The issues with Sola Scriptura

[MichaelS]

I would say that the letter to the Hebrews fairly forcefully and unequivocally repudiates the formal priesthood definition of "man of God." ... in the light of the strong warnings in the Book of Hebrews regarding establishing or maintaining a formal priesthood, I would argue that such are no more men of God than anyone else and are in fact in danger of eternal condemnation (see Hebrews 10:26 - in context the "sin" referred to is a rejection of grace in favor of systems of sacrifice, sacraments and works for salvation - trying to push the Holy of Holies back behind the veil that was recorded as torn).

I have no idea why you think I was equating the "man of God" with the priesthood. I wasn't. I was asserting that the "man of God" is assumed to be in the Church and under its authority and teaching. I won't address your supporting arguments since that would go off-topic here; if we want to discuss the priesthood we'll need another thread.

Tradition is not the same thing as wise council. The Pharisees had plenty of tradition, yet lacked wisdom in the things that mattered most.

The Pharisees had tradition; they did not have Holy Tradition. Not everything called tradition is holy, just as not all council is wise.

Granted, but since the things being spoken of by Paul were making their way into Scripture, the principle holds.

Not at all, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "letting Scripture interpret Scripture". The Bereans were not interpreting Paul's statements by the Scriptures, or vice-versa, but judging Paul's teaching in the light of the Scriptures and finding it to be true. That is the correct use of Scripture - as a "canon" or measuring rod by which to judge doctrine and action.

I could go into a lengthy dissertation on this topic, but I won't. Suffice to say that I believe both Dortian Calvinism and Arminianism are deeply flawed in their interpretation of scripture and both have wrenched the scriptures horribly out of context to fit their systems rather than fixing their systems to fit the scriptures. This actually helps make my point. This actually helps make my point. Disciples of Christ should strive to read the scriptures afresh and should question what they are being taught. Tradition may be old, and it may be nearly universally accepted and yet still be wrong. Confessions and catechisms should be evaluated in the light of Scripture, not the converse.

I'm glad you refrained, as the rightness or wrongness of either wasn't the point. But no, this does not help make your point, it contradicts it. There are many men of great learning and intelligence, as well as many of more humble education, who hold to both views. And most if not all would claim that they have done exactly what you say - read the Scriptures afresh, questioned, and evaluated all in the light of Scripture. Yet they still come to wildly different conclusions. Obviously that methodology is insufficient for coming to a correct interpretation of Scripture.

 

[hisbondsslave]

So the concept of Sola Scriptura, which I shall reference as SS from now on, has been in debate here for the past few days it seems. After reading and watching and debating on a few threads myself, I decided to make a new thread in regards to the issues with this concept.

This will be a long post, please read entirely before responding

First, here is the definition of SS: is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

On the surface, this sounds like a rather valid idea. The Bible is the written word of God right? So how could there be anything higher?

However, when we dig past the surface, there are 3 key issues that come up in regards to SS.

1) The defense of SS is circular logic

First, the definition of circular logic: is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Case in point, the Bible.
S)I believe in SS, everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Well where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) We know that the Bible is the word of God, so therefore everything must be found in the Bible.
Q) Who told you that it was the word of God?
S) The Bible clearly states that it is the word of God.
Q) I ask again, where in the Bible does it teach SS?
S) The Bible does not need to state SS since it is the word of God.

Every time a question is asked against SS, the statement goes right back to the Bible. This ends up having the debate get absolutely nowhere. How can you defend something, that when you defend it, it places you in a logical fallacy?

This leads right into issue 2
2) SS is found nowhere in the Bible

As stated above, SS claims that the Bible is the highest authority and that everything must be in the Bible for it to be true.

However, the actual concept of SS is found nowhere in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of places that support scripture, as it should, since the Bible is the written word of God.

Namely 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and John 20:30-31

These do not state SS however, as the Bible also gives testament to traditions, namely Traditions of Christ.

Namely in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6

If we were to believe that SS was true, then by its own argument, it must be found in the Bible. If we look at John, this does not tell us SS. In fact, it is stating that Johns gospel should be enough, not the Bible. If we look at Timothy, it also does not state SS. Instead, is referring to the OT on how it is divine scripture and learning it leads to Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, in Timothy, Paul also points out the importance of apostolic tradition with verse 14.

