Sola scriptura

[Soyeong]

First of all, Holy Tradition isn't man-made. Many traditions employed by the Church are, but Holy Tradition means precisely and only what Christ personally passed on to his Apostles. Christ did not pass on any Scripture, but Scripture witnesses Christ's teachings, it is a witness to Holy Tradition, and that is why it is Sacred. However, there is no part of Scripture that claims Scripture is a comprehensive account of what Christ taught (how could it be? look how long he taught). Furthermore, there is no verse in Scripture giving a New Testament canon, that canon was put together by deliberation of the Church. So if you subscribe to a New Testament canon, right off the bat you are accepting a non-Scriptural teaching. And, once again, nothing in the New Testament says it is a comprehensive record of all dogma.

As I said, it is essentially impossible to follow Christianity without following human traditions and even Jesus followed a number of them, so I have no problem in general with accepting human traditions. My problem is specifically with following those traditions that are contrary to God's word.

The criteria for canonization was that it was written or confirmed by a recognized prophet or apostle or someone associated with one, its truthfulness and faithfulness to previously accepted canonical writings, and its usage and recognition of being authoritative. What was canonized closely matched earlier lists, so while there was debate over some of the outliers, for the most part canonization consisted of putting an official stamp of approval on what was already in common usage and recognized as authoritative. Books that were widely used and considered authoritative were done so for the most part because of their authorship and because they were in accordance with what had already been recognized as Scripture.

So I don't think subscribing to a NT canon means accepting non-Scriptural teachings when it was canonized because of its accordance with Scripture in the first place, but even if it did mean that, as I said, many human traditions are good and I can no problem in general with accepting them. I completely agree that the NT is not an exhaustive record of everything Messiah taught and verses like Luke 24:27 make that explicitly clear. However, there is no doubt that whatever he taught was in perfect accordance with what has already been recognized as Scripture. God has done nothing which He has not first revealed to the prophets (Amos 3:7). I do not start with the assumption that what you consider to be Holy Tradition today is the same thing that Messiah passed down to his disciples and if anything in Holy Tradition is contrary to Scripture, then that would be a very clear indication that what you have today is not what he passed down.

 

[sculleywr]

Sola Scriptura does not deny the use of traditions, but rather it says that when a tradition conflicts with God's word, that God's word has the highest authority. Basically, we should follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who checked OT Scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true before they accepted it. If Paul had said anything contrary to what OT Scripture says, then they would have rightfully rejected it. God's word is truth (Psalms 119:142), so it is the standard that we use to measure everything else against to see if it is true. Even saying that you just go by what the Bible says is itself a tradition, so it would be essentially impossible to follow Christianity without following traditions. Many of these man-made traditions are good or benign, but not all of them are in agreement with what OT Scripture teaches, so we should reject those traditions in favor of Scripture instead of rejecting Scripture in favor of those traditions. Jesus followed a number of man-made traditions, such as keeping Hanukkah (John 10:22), but he came in conflict with those traditions that went against Scripture, and criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God in order to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8).

The problem is that, in most cases, those who claim to follow sola scriptura follow many traditions which contradict the direct claims of Scripture and claim their belief is simply them teaching what Scripture teaches. The idea that the Scripture is a higher authority than the Church is, itself, a tradition that contradicts the Scripture's placement of Scripture as profitable, but the Church as pillar and ground of the Truth.

The fact is that when Scripture's plain meaning came into conflict with several Protestant doctrines, people changed the very canon of the Old Testament. On what authority did they base the editing of the Canon? Because the canon they used wasn't in existence in the time of Christ.

 

[Albion]

2. No, it says Scripture has to support Sola Scriptura, which Scripture doesn't.

Maybe we should start with getting straight what Sola Scriptura actually means.

 

[sculleywr]

Maybe we should start with getting straight what Sola Scriptura actually means.

