faith from Sola Scriptura that never exists in the first century, because there does not exist a (Sola Scriptura) canonized bible in the first century by Jewish nor Christian authorities, never mind most of the populace cannot read any scripture, in order to place any faith in a Sola Scriptura.

For the deposit of faith was handed down first orally and in practice, which later is written for the new added Christian communities, when the latter received both the Oral sacred Tradition and practices with a Letter from an apostle who shepherds them. It is here revealed from scripture that the full deposit of faith comes to us by Oral Sacred Tradition, written Letter, taught in practice from an apostolic (Magisterium) Shepherd.

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:

Your confidence and sincerity is not in question here; Sacred Scripture canonized by the Catholic Church is not a question for Catholics. The Authority of your protestant Church to declare a Sola Scriptura doctrine among the Sheep of the Apostles; is what is in question here.

When you say Church, you r documents do not include all, nor does your document speak for all the body of Christ, but just those few who agree with your new document that is never recorded in Sola Scriptura.

When and where did God give your protestant Church community divine revelation and authority to declare a new doctrine of Sola Scriptura to God’s people? When your founder is never present when Jesus gave his keys and authority to His Church to forgive sin and baptize all nations.

If ? Sola Scriptura alone from ones reading of scripture, gives any one and anybody the authority to establish their own church community and teach what they think Sola Scriptura teaches in later centuries? This particular Sola Scriptura faith has exposed over time splinters itself and causes a division of community. Sola Scriptura, is never built on a rock foundation from which Jesus builds His Church upon ‘Rock’. Sola Scriptura did not exist when Jesus builds His Church when He walked the earth.

Peace be with you

 

[pablope]

Two thoughts.

1. I’m not sure why you think a written definition of* sola scriptura *

Original REformer/s…it starts with Luther…is the most likely start. So why not start with the primary mover of the Reformation?

[/QUOTE]

 

[pablope]

Well it looks like this thread has, perhaps inevitably, escaped the bounds which were originally intended for it. OK, from now on I will debate Sola Scriptura in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
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?

later, however authoritative they might be.

Actually, the source of you quote refutes or goes against your statement, if you start at v14:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So the question is, which Holy Scriptures is this passage referring to? And is it really Scripture alone?

 

[pablope]

Of

Quote:
Originally Posted by adf417 View Post
Covenanter could you clarify one more thing please, If we were having this discussion in the year 200 AD, which books would you have considered “scripture”?

 

[po18guy]

1. God gave authority to the Church in stewardship, until the Bible was finalized and became the authority.

Of course, you must believe this, or else there is another authority outside of the bible. The protestant problem is that everyone knows what the bible says, but no one agrees on what it means. Did Jesus leave us orphans?

I would be greatly interested in hearing how your denomination addresses disputes - without error? If they cannot address disputes without error, why would you have anything to do with them?

Let us understand: scripture does not interpret itself - that denies the Holy Spirit. In truth, it is the human ego which interprets, which is the father of all division in protestantism. The same ego that caused the fall at Eden. Something greater, more holy than the ego must be charged with keeping God’s truth. Something above the individual. Something guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not leave us orphans.

As an aside, where (in scripture) did the Church convene a council and grant authority to an inanimate object? I simply don’t see it. If it is not there, then it remains with the Church, the only other possibility.

1. The Catholic Church didn’t make the canon;

Let’s agree! The Eastern Orthodox Church did. Now let us hear your argument against them and their authority.

…the one they devised includes (what they view) as non-Scriptural books (the Apocrypha), due to personal study on the characteristics of Scripture and reading the Apocrypha books.

I ask: By what authority do you declare that the Deuterocanonical books are not and cannot be God’s word? I would not want that task, as it is simply not in the scriptures. Those books are prophetic of and anticipatory of no one other than Christ. If God did not inspire their authors, then pray tell who did?

Scripture records Jesus giving all authority to the Church. Acts 15 records the first of many Church councils - loosing the requirtement for circumcision. If you do not believe the Lord when He gave all authorirty to the Apostles and final authority to the Church, shouldn’t you follow the Mosaic law and worship on the sabbath?

Rather, I would enjoy reading chapter and verse where the assertions you made are supported directly, clearly and unequivocally by scripture - so that there is universal agreement. That is proof of a sole rule of faith.

 

[guanophore]

Well it looks like this thread has, perhaps inevitably, escaped the bounds which were originally intended for it. OK, from now on I will debate Sola Scriptura in this thread.

Thanks for coming back, Covenanter, you are a brave soul. We can’t really help ourselves, we are like a pack of wolves when it comes to such topics.

I am attempting to speak broadly for Protestantism here, just as the article I am questioning did.

Two wrongs will not make a right!

I am familiar with this argument, that it was the church which proclaimed the texts as inerrant and as scripture. However as a Protestant, I would respond by saying that these texts proclaim themselves to be both innerant and scripture, hundreds of years before church councils granted them status as such. Consider 2 Peter 3:15-16:

Peter here speaks of Paul’s epistles as scripture. The fact that he does it in such an indirect and casual manner indicates that they would have been commonly accepted as such.

