Explain sola scriptura to me

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

Probably for many of the same reasons the Catholics stopped being orthodox and the Orthodox quit being catholic.
Scripture is generally designated the authoritative interpreter of scripture. It is the one, holy, apostolic, individual source upon which all others are judged.
It is more reliable than the Sola Ecclesia alternative.
It is antidote for the religious supremism that purists in any group tend to lead groups toward, and for the myths that groups tend to foster.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

People have a hard time accepting the fact that, other than the core fundamental that Jesus died on the Christ for the sins of mankind, a lot of our theology has evolved and changed over time. Sacraments even have changed. People used to do the Lord's Supper sacrament EVERY dinner they ate together. [I believe Quakers practice it this way]

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

Yes, SS, itself a man-made doctrine, has probably produced more disunity of doctrine within Christainity than any other possible means.

fhansen said:

Yes, SS, itself a man-made doctrine, has probably produced more disunity of doctrine within Christainity than any other possible means.

Click to expand...

It has also probably produced more bible reading than any man-made sola ecclesia doctrine.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

The Church remains one holy catholic and apostolic Church whether everyone agrees about details or not. As long as we all have a sincere and loving relationship with Christ we are part of that Church. From what i can tell, one is part of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church if one conforms to the criterion Paul describes in Romans 10:9

Romans 10:9
New International Version
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Anything else is a detail. Authority belongs to Christ not to any institution. There can be no authoritative interpretation of scripture that comes from a human agency as no one other than God has the authority to impose upon the entire Church an interpretation of the written word of God. All we can do is interpret it to the best of our limited ability by sincerely seeking the help of the Holy Spirit and using the tools available which would include being cognizant of the wisdom of those that have come before us ,the humility to doubt our own interpretation's validity and the awareness that no one, whether clergy or laity, denomination or individual, is exempt from being mistaken.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"?

It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

Why do Catholics always have to lie about what we believe? Is Catholic taqiyya really what passes for good fruit in Catholicism?

How do you explain all of the Catholics who don't agree on Catholic teaching, or the more than 240 divisions that exist within Catholicism?

fhansen said:

Yes, SS, itself a man-made doctrine, has probably produced more disunity of doctrine within Christainity than any other possible means.

Click to expand...

2nd Kings 22:10-13 - "And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."

Matthew 4:3-4 - "And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Matthew 4:5-11 - Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Matthew 4:8 - "Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

Matthew 21:42 - "Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"

Revelation 22:18-19 -"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!"

Matthew 12:3-5 -"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"

Matthew 19:4-5 "And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

Matthew 22:31-32 - "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living."

Luke 10:26 - "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Matthew 22:29 -"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"

Matthew 26:24 -"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

John 5:39 - "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."

And since we know how much you guys love he ECFs...

Augustine of Hippo: "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." (Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 11, Chapter 3)

Cyril of Jerusalem: This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Gregory of Nyssa: "The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Gregory of Nyssa: “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” (On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327)

[Again, the final court of arbitration is the Scriptures, not the church. Respect is always given to the ecclesiastical authority and tradition by the early church, but Scriptures hold a unique place of authority.]

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).

Basil the Great: “We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” (On the Holy Spirit, 7.16)

[This sounds a lot like Martin Luther at Worms. While we respect the tradition of the Fathers, they don’t bring contentment unless they followed the Scriptures.]

Augustine: 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. (City of God, book XI, Chapter 3, )

Augustine: Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.” (Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5)

Augustine: “Many false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and shall do many signs and wonders, that they may deceive, if it were possible, the very elect: behold, I have told you before.” This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other; for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long before their occurrence. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 13.5)

Augustine: “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” (De unitate ecclesiae, 10)

Irenaeus: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Against Heresies 3.1.1)

[Please note how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. They proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and “at a later period” handed it down “in the Scriptures” which is now the “ground and pillar of our faith.” Sounds very Protestant.]

Clement of Alexandria: “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” (The Stromata, 7:16)

[Notice the final court of appeal is the Scriptures, not the church. The “those” who are encouraged to toil in the most excellent pursuits do not refer to the church ecclesiastical authority, but to all people. All people are encouraged here to search for truth and find it finally in the Scriptures.]

