What is Sola Scriptura

[Marc_Anthony]

To be blunt: I notice that many Catholics seem to misunderstand what Sola Scriptura is-or at least, Protestants claim they misunderstand it.

Then I realized, hey, I have no idea what the real definition of Sola Scriptura is myself. Oops.

So what is it?

Is it compatible with sacred Tradition?

Is there any one definition? If not, then what are the several definitions?

I actually want non-catholics to explain this to me. I don’t want Catholics telling me what they think it is; I want to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. So I’d prefer if, at least at first, only non-catholics posted; I don’t really mean this to be a debate thread, but I’m sure it will become one; I just want the “parameters” set for the debate first, at least.

Thanks in advance.

 

[tester]

Sola Scriptura:

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura​

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
-James White

 

[tester]

in other words…

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –

St. Augustine

 

[JonNC]

To be blunt: I notice that many Catholics seem to misunderstand what Sola Scriptura is-or at least, Protestants claim they misunderstand it.

Then I realized, hey, I have no idea what the real definition of Sola Scriptura is myself. Oops.

So what is it?

Is it compatible with sacred Tradition?

Is there any one definition? If not, then what are the several definitions?

I actually want non-catholics to explain this to me. I don’t want Catholics telling me what they think it is; I want to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. So I’d prefer if, at least at first, only non-catholics posted; I don’t really mean this to be a debate thread, but I’m sure it will become one; I just want the “parameters” set for the debate first, at least.

Thanks in advance.

The Lutheran confessions state it as follows:

. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

in other words…

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. –

St. Augustine

And you claiming St.Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura? If he did,then provide his works where he advocates or defends it as he did many orthodox doctrines?

 

[cooterhein]

To be blunt: I notice that many Catholics seem to misunderstand what Sola Scriptura is-or at least, Protestants claim they misunderstand it.

Then I realized, hey, I have no idea what the real definition of Sola Scriptura is myself. Oops.

So what is it?

Excellent question.

This reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdf is the best thing I could find. You’ll have to skip around a little in order to find all the answers to your questions, but as it works through Dual-Source, Prima Scriptura, Regula Fidei, etc., you’ll find that it actually does a good job of accurately summarizing the substance of all the source-theories. When he defends Sola Scriptura, he does so with a number of people in mind as his audience, starting with those who disagree with what it teaches but still want to make sure they know what it is.

Some of the key points from the section on Luther: He relied on authority other than Scripture, and while he does consult with popes and councils, he finds them insufficient to have a final or independent voice on matters of faith because they are fallible. According to Luther, tradition has authority but it is less than that of Scripture. Additionally, Luther talked about how it’s unsafe to act against your own conscience. Patton (the author) puts it this way: It’s not about advocating an isolationist interpretation, but personal responsibility. We can’t afford to outsource our beliefs to someone else, then copy-and-paste whatever they say. Central to this conclusion is the assumption that such a great amount of trust would, of necessity, be placed in something or someone that is fallible.

After the section on Luther is a four-part defense of the Dual-Source Theory. Again, you’ll find that this defense is as good as anything you’ll see in the CAF tracts. But from this source, you also get to see the non-Catholic responses to these points. In his response to Apostolic Succession, I think you’ll be somewhat surprised.

At the very end, there’s an argument for the historic development of Sola Scriptura. This is a noteworthy quote.

As I have argued many times, there is a development that doctrine goes through, and controversy is the adrenaline to its development. If there is no controversy, it will remain an assumed part of tradition. Its assumption does not mean it is right or wrong, it just means that the church had yet to deal with it substantially and holistically.

This is virtually identical to the Catholic argument for the legitimacy of anything that it develops.

Is it compatible with sacred Tradition?

Let me put it to you this way.

Before the birth of Christ, the Jews had what was known as the Word of God (the Tanakh) and they also had the Mishnah. The Mishnah contains the Jewish traditions, teachings, and practices that are considered authoritative. That’s how they still do it. In many ways, it is analogous to the CCC. There is one important difference, though. When describing the Mishnah, one of the first things you must say is that it is second in authority only to the Tanakh. If Catholics could say the same thing, we’d have far less in the way of problems with each other.

