Topic: Does Sola Scriptura actually exist?

[Ansgar]

Most denominations teach that, but then there are a lot of other important theological issues, like "Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ or is it symbolic?" "Can women be priests?" "The Nature of Christ",  "The Fillioque" and lots and lots of other things.  

Do these things save you? Any church with women priests or leaders are going to hell? Opinion on Fillioque determines your salvation?

There is a book by Robert Farrar Capon "The Parables of the Kingdom, Grace and Judgment" There is a chapter he calls the parable of Theology and Faith. The basic point is the house is built on Faith, pure, blind, childlike faith. There is a porch you need to get into the house. This porch is theology. Some of the porches can be beautiful with easy ways to get in. While others are messy and are tougher but they still allow access. What you need in the end is to get into the house. You would have to read the book to get the whole idea but that is the basics.

Sure, Orthodoxy might be that perfect porch, it's just not the only one and there are many other ways into the house.

We are saved by God's Grace, we don't deny that, but from the beginning, the Church also stressed correct theology. Having a true and pure faith and preserving dogma aren't necesarily contradicting.

[Ansgar]

I came upon the doctrine of Prima Scriptura. Could this be closer to what some of the more traditional protestant denominations believe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

[katherineofdixie]

How do you know they don't? See, that's the problem. Your opinion is that they don't

It's not my opinion:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

Unless Paul meant faith as some deep theological understanding and not childlike trust, as Jesus said.

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven

Oh, dear. But see, here again - that's your opinion and understanding of Scripture. That's all you have, according to Sola Scriptura: "it says this because that's what I say it says."

[Happy Lutheran]

Having a true and pure faith and preserving dogma aren't necesarily contradicting.

I have no problem saying that Orthodoxy may be the fullness of faith or the "perfect porch". I just can't agree it's the only way in or our deep theological beliefs are more important than our childlike faith and trust.

[Happy Lutheran]

Oh, dear. But see, here again - that's your opinion and understanding of Scripture. That's all you have, according to Sola Scriptura: "it says this because that's what I say it says."

I didn't give an opinion, I quoted Scripture. I let it speak for itself, you say it means something else and accuse me of self interpretation.

[Ansgar]

Having a true and pure faith and preserving dogma aren't necesarily contradicting.

I have no problem saying that Orthodoxy may be the fullness of faith or the "perfect porch". I just can't agree it's the only way in or our deep theological beliefs are more important than our childlike faith and trust.

But why stay with that which is less than perfect. I will certainly not deny that God can save anyone, even if they are not part of the Church, but if you can see the fullness of the faith, why then not reach out for it?

Maybe, there's somethingI'm not seeing.

[Happy Lutheran]

But why stay with that which is less than perfect. I will certainly not deny that God can save anyone, even if they are not part of the Church, but if you can see the fullness of the faith, why then not reach out for it?

If you are asking me personally I don't think anyone has perfect theology. The two theology's that make the most sense to me are both Orthodox and Lutheran. My biggest hurdle with Orthodox would be their theory on Justification. I don't want to get into that now as I've discussed it here before. Also, I grew up a Lutheran and it's been good to me. I grew up in strong faith, met my wife who is Lutheran and have two beautiful children. 

[TheTrisagion]

I don't think you can say one is more important than the other.  They kind of work in concert.  It would be like trying to figure out if the wheels or the engine block is more important in making a car run.  You have to have correct doctrine and you have to have faith.  You also have to have good works that flow from that faith and love for God and fellow man.  If you remove any of those things, the car falls apart.

[katherineofdixie]

Oh, dear. But see, here again - that's your opinion and understanding of Scripture. That's all you have, according to Sola Scriptura: "it says this because that's what I say it says."

I didn't give an opinion, I quoted Scripture. I let it speak for itself, you say it means something else and accuse me of self interpretation.

You chose those particular verses - to prove your point. That's opinion, based on your understanding of what it means to you. You think it means what you think it means to prove your point.

I've often noticed that people, in defending a particular interpretation of Sola Scriptura, always fall back on "I let Scripture speak for itself." No one does that, if we are honest about it. We can't help it. We interpret/understand things based on our experiences, knowledge, cultural context etc.

[Happy Lutheran]

You chose those particular verses - to prove your point. That's opinion, based on your understanding of what it means to you. You think it means what you think it means to prove your point.

