Objections to Sola Scriptura?

friend of · Jul 27, 2022

What are the doctrinal objections to this Protestant lynchpin. From the vantage of any denomination.

To me, it seems foolish to be against Sola Scriptura. It just makes too much sense that God's inspired word should be the first, middle and last word on all things pertaining to the faith. If this were not so, why do we even have the bible?

Discuss ty and God bless

HTacianas · Jul 27, 2022

The bible itself is a tradition of the Church and the Church existed long before the bible. Aside from that the bible does not contain the totality of Christianity. One key example is the Liturgy. The Liturgy existed before the bible and is the prescribed form of worship of Christianity. But except for somewhat oblique references to it in the Revelation it is not found in the bible.

bmjackson · Jul 27, 2022

From chevyontheriver "Many see the denial of 'Sola Scriptura' as the denial of Scripture. They cannot comprehend how believers could follow Scripture if it isn't Scripture alone. It's just unthinkable to them. But Sola Scriptura is a non-Scriptural meta-dogma that has failed in it's goals of revealing the meaning of Scripture or of correcting the Church or of unifying Christians in the truth. Manifestly it fails at all three because ... because it is a false starting point. The real necessary starting point is the teaching of the apostles and the authority of the apostles. The Sola Scriptura followers have either made themselves their own apostles or have followed other men who have made themselves their own apostles. And they can't even see that they have invented their own traditions opposed to the Tradition of the faith handed down to the apostles. It's a blindness. They have adopted traditions of teachers or of their own personal invention, all of it in rebellion to the apostles.

What do we all need? 1.) Chucking Sola Scriptura for Prima Scriptura, which is the actual position of the Catholic Church. See Dei Verbum from Vatican II for the simple idea of putting Scripture first, but not alone. 2.) Reclaim the apostolic Tradition, as found in the Fathers. Scripture interpretation was never supposed to have been independent of the community of faith. Such atomization makes only for thousands of denominations. 3.) The humility to not think that everybody is their own oracle of God. Again, Scripture interpretation was never supposed to be independent of the community of faith. There are authorities in the Church, successors of the apostles, whom we call bishops. 4.) We need to do some repentance for the times we all have put our own ideas ahead of the faith. There should be a variety of styles but there should be zero doctrinal differences among Christians. It's wrong. It's prideful.

Will we ever change? Nope. Even though Jesus himself begged the Father in John 17 for us to be united. Too much invested in hating on the brothers in Christ for that. Disagree and start up a new denomination. That's the ticket. Lie about your enemies. That's the ticket. Follow unbiblical meta-dogmas like Sola Scriptura so you can look down on traditional believers. That's the ticket. No wonder the fragmented Church is such a poor witness. See how they hate each other?

The central flaw of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture doesn't actually support it. Paul speaks a lot about tradition, quite often about how we should follow it. The Epistles are full of us being told to submit to authority, to our bishops in particular. The actual Scriptures portray a very different understanding of authority that what brother Martin Luther cooked up to convince people to follow him rather than their bishops. But then it all backfired as everybody thought they might as well be their own bishops and not listen to brother Martin any more. So we got what we have today. Everybody does what they think is right in their own eyes. Judges 17:6. That's what we have. A mess. That's what Sola Scriptura has made for us. Korah's rebellion is relevant here as well.

1 Cor 11:2 Hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you.

2 Thess 2:15 Hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter

2 Thess 3:6 Shun those acting not in accord with tradition.

2 Tim 2:2 What you have heard, entrust to faithful men.

Peter had some things to say about private interpretation:

2 Peter 1:20 No prophecy is a matter for private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul's letters can be difficult to interpret.

1 Peter 1:25 God's eternal word is the word preached to you"

trophy33 · Jul 27, 2022

Try to define what you mean, first:

1) what kind of inspiration are we talking about, here (automatic every word dictation? thought inspiration? inspiration only of some important parts?)

2) what do you mean by "all things pertaining to the faith" (just salvation issues? or including morals? something more, for example history, biology or astronomy?)

Then, we can talk how "sola" applies to that.

disciple Clint · Jul 27, 2022

Bottom line, without tradition there is no basis for the inclusion and exclusion of the books in the bible.

Ivan Hlavanda · Jul 27, 2022

Sola Scriptura - Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
(Everything will pass away, but God's Word will not, therefore God's Word has much more value than anything else.)

Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

2 Timothy 3 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God
This verse settles it. The scripture has authority over everything on this Earth. Nothing is equal to it. It is the living word of God

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Woe to the people who put anything or anyone above the living Word of God. The Bible is the only book in which God breathed out of His mouth. We must submit to it and live according to it. It is not up to our interpretation but must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.