If by “Sacred Tradition” you mean “The content of the aforementioned tradition,” then yes, Sola Scriptura is compatible with it. But if the adjective “Sacred” necessitates that the tradition holds a place higher than “second in authority” or that it is infallible, then no, these kinds of adjectives and descriptions are not compatible with Sola Scriptura.

Is there any one definition? If not, then what are the several definitions?

Yes, there is one definition. A good summary looks like this:

Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures.

But the negative statements about “what it is not” are just as important as positive statements about what it is, and beyond that, there’s more to be said about the relationship between the Bible, various kinds of authority, various kinds of teachings and traditions, and an individual like me. There’s also something to be said for the different ways of placing Sola Scriptura within the structure of the other four Solas. They do have a lot to do with one another, and while you have to focus on one at a time, you also have to remember that they’re a package deal and must eventually be understood as a cohesive unit.

I actually want non-catholics to explain this to me. I don’t want Catholics telling me what they think it is; I want to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. So I’d prefer if, at least at first, only non-catholics posted; I don’t really mean this to be a debate thread, but I’m sure it will become one; I just want the “parameters” set for the debate first, at least.

Well, my first link runs over 30 pages, although only 10 or so deal directly with answering your question. Here’s one more link that John Piper is responsible for; it talks about ecumenical councils and it might surprise you a little, too. desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/thoughts-on-the-sufficiency-of-scripture

Thanks in advance.

Glad I’m able to do it.

Edit- I’m going to add one more thing. From the second thing I liked to, here’s what Piper says.

The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words.

That’s “sufficiency” rather than a lexical def. of SS. But I think it’s important.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Excellent question.

This reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdf is the best thing I could find. You’ll have to skip around a little in order to find all the answers to your questions, but as it works through Dual-Source, Prima Scriptura, Regula Fidei, etc., you’ll find that it actually does a good job of accurately summarizing the substance of all the source-theories. Yes, there is one definition. A good summary looks like this:

Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures.

But the negative statements about “what it is not” are just as important as positive statements about what it is, and beyond that, there’s more to be said about the relationship between the Bible, various kinds of authority, various kinds of teachings and traditions, and an individual like me. There’s also something to be said for the different ways of placing Sola Scriptura within the structure of the other four Solas. They do have a lot to do with one another, and while you have to focus on one at a time, you also have to remember that they’re a package deal and must eventually be understood as a cohesive unit.

Well, my first link runs over 30 pages, although only 10 or so deal directly with answering your question. Here’s one more link that John Piper is responsible for; it talks about ecumenical councils and it might surprise you a little, too. desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/thoughts-on-the-sufficiency-of-scripture

Glad I’m able to do it.

Edit- I’m going to add one more thing. From the second thing I liked to, here’s what Piper says.

The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words.

That’s “sufficiency” rather than a lexical def. of SS. But I think it’s important.

Thanks for all reponses, first of all. I’m responding to cooterhein’s since it’s the most detailed.

Right now I don’t have time to read your long link on Sola Scriptura (rest assured though, I will). So I’ll take a look at this definition:

“Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures.”

Okay, I’ll give you an argument I had with devout Protestants (of various denominations) I had in another forum. They claimed that the rosary went contrary to the Bible because you need to repeat prayers.

There is a verse in the Bible about vain repititions…I unfortunately don’t have a Bible with me right now and can’t recall the verse, but Jesus said something like (and this is a major paraphrase) “Your prayer should be more authentic than the Pagans; do not use vain repititions like the Pagans do.” They claimed that this verse meant that we could not pray the rosary (I won’t even get into the Marian controversies).

My argument, of course, was that Jesus merely counseled against vain repitions, not repititons, and the repitions in the rosary are meant to bring you into a state where you can meditate on the mysteries of God. They then said that Jesus is clearly counseling against repeating prayers there, and that using the beads anyway is wrong because nobody uses prayer beads in the Bible, and I gave up.

So what’s the problem with the rosary (let’s ignore the Marian controversies for now)? Is it that it’s not mentioned in the Bible? Or is it the repitition of prayers? Or were the Protestants wrong and neither of which was a problem?