The problem is that it means different things to each group that claims to believe it. There is no one definition of SS because it has become as malleable as the words "fascist" or "marxist" or "communist". The word has been used to apply to so many massively different interpretations of the authority of Scripture that a person could believe something completely different from you and still fall under the umbrella of SS. So just because we don't respond to your particularly narrow percentage of SS believers doesn't mean that you are the only accurate understanding of SS. There are others. So when you throw up that we aren't responding to your views, it does not mean we aren't responding to A view of SS. I respond based on the Southern Baptist understanding of Sola Scriptura because that is what I was originally raised under (my theological classes were at Tennessee Temple University, a Southern Baptist school). The specific Southern Baptist definition I use is that of Dr. David Kemp in his Doctrines 1 class. His definition is, in very simplified terms, since I don't have time to boil 4 weeks of classes on the topic, that Scripture is the highest authority in the Church.

However, this stance is not the only version of SS, and I know that, but since the Baptists are one of the largest Protestant denominations, and the SBC is the largest group of Baptists, the response to that view is legitimate.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Maybe we should start with getting straight what Sola Scriptura actually means.

I agree with sculley that SS means different things to different people. The problem with this thread though is not with the definition of SS. The problem is with the trickery involved in the OP to attack a contrary view to what the Catholic church holds; that there is dogma, incontrovertible truth outside of scripture. There is no controversy with the truth or authority of scripture. Most all agree to that. The problem/controversy is that the Catholics hold that scripture is not sufficient; that other sources are needed to fill in the truth.

So with deceit, the OP changes the responsibility of proving the validity of the Catholic position of dogma outside of scripture with putting the onus on those that don't believe such. They propose the absurd argument; scripture can't possibly contain all truths, therefore there are missing truths, therefore others may fill them in. Since SS people can't prove that all truths are in scripture, their position is faulty. This argument and the whole OP is a strawman against SS to somehow defend the Catholic position. The real issue is one of incontrovertible truth. The only source of that is scripture. There may be other truths out there, but we can not be completely sure of them being truth.

If the Catholics truly wish to defend the truth, they should start with an honest defense of their position that there are incontrovertible truths outside of scripture. This is the crux of the debate.

 

[amariselle]

What some people seem to forget is that Scripture is not manmade. While God used people throughout the writing and formation of His word, it is HIS word. God has inspired the entire process.

If we look at just the human point of view and human history, we could forget that.

God has decided which writings would be included in His word and which writings would not.

Unfortunately, mankind has tried to suppress and keep the word of God from people, and the church itself has been guilty of this, but God's truth prevails, it will not fade away.

 

[Albion]

I agree with sculley that SS means different things to different people.

That's like saying the Trinity means different things to different people. The term, Sola Scriptura, has a particular meaning and it came into use in order to express a definite idea. If some people have misunderstood that...or come up with their own meaning, that doesn't mean that the term means just whatever anyone wants to make it mean.

The problem with this thread though is not with the definition of SS. The problem is with the trickery involved in the OP to attack a contrary view to what the Catholic church holds; that there is dogma, incontrovertible truth outside of scripture.

Well, we could take Sola Scriptura completely out of that picture and simply discuss whether or not it's correct to say that "there is incontrovertible truth outside of scripture." But we cannot--or should not--mangle the meaning of Sola Scriptura as a way to denounce it as invalid.

 

[sculleywr]

I agree with sculley that SS means different things to different people. The problem with this thread though is not with the definition of SS. The problem is with the trickery involved in the OP to attack a contrary view to what the Catholic church holds; that there is dogma, incontrovertible truth outside of scripture. There is no controversy with the truth or authority of scripture. Most all agree to that. The problem/controversy is that the Catholics hold that scripture is not sufficient; that other sources are needed to fill in the truth.

So with deceit, the OP changes the responsibility of proving the validity of the Catholic position of dogma outside of scripture with putting the onus on those that don't believe such. They propose the absurd argument; scripture can't possibly contain all truths, therefore there are missing truths, therefore others may fill them in. Since SS people can't prove that all truths are in scripture, their position is faulty. This argument and the whole OP is a strawman against SS to somehow defend the Catholic position. The real issue is one of incontrovertible truth. The only source of that is scripture. There may be other truths out there, but we can not be completely sure of them being truth.

