Sola Scriptura

[cloudyday2]

A few questions on sola scriptura:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

(1) Is seems to me that sola scriptura is officially accepted by almost all Protestants. Even many liberal Protestant denominations accept sola scriptura while interpreting scripture more liberally. Other than Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox, are there any denominations that do NOT accept sola scriptura?

(2) I can understand why sola scriptura was attractive to Luther - he was an expert on scripture and he believed the Catholic traditions had been corrupted. Luther needed some standard of orthodoxy, but how did he justify the idea that the Bible could be that standard? Didn't Luther consider the possibility that he was throwing-out some orthodox ideas that didn't happen to be mentioned in any book of the Bible (i.e. he was torching the whole wheat field to destroy a few tares)? On the other hand, what made Luther think that ordinary people interpreting the Bible would learn orthodox beliefs? Here is a comment from Johann Eck at the Diet of Worms that seems very sensible.

"'Martin,' said he, 'there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

(3) Sola scriptura seems be assumed by everybody in discussions of Christianity. Atheists try to debunk Christianity by showing problems in the Bible. Catholics and others who don't officially accept sola scriptura nevertheless feel a need to defend their beliefs against apparently contradictory Bible verses. What do you personally think of sola scriptura?

 

[ViaCrucis]

As a Lutheran I'm a fan of Sola Scriptura. Though one might find that, frequently, Lutheran use is Solum Verbum rather than Sola Scriptura; Sola Scriptura fits into a larger idea of "Word Alone". This may in part be to differentiate the view of Luther and the early Reformers from modern ideas of "Sola Scriptura" which effectively amount to a kind of "Bible Onlyism".

Sola Scriptura or not, Christianity makes a pretty big deal about Scripture. Scripture is, for us, a (or the chief) sacred witness of our faith in Christ. Scripture is first and foremost a liturgical, ecclesiastical document; that is the Canon of Scripture came into existence on what was read in the context of Christian worship, the liturgy. Scripture points us to Jesus, Scripture forms and informs our faith and shared experience as a cohesive Christian community. Its narrative, its wisdom, its teaching take us to faith by directing us to Jesus Christ. From a specifically Lutheran perspective Scripture consists of both Law and Gospel, God's "two words" as it were, and Lutheran theology hinges on the dichotomy between Law and Gospel (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel#Lutheran_view).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks, I had never heard of Sola Verbum, but here is a link from a Catholic website ( http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition ).

In the early Ecumenical Councils, how often did people quote from books of the Bible to support their viewpoints (as opposed to past decisions in councils and so on)?

It's amazing that everybody today seems to accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Atheists use Sola Scriptura to attack Christianity by finding issues with the Bible. Sola Verbum Christians (such as Catholics) are forced to use the Bible when defending against criticism by Sola Scriptura Christians. Everybody is playing by the rules of Sola Scriptura invented by Luther.

 

[oi_antz]

I support it, leverage it, respect it, yet reserve the right to form my opinions independent of it. For example, the Genesis account of creation contains information of unknown origin. Some people have told me thy believe it was divinely inspired to Moses directly from God. Others seem to think it originated as an official summary of common myth in the era, others believe it must have originated at the source (Adam and Eve) and transpired generations by written or oral communications. Obviously, exactly which of these various origins is correct will have a huge impact on the reliability of the information and the way we should regard it. But since we do not know how reliable that information is, I therefore reserve my right to opinion about origins, to be formed on evidence outside of the bible. Though personally I tend to believe YEC more often than not. When it comes to Christianity as it pertains to Jesus Christ, as you well know, He was a man who lived and acted 2,000 years ago. So the only memory of those activities exists in written form, which is found in the bible. There is no other record as reliable as that. The records that are bound within the bible obviously are more reliable than those that aren't, for example Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas etc. Therefore, if we do recognise the words in the biblical gospels to be accurate and true, what is left is the authority of who is speaking. In Christianity, I am accustomed to accept Jesus Christ as the man to speak with greatest authority. Although I have recently discovered a confusing idea that St Paul supersedes Him. I think that is a heresy born of a non-repentant heart. Then with St Paul's statements, I consider him authority due to his proximity to the culture and knowledge of Jewish customs, and I look to what he says as authoritative on that basis, but not in any way able to contend with the authority of Jesus. Furthermore, I have not yet found any of St Paul's statements contradicting my own understanding of the truth, though that could be largely consequential. Basically, I acknowledge anyone's point if they show me scriptures that demonstrate their point as valid, and I choose to use scripture that way whenever I make a point to someone who will respect scriptural authority. Scriptures selected for the bible were recognised as being worthy of canonification on their individual merits, and it is the merits of those individual writings that qualifies their authority IMO. Thanks for asking!

