Objections to Sola Scriptura?

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

Thanks for sharing! If you can name one denomination that does not veer from scripture, I would love to know who they are!
Blessings

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for sharing! If you can name one denomination that does not veer from scripture, I would love to know who they are!
Blessings

Well, in order to know we'd have to have a standard by which to judge what not veering means. And the only way that could be possible in my opinion is with a position that is traceable to the beginning and does not rely on Scripture alone, as if the faith can be discerned sufficiently correctly by simply reading a Book centuries after the fact.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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

The Jews he preached to may have been Pharisees (going to Synagogue implies that they were) and Pharisees were kind of bible addicted, though they did use the Tradition of the elders to interpret it. So Paul used an approach that they were used to and his decision was correct in the circumstances.

 

[Soyeong]

The Jews he preached to may have been Pharisees (going to Synagogue implies that they were) and Pharisees were kind of bible addicted, though they did use the Tradition of the elders to interpret it. So Paul used an approach that they were used to and his decision was correct in the circumstances.

Pharisees were by no means the only Jews who attended synagogue, so going to synagogue does not imply that they were Pharisees, though it is certainly possible that some of them were, though shouldn't we all be kind of bible addicted?

 

[fhansen]

The Jews he preached to may have been Pharisees (going to Synagogue implies that they were) and Pharisees were kind of bible addicted, though they did use the Tradition of the elders to interpret it. So Paul used an approach that they were used to and his decision was correct in the circumstances.

Yes, and we must essentially to the same thing when dialoging with those who go by Scripture alone. The Church, of course, always supports her positions with Scripture as well, but supplemented with Tradition, the lived historical legacy of the Body of Christ.

 

[eleos1954]

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

We are to hold to the traditions that were taught in His Word ... not those that are outside of it.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Matthew 15:3

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Matthew 15:6

He need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15

To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Protestant and Catholic understanding of prima scriptura is the Catholic Church, alone, claims the authority of apostolic succession.

The Bible is the sole rule of faith, but it’s in the authority and the tradition of the Catholic Church that this rule of faith is protected and interpreted.

Authority is given to Jesus alone ... that is the Protestant belief (although now a days very few committed protestants) a lot of compromising going on.

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

The Catholic church teaches (not embraced by Protestants)

The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors.

There is one official position and Jesus holds it not any one church organization.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Protestant and Catholic understanding of prima scriptura is the Catholic Church, alone, claims the authority of apostolic succession.

That isn't right. Orthodox Christians have apostolic succession, Lutherans and Anglicans (at least some of them) claim it too.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Well, in order to know we'd have to have a standard by which to judge what not veering means. And the only way that could be possible in my opinion is with a position that is traceable to the beginning and does not rely on Scripture alone, as if the faith can be discerned sufficiently correctly by simply reading a Book centuries after the fact.

I respectfully disagree. It really is all in what we call The Bible.
Thanks for engaging!

 

[fhansen]

I respectfully disagree. It really is all in what we call The Bible.
Thanks for engaging!

Alright. The point I was making is that what qualifies as "veering" will be a judgment call by the individual who would obviously be considering their own particular position as not veering.

 

[JAL]

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.

Maybe you can clarify. To me it makes little sense to claim that Sola Scriptura allows for other authorities. After all, the Sola Scriptura position is that EVERY claim must pass the test of exegetical soundness. Ultimately, then, these other "authorities" really have no authority at all if Sola Scriptura is true. Right? What am I missing here?

 

[dqhall]

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

I think you should praise the Holy Spirit more than the book. There were some parts of the Old Testament contradicted by the earlier Dead Sea Scroll. Besides this there are numerous different translations and canons. The Book of Enoch is not included in my Bible. On questions of circumcision, the Jews require it for their religion, while the Gentile Christians do not, even though the other part of the Bible commands it.

 

[JAL]

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.

Due to 500 years of Sola Scriptura indoctrination, naturally most evangelicals presume the Bereans to be exemplars of Sola Scriptura. Yet I see no clear evidence that Jesus expected His disciples, or their disciples in turn, to obtain seminary degrees. In other words it is possible that the Bereans sought to read the Scriptures in the proper manner, that is, under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation), as Jesus did - and Paul.

PRIOR to being saved, Paul WAS an exemplar of Sola Scriptura - he was a bible scholar drawing all the WRONG conclusions about the faith. On the Road to Damascus he experienced a Direct Revelation that converted him FROM Sola Scriptura TO the authority of the Voice. From that point onward, Paul began to attain to sound doctrine.

For more info on how Direct Revelation works, see my earlier post #9.

 

[BobRyan]

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

first define what is meant by the term "sola scriptura".

I define it as "test all doctrine by the scripture that you have at the time". Jesus does that very thing in Mark 7:6-13 using the sola scriptura model so all can see "how it is done".

Isaiah 8:20 is a great "sola scriptura" text (as is Acts 17:11) using that definition above.

 

[BobRyan]

it is possible that the Bereans sought to read the Scriptures in the proper manner, that is, under the Light of the Holy Spirit (Direct Revelation), as Jesus did - and Paul.
.

Does Acts 17:11 say "it is possible that they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"??

 

[JAL]

Does Acts 17:11 say "it is possible that they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were so"??

I don't get your point.