 

[simspt]

Sola Scriptura:

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura​

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
-James White

James White ignores the emperical evidence to the contrary. If the Scriptures were self interpreting then how does one explain the need for the many debates and Greek philosophy that was required by the Church Fathers to clearly articulate and define the Doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius argued against some of his contemporary Bishops that they must go beyond the Scriptures (obviously not against) to answer the Heretics regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity. Many Doctrines with the exception of the Divinity of Christ move beyond the NT.

 

[cooterhein]

Okay, I’ll give you an argument I had with devout Protestants (of various denominations) I had in another forum. They claimed that the rosary went contrary to the Bible because you need to repeat prayers.

There is a verse in the Bible about vain repititions…They claimed that this verse meant that we could not pray the rosary (I won’t even get into the Marian controversies).

I’m not as familiar with that verse as I probably should be. But I can at least tell you the process I’ll go through. It’s the kind of thing that will give you material that devout Protestants will respond well to.

Step one: Make use of some good lexicons, starting with BDAG (3rd edition). It’s the best because it gives you the most comprehensive and exhaustive details in the translation of any given word. Other lexicons have these names on them: Moulton-Milligan, Liddell-Scott-Jones, and Louw-Nida. This passage is from Matthew 6, and the main word in question is βατταλογέω (battah-lo-GEH-oh). It’s sort of a combination of the words Battos (possibly derived from a king of Cyrene names Battus, who allegedly had a stutter), and logos, a much more common Greek word. βατταλογέω, however, only appears once in the New Testament. Thus, the term “hapax legomenon” is appropriate here.

Step two: Find a concordance or two. Strong’s is a popular one, and while it’s not quite as helpful as BDAG, you can find it online pretty easily. (βατταλογέω is number 945). Other concordances are McReynold’s, NASB Exhaustive, the Exhaustive Concordance to the New Testament, and Hatch Redpath (for which you will need the Strong’s number ahead of time). Hatch Redpath is different from the others because it deals with Greek words used in the Septuagint rather than the New Testament. I already know the most important word of that verse makes its only appearance there, so I’d just peek at Hatch Redpath quickly to see if there’s anything of use. Odds are good that this time, there’s probably not. But if there is, it’s worth it to check.

Step three: Word study sets. Good ones include Kittel (TDNT), Colin Brown (NIDNTT), and Balz and Schneider (EDNT). Other popular word study sets are the one from Barclay, there’s one from Richards, and then there’s Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary.

Step four: NT Grammatical Analysis. The two main resources are Rogers and Rogers, along with Zerwick and Grosvenor.

These first four steps (which really should all start with BDAG- that’ll help the most) are all devoted to giving you a really, really, really good idea of what that word (βατταλογέω) means. That’s all translation work, and later on, it might be worth it to look at another word or two. The goal is to figure out exactly what Jesus is prohibiting, and those four steps help a lot.

Finally, step five: Popular commentaries that Protestants can trust, and Catholics can probably feel OK around them, too. They are: BECNT, NIGTC, WBC (World Biblical Commentary), ICC (International Critical Commentary), NICNT, and Pillar NTC. They might be able to give you a little more information beyond the translation of the Greek words that are used.

My argument, of course, was that Jesus merely counseled against vain repitions, not repititons, and the repitions in the rosary are meant to bring you into a state where you can meditate on the mysteries of God.

Maybe so, maybe not. I don’t know yet. I haven’t looked through a dozen different lexicons/concordances/word study sets/commentaries to find that out, but I will. There’s also the matter of how He groups certain people as “you” (the crowd he’s speaking to) and “them” (the ones you shouldn’t imitate). “Them” is “the Gentiles” or “the heathen” (lit. “ones-of-the-nations”). That can cover a lot of ground (I should really look up that word, too), and it’s possible that Jesus is issuing a warning against syncretism.

They then said that Jesus is clearly counseling against repeating prayers there, and that using the beads anyway is wrong because nobody uses prayer beads in the Bible, and I gave up.

By itself, the fact that something isn’t described in the Bible means nothing. I’m using a computer (not in the Bible) and talking about using lexicons, concordances, commentaries, and word study sets (none of which are in the Bible). It’s kind of a non-issue. The question is whether or not the tradition of repetitive prayers (specifically as it’s done with the rosary) is covered by this prohibition (unless that’s too strong a word?), and that means the full extent of Jesus’ meaning is only half the battle. It is the first half, but there is another half.

The other half involves details concerning the nature and purpose of the rosary, as well as certain details about its history, origins, and development. Depending on what we find out about the words Jesus used in this passage, some of those things might be more relevant than others. It depends on exactly what’s prohibited. For example, the identity of those initially responsible for the creation of this tradition may or may not be a significant part of Jesus’ warning. If it is, I work harder at finding out more about that.

Heads up, though: If you actually believe the rosary was given to Saint Dominic in 1214 by a Marian apparition, we won’t be sharing a working theory on the origins of the rosary.

So what’s the problem with the rosary (let’s ignore the Marian controversies for now)? Is it that it’s not mentioned in the Bible? Or is it the repitition of prayers? Or were the Protestants wrong and neither of which was a problem?

The problem with the rosary, as it may or may not relate to this passage, is that Jesus said it’s not a good idea to pray in a certain manner. And the manner in which the rosary is prayed (according to some) qualifies as “praying in such a manner.” That, more or less, is the working hypothesis that may or may not wind up being disproven.

 

[cooterhein]

James White ignores the emperical evidence to the contrary. If the Scriptures were self interpreting then how does one explain the need for the many debates and Greek philosophy that was required by the Church Fathers to clearly articulate and define the Doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius argued against some of his contemporary Bishops that they must go beyond the Scriptures (obviously not against) to answer the Heretics regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity. Many Doctrines with the exception of the Divinity of Christ move beyond the NT.

I am definitely going to recommend that you follow this link from John Piper. desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/thoughts-on-the-sufficiency-of-scripture I did post it earlier, but it has so much to do with what you’re talking about that I want to make sure you have a look.

Notable quotes that I have mined:

“My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius.”

You interested?

“One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning. So to my surprise one form of the doctrine of the “sufficiency of Scripture” was used to undermine Scripture’s truth.”

I thought it was relevant to some of the things you brought up.

Please note that the next section is fully consistent with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

"There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.”

John Piper does, however, do his best to explain what he means by “the sufficiency of Scripture.” While strict adherence to biblical language may not be enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language…

“The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge. All other knowledge stands under the judgment of the Bible even when it serves the Bible. For example, the English language serves the Bible by making it accessible to readers of English. But even as English does this, it stands under the Bible and is governed by the Bible. So the English word “yes” cannot translate the Greek word for “no.” The Bible is sufficient to prevent that misuse of English.”

Do we need to go beyond the language of the Bible in order to fully and accurately explain the meaning of it- for example, when making a creed? Yes, we do. But a creed (just as it is with a translation, commentary, or teaching tool) is no better than second in authority in that it (whatever “it” is) must be judged by its ability to do what it’s supposed to do. The Bible is exempt from this kind of judgment because its only job is to be what it is.

I hope that’s a useful illustration of the reflexive nature of terms like “self-authenticate,” “self-interpret,” and the like. This last illustration might be of some use, too.

The term “self-authentication” is not exclusive to Protestants, or even to religious use. Self-authenticating documents are regularly admitted as evidence at all sorts of trials. A self-authenticating document is one that can be admitted as evidence without proof that it is what it appears to be. For example, newspaper articles, notarized documents, certified records, etc.

In all of these examples, the evidence is admitted to trial and just sits there. It’s not like it gets up, grabs a writing implement, and authenticates itself. However, it is described by the adjective “self-authenticating” because it possesses a unique quality that demands a certain kind of response (or lack thereof) in an evaluative situation.

Among religious documents, Protestants espouse a very narrow kind of exclusivity in the application of this term. So what I’m wondering is this: Does your complaint have to do with not understanding the meaning of terms like “self-authenticating” and “self-interpreting,” or do you have legitimate reasons for wishing to include other religious material (or no religious material) under those headings?

