Why (and how) Sola Scriptura works

[PaulCyp1]

Jesus Christ taught "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of Sola Scriptura have been the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of contradictory and therefore false beliefs, in direct opposition of the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My Heavenly Father are ONE. Total doctrinal chaos in just a few hundred years.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Nobody in any age of Bible writers - ever said "let's wait a few centuries for a Catholic church council to tell us what the Bible is".

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Not "in a few of the scriptures that they happened to have confirmed at the moment but they really weren't sure yet what "all the scriptures" even meant"

Josephus makes the point that for those Jews living at the time of Christ - the canon of scripture had been solidified and kept in the temple for over 400 years.

 

[zoidar]

Nobody in any age of Bible writers - ever said "let's wait a few centuries for a Catholic church council to tell us what the Bible is".

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Not "in a few of the scriptures that they happened to have confirmed at the moment but they really weren't sure yet what "all the scriptures" even meant"

Josephus makes the point that for those Jews living at the time of Christ - the canon of scripture had been solidified and kept in the temple for over 400 years.

I believe God used the church to pick the right books as God can do with any group of Christians. It doesn't give any church authority over the Bible, but early tradition can be useful for understanding scripture.

Some think it was a decision of men, but really it was a decision of God, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe God used the church to pick the right books as God can do with any group of Christians. It doesn't give any church authority over the Bible, but early tradition can be useful for understanding scripture.

Some think it was a decision of men, but really it was a decision of God, through the Holy Spirit.

By the time the "selecting" was started - the Christians had already been reading the Bible for centuries. No council claims that "for the first time we have a Bible with this our glorious selection" -- that never happened.

 

[zoidar]

By the time the "selecting" was started - the Christians had already been reading the Bible for centuries. No council claims that "for the first time we have a Bible with this our glorious selection" -- that never happened.

Yes, sure, but Christians were also reading books that didn't make it to the Bible I believe.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Yes Jesus is the Living Word of God, but the Bible is the inspired written Word of God!

All of the Bible are equally inspired, but not all parts are equally applicable. For example, the chruch is not under the Mosaic Law! So while most of the entire OT is Gods Inspired written word, it applied only to Israel while they lived in the land!

We must understand the bible, as it is written, in the times it was written in (we are not under the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge either).

We must delve to understand it within the culture and language, (historical) and that God said what He meant and meant what He said (literal), knowing that when symbols are used, the bible itself defines the symbols. We also must recognize the original languages do not often translate very accurately into another language. We do well to seek out greek and Hebrew aids to fully know the depths of the richness of the Word.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, sure, but Christians were also reading books that didn't make it to the Bible I believe.

Possibly - but nobody even today said that we are not supposed to read anything but the Bible.

The question is -- did they understand what the term "all of scripture" means -- so that they knew to read it. And Luke 24 clearly tells us -- they did.

 

[JacksBratt]

Jesus Christ taught "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of Sola Scriptura have been the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of contradictory and therefore false beliefs, in direct opposition of the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My Heavenly Father are ONE. Total doctrinal chaos in just a few hundred years.

That is not the fruit of Sola scriptura... that is the fruit of men and their creation of religions.. any religion.. even the RC religion.... They are full of traditions, views, ideals, standards, rituals and ceremonies that were not the intention of God.

If you are "religious".. you have problems. Christ didn't want a "religion" He wanted a relationship.

You can be fully saved and have a very very close walk and life with Christ and not affiliate with any of the man made created agendas of dogmatic ideals that we call "denominations".

Do you believe that Christ was God made man? Do you believe that He really existed? Do you believe that He lived a sinless life? Do you believe that He was crucified for your sins? Do you accept that you need His action on the cross to be forgiven and saved from the death that you deserve? Do you believe that He will wash away your sins if you ask Him to? Do you walk through your life trying to follow His methods, ways, attitude and love of righteousness.. to the best of your earthly ability?


If you do.. you are a child of God... it matters not one bit what church you attend, what church your parents attended, what the name on your church says, or... if you even attend a church...

If you are intimate with your savior and accept His work as the work of God... You don't need a label on your "church".

 

[JM]

Jesus Christ taught "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of Sola Scriptura have been the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of contradictory and therefore false beliefs, in direct opposition of the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My Heavenly Father are ONE. Total doctrinal chaos in just a few hundred years.