Skye1300 · Jul 27, 2022

Because everyone can't interpret the Bible correctly on their own. To me sola scripture is like saying you can be a brain surgeon by just reading medical books only, by yourself, and not going to med school. Would you want a surgeon like that operating on your brain?

Ivan Hlavanda · Jul 27, 2022

No one can interpret the Bible on their own. God is Spirit and thus Bible has to be interpreted by the Holy Spirit. It is the living Word of God that will never pass away, making it having authority above everything else.

The Bible is not any book, it is Heavenly book. God wrote it through the prophets to reveal Himself to us and His will. And since we are all sinners, it is big grace that the Holy Spirit interprets it for some, not because some deserve it and others don't, or they are better, because no one deserves grace from God, but because God has in His love decided to do so.

JAL · Jul 27, 2022

Sola Scriptura is the "obvious choice", right? Of course! Just like it's equally obvious that, since planet Earth is God's focus, it is positioned in the center of the universe with all planets and stars revolving around it. Geocentrism is the obvious and correct choice! As is the global flood! And a flat earth! If you don't believe me, just ask any theologian for the first 1,000 years of the church!

Unfortunately, the "obvious choice" doesn't always bear up under scrutiny. Indeed, Sola Scriptura is obviously a falsehood, if understood to mean that biblical exegesis (the use of human reasoning and scholarship to interpret Scripture) is the only final authority on questions of religion.

Scripture cannot be our highest authority because such begs the question, "On what authority do I accept the Bible?" Suppose for example I accepted the Bible on the basis of Reason. That would imply that Reason is, for me, a higher authority than the Bible since it dictated my decision to accept or reject the book. For example, if I accepted it on Reason, and tomorrow my reasoning leads me to conclude that the Koran is actually a more rational choice, I will abandon the Bible in favor of the Koran, thereby confirming that, for me, Reason is a higher authority than the Bible since it dictates my decision to accept or reject the book.

The point is that the Bible can never be legitimately construed as our highest authority, because some higher authority dictated our decision to accept or reject that book. Protestants have never been willing to face this obvious fact.

Ok, now that we see there is a problem, let's investigate. On what authority/basis do Protestants accept the book? Actually there is a consensus on this, a consensus usually credited to John Calvin's work. Calvin rightly insisted that a Direct Revelation known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit persuades us of basic biblical truths (such as the inspiration of Scripture and the divinity of Christ).

This implies that Direct Revelation (the Inward Witness) is a higher authority than Scripture because it dictates my decision to accept or reject the book.

How does it work? As Calvin insisted, the Inward Witness persuades us of particular truths, ultimately causing us to feel certain about them. Calvin was very insistent that the Inward Witness, from the standpoint of experience, is feelings of certainty.

This leads us to a corollary - feelings of certainty have a higher authority than Scripture because they dictate my decision to accept or reject the book. For example if tomorrow I feel certain that the Koran, instead of the Bible, is God's inspired book, I will forthwith reject the bible in favor of the Koran.

Feelings of certainty are our highest authority because there are no exceptions to the following rule, which I like to call the "rule of conscience":

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B".

So that's how Direct Revelation works. When God speaks, His Voice must cause us to feel certain about it, otherwise we would have no obligation to obey it. And when we already feel certain about it, there is no need to "check it out with Scripture" because the rule of conscience is ALWAYS authoritative (i.e. obligatory).

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 27, 2022

Sola scriptura is not a teaching one can find in the holy scriptures. There is no commandment, no word from the Lord Jesus Christ, no epistle from an apostle commanding Christians to derive all of their teaching from holy scripture as the sole source of infallible truth available to Christians. But there are, in contradistinction to sola scriptura, several passages that draw from spoken tradition, from spoken instruction, from creation, from sound reasoning about what is known to be true regardless of the source of the truth and these sources are used to teach and develop doctrine in the epistles, prophets, law, and other writings in the holy scriptures.

So one reason to avoid the strictures of sola scriptura is that the idea of sola scriptura is not a teaching of Christ.
And another reason to treat sola scriptura with caution is that in practice the Church has never adhered to sola scriptura as its doctrine about holy scripture and the teaching of the faith of Jesus Christ.
A third reason for treating sola scriptura with caution is that those who first advocated it never managed to reach consensus on what the holy scriptures teach nor have their successors, since the sixteenth century AD, managed to reach consensus on what the holy scriptures teach. This is why we have many denominations of Protestantism today and very many independent churches teaching variants of Protestantism as their doctrine.

And incase any should object that Protestants agree on a core of Christian doctrine that is "sufficient for salvation" then tell me exactly which doctrines of this alleged core are universally accepted in Protestant churches and yet are not also accepted by the ancient Churches?

Do we not all teach that the holy scriptures are revelation from God to humanity?
Do we not all teach that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and only saviour of the world?
Do we not all teach that by grace Christians are saved through faith and that the grace is not from their own good works or excellent thinking but it is a gift from God given out of his own goodness, love, generosity, and that grace is wholly undeserved and completely unearned because it is a gift.