From what you said, it sounds like you have some kind of problem with referring to the Bible by any of these titles. That makes very little sense to me, because the only scenarios that seem remotely plausible are the ones where the Bible is the only self-authenticating religious document pertaining to matters of faith and morals or the Bible and a small number of other things may go by these titles. I choose the first option, and I would expect you to choose the second.

From the content of your post, though, it sounds like you’re advocating a situation where either no documents or materials qualify for such a description, or certain material besides the Bible (but not the Bible itself) may be called “self-whatever.” These last two scenarios don’t even sound like Christianity- it sounds a lot more like someone who thinks these adjectives are really verbs.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

To be blunt: I notice that many Catholics seem to misunderstand what Sola Scriptura is-or at least, Protestants claim they misunderstand it.

Then I realized, hey, I have no idea what the real definition of Sola Scriptura is myself. Oops.

So what is it?

Is it compatible with sacred Tradition?

Is there any one definition? If not, then what are the several definitions?

I actually want non-catholics to explain this to me. I don’t want Catholics telling me what they think it is; I want to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. So I’d prefer if, at least at first, only non-catholics posted; I don’t really mean this to be a debate thread, but I’m sure it will become one; I just want the “parameters” set for the debate first, at least.

Thanks in advance.

Great question. I am not Catholic and here’s how I understand it. I have used this historical illustration before with students and it seems to help, so maybe you will find it useful as well.

During the Reformation, some of the reformers (Anabaptists, primarily) argued that infant baptism was invalid because the practice cannot be explicitly found in the Bible. Luther responded that because Baptism constitutes a significant means of grace and because it’s not PROHIBITED in the Bible and because it’s been practiced in Christianity from the very beginning (Tradition), infant baptism is both valid and essential. This is a functional way of looking at the way solo scriptura and Tradition work together in Lutheran thought. Luther believed that if a church teaching (council, papal encyclical, whatever) is found to be CONTRARY to the Bible, then the Bible has to render the deciding judgment. This to me is really the essence of solo scriptura–that the Bible is the final “trump card.” If there is a conflict between the Bible and anything else, the Bible “wins.” Of course the Bible and Tradition are far, far more often complimentary and not in conflict.

The reformers who disagreed with Luther continued to develop the idea that everything Christian must have a biblical prooftext–an approach that is actually antithetical to Luther’s position. It’s also this strain of the Reformation that has predominated in more evangelical and fundamentalist churches, particularly in the US. Further, evangelicals, who are probably fairly uneducated about many of Luther’s ideas, like to label their own belief on this matter “solo scriptura” (by the Bible alone) and claim Luther as one of their own, even though Luther himself would have certainly eschewed many of their ideas. Sometimes those who have analyzed this position more closely have referred to it as “solA scriptura” which means “only the Bible.”

To add to the confusion, many Lutherans and Lutheran groups in the US have been highly influenced by American evangelicalism—so there are a large number of individual Lutherans who probably don’t understand this very well either.

Now enter the Catholic apologist, who opposes “solo scriptura” based on what she/he has told that it means, largely from evangelical or fundamentalist voices, who really (I’m sorry) are misstating the position–though probably not intentionally-in order to claim Luther as sort of a rhetorical talking point. This serves only to confound the confusion in Catholic circles and produces a great, great many unfortunate and ignorant statements.

It’s ok to debate “solo scriptura”; it’s simply important to define what you mean by the term and understand that the Protestant viewpoint is actually quite diverse on the subject.

Whenever you read or hear “Protestants claim XYZ” or “Protestants believe XYZ” the statement that follows will probably be incorrect and the person speaking very likely hasn’t done their homework. Protestantism is an extremely diverse religious phenomenon. One can’t generalize without risking huge errors.

Hope this was helpful.

 

[Elixir]

Distilled down to it’s essence Sola Scriptura is a way for Protestants to say they will accept no authority but their own.

Oh but the Bible is our authority. Ok then who interprets it? We do they say. Fine. That gets you chaos and 30,000 denominations…not exactly the unity Christ prayed for at the Last Supper.

That also gets you to agree with abortion, contraception, divorce…leads to homosexual “bishops”, women “priests” and tacit approval of gay marriage. In a word: chaos.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Distilled down to it’s essence Sola Scriptura is a way for Protestants to say they will accept no authority but their own.

