Sola Scriptura

[Erose]

Your last sentence is false that 'It is that Scripture isn't the only authority, and has never been considered as such, until relatively recent'.

We are just going to have to disagree here.

I have investigated this and provided the evidence in my article: Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/2016/01/07/is-there-no-scripture-alone-in-early-church-fathers/ These would be telling, if the argument truly was Scripture vs. Tradition, which it isn't.

What is your description of 'SS Christians'?

Oz

From Luther, who pretty much invented the doctrine, on in the Protestant Rebellion.

 

[Erose]

Oz - as we discussed earlier, your link does not address other writings from those same authors that clarify the meaning of the passages quotes in the article. I know from earlier discussions that you are very aware of the need to not pick and choose from scripture. However, based on my studies and the studies of many others who are much more experienced than me (there is no possible way for me to study 50 years at my current age) - it is easily apparent that those same writers have other passages which show that they do not consider scripture to be the ONLY authoritative source (though one could argue that scripture is the highest level of authority). If you would like to examine this passage by passage, we could do so in another thread.

Also, the belief structure the article opposes is not the same across all who disagree with Sola Scriptura. To have a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura - it is important to examine the alternative views of Scripture. Furthermore - the article seems to assume that those who do not believe in Sola Scriptura do not hold Scripture to be of the highest authority. Whether you agree or not, we thoroughly believe that the beliefs accepted by the church (not the beliefs of individuals) do not - cannot - contradict Scripture.

Many of the items the article disputes are not believed by my Tradition. I cannot speak for other Traditions though.

Yeah this is my point. There is a constant attempt to force a battle between Scripture and Tradition as if they were polar opposites, and that attempt is false and deceitful to the current debate.

 

[Korah]

Everybody knows that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory because it cannot be proven from Scripture alone.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yeah this is my point. There is a constant attempt to force a battle between Scripture and Tradition as if they were polar opposites, and that attempt is false and deceitful to the current debate.

That one does get tired.

There IS no "Scripture vs. Tradition" debate. I have never heard, nor do I ever expect to hear, in my Church "Tradition teaches xyz instead of what Scripture says here - abc." But on the other hand, one of the main reasons I began exploring different theologies is that I was quite frustrated at how many times I had asked pastors about a passage of Scripture, only to have it explained away as not meaning what it actually said.

I also think back to the hours upon hours of Scripture readings we had in Church last week.

But I agree .... "Scripture vs. Tradition" is not a real issue, at least not within any group I'm aware of.

 

[Job8]

Everybody knows that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory because it cannot be proven from Scripture alone.

Why not? If Scripture comes from God, and God declares within His Word that His written Word is the final authority concerning all things of which it speaks, then that is as it should be. God has spoken, and man must simply accede to His declaration. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV), "profitable" includes "sufficient". If God's Word is insufficient, then we have a very serious problem. But if every word is God-breathed (theopneustos) then we need nothing more, other than rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim 2:15).

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Job8]

From Luther, who pretty much invented the doctrine, on in the Protestant Rebellion.

Actually Luther (and other Reformers) simply woke up to what Christ and the apostles had already taught. Had there been no Luther, the sufficiency of Scripture would stand on the words of Christ Himself.

We also find the word *traditions" in Scripture, translated from paradosis which means "that which is handed down". Christ personally handed down His teachings to the apostles (including Paul), who handed them down to faithful men, and also handed them down to us through the New Testament. Everything which conforms to New Testament truth is genuine apostolic tradition. Anything which owes itself to the doctrines of men is outside of that.

The Lord Jesus Christ condemned the traditions of the elders, calling them the doctrines of men. Why? Because they did not truly conform to the Word of God.

 

[All4Christ]

That one does get tired.

There IS no "Scripture vs. Tradition" debate. I have never heard, nor do I ever expect to hear, in my Church "Tradition teaches xyz instead of what Scripture says here - abc." But on the other hand, one of the main reasons I began exploring different theologies. I was quite frustrated at how many times I had asked pastors about a passage of Scripture, only to have it explained away as not meaning what it actually said.

I also think back to the hours upon hours of Scripture readings we had in Church last week.

But I agree .... "Scripture vs. Tradition" is not a real issue, at least nit within any group I'm aware of.

From my understanding - it should essentially be a debate between
A. Scripture only - all outside sources should be discarded and ignored
B. Scripture only - outside traditional sources, history, etc. can help interpret scripture but anything else is not needed for salvation.
C. Prima Scriptura - scripture is highest priority, though other sources may be authoritative. Other sources cannot contradict scripture - if it does, scripture trumps it.
D. Scripture is part of Tradition (kind of like Prima Scriptura)
E. Scripture and Holy Tradition are parallel authorities, both in sync with eachother and not contradictory.
(plus many many variations).

It's isn't a black and white debate about scripture vs tradition by a long shot.

 

[All4Christ]

Actually Luther (and other Reformers) simply woke up to what Christ and the apostles had already taught. Had there been no Luther, the sufficiency of Scripture would stand on the words of Christ Himself.