Athanasius: “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.” (Against the Heathen, 1:3 )

[This speaks to the vital doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture that we dealt with earlier. The Scriptures being “fully sufficient,” is simply a seed form of sola Scriptura.]

Ambrose: “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

South Bound said:

Why do Catholics always have to lie about what we believe? Is Catholic taqiyya really what passes for good fruit in Catholicism?

How do you explain all of the Catholics who don't agree on Catholic teaching, or the more than 240 divisions that exist within Catholicism?

Click to expand...

That argument is completely vacuous. Human beings since the fall have always been the problem-they don't necessarily adhere to the truth. The truth of revelation has always been the answer. To the degree that we conform to it, that we're one in will with it, we live under right beliefs. But God never forces His will to be done, not in Eden and not now. People will always look for ways to subvert or ignore His revelation, no matter how clearly expressed. For example the Church's teaching on abortion/prolife is explicit (while less so in Scripture BTW), and yet people claiming to be Catholic are still pro choice.

fhansen said:

That argument is completely vacuous. Human beings since the fall have always been the problem-they don't necessarily adhere to the truth. The truth of revelation has always been the answer. To the degree that we conform to it, that we're one in will with it, we live under right beliefs. But God never forces His will to be done, not in Eden and not now. People will always look for ways to subvert or ignore His revelation, no matter how clearly expressed. For example the Church's teaching on abortion/prolife is explicit (while less so in Scripture BTW), and yet people claiming to be Catholic are still pro choice.

Click to expand...

You should see the Catholics on CARM: "Catholics pray to angels." "Catholics don't pray to angels." "We believe we're saved by grace." "Of course we're saved by grace, but you still have to have works." "Purgatory is for the expiation of sin." "Purgatory isn't for the expiation of sin." They can't agree with themselves on primary issues, but then turn around and criticize us for not agreeing on secondary issues, in spite of the fact that the Bible is clear that there will be disagreements over these things and that we are to extend grace to those who disagree.

South Bound said:

You should see the Catholics on CARM: "Catholics pray to angels." "Catholics don't pray to angels." "We believe we're saved by grace." "Of course we're saved by grace, but you still have to have works." "Purgatory is for the expiation of sin." "Purgatory isn't for the expiation of sin." They can't agree with themselves on primary issues, but then turn around and criticize us for not agreeing on secondary issues, in spite of the fact that the Bible is clear that there will be disagreements over these things and that we are to extend grace to those who disagree.

Click to expand...

For some reason I guess I need to repeat: Human beings since the fall have always been the problem. They can read their Catechism. Then they'll know what Catholicism is, what the Church teaches, and they can seek to conform themselves or they can leave if they prefer. But at least they'll be coming from a perspective of knowledge, which people 'perish for lack of'. It's perfectly easy to find the unified Catholic position. Its another thing to unify people around it.

fhansen said:

For some reason I guess I need to repeat: Human beings since the fall have always been the problem. They can read their Catechism. Then they'll know what Catholicism is, what the Church teaches, and they can seek to conform themselves or they can leave if they prefer. But at least they'll be coming from a perspective of knowledge, which people 'perish for lack of'. It's perfectly easy to find the unified Catholic position. Its another thing to unify people around it.

Click to expand...

So why hold us to a different standard? Why is disagreement within Protestantism evidence that the Biblical doctrine of sola scripture is wrong, but disagreements within Catholicism not evidence that the Unbiblical doctrine of sola ecclesia is wrong?

South Bound said:

So why hold us to a different standard? Why is disagreement within Protestantism evidence that the Biblical doctrine of sola scripture is wrong, but disagreements within Catholicism not evidence that the Unbiblical doctrine of sola ecclesia is wrong?

Click to expand...

Since this point has been made here oh, at least fifty times in my memory, and never to my recollection even responded to, it does tend to lend credence to the suspicion that such claims are merely memorized "hit lines" to be used on other Christians as opposed to actual misunderstandings.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure I understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. How is it not a recipe for religious individualism that undermines the very concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it. And yet, if this were so, why couldn't Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists, and the hundreds of other Protestant sects agree on the "plain meaning of Scripture"?

Click to expand...