Yes. Of course, the inspired inerrant scriptures had these qualities as soon as they were penned, but it is also a fact that hundreds of writings were floating around the empire all claiming to be inspired, or accepted by different groups as inspired. The authority appointed by Christ sifted through all these, and proclaimed which ones should be in the canon, and which should not. Common acceptance of the writings was one factor, but not the only one, since there were many groups using writings that contained heresies. The contents had to be consistent with the Sacred Tradition as well.

Granted this does not establish exactly which writings would have been considered scripture, but there can be no doubt that in the days of the original apostles themselves, there was recognised New Testament scripture. Their scriptural value is therefore intrinsic, and not bestowed upon them by means of church councils hundreds of years later, however authoritative they might be.

There were many “gospels” and “epistles” that were recognized as authentic that did not make the canon. The Church had to make an authorative ruling. For example, what can you find in the Epistle of Barnabus that is contrary to Christian faith?

The Shepherd of Hermes? The Didiache?

 

[guanophore]

The same ones as I do today!

How can you be so sure, when there was so much controversy about whether or not they all belonged in the NT? Are you aware of how many of the books were disputed, and why?

Did God leave the church for hundreds of years without the written word, or just disputed fragments of it? The very word which is said to make us wise unto salvation?

Yes, there were many communities that lacked literacy, and did not have many of the “fragments”. The kerygma, the Apostolic preaching was the primary form of transmission of the faith. The more the manuscripts were copied and shared, the wider their distribution, but there was never any question, as there is today, that there was some kind of contradiction between the Word of God alive in the Church, and the Word of God on the written page.

 

[po18guy]

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 am not certain that having a precise definition of what constitutes theological error is all that important. No matter its content, it is defined by both Catholic and Orthodox as error. That is enough.

 

[adf417]

The same ones as I do today!

Greetings Coventanter,
This is quite amazing. I assume you mean the 66 book protestant canon. Can you tell us the method you would have used to get to the 66 books that you use now during a time when there were hundreds of other books being used by the rest of the church?

Peace!!!

 

[Duane1966]

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

This is the key and why SS cannot work. Without proper authority to explain the scriptures (by the way since the NT was not written at this time when Paul says scriptures he is always talking about the OT) it is a free for all and every man to himself. Case in point. There are many fine, sincere graduates of religious colleges, with diplomas in scripture study. Yet you can talk to one person and they say OSAS is clear in the bible. Another will tell you that is not so, but that double pre-destination is. Both say the other is wrong, and both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Another person can read the bible and see the Trinity. Someone else doesn’t. I know Protestants who say that in John 6 Jesus is talking about really eating His flesh. Others who say it is just symbolic. What about baptism? Immersion or sprinkling? Water or spiritual? Don’t tell me it doesn’t matter. I know people who say unless it is immersion you are going to hell. Who is right?

The bible is inerrant, but it is not clear. If it were would there be Lutheranism, Methodism, Baptists, Anglicans, Calvinists, Reformed, 1st Reformed, 2nd Reformed, Congregationalists, 52nd Church of Christ, Mexican Church of God, Australian Aboriginal Church of the Many Tongues? The bible SAYS nothing. Only thing that is said is how I interpret it and speak to others. A person can twist the bible and lead others astray all the while being sincere and truly believing they have the correct interpretation. The Apostles needed Jesus to explain the parable of the seeds to them. Jesus had to explain to the Pharisees why divorce is actually adultery. Were the Pharisees and Apostles dumb? No, but in many passages of the bible no matter how you look at it there is almost always a way of interpreting it in a manner you never saw before. Which way is correct? That is why St. Peter warns us about private interpretation.

Do you have the correct translation of the bible? I mean do you know that someone did not add or take away words to fit their theology? (It is my understanding that there are some sects that have added or changed words to disprove the trinity.) You say it is inspired but the 7 extra books are not, but why? Have you read them? Some at the Council of Nicea did not think they were inspired. And some at that same council did not think Revelation was inspired. Guess what? The council settled on both. If I have the authority to throw out those extra books because I do not like what they point to, why can’t I throw out others? (I am sick of do unto others as you would have them do, it should be as they have done).

If the scriptures had never been gathered and canonized what would you have? Do you have to have the scriptures and read them personally for salvation? (Yes I know that they are profitable) The fact of the matter is there were plenty of Christians throughout the first 1500 years who were illiterate.(Probably more like 1900 years) You know what they had? The Church. And every Sunday they would listen to the priest read from the OT, and the NT, and here how to take Jesus’ words and make them relevant in their life. Then they would partake of Holy Communion. Without a doubt many of them are in Heaven. How could this happen when it was only the priest interpreting it for them?

You know what we Catholics of today have? The Church. And every Sunday we listen to readings from the OT and the NT and sing one of the Psalms and here how to apply Jesus’ word in our life. Then we partake of Holy Communion. Not much has changed in 2000 years.

 

[andrewstx]

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

I feel that Covenanter is a Reformed or Presbyterian protestant. It is they who have traditionally emphasized “covenant” theology. They feel that Lutherans are not ‘reformed enough’.

 

[guanophore]

I feel that Covenanter is a Reformed or Presbyterian protestant. It is they who have traditionally emphasized “covenant” theology. They feel that Lutherans are not ‘reformed enough’.

You got the good eye there Andrew!