Why sola scriptura is right

[MrPizzaDude]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

 

[adrift]

There has been an on going discussion with the current one SS

Perhaps you should repost there.

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

If this were true, than you wouldn’t have any disagreement to what Scripture meant. As it is there is many different interpretations. Take Matthew 16:18 or 1 Timothy 3:15 not to mention John 6. If it were sufficient, why is there so much disagreement?

 

[adrift]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

No and Jesus didn’t intend it either. Jesus did not say go and write but go and preach. The direction of His church was “upon this Rock” not upon this writings.

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

If is were clear, there would be a universal agreement on what scripture meant. there is not

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

Nope
If this were true, than you wouldn’t have any disagreement to what Scripture meant. As it is there is many different interpretations. Take Matthew 16:18 or 1 Timothy 3:15 not to mention John 6. If it were sufficient, why is there so much disagreement?
There has been an on going discussion of this topic with the current one Follow up on SS Perhaps you should repost there. I see that you don’t usually post to threads that you start. Why are you here than if you aren’t going to participate in a discussion? (Edited)

 

[DavidFilmer]

One wonders how the first Christians got by in the decades that it took for Scripture to be written and accepted.

 

[JonNC]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

“This IS my body.”

Jon

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

We have before us a factual question: which method did God choose to hand down his word authoritatively and normatively through history? Is it by (a) the preexisting view of the CC (and EOC) at the eve of the Reformation, i.e., God established that His word is transmitted by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church (=STC); or (b) or the newer method proposed by the Reformers, sola scriptura (=SS)?

Truths for a fair sola scriptura discussion with Catholics.

(1) The teaching of the CC was (and is) that the CC is continuous (and has always held itself to be continuous) with that of the Apostles at Pentecost and likewise the tradition it handed on. Unity and continuity are inherent in STC as understood by the CC at the time.

(2) The Reformers protested against STC claiming rather that Scripture is the sole rule of faith (=SS), and based on this, that the Church and councils have erred, and CC has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it.
Luther and Calvin explicitly offer arguments against the preexisting view, STC. That is, given that the Reformers tenants were newer than the preexisting view, they had (and did assume) the burden of proof in this matter.

(3) In arguing against STC the Reformers set the results of their interpretation of Scripture alone over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted, that is, over against the content transmitted by STC including STC itself.

(4) Any definition of the CC’s position by Protestants for purposes of discussion and evaluation must, to be fair, include the unity and continuity of STC.
So, for example, to say “the CC accepts Scripture but believes that one must add to it by tradition and its own decrees” is not defining what the CC believes. Such a definition would at least be evaluating and interpreting STC by means of SS if not simply rephrasing SS.

(5) Any attempt to check for SS versus STC in the fathers and Ecumenical Councils must include their doing what the Reformers did in (3) above.
So for a father or Council merely to assert that Scripture is probative or that every conviction must be tested by Scripture would not constitute SS. SS must include them holding their interpretation of Scripture over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted. In other words, if a given father or Council really taught and practiced SS they must be doing what the Reformers did with respect to STC.

The burden of proof is on those advancing the newer Reformation teaching. They must show why one is rationally (theologically) compelled to abandon STC for SS.

 

[JM3]

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

Matthew 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

 

[Georgia]

If scripture alone were the answer, every sincere Christian would have the same faith. There would be no deviations.

Driving within an hour of my house and one can find two churches of the same denomination sharing a property line. There are churches claiming the same faith across the street from one another. Within a mile on the same road, there can be four churches, same denomination, all with nearly identical sets of beliefs. They often begin with disagreements on interpretations of scripture that lead into church splits.

Both sides are sincere people seeking to follow God’s will and are trying to follow scripture. Yet they plainly find things in the Bible that others do not. If the Bible were self-interpreting and free of a church holding the deposit of faith, that would never happen.

 

[meltzerboy]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

Judaism, like Catholicism, does not believe in sola Scriptura except for the Karaites. Of the other solas: sola Fide, solus Christus, sola Gratia, and soli Deo Gloria, only the latter conforms to the tenets of Judaism.

 

[adawgj]

How would Sola Scriptura work if the Bible doesn’t teach it.

Also there was a Church before a Bible.

 

[dmar198]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

I think it’s interesting that this proof of Sola-Scriptura doesn’t cite any Scriptures. If Sola Scriptura is true, then the easiest proof of it should be to quote the verses that say so. If there are none, then not every doctrine is in Scripture, because that one isn’t.

Meanwhile, Catholics just go by the Bible: “Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by a letter from us.” 2 Thess. 2:15.

This verse is clear: we’re not supposed to go by the writings alone. So don’t. The Bible says not to, so don’t.

 

[McCartney]

One wonders how the first Christians got by in the decades that it took for Scripture to be written and accepted.

Exactly what I was going to say. You beat me to it.

 

[jediliz]

One wonders how the first Christians got by in the decades that it took for Scripture to be written and accepted.

Not to mention the years it took for the monks to hand copy scripture word for word…after the books had been chosen.

 

[Ambien89]

I enjoy how Calvin decided that Pope Gregory the Great was the ‘last good pope’. However, I wonder about his criterion.

