Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tertiumquid has the right idea:

Luther was the foundational figure of the Protestant movement and of Sola Scriptura in the Protestant world. Thus, his definition is the most foundational. Otherwise, what definition would we use? One answer is that we can use the term as major churches define it. This brings up a few issues:
I appreciate you found value in my synopsis of your underlying presuppositions. In the spirit of attempting to wade through the excessive amount of text you post to get to the main arteries of importance, here's another synopsis of one of your underlying presuppositions: arriving at the conclusion that Luther's "definition" of Sola Scriptura is "is the most foundational" is a blatant example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Google that to learn what it means).
 
I have no reason to believe Luther held "a regular layman had equal authority as Councils."
This is one of the major problems with the methodology of Rakovsky. The theme of "church councils" runs throughout Luther's written corpus and arriving at what precisely was Luther's view on councils and their authority requires care and study. Luther appealed to a church council early on and then later wrote an entire treatise on church councils!

The method of using this or that Luther quote to prove this or that thesis is typically replete with ambiguity if that quote isn't placed in its written and historical context.
 
"indifference/Adiaphora". Probably Orthodoxy does not use this label, as if Orthodox people literally "do not care" where saints are buried.
You personally may not use the word adiaphora but the "Orthodox" churches practice it, even to a certain extent with regard to Scripture. For example, the length of the canon in use by a church is adiaphora, that is, it is neither commanded or prohibited by God.

Within "Orthodoxy" a church which uses the short canon, the sixty-six books, doesn't look down or condemn those who use a longer canon and the same goes in the other direction. By definition that practice is adiaphora and a reason why they choose to argue against Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings on earth.

By avoiding the issue of Scripture as lord and master over all other writings on earth they maintain peace within their churches or denominations and don't have to define a common canon for use within the "Orthodox" churches or denominations. In other words, what matters to them more than proclaiming the word of God in it's simple truth and purity is that their adherents acknowledge a tradition of men.
 
Ouch.

Luther pounded on the same point!
Yes, but so long as they continue to use the longer the canons it may be the lesser of two evils to reject Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings.

Imagine what it would be like if someone read the Apocryphal works and believed them? Oh wait, that's how the Roman churches, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, got their confused doctrines of what is the justification of God before Him unto eternal life.

The irony is an actual Apostolic letter with an explicit statement on the matter of justification before God unto eternal life was sent to them. “21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,22. even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and upon all those that believe. For there is no distinction; 23. for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, for a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins having previously committed, in the forbearance of God, 26. for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of he who has faith in Jesus.27. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:21-28, EMTV)
 
Last edited:
Oh wait, that's how the Roman churches, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, got their confused doctrines of what is the justification of God before Him unto eternal life.
The Christian Church has used the "apocrypha" from the beginning. These text are found in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint is the text that is quoted 90% of the time, or more, by the New Testament authors.

28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:21-28, EMTV)
Key phrase here, "works of the law," nomos, meaning the the Mosaic law or the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch. Notice St Paul did not use the word ergon, which means an action or a deed or work. St Paul, in Romans, is writing about the Law of Moses. To really understand Pauls letters we need to look at the context which he is writing, which is, the Judaizer heresy. This is the whole reason for the council in Acts 15, for Pauls letter to the Galatians, and what St Paul is saying in Romans. That is, we do not need to follow the Law of Moses, in particular, circumcision and kosher law. The Jedaizers were teaching that in order to become a Christian, one had to be first, circumcised, and second, follow kosher law.

Interestingly enough, St James, in his Epistle writes, "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works (ergon), is dead."

We are called to live a life in Christ. This is a life which is initiated by Grace, which faith is our response and our deeds are our good fruit. This cycle continues throughout our lives, otherwise, why would Christ instruct us to carry our cross Daily?
 
Hi!