Oh but the Bible is our authority. Ok then who interprets it? We do they say. Fine. That gets you chaos and 30,000 denominations…not exactly the unity Christ prayed for at the Last Supper.

That also gets you to agree with abortion, contraception, divorce…leads to homosexual “bishops”, women “priests” and tacit approval of gay marriage. In a word: chaos.

and that doesnt even include independent communities popping up all over the place that uses the Bible yet it doesnt even get close to the teaches of Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sola Scriptura:

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura​

I do agree that all authorities in Heaven and earth must submit to the Word God. there is no question on this.

the problem becomes when it is time to enterpret the written Word of God, who is the authority placed by God to do so?

protestant believes that they have the authority to decide what it says and not the CC.
now we have a bigger problem. which Church is found by Christ and have such authority?

protestants or the CC? this is a problem that only history can decide.

basically if one understands Scriptures, one can tell that the CC resembles a lot of Judaism and since the Church came out of Judaism it is more logic that the CC is the One. plus if one decide to investigate the Prophecies, one can see that those prophecies are being fulfilled in teh CC.

Plus, if you know the history of the Church, you can see that protestants are made up of people who rebelled against the CC and left to form their own religion. this religion is not the will of God, therefore they cannot be in position of authority, they have fallen into confusion and will remain until they decide to embrace the religion Jesus found. God is agianst the rebellious heart. God said this Himself. basically they are rebelling against God Himself.

 

[simspt]

**Please note that the next section is fully consistent with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
**
"There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.”

Do we need to go beyond the language of the Bible in order to fully and accurately explain the meaning of it- for example, when making a creed? Yes, we do. But a creed (just as it is with a translation, commentary, or teaching tool) is no better than second in authority in that it (whatever “it” is) must be judged by its ability to do what it’s supposed to do. The Bible is exempt from this kind of judgment because its only job is to be what it is.

Among religious documents, Protestants espouse a very narrow kind of exclusivity in the application of this term. So what I’m wondering is this: Does your complaint have to do with not understanding the meaning of terms like “self-authenticating” and “self-interpreting,” or do you have legitimate reasons for wishing to include other religious material (or no religious material) under those headings?

From what you said, it sounds like you have some kind of problem with referring to the Bible by any of these titles. That makes very little sense to me, because the only scenarios that seem remotely plausible are the ones where the Bible is the only self-authenticating religious document pertaining to matters of faith and morals or the Bible and a small number of other things may go by these titles. I choose the first option, and I would expect you to choose the second.

From the content of your post, though, it sounds like you’re advocating a situation where either no documents or materials qualify for such a description, or certain material besides the Bible (but not the Bible itself) may be called “self-whatever.” These last two scenarios don’t even sound like Christianity- it sounds a lot more like someone who thinks these adjectives are really verbs.

Thanks for the link. My point is simply many churches claim that they do not go beyond the NT which IMO is untenable. There are many who in their own minds accept nothing except whats in the Bible (I personally held that belief for a long time). Church Doctrine goes beyond what we know of Chrisitanity in the first century from the NT. Some think you can derive Doctrine solely by logic from the Scriptures but logic doesn’t answer how far some Doctrines have gone beyond the NT. Ecumenically the big question i guess is if one is asked to accept these doctrines, did anyone in the first century have these doctrines in mind. For example with the Trinity there is a clear incipient basis in Scriptures however the intrinsic parts of the doctrine as you know (three persons and one nature) required a great number of debates and Greek philosophy before the Church Fathers gave birth to the Doctrine as we know it. This would not have been caused if the NT was clear on this subject.When you look at those debates its clear the Fathers were aware that they were going beyond the NT. The classic struggle with the question of the equal divinity of Jesus being co eternal with the Father included during the great Nicea debate included some of the more conservative Fathers arguing against Athanasius not wanting to go beyond the Scriptures. Athanasius responded by claiming you couldn’t answer the heretics without going beyond the Scriptures because they asked questions that nobody asked during Scriptural times. That’s where we got the statement that there never was a time when He was not which is not said in the Scriptures. Athanasius said if you want to be loyal to the scriptures thats what must be said against Arius who said He had a beginning. There was recognition by the Fathers that they were going beyond the Scriptures but the more significant issue for them seems to have been making sure they were going in directions that where loyal to the Scriptures. This doesn’t mean texts in the NT are irrelevant but rather reflection on them asking questions of them once new problems arise has led the Church to its doctrine but the doctrine does reach a formulation that goes beyond the Scriptures.
Its not just an issue of lacking vocabulary, its lacking an issue that would cause the insight. If you ask what right does the Church move to such insights for me the question becomes does the Spirit of God move in the Church. For me its an act of faith that it does. IMO its not a matter of Logic or critical exegesis but rather a community living with a body of Scripture and feeling that God leads that community to an insight into Scripture. Karl Rahner has said that at the supreme point at which all reflections and democratic discussions are turned into a universally binding decision cannot be without meaning. He says this because he believes that when that moment comes the Spirit of God is at work in the Church. I would agree.