 

[landon13]

Judaism, like Catholicism, does not believe in sola Scriptura except for the Karaites. Of the other solas: sola Fide, solus Christus, sola Gratia, and soli Deo Gloria, only the latter conforms to the tenets of Judaism.

This was a big thing in my journey to Catholicism because I studied for the roots of Christianity and found Judaism. I really was shocked when I found that Jewish people don’t believe in a similar sola-Torah or sola-Tanakh.

 

[rcwitness]

Sacred Scripture (73 books) is materially sufficient for our salvation. It is the written revelation of the old and new Covenants. But it is not formally sufficient. It is usefull for Teaching. The bible cannot baptize you, nor are we told to eat Scripture to Commune with Christ. We are given the Spirit of Interpretation to keep us in the one mind of the Spirit who inspired the written Word. We have apostolic Teaching to Confirm us.

Sacred Scripture
Sacred Tradition
Magisterium (Church binding interpretation)

We can profit much from Scripture. We can learn what is pleasing to God. We can learn the gospel and Teachings of the Apostles. But we believe there is a living apostolic Teaching body always in the Church. Not to rule over us, or ‘make’ rules, but to Confirm the faithfull as a whole body what is Apostolic interpretation regarding faith and morals.

Since the Written Word was privately translated and dispersed, thee has been continued division all claiming one source! I will seek Gods unity through His Holy Orders and the Eucharist at their hands. And I will interpret Scripture through the Spirit of His one bride.

Peace
Michael

 

[marymary1975]

We have before us a factual question: which method did God choose to hand down his word authoritatively and normatively through history? Is it by (a) the preexisting view of the CC (and EOC) at the eve of the Reformation, i.e., God established that His word is transmitted by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Apostolic Church (=STC); or (b) or the newer method proposed by the Reformers, sola scriptura (=SS)?

Truths for a fair sola scriptura discussion with Catholics.

(1) The teaching of the CC was (and is) that the CC is continuous (and has always held itself to be continuous) with that of the Apostles at Pentecost and likewise the tradition it handed on. Unity and continuity are inherent in STC as understood by the CC at the time.

(2) The Reformers protested against STC claiming rather that Scripture is the sole rule of faith (=SS), and based on this, that the Church and councils have erred, and CC has not preserved apostolic tradition or its own apostolic continuity, but rather has departed from it.
Luther and Calvin explicitly offer arguments against the preexisting view, STC. That is, given that the Reformers tenants were newer than the preexisting view, they had (and did assume) the burden of proof in this matter.

(3) In arguing against STC the Reformers set the results of their interpretation of Scripture alone over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted, that is, over against the content transmitted by STC including STC itself.

(4) Any definition of the CC’s position by Protestants for purposes of discussion and evaluation must, to be fair, include the unity and continuity of STC.
So, for example, to say “the CC accepts Scripture but believes that one must add to it by tradition and its own decrees” is not defining what the CC believes. Such a definition would at least be evaluating and interpreting STC by means of SS if not simply rephrasing SS.

(5) Any attempt to check for SS versus STC in the fathers and Ecumenical Councils must include their doing what the Reformers did in (3) above.
So for a father or Council merely to assert that Scripture is probative or that every conviction must be tested by Scripture would not constitute SS. SS must include them holding their interpretation of Scripture over against that of the existing Church and Tradition and the faith thus transmitted. In other words, if a given father or Council really taught and practiced SS they must be doing what the Reformers did with respect to STC.

The burden of proof is on those advancing the newer Reformation teaching. They must show why one is rationally (theologically) compelled to abandon STC for SS.

 

[Petaro]

the Word God spoke through apostles and prophets and intended for the direction of his church is now found only in sacred Scripture,

the teaching of Scripture is sufficiently clear on the main things so as to be able to make ordinary people wise for salvation and to equip for every good work,

ultimate certainty as to the authority of the Word of God written comes from the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart, and

Scripture is a sufficient and final court of appeal in matters of faith and morals.

If you were right all Christians would agree on all the main moral decisions affecting our Faith and would make us all wise for salvation, If you were right the witness of the Spirit of God in the believer’s heart would speak only one truth and one way.

The discord of belief and interpretations of the Scripture by the myriad of Protestant churches shows clearly that you are wrong.
I am sad for you.

 

[Todd977]

I think, Acts 15 gives us an idea how matters of faith and morals were authoritatively decided in the Christian Church in New Testament times, namely, by a council made up of Church leaders, the apostles and other Church elders, in fact their decision was regarded as the decision of the Holy Spirit. There is no reason to assume that Church elders lost their ability to make authoritative decisions when the apostles died.

This is consistent with Jesus’ directions to take your disagreements with your brother to the Church, if they could not be settled among yourselves and before witnesses. This is consistent with Paul’s description of church leaders as the God-given remedy against being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. (Ephesians 4:11-16) This is consistent with the author of Hebrews’ direction to obey your leaders and submit to them. (Hebrews 13:17)

 

[arenz69]

How would Sola Scriptura work if the Bible doesn’t teach it.

Also there was a Church before a Bible.

Your historical point is dead on. To quote St. Augustine: “I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”

Peace!