I note and appreciate that your citations are from Scripture. That being said, I will also interact with Apocryphal and Pseudigraphical references if you choose to use them.
The Christian Church has used the "apocrypha" from the beginning. These text are found in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The canon of the one church of the one Lord God didn't change just because some people in Egypt translated some writings into Greek that included some of the Samaritan translation of the scriptures, apocryphal works, and novel wording or interpretations.
The Septuagint is the text that is quoted 90% of the time, or more, by the New Testament authors.
Using citations because of the convenience that they already existed in the target language of a culture unfamiliar with the faith is not the same as using those citations because they are more authoritative or as authoritative as the source being translated.
Key phrase here, "works of the law," nomos, meaning the the Mosaic law or the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch.
The insertion of the English definite article, "the," is a translator's choice. In other words, there is no definite article in the Greek.
Notice St Paul did not use the word ergon, which means an action or a deed or work.
But St Paul did use ergon, ergon nomou, works of a law. That is the context in which the Apostle has been writing throughout the chapter. For example, "There is no one righteous, no not one..." Romans 3:10ff. The same context will continue in chapter four when He writes of Abraham, David, etc.
St Paul, in Romans, is writing about the Law of Moses. To really understand Pauls letters we need to look at the context which he is writing, which is, the Judaizer heresy.
To understand the intended meaning of any writing one must pay attention to the immediate context. Privileging one out of context passage or idea over the immediate context only obscures and masks the author's intended meaning.
This is the whole reason for the council in Acts 15,
Agreed, however, we know that because of the immediate context of Acts 15 and their conclusion was not to burden the Gentiles with those works or new works.
for Pauls letter to the Galatians,
Agreed, however his answer again also excluded other works from justification before God unto eternal life. He again excluded works of a law, ergon nomou. See Gal 3:16.
and what St Paul is saying in Romans. That is, we do not need to follow the Law of Moses, in particular, circumcision and kosher law. The Jedaizers were teaching that in order to become a Christian, one had to be first, circumcised, and second, follow kosher law.
That explanation isn't an accurate reflection of what the Apostle wrote, that is, he wrote works of a law, ergon nomou.
Interestingly enough, St James, in his Epistle writes, "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works (ergon), is dead."
It is dead only in the sense of not bearing fruit before men. “17. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18. Exercising His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.” (Jam 1:17-18, EMTV)
We are called to live a life in Christ.
Agreed.
This is a life which is initiated by Grace,
Agreed.
which faith is our response
In the sense that we affirm the gift of faith given us in Christ Jesus.
and our deeds are our good fruit.
In the sense that God has prepared them in advance for us to do.
This cycle continues throughout our lives,
Agreed. The disagreement is upon the role of works. Scripture says and we affirm that those born of God are created in Christ Jesus to do good works. Our works aren't the reason or a reason why we are born of God.
otherwise, why would Christ instruct us to carry our cross Daily?
The context in which you write that is backwards. The Christ indeed carried the cross but the man Jesus carrying the cross did not make him the Christ. In the same way, a Christian is to bear his cross but a man bearing a cross doesn't make that man a Christian.

Just to place Paul's words into the historical context in which they were written using the Apocrypha of the LXX as a reference: It was through the law that the Jewish people beat back the Hellenizing or paganizing of the faith. Unfortunately, in that way it assumed a role to some of them which it didn't previously have. When Paul wrote of, "not by works of a law," he was aiming at the error of both those erring Jews and the Gentiles with regard to justification before God unto eternal life.
 
Last edited:
I recall a Lutheran theologian writing an article in a Lutheran publication arguing intelligently that the concept of Sola Scriptura preceded Luther in the late medieval/early modern Catholic Church, with Erasmus and others holding to this school of thought in Catholic Germany. So this idea itself wouldn't have been a problem enough for the Catholic Church to dogmatically reject it at the time.

That said, Orthodoxy doesn't have this idea, and there's a consensus that it conflicts with Orthodoxy, with its reliance on Tradition. The most official formulations of Sola Scriptura seem to be that the Bible alone establishes all dogmas/articles of faith (source: Luther's Smalcald Articles) and is the sole judge of every teaching (source: Formula of Concord). Luther used the explanation that everyone checked their teachings by the Bible, and that therefore the Bible ultimately was the judge of all teachings.

One tricky part of understanding and applying the Sola Scriptura concept is that it involves polemical writings that can have exaggerations and leaps of logic. So first: what is an "article of faith"? The most natural meaning would seem to be that it's a credal theological statement, like the Nicene Creed. But Luther in his polemics (eg. in the Smalcald Articles) complained that the Catholic Church at large and Henry VIII's Catholic Church in England in particular were turning issues like relics and ritual vessels into "articles of faith", by which he seemed to mean mandatory teachings. According to Luther, the Bible did not specify types of ritual vessels and some other ceremonial specifics, and so the Catholic Church should not mandate them. However, on critical reflection, Luther's line of reasoning raises a line of issues.
- First, the Catholic Church might not agree that it considered its mandatory rules, like what vessels to use, to be "articles of faith." Luther was using an argument that by mandating the ceremonial vessels, the Church was turning them into faith articles, but the Catholic Church might not agree that just because something is mandatory that it counts as an article of faith.
- Second, the Lutheran Church for practical reasons ended up making rules on some of the same kinds of things. So a Lutheran diocese can have a policy that congregations are supposed to use cups for giving communion. Luther's polemical argument might claim that such Lutheran policies are not "mandatory", but nonetheless in real life practice, the Lutheran church is going to treat them as requirements. Otherwise it's easier to end up with Clown masses. The Lutheran Church might respond that they are enforcing the Luhteran policies for practical reasons, not because they are Lutheran faith articles. But in that case we end up with the substance of Luther's argument in the first place - Luther complained that the Catholic Church, by making rules on communion was de facto treating the rules as articles of faith. And in this instance, the same kind of argument would follow from Luther's logic.
- Third, another issue is how much and what topics the Bible actually covers. Does the Bible speak (A) just on salvation issues, or (B) on necessary faith articles, or (C) does it literally cover every single doctrinal topic that might arise? For the Bible to be the literal sole judge of every doctrine as the Formula of Concord asserts, it would seem that (C) the Bible would have to actually speak on every issue. However, according to Luther there were actually topics that Christians debated that the Bible did not cover, like the issue of ceremonial vessels.
- Fourth if one says that the Bible covers an issue (A, B or C above), them must it do so directly and specifically, or may it just do so in a very indirect way? The Bible never specifies a stance on infant baptism in particular, so Protestants typically try to cobble a position together indirectly from circumstantially relevant Biblical statements, like a case when a whole family of unknown age was baptised. And if we can say that the Bible gives a position indirectly on infant baptism, and we can take "Biblical" positions to include implicit, circumstantial ones, then it seems that we could assert that the Bible gives a position indirectly on communion vessels too, as Jesus "took the cup," etc. But in denying that the Bible takes a position on communion vessels, Luther seems to exclude relying on indirect statements by the Bible.

