The extent of sola scriptura

[9Rock9]

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

The other group seem to have the "just me and my Bible attitude), where they may not regard any religious sources outside of Scripture.

That's probably correct to say.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

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.
If I believe that the Bible is correct about my salvation then I have to believe that it is also correct about the creation of the universe and that Moses divided the sea. Only then I got a solid foundation for my beliefs, only then I can stand firm when someone argues against my beliefs.

Whoever wants to "choose and pick" from the Bible has no foundation at all. There is no logical argument to say "the Bible is right about my salvation but not about the Flood". All or nothing. If you don't trust God on scientific things then you can't trust Him on "religious" things either.

 

[hedrick]

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.

I don’t think they are quite second Scripture. When Protestants use tradition, they are trying to avoid “me and my Bible.” The idea is that if you look at what the whole community has said over time, it helps avoid idiosyncratic interpretations. After all, scholars often know things about the historical context, language etc, that you don’t know. And there are interpretations that lead to trouble that isn’t obvious until you follow them out for a while. But there are two key things about tradition for Protestants:

• It’s not infallible. It’s always legitimate to challenge it. And in many of our churches there have been plenty of times when the community h as eventually decided that tradition was wrong.
• It’s not a source of revelation.

I’m not sure I can really comment separately on reason. After all, both individuals and communities necessarily use reason when looking at the implications of Scripture. I don’t quite see any way to avoid it.

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?

There’s a bunch of questions tied up in this:

• What is Scripture? Is it like the Prophets: God speaking directly? Or did God show himself through his guidance of Israel, and through Jesus, and Scripture is human witness to this?
• Everyone agrees that there are things in the Bible that only make sense in its own cultural context. E.g. when Paul tells women to wear hats, most people now think that he was concerned about dress that shows respect, and that there may be different ways to do that today. Similarly, Christians for centuries prohibited taking interest on loans because of some OT passages. But we now think that when carefully used, loans permit people of modest means to buy homes and do nothing things that they couldn’t otherwise do. But deciding when a specific command was dependent on the context and when it doesn’t apply to us today is an area where opinions differ, and in fact change over time. Some Protestants, of course, claim that Biblical standards never change, but I don’t think they actually live that way.

There's also a de facto difference, which is whether you're willing to accept the guidance of science and scholarship in dealing with these questions. It's quite clear that the kinds of views I suggest have actually arisen because scientists and historians found things that contradict the Bible. Responses have varied:

• No they don't. This leads to convoluted exegesis, trying to make the Bible agree with modern knowledge.
• They do, and science is a plot to attack Christianity

But there are lots of intermediate views. And some people are willing to accept that Genesis might be non-literal while rejecting current scientific views of gender and sexuality.

 

[hedrick]

My personal view is that any reasonably objective analysis of the Bible will show it as written by people with quite different views, many of which reflect ancient ideas about the world that we know not to be true. But they also witness God's acts. So I use modern Biblical scholarship and science, but also do my best to follow Jesus teachings and the implications of his death and resurrection.

 

[Tigger45]

The spectrum of what is commonly called Sola Scriptura runs from Nuda Scriptura-Prima Scriptura. Those who consider themselves as ‘Bible only’ Christians would fall under the Nuda Scriptura end of the spectrum. But actually there is no ‘pure’ bible only interpretations. I don’t think humans (particularly in a fallen state) are able to receive information without it being effected by the individuals personality, experiences, biases, fears... much less those elements of the chain of persons who passed that information on to them. But they will fight you tooth and nail if you try to tell them that subsequently making their interpretation of scripture their own Sacred Traditions .

The reformers who coined the term Sola Scriptura particularly the likes of Luther would be to the other end of the spectrum to Prima Scriptura.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Even sola scriptura is subjective. I see way too many people who allow their doctrines to dictate the scriptures rather than allowing the scriptures to dictate their doctrines.

 

[Monksailor]

I don’t think humans (particularly in a fallen state) are able to receive information without it being effected by the individuals personality, experiences, biases, fears... much less those elements of the chain of persons who passed that information on to them.

Are you dismissing the guidance and correction of the Holy Spirit in this position?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[Albion]

Even sola scriptura is subjective. I see way too many people who allow their doctrines to dictate the scriptures rather than allowing the scriptures to dictate their doctrines.

That's not a deficiency in the Scripture!

All you are referring to is the confused and complicated way that a lot of people handle ANY information from ANY source.

There are those who believe in a flat Earth, for instance, and those who seriously believe that they talk to God in English every night in their bedrooms and get prophesy that no one else knows, and then there are also people who think that the Jews or the Masons or Alien time-travelers control every last thing that happens on the planet from their headquarters in the Alps or under the ocean or somewhere else.

 

[Tigger45]

Are you dismissing the guidance and correction of the Holy Spirit in this position?

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The question then becomes how polluted is the water from the well an individual or denomination or tradition is drinking from.

 

[Monksailor]

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The question then becomes how polluted is the water from the well an individual or denomination or tradition is drinking from.

Maybe for for someone with a very narrow, subjective perspective and unwilling to recognize that Jesus sent each believer the Holy Spirit to guide them is such things as understanding His Word. There is NO pollution in the understanding obtained though the Holy Spirit. There are many Christians out here today who refuse to adhere to traditional and or denominational understandings of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

Maybe for for someone with a very narrow, subjective perspective and unwilling to recognize that Jesus sent each believer the Holy Spirit to guide them is such things as understanding His Word. .

If that is what you mean by the HS guiding, then it IS the Bible which is authoritative.

 

[HatGuy]

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.
If I believe that the Bible is correct about my salvation then I have to believe that it is also correct about the creation of the universe and that Moses divided the sea. Only then I got a solid foundation for my beliefs, only then I can stand firm when someone argues against my beliefs.

Whoever wants to "choose and pick" from the Bible has no foundation at all. There is no logical argument to say "the Bible is right about my salvation but not about the Flood". All or nothing. If you don't trust God on scientific things then you can't trust Him on "religious" things either.

Do you think one day an actual beast will rise from the sea?

Revelation 13:1

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's not a deficiency in the Scripture!

All you are referring to is the confused and complicated way that a lot of people handle ANY information from ANY source.

There are those who believe in a flat Earth, for instance, and those who seriously believe that they talk to God in English every night in their bedrooms and get prophesy that no one else knows, and then there are also people who think that the Jews or the Masons or Alien time-travelers control every last thing that happens on the planet from their headquarters in the Alps or under the ocean or somewhere else.

What I’m referring to is the people that say certain verses in the Bible can’t be saying what they are actually saying because that would contradict this particular doctrine so they try to find ways to change the meaning of the scriptures instead of reevaluating their doctrines.

 

[concretecamper]

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

Yes, but this belief is not found in scripture. It is a man made idea.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Maybe for for someone with a very narrow, subjective perspective and unwilling to recognize that Jesus sent each believer the Holy Spirit to guide them is such things as understanding His Word. There is NO pollution in the understanding obtained though the Holy Spirit. There are many Christians out here today who refuse to adhere to traditional and or denominational understandings of the Bible.

The proof text for this was addressed only to the Apostles, not every Christian in all time.

Context matters.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I agree the Bible must be interpreted within a corporate body of believers.

 

[Lawrence87]

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.

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.

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.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

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.

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.

From what I see sola scriptura goes right out the window when you start quoting verses like John 15:2 or John 15:6 or Galatians 5:4. A very large majority of people will say that these people were never in Christ when the scriptures specifically say that they were. This is where sola scriptura takes a backseat to reformed doctrines and all of a sudden the doctrine of eternal security takes precedence over what the scriptures actually say.