Catholicism is fragmented as well, let's not pretend the Pope has unified all corners of the Roman Communion, and Francis is a very divisive figure.

 

[Albion]

That's right, JM, and there are also all the other Catholic denominations to consider.

If our friend wants to indict all Protestants with one sweep of the pen, we have to also admit that there are many different Catholic churches, too.

 

[JM]

That's right, JM, and there are also all the other Catholic denominations to consider.

If our friend wants to indict all Protestants with one sweep of the pen, we have to also admit that there are many different Catholic churches, too.

The Anglican Church in North America being one.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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 believe in Sola Scriptura.
Well, I prefer the term "Sola Scriptura + the Anointing to Understanding it."

If you have not seen it, I have provided a biblical defense for Sola Scriptura here:

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

I also discuss the renaming of the term on Sola Scriptura here (if it seems like your cup of tea):

Reevaluating the term Sola Scriptura (Bible alone + God giving understanding on it is the truth).

That said, while I am a Sola Scriptura guy, there are other books mentioned in the Bible itself that God decided to leave out that we never got to see:

You can check that out here (if you are interested).

This of course does not undo Sola Scriptura.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Where was Jesus crucified?

Which race of people arrested Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate?

What nation persecuted Paul?

Romans 2:23-24
You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.

 

[klutedavid]

Nobody in any age of Bible writers - ever said "let's wait a few centuries for a Catholic church council to tell us what the Bible is".

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Not "in a few of the scriptures that they happened to have confirmed at the moment but they really weren't sure yet what "all the scriptures" even meant"

Josephus makes the point that for those Jews living at the time of Christ - the canon of scripture had been solidified and kept in the temple for over 400 years.

The truth is the New Testament canon was assembled by the early churches over some period of time.

There were letters circulating in these early churches and they were treated like scripture, but were eventually excluded from the later canon.

They claim the heretic Marcion was the trigger that started the quest for the canon of the New Testament. What was scripture and what was not scripture had to be researched.

Even the Old Testament in different church organizations can have a different number of books. For example the two books of Maccabees are listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bibles. In fact, the Protestant Bible canon is seven books shorter than the Vulgate.

In addition to these 39 books, the Catholic Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (includes the Letters of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. These books were included in the Septuagint! (Christianity Today)

 

[JM]

"The First Four Ecumenical Councils as Ineffective Means to Control the Rise and Spread of Heterodox Christian Ideologies"

https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10976/56/URJ21_Hasbrouck.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In principle I don't disagree with your argument. The Gospel is that which everything proceeds and that Gospel is Christ and is obviously the first and prime authority. It however is not Sola Scriptura which is the position that Scripture is the primary and first authority in the life of the Christian when compared to any other external/visible authority.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Nobody in any age of Bible writers - ever said "let's wait a few centuries for a Catholic church council to tell us what the Bible is".

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Not "in a few of the scriptures that they happened to have confirmed at the moment but they really weren't sure yet what "all the scriptures" even meant"

Josephus makes the point that for those Jews living at the time of Christ - the canon of scripture had been solidified and kept in the temple for over 400 years.

The truth is the New Testament canon was assembled by the early churches over some period of time.

And yet at no time does any NT writer say "we do not know what scripture is yet - we must wait a few centuries to find out".

 

[BobRyan]

Even the Old Testament in different church organizations can have a different number of books. For example the two books of Maccabees are listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bibles. In fact, the Protestant Bible canon is seven books shorter than the Vulgate.

In addition to these 39 books, the Catholic Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (includes the Letters of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. These books were included in the Septuagint! (Christianity Today)

Jerome wrote prologues for each -- stating that they are not part of the canon of scripture - because he knew that the Hebrew Bible did not contain them and they are not NT writings of Christians either.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

So, "Not Sola Scriptura, but Solus Christus"?

Is the argument that when traditional Protestants say "sola scriptura" they are actually referring either to the Son of God or to the Christian Gospel? I'm not sure I'm following.

 

[BobRyan]

Even the Old Testament in different church organizations can have a different number of books. For example the two books of Maccabees are listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bibles.

That's because they are not part of the Old Testament -- as Josephus reminds us.