Sola Scriptura

OzSpen · Mar 18, 2016

All4Christ said:
I find that knowing one's background in religion can help conversation to be more productive. When we understand the other person's perspective, it is easier to communicate clearly.

My personal background is varied (started out Pentecostal /Evangelical, explored the Reformed Churches and a bit of Catholicism and eventually became Orthodox).

I came to Christ when exposed to the Gospel after my parents were converted to Christ in 1959 through Billy Graham's preaching in Brisbane. My parents then attended a Baptist church in the cane farming community where we lived. I was baptised there. I spent a few years as a radio DJ and TV newsreader.

Later I became an Assemblies of God pastor and Bible college teacher. I am currently ordained with a baptistic denomination, The Christian & Missionary Alliance. Much of my ministry has been involved in counselling agencies with secular clients, but I have worked in teaching and on the streets with Teen Challenge. I've spent the last 5 years working on a PhD dissertation (dissertation-only in the British system) in NT. Thus, I'm in the midst of a busy writing schedule of articles and open to the possibility of publishing a book, based on the dissertation.

I hope that that gives some background to where I"m coming from.

Oz

All4Christ · Mar 18, 2016

OzSpen said:
I came to Christ when exposed to the Gospel after my parents were converted to Christ in 1959 through Billy Graham's preaching in Brisbane. My parents then attended a Baptist church in the cane farming community where we lived. I was baptised there. I spent a few years as a radio DJ and TV newsreader.

Later I became an Assemblies of God pastor and Bible college teacher. I am currently ordained with a baptistic denomination, The Christian & Missionary Alliance. Much of my ministry has been involved in counselling agencies with secular clients, but I have worked in teaching and on the streets with Teen Challenge. I've spent the last 5 years working on a PhD dissertation (dissertation-only in the British system) in NT. Thus, I'm in the midst of a busy writing schedule of articles and open to the possibility of publishing a book, based on the dissertation.

I hope that that gives some background to where I"m coming from.

Oz

Thank you for sharing your background!

I too was Assemblies of God for many years - it was a very formative time of my life. My parents are currently in the AoG church, so I've kept in touch with that community. Teen Challenge is a great organization - I've met many who were greatly impacted in that ministry. My grandpa was very involved in helping with Teen Challenge as well.

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

OzSpen said:
Mark,

That's the kind of argumentation I've heard from others so I did my searching of the church fathers.

Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, goes back long before the time of the Reformation. I've documented some of the strong statements in support of the authority of Scripture in the church fathers. See my article, Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

Sincerely,
Oz

This website quoted:

1. Theophilus of Antioch (ca 115-181).[9]

Click to expand...

‘It would be acting according to demonic inspiration to follow the thinking of the human mind and to think there could be anything divine apart from the authority of the Scriptures‘ (Pascal Letter 401)

Certainly there are things that are divine that are "distinct from" the scriptures. God himself is "distinct from" his word in scripture.But God is not totally apart from scripture. If Moses gave a message from God that wasn't in Torah, it's still divine.
Same thing is true with Councils. They are not totally apart from scripture but based on them, and the first Ecumenical Council came 100+ years after Theophilius.

It must be kept in mind that Theophilus is addressing only those questions raised by Autolycus — the invisibility of the Christian God, the faith in the resurrection, the name of Christian, and the question of the alleged inferiority of Christian Scripture to Greek philosophy and literature.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_2.htm#_Toc16316380

Contrast this with Theophilius' own statement:
"But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and
made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous... And there was not one or two, but many, at various times and seasons among the Hebrews; and also among the Greeks there was the Sibyl..."
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0165-0183,_Theophilus_Antiochenus,_Ad_Autolycum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the only infallible and final authority on faith.
In Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and Methodism we hold that scripture is the highest authority (prima scriptura) and is commonly said to be infallible. If the authority of scripture is higher than any other written or spoken authority in the church, does that mean we hold to sola scriptura too?

