Problem of Sola Scriptura

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No one ever said that God's word cannot teach individuals. Rather it was the "Me and my bible alone" types that are dangerous because of human sinfulness which is exacerbated by not being party of a local church. So they twist the Scriptures and come up with novel doctrines. Which I would add is exactly what the proverb you quoted is warning against.
“Me and my Bible alone” was never in view in regards to sola scriptura. I think that’s where some of the confusion lies.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that every single one of its adherants must rely on an authority OUTSIDE of scripture to tell them what IS scripture and what is NOT scripture. Scripture alone contains no such teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that every single one of its adherants must rely on an authority OUTSIDE of scripture to tell them what IS scripture and what is NOT scripture. Scripture alone contains no such teaching.
What do you rely on?
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What do you rely on?
To tell me what IS scripture and what is NOT?
The Council of Nicea, the Council of Constantenople and St Jerome, are by and large the responsible parties who's debate and subsequent compilations of the books Christians today recognize as belonging to the canon of scripture.

Any Christian today who claims to adhere to "Sola Scriptura" is likewise reliant on the above "Extra Biblical Authorities" who debated and settled on the Books compiled into the canon of Scripture Hundreds of years after the Boks in the New Testament were penned.

Without the work of the men, the conundrum of "Sola Scriptura" could not even exist.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
To tell me what IS scripture and what is NOT?
The Council of Nicea, the Council of Constantenople and St Jerome, are by and large the responsible parties who's debate and subsequent compilations of the books Christians today recognize as belonging to the canon of scripture.

Any Christian today who claims to adhere to "Sola Scriptura" is likewise reliant on the above "Extra Biblical Authorities" who debated and settled on the Books compiled into the canon of Scripture Hundreds of years after the Boks in the New Testament were penned.

Without the work of the men, the conundrum of "Sola Scriptura" could not even exist.
That’s not what sola scriptura is.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What do you use to ensure that they were correct? Is there a standard to compare their views to?

Is there?
That seems to be my point.

Sola Scriptura Adherants (along with those who reject Sola Scriptura) simply take the views of these men on faith.

We simply trust that their choices of Books met the criteria of books that were:
  • Written by one of Jesus' disciples, someone who was a witness to Jesus' ministry, such as Peter, or someone who interviewed witnesses, such as Luke.
  • Written in the first century A.D., meaning that books written long after the events of Jesus' life and the first decades of the church weren't included.
  • Consistent with other portions of the Bible known to be valid, meaning the book couldn't contradict a trusted element of Scripture.
And we trust the Books they rejected did not meet it.

Individual adherants of PURE Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, could reject the views of these men and simply choose for themselves which Books are scripture and which are not.

I have yet to hear of an adherant to pure sola scriptura, however.

Every adherant I am aware of, places their faith on the foundation of these extra biblical authorities
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They are different doctrines.

How can you have Sola Scriptura until you determine what Scriptura is to be Sola?

Scripture alone provides no such determination, therefore we MUST FIRST rely on an Authority OUTSIDE of scripture for that determination, hense the conundrum inherant in the doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
How can you have Sola Scriptura until you determine what Scriptura is to be Sola?

Scripture alone provides no such determination, therefore we MUST FIRST rely on an Authority OUTSIDE of scripture for that determination, hense the conundrum inherant in the doctrine.
They are different doctrines. I don’t know how else to say it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They are different doctrines. I don’t know how else to say it.

I understand that.
However, the conundrum lies with the people who claim the Church councils are tustworthy and authoritative enough to hand down a teaching as paramount and essential to the faith as the determination of the Canon of scripture, and that we should accept their determination as true and correct, even dare I say "Infallible", yet this same Church Authority is not at all trustowrthy or authoritative, and certainly not infallible, when it comes to her teaching on ANY other matter of the practice of the Christian Faith.

The solution for the Sola Scriptura crowd appears to be to simply ignore the conundrum.
I don't know how else to say it.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I understand that.
However, the conundrum lies with the people who claim the Church councils are tustworthy and authoritative enough to hand down a teaching as paramount and essential to the faith as the determination of the Canon of scripture, and that we should accept their determination as true and correct, even dare I say "Infallible", yet this same Church Authority is not at all trustowrthy or authoritative, and certainly not infallible, when it comes to her teaching on ANY other matter of the practice of the Christian Faith.

The solution for the Sola Scriptura crowd appears to be to simply ignore the conundrum.
I don't know how else to say it.

Yes, but I've heard that proposition offered many times before, and where it goes wrong is that the two issues are not linked in the way you want us to believe they are.

