Sola Scriptura - what does it mean?

[dms1972]

Hi,


I am reading a book at the moment and it characterises Sola Scripture in the following way and I am wondering if its a fair characterisation:

To quote: "Sola Scriptura was a sound bite that dealt first with the question of authority. It described the Reformation's inspired return to the Bible as the ultimate source of religious authority for theology, rather than the piled up traditions and papal pronouncements of the church...

"As it turned out, the Protestant idea of sola scriptura had some loopholes when doing doctrine. Sola Scriptura really meant that you came up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then you rummaged around in Scripture for some verses to support it. If Scripture was to be involved in theologizing at all, in any era, that has been pretty much the procedure..."

Its the last bit I am wondering about. I think for Luther he was wrestling with the meaning of "the righteousness of God", in the Epistle to the Romans and his new understanding of that led on to what he later taught.

Anyway the writer Jon Mark Ruthen, is talking about what's wrong with Protestant Theology (title of the book) and has written other books about continationism of Spiritual gifts. Have only started reading it, but if its just the other side (Pentecostal / Charismatic) I don't know how it differs from other critiques from the Charismatic movement. I'd rather see a book more along the lines of both what is right and what is wrong in protestant theology.

 

[Philip_B]

I think the big mistake that some make in understanding "Sola Scriptura" is that they take it to mean the abrogation of Church and tradition. This was only concievable after the introduction of Mr Caxton's machine. Luther would have dieda Catholic had he not been excommunicated. Calvin wrote in his Institutes about the HolyCatholic Church as a meansof grace (book 4 frommemory). Scriture comes to us through the tradition, and through the Church. Luther's position as the scripture had to be there and it was primary.

 

[sandman]

Hi,


I am reading a book at the moment and it characterises Sola Scripture in the following way and I am wondering if its a fair characterisation:

To quote: "Sola Scriptura was a sound bite that dealt first with the question of authority. It described the Reformation's inspired return to the Bible as the ultimate source of religious authority for theology, rather than the piled up traditions and papal pronouncements of the church...

"As it turned out, the Protestant idea of sola scriptura had some loopholes when doing doctrine. Sola Scriptura really meant that you came up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then you rummaged around in Scripture for some verses to support it. If Scripture was to be involved in theologizing at all, in any era, that has been pretty much the procedure..."

Its the last bit I am wondering about. I think for Luther he was wrestling with the meaning of "the righteousness of God", in the Epistle to the Romans and his new understanding of that led on to what he later taught.

Anyway the writer Jon Mark Ruthen, is talking about what's wrong with Protestant Theology (title of the book) and has written other books about continationism of Spiritual gifts. Have only started reading it, but if its just the other side (Pentecostal / Charismatic) I don't know how it differs from other critiques from the Charismatic movement. I'd rather see a book more along the lines of both what is right and what is wrong in protestant theology.

To a degree I adhere to scripture alone….

By that I mean that the Word of God is my only source for Faith, Practice, and Truth. With the understanding that there are Eastern customs, orientalism’s, figures of Speech and idioms that must be adhered to in the Bible.

I do not discount extra biblical writings as a source of information…. but if they are contrary to the Bible’s 66 books … no matter who wrote it…. it is devoid of authority and Truth. I am not putting my life in the hands of man.

I operate from the directive that the Bible interprets itself using specific principles and keys to determine the Truth. It cannot be left up to man to interpret ….that just stimulates the need for private interpretation and the growth of religions. With simple research keys it is easy enough to allow the Bible to interpret itself…. And with these keys God will tell us in His Word what He wants us to know. So, there is no need to guess or speculate.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi,


I am reading a book at the moment and it characterises Sola Scripture in the following way and I am wondering if its a fair characterisation:

To quote: "Sola Scriptura was a sound bite that dealt first with the question of authority. It described the Reformation's inspired return to the Bible as the ultimate source of religious authority for theology, rather than the piled up traditions and papal pronouncements of the church...