BBAS 64 · Jul 27, 2022

Good Day, FOP

Best to define the meaning of Sola Scriptura I hope you find this acceptable:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

There is a very useful 3 volume set on the topic that you may find useful:

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Scripture-Reformation-Principle-Scriptura/dp/1893531023

Ok carry on...

In Him,

Bill

Maria Billingsley · Jul 27, 2022

Besides liturgy practiced by four denominations, I only know of the Catholic Catechism formally teaching extra biblical doctrines.
That being said, it seems every denomination has their extra biblical contribution no matter how large or small they are. The tendency to veer from scriptural teachings as well as add to its pages seems to be a signature tool for distinction. What better way to grow a congregation for its uniqueness. Contrary to the will of God, unfortunately.
I have no objection,of course ,to Sola Scriptura.
Blessings

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 27, 2022

Every church that has some kind of church government is acting according to tradition and not according to biblical commandments. There is no prescribed form of church government in the scriptures. No Presbyterian form, no independent Baptist form, no Anglican, no Catholic, no Orthodox, no Brethren, nor Quaker. Every church has invented a form of church government that seemed wise or expedient to them.

fhansen · Jul 27, 2022

The church received and preached the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written. That same, basic gospel can be found in the early church, the ECFs, and the same churches today in the east and west. But its been modified, changed and changed again by those going by Scripture alone. Most of the hottest debates on these very forums involves Protestant against Protestant. Scripture was never intended to serve as some sort of clear and systematic catechism, which is why it can be vague, and even seemingly ambiguous or contradictory on some matters.

Going by Scripture, inspired as it is, the Bereans and the Ethiopian Eunuch still required the input of disciples, from Christ's "group", in order to have understanding.

fhansen · Jul 27, 2022

Few if any groups, denominations, churches or individuals believe they're veering from scriptural teachings, certainly not just so they can be unique. Well, Benny Hinn et al might play it that way but not most. But most are sincere, whether sincerely right or wrong, and often have quite plausible biblical-based arguments for their positions.

ByTheSpirit · Jul 27, 2022

As others have said, the first New Testament book was written around 45 AD... a good 15 years after the resurrection of Jesus and Pentecost. Even then the whole "New Testament" as we know it wouldn't be complete until around 100AD when John had the Revelation. So from 30AD (resurrection & Pentecost) to 100 AD (Revelation) how did the church function without a true "Sola Scriptura"? I'm not anti-scripture. I think scripture should be the basis for what we do in the faith. To the Apostles and early church, the Scriptures was the Law and the Prophets and that was it. So was their understanding incomplete?

No of course not, but they used what they had to do what scripture has always been designed to do. Lead us to God. We use it as a guide to teach us how to find God, but not box Him into whatever WE DEEM TO INTERPRET from the written pages of a book.

For that matter, what defines Sola Scriptura?

What manuscripts are the basis? The Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, the Critical Text?

Is only one version per language the true one?

See this is a long rabbit trail that Sola Scriptura would need to define, for while all manuscripts and translations say 99.9% the same thing, they do have some differences.

So let's use the scriptures for what they were designed to do:

So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24

Not, put God into a box and contain him to our understanding.

d taylor · Jul 27, 2022

-

I believe the questioning of a God inspired writings (The Tanakh and The New testament), began. When people who identified as christians started questioning the creation accounts given in The Tanakh because of science.

They had to resolve the conflict of what The Bible gave as God's creation to what science was stating is the creation.

So instead of questioning science they began to apply metaphorical interpretations to The reading of Biblical accounts given in the Bible (Genesis 1, The Flood, Tower of Babel, etc..). Which eventually lead to many people who identify as christians to just consider The Bible not fully inspired but a book of good writings of man and their views.

And as time has gone on this metaphorical interpretation of The Bible has moved from just addressing creation and other Biblical accounts (The Flood, Tower of Babel, etc..) to by some basically, the whole Bible is now just a book of good writings.

Soyeong · Jul 27, 2022

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so Sola Scriptura is essentially saying that we should follow that precedent whenever someone tries to teach us something, and I don't see good grounds for objecting to that that precedent.

Xeno.of.athens · Jul 27, 2022

The people who tested Paul's statements were Jews, and even though a good number converted a good number didn't. I am not sure we ought to follow the example they set because only some believed what Paul said.

Soyeong · Jul 27, 2022

Acts 17:1-4 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

Do you think that Paul should have taken a different approach other than trying to reason with them and persuade them from Scripture?

Objections to Sola Scriptura?

A private in Gods army

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Vegan Pro life Mom

Well-Known Member

Veteran

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Contributor

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Oldbie

Oldbie

Come Lord Jesus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads