Sola scriptura?

[questionman]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.

 

[Anguspure]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.

Sola Espirito Sancto is really the only way to go, although I would use a passage from Romans to back that up.

 

[Albion]

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church.

If you used a flashlight to find your car keys, would the flashlight be what starts your car?

No, you're using a fallacious argument that's frequently employed by Catholic posters, but it is fallacious none the less.

In addition, tradition does not equal the doctrine-setting method that has arbitrarily been labelled as "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" by the church.

Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one.

It is nothing more than an affirmation of the value of the word of God, against which there is no equal.

The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

On the occasion of someone else making this same claim, I posted 19 different Bible verses that DO state what you allege does not exist.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition?

No. It is an appeal to divine revelation.

For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical).

Ah! See my first point above for the answer to that mistake.

The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God.

The Apocrypha never had been determined to be inspired Scripture; it was only included in earlier editions of the Bible PROVISIONALLY.

And then the Roman Catholic Church itself threw out part of the Apocrypha in the same century as the Reformers removed all of it! That being the case, how can the decision of the latter be wrong but the decision made by the former be all right?

Thanks for the inquiry.

 

[Erik Nelson]

It is nothing more than an affirmation of the value of the word of God, against which there is no equal.

No no no no no no no

Sola Scriptura =

• I only follow the Word of God!
• I only follow Scripture!
• BTW, guys... I get to decide what is / is not Scripture based upon my personal preferences

Plainly stated, that is "cherry picking" what you like, discarding the rest, and claiming you're following the Truth.

Truth = whole entire truth + nothing but the truth​

1. God gave Protestants "meat & vegetables".
2. Protestants dumped the "vegetables" on the floor.
3. Protestants show off how they are eating the "meat" God gave them, and saying "eating what's for dinner!"

OK, maybe isn't "adding to" the Deposit of Faith (2 Thess 2:15) -- though substituting the Jewish Masoretic text for the Greek LXX really does introduce new words in some important places -- but is certainly taking away from it!

• No Apocrypha
• No Sacred Tradition

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
Revelation 22:19

 

[Albion]

No no no no no no no
Sola Scriptura =

• I only follow the Word of God!
• I only follow Scripture!
• BTW, guys... I get to decide what is / is not Scripture based upon my personal preferences

I'm sorry, but that's all nonsense. You are not giving us the meaning of Sola Scriptura but, instead, an editorial about what you think people who follow it allegedly do as a result of that commitment! And what you've said about their isn't correct anyway!

Sola Scriptura means to use Scripture for the determination of essential doctrine, that's all. It does not mean to do nothing UNLESS it is mentioned in Scripture, nor does it mean that every reader should place his own interpretation upon the contents. No no no no. None of that.

 

[FenderTL5]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.

The N.T. epistles are letters written by Paul and other Apostles/Church leaders to existing, practicing Churches.
Those documents were produced by the Church, to the Church, for the Church for a variety of purposes.
Those Churches were baptizing, observing the Eucharist, praying, etc prior to the epistles being penned. The same can be said for the Gospels with a possible exception as to purposes.
The New Testament is Church Tradition, not all of it, but the central and most important element of Church Tradition. To suggest otherwise; to somehow think that they are not a product of the tradition of the Church is to not understand how time passes nor a timeline works.
It simply denies reality.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I'm sorry, but that's all nonsense. You are not giving us the meaning of Sola Scriptura but, instead, an editorial about what you think people who follow it allegedly do as a result of that commitment! And what you've said about their isn't correct anyway!

Sola Scriptura means to use Scripture for the determination of essential doctrine, that's all. It does not mean to do nothing UNLESS it is mentioned in Scripture, nor does it mean that every reader should place his own interpretation upon the contents. No no no no. None of that.

You are avoiding my questions

You follow "only Scripture" ?

OK -- define your canon

Where does your definition of "Scripture" (which you then follow strictly, afterwards) come from?

Do Protestants get to first pick & choose what they call "Scripture", and then secondly after that follow the implications of those "Scriptures"?

That is circular non-reasoning:

• I choose the Scriptures whose implications I like
• Then, I follow those Scriptures and enjoy their pleasant implications ("surprise!")
• see how much fun I'm having following God's Word?

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know that this is circular non-reasoning, cherry picking Scriptures you like while discarding others.

Please. directly. answer. the. question. Where does your definition of "Scripture" and "canon" come from? God?? God tells us directly which books to use and which not to???



Protestants sound like a US nuclear submariner enlisted man responding politely to their officer's orders when they don't think the officer is well-informed:

• Officer gives direct order over intercom
• Enlisted reactor operator says, "come again, I didn't hear what you just said...anyway about that other thing you said, that was a really good idea, let's go with that!"

Only problem is, God in heaven isn't some newbie wet-behind-the-ears greenhorn ensign ignorant of nuclear fission reactor principles whose more confused moments you can politely ignore

Revelation 22:19

 

[Albion]

The N.T. epistles are letters written by Paul and other Apostles/Church leaders to existing, practicing Churches.
Those documents were produced by the Church, to the Church, for the Church for a variety of purposes.
Those Churches were baptizing, observing the Eucharist, praying, etc prior to the epistles being penned. The same can be said for the Gospels with a possible exception as to purposes.
The New Testament is Church Tradition, not all of it, but the central and most important element of Church Tradition. To suggest otherwise; to somehow think that they are not a product of the tradition of the Church is to not understand how time passes nor a timeline works.
It simply denies reality.