I've often noticed that people, in defending a particular interpretation of Sola Scriptura, always fall back on "I let Scripture speak for itself." No one does that, if we are honest about it. We can't help it. We interpret/understand things based on our experiences, knowledge, cultural context etc.

We were talking about salvation and faith and I used two versus that have to do with that subject.

[JamesR]

I don't think that you've had enough of an exposure to low-Church Evangelicalism. The sad fact is that Sola Scriptura as defined here does in fact exist in many Churches. However, I also think that Sola Scriptura by its very nature is impossible, because no one is relying solely on the Scriptures  alone, but on their interpretation of it and their preconceived notions which led to that interpretation.

[JamesR]

...our deep theological beliefs are more important than our childlike faith and trust.

I personally don't get this dichotomy. How can you have childlike faith and trust in God if you don't have proper deep theological beliefs so that you know which God you are putting that faith and trust in? With improper theological beliefs, you are not putting your faith and trust into the real God, but into the God of your mind--your own delusional idol of what you believe God is like.

[PeterTheAleut]

Arguments from silence are rarely ever convincing. Also rarely ever convincing is this practice of separating St. John's witness from that of the rest of the Apostles.

Using St Johns own words in not an argument from silence.

But arguing from what he didn't say is.

He wrote his Gospel, before there was a canon. In that Gospel he says:

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

But you said that if the Church were important to John, he would have said so. That's your argument, not John's.

You are the one making an argument he means something other than what he actually says.

No, I cannot be, since I'm not arguing here that he actually said anything.

Also, if we want to get technical on Matthew, Ekklesia properly translates to assembly, not church and especially not "one true church". Christians assemble in Christ's name. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in the midst of them." Church is a proper translation only because a church is an assembly in Christ. Unless your willing to say that all other Christians besides the Orthodox do NOT assemble in Christ name?

How fine is that razor blade you're using to split those hairs? I didn't define what Matthew meant by "Church"; I only meant to point out that Matthew thought the Church important enough to mention it in his Gospel. BTW, St. Matthew wasn't the only apostle to speak of the Church. It seems that St. Paul gave a pretty clear definition of "Church" in his epistles, particularly his Epistle to the Ephesians.

 I have become proud and arrogant, which has led me to become overly aggressive against many of you on this forum. This is not behavior becoming a follower of Christ or a moderator of this forum. I am sorry. Please forgive me.

Seeing how much I need to take a break from this forum, I am placing myself on post moderation until Pascha. After my self-imposed Lenten retreat, I hope to be able to resume my duties as a section moderator with renewed perspective. Until then, I have asked the rest of my team to watch the Orthodox-Protestant board in my absence. Please cooperate with them.

Your servant in Christ,
- PeterTheAleut

[JamesR]

...Unless your willing to say that all other Christians besides the Orthodox do NOT assemble in Christ name?

They don't. There is only one Christ; therefore, only one set of beliefs proper about Him. To be in the "name" of Christ means more than to just say His name; hence "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven." St. Paul further strengthens this point when he says "Now I plead with you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," (1 Cor. 1:10) and "Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes. But in understanding be mature." (1 Cor. 14:20). If simply saying "Jesus Name" was all it took, then those phony exorcists in Acts wouldn't have gotten their butts kicked by demons.

[Happy Lutheran]

But you said that if the Church were important to John, he would have said so. That's your argument, not John's.

That is not at all what I said, I said: If the church was a requirement, he would have mentioned it. I never implied he didn't think it was important.

[Happy Lutheran]

...Unless your willing to say that all other Christians besides the Orthodox do NOT assemble in Christ name?

They don't.

At least your honest. It's funny how both of these threads have turned into you worship a different God and Christ.

[Napoletani]

I can only speak as a Lutheran but Sola Scriptura means that the final authority is the Scriptures. That the only thing we know as divinely inspired are the Holy Scriptures and what is contained in them has everything we need for eternal salvation. The Apostle John, towards the conclusion of his Gospel states: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John never mentioned the Church in his Gospel. Now, of course before that he states:  "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book" which leads to a good argument that their is more fullness in certain churches.

Also, being a Lutheran we accept the Dogmas of the 7 ecumenical councils. We recite the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. We have the Book of Concord which is the Lutheran tradition. We baptize infants even though it isn't specifically talked about in the Scriptures.
 

Then why do you even need other books apart from the one of John? By the way, St Paul epistles were written before the Gospel of St John, so obviously the Church precedes the Gospel of John.