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 23, 2016

rakovsky said:
Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is the only infallible and final authority on faith.
In Orthodoxy and Anglicanism and Methodism we hold that scripture is the highest authority (prima scriptura) and is commonly said to be infallible. If the authority of scripture is higher than any other written or spoken authority in the church, does that mean we hold to sola scriptura too?

As a confessional Lutheran, we do claim Sola Scriptura... and for other Solas (Solus Christus, Sola Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia); all do hold a "prima" place in our theology. As I stated before, Scripture is used to norm everything. If it conflicts with Scripture (God's inerrant Word), one has to discard it; but a tradition that may not be pulled directly from Scripture, such as the use of white and gold vestments and paraments for high festivals neither conflicts with or is forbidden by Scripture, so we go with tradition. Not only is no harm done, but it adds a depth to the observance of a festival that is a commemoration of that which is revealed to us in Scripture.

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

MarkRohfrietsch said:
As a confessional Lutheran, we do claim Sola Scriptura... and for other Solas (Solus Christus, Sola Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia); all do hold a "prima" place in our theology. As I stated before, Scripture is used to norm everything. If it conflicts with Scripture (God's inerrant Word), one has to discard it; but a tradition that may not be pulled directly from Scripture, such as the use of white and gold vestments and paraments for high festivals neither conflicts with or is forbidden by Scripture, so we go with tradition. Not only is no harm done, but it adds a depth to the observance of a festival that is a commemoration of that which is revealed to us in Scripture.

Sure.
Is there an exact official definition of Sola Scriptura?

One definition I heard is that it means the Bible is the only written source that is both infallible and final. This could be true even in the Catholic scheme, if the Bible is considered the highest written authority, so that if something were proven to them to be against scripture, they would go with scripture, theoretically. For example, I found:

among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html

Here is another definition:

"The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3).

http://bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php

But this definition is tougher to interpret. Scripture is not the sole rule and norm of all doctrine, if as you pointed out an issue (eg. vestment colors) could arise that is not clearly judged by scripture and some other rules must be considered.

The Lutheran website later says:

The Confessions, on the other hand, are the "basis, rule, and norm, indicating how all doctrines should be judged in conformity with the Word of God" (ibid., Heading). This means, quite simply, that the Confessions state what we Lutherans believe to be the teachings of Scripture and what we therefore believe, teach, and publicly confess.

Other good Christian writings, that is, "good, useful, and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doctrinal articles" have their place too. They are not to be rejected or spurned. "If they are in accord with the aforementioned pattern of doctrine [namely, the Confessions], they are to be accepted and used as helpful expositions and explanations"
http://bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php

In other words, there are also other "rules and norms" that are distinct from scripture itself, even though they are in accordance with scripture. So it is not so easy for me even within a Lutheran scheme to simply define Sola Scriptura to say that the scripture is the "only rule and norm."

~Anastasia~ · Mar 23, 2016

Was it in this thread or another that All4Christ was pulling together different approaches to sola scriptura?

I was surprised when I first read what Luther said in the beginning, which was not all that different from the way the Orthodox Church approaches Scripture. Differences may be largely due to the fact that the Church predates Scripture, while by the time Luther established his, Scripture was already in place.

On down the line through the version(s) I was initially taught, across the spectrum to those who claim to hold that nothing that isn't explicitly written in Scripture can be a part of religious practice at all (which is ironic, given that somewhere in there, EVERY denomination practices SOMEthing - and probably many somethings - that are not found in Scripture.

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Was it in this thread or another that All4Christ was pulling together different approaches to sola scriptura?

I was surprised when I first read what Luther said in the beginning, which was not all that different from the way the Orthodox Church approaches Scripture. Differences may be largely due to the fact that the Church predates Scripture, while by the time Luther established his, Scripture was already in place.