Luther was raising an issue of procedure- how does one go about establishing and judging a doctrine.
- Orthodox typically, and technically even many Protestants including Luther, do not strictly follow a rule that literally the Bible alone judges every teaching. These theologians don't literally quote the Bible alone. Of course, Luther himself added that one could use other writings, and then he would assert that it was actually the Bible making the teaching, not those other writings, as the Bible was the judge of all writings.
- Offhand I can't think of a dogmatic credal statement in Orthodoxy that can't be asserted to be at least indirectly implied by some part of the Bible. And perhaps that's true for Catholicism as well. In other words, as a matter of proecedure, I can't think of a case where one could not use the Bible to at least indirectly establish what EOs or Catholics openly would agree to be an "article of faith." Take for instance the Nicene Creed. The Creed is an article of faith and Orthodox and Protestants would agree that its theological substance can be established using the Bible.
- On the other hand, I think that theoretically Jesus and the apostles could have given a theological teaching that they didn't specifically mention in the Bible. And in that case, the procedural side of Orthodoxy would allow for those "nonBiblical" apostolic teachings. IMO there are actually a couple cases like that, like Infant Baptism, where the apostles and Tradition took a position but the Bible didn't mention it.
- Then there's the issue that Orthodox theologians would say that the Bible itself does not actually teach Sola Scriptura- the Bible nowhere specifies that the Bible alone makes every faith teaching and judges every teaching. At best, an apologist for Sola Scriptura would have to look to statements in the Bible emphasizing the importance of Scripture and then conclude that this indirectly implies that the Bible is the only establisher and judge of these things.
 
I recall a Lutheran theologian writing an article in a Lutheran publication arguing intelligently that the concept of Sola Scriptura preceded Luther in the late medieval/early modern Catholic Church, with Erasmus and others holding to this school of thought in Catholic Germany. So this idea itself wouldn't have been a problem enough for the Catholic Church to dogmatically reject it at the time.

That said, Orthodoxy doesn't have this idea, and there's a consensus that it conflicts with Orthodoxy, with its reliance on Tradition. The most official formulations of Sola Scriptura seem to be that the Bible alone establishes all dogmas/articles of faith (source: Luther's Smalcald Articles) and is the sole judge of every teaching (source: Formula of Concord). Luther used the explanation that everyone checked their teachings by the Bible, and that therefore the Bible ultimately was the judge of all teachings.