[Napoletani]

But you said that if the Church were important to John, he would have said so. That's your argument, not John's.

That is not at all what I said, I said: If the church was a requirement, he would have mentioned it. I never implied he didn't think it was important.

St John didnt mention Paul epistles, o any other new testament books. So you should drop them in the garbage and only follow st John Gospel.

[TheTrisagion]

...Unless your willing to say that all other Christians besides the Orthodox do NOT assemble in Christ name?

They don't.

At least your honest. It's funny how both of these threads have turned into you worship a different God and Christ.

I would not say that other Christians do not assemble in Christ's name, but I would say they assemble with an incomplete understanding of who Christ is.  I don't think the Lutherans, for example, worship a different God or Christ, they worship the same one, just with a deficient understanding of Him.  Groups such as non-Trinitarians, I would say, worship a different Christ and God.

[katherineofdixie]

I also think that Sola Scriptura by its very nature is impossible, because no one is relying solely on the Scriptures  alone, but on their interpretation of it and their preconceived notions which led to that interpretation.

Excatly! And I will now yield the floor to James, who is doing a much better job than I!

[Virtual Paradise]

How can Scripture be the final authority? How can you 'know' it's divinely inspired?

We don't know our Scriptures are divinley inspired anymore than anyone from any religion. We believe it on faith and when you have faith they are inspired, it's easy to see them as the final authority. In the other thread I posted numerous quotes from some of the most respected fathers that affirms this.

How can you be sure what is and is and is not Scripture?

The early church didn't. Eusebius wrote their were 18 "uncontested books" which were the 4 Gospels and Paul's letters. Over time the church, of which you must give them credit canonized 27 books. Again, as John stated, just his Gospel has the information needed to have life in Christs name.

I have to make a point I made in the other thread, Protestants did not start the seperations of the church, that was you guys with your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know who was right, if anyone. If the church was united in the reformation era as it was when the scriptures were canonized I doubt we would be having this discussion.

So which translation(s) / version(s) are inspired? Are any of the versions we have today still inspired or only the originals were inspired? Is the bible inerrant or infallible?

[Virtual Paradise]

How can Scripture be the final authority? How can you 'know' it's divinely inspired?

We don't know our Scriptures are divinley inspired anymore than anyone from any religion. We believe it on faith and when you have faith they are inspired, it's easy to see them as the final authority. In the other thread I posted numerous quotes from some of the most respected fathers that affirms this.

How can you be sure what is and is and is not Scripture?

The early church didn't. Eusebius wrote their were 18 "uncontested books" which were the 4 Gospels and Paul's letters. Over time the church, of which you must give them credit canonized 27 books. Again, as John stated, just his Gospel has the information needed to have life in Christs name.

I have to make a point I made in the other thread, Protestants did not start the seperations of the church, that was you guys with your excommunications of each other making it impossible to know who was right, if anyone. If the church was united in the reformation era as it was when the scriptures were canonized I doubt we would be having this discussion.

I don't think Christianity was ever unified. On the times of the Apostles Christianity had already been divided.

And I think you are true about the "uncontested books" . I think what begs to be called in here and always slips the mind is the standard the fathers/catholic church chosed for the canonisation of the entire 27 books of the New Testament. AFAIK and from what I know it was really not that "hard of a thing" . And one can say some traditional arguments are depleted. "Too bad" protestants don't have my way of seeing things.

[Peter J]

Due to some comments lately, I tried to look into the issue a bit and I have come to wonder if Sola scriptura, as it is often potrayed by orthodox, really is practised in most protestant denominations. Lutherans, for example, while holding the doctrine, still containssome reliance on the aspect of tradition. I wonder if sometimes, the way we define Sola Scriptura and the way it is used might be a little simplistic.

What do you think? 

I get what you're saying, Ansgar; but lest we give protestants too much credit, I'd like to point out that many of them do embrace an extreme form of Sola Scriptura -- to the tune of "Scripture is the only authority", "Tradition is worthless", etc. (Some have nicknamed such thinking "Solo Scriptura".)

[Nicene]

Sola scriptura as in having scripture as teh final determining authority for everything? Or Sola scriptura as it being the only determing authority for everything? I think the applicability of both of them is ultimately impossible.

