The extent of sola scriptura

[hedrick]

Those who dismiss traditions because they are not in the Bible, in my view miss one incredibly important fact:

The canon of Scripture is the product of tradition. In the early Church the New Testament did not drop out of the sky in it's current form. There actually were people making fraudulent "gospels" in order to support various heresies. It was through the traditions of the Church that held to which books were authentic and which were not and this remained the case for a couple of centuries until the canon was decided upon. These decisions were based upon these traditions.

This objection doesn't apply to the mainstream Protestant tradition.

The original reformers thought that Catholic theology slowly went off track. Following the general Renaissance concept of "ad fontes" they compared current theology with the early Church. They looked both at Scripture and earlier theologians, and cited early writers a lot. Their critique still works even if you consider Scripture the earliest part of Tradition.

The current lineal descendants of the Luther and Calvin are actually the mainline denominations. We don't use a black and white distinction between Scripture and non-Scripture. Rather, we assess each book individually. Often our evaluations disagree with those who made up the canon. Not that we throw books out of the canon, but that we understand they weren't written by Apostles, and in some respect don't represent the views of Jesus and the Apostles.

I think your criticism actually does work against people who think we can take a random verse out of Jude, and it has as much authority as Jesus' teaching, because it's all God's Word in the same sense.

 

[Albion]

Those who dismiss traditions because they are not in the Bible, in my view miss one incredibly important fact:

The canon of Scripture is the product of tradition. In the early Church the New Testament did not drop out of the sky in it's current form. There actually were people making fraudulent "gospels" in order to support various heresies. It was through the traditions of the Church that held to which books were authentic and which were not and this remained the case for a couple of centuries until the canon was decided upon.

We may agree that the Church defined Scripture, but once it was defined, it was not itself Tradition.

The whole point of canonizing the Scriptures was to define what was divine revelation and what was not. Thus defined, the word of God (for that is what we Christians believe the Bible to be) stands on its own as God's word. Because it is God's word.

We access it and value it because we believe it to be divine revelation, NOT because it took churchmen several centuries to assemble and identify as revelation the books of the Bible.

So the person who asserts Sola Scriptura over tradition is in a position of having to deny the very thing that brought the Scripture into being in the first place.

Not in the least.

First, divine revelation was not brought into existence by the church or by tradition.

Second, if the church through tradition assembled and identified the word of God, that revelation is authoritative because of what it is, not how we came to identify it. For example, if you were to follow clues to locating a buried treasure, once the treasure is found its worth is not determined by how clever you were to find it. It is worth whatever sum of money the gems or gold or whatever might bring! Its value is in itself, not your map.

Also it is the case that one can wildly misinterpret any piece of writing. Especially one that has many levels of meaning. This is, in my view, why the reformation and the advent of Sola Scripture did not lead to concensus, rather the opposite. We now have endless denominations all teaching different variations of scripture. I think this is an argument against Sola Scriptura, clearly it alone is not sufficient.

But the easiest way to understand what's wrong with that analysis is to realize that whatever has been said to be true according to tradition is just as subject to different interpretations as is Scripture. Or perhaps moreso.

Of all the church bodies that subscribe to your theory, no two of them agree on the doctrines that they say came to us by tradition. For that matter, they cannot even agree on what constitutes the tradition that supposedly defines doctrine.

 

[BNR32FAN]

First, divine revelation was not brought into existence by the church or by tradition.

I would respectfully argue that the scriptures were in fact brought into existence thru the church. At least the New Testament anyway.

 

[Albion]

I would respectfully argue that the scriptures were in fact brought into existence thru the church..

Well, that's clearly incorrect.

Divine revelation, by definition, is something that has been revealed by God. Not by someone else.

And since you referred to the church, what does God's word say? It says that he, God, inspired certain men to write as he inspired them to write.

So who brought God's word into existence? It was God. HOW did he do it, you might ask? Well, by revealing his message to mortals who then recorded it, but to say that it was these scribes who brought the divine wisdom into existence is obviously a mistake. God brought into being everything that exists.

 

[Lawrence87]

We may agree that the Church defined Scripture, but once it was defined, it was not itself Tradition.

The whole point of canonizing the Scriptures was to define what was divine revelation and what was not. Thus defined, the word of God (for that is what we Christians believe the Bible to be) stands on its own as God's word. No?

We access it and value it because we believe it to be divine revelation, NOT because it took churchmen several centuries to assemble and identify as revelation the books of the Bible.