Now on the issue 3

3) SS and authority

Now this will be the largest part. What do I mean by the above statement? This statement is directly tied to the question "If all these denominations follow SS, then why are there so many different ones all following the same book, claim the same truth, yet differ in beliefs?"

There tends to be only 1 answer to this question, and that is that "SS does not determine how the Bible is interpreted. Some denominations are more right than others."

The obvious follow-up question is "Well who is more right and how do you know?"

Another answer that I have heard is "The Bible interprets itself." which is completely impossible, since the Bible is a book. And a book cannot interpret itself.

The issue here is, when you believe the Bible is the highest authority, then there cannot be an authority to interpret the Bible since that authority would then have to be higher or equal to the Bible.

Here, many will say that the Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Bible. If this was true, then why would the Holy Spirit create so many differing denominations? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradiction? The obvious answer is No.

So then, who has the authority to interpret the Bible and how would one know which interpretation is the best? By following SS, there is no answer here.

This then falls to self-interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, actually quoted, before his death, saying "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

With self-interpretation of the Bible, and you come to a different interpretation than the churches in your area, nothing can stop you from making your own church. Nobody has the authority to say you are wrong in your interpretation because that would then place them at the same level of authority has the Bible. Which is against SS.

With SS, everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, and everybody is also wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.

Logically, since not everybody is right in their interpretation of the Bible, there needs to be an authority higher or equal to the Bible to claim what is the correct interpretation.

That authority falls to the Church that was started by Jesus. The Bible came from that Church in the late 4th century. That Church being the only Church to be able to trace itself back to the first Pope, St Peter. That Church, first being called the Catholic Church in the year 107AD by St Ignatius of Antioch. That Church being the Catholic Church, which at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD developed the Nicene Creed and started the process developing a Church canon, the Bible and without this Church, nobody would have the Bible today.

The 3 authorities: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.co...word-of-god-part-3-tradition-and-magisterium/
Early Church Fathers on Holy Tradition: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_tradition.htm
Council of Nicaea: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Council of Carthage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397
St Ignatius: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

God Bless

Spoken like a true Roman Catholic.

 

[Albion]

Well, that clears up at least one thing. We're not talking about the same thing when we refer to SS.

True. And there's not much point in discussing what you had in mind if it's done under the assumption that we're talking about the pros and cons of Sola Scriptura.

As a different topic for discussion, yes, it would probably be worth a thread of its own.

 

[Albion]

By "correctly understand" I mean understanding what God intends to communicate in contrast to human understanding.

Thank you. And my reply would be as it was in that post you're responding to--

For one, SS is concerned with the source of the answer, not the ease with which we discern it.

 

[theDevolutionist]

I have no idea why you think I was equating the "man of God" with the priesthood. I wasn't. I was asserting that the "man of God" is assumed to be in the Church and under its authority and teaching. I won't address your supporting arguments since that would go off-topic here; if we want to discuss the priesthood we'll need another thread.

I do apologize for misconstruing your earlier remarks - it sounded like you were obliquely referring to monastery / abby life, etc. I do not have any argument with the notion that one of the functions of the Church is to teach and equip. I would argue against the notion that anything other than Scripture is needed to support those functions.

The Pharisees had tradition; they did not have Holy Tradition. Not everything called tradition is holy, just as not all council is wise.

I am sure the Pharisees believed their tradition to be holy. They had ceremonies, ordinances, and sacraments. They memorized these along with Scripture. For all their washing, dietary restrictions, and Sabbath observances, Jesus compared them with whitewashed tombs. So while some Church traditions may be holy in that they are in harmony with the teaching of Scripture, none should be viewed as being above scrutiny.

Not at all, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "letting Scripture interpret Scripture". The Bereans were not interpreting Paul's statements by the Scriptures, or vice-versa, but judging Paul's teaching in the light of the Scriptures and finding it to be true. That is the correct use of Scripture - as a "canon" or measuring rod by which to judge doctrine and action.