"As it turned out, the Protestant idea of sola scriptura had some loopholes when doing doctrine. Sola Scriptura really meant that you came up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then you rummaged around in Scripture for some verses to support it. If Scripture was to be involved in theologizing at all, in any era, that has been pretty much the procedure..."

Its the last bit I am wondering about. I think for Luther he was wrestling with the meaning of "the righteousness of God", in the Epistle to the Romans and his new understanding of that led on to what he later taught.

Anyway the writer Jon Mark Ruthen, is talking about what's wrong with Protestant Theology (title of the book) and has written other books about continationism of Spiritual gifts. Have only started reading it, but if its just the other side (Pentecostal / Charismatic) I don't know how it differs from other critiques from the Charismatic movement. I'd rather see a book more along the lines of both what is right and what is wrong in protestant theology.

Hello,

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture in order to see if what he said was true, and Sola Scriptura is essentially saying that we should follow that precedent whenever someone tries to teach us something. Coming up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then rummaging around Scripture for some verses to support it is an unfair characterization.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm sure it meant different things to the anglicans and the Lutherans, and today, it means something totally different.

 

[dms1972]

I operate from the directive that the Bible interprets itself using specific principles and keys to determine the Truth.

Can you say some more about what these principles and keys are?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Can you say some more about what these principles and keys are?

Can't speak for him, but I have a similar ethic when reading the bible.

The bible has statements within it that give foundational concepts as directed by the text, priority.

The first example of this is the teaching to love your neighbor as yourself, paired with the teaching to love God with all of your all - this lays the groundwork for all other teachings.

Another good example is when people ask about commandments, passages like Romans 13 illustrate there is a summarization of all commandments - in this passage it says love does not harm their neighbor. In Romans 14 the summary statement is everything not of faith is sin.

In terms of judgment, 1st John has a passage that says the matured love that is being developed in us, is what casts out all fear, and also gives boldness on the day of judgment - because in this world we are like Jesus.

So even if the scripture is badly translated, the core concepts remain there to direct those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Especially when the text is deified with interest towards a political interpretation.

 

[dms1972]

How did Luther come to his realisation that "the righteousness of God" meant something different from what he had taken it to mean?

 

[sandman]

Can you say some more about what these principles and keys are?

This is something I hand out to new believers in our fellowships. I believe it covers the basics ...but I am sure it could be added to.



RESEARCH KEYS and PRINCIPLES


The first principle is laid out in John16:13a Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, it will guide you into all truth (or one truth)…..
Guiding doesn’t happen without you moving. If you want the spirit to guild you... STUDY the Word of God and walk out with believing boldness on the promises God has in the Bible.

The second underline principle to research is to ALWAYS “read what is written”. Not what you think is written, and not what you already believe is written…….. but what is written.
When the Bible states “about 120” (Act 1:15) it is not 120 …it may be 119 …it may be 121 but it is not 120.

The third principle dovetails with #2, and that is …Do not guess, do not speculate, do not try to fill in the blank or determine the outcome based on tradition, religion or what you or anyone else thinks. Drawing conclusion(s) based on your assumption or desire to prove your theory is elevating yourself above God. If it’s not supported by rightly dividing the Word…. it is human speculation.


KISS = Keep it simple saints. You don’t need to look for hidden messages within the scripture. Walking out on what you know, manifesting the Love of God in your heart and life to those around you….. will bring you more growth than you ever thought possible.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.) IN THE VERSE

a.) 80% of the bible interprets itself in the verse where it is written.
b.) Words in the verse must be understood according to the meaning of the words at the time of usage.
c.) Difficult verses must be understood in light of clear verses ….relating to the same subject
d.) Any one verse must always be in harmony with scripture relating to the identical subject
e.) One scripture may not tell all the details; other scripture may add to it without contradicting each other. Scripture build-up (especially in the Gospels) helps to illuminate the complete message. One gospel may give an event from a certain perspective where another will fill in certain detail.