My point would be that this surely is a testament to there being some value in tradition. If there were not those who held steadfastly to the legitimacy of certain texts the canon of Scripture would not have come into being. Thus, Church tradition can be extremely valuable, and as such should not necessarily be dismissed out of hand.

First, divine revelation was not brought into existence by the church or by tradition.

True, but those who held to the notion that there were 4 legitimate Gospels throughout the centuries that there was no canon, were doing so as a matter of tradition. Again my point being that this is a testament to the value of tradition alongside scripture. Not tradition over scripture. If at the time no one paid any heed to these traditions then we might not have the Bible we have today. Now you can rightly say that the Holy Spirit inspired these traditions that led to the canonization of scripture, and that is exactly my point. The Holy Spirit can work through tradition, and thus its not necessarily something to be dismissed just because it is not in the Scripture.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, that's clearly incorrect.

Divine revelation, by definition, is something that has been revealed by God. Not by someone else.

And since you referred to the church, what does God's word say? It says that he, God, inspired certain men to write as he inspired them to write.

So who brought God's word into existence? It was God. HOW did he do it, you might ask? Well, by revealing his message to mortals who then recorded it, but to say that it was these scribes who brought the divine wisdom into existence is obviously a mistake. God brought into being everything that exists.

Thats not what I said friend. I said God brought the scriptures into existence THRU the church. Meaning that the church was a vessel that God used to bring the scriptures into existence. The church is not the source of the scriptures nor the author of them, however it was the means God chose to use to deliver them.

 

[Albion]

My point would be that this surely is a testament to there being some value in tradition.

All right. Nothing I said in reply to your post says that tradition is useless. It helps us put Scripture into focus, for example.

If there were not those who held steadfastly to the legitimacy of certain texts the canon of Scripture would not have come into being.

Let's no use a phrase like "come into being." If it is divine revelation (and both of us should be in agreement about that) it is something that God gave to mankind.

Church tradition can be extremely valuable, and as such should not necessarily be dismissed out of hand.

Neither of us did that.

True, but those who held to the notion that there were 4 legitimate Gospels throughout the centuries that there was no canon, were doing so as a matter of tradition.

Wonderful, so what were those Gospels? Something that the people you have in mind wrote themselves as their own theories about religion? No. You are saying that the BIBLE BOOKS were preserved by men, but they come from God.

The Holy Spirit can work through tradition, and thus its not necessarily something to be dismissed just because it is not in the Scripture.

And, for the third time, no one has argued here that tradition is without any importance. It is only when custom, legend, folklore, and/or theological speculation (called "Sacred Tradition") are considered to be the equal of God's own revealed truth that a big mistake is made.

 

[Albion]

Thats not what I said friend. I said God brought the scriptures into existence THRU the church.

All right. But you can see that every way of saying the point can be interpreted several different ways. In any case, I thought when I read your comment that you were "seconding" what Lawrence had argued. I'm happy to know that that wasn't the case after all.

 

[BNR32FAN]

All right. But you can see that every way of saying the point can be interpreted several different ways. In any case, I thought when I read your comment that you were "seconding" what Lawrence had argued. I'm happy to know that that wasn't the case after all.

No problem friend that one word “thru” changed the entire meaning of the statement. It’s understandable that it can easily be overlooked. God bless.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I believe that you are mistaken about that, although you are not alone in doing so and it is easy to misunderstand. The "other" that you are referring to are not additional "sources of authority" but means by which we may interpret, understand, the one source, Scripture. One of them, by the way, is tradition (as you noted), but this is not the Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches rely upon in preference to Sola Scriptura.


That's probably correct to say.

I look to Pastors of old and new to help make certain I'm on the right track, while making certain not to see them as infallible. But when you have a multitude of voices saying the same thing for hundreds of years you can discern that your understanding of Scripture is a positive one, or examine more fully why a difference exists if any do, and study and pray on matters.

 

[Lawrence87]

All right. Nothing I said in reply to your post says that tradition is useless. It helps us put Scripture into focus, for example.

Of course, however, my initial post was aimed at those who do dismiss the various traditions of the Church based on Sola Scriptura. Those who might say 'such and such is a tradition that has no basis in Scripture'. My argument is about the value of tradition alongside scripture, because traditions held through the early Church about which texts were inspired helped us to get these scriptures.

Let's no use a phrase like "come into being." If it is divine revelation (and both of us should be in agreement about that) it is something that God gave to mankind.

Well what I mean is the Gospels and Epistles and so forth were not initially collected in the Bible. They came together in that form with the help of those who preserved the knowledge of which, among the ever increasing deluge of Christian texts, were genuine.

Wonderful, so what were those Gospels? Something that the people you have in mind wrote themselves as their own theories about religion? No. You are saying that the BIBLE BOOKS were preserved by men, but they come from God.

They were God inspired. However long after the inspired authors reposed, people in the Church preserved them and with them the knowledge of their divine inspiration. This was at a time when many "gospels" were coming about, claiming to have apostolic authorship and proposing all kinds of wild heresy. At such a time when the matter would have been far from clear, the traditions about the authentic God-inspired texts were preserved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and ended up centuries later becoming the canon of Scripture.

My point being that if the Holy Spirit preserved these traditions, then one should not readily dismiss Church tradition, just because it is not in Scripture, as there was no text declaring which texts to preserve during the early Church, it happened through the Church holding to traditions.

And, for the third time, no one has argued here that tradition is without any importance. It is only when custom, legend, folklore, and/or theological speculation (called "Sacred Tradition") are considered to be the equal of God's own revealed truth that a big mistake is made.

And again there are those who do carte blanche dismiss the traditions of the Church because they aren't in Scripture. I was addressing them. It seems that you and I do not disagree about the value of tradition.

 

[Albion]

No problem friend that one word “thru” changed the entire meaning of the statement. It’s understandable that it can easily be overlooked. God bless.

Exactly! That was the word.

 

[Albion]

Of course, however, my initial post was aimed at those who do dismiss the various traditions of the Church based on Sola Scriptura. Those who might say 'such and such is a tradition that has no basis in Scripture'. My argument is about the value of tradition alongside scripture, because traditions held through the early Church about which texts were inspired helped us to get these scriptures.

Yes, but it does appear that you are confusing "Sacred Tradition," so called, with ordinary tradition(s).

Well what I mean is the Gospels and Epistles and so forth were not initially collected in the Bible. They came together in that form with the help of those who preserved the knowledge of which, among the ever increasing deluge of Christian texts, were genuine.

Okay, but that process or undertaking isn't what causes us to consider these writings to be authoritative. It is rather, that God inspired the writers as they wrote. That's revelation. And then, as you have said, the Church agreed that it was so.

Traditions can be important, just as you have argued. That is not what informs us of essential doctrines, though.

Scripture, God's word, is what does that, and there is no human-generated authority that is the equal of God's revealed word, not even if a church body claims that whatever it has produced was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But "Sacred Tradition" as adopted by the various Catholic churches says that this supposed consensus of human custom, opinion, and legends does have equal authority in dogma-setting alongside God's own word. That is the mistake.

 

[atpollard]

There are quite a few people out there who say "the Bible is right about this but wrong about that". They usually cover it up a bit better than this, but that's basically what they do when arguing which parts of scipture are taken to be literal and which are "metaphors", "parables", "stories" and the like. Or when people say "this has to be interpreted within the knowledge/social habits of that time".

All of this - cherry picking - is nonsense. Either the Bible is the ultimate authority as the Word of the living God or it has no authority at all. Either the Bible is the truth from beginning to end or nobody can trust any of it.

You do realize that even YOU don't actually believe that. right?

Here is a quick test:

[John 10:7-10 NASB] 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have [it] abundantly.

• Is Jesus REALLY a literal wooden gate covering the entrance to a sheep pen?

[Matthew 18:8-9 NASB] 8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

• Have you LITERALLY removed your hands, feet and eyes to prevent yourself from sinning?

[Matthew 25:33-34, 41 NASB] 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ... 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

• Is Jesus literally sending some animals to Heaven and other animals to Hell?

Some parts really are "'metaphors', 'parables', 'stories' and the like". To claim such is to simply speak the truth.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

You do realize that even YOU don't actually believe that. right?

Here is a quick test:

[John 10:7-10 NASB] 7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have [it] abundantly.

• Is Jesus REALLY a literal wooden gate covering the entrance to a sheep pen?

[Matthew 18:8-9 NASB] 8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

• Have you LITERALLY removed your hands, feet and eyes to prevent yourself from sinning?

[Matthew 25:33-34, 41 NASB] 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ... 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

• Is Jesus literally sending some animals to Heaven and other animals to Hell?