I have read the Bible many times and do not come to that same conclusion based on scripture alone. I am not alone in that conclusion, so I don't think it is as simple as you seem to think. Those who don't believe in Sola Scriptura aren't ignorant of scripture. We aren't just ignoring what is written in the Bible, and we aren't going off of Tradition instead of Scripture.

 

[All4Christ]

We also find the word *traditions" in Scripture, translated from paradosis which means "that which is handed down". Christ personally handed down His teachings to the apostles (including Paul), who handed them down to faithful men, and also handed them down to us through the New Testament. Everything which conforms to New Testament truth is genuine apostolic tradition. Anything which owes itself to the doctrines of men is outside of that.

We (Orthodox) agree that all we must hold to the apostolic faith that has been handed down from the apostles and must conform to that: nothing added, nothing removed.

That said, we don't believe all the apostles taught and handed down was written in scripture, as is evident by what the apostles disciples taught, as well as others down the line. Their teachings didn't contradict scripture though.

 

[Job8]

I have read the Bible many times and do not come to that same conclusion based on scripture alone.

All I can say is that if a Christian simply studies and meditates on Psalm 119 in its entirety, it will become evident that the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture is being extolled in multiple ways. Indeed a study of this psalm would settle many of the issues we discuss.

 

[All4Christ]

All I can say is that if a Christian simply studies and meditates on Psalm 119 in its entirety, it will become evident that the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture is being extolled in multiple ways. Indeed a study of this psalm would settle many of the issues we discuss.

Psalm 119 is a beautiful Psalm. I enjoy reading it and meditating on it, as it is a very good way to learn how to follow God and to be thankful for His guidance.

However, it speaks of God's word, His ordinances, His precepts, His laws. Nowhere does that imply Sola Scriptura. Nowhere does that psalm say that His word is limited to written scripture.

If you see it differently, feel free to explain.

 

[All4Christ]

Why not? If Scripture comes from God, and God declares within His Word that His written Word is the final authority concerning all things of which it speaks, then that is as it should be. God has spoken, and man must simply accede to His declaration. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV), "profitable" includes "sufficient". If God's Word is insufficient, then we have a very serious problem. But if every word is God-breathed (theopneustos) then we need nothing more, other than rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim 2:15).

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I don't understood how people use this as proof of scripture being sufficient, considering that the New Testament wasn't scripture when this epistle was written. I agree that scripture is the inspired word of God, though I don't use this verse as a reason to support that. This verse is referring to the Old Testament, not the New.

 

[Salem]

All I can say is that if a Christian simply studies and meditates on Psalm 119 in its entirety, it will become evident that the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture is being extolled in multiple ways. Indeed a study of this psalm would settle many of the issues we discuss.

As time goes on, the greater my appreciation that we have inspired, fixed scripture in the Lord's Bible. Most of the debating you see are people thrashing over doctrines of men, not simply Catholic inventions, but the likes of Calvin, even Augustine among the supposedly Reformed, a myriad of cult leaders' writings that bred and breed like rabbits. Many are inventing their own theology anymore, have decided what the likes of Revelation means, after barely the first sitting, with no reliable tutoring. Or they take somebody selling a new, sensational book, crafted to titillate, as truth. You have best seller list authors taken as if scripture, whose interpretations are filled with holes in the whole scripture context, just inventions, playing off news stories.

It's all such unnecessary confusion. Scripture keeps you centered, filters out the false. The word of God so very often clearly states the only truths of the things of God, which are resisted by people subscribed to men who tried stuffing square pegs into round holes for personal agendas, or lacked understanding. It's people believing what they want to believe, or what their denomination or cult believes. There is peace in the truth of scripture. I'm not confused, sincerely feel sorry for these debates in the wilderness people are suffering.

If you need to measure an exact yard, you need a yardstick. You don't need people debating over what a yardstick is, some who don't even believe in yardsticks, or saying it's not 36 inches, but 32 inches, another it's 40 inches, another it's 38 inches, still another it's only a symbol that expired 2,000 years ago. Or who knows what an inch is, anyway? No, you ignore all that noise, look around, find your yardstick, that does in fact exist and is 36", measure what you need, and that's that. I daresay one builds a better home this way, too.

 

[BABerean2]

Everybody knows that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory because it cannot be proven from Scripture alone.

This would be a good place to start.
It is the best explanation I have ever seen on the original doctrine of the Church.
I learned some things the first time I saw it.

It is something every Christian on the planet needs to see.

It eliminates a great deal of the confusion seen in the modern Church.

 

[OzSpen]

This has also been much my thinking of denominationalism, these verse coming to mind, 1 Corinthians 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Looking at what appears to be the bulk of what's posted in forums, you're seeing man's doctrines, not scripture, people divided by what amounts to people, with private interpretations, that have been elevated to a cult following. Many actually reject some of what's in scripture and don't even realize this, often not even knowing the man who created the doctrines they believe in. Many Protestants have no idea they're signed up to Augustine, for instance.

There have been factions in the church since the first century and because of our sinful natures that will not change until Jesus returns.

I agree that there are a lot of human doctrines posted on Christian forums but there is also Prov 27:17 (NIV) in action, 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'. It also is a special challenge to be able to identify the false teachers and false prophets in church and on forums (see 2 Peter 2:1) when compared with Scripture.