On down the line through the version(s) I was initially taught, across the spectrum to those who claim to hold that nothing that isn't explicitly written in Scripture can be a part of religious practice at all (which is ironic, given that somewhere in there, EVERY denomination practices SOMEthing - and probably many somethings - that are not found in Scripture.

It would just be good to get a clear, brief definition of Sola Scriptura that is from Luther or the Book of Concord, etc.

1. Just saying that it's the "sole rule and norm" does not really seem to match other statements Lutheranism makes about writings outside the Bible also being "rules and norms".

2. To say that the Bible is the only infallible or divinely inspired authority would not really be something Orthodox would agree with, because many Orthodox consider the Seven Councils authoritative and infallible. Besides, God has inspired saints to do and say things. Luther even seemed to talk as if his own ideas were divinely inspired:

"Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" (Luther, 682)

"I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words"(God's words - the violence of representation, Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002.

http://www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm

3. Saying that it's the only written authority that is both infallible and final would seem to be something Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans could all accept, since they consider scripture the highest written authority.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 23, 2016

I cannot speak for Lutherans whether they today regard sola scriptura in the same way that Luther defined it at one point. Here is one post where I was trying to explore those ideas:

~Anastasia~ said:
I just read an excellent post and have permission to share from CryptoLutheran. I'll post the entire thing below for reference.

What most interested me was the part where he talked about how the Reformers understood Sola Scriptura (and I would argue that it is their understanding that matters, since they were the ones originally arguing for it). Specifically that they allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not to lord over it). I had not realized this, and I'd like to explore whether those in the Reformed Tradition still agree with this, and what that might look like.

To be honest, I do not find it that different from the way the Orthodox Church explains their view of Scripture, which is namely that while Tradition as a whole informs the Church, Scripture is the central and most authoritative part of that Tradition.

So I'm most interested in whether and how much the Reformed statement differs from the practices of Orthodoxy, and related discussion. As well as how the Reformed statement compares to the practices of Sola Scriptura today.

Other questions related to this topic are welcome also, but I would ask that we not seek to turn this into a argument about particular churches. I would like to discuss the ideas and practices as much as possible.

Thank you!

The part that was relevant to me at the time was this:

they allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not to lord over it)

I cannot find the "original" (supposedly) statement from Luther that I had posted here on the forums at one point, I believe in a different thread, nor can I turn it up reliably in a quick search just now, but it seemed consistent (to me) with what CryptoLutheran was saying.

I have a little trouble discussing Luther and "the infallibility of Scripture" in the same breath, given the exception he took to some parts of it, because it is impossible for me to really know what he might have meant in that case. I don't wish to be disrespectful to anyone though.

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
I have a little trouble discussing Luther and "the infallibility of Scripture" in the same breath, given the exception he took to some parts of it, because it is impossible for me to really know what he might have meant in that case. I don't wish to be disrespectful to anyone though.

I know what you mean. It could be that sola scriptura is not actually even a theoretical difference from Catholicism, but only a difference on emphasis: Luther emphasizing the Bible far more than Tradition while Catholicism emphasizing both.

Likewise, "infallibility" may not be absolute in practice either, for the example you mentioned.

OzSpen · Mar 23, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Differences may be largely due to the fact that the Church predates Scripture, while by the time Luther established his, Scripture was already in place.

This is not exactly true as the OT predates the church and the OT is Scripture (cf 2 Tim 3:16 where 'all Scripture' primarily refers to the OT).

Oz

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

OzSpen said:
This is not exactly true as the OT predates the church and the OT is Scripture (cf 2 Tim 3:16 where 'all Scripture' primarily refers to the OT).

Oz

You have to go farther than the OT though. Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount were not yet published in formal scripture in AD 32. But even then, Christ's then-extrabiblical teachings had greater authority than the OT.

Anastasia's point is that since Orthodoxy was around in AD 33, but the scripture of the NT wasn't yet formalized, extrabiblical teachings by Jesus had more authority than the OT scriptures. Scripture is part of Christian Tradition, not outside of it. That's how we got our Orthodox method of finding truth in religion.