It is like following some clues to the location of a lost diamond mine. Are the diamonds, once found, valuable or are they worthless? The answer to that really does not depend upon the ease with which the clues were followed.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
“Me and my Bible alone” was never in view in regards to sola scriptura. I think that’s where some of the confusion lies.
Agreed. That was what I said in my first post on this thread. #11. What is being attacked is Nuda Scriptura which is not the same as SS.
We need to be careful in defining Sola Scriptura. It has a context and a historical meaning. When Luther was debating Roman Catholic scholars and such they would always point to Scripture and Tradition as comprising the Word of God. Luther insisted that it was scripture alone that was the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scriptura alone is the only infallible source of faith and practice. Luther and the other magisterial reformers never believed that in the idea of "Just me and my bible" or Nuda Scriptura. Furthermore the reformers themselves would agree that such an idea is dangerous.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The history of sola scriptura is from the Quran. William of Ockham was the major proponent, Ockham was taken by the teachings of an Arab theologian who taught that the Quran was the only revealed Word of God. Ockham adapted it to Christianity in the 14th century.
Wut? Source?
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
No one ever said that God's word cannot teach individuals. Rather it was the "Me and my bible alone" types that are dangerous because of human sinfulness which is exacerbated by not being party of a local church. So they twist the Scriptures and come up with novel doctrines. Which I would add is exactly what the proverb you quoted is warning against.

Are you calling Christians or Protestant Christians "Me and my Bible alone types?" The proverb I quoted is the word of Who? Who are you to tell so many of us Christians that we are twisting the scriptures and coming up with novel doctrines? For starters God promised to lead His sheep; He did not say I will give you each a different doctrine. I don't criticize Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox for the choices they've made. This site bases the definition of Christian as one who believes in the Holy Trinity. We don't all have the exact same doctrines, but if we are Christians we don't call others "Me and my whatever types." i don't need one of your creeds to tell me what the Bible says. The Bible is obvious to believers. I asked God to tell me Who He is.

I believe:

Holy Bible, Word of God, Proverbs 3

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths...
12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

This chapter of Proverbs is not a warning to avoid Sola Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura. The Bible tells us that the Lord adds to "His Church" the ones who should be saved. It doesn't say "the local church." Will the Lord correct me when I'm wrong? Or am I one of those He doesn't love?

I hope I don't sound harsh because that is certainly not my intent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Are you calling Christians or Protestant Christians "Me and my Bible alone types?" The proverb I quoted is the word of Who? Who are you to tell so many of us Christians that we are twisting the scriptures and coming up with novel doctrines? For starters God promised to lead His sheep; He did not say I will give you each a different doctrine. I don't criticize Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox for the choices they've made. This site bases the definition of Christian as one who believes in the Holy Trinity. We don't all have the exact same doctrines, but if we are Christians we don't call others "Me and my whatever types." i don't need one of your creeds to tell me what the Bible says. The Bible is obvious to believers. I asked God to tell me Who He is.

I believe:

Holy Bible, Word of God, Proverbs 3

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths...
12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

This chapter of Proverbs is not a warning to avoid Sola Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura. The Bible tells us that the Lord adds to "His Church" the ones who should be saved. It doesn't say "the local church." Will the Lord correct me when I'm wrong? Or am I one of those He doesn't love?

I hope I don't sound harsh because that is certainly not my intent.

Did you even read my original post? I mean the whole post or just part of it? What on earth are you talking about? This post makes no sense from what I originally said.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,508
6,395
Midwest
✟78,539.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Did you even read my original post? I mean the whole post or just part of it? What on earth are you talking about? This post makes no sense from what I originally said.

We need to be careful in defining Sola Scriptura. It has a context and a historical meaning. When Luther was debating Roman Catholic scholars and such they would always point to Scripture and Tradition as comprising the Word of God. Luther insisted that it was scripture alone that was the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scriptura alone is the only infallible source of faith and practice. Luther and the other magisterial reformers never believed that in the idea of "Just me and my bible" or Nuda Scriptura. Furthermore the reformers themselves would agree that such an idea is dangerous.

I don't know why you and I can't communicate. Why don't you explain to me why you think I didn't read all your post? What did I miss (I admit I was sleep deprived)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I don't know why you and I can't communicate. Why don't you explain to me why you think I didn't read all your post? What did I miss (I admit I was sleep deprived)?
Ok, fair enough. Lets start over. I've probably been more grumpy than usual for divers and sundry reasons that have nothing to do with you or anyone else on the forum.

The OP was stating problems of Sola Scriptura without providing a meaningful definition. As I am sure you also realize SS said by 15 people will probably mean 15 different things to those same people, I pointed out that SS has a specific historical definition that seems to be at odds with the OP implied definition. SS is the assertion historically that Scripture alone is the infallible source of faith and practice over and against the notion of an unwritten Scared Tradition. What winds up getting lampooned is the idea that SS = Me and my bible alone. Which I would add the magisterial reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Melachton, Cranmer, Beza etc would have rejected. What I am not saying is that a christian reading the bible by him/herself cannot receive great benefit. What I had in mind was what I call Roman distinctive like the marian dogmas which are novel doctrines found nowhere in scripture. To be clear, while I accept the creeds I do not put them on the same level as Scripture. I am Anglican so I believe the best form of church polity is Episcopal, but again that is not an infallible statement because scripture is silent on a preferred polity IMO. In other words I have a place for tradition but I don't view the same as infallible like Scripture.

I am making sense? It was not my intent to take a cheap shot at any other body of christians.
 
Upvote 0