The mistake, as always, is in claiming that the process used to IDENTIFY the inspired writings suitable for inclusion in the canon is itself equal to the word of God.

I also have to challenge the notion that your church thinks that it invented the Bible. The church explicitly affirms the divine origin of these books and the issue is merely about whether there is anything else that is their equal.

 

[Albion]

You are avoiding my questions

You follow "only Scripture" ?

Scripture alone determines essential doctrine. I think I said this before.

OK -- define your canon

The books all Christians accept as divinely inspired.

Where does your definition of "Scripture" (which you then follow strictly, afterwards) come from?

The Bible, the same books as the opponents of Scripture accept as divine revelation.

Do Protestants get to first pick & choose what they call "Scripture", and then secondly after that follow the implications of those "Scriptures"?

Of course I cannot speak for what every Protestants does. We are discussing what Sola Scriptura MEANS, what it IS, not what anyone in particular does with Scripture..

 

[Erik Nelson]

You know what the canon consists of, and that's beside the point anyway

well, remind me

please

tell me again

How do we know what canon consists of?

Canon is, obviously & clearly ________________________________________________

Please fill in the blank?

 

[FenderTL5]

I also have to challenge the notion that your church thinks that it invented the Bible.

To my knowledge, my Church lays no claim to "inventing the Bible."
The New Testament writings most certainly were a product of the unified, pre-Schism Church.
To deny this is to deny history.
The order of operations was Church before New Testament, not the other way around.
There were no copies of the New Testament on the merchandise table at the Ascension, nor at Pentecost.

The church explicitly affirms the divine origin of these books and the issue is merely about whether there is anything else that is their equal.

Agree, to a point.
Our Church has a tiered aspect to what is authoritative, I understand that others may have much different understandings.

 

[questionman]

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, this is the Canon, page 3: https://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WCFScriptureProofs.pdf

"All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life."

 

[Albion]

well, remind me

please

tell me again

How do we know what canon consists of?

Canon is, obviously & clearly ________________________________________________

Please fill in the blank?

Please see my previous posts.

 

[eleos1954]

I come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.

First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.

Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).

If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.

The case for including the apocrypha as holy Scripture completely breaks down when examined. The New Testament writers may allude to the apocrypha, but they never quote from it as holy Scripture or give the slightest hint that any of the books are inspired. If the Septuagint in the first century contained these books, which is by no means a proven fact, Jesus and His disciples completely ignored them.

 

[questionman]

The case for including the apocrypha as holy Scripture completely breaks down when examined. The New Testament writers may allude to the apocrypha, but they never quote from it as holy Scripture or give the slightest hint that any of the books are inspired. If the Septuagint in the first century contained these books, which is by no means a proven fact, Jesus and His disciples completely ignored them.

P.S. Rarely do the NT writers quote from the NT writings or call them inspired (other than a comment from Peter about Paul, and maybe a couple other random allusions).

Not a strong argument for canonicity.

As I understand it, the primary driver of canonicity was doctrinal. Church tradition defined the scope of the canon on that basis.

 

[Albion]

P.S. Rarely do the NT writers quote from the NT writings or call them inspired (other than a comment from Peter about Paul, and maybe a couple other random allusions).

That isn't really the same thing, though. The NT refers to the OT literally hundreds of times and quotes from it many times. By comparison, there is no reference made to the Apocryphal books or their contents.

 

[questionman]

That isn't really the same thing, though. The NT refers to the OT literally hundreds of times and quotes from it many times. By comparison, there is no reference made to the Apocryphal books or their contents.

Agreed, which is why I said quotes and allusions weren't the basis for defining the Canon. Doctrine was. Doctrine was agreed upon via church tradition and resulted in the Canon.

An appeal to the Canon as Scripture is first an appeal to church tradition.

That's my argument from my original post.

 

[LearningChristian]

I started out sola scriptura in the early journey of my faith, but now I'm a little bit in the middle. On the one hand, I like the idea of a specific set of books that are definitively scriptural and divinely authoritative. At the same time, if I'm being honest with myself, I do question why do different groups choose different books to consider scriptural. So I find myself open to reading all the books that are out there. As long as the central truth of Christ is supported in these books, why not? But in general, I mostly stick with what I'm familiar with, which is the Protestant canon.

But a verse I often looked to for some affirmation of a book being divinely authoritative was what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16 which states, "and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

This verse appears to show Peter affirming Paul's writings to be scriptural. Ironically though, I've read people have questioned the validity of 2 Peter. But, just throwing it out there for discussion.

 

[Albion]

Agreed, which is why I said quotes and allusions weren't the basis for defining the Canon. Doctrine was. Doctrine was agreed upon via church tradition and resulted in the Canon.

Agreeing upon does not mean creating. Once the church identified those books which were inspired--and rejected those which were not--we had the complete doctrinal standard. Even prior to this, Church Fathers were citing Scripture as their basis for doctrine.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just a rememinder folks, and to let those who might not be aware know ...

Traditional Theology is not a debate forum. We can all discuss from our own point of view. It can be a fine line at times, I know.

(I haven't read everything and I'm not calling anyone out.)

Let's just be aware. Thanks!

~Anastasia~
CF Senior Ambassador