I completely agree with the principle of evaluating teaching by the yardstick of Scripture. There is also a principle of hermeneutics - evaluating particular passages in the light of immediate context, then immediate context in the light of the greater context of Scripture. The Bereans more properly illustrate the first idea, as you noted, but Paul's letters to Timothy, including his praise of Timothy's mother and grandmother illustrate the second - that apart from Scripture, no additional dogma, catechism, confession, synod, or whatever is needed for derivation of correct doctrine or instruction. They my be helpful, but they may also be harmful.

I'm glad you refrained, as the rightness or wrongness of either wasn't the point. But no, this does not help make your point, it contradicts it. There are many men of great learning and intelligence, as well as many of more humble education, who hold to both views. And most if not all would claim that they have done exactly what you say - read the Scriptures afresh, questioned, and evaluated all in the light of Scripture. Yet they still come to wildly different conclusions. Obviously that methodology is insufficient for coming to a correct interpretation of Scripture.

First, it is important to remember that the reformers were themselves still battling with years of indoctrination into tradition. Second; within a generation or two, the reformers began formalizing their doctrine (Remonstrance, Synod of Dort, London Baptist Confession, Westminster Catechism). Subconsciously, many have canonized those traditions. So regardless of claims to the contrary, many are not really holding to the principle of Scripture alone as the authoritative source of doctrine. Thirdly; while non-Catholics of many denominations do hold heated debates on certain issues, it is a bit of an injustice and an exaggeration to categorize them as "wildly different." There is a certain orthodoxy to protestantism (a word I don't care for - I am not protesting anything) - a set of core beliefs that would identify a mainstream, if you will - ideas like Christ being God become flesh (Philippians 2) and becoming the sacrifice for our sins, salvation being by grace alone, obtained through faith alone (Romans 4:5, Romans 3:28), the certainty of eternal life and resurrection in Christ (John 5:24, 6:44, 6:54) - following the resurrection of Christ Himself . Paul refers to these teachings as items of first importance in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15). Debates on internet forums like this one probably give a more skewed perspective on this issue than the reality justifies. Certainly there are a few who will claim that all [Calvinists, Arminians, Pentecostals, Baptists, Catholics, favorite denomination here] are going to hell, but this doesn't represent the majority view.

 

[Hawkiz]

I am surprised that no one has brought this up, but there is an important bit of Paul's instruction to Timothy left off in the OP's quote:

2 Timothy 3

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So the Bible does seem to give a pretty solid indication that the Scriptures do contain all the knowledge that is needed for practical Christian living and to equip us for spiritual battle (again, in terms of revelation / knowledge; not to say that prayer, fasting or other spiritual disciplines are unimportant).

Even during the apostolic era, we find that the large majority of the decisions made in the New Testament Church recorded in Acts or the Epistles were made by studying the Scriptures and obtaining wise council. Relatively few were made under direction of immediate and unambiguous revelation.

As far as hermeneutics are concerned, the best approach is to let Scripture interpret Scripture wherever we can - as the Bereans were commended for doing. Systems of theology are good for helping us to organize our thoughts on major spiritual themes but also carry the danger of propagating error as we come to rely on them to interpret Scripture for us.

Except that the Scripture says that the Bereans did two things, not one. They recieved St. Paul's interpretive teaching, and then studied what would have been OT Scripture to 'prove' it to be true. Scripture did not clearly interpret itself, as St. Paul's instruction was also needed. Sola Scriptura was not 'enough' for the Bereans.

Peace in Christ
Hawkiz

 

[Thursday]

This is absolute foolishness to think the RCC had anything to do with the books in the Bible. What arrogance and pride.

It is historical fact. The Church wrote scripture, compiled it, preserves it, and proclaims it throughout the world.

 

[Thursday]

The Bible clearly teaches that the traditions of men make the Word of God void in their lives. I think I'd heed to that verse, and discard immediately any tradition that contradicts the Bible. God doesn't need man's foolish traditions.

Many protestant traditions contradict the bible. This is because they have abandoned those sent by Jesus.

 

[Albion]

Many protestant traditions contradict the bible. This is because they have abandoned those sent by Jesus.

Once again, "traditions" are not "Holy Tradition," whether we're looking at the Protestant churches or the Catholic ones. It's only "Holy Tradition" that is opposed to Sola Scriptura (our topic here).

