Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[Amittai]

...

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

...

The "apostolic tradition" IS the meaning of Bible or rather, the gospel.

We can't have the meaning without the Scriptures.

I was shown how to use cross references to all four sections of the entire Bible every time I study even a single verse.

 

[Barney2.0]

The "apostolic tradition" IS the meaning of Bible or rather, the gospel.

We can't have the meaning without the Scriptures.

I was shown how to use cross references to all four sections of the entire Bible every time I study even a single verse.

How do you think the Church was operating for the first three centuries of its existence?

 

[HatGuy]

Nothing in John 1 disagrees with what I said.

No, but it also doesn't agree with it wholesale .

The point of John 1 is that the "Word of God" is a person, which then leads one to make a distinction between the Word of God and the Bible.

 

[HatGuy]

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

I agree but solid_core may have a different opinion on this, which is why I'm questioning them as I am.

 

[HatGuy]

How do you think the Church was operating for the first three centuries of its existence?

Very disjointedly and fragmented, which is why they eventually formed the canon.

 

[Dave-W]

No, but it also doesn't agree with it wholesale .

The point of John 1 is that the "Word of God" is a person, which then leads one to make a distinction between the Word of God and the Bible.

And that PERSON is the most observant Orthodox Jew that ever lived.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.​

 

[HatGuy]

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.

Given how the Bible was used and quoted by the Church Fathers, and even how Jesus uses the Old Testament (how he uses scripture) I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with claiming the Bible is only a Liturgical book - but I would be interested in hearing that expanded or clarified as it sounds like an interesting idea.

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.

I'm sorry, I think there may be a grammatical typo which could make me misread what you're saying, but I will try anyway and forgive me if I misunderstand.

I don't see why the Apostolic Tradition can't stop at the Bible - why did they form the Bible in first place? If it was merely 'part' of the Apostolic Tradition, why did they not form another Bible later on, and then another, and another?

You know that even Protestant scholars admit that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist before Martin Luther which technically makes all the Church Fathers heretics.

I don't see how that follows. Sola scriptura does not negate Tradition or the Church Fathers (it never has). It simply makes the FINAL authority to be the Bible, not the ONLY authority.

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.

No it doesn't really. I don't see how it could. As I said above, scripture is FINAL authority not ONLY authority.

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.

I don't know of any part of the Bible that appeals to Oral Tradition. I know those that appeal to scripture, and Acts 2:42 appeals to the teaching of the apostles, which, as I've stated, appears to be finalised by the canon. (And why wouldn't it be?)

 

[HatGuy]

And that PERSON is the most observant Orthodox Jew that ever lived.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.​

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[Barney2.0]

Very disjointedly and fragmented, which is why they eventually formed the canon.

So your saying they basically had no established doctrines before they formed the Biblical canon?

 

[Dave-W]

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

That is where i am going with this. It is not the Gentile Church's authority or understanding that properly interprets scripture. The text says it is JEWISH interpretation that has to carry it.

The text was written by Jews and much of it was written TO Jews. Even the texts written to gentiles require a Jewish cultural understanding to properly apply what is written.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

The historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

"Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

 

[HatGuy]

So your saying they basically had no established doctrines before they formed the Biblical canon?

No.

 

[HatGuy]

That is where i am going with this. It is not the Gentile Church's authority or understanding that properly interprets scripture. The text says it is JEWISH interpretation that has to carry it.

The text was written by Jews and much of it was written TO Jews. Even the texts written to gentiles require a Jewish cultural understanding to properly apply what is written.

I agree that the Jewish interpretation can help, but not always, otherwise we'll just have to all become Jews. At some point there is a divergence into the more fuller understanding of what God meant by making a People for Himself.

I especially don't believe the texts written to Jewish hearers require a Jewish cultural understanding. Given that the whole world is invited into the Church, it would make no sense that people first need to learn Jewish culture and then Christianity.

I don't separate the Church into Jews and Gentiles though anyway, I see it all as one Church.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

Christ is the Word of God but he is not the Scripture of God. It seems we are conflating the word with the Word. Sola Scripture means "scripture alone" so if want to use its Latin counterparts "Word" (logos) is Verbum or "Sola Verbum Dei" / "Word of God alone" which is a Catholic doctrine that is contrasted with Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura has implicit authority from Christ, it's just got to be reveal through scripture and by no other means. Protestants, particularly evangelicals get away with it by receiving special revelation of an existing scripture like all the prophecies about Trump that people try and push. Charismatics seems to speak it by ignore it claiming special revelation direct through he HS.

The 16th century is the time of reformation but a lot of stuff had to come to a boiling point for it to be made possible. The development of the Church which lead to unchallenged corruption is one of them, but also the age of enlightenment, the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Renaissance period, the printing press and subsequent printed greek text to name a few. These all needed to be perfectly aligned for the reformation to take root because there was certainly prior challenges in the 15th century but never strong enough or never perfect enough. Scripture had to be canonized, Constantinople had to fall causing a Byzantine diaspora and move out of the dark ages, the printing press had to be invented and a printed Greek text developed. It's just not a church corruption thing but the reformation was inevitable and there was nothing stopping it. I think the printing press was it's trigger.

I see Sola Scriptura best starting in the time it was created in. Like the reformation it doesn't work in the 14th century or the 10th century and certainly not the 1st century and it heavily relies upon the history of the church to give it context. Sola Scriptura is about realigning doctrines with scripture it is not about replacing traditions. When we stray from scripture we need to come back and realign and reshape ourselves. We stray for many reasons, some of it because we are immature or blind and the way we read scripture is limited so we may be pulled away and have to come back to reset and ask the questions over again. Death to self and resurrection to the new is a part of Christian living and is not unique to Sola Scriptura, but scripture serves as a mechanism to guide it rather than letting it go unchecked. The reformation itself can be said to be a death of the church and resurrection into new.

 

[fhansen]

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.

Hmm, sure. And the Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written. C’mon, people don’t necessarily agree on the gospel to begin with, going by Scripture alone!

 

[JM]

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.

Interesting.

Thanks

 

[JM]

So your saying they basically had no established doctrines before they formed the Biblical canon?

The article points out that the Word of God was the spoken word so it logically follows that doctrine would be spoken.

The problem I see with this argument, for the Protestant, is that the spoken Gospel is a tradition.

jm

 

[zoidar]

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 don't undetstand how the gospel can decide which books. What about the OT?

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Agreed.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

1. The Word of God is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword Heb 4:12

2. The Word gives salvation - 2 Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

3. Rom 10 - "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ."
4. John 1 "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"
5. Matt 4 "man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word from the mouth of God"
6. Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - were so"
7. When scripture is quoted - it is the Holy Spirit that "is speaking" so we find it as "The Holy Spirit says" - Hebrews 3

Heb 3
7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,