2.) IN THE CONTEXT

a.) If scripture does not interpret itself the verse…. context will determine the meaning of the verse or verses in question.
b.) Context as related to whom it is written or the specific subject can be determined by either the immediate context, or remoter context…
c.) The context relating to the same or similar subject must be kept within the administrative boundaries. You cannot correlate in part or in whole the same subject from two separate dispensations (administrations) unless they relate directly and are identical. This is primary applicable when trying to mix or correlate the gospels with the Grace administration.

D.) Pronouns are crucial when reading the context of scripture. Watch for pronouns which are used to differentiate between groups or individuals of events or situations.


3.) PREVIOUS USAGE

When you have a specific word or words that neither the verse nor the context determines its interpretation, going back to the first usage of that word will generally illuminate its meaning. Checking the first use of that word in the verse should determine its meaning; the meaning will remain the same throughout, UNLESS it is given a new definition in which case that will carry the consideration.

(Keep in mind….when searching for the first use of word…. the books of the Bible are not in chronological order)

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

LITTLE WORDS WITH BIG MEANINGS:

Prepositions and conjunctions are especially important when directing the flow of thought in context.
a.) The use of the article “THE” must be carefully noted especially when dealing with the subject of holy spirit. (more on the article at the bottom)
b.) The word “ALL” is used just as it is used today, context will determine its meaning, whether it is “ALL” without exception, or “ALL” with distinction.
c.) The use of “but” and “not” must be recognized for the degree of contrast or negation they signify in a passage.


TIME WORDS must be carefully noted in regard to whether an event occurs in the past, present, or future. Some words like then, after, finally are subtle but indicate a period of time. Even conjunctions such as and, & but (especially in the gospels) can indicate time.

IN THE BEGINNING
The word beginning or in the beginning must be carefully examined to determine which beginning. At times this refers to Genesis, other times it refers to the beginning of an event in an administration; context will determine the value of the word. For example: The first 3 chapters of 1 John “in the beginning” is used 9 times and references Pentecost.... not Genesis.



TO WHOM IS IT WRITTEN

There are only three groups of people that God addresses in the Bible

Jews, Gentiles, or Church of God. The context or epistles introduction should determine to whom in the New Testament. Romans is addressed to Church of God, but chapters 9-11 addresses the Jews and then Gentiles.



ALL THOSE LITTLE THINGS
Punctuation, capitalization, chapter headings, chapter divisions, and verse divisions were all added by translators. They are extremely helpful, but they are not “given by inspiration of God” The majority of these thing have been well supplied, but there are a good number of areas where they are inaccurate. A simple comma can alter the meaning … always rely on the context to determine the truth.

CUSTOMS AND CULTURES
The Bible is riddled with references to the everyday customs of the time in which it was written. We should become familiar with the manner of life, idioms, orientalism’s, customs and culture…. to properly understand scripture.


FIGURES OF SPEACH
There are 219 figures of speech known in the world…. at least 214 of them are used in the Bible. It is not imperative to know these, but helpful in research and study. E. W. Bullinger has documented most all these figures of speech with scriptural reference, which makes it easy to look up. Figures of speech are used by God to put emphasis on that particular passage or account. (“Figures of Speech Used in the Bible”….Book by E. W. Bullinger)




GREEK & HEBREW

You do not need to know these languages to verify the truths in the Word of God. There is an abundance of resources online that you can use to verify the translation thereof and most of the resources have included the parsing.

Learning both the Greek and Hebrew “grammar” would be a great asset to your study and research, as the grammar for each is very different from that of English.

The article in the Greek is a classic example:

The Greeks do not need “the” article to make the noun definite as used in English. In the Greek a substantive is definite without the article……The article originally came from the demonstrative pronoun such as “this” or “that” ….which calls attention with special emphasis to a designated object. Its function is to point out an object or draw attention to it….. It is used with a word that makes the word stand out distinctly. Whenever the Greeks used the article, it points out individual identity…. and it marks a specific object of thought.

The Greeks used the article with infinitives, adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, and clauses …..or even with whole sentences….. We do not have a corresponding English usage or anything even remotely similar.