 

[cooterhein]

Thanks for the link. My point is simply many churches claim that they do not go beyond the NT which IMO is untenable.

Some do claim to have no use at all for tradition, which is untenable. Some will go as far as printing it on their bulletins or putting it on their signs- “No creed but the Bible.” Yet in reality, they probably meet on Sundays and believe the Trinity and the hypostatic union are indispensible doctrines, albeit not inspired by God.

There are many who in their own minds accept nothing except whats in the Bible (I personally held that belief for a long time).

Really? Nothing at all? How’d that go when you applied that principle in math class?

Church Doctrine goes beyond what we know of Chrisitanity in the first century from the NT. Some think you can derive Doctrine solely by logic from the Scriptures but logic doesn’t answer how far some Doctrines have gone beyond the NT.

This is true of Catholic doctrines, yes. But then again, you don’t have to be Catholic.

Personally, I have a ton of beliefs and opinions that cannot be logically reasoned to from the Scriptures. (This time of year, a lot of them have to do with predictions and assessments of football teams, both at the college and professional levels). But one thing I don’t have is doctrine that fails to meet that criteria. I won’t stand for that.

Ecumenically the big question i guess is if one is asked to accept these doctrines, did anyone in the first century have these doctrines in mind. For example with the Trinity there is a clear incipient basis in Scriptures

That’s usually the part I focus on.

however the intrinsic parts of the doctrine as you know (three persons and one nature) required a great number of debates and Greek philosophy before the Church Fathers gave birth to the Doctrine as we know it. This would not have been caused if the NT was clear on this subject.

And that part tends to be more of a blind spot, so thank you for bringing it to my attention in that way.

When you look at those debates…some of the more conservative Fathers argued against Athanasius not wanting to go beyond the Scriptures. Athanasius responded by claiming you couldn’t answer the heretics without going beyond the Scriptures because they asked questions that nobody asked during Scriptural times.

I’m definitely going to need a quote to that effect, because this could just as easily be something other than his stated reasons for doing what he did.

I looked for things that Athanasius may have said about “going beyond the Scriptures,” and this is what I found from his later works.

“Foolish are they who venture to say [various heresies] and venture to say “how much” or “how,” beyond the Scriptures. For by such notions have the minds of heretics lost their footing. [Various examples]…through excess of blasphemy, by an opinion about sin, a pretence of knowledge, disbelief in the Godhead, through madness…and you, who employ the same sophisms, say what is not written in Scripture and pervert the unstable. But it is enough to believe in what has been written, and in what has taken place…and not push speculations further, and so reject the truth.”

From “Later Treatises of St. Athanasius, with notes.” P. 141.

If you ask what right does the Church move to such insights for me the question becomes does the Spirit of God move in the Church.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean we’ll attribute the exact same things to Him.

For me its an act of faith that it does.

Me too, but we still don’t agree on everything He (not it) does.

