| first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura |
None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!
- Sola scriptura by simple translation is Scripture alone -- nothing outside scripture allowed. This is the logic of those who rejected the Oral Gospel of Jesus Christ brought by Paul+Silas. This was not the philosophy of the Bereans
- Many Presbyterians and other Calvinists among others hold to the meaning that only things directly in scripture should be acknowledged. This was outright rejected by the Berans
- Others hold that it must be directly derived from Scripture -- but never elaborate how directly. If one says directly, then the nature of Christ is strongly hinted at in the Septuagint, but not in the Tanakh --> this writing by a Jew with a view :) outlines the Jewish point that the Tanakh does not have the same references as the Septuagint. Hence if there are Protestants who disclaim the Septuagint in favor of the Tanach then they must hold to this person's point of view which elaborates as
| From the site: ajewwithaview (link above): The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl...Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies |
--> so, if one says that the Church is wrong to take the works like Maccabees etc. from the Septuagint as all should be derived from the Tanakh, then must agree with the author of the above - Some say that sola scriptura is that that's the ONLY place to derive the truths for salvation -- again something that goes against what the Bereans did with their OT scripture (see points 1 and 2 above)
- Others say that only truths needed for salvation must be SOLA scriptura
|
| Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture! |
- Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
- There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
- Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived
- 2 Tim. 3:16–17 says
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. |
It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself! - Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says
| 14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; |
--> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans. - Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says
13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.; |
--> note, words heard.... not scriptura. - And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says
| 2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ; |
"Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either
|
| Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura |
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: |
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, all are for the "perfecting of the saints" and to prevent being "carried about with every wind of doctrine"
The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit |
| Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one? |
Let's see --
- does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
- Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
- Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
- Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
- Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
-
- Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
- Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
- Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
- Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
- Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
- Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
- Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
- Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
- Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
- Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
- Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
- Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
- Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
- Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
- Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)
|
|
So, in conclusion, the basic point is that there are conflicting definitions of sola scriptura and it itself is unbiblical
|
|
|
| The Bereans as an example of the errors of Sola Scriptura |
The Bereans Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[1]", and many of them believed. --> these "scriptures" were the Septuagint only and maybe the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of John wouldn't be written for some more decades, and Acts hadn't been written yet, and neither any of the epistles.
So, in short, these folks were OT alone -- and nothing else. Is that only what's in your bible?
Furthermore, context, context, context, read the preceeding and following lines
10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. |
So, they did rely on a man's word initially -- two men, Paul and Silas who spread the Good News amongs them. Then they checked the OT to see if the references to the Christ were correct. And also, the Berean Church included GREEKS -- who wouldn't have read the scriptures as they were not of Jewish origin, they took the Gospel for what Paul and Silas preached, tradition alone, not scripture.
Furthermore, note what happened before -- in Thessalonia. There, "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" --> THESE THESALLONIANS were sola scriptura folks who disagreed with Paul and Silas' interpretation of scriptures (the OT) on the Christ.
Remember, both the Thesalonians in the passages before this and the Bereans were Jews who studied the OT for the references of Jesus being the Christ. Why did they study this? because of the ORAL TRADITION that Paul and Silas brought, claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God.
The Thesalonians rejected this as "it weren't in scripture, sola scriptura", while the Bereans accepted Holy Tradition, i.e. ORAL teaching by Paul and Silas.
if anything, the tale of the Bereans shows the error of SOLA scriptura. |
| The Thesalonians |
The key point about the jealousy of the Thesalonians is this:
| along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women |
It's clear that that was the reason for the "jealousy" -- yet also note that only "some" of the Jews were persuaded -- the others rejected the ORAL Gospel as being outside scripture. These were the early sola-scriptura-types. In contrast we have the Bereans who accepted non-SCRIPTURA information, namely the ORAL Gospel --> something that the sola-scriptura folks of today would reject. |
| The Bereans |
As this article says
| The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280). |
And, as the article points out
| From the perspective of sola scriptura types, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them. |
|