When “the” article hē appears in Greek ….it always signals some special significance. And we need to look at the matter from the Greek point of view, not the English, if we are to discover the reason that the article is used.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Sola Scriptura in its original principle is this: While there's a place for reason and while we value tradition, reason and tradition must be governed by God's written Word as the supreme authority.

So, on issues that are neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture (which we call "adiaphora"), we have Christian freedom. But things that have no command, promise, or example in the Scriptures, cannot be said to be of divine right.

Here's a couple of practical examples:

Sign of the cross: The Bible neither commands nor forbids it, and so we have Christian freedom to sign ourselves as a remembrance of the cross of our Lord and our Baptism in His name.

Prayers to Mary, saints, or angels: There is no command, promise, or example in the Scriptures of this. On the contrary, God's Word commands us to pray to God in Jesus' name.

So, in other words, we understand the doctrine of Holy Tradition, but Sola Scriptura is a rejection of it. We still value tradition and reason, but we are compelled to reject the doctrine of Holy Tradition because there is (1) a question of which tradition, and (2) there is no certainty in distinguishing tradition that is supposed to be from God and tradition that is of man.

Simply, how does God speak to us? We confess: Through His Word.

 

[Kettriken]

God loves for us to have the scriptures written on our hearts. It is not the only thing, but it is important.
God does not love for us to place scripture above the living Christ, the Holy spirit, or the church, the body of Christ in our world.
God speaks to us through scripture. In hearing, we should be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. This is the precedent Jesus set for us.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Sola Scriptura:

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.



http://www.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi,


I am reading a book at the moment and it characterises Sola Scripture in the following way and I am wondering if its a fair characterisation:

To quote: "Sola Scriptura was a sound bite that dealt first with the question of authority. It described the Reformation's inspired return to the Bible as the ultimate source of religious authority for theology, rather than the piled up traditions and papal pronouncements of the church...

"As it turned out, the Protestant idea of sola scriptura had some loopholes when doing doctrine. Sola Scriptura really meant that you came up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then you rummaged around in Scripture for some verses to support it. If Scripture was to be involved in theologizing at all, in any era, that has been pretty much the procedure..."

Its the last bit I am wondering about. I think for Luther he was wrestling with the meaning of "the righteousness of God", in the Epistle to the Romans and his new understanding of that led on to what he later taught.

Anyway the writer Jon Mark Ruthen, is talking about what's wrong with Protestant Theology (title of the book) and has written other books about continationism of Spiritual gifts. Have only started reading it, but if its just the other side (Pentecostal / Charismatic) I don't know how it differs from other critiques from the Charismatic movement. I'd rather see a book more along the lines of both what is right and what is wrong in protestant theology.

I imagine at some point one must choose a side, Sola Scriptura or traditions of men. To discern between the two is not that difficult however, one must completely surrender to Jesus Christ of Nazareth first.

These people honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi,


I am reading a book at the moment and it characterises Sola Scripture in the following way and I am wondering if its a fair characterisation:

To quote: "Sola Scriptura was a sound bite that dealt first with the question of authority. It described the Reformation's inspired return to the Bible as the ultimate source of religious authority for theology, rather than the piled up traditions and papal pronouncements of the church...

And you see Jesus using that method in Mark 7:6-13.

The NT saints were affirmed for doing it as we see in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

 

[Darren Court]

I think the problem with the term "sola scriptura" is that it means different things to different people. This is especially true of the literal interpretation of it that opponents use to criticise it... "only scripture".
...
The reality is that for most people SS means that scripture is the ULTIMATE authority that decides things, not the ONLY authority. In reality opponents of SS typically come from High Church (Anglican, Catholic or Ortho), and they actually believe in "Sole Ecclessie" because their ULTIMATE authority is the church. Of course, they don't like the term and will often try to argue that it's not actually true, but they are clearly wrong....
...
They argue there are three EQUAL authorities... Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (i.e church). The problem is that the church decides what scripture means and which traditions are valid and which aren't. In other words, church presides over the other two and is, therefore the ultimate authority.
....
"Sola Ecclessia" no more means Only Church than "Sola Scriptura" means ONLY Scripture.
...
One of the biggest criticisms of SS is that scripture itself does not actually teach this but it does...
...
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Ti 3:16-17

"so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

.......In other words, we don't need ANYTHING else to be thoroughly equipped to do all the good works that God wants us to do!!