Some parts really are "'metaphors', 'parables', 'stories' and the like". To claim such is to simply speak the truth.

Your comment shows how little you understood what I was saying. May the God who indeed tells people who have worked miracles in His name "Depart from me, I never knew you!" have mercy on you.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

should I paint my brothers finger nails pink tonight?

You are right, I can not think of anything useful to say.

 

[BobRyan]

All Protestants affirm sola scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice.

However, I notice there is a divide among Protestants concerning the doctrine.

Some say that there are other sources of authority, but that Scripture is the highest and only infallible authority. The other authorities (tradition and reason, for example) are second Scriptures.

The other group seem to have the "just me and my Bible attitude), where they may not regard any religious sources outside of Scripture. This position is sometimes called nuda scriptura. I feel like this attitude is more common in evangelical circles. I think many evangelical theologians and scholars would agree with the mainstream Protestant in showing a higher regard for tradition and church history, but the average lay evangelical is probably nuda scriptura.

There is also the debate over the applicability of the Bible. Is it infallible in all areas of our lives, including science and history, or is it only infallible when concerns salvation and other religious matters?

For the evangelical/inerrantist side, I've been direct to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It's probably a pretty good summary on the evangelical perspective of sola scriptura.

I just want to get the views of Protestants in this forum, since I'm unsure what to think, myself.

I agree that there are at least two views of this among those who claim it (and maybe three).

1. That all doctrine must be tested against what the Bible says to see if it passes or fails the test by either being in line with scripture or contradicting scripture.

2. That the only information we have from God that is valid is in whatever scripture already exists.

3. That the only information we have from God that is valid is in whatever scripture would be canonized after the end of the first century.

I accept the first definition that I list and I reject the second one, because the Bible does not endorse the second one. The second one does not pass the "sola scriptura" test of #1.

For example - Agabus says he has a message from God that Paul will be arrested if he goes to Jerusalem - that is not in the OT so using the 2nd definition they would reject Agabus.

Also Isaiah 8:20 says "to the Law and to the Prophets -- if they speak not according to this Word they have no light" -

But if you applied the second definition of sola scripture then this Is 8:20 statement would have made all the rest of the Bible null and void since it is not found in the texts that existed before Isaiah 8:20

The third option means that you would have absolutely NO 'sola scriptura' testing for the entire Bible since they could not use it until after they were all dead.

 

[hedrick]

I accept the first definition that I list and I reject the second one, because the Bible does not endorse the second one. The second one does not pass the "sola scriptura" test of #1.

For example - Agabus says he has a message from God that Paul will be arrested if he goes to Jerusalem - that is not in the OT so using the 2nd definition they would reject Agabus.

A more nuanced version of 2 probably makes sense. We can only know about God if he reveals himself. For us in the 21st Cent the only public revelation is in Scripture. This adds two qualifications:
* The actual revelation was Jesus, both his life and teachings. That's the form in which God intervened in history to tell us about himself. (Well, also in his work with Israel.) During the 1st Cent there were witnesses alive, or people who knew them. That's a very different situation than now.
* There can be private revelations. But those can't be normative for Christians as a whole, because we have no effective way to test them. The individual may reasonably accept them, and maybe those around him. But private revelation can't act as a norm for the Church.

 

[BobRyan]

A more nuanced version of 2 probably makes sense. We can only know about God if he reveals himself. For us in the 21st Cent the only public revelation is in Scripture. This adds two qualifications:
* The actual revelation was Jesus, both his life and teachings. That's the form in which God intervened in history to tell us about himself. (Well, also in his work with Israel.) During the 1st Cent there were witnesses alive, or people who knew them. That's a very different situation than now.
* There can be private revelations. But those can't be normative for Christians as a whole, because we have no effective way to test them. The individual may reasonably accept them, and maybe those around him. But private revelation can't act as a norm for the Church.

1 John 4 makes an interesting statement (so also 1 Cor 14 and 1 Thess 5)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1 Cor 14:
Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

1 Thess 5
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Eph 4 says these gifts remain until the second coming.

==========================

The alternative is to argue for non "sola scriptura" doctrine - that the teaching we find in the Bible about testing / accepting prophetic messages is not what we should follow since we are not still living in the first century.

Using that kind of don't-follow-the-Bible "rule" it is impossible to imagine a doctrine that one would not be able to argue for accepting.