[JamesR]

I like to reference the "lost" epistles of St. Paul that aren't in the New Testament, but are mentioned. For example, we know that there is at least one, possibly two, epistles that St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians which are not in the New Testament. I think that Sola Scriptura presents a real problem to any Protestant getting into history, because if the documents were ever discovered, they would put the final nail in the coffin to Sola Scriptura for good.

[Peter J]

I like to reference the "lost" epistles of St. Paul that aren't in the New Testament, but are mentioned. For example, we know that there is at least one, possibly two, epistles that St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians which are not in the New Testament. I think that Sola Scriptura presents a real problem to any Protestant getting into history, because if the documents were ever discovered, they would put the final nail in the coffin to Sola Scriptura for good.

Oh?

[Nicene]

I like to reference the "lost" epistles of St. Paul that aren't in the New Testament, but are mentioned. For example, we know that there is at least one, possibly two, epistles that St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians which are not in the New Testament. I think that Sola Scriptura presents a real problem to any Protestant getting into history, because if the documents were ever discovered, they would put the final nail in the coffin to Sola Scriptura for good.

It might not phase those protestants that are more lax, and actually consider church fathers and history as a source, but for the rigid fundamentalist, the lost letter of Paul might be a problem.

[TheTrisagion]

I'm sure they would just argue that they are obviously not inspired or they would be preserved in the Bible.

[rachel]

Due to some comments lately, I tried to look into the issue a bit and I have come to wonder if Sola scriptura, as it is often potrayed by orthodox, really is practised in most protestant denominations. Lutherans, for example, while holding the doctrine, still containssome reliance on the aspect of tradition. I wonder if sometimes, the way we define Sola Scriptura and the way it is used might be a little simplistic.

What do you think?  

Isn't that part of our criticism of it - that reliance on 'the Bible alone' is simply an impossibility? That doesn't mean that there aren't large numbers of Protestants who believe that they adhere to 'sola scriptura', it's just easily demonstrable that they do not actually do so. I know that when I considered myself to be a sola scriptura Protestant, I really thought that I accepted nothing outside of Scripture and that I was merely reading the 'plain text' of that Scripture, not relying on any tradition to do so. I was clearly, looking back on it, deluding myself, but at the time I was certainly sincere.

James

is that "easily demonstrable" as in 'Moses prayed for the dead'?!!! The fact is James, you can't demonstrate any such thing, if only for the simple reason that no-one can know what is going on in someone else's head. The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested. Does Protestantism have an oral 'tradition'? Of course it does. It has a well known tradition of oral teaching and preaching. Are those 'traditions' assumed to have the authority of the Spirit upon them? No, each individual must test what is being spoken against the propositions of scripture because we know that the Spirit will not contradict himself.

Now, if you have no reference against which to check anything; well that is your admission. If you claim the church as your reference, then you are placing the authority of the church above that of the Spirit and claiming infallibility for it. It is demonstrable that the Orthodox church is not infallible. Why would it be? The Bible itself teaches you that the church is not infallible. To achieve infallibility one would require perfect obedience to the Spirit by all its members at all times and you can't even demonstrate that members of the Orthodox church are even indwelt by the Spirit. It is simply assumed because you believe that a man is indwelt by the rite of baptism. No scripture teaches you any such thing.

You are foolish virgins. The Rapture will take you by surprise. You will be caught without the oil of the Spirit and it will be too late for you. That is why you are a leg of Daniel's image.

[rachel]

I'm sure they would just argue that they are obviously not inspired or they would be preserved in the Bible.

This discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding. Up and down this country today there will be words spoken which are Spirit inspired. To be identified as such, they must agree with the canon. They don't all need to be IN IT!!!

[Cyrillic]

The Rapture will take you by surprise.

I love surprises.

[Cyrillic]

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

Is Scripture the "the pillar and foundation of the truth"?

[rachel]

I also think that Sola Scriptura by its very nature is impossible, because no one is relying solely on the Scriptures  alone, but on their interpretation of it and their preconceived notions which led to that interpretation.

Excatly! And I will now yield the floor to James, who is doing a much better job than I!

If the Spirit, "leads  one into all truth", by definition, this must his HIS interpretation, not that of any individual. This is the idea you guys can't seem to get  your heads around..

[rachel]

The Rapture will take you by surprise.

I love surprises.

that'll be fine then. Live with it, we'll be back in around seven years.