That's because sola scriptura hasn't been elevated to the status of doctrine, it is merely a practice, a practice which makes no assurance of purity or consistency of doctrine and which has no specific mandate in the Sacred Scriptures.

s

tadoflamb said:

That's because sola scriptura hasn't been elevated to the status of doctrine, it is merely a practice, a practice which makes no assurance of purity or consistency of doctrine and which has no specific mandate in the Sacred Scriptures.

Click to expand...

"No specific mandate" if you don't consider numerous statements that say, in way or another, "You can trust this. It's of highest value. It is God's word."

And of course, there is NO place in scripture that suggest the alternative that is always being pushed on us in these forums.

Albion said:

Since this point has been made here oh, at least fifty times in my memory, and never to my recollection even responded to, it does tend to lend credence to the suspicion that such claims are merely memorized "hit lines" to be used on other Christians as opposed to actual misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

This topic comes up almost word for word as the OP on CARM at least once a week. It's pretty clear after a while that the questions are not sincere, but are merely talking points.

FireDragon76 said:

It seems a great many conservative, confessional churches deny that Scripture needs any authoritative interpreter or context (tradition) to understand it.

Click to expand...

Who would you suggest, the Pope? I would have thought the dangers of investing sinful human creatures with that kind of power are too obvious to need spelling out.

In theology, as in science, the moderating influence comes from the consensus of scholarly opinion. Any ideas which are too wacky are likely to get summarily dismissed.

Sola scriptura means that everything is tested by Scripture. That’s a bit different than saying that everyone starts from scratch to develop their own theology from Scripture. There is theological tradition, based on theological scholarship. At least in the confessional churches, this fact is acknowleged.

What sola scriptura does is say that in principle all theology has to be supported by Scripture. So you can always challenge tradition. In principle this means that Protestant churches can correct themselves more easily than the Catholic tradition. How well that works out in practice you’ll have to judge for yourself. I tend to be a bit skeptical. I think it’s a good theory, but it’s not so often practiced well.

If things were working properly, we should see a single Protestant tradition, or maybe a few major traditions, making continuing adjustments in theology. In practice there are some groups that work that way, but the usual reality is much messier. Changes tend to happen by creating new groups, not by continuing reformation of existing ones. And new groups seem to happen as often due to someone’s hare-brained idea as genuine new understanding.

I’d claim, however, that the mainline churches have done a reasonable job of implementing the stated strategy. They have been willing to change, but change has generally been based on real new scholarship. An encouraging sign is that those changes have tended to bring the major traditional theological approaches together.

FireDragon76 said:

The Eastern Orthodox do fine without a Pope. What I'm talking about is why it seems like Sola Scriptura has become "private opinion". I've even seen Protestant apologists use those terms "the right of private judgment" to describe this. "Private judgment = ecclesial chaos"

There are many Catholics that disagree with official Church teachings, but many of them don't leave the Church because of it. I think it comes from something Protestants sometimes lack- a desire for stability in their spiritual life, and sometimes even a sense of humility, that they could be wrong.



Ah yes, theology by scholars... another thing I just don't get. Jesus thanks the Father that he has kept the Truth from the wise and given it to little children. Sometimes I think theology via scholarship is an idol. In contrast, I tend to believe knowing God is done on your knees in prayer. At the very least, we must have a balanced between the head and the heart, theology should reflect the whole person, not just the intellect.

Click to expand...

I would say the theology around SS has also changed over time. I am working on AA in religion right now through Liberty University Online. The bible inductive class taught me that proper interpretation requires more than just reading. Context context context. Historical context[1] must be taken into understanding, who wrote it? When did they write it? who did they originally write it for? What was the culture at the time? Literary context[2] must also be taken into consideration. IE you cannot just isolate a single verse and create a single doctrine out of that. That is ridiculous. A strong concordance for the greek/hebrew words. on top of a simple understanding that certain ancient expressions do not always make sense to the modern reader is another thing. Words change over time, and we have to understand that the greek word then might not even mean the greek word now, for example, the denotation and the connotation might have shifted through the centuries. The last thing you need, is the obvious, the Holy Spirit for guidance in interpretation. A non-christian can understand 1 and 2, but they still won't get what the heck is being really said. You cannot "make the bible say what you want to say" not if you're taking into what I have just explained into perspective. You have to read what it says and means, and apply its teachings to you in a modern context. It isn't what the verse means to you, it is what the verse means period, first.