I think you are drawing a long bow when you say that 'many Protestants have no idea they're signed up to Augustine'. Augustine certainly had a strong influence on the Calvinistic denominations in some areas of soteriology, but I find he had some valuable things to say in many areas. I actually study some of his writings. However, I can assure you that for me, all teachings come under the surveillance of Scripture. I'm grateful for input from many godly teachers down through the centuries and today. They have ministered to me. They are not infallible but are God's faithful teachers.

Oz

 

[~Anastasia~]

All I can say is that if a Christian simply studies and meditates on Psalm 119 in its entirety, it will become evident that the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture is being extolled in multiple ways. Indeed a study of this psalm would settle many of the issues we discuss.

Not to be a wet blanket, but if Scripture was perfect, sufficient, and complete when Psalm 119 was written - the entire New Testament would be superfluous by that definition ...

It is completely illogical to use such an argument from the OT to defend not only INCLUDING the NT as "Scripture" but also EXCLUDING any additional information as necessary at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too - especially not before it is even baked.

 

[Korah]

Granted, this Sola Scriptura stuff is like YEC except more circular.
This will give "Traditional Theology" a bad name, and is not relevant to us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think All4Christ brought out a good point that "sola scriptura" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, not by a long shot. When I read Luther's early suggestion of it, to be honest it sounded very much to me like the Orthodox understanding. There's a thread around here from a couple of years ago where I tried to get any answers that make a hard distinction between the two, and it still seemed they were quite similar, at least as Luther articulated it.

Scripture is the primary source and cannot ever be contradicted. Tradition helps inform and interpret. (In a greatly oversimplified form, according to Luther.)

That's a far cry from some of the most recent understandings that have developed. And those do begin to strain against any concept of "Traditional Theology".

 

[Salem]

I think you are drawing a long bow when you say that 'many Protestants have no idea they're signed up to Augustine'. Augustine certainly had a strong influence on the Calvinistic denominations in some areas of soteriology, but I find he had some valuable things to say in many areas.

This is an individual choice, who you're going to spend time listening to. There are many scholars you need not weed through to find consistent truth in. Augustine was in egregious error as to, for example, Replacement Theology and Amillennialism. The former error contributes to some heinous evil, such as has been used to justify anti-Semitism and elevates the work of man, by his "church" institution (which is not the church of Christ that is the spiritual body and bride of Christ of scripture), foolishness such as Roman Catholicism tasked with bringing in the kingdom rule. Foolishness the Bible does not support, in clear terms, this or the notion God has revoked His eternal promises to Israel and won't fulfill a mountain of literal prophecies still to come, concerning very Israel.

Augustine displayed some blinding ignorance of a wide body of scripture, proved himself a mangler of truth by his private interpretations and a most unreliable source of truth. On the other hand, I don't as much blame Augustine as those modern Christians, who have the likes of Israel reformed as prophesied, before our eyes, that still adhere to Replacement Theology or Amillennialism. I'd rather not spend more than five minutes, studying the work of any man who had such a weak grip on so much spiritually discerned scripture. Everybody's right about something, but this doesn't make them a right person, most certainly right in only some things an unfit Bible teacher. I find it a complete waste of time, to try and glean whatever tidbits any ignorant theologian may have gotten right, find no profit in going through mountains of garbage and stuffing that in my brain, as if not to mention what a waste of time. If I want fiction, I'll read a novel.

To each his own, but, as for me, no thanks. You can have your encyclopedia of religious philosophy.

 

[All4Christ]

This is an individual choice, who you're going to spend time listening to. There are many scholars you need not weed through to find consistent truth in. Augustine was in egregious error as to, for example, Replacement Theology and Amillennialism. The former error contributes to some heinous evil, such as has been used to justify anti-Semitism and elevates the work of man, by his "church" institution (which is not the church of Christ that is the spiritual body and bride of Christ of scripture), foolishness such as Roman Catholicism tasked with bringing in the kingdom rule. Foolishness the Bible does not support, in clear terms, this or the notion God has revoked His eternal promises to Israel and won't fulfill a mountain of literal prophecies still to some, concerning very Israel.

Augustine displayed some blinding ignorance of a wide body of scripture, proved himself a mangler of truth by his private interpretations and a most unreliable source of truth. On the other hand, I don't as much blame Augustine as those modern Christians, who have the likes of Israel reformed as prophesied, before our eyes, that still adhere to Replacement Theology or Amillennialism. I'd rather not spend more than five minutes, studying the work of any man who had such a weak grip on so much spiritually discerned scripture. Everybody's right about something, but this doesn't make them a right person, most certainly right in only some things an unfit Bible teacher. I find it a complete waste of time, to try and glean whatever tidbits any ignorant theologian may have gotten right, find no profit in going through mountains of garbage and stuffing that in my brain, as if not to mention what a waste of time. If I want fiction, I'll read a novel.

To each his own, but, as for me, no thanks. You can have your encyclopedia of religious philosophy.

While you are in the Traditional Theology subforum, please show some respect to the church fathers. Your perspective on accurate scholars is very much a matter of YOUR personal opinion.