Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Dorothea]

Dear Dorothea,

Very many thanks for those wonderful quotations

It would be interesting to have the views of our non-Orthodox, non-Catholic friends on the passages you quote.

peace,

Anglian

Yes, this book is quite an eye-opener. Here I'd been fed these lies that our churches (EO, OO, and even the RCC) aren't biblical, we don't follow the Bible, and we follow the traditions of men. Well, reading this book, everything we do is biblical down to changing our names after baptized, and we follow Christ's and the Apostles traditions, whereas, what I've learned in this book is that the Protestants do not even follow the Bible they say is their authority, which, btw, isn't Biblical, and is actually against the Bible, thus against what Christ and the Apostles taught. So, in actuality, they follow their own traditions that aren't even in line or connected to the Apostles' traditions, so truly, they are the ones that follow the traditions of men that the Apostles warned us about. I don't mean this as a slam on the Protestants, just sharing the information, which is quite astounding, and really, I hope the Protestants read Anthony's book "West of Jesus" by a former Protestant turned EO to learn how far off the teachings and path Christ and His Apostles had taught and instructed from the beginning.

 

[Dorothea]

Thank you for taking to time to post those very inspiring and edifying posts Dorothea

But I myself still remain Solo Scriptura

Thanks, LLOJ. I ask you to please read "West of Jesus" by Anthony. You will learn a whole lot, and it's a short book!

 

[Anglian]

Dear Dorothea,

What many do is to follow their own reading of the Bible. That is OK to start with, but as we all know, many have gone astray following their own will which they mistake for that of God.

What the OC and the RCC does is to ground us all in two thousand years worth of what Christians have believed, written and said. The Church also provides us the nourishment that is the Eucharistic feast. One can come to the first of these things by one's own study, but not the second. One cannot speak of these sacred things lightly, but I know that for me it is the encounter with the Risen Lord at the Eucharistic feast which fills me with the greatest joy.

peace,

Anglian

 

[stelow]

2 Corinthians 3
1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

Solo Scriptura is not biblical.

Sola Scriptura is biblical.

 

[chestertonrules]

Solo Scriptura is not biblical.

Sola Scriptura is biblical.

Neither is found in the bible.

 

[drichards85]

Boy, these threads are so long I almost feel guilty for not reading the whole thing before responding. I skimmed the various comments to get a feel for the thrust of the arguments, and here is the problem I see it. First we need to define some terms.

Sola Scriptura I believe is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, such that councils and creeds and hence a or perhaps THE church, understood as a human institution, has the potential to err and must be judged against what the Scriptures teach but not ruled out per se. SolO Scriptura on the other hand disparages anything extra-biblical as dangerous or harmful, and this might even apply to biblical commentaries. It is my contention that though there is a distinction in theory, solA always reduces to solO in practice. This can be seen for example in the way Martin Luther handled the problem of authority: at first he did not deny the value of certain traditions but eventually was forced to admit that even councils and creeds can, and have, erred. The result was that he set up an artificial opposition between what "the Word of God" teaches and Church Tradition, but there was little attempt to argue the point that did not end up as circular.

Rather, what Luther and now most Protestants assume is that their interpretation of the text is somehow free of presuppositions so that they can demonstrate a conflict between Tradition and the Scriptures. I see the problem as an abyss because Protestants will judge a council or creed against, not the Scriptures, but rather a specific interpretation of the Scriptures. They therefore condemn some councils and creeds not on the basis of their lack of Scriptural warrant (though that is what they will claim) but rather because they interpret the Scriptures in a way foreign to how the Protestant interprets it.