If the Catholics truly wish to defend the truth, they should start with an honest defense of their position that there are incontrovertible truths outside of scripture. This is the crux of the debate.

There is a fundamental problem: all texts, including Scripture, REQUIRE interpretation. That is what traditions do. And EVERY SINGLE DENOMINATION has a tradition it uses to interpret Scripture.

So by this standard, every church teaches fundamental truths that lie outside of Scripture. For example, every church teaches a canon of Scripture, which is, by its very nature, something that is outside of Scripture, for it is something that defines Scripture itself. The nature of it being the definer of Scripture makes it, by nature, above Scripture. Therefore, it is outside of Scripture and above Scripture. And since it is a tradition, then tradition is the highest authority regardless of what church you are in.

Even without that, however, each church has traditions, such that they call systematic theologies, confessions, or other such titles. And these traditions determine how Scripture is to be read. Thereby, it chooses which parts of Scripture to change or redefine. So this tradition ends up above Scripture itself. Escaping the authority of traditions is impossible.

 

[sculleywr]

That's like saying the Trinity means different things to different people. The term, Sola Scriptura, has a particular meaning and it came into use in order to express a definite idea. If some people have misunderstood that...or come up with their own meaning, that doesn't mean that the term means just whatever anyone wants to make it mean.


Well, we could take Sola Scriptura completely out of that picture and simply discuss whether or not it's correct to say that "there is incontrovertible truth outside of scripture." But we cannot--or should not--mangle the meaning of Sola Scriptura as a way to denounce it as invalid.

It doesn't matter that YOU apply a particular meaning to it and act as if your personal understanding is the only legitimate one. Other people have different understandings, and since you have never actually explained your definition of SS in any way that differentiates it from the one I posted, then you're ignoring the meat of the argument for irrelevant drivel.

 

[pat34lee]

Jesus followed a number of man-made traditions, such as keeping Hanukkah (John 10:22), but he came in conflict with those traditions that went against Scripture, and criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God in order to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8).

Actually, he was in the temple around the time of Hanukkah.
He wasn't celebrating the tradition, or at least there is no
reason to believe he did.

 

[pat34lee]

So by this standard, every church teaches fundamental truths that lie outside of Scripture. For example, every church teaches a canon of Scripture, which is, by its very nature, something that is outside of Scripture, for it is something that defines Scripture itself. The nature of it being the definer of Scripture makes it, by nature, above Scripture. Therefore, it is outside of Scripture and above Scripture. And since it is a tradition, then tradition is the highest authority regardless of what church you are in.

Even without that, however, each church has traditions, such that they call systematic theologies, confessions, or other such titles. And these traditions determine how Scripture is to be read. Thereby, it chooses which parts of Scripture to change or redefine. So this tradition ends up above Scripture itself. Escaping the authority of traditions is impossible.

You just listed the problem. The only reason you haven't seen
the answer is that you're looking inside the box, or the system.

Leave Babylon. Martin Luther had the right idea, but when he
was kicked out of the church, he took most of the teachings
with him. So did every other denomination.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

There is a fundamental problem: all texts, including Scripture, REQUIRE interpretation. That is what traditions do. And EVERY SINGLE DENOMINATION has a tradition it uses to interpret Scripture.

So by this standard, every church teaches fundamental truths that lie outside of Scripture. For example, every church teaches a canon of Scripture, which is, by its very nature, something that is outside of Scripture, for it is something that defines Scripture itself. The nature of it being the definer of Scripture makes it, by nature, above Scripture. Therefore, it is outside of Scripture and above Scripture. And since it is a tradition, then tradition is the highest authority regardless of what church you are in.

Even without that, however, each church has traditions, such that they call systematic theologies, confessions, or other such titles. And these traditions determine how Scripture is to be read. Thereby, it chooses which parts of Scripture to change or redefine. So this tradition ends up above Scripture itself. Escaping the authority of traditions is impossible.