IMO its not a matter of Logic or critical exegesis

I honestly can’t imagine doing any of this stuff without those things, though I know some Catholics do genuinely believe in an approach that leaves these kinds of things out. On one hand, I want to think they’re similar to the people who claim “no creed but the Bible” even though they’re obviously not. On the other hand, maybe it’s doable, but in some sense that I don’t know about yet. When I see something like that, my initial reaction is to think “They’re not even trying to come up with the author’s intended meaning.” But maybe there’s more to it than currently meets my eye.

but rather a community living with a body of Scripture and feeling that God leads that community to an insight into Scripture.

That looks a little bit like the reader-response method of interpretation, but it’s probably described as “reverence” in a more specifically Catholic context. I’m not as big a fan of those, and it’s not that I’m against seeking the help of God. I believe in seeking help from the Holy Spirit at all stages of the process. That said, you do have to give Him something to work with. For me, the bare minimum is my best effort at knowing what the Bible says, and that means the best available understanding (in the case of the NT) of what the Greek words mean. As far as I’m concerned, failure to do this (especially when you’re able to) is like reading about the Bible when you could be reading the Bible, then asking God to give you insight as if you’d actually read it.

Karl Rahner has said that at the supreme point at which all reflections and democratic discussions are turned into a universally binding decision cannot be without meaning. He says this because he believes that when that moment comes the Spirit of God is at work in the Church. I would agree.

At this point, we’re so far removed from the possibility of a truly “universally binding decision” that we won’t ever see any more of those. And when truly ecumenical councils were happening, no Christian ever hinted they might have been infallible. The possibility was never raised until the 9th century.

I do believe the Holy Spirit does things. Just not that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

definitely going to need a quote to that effect, because this could just as easily be something other than his stated reasons for doing what he did.

I looked for things that Athanasius may have said about “going beyond the Scriptures,” and this is what I found from his later works.

“Foolish are they who venture to say [various heresies] and venture to say “how much” or “how,” beyond the Scriptures. For by such notions have the minds of heretics lost their footing. [Various examples]…through excess of blasphemy, by an opinion about sin, a pretence of knowledge, disbelief in the Godhead, through madness…and you, who employ the same sophisms, say what is not written in Scripture and pervert the unstable. But it is enough to believe in what has been written, and in what has taken place…and not push speculations further, and so reject the truth.”

From “Later Treatises of St. Athanasius, with notes.” P. 141.

I do believe the Holy Spirit does things. Just not that.

obviously you have to show who is St Athanasius talkiing to. St Athanasius belongs to the Catholic Church. he wasnt speaking agaisnt the Church but to heretics who dissagreed with the Church. which we see it today in protestantism. protestantism is heresy to St Athanasius.

protestantism without any authority whatsoever wants to be the one to decide what is True but you cant. you cant even do away with the confusion among yourselves.

here, i dont think St Athanasius is the one for you.

**“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached
by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded;
and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D… **

 

[agent_grey]

Sola Scriptura as far as I can tell is a false Christ.

The word of God is a man not a book. Besides the Gospel quotes Christ as destroying the modern concept of scripture and scripture alone when Christ crushes the practice of devorce and remariage. The words recorded in the Gospel can not be reconciled with the Old testament as long as the concept of scripture and scripture alone is used.

This does not mean that the original scriptures in the original language with a correct understandiong of the culture, language and traditions of the time would not produce the truth.

 

[JonNC]

=agent_grey;7217272]Sola Scriptura as far as I can tell is a false Christ.

The word of God is a man not a book.

Not sure what you mean here, agent. Are you saying you interpret SS as being a confusion between the word of God (scripture), and the Word made flesh, Christ?

Besides the Gospel quotes Christ as destroying the modern concept of scripture and scripture alone when Christ crushes the practice of devorce and remariage. The words recorded in the Gospel can not be reconciled with the Old testament as long as the concept of scripture and scripture alone is used.

If they cannot be reconciled, then there is contradiction. I see Christ as fulfillment of the law, not in contradiction with it.

This does not mean that the original scriptures in the original language with a correct understandiong of the culture, language and traditions of the time would not produce the truth.

Exactly.

Jon

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m glad I’m learning all of this, because at least when I debate Sola Scriptura I can debate the real doctrine and not the strawman that Catholics (IMO) all too often set up to knock down with ease.

VERY helpful thread, thanks.