[rachel]

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

Is Scripture the "the pillar and foundation of the truth"?

yes, this is because, "all scripture is Spirit-breathed".

Were you about to admit that the church disagrees with the Holy Spirit?!

[Cyrillic]

The Rapture will take you by surprise.

I love surprises.

that'll be fine then. Live with it, we'll be back in around seven years.

Can I have your stuff once you're raptured?

[Cyrillic]

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

Is Scripture the "the pillar and foundation of the truth"?

yes, this is because, "all scripture is Spirit-breathed".

Ah well, I thought Scripture calls something else the pillar and foundation of truth. But since I'm not a protestant, I obviously don't know the Bible very well. Could you remind me what Scripture said about what the pillar and foundation of the truth was?

[rachel]

The Rapture will take you by surprise.

I love surprises.

that'll be fine then. Live with it, we'll be back in around seven years.

Can I have your stuff once you're raptured?

you're welcome, but I think you'll have other concerns.

[rachel]

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

Is Scripture the "the pillar and foundation of the truth"?

yes, this is because, "all scripture is Spirit-breathed".

Ah well, I thought Scripture calls something else the pillar and foundation of truth. But since I'm not a protestant, I obviously don't know the Bible very well. Could you remind me what Scripture said about what the pillar and foundation of the truth was?

Jesus said, "I am the truth".

[Cyrillic]

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

Is Scripture the "the pillar and foundation of the truth"?

yes, this is because, "all scripture is Spirit-breathed".

Ah well, I thought Scripture calls something else the pillar and foundation of truth. But since I'm not a protestant, I obviously don't know the Bible very well. Could you remind me what Scripture said about what the pillar and foundation of the truth was?

Jesus said, "I am the truth".

Very well. And what He spoke was true. But could you look up that specific quote about the "pillar and foundation of truth" for me? I'm curious what it was again.

[rachel]

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

Is Scripture the "the pillar and foundation of the truth"?

yes, this is because, "all scripture is Spirit-breathed".

Ah well, I thought Scripture calls something else the pillar and foundation of truth. But since I'm not a protestant, I obviously don't know the Bible very well. Could you remind me what Scripture said about what the pillar and foundation of the truth was?

Jesus said, "I am the truth".

Very well. And what He spoke was true. But could you look up that specific quote about the "pillar and foundation of truth" for me? I'm curious what it was again.

cut to the chase. Who IS the truth? Scripture tells you Christ is. If you look for a "pillar and foundation" of it you will look to the Church. Thus I should expect that doctrines I hold to be true are  shared by others who are regenerate and indwelt by the Holy Spirit ie the Church. If I am unique in holding a doctrine,  it merits suspicion. If I wish  to correct it, I turn to scripture because the Spirit is the source of truth.

That is why Paul finds it necessary to admonish the church. That is why Jesus finds  it necessary to admonish the church. Nowhere can one find any justification whatsoever for the presumption that ,  at some nebulous point in history, the church acquired infallibility.

[Cyrillic]

If you look for a "pillar and foundation" of it you will look to the Church.

Indeed! Now we're getting somewhere.

If I am unique in holding a doctrine,  it merits suspicion.

So a doctrine should have antiquity? I.e it must be believed by Christians everywhere at any time - it shouldn't be a later invention?

Nowhere can one find any justification whatsoever for the presumption that ,  at some nebulous point in history, the church acquired infallibility.

What was it again that Christ said the gates of Hades wouldn't overwhelm?

[arnI]

....
The principle of 'sola scriptura' is a statement of where one's reference point lies; the authority against which every doctrine is tested.

So the Holy Scripture is used to test these doctrines. I am curious about your beliefs concerning Holy Scripture. So as to the authority against which every doctrine is tested, is that the KJV English or is that the manuscripts from where the English was translated? As some Protestants apparently believe only the KJV is used for testing doctrine, do you believe that the KJV was divinely inspired and stands alone by itself without the manuscripts from which it was translated?

[Peter J]

What was it again that Christ said the gates of Hades wouldn't overwhelm?

The Church built on St. Thaddaeus ... or was it the Church built on St. Peter?

(I don't know Scripture very well either.  )

[Cyrillic]

What was it again that Christ said the gates of Hades wouldn't overwhelm?

The Church built on St. Thaddaeus ... or was it the Church built on St. Peter?

(I don't know Scripture very well either.  )

I have copyright on that method of debating!