 

[Clare73]

The bible itself is a tradition of the Church

Is that not misappropriation?

The Bible is no more a "tradition" than Shakespeare is a "tradition."

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.

Nor is it essential or required for faith, salvation, justification, righteousness, perseverance, our adoption, or inheritance, as is obedience to the NT Scriptural commands and exhortations. . .which is not to deny it as one of the means of the Christian life.

 

[The Liturgist]

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

The problem isn’t so much with Sola Scriptura as understood by Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, indeed, the Anglicans and Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc) have their trilateral and quadrilateral slogans, for the Anglicans “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason” with the Wesleyans adding Experience.

Rather the problem, and what @HTacianas is responding to, and what I think you are advocating, and forgive me if I am wrong, is Nuda Scriptura, which is the rejection of all extra-Biblical traditions, which began among the Radical Reformation movements and also became a fixture of Restorationism.

The problem with Nuda Scriptura, which people commonly call Sola Scriptura these days, is that it is unscriptural (Galatians 1:8-9 - note the original Greek, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-2:25 , 2 Thessalonians 3:6 , 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 John 12 ), and it is illogical. For example, the books of the Bible lack a table of contents. How we know what books belong in there, like the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Revelation , all of which some factions have tried to remove or deprecate at different times in Church History, for example, the Gospel of John in the late 3rd - early 4th century by a group nicknamed the Alogi in a bit of a Hellenic language pun by St. Epiphanios in his catalog of heresies called the Panarion (meaning chest of medicine for snake bites, etc; a more modern translation would be First Aid Kit), and more recently by the Jesus Seminar convened by the late liberal theologian Robert W. Funk, whose group, which had a voting methodology that several have pointed out was statistically flawed, which resulted in the Gospel of John being voted as substantially less reliable than the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (see their book The Five Gospels).

And who is to stop them? If we go on the basis of Nuda Scriptura, there is nothing to say what books should or should not be in the Bible. There is nothing to say the Eucharist should be celebrated with wine (including unfermented wine, such as grape juice, which is wine enough as far as most are concerned) and bread, instead of bread and water, bread, wine and fish, or milk and honey, all of which were expressly forbidden by canons of the early church, but an infamous conference of feminist pastors and theologians, which if I recall was sponsored by the World Council of Churches or another major ecumenical organization, called Reimagining, infamously celebrated the Eucharist with milk and honey. This actually is problematic even on a Nuda Scriptura basis, except some churches operating on the basis of Nuda Scriptura, like some Quakers and the Salvation Army, don’t even celebrate the Eucharist.

At a minimum, we must have as much respect for tradition as the Magisterial Reformers, such as Saints Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, the 15th century founders of the Unitas Fratrum or Moravians, who are venerated as martyrs by the Czech-Slovak Eastern Orthodox Church, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Calvin, Philip Melancthon, John Jewell, Archbishop Laud, and the founders of the Huguenots and Peter Waldo, the founder of the Waldensians, if what we know about the early Waldensians is true, and also John Knox and John and Charles Wesley, among others.

I think even more respect for tradition is desirable, thus I think the example of Edward Pusey and the members of the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Church of England, the Non-Juring Scottish Episcopalians, and the Evangelical Catholic movement in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, is desirable, and has produced churches whose theology closely resembles the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, which along with the Church of the East and some parts of the Roman Catholic church, like some of the Carthusian monasteries, and the Mozarabic Rite chapel in Toledo, are the most traditional churches in the world.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I respectfully disagree. It really is all in what we call The Bible.
Thanks for engaging!

If the whole truth is in the holy scriptures with nothing added then why do Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Quakers, Pentecostals, Nazarene, Methodists, and a huge number of independent churches exist? If the bible is sufficient why can none of these agree on what the bible teaches?

 

[JAL]

The problem with Nuda Scriptura, which people commonly call Sola Scriptura these days, is that it is unscriptural (Galatians 1:8-9 - note the original Greek, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-2:25 , 2 Thessalonians 3:6 , 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 John 12 ), and it is illogical.

Good point. These verses strongly suggest that the oral teaching of the apostles carried authority in the early church, which is a considerable challenge to Sola Scriptura.

I just want to add here my personal opinion as to WHY oral teaching carried authority. This ties in with my position defined at post #9. Works like this:
(1) A prophet or apostle needs to know when a given message did indeed come from God. The Spirit solves this by convicting/convincing them, causing them to feel certain it came from God.
(2) When the prophet or apostle relays that same message to an audience, typically the Spirit would convict the audience as well, causing them also to feel certain about it. On these occasions the audience could not ignore the message in good conscience. That's what made it authoritative/obligatory.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If the whole truth is in the holy scriptures with nothing added then why do Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Quakers, Pentecostals, Nazarene, Methodists, and a huge number of independent churches exist? If the bible is sufficient why can none of these agree on what the bible teaches?

The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. There is a wide road leading to destruction and many will follow it . Many will say they know Jesus Christ of Nazareth, He will say I never knew you.

These are all from scripture.

I would say all denominations have flocks that are vulnerable because the truth is not in them. The truth can only be given and found through His Holy Spirit. This takes stripping away all man made doctrine so that His light can shine through.

And why do none of these denominations agree? Because they are not of one mind and Spirit.

Blessings
Ephesians 4
4 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.