The fact of the matter is that Protestants cannot determine the precise books to include in the canon itself, at least not without appealing to an external authority, because such a project is circular and ends up with a truncated canon anyway - witness the rise of liberal Protestantism, where the authority of many Bible books were questioned and some doctrines that were once considered essential to Christian faith were re-examined. It does no good to refute them from the Scriptures alone, not least because in all the major controversies such as Modalism which denied the Trinity, Arianism which denied the divinity of the Son, Eunomianism which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or Nestorianism which distorted the nature and person of Christ - all of these heretics had Scriptural warrant for their beliefs and the battle was a long and bloody struggle over competing exegeses. Eventually the church appealed to its tradition to settle the matter in each of these cases, because while heretics can compete with your reading of the Scriptures, there is only one, true Apostolic tradition.

The question is really: how will a Protestant defend his belief in Sola Scripture from the Scriptures alone, without appeal to some external authority, and without being circular? Any takers?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

All the traditional reasoning is just conciet in the individuals who make up the group that adheres to that thought. Who can argue what the fruit looks like when they came from the same stalk of the branch of Judaist reasoning that brought it to the point it did. All you have is anything that has taken place since the reformation to call your own.

 

[drichards85]

Maid In His Image,

With all due respect I gave reasoned arguments for my point of view which you have not engaged. That is fine if you are a fideist who wills to believe her doctrine despite the inescapable spiritual and practical consequences, but it is not good if you actually care about those consequences and want to have a dialogue with someone. Next time I would appreciate actual discourse and engagement rather than fist-pounding and telling me I'm wrong. How do you think atheist would respond if you told him just to shut up and come to Jesus?

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Neither is found in the bible.

It doesn't matter.

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation

Source: A Defense of "Sola Scriptura"

 

[Montalban]

No

So we have more 'tradition'.

 

[PeaceinJesus]

It sure is. What makes tradition so great anyway if it's not biblical? Speaking in tongues is biblical but tradition isn't.

 

[boswd]

It sure is. What makes tradition so great anyway if it's not biblical? Speaking in tongues is biblical but tradition isn't.

When you and your fellow parishoners are speaking in tongues do you know what is being said? Is anyone interpreting it?

 

[jckstraw72]

youre looking at it the wrong way -- youre looking for Tradition to be entirely found within the Bible, when really, the Bible is found within the Tradition. Holy Tradition is the entirety of the Christian faith, and the Scriptures are a witness to that faith. They are not the origin of our faith, nor do they claim to contain everything about Christianity.

 

[Dorothea]

It sure is. What makes tradition so great anyway if it's not biblical? Speaking in tongues is biblical but tradition isn't.

You're wrong. Tradition was taught by Christ and His Apostles.

 

[Dorothea]

It sure is. What makes tradition so great anyway if it's not biblical? Speaking in tongues is biblical but tradition isn't.

As far as speaking in tongues, yes that is Biblical. Speaking in gibberish, though, isn't.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As far as speaking in tongues, yes that is Biblical. Speaking in gibberish, though, isn't.

I have never spoken in "tongues", so I must be an enigma?

 

[Dorothea]

I have never spoken in "tongues", so I must be an enigma?

I don't think you're an enigma, LLOJ. I don't speak in tongues either. Some people have that gift....not the gift of gibberish, but the gift to understand people in different languages without ever being taught. There was a story about a couple of women who went to a monastery and one of the women wanted to talk to the monk about something of great importance, but she only spoke French, and apparently the monk they were to see didn't speak it at all. Only his own native language (which I think was Russian or something). Anyway, the woman went in anyway to speak with him...speaking French, and the monk listened and understood and answered her in French. That is the gift of speaking in tongues.

 

[PeaceinJesus]

Well I think many of you are missing one of the points of speaking in tongues. We do it so Satan will not understand our prayers, only God will understand them. Satan can discourage us if he knows our words.Sometimes, the words we speak are translated, other times not. I just find the whole experience very edifying.

 

[Dorothea]

Well I think many of you are missing one of the points of speaking in tongues. We do it so Satan will not understand our prayers, only God will understand them. Satan can discourage us if he knows our words.Sometimes, the words we speak are translated, other times not. I just find the whole experience very edifying.

Unfortunately, speaking in this unrecognizable language can attract and bring Satan into one's life through this experience, rather than the opposite.