This often countered with …"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Jo 21:25

Does this means scripture is incomplete? It does not say that. Do we need to know everything that Jesus said to be thoroughly equipped? Of course, not.

Do we need the Church to supplement the bible?
Adherents argue…"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."


• Problem here is that this verse is very specific to the things PAUL taught, not anyone else
• Second problem here is that Paul gives the purpose "hold fast to the teaching we passed on to you". Holding fast is the purpose so that no other new teachings can replace Paul's.
• Note too that this verse includes things WRITTEN and SAID. In other words, here Paul isn't providing a case for the oral non-written tradition as he includes written things here!


Then there's the argument that the church is the source of biblical truth?
…. How would you know what the bible was without the CC?
Bible was really compiled by Council of Nicea… but there's no mention of the Pope or church of Rome because there wasn't one!

 

[dms1972]

I imagine at some point one must choose a side, Sola Scriptura or traditions of men.

The writer I am talking seem to be talking about a distinction I have heard about before, and the church I grew up in never seemed to talk much about it (or perhaps they were talking about it in different terms - I don't know). That is the Scriptures as God's Word in the sense of Logos (that was understood), and something some christians refer to as God's Rhema. Now I searched about this just now and its I seems these are Greek terms. Plato and Aristotle both speak about Logos, and Rhema, and also Onoma (a new one to me). In christian theology its to do with the Holy Spirit speaking. But I have never quite understood what is meant.

Rhema - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rhema (doctrine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The writer I am talking seem to be talking about a distinction I have heard about before, and the church I grew up in never seemed to talk much about it (or perhaps they were talking about it in different terms - I don't know). That is the Scriptures as God's Word in the sense of Logos (that was understood), and something some christians refer to as God's Rhema. Now I searched about this just now and its I seems these are Greek terms. Plato and Aristotle both speak about Logos, and Rhema, and also Onoma (a new one to me). In christian theology its to do with the Holy Spirit speaking. But I have never quite understood what is meant.

Rhema - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rhema (doctrine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All Christians ( real ) walk with His Holy Spirit. He convicts us when we sin and presses upon on conscience into righteousness. Jesus Christ of Nazareth makes His home in us. Traditions of men is the polar opposite.
Thanks for sharing!
Blessings.

 

[Margaret3110]

"Sola Scriptura really meant that you came up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then you rummaged around in Scripture for some verses to support it. If Scripture was to be involved in theologizing at all, in any era, that has been pretty much the procedure..."

Lol. He's not wrong. I mean, a lot of people do do this. Not all Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura though, and not all that the ones that do, use it in this way.

 

[BobRyan]

And you see Jesus using that method in Mark 7:6-13.

The NT saints were affirmed for doing it as we see in Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

The reality is that for most people SS means that scripture is the ULTIMATE authority that decides things, not the ONLY authority. In reality opponents of SS typically come from High Church (Anglican, Catholic or Ortho), and they actually believe in "Sole Ecclessie" because their ULTIMATE authority is the church.

good point.

IT means that all church tradition, doctrine and practice is to be judged by the Word of God to "see if" it is legit or in violation of God's teaching.

 

[Darren Court]

All Christians ( real ) walk with His Holy Spirit. He convicts us when we sin and presses upon on conscience into righteousness. Jesus Christ of Nazareth makes His home in us. Traditions of men is the polar opposite.
Thanks for sharing!
Blessings.

The reality is that the without the Holy Spirit ... i) we cannot know Jesus is the Messiah ii) we cannot know truth.
"no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.