 

[Thursday]

Once again, "traditions" are not "Holy Tradition," whether we're looking at the Protestant churches or the Catholic ones. It's only "Holy Tradition" that is opposed to Sola Scriptura (our topic here).

Sola scriptura is not biblical. It is directly contradicted by scripture.

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura is not biblical.

I have thought it over and come to the conclusion that the Bible is indeed Biblical.

 

[Thursday]

I have thought it over and come to the conclusion that the Bible is indeed Biblical.

Sola scriptura, however, is not.

 

[Albion]

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Point to anywhere in Scripture where even one of those traditions is identified for us so that we may hold fast to it. We don't assume that there are actually 15 Commandments that were given to Moses, but 5 of them are secret or we can just make them up as we go. Same thing with this.

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura, however, is not.

Well then neither is "Holy Tradition."

 

[Thursday]

Point to anywhere in Scripture where even one of those traditions is identified for us so that we may hold fast to it.

This verse refers to traditions not in scripture, yet still apostolic in origin.

Here's a good example:

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

 

[theDevolutionist]

Except that the Scripture says that the Bereans did two things, not one. They recieved St. Paul's interpretive teaching, and then studied what would have been OT Scripture to 'prove' it to be true. Scripture did not clearly interpret itself, as St. Paul's instruction was also needed. Sola Scriptura was not 'enough' for the Bereans.

Peace in Christ
Hawkiz

The Bereans did not use Paul's teaching to evaluate Scripture. They put his teaching on trial, using Scripture to evaluate whether it was true. This would be no different than using Scripture to evaluate whether a Holy Tradition is true. In the case of the Bereans, Paul's information shed new light on the meaning of the prophets, but they studied carefully to make sure that information was actually in harmony with what had been written. Paul's writings are now accepted as Scripture, so they may be used to evaluate whether various traditions and dogmas are true or false. If every catechism, confession, whatever was destroyed tonight, the Bible contains all the information needed to continue the work of preaching the Gospel to all people and making disciples of all nations.

 

[Thursday]

The Bereans did not use Paul's teaching to evaluate Scripture.

The Bereans didn't consider the New Testament to be scripture. Do you?

 

[Albion]

This verse refers to traditions not in scripture, yet still apostolic in origin.

Here's a good example:

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

But infant baptism is NOT dependent upon any "Holy Tradition."

It's accepted by most Christian denominations that are not "Holy Tradition" churches but, rather, adhere to Sola Scriptura. So this isn't a doctrine derived through Holy Tradition because, on the contrary, it's justified by Scripture.

If some churchman like Origin says an approving word about the practice hundreds of years later, that doesn't make it a doctrine that church wouldn't otherwise have.

 

[Thursday]

But infant baptism is NOT dependent upon any "Holy Tradition."

It's accepted by most Christian denominations that are not "Holy Tradition" churches but, rather, adhere to Sola Scriptura. So this isn't a doctrine derived through Holy Tradition because, on the contrary, it's justified by Scripture.

If some churchman like Origin says an approving word about the practice hundreds of years later, that doesn't make it a doctrine that church wouldn't otherwise have.

I just proved that it was derived from Holy Tradition. It is not explicitly taught, or forbidden, in scripture, but we find that it was taught by the apostles and practiced by the Church.

 

[Hawkiz]

The Bereans did not use Paul's teaching to evaluate Scripture. They put his teaching on trial, using Scripture to evaluate whether it was true. This would be no different than using Scripture to evaluate whether a Holy Tradition is true. In the case of the Bereans, Paul's information shed new light on the meaning of the prophets, but they studied carefully to make sure that information was actually in harmony with what had been written. Paul's writings are now accepted as Scripture, so they may be used to evaluate whether various traditions and dogmas are true or false. If every catechism, confession, whatever was destroyed tonight, the Bible contains all the information needed to continue the work of preaching the Gospel to all people and making disciples of all nations.

Thank you for pointing out in your response that the Bereans used the three legged stool: they used Scripture. They used St. Paul's traditions (what else can you call the new message that he was preaching except for a [new] tradition?). And they also used St. Paul's interpretive teaching as a leader within the Christian Church. They utilized all three to discern the Truth; not just one.
And they accepted all three as the Truth in the end. And were correctly commended for doing so.

Peace in Christ
Hawkiz