 

[aiki]

As I understand it, Sola Scriptura was a return to the original, Early Church view of Scripture that Paul the apostle expressed quite well:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And:

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Some streams of "Christianity" have become modern versions of the religion of the Pharisees and scribes who put their own traditions and thoughts on par with God's Word. And as the Pharisees did this, they thoroughly twisted and corrupted Scripture. Jesus roundly criticized and condemned them for doing so and, it seems to me, that such criticism and condemnation is well-earned by certain present-day denominations that by the spurious means of "apostolic succession" place mere human wisdom and tradition on par - and even above - that of divinely-inspired Scripture.

(3) Sola scriptura seems be assumed by everybody in discussions of Christianity. Atheists try to debunk Christianity by showing problems in the Bible. Catholics and others who don't officially accept sola scriptura nevertheless feel a need to defend their beliefs against apparently contradictory Bible verses. What do you personally think of sola scriptura?

I am convinced that placing God's Word as supreme in matters of Christian doctrine and practice is absolutely necessary.

Selah.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As I understand it, Sola Scriptura was a return to the original, Early Church view of Scripture that Paul the apostle expressed quite well:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And:

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Neither passage advocates Sola Scriptura though. The first talks about Scripture being important and inspired, but that's it. Moreso, there is nothing in the context of Hebrews 4 that would suggest "word of God" here refers to Scripture at all; let alone there being anything in the text to suggest Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is chiefly about a methodology that keeps the Church grounded in Scripture; the relationship of Scripture and Tradition wasn't a conversation that had really taken place yet historically; so one is not likely to find a definitive "Sola Scriptura" position prior to the Reformation because that hadn't really been a conversation the Church had had. Likewise the Church had never had a serious conversation on the relationship of works and grace, Law and Gospel (etc) which is why Luther, at least in the beginning, fought so hard for it to become a church-wide conversation, fighting for a church-wide council to discuss the issue.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oi_antz]

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Addressed to OP according to forum rules, not to goad Aiki into response, but to clarify a Christian perspective that might not have been immediately so obvious due to the prevalence of common jargon:

I believe that Hebrews 4:12 does not refer to scripture or the content of scripture, but the spirit that has breathed the scriptures. Therefore the phrase "Word of God" should not be used to describe the bible in the context of this verse, but rather the spirit of God which breathes through the deeds of men who are acting in accordance with His will (eg the writers of the scriptures), and who speaks to us as a living and powerful message from God in our daily lives, for example as we read the scriptures.

Here is the basis for this belief: The Word of God is living and powerful, as it refers to the expression of God, not only some words which are written and bound with a stamp of approval. Such words do not change and do not seek us out. A living thing is able to respond and interact with it's environment, whereas the bible is not. A powerful thing is able to impact people, yet the bible cannot impact people if they do not read it. Jesus actually made this distinction Himself: "you diligently study the scriptures, because you think you have life in them. But the scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to have life". Take also the description offered in John chapter 1: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (describing thus: the living and powerful Word of God that discerns our thoughts and the intents of our heart has become a living human being (namely: Jesus Christ). As a living human being, the walking/talking Word of God, Jesus spoke these words: "yet, you refuse to come to me to have life". Now consider this: Since Jesus Christ is enthroned in heaven rather than walking the earth, how do you expect you can come to Him to have life? We can safely conclude from His statement that it is not by merely studying the scriptures, but by drawing near to the Word of God. That is to say that we must come to know Him, the expression of God who is living, who discerns our thoughts, the intents of our heart, the one who speaks to us even as He spoke to the prophets in the days before He became flesh and dwelt among us.

These words must be properly understood: The Word of God is living and powerful.

The bible is a collection of squiggles on paper. Unless it is opened and read, or thrown at somebody, it has no impact whatsoever. It is neither living nor powerful unless we are observing Him to whom it testifies, who is entitled "The Word of God". (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5:39-40&version=NIV, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:14&version=NIV). Probably aiki will agree with what I have said here, but anyway I am sensitive to perceiving this phrase "word of God" as describing the bible, to be too often misleading, since it is always given without proper context to explain actually the phrase is meant to describe the spirit behind what is said in the bible rather than just the words themselves.

 

[hedrick]

Please remember that neither Luther nor Calvin held the more radical position of some modern Protestants — that we should build Christianity from scratch based on Scripture. They believed that the Catholic Church had gone wrong during the medieval period, and that to correct it, it made sense to use the teaching of the Apostles. But it was intended to be used to check and correct the Church, not to recreated it from scratch.