One tricky part of understanding and applying the Sola Scriptura concept is that it involves polemical writings that can have exaggerations and leaps of logic. So first: what is an "article of faith"? The most natural meaning would seem to be that it's a credal theological statement, like the Nicene Creed. But Luther in his polemics (eg. in the Smalcald Articles) complained that the Catholic Church at large and Henry VIII's Catholic Church in England in particular were turning issues like relics and ritual vessels into "articles of faith", by which he seemed to mean mandatory teachings. According to Luther, the Bible did not specify types of ritual vessels and some other ceremonial specifics, and so the Catholic Church should not mandate them. However, on critical reflection, Luther's line of reasoning raises a line of issues.
- First, the Catholic Church might not agree that it considered its mandatory rules, like what vessels to use, to be "articles of faith." Luther was using an argument that by mandating the ceremonial vessels, the Church was turning them into faith articles, but the Catholic Church might not agree that just because something is mandatory that it counts as an article of faith.
- Second, the Lutheran Church for practical reasons ended up making rules on some of the same kinds of things. So a Lutheran diocese can have a policy that congregations are supposed to use cups for giving communion. Luther's polemical argument might claim that such Lutheran policies are not "mandatory", but nonetheless in real life practice, the Lutheran church is going to treat them as requirements. Otherwise it's easier to end up with Clown masses. The Lutheran Church might respond that they are enforcing the Luhteran policies for practical reasons, not because they are Lutheran faith articles. But in that case we end up with the substance of Luther's argument in the first place - Luther complained that the Catholic Church, by making rules on communion was de facto treating the rules as articles of faith. And in this instance, the same kind of argument would follow from Luther's logic.
- Third, another issue is how much and what topics the Bible actually covers. Does the Bible speak (A) just on salvation issues, or (B) on necessary faith articles, or (C) does it literally cover every single doctrinal topic that might arise? For the Bible to be the literal sole judge of every doctrine as the Formula of Concord asserts, it would seem that (C) the Bible would have to actually speak on every issue. However, according to Luther there were actually topics that Christians debated that the Bible did not cover, like the issue of ceremonial vessels.
- Fourth if one says that the Bible covers an issue (A, B or C above), them must it do so directly and specifically, or may it just do so in a very indirect way? The Bible never specifies a stance on infant baptism in particular, so Protestants typically try to cobble a position together indirectly from circumstantially relevant Biblical statements, like a case when a whole family of unknown age was baptised. And if we can say that the Bible gives a position indirectly on infant baptism, and we can take "Biblical" positions to include implicit, circumstantial ones, then it seems that we could assert that the Bible gives a position indirectly on communion vessels too, as Jesus "took the cup," etc. But in denying that the Bible takes a position on communion vessels, Luther seems to exclude relying on indirect statements by the Bible.

Luther was raising an issue of procedure- how does one go about establishing and judging a doctrine.
- Orthodox typically, and technically even many Protestants including Luther, do not strictly follow a rule that literally the Bible alone judges every teaching. These theologians don't literally quote the Bible alone. Of course, Luther himself added that one could use other writings, and then he would assert that it was actually the Bible making the teaching, not those other writings, as the Bible was the judge of all writings.
- Offhand I can't think of a dogmatic credal statement in Orthodoxy that can't be asserted to be at least indirectly implied by some part of the Bible. And perhaps that's true for Catholicism as well. In other words, as a matter of proecedure, I can't think of a case where one could not use the Bible to at least indirectly establish what EOs or Catholics openly would agree to be an "article of faith." Take for instance the Nicene Creed. The Creed is an article of faith and Orthodox and Protestants would agree that its theological substance can be established using the Bible.
- On the other hand, I think that theoretically Jesus and the apostles could have given a theological teaching that they didn't specifically mention in the Bible. And in that case, the procedural side of Orthodoxy would allow for those "nonBiblical" apostolic teachings. IMO there are actually a couple cases like that, like Infant Baptism, where the apostles and Tradition took a position but the Bible didn't mention it.
- Then there's the issue that Orthodox theologians would say that the Bible itself does not actually teach Sola Scriptura- the Bible nowhere specifies that the Bible alone makes every faith teaching and judges every teaching. At best, an apologist for Sola Scriptura would have to look to statements in the Bible emphasizing the importance of Scripture and then conclude that this indirectly implies that the Bible is the only establisher and judge of these things.
Here is the missing context which led to much of the errant speculation above. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

You will find the essence of the symbol of faith, what is commonly called the Apostles Creed, derived from Scripture in Irenäus.

God in His providence provided the printing press. People from that time going forward would begin to have the Scriptures in their own language. The time for the Roman Churches, that includes the Orthodox, to correct their doctrine and traditions according to the word of God is long past.
 
The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority. Not even one. But what does the Scriptures say about the Scriptures themselves? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction and righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3-17). God incarnate and the Holy Spirit in the Church are God’s self-revelation. Scripture is the record of that revelation and the root from which tradition grows. So, the bible does say that the Scriptures are given by divine inspiration. It does say that they are profitable, they are useful for teaching and correction and without them we are not equipped and not furnished to do good works. But it does not say Scripture alone anywhere. So, I would say it fails its own test.

We cannot recognize the Bible as the only authority and here is why. Because the bible has to be interpreted. If Scripture is the main source for revelation of Christian doctrine, reason is the main instrument for grasping, understanding, developing, and applying such doctrine. Scripture does not interpret itself. Its meaning is not self-evident. Reason is needed to understand and interpret anything, including scripture.

The bible does not just stand alone. It is given within a context. And the context I would argue is the Church itself. The Church compiled the scriptures, the Church preserved the scriptures and the Church interprets the scriptures. The same Church that