Is Sola Scriptura Too Much?

[Tree of Life]

To all who reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,

First let me begin with my definition (which is the classic Protestant definition). Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible alone is the word of God and only infallible rule of faith and morals. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only authority, but that it is the only infallible authority. Church teachings are very useful and important, but they are not equal to Scripture. At the end of the day, even they must be evaluated according to Scripture.

That said...

Do you believe that those who hold to Sola Scriptura have too high a view of Scripture? I mean, we believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation and morals, that they are clear, that they have not been corrupted, and that they are inerrant.

Is this too high a view of the Bible?

It seems to me that those who want to say that Church Tradition is on par with Scripture and is equally infallible have too low a view of the Bible. They insist that the Bible is not clear and not sufficient to tell us what we need to know to be saved and live holy lives. They insist that we need more teachings than what the Bible provides for these things.

 

[HTacianas]

To all who reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,

First let me begin with my definition (which is the classic Protestant definition). Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible alone is the word of God and only infallible rule of faith and morals. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only authority, but that it is the only infallible authority. Church teachings are very useful and important, but they are not equal to Scripture. At the end of the day, even they must be evaluated according to Scripture.

That said...

Do you believe that those who hold to Sola Scriptura have too high a view of Scripture? I mean, we believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation and morals, that they are clear, that they have not been corrupted, and that they are inerrant.

Is this too high a view of the Bible?

It seems to me that those who want to say that Church Tradition is on par with Scripture and is equally infallible have too low a view of the Bible. They insist that the Bible is not clear and not sufficient to tell us what we need to know to be saved and live holy lives. They insist that we need more teachings than what the Bible provides for these things.

When two people disagree as to the meaning of scripture, who decides which one is right?

 

[Mary Meg]

It seems to me that those who want to say that Church Tradition is on par with Scripture and is equally infallible have too low a view of the Bible. They insist that the Bible is not clear and not sufficient to tell us what we need to know to be saved and live holy lives. They insist that we need more teachings than what the Bible provides for these things.

I could be wrong... but I think that's a bit of an oversimplification of the other view (I'll let them respond).

 

[trophy33]

The historical context of Sola Scriptura is "vs. the Roman Catholic Church inventions".

It does not make much sense out of this context like to say "there is no other source of knowledge about God".

 

[Gregory Thompson]

To all who reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,

First let me begin with my definition (which is the classic Protestant definition). Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible alone is the word of God and only infallible rule of faith and morals. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only authority, but that it is the only infallible authority. Church teachings are very useful and important, but they are not equal to Scripture. At the end of the day, even they must be evaluated according to Scripture.

That said...

Do you believe that those who hold to Sola Scriptura have too high a view of Scripture? I mean, we believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation and morals, that they are clear, that they have not been corrupted, and that they are inerrant.

Is this too high a view of the Bible?

It seems to me that those who want to say that Church Tradition is on par with Scripture and is equally infallible have too low a view of the Bible. They insist that the Bible is not clear and not sufficient to tell us what we need to know to be saved and live holy lives. They insist that we need more teachings than what the Bible provides for these things.

I tend to draw the line when the bible is being used in place of the Holy Spirit's role of guidance.

 

[Chesterton]

It seems to me that those who want to say that Church Tradition is on par with Scripture and is equally infallible have too low a view of the Bible.

Scripture IS Church Tradition. There's no way around that.

 

[timewerx]

Computer viruses are often designed to exploit the most trusted programs of a computer's Operating System....

In the last days, God will allow a great deception to take place.... I don't think the great deception will only be able to deceive a few.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It may yet be that Scriptura Soloists have too low a view of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

When two people disagree as to the meaning of scripture, who decides which one is right?

The Holy Spirit by illumination?

 

[HTacianas]

The Holy Spirit by illumination?

We have to rule that option out. Because each one claims the Holy Spirit is telling them they're right. That's typically the first objection you'll hear from anyone.

For instance, did the Holy Spirit guide James in writing that we are justified by works and not by faith only, as has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning, or did the Holy Spirit tell Martin Luther 1500 years later that we are justified by faith alone?

Who do we see about resolving that conflict? To borrow from Pilate, "what is truth"?

 

[TuxAme]

I wouldn't say a "too high" view, just an incomplete (and false) one.

 

[devin553344]

To all who reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura,

First let me begin with my definition (which is the classic Protestant definition). Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible alone is the word of God and only infallible rule of faith and morals. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is the only authority, but that it is the only infallible authority. Church teachings are very useful and important, but they are not equal to Scripture. At the end of the day, even they must be evaluated according to Scripture.

That said...

Do you believe that those who hold to Sola Scriptura have too high a view of Scripture? I mean, we believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation and morals, that they are clear, that they have not been corrupted, and that they are inerrant.

Is this too high a view of the Bible?

It seems to me that those who want to say that Church Tradition is on par with Scripture and is equally infallible have too low a view of the Bible. They insist that the Bible is not clear and not sufficient to tell us what we need to know to be saved and live holy lives. They insist that we need more teachings than what the Bible provides for these things.

Sola Scrptura works for me when debating with Mormons.

 

[Tree of Life]

When two people disagree as to the meaning of scripture, who decides which one is right?

Every person has a responsibility to make such a decision. You've decided to submit your thinking in these matters to the Eastern Orthodox church. But you still had to make that decision, didn't you?

 

[Tree of Life]

I could be wrong... but I think that's a bit of an oversimplification of the other view (I'll let them respond).

Just watch how this thread unfolds. I think their view will speak for itself.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

We have to rule that option out. Because each one claims the Holy Spirit is telling them they're right. That's typically the first objection you'll hear from anyone.

Scripture is the sufficient means to sort the two contradictory claims. Without Scripture and the Spirit we have no means of justification for even attempting to sort the contradictory claims.

For instance, did the Holy Spirit guide James in writing that we are justified by works and not by faith only, as has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning, or did the Holy Spirit tell Martin Luther 1500 years later that we are justified by faith alone?

I do not believe Paul and James contradict one another, some stumble when trying to reconcile them, some emphasize one over the other, but I do think they are different sides of the same coin.

Who do we see about resolving that conflict? To borrow from Pilate, "what is truth"?

The shortest answer I know of to solve the subjectivist problem is: Christ, the way, the truth, and life. And how do we come to know him? By the Scriptures. From here, I'll quote myself from a much longer post, part of a friendly debate:

“Try as we might to avoid it, proving the Scriptures are revelation from God, involves circular reasoning.” This should be no cause for alarm, because there is a difference between circular reasoning and a circular argument. Further nobody can interpret reality without basic presuppositions about reality, and the answer to philosophical question “does God exist?”, however it is answered, will be central and circular to reasoning and connected to other assumptions about reality and impact other big questions of philosophy. To use Clark terminology, the Christian Scriptures are the central axiom to Christianity. To use Plantinga terminology, the Scriptures are properly basic to warranted Christian belief. To use Bahsen terminology, the Christian worldview must be presupposed to justify the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, these include conceptual realities behind: intelligible language, laws of logic, math, and as they apply to the scientific method." from this thread.
​

The reasoning of the Spirit, is not of the autonomous variety which produces such questions as "what is truth?". Also God the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, so He is able and can resolve conflicting claims of believers, even if over time, even as we learn and grow in Christ.

 

[Tree of Life]

The historical context of Sola Scriptura is "vs. the Roman Catholic Church inventions".

It does not make much sense out of this context like to say "there is no other source of knowledge about God".

I don't disagree.

 

[Tree of Life]

I tend to draw the line when the bible is being used in place of the Holy Spirit's role of guidance.

That's a different issue. But I don't believe that the Holy Spirit gives authoritative guidance except through the words of Scripture.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Wouldn't it be cool though? Every Christian having a "sign of the Spirit" in which the wind blows really hard (even indoors) and knocks the person requesting a sign on their buttocks.

Yes, we have reasoning, scripture, and you were knocked on your behind ... we have fully preached the gospel.

 

[Tree of Life]

Scripture IS Church Tradition. There's no way around that.

I think that this is a very misleading equivocation. The church did not write the Bible or even authorize the Bible. God wrote the Bible by speaking directly to or inspiring prophets who then brought God's words to God's people. The church rightly recognizes God's word for what it is, but God's word does not depend on any institution to give it validity. It has validity as the word of God.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's a different issue. But I don't believe that the Holy Spirit gives authoritative guidance except through the words of Scripture.

That's kind of like using the scripture as a binding spell on the Holy Spirit. I disagree with that methodology. God can say whatever He likes.