It’s interesting that in 16th Cent Germany this was apparently uncontroversial. There were a number of hearings where both Luther and a Catholic would debate. It was generally understood that the results would be judged by Scripture.

Part of why most people agreed on the use of Scripture might have been the peculiar situation in the 16th Cent. The idea of the Church as an inerrant and unified doctrinal sources was particularly difficult to maintain during that period. There had been two popes competing for control, and there was still an ongoing issue between the Pope and the counciliar movement about whether the Pope or councils should be in charge. There was also widespread agreement among Catholic theologians that major reform, including reformation of doctrine, was needed. Finally, Luther focused on justification. But that doctrine hadn’t been defined by any major council (the closest was Orange, but its results were apparently not widely known at the time), and a lot of late medieval theologians had ideas about justification and grace that even later Catholic theology would not approve.

It’s also worth noting that Calvin’s Institutes (his book summarizing Christian theology) quoted from church fathers extensively. As I observed, the Reformers believed they were Reforming the Church, due to recent bad developments, not creating a new Church with just Scripture. Hence they believed that even earlier Catholic theologians supported them. (Calvin was, however, a bit selective in his quotations.)

—————

The position of modern Protestant churches varies. Lutheran and Reformed Christianity continues to see theology as done by the Church, and does not encourage individuals to go off and create their own theologies based on Scripture.

The mainline / liberal tradition also tends to have a strong doctrine of the Church, and to see theology as a community enterprise. The difference is that in the mainline tradition, modern scholarship has a much larger degree of influence, and it is expected that theology will change as understandings of the NT and doctrinal history change.

Conservative Lutheran and Reformed churches believe that since truth can’t change, our understanding of Scripture can’t change on important doctrinal issues. The result is a traditional interpretation of Scripture that de facto can't change much more easily than Catholic Holy Tradition.

However there have been more radical movements, e.g. the Restoration movement, which claimed to have recreated Christianity based entirely upon Scripture, without use of Tradition.

There are also varying degrees of emphasis on whether Scripture is interpreted by the Church or the individual. In practice most groups do have traditional group interpretations, but allow individuals to dissent to varying degrees, and to call on the community to reconsider. So while there is some degree of “private interpretation,” in most cases people’s interpretation is not completely independent.

 

[aiki]

Neither passage advocates Sola Scriptura though. The first talks about Scripture being important and inspired, but that's it. Moreso, there is nothing in the context of Hebrews 4 that would suggest "word of God" here refers to Scripture at all; let alone there being anything in the text to suggest Sola Scriptura.

Just as one cannot find a Bible verse explicitly declaring the full doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of the hypostatic union, one cannot find such a verse regarding Sola Scriptura. But I am convinced that Scripture provides good grounds for holding all three doctrines. God is Triune, Christ is fully man and fully God, and the Bible is sufficient as the Supreme Authority in matters of Christian doctrine and practice.

The bible is a collection of squiggles on paper. Unless it is opened and read, or thrown at somebody, it has no impact whatsoever.

I'm not sure I can agree with you here. Those "squiggles on paper" are mere referents, they are not the truths of God themselves. The revelation of God and the spiritual principles and wisdom that are written in the Bible are not confined or limited to it. Whether or not one ever reads the Bible, God nonetheless exists as the Ground of All Reality; His truth, the spiritual principles and wisdom expressed in Scripture, still fundamentally order all human existence.

Selah.

 

[South Bound]

A few questions on sola scriptura:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

(1) Is seems to me that sola scriptura is officially accepted by almost all Protestants. Even many liberal Protestant denominations accept sola scriptura while interpreting scripture more liberally. Other than Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox, are there any denominations that do NOT accept sola scriptura?

(2) I can understand why sola scriptura was attractive to Luther - he was an expert on scripture and he believed the Catholic traditions had been corrupted. Luther needed some standard of orthodoxy, but how did he justify the idea that the Bible could be that standard? Didn't Luther consider the possibility that he was throwing-out some orthodox ideas that didn't happen to be mentioned in any book of the Bible (i.e. he was torching the whole wheat field to destroy a few tares)? On the other hand, what made Luther think that ordinary people interpreting the Bible would learn orthodox beliefs? Here is a comment from Johann Eck at the Diet of Worms that seems very sensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

(3) Sola scriptura seems be assumed by everybody in discussions of Christianity. Atheists try to debunk Christianity by showing problems in the Bible. Catholics and others who don't officially accept sola scriptura nevertheless feel a need to defend their beliefs against apparently contradictory Bible verses. What do you personally think of sola scriptura?