The OP is a most simpleminded attack on SS. My post posits it as a way to defend Catholic dogma originating outside of scripture. Your post addresses nothing to my point. Different interpretations of scripture is a completely different issue. Further, the fact that denominations that claim to follow SS have included traditions in their doctrines may be hypocritical, but this is irrespective of the OP's simple argument; SS is invalid.

 

[Soyeong]

Actually, he was in the temple around the time of Hanukkah.
He wasn't celebrating the tradition, or at least there is no
reason to believe he did.

Rather, there is no reason to expect that a Jew in Jerusalem during Hanukkah was not celebrating it.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

That's like saying the Trinity means different things to different people. The term, Sola Scriptura, has a particular meaning and it came into use in order to express a definite idea. If some people have misunderstood that...or come up with their own meaning, that doesn't mean that the term means just whatever anyone wants to make it mean.


Well, we could take Sola Scriptura completely out of that picture and simply discuss whether or not it's correct to say that "there is incontrovertible truth outside of scripture." But we cannot--or should not--mangle the meaning of Sola Scriptura as a way to denounce it as invalid.

As the OP does not offer up a definition of SS, I assume that the author thinks all definitions of SS are invalid. Therefore it really is irrelevant to this thread what SS is in the thinking of the author.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

so in truth it is NOT just Christ as you previously asserted, but the whole of scripture.

Scripture is not Truth itself, Scripture is a a witness to Truth. All of Scripture is valid witness to Truth because it is all God's teachings. The New Testament is distinct in that it stems from the teachings God in incarnate form, in person.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

As I said, it is essentially impossible to follow Christianity without following human traditions and even Jesus followed a number of them, so I have no problem in general with accepting human traditions. My problem is specifically with following those traditions that are contrary to God's word.

The criteria for canonization was that it was written or confirmed by a recognized prophet or apostle or someone associated with one, its truthfulness and faithfulness to previously accepted canonical writings, and its usage and recognition of being authoritative. What was canonized closely matched earlier lists, so while there was debate over some of the outliers, for the most part canonization consisted of putting an official stamp of approval on what was already in common usage and recognized as authoritative. Books that were widely used and considered authoritative were done so for the most part because of their authorship and because they were in accordance with what had already been recognized as Scripture.

So I don't think subscribing to a NT canon means accepting non-Scriptural teachings when it was canonized because of its accordance with Scripture in the first place, but even if it did mean that, as I said, many human traditions are good and I can no problem in general with accepting them. I completely agree that the NT is not an exhaustive record of everything Messiah taught and verses like Luke 24:27 make that explicitly clear. However, there is no doubt that whatever he taught was in perfect accordance with what has already been recognized as Scripture. God has done nothing which He has not first revealed to the prophets (Amos 3:7). I do not start with the assumption that what you consider to be Holy Tradition today is the same thing that Messiah passed down to his disciples and if anything in Holy Tradition is contrary to Scripture, then that would be a very clear indication that what you have today is not what he passed down.

Do you believe the Apostles were infallible? How do you respond to the Incident at Antioch?

Nothing in Holy Tradition (what Christ taught) contradictions Scripture. It predates New Testament Scripture. New Testament Scripture was written to record it, but no section of it claims to be an exhaustive record. Christ ordained the Apostles teachers, he himself didn't write anything that's recorded. Thus, Christ imparted Holy Tradition, and the Apostles later wrote accounts, that doesn't mean these accounts or Epistles are claiming to be an exhaustive record of all of Christ's teachings.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Lutherans and the Reformed have had an open canon since the beginning.

I consider Christ the Supreme Authority, Scripture is an authority only because it is a witness to Christ's teachings.

There are Protestants that actually would not disagree. Karl Barth would be a good example, but there are many others.

The issue I see with Holy Tradition is that it's not a thing, at least not the way that traditionalist Orthodox understand it (I hesitate to call them fundamentalist, but that's often what they do). It is not a thing that you or I can treat in a positivistic fashion, like an object. And it's tied up in messy history. At times, what became the Orthodox position was actually contested (Arianism vs. Trinitarianism would be a good example).

All you've knocked down here are the more conservative or fundamentalist forms of Protestantism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There is a fundamental problem: all texts, including Scripture, REQUIRE interpretation. That is what traditions do. And EVERY SINGLE DENOMINATION has a tradition it uses to interpret Scripture.

So by this standard, every church teaches fundamental truths that lie outside of Scripture. For example, every church teaches a canon of Scripture, which is, by its very nature, something that is outside of Scripture, for it is something that defines Scripture itself. The nature of it being the definer of Scripture makes it, by nature, above Scripture. Therefore, it is outside of Scripture and above Scripture. And since it is a tradition, then tradition is the highest authority regardless of what church you are in.

Even without that, however, each church has traditions, such that they call systematic theologies, confessions, or other such titles. And these traditions determine how Scripture is to be read. Thereby, it chooses which parts of Scripture to change or redefine. So this tradition ends up above Scripture itself. Escaping the authority of traditions is impossible.

Indeed, Luther actually wanted to remove several books from the New Testament (such as James) for conflicting with his teachings.

You just listed the problem. The only reason you haven't seen
the answer is that you're looking inside the box, or the system.

Leave Babylon. Martin Luther had the right idea, but when he
was kicked out of the church, he took most of the teachings
with him. So did every other denomination.

Here are some quotes by Luther, you tell me if he really had the "right idea."

Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business.

But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.

Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly

I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.

Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.

I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain al the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus.

To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!

Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.

If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.

Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.

Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.

It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.

If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies

One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them

It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.

Reason is the Devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.

St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That's like saying the Trinity means different things to different people. The term, Sola Scriptura, has a particular meaning and it came into use in order to express a definite idea. If some people have misunderstood that...or come up with their own meaning, that doesn't mean that the term means just whatever anyone wants to make it mean.


Well, we could take Sola Scriptura completely out of that picture and simply discuss whether or not it's correct to say that "there is incontrovertible truth outside of scripture." But we cannot--or should not--mangle the meaning of Sola Scriptura as a way to denounce it as invalid.

Those trying to conflate Sola Scriptura with Prima Scriptura are the ones trying to mangle it.

 

[Philip_B]

Christ did not pass on any Scripture, but Scripture witnesses Christ's teachings, it is a witness to Holy Tradition, and that is why it is Sacred. However, there is no part of Scripture that claims Scripture is a comprehensive account of what Christ taught (how could it be? look how long he taught). Furthermore, there is no verse in Scripture giving a New Testament canon, that canon was put together by deliberation of the Church.

I don't really have a problem with this, unless you are suggesting that there are things that Jesus taught and passed on to his disciples which are not found in the Canon of the New Testament (the 27 Books). If you are suggesting that, then you may be in danger of some form of gnosticism.

The Church existed before one dot of the New Testament was penned. Indeed the New Testament is the library of the Church's Books, and we have decided as the Church to accept their authority. There are a number of books that are accepted in the Hebrew Canon which are largely accepted as the Old Testament. Both the EO and the RC also accept the deuterocanonical books, which Anglican receive as instructive but not for doctrine, and these books formed part of the Septuagint (a greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) and most likely the scriptures that were best known to the writers of the New Testament.

At the time of the European Reformation there was an argument on the part of some that the importance of scripture had been undervalued, and various approaches came to the for, including Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone) and Prima Scriptura (by scripture read in the light of the tradition).

The Word is Christ, the persons are one and the same.

This is clearly understood in the opening to 4G (The Gospel of John) en ho logos, en archee en pros ton theon. It is clear that the writer of the Gospel is drawing Christ into the advent of Creation, as the word (logos) thundered in the darkness, Let there be light. I believe it is a mistake to confuse the word (as in the canon of scripture) and the Word (as in the person of Christ) to whom scripture bears witness.

English can be a catastrophic language to do theology in.