Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[HatGuy]

Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

I like that. Jesus is the message and the final word.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Here comes a grenade!

But a helpful conversation, I believe.

I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).

Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.

The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.

Absolutely. However, whatever we may receive from God as revelation today will not contradict the written word. It is our safety net to protect us from heresy, lying signs and wonders and the like.

 

[Amittai]

Jesus interpreted the Old Testament and sent the Holy Spirit so we can and moreover a lot of verbal teaching was expounding the meaning of Scripture. So it all boils down to the same thing, including the best * of "Tradition".

* whatever might be discerned of that

I see (like R T Kendall) the Gospel in James, this is about Holy Spirit sacrifice for the upbuilding of our brother. "Covering" is helping his gifts bear fruit (ina ddition to actual cloaks & rugs). It is NOT exploiting and bossing! These are the very things Jesus spoke. And most of the OT is about. Is 55, 58, 61. Keep a portion for him who has none, share the good works like praying & visiting and don't hog them all to yourself.

Fundamentalists want to dispense with the meaning.

 

[Barney2.0]

There’s a problem with your argument, there is absolutely no way for us to know the Gospel of Christ without the true Church of Christ, the Church was the one preaching the Gospel and wrote down the Bible. Christ is no longer with us, but he did found a Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit to take care of his flock. The Gospel was first preached orally by the Church and can only be interpreted correctly within the scope of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church that later gave birth to scripture. Sola Scriptura is self refuting, the Bible itself does not teach it, and the primary reason for its invention was to allow for free interpretations of the scriptures to justify any doctrines the “reformers” wanted.

 

[Amittai]

... , the Church was the one preaching the Gospel and wrote down the Bible. Christ is no longer with us, but he did found a Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit to take care of his flock. The Gospel was first preached orally by the Church and can only be interpreted correctly within the scope of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church that later gave birth to scripture. Sola Scriptura is self refuting, the Bible itself does not teach it, and the primary reason for its invention was to allow for free interpretations of the scriptures to justify any doctrines the “reformers” wanted.

Precisely. I think Luther and most of his followers (loosely described) don't see this. What these people say is not the same thing. I was trying to persuade individuals I've known who were allergic to words.

 

[Dave-W]

They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

Disagree. What does the bible say??

Romans 3:1
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.​

God gave the oracles (written word) of God to the Jews. It is theirs to maintain and interpret. But lest you think that changed with the cross:

Romans 11:29
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.​

 

[HatGuy]

There’s a problem with your argument, there is absolutely no way for us to know the Gospel of Christ without the true Church of Christ, the Church was the one preaching the Gospel and wrote down the Bible. Christ is no longer with us, but he did found a Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit to take care of his flock. The Gospel was first preached orally by the Church and can only be interpreted correctly within the scope of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church that later gave birth to scripture.

It's the authority of the Church over the Bible that is in question. Not whether the Church put together the canon of scripture.

The "apostolic tradition" IS the Bible or rather, the gospel. I think anyone who understands the nuances of the argument gets that.

The problem is the development of a tradition after the Bible that gets everyone in a huff.

Sola Scriptura is self refuting, the Bible itself does not teach it, and the primary reason for its invention was to allow for free interpretations of the scriptures to justify any doctrines the “reformers” wanted.

That's pure conjecture.

 

[solid_core]

"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."

I think it can be said in a much simpler way - the final authority is God, neither church, nor tradition, nor pope, nor any book called "Bible", nor any translation of Bible etc.

More than Sola Scriptura, the concept of Prima Scriptura regarding the general source of doctrines makes more sense.

 

[HatGuy]

Disagree. What does the bible say??

Romans 3:1
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.​

God gave the oracles (written word) of God to the Jews. It is theirs to maintain and interpret. But lest you think that changed with the cross:

Romans 11:29
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.​

John 1?

 

[HatGuy]

I think it can be said in a much simpler way - the final authority is God, neither church, nor tradition, nor pope, nor any book called "Bible", nor any translation of Bible etc.

The problem with this is the next question - who is God?

 

[solid_core]

The problem with this is the next question - who is God?

The Creator of everything that exists.

 

[HatGuy]

The Creator of everything that exists.

Including all religions?

 

[solid_core]

Including all religions?

There would be no religions if God did not create the universe. Everything exists in Him and is because of Him.

 

[HatGuy]

There would be no religions if God did not create the universe. Everything exists in Him and is because of Him.

But you're missing the point. How do you know what God is like? Who he is as a person? What he/she/it/they think of you, if anything? If they even think or if they / it is merely an impersonal life-source?

 

[solid_core]

But you're missing the point. How do you know what God is like? Who he is as a person? What he/she/it/they think of you, if anything? If they even think or if they / it is merely an impersonal life-source?

When people use their God given reason, they can, through so called natural theology, get all important concepts about God and what He is like.

For specifics like for example the death of Jesus Christ under Pilate, we of course need some tradition, used in the general meaning of the word.

 

[HatGuy]

When people use their God given reason, they can, through so called natural theology, get all important concepts about God and what He is like.

For specifics like for example the death of Jesus Christ under Pilate, we of course need some tradition, used in the general meaning of the word.

Ah I see, but then should the Church derive it's doctrine and practice from natural theology? It may be that people can discover the "important concepts" of God through reason (although I might dispute that, but that is for another thread) but still we're left with the lingering problem of the Church's doctrine and authority. Unless, you believe, authority only comes from reason?

 

[Dave-W]

John 1?

Nothing in John 1 disagrees with what I said.

 

[not under law]

Ah I see, but then should the Church derive it's doctrine and practice from natural theology? It may be that people can discover the "important concepts" of God through reason (although I might dispute that, but that is for another thread) but still we're left with the lingering problem of the Church's doctrine and authority. Unless, you believe, authority only comes from reason?

From a Christian perspective, shouldn't doctrine come from the Spirit of truth? That truth can come through scripture. I would not be comfortable classing that as natural reason/theology

 

[Barney2.0]

It's the authority of the Church over the Bible that is in question. Not whether the Church put together the canon of scripture.

The "apostolic tradition" IS the Bible or rather, the gospel. I think anyone who understands the nuances of the argument gets that.

The problem is the development of a tradition after the Bible that gets everyone in a huff.

That doesn’t make any sense given that the Bible was and is a Liturgical book, the Bible was never made for personal devotion, although you could use it as such that was not its historic purpose. The Church not only formed the canon it also wrote the Bible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, all the writers of the New Testament were part of the same Apostolic Church. Given that, how does your statement make any sense the Bible is a product and part of Apostolic tradition, it is not the tradition itself. The Bible itself a development of that same oral Apostolic tradition tradition.

That's pure conjecture.

You know that even Protestant scholars admit that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist before Martin Luther which technically makes all the Church Fathers heretics. The irony in all this is even Protestant scholars have to use and appeal to early Apostolic tradition to actually study the history of the Bible and its authors, that in of itself pretty much proves that Sola Scriptura never existed before the “reformation” and is erroneous. There is no single verse in the Bible that says we trust in scripture alone or anything alike to it and when we actually appeal to the Bible as a whole we will see a constant appeal of the scriptures to inspired oral tradition both in the Old and New Testament.