It's Biblical and if anybody doesn't believe it, that's their problem, not ours.

 

[South Bound]

Just as one cannot find a Bible verse explicitly declaring the full doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of the hypostatic union, one cannot find such a verse regarding Sola Scriptura.

What kind of Baptist church do you go to that can't find sola scriptura in the Bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just as one cannot find a Bible verse explicitly declaring the full doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of the hypostatic union, one cannot find such a verse regarding Sola Scriptura. But I am convinced that Scripture provides good grounds for holding all three doctrines. God is Triune, Christ is fully man and fully God, and the Bible is sufficient as the Supreme Authority in matters of Christian doctrine and practice.

I think there is plenty in Scripture to support a proto-Trinitarian theology and a nascent high Christology. Not fully formed, fully articulated doctrines--that required many more years of theological reflection and development often motivated by theological controversy.

I think one will find plenty of support for an idea of Scripture as authoritative in the Church; but an idea of "Sola Scriptura" presumes a fairly mature idea of Scriptura; something that didn't exist in the first century where the very idea of "Sacred Scripture" was still very much in its infancy. It took the Church hundreds of years to reach a basic consensus on a Canon--and that consensus has not, even to the present day, ever been unanimous. Sola Scriptura was a method, an idea, which the Reformers conceived of as a way to reform the Church; by appealing to the inspired writings of the Apostles as a way of establishing Christian norm. The way in which the Reformers appealed to Scripture, while not entirely different than how earlier generations of Christians did, was in some ways new.

As such we shouldn't expect to find Sola Scriptura in Scripture itself, we shouldn't even really expect to find it before the Reformation. Sola Scriptura is not dogma but reformational methodology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[aiki]

What kind of Baptist church do you go to that can't find sola scriptura in the Bible?

You didn't read carefully what I wrote. I did not say one could not find biblical grounds for Sola Scriptura in the Bible. In fact, I said the opposite. But I did clarify that the idea of Sola Scriptura is not explicitly stated in Scripture. No where in the Bible will you find a verse which says, "Scripture is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice for Christians." The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, however, is easily deduced from what we read in the Bible - just like the idea of the Trinity.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

I think one will find plenty of support for an idea of Scripture as authoritative in the Church; but an idea of "Sola Scriptura" presumes a fairly mature idea of Scriptura; something that didn't exist in the first century where the very idea of "Sacred Scripture" was still very much in its infancy. It took the Church hundreds of years to reach a basic consensus on a Canon--and that consensus has not, even to the present day, ever been unanimous. Sola Scriptura was a method, an idea, which the Reformers conceived of as a way to reform the Church; by appealing to the inspired writings of the Apostles as a way of establishing Christian norm. The way in which the Reformers appealed to Scripture, while not entirely different than how earlier generations of Christians did, was in some ways new.

As such we shouldn't expect to find Sola Scriptura in Scripture itself, we shouldn't even really expect to find it before the Reformation. Sola Scriptura is not dogma but reformational methodology.

I'm afraid I don't agree. It seems quite evident that the Early Church had a very clear conception of sacred and authoritative Scripture. This is clear in what Paul wrote to Timothy (see 2Ti. 3:16, 17). Certainly the Jews populating the Early Church held, and would have communicated to Gentile believers, a regard for sacred OT Scripture akin to Sola Scriptura. And as the documents that constitute the New Testament circulated among the members of the Early Church and were recognized as divinely inspired and authoritative, they were given the same high regard as that given to the OT by the Jews. This is indicated in those instances in the NT where portions of the NT are referred to as Scripture (2Pe. 3:15, 16; 1 Ti. 5:18; cf. Lu. 10:7) and by the constant appeal of Jesus and the apostles to Scripture as the final word on matters of divine truth. The phrase "it is written" is repeated some 90 times in the NT. In fact, Jesus employed a Sola Scriptura approach in his reasoning with the Pharisees when he condemned their evil practice of placing tradition before the command of God:

Matthew 15:3-6
3 ..."Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
5 But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"--
6 then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

In light of these things (and some others I have not mentioned), it seems clear that Sola Scriptura was not just "a reformational methodology."

I also don't think it accurately conveys the facts to say that the biblical canon was arrived at by consensus - at least, not by the consensus of Roman Catholic leaders. No council of church leaders determined what should be the canon of Scripture. At best, the various councils that addressed the matter of the canon merely recognized what the Early Church had adopted for itself as foundational documents of the Christian faith.

Selah.