Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
There was this on another thread.
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
“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. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
IMO that's a pretty good working description.
Good question. If you ever get an answer, let me know.
Please enlighten us with such scriptures.
Oh, the irony. Appealing to Scripture to disprove sola Scripttura.
Such as?
It is ironic isn’t it. Appealing to scripture to try to prove that scripture isn’t the final authority.
Sola scriptura
Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures. Heb 5:12 ... need to be taught.
So if Scripture as the only wholly inspired, objective, transcendent Divine revelation is not the sole infallible rule of faith (which does not exclude the role of reason, the church, etc. which Scripture materially provides for), then what is the infallible standard or rule for faith and morals?
You may say the church, but nowhere is it taught that all that the church will ever formally, universally teach on faith and morals (in accordance with Rome's formula) will be infallible, thus RCs erroneously try to extrapolate it out of Scripture.
But consistent with those attempts, if Paul said that the stewards of Scripture (via the magisterium) formally, universally teaches on faith and morals will be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally able to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," then they would do just the opposite of what you do with 2 Timothy 3:16-17!
It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church
The problem with this is that your idea of SS is incorrect. If Scripture alone is all one needs to determine Truth then we would not need a brain, the Holy Spirit, reason, the church, etc., which as said, Scripture provides for, but Scripture is sola as being the infallible and supreme standard or rule for faith and morals.
My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
In that case you were trying to defend a strawman as a bedrock teaching of Protestantism (and can you show us where you tried that?), or you otherwise never saw how it is Scriptural. The OT provides for recognition of both men and writings of God as being so, and thus for additions being added, and thus for a canon.
And do you deny that in Scripture it is manifest as being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced? .
Do disagree that the church did not begin under the premise of a perpetual assuredly (if conditional) infallible magisterium of men, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power? (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And upon what basis (Scripture, etc.?) do you have assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church?
And we are still waiting for the answer to the question asked in post 200 , regarding the "we gave you the Bible polemic:
Are you saying that being the instruments and stewards of Scripture requires or renders them the infallible authority on it, so they that which they reject must be rejected?
Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place.
His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle".
So as per this logic, having historical descent, and being the instruments and stewards of Scripture requires or renders them the infallible authority on it, so they that which they reject must be rejected?
And that Rome's claim to historical descent via "unbroken" (despite what even Catholic scholarship attests to, and breaks of up to 3 years and rival popes, and the use of carnal force to secure the seat, etc.) uniquely makes her the One True Church?
And asking you like as i did to others,
And do you deny that in Scripture it is manifest as being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced ? .
Do disagree that the church did not begin under the premise of a perpetual assuredly (if conditional) infallible magisterium of men, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power? (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Do you hold that all die not in submission to the pope, in the bosom of the RCC,as per ancient Roman teaching, are lost?
I am asking these important questions more for the benefit of others, but this time try to clearly answer them as being reason-able rather than resorting to your usual screeds and rants.
I fall in the category of believing in, fearing, and loving God and His Son who He sent to earth to save me from eternal separation from Him.
Are you saying the Catholic Chuch can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholic Church’s authority?
“In addition, not contrary.”
Thanks. I appreciate the answer.
How is it determined whether the teaching is contrary?
“As a Catholic I find that there are many Protestant teachings that are truly contrary to the Bible. The truth is that Protestants are as wedded to their own traditions of interpretation as Catholics.”
May be. That’s not the topic of this thread, though.
LOL, very nicely put.
Contrary to the way Catholics cherry pick? Like what?
Well, tradition states that you have to get the Catholic church to sign off on that thought before it can be accepted as a legitimate description. Pay no attention to that Bible 'source of information', WE will tell you what to believe.
“either by word of mouth or by letter”
Translation: Tradition AND Scripture.
“What is your source for verifying all of the above”
Ever heard of the Bible.
Ever heard of the Bible.
So Scripture is the basis for assurance of Truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.