Anyway, would you be able to give us the formal definition of Sola Scriptura explicitly and originally stated by the Lutherans? I am having trouble finding it.

OzSpen · Mar 23, 2016

rakovsky said:
You have to go farther than the OT though. Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount were not yet published in formal scripture in AD 32. But even then, Christ's then-extrabiblical teachings had greater authority than the OT.

That doesn't alter what I said.

Christ's teaching after his death and ascension was passed on in oral tradition. It doesn't have to be passed on in written form to be authoritative. By AD 150, much of the NT was in written form, according to the Muratorian canon.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 23, 2016

OzSpen said:
This is not exactly true as the OT predates the church and the OT is Scripture (cf 2 Tim 3:16 where 'all Scripture' primarily refers to the OT).

Oz

Well, I had in mind "Christian practice and doctrine" since the context of my post was Luther's teachings, which most people would look to the NT for. But of course the worship of the early Church grew out of the OT Jewish practices Christ Himself grew up participating in.

rakovsky · Mar 23, 2016

OzSpen said:
That doesn't alter what I said.

Christ's teaching after his death and ascension was passed on in oral tradition. It doesn't have to be passed on in written form to be authoritative. By AD 150, much of the NT was in written form, according to the Muratorian canon.

OK. Much is not all.

In any case, would you be able to give us the formal definition of Sola Scriptura explicitly and originally stated by the Lutherans? I am having trouble finding it.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 23, 2016

OzSpen said:
That doesn't alter what I said.

Christ's teaching after his death and ascension was passed on in oral tradition. It doesn't have to be passed on in written form to be authoritative. By AD 150, much of the NT was in written form, according to the Muratorian canon.

I thought you were arguing against Tradition.

Of course what was passed on orally was authoritative. I think that's what we are saying.

OzSpen · Mar 24, 2016

rakovsky said:
OK. Much is not all.

In any case, would you be able to give us the formal definition of Sola Scriptura explicitly and originally stated by the Lutherans? I am having trouble finding it.

Why don't you contact one of the Lutherans on this forum? I am not a Lutheran.

Here is some historical theology on the development of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Oz

OzSpen · Mar 24, 2016

rakovsky said:
OK. Much is not all.

In any case, would you be able to give us the formal definition of Sola Scriptura explicitly and originally stated by the Lutherans? I am having trouble finding it.

The Muratorian canon of Scripture is the earliest compilation of the canon that we have. It does not mean that all of the books were not available (we simply don't have that information), but that the Muratorian gathers the canonical books. They were not finally approved by the church until late in the 4th century.

Oz

rakovsky · Mar 24, 2016

OzSpen said:
Why don't you contact one of the Lutherans on this forum? I am not a Lutheran.

Here is some historical theology on the development of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Oz

Thanks I read it but still want an authoritative definition. It doesn't help to just say to go ask Lutherans if this is a theory one holds himself. If it's a belief you are advocating on this thread, I think it's acceptable to ask for the authoritative, original definition.

MoreCoffee · Mar 26, 2016

rakovsky said:
Thanks I read it but still want an authoritative definition. It doesn't help to just say to go ask Lutherans if this is a theory one holds himself. If it's a belief you are advocating on this thread, I think it's acceptable to ask for the authoritative, original definition.

Be careful not to hold your breath waiting for a definitive definition of sola scriptura. One that its advocates will stick to even when it is carefully examined and discussed and challenged. As with many doctrines opinions vary as to its proper meaning and among the separated brethren there are shades of meaning characteristic of each faith tradition that are not characteristic of other faith traditions in their number.

Sola Scriptura

Regular Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Newbie

Newbie

Unapologetic Apologist

Newbie

† Handmaid of God †

Newbie

† Handmaid of God †

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

† Handmaid of God †

Newbie

† Handmaid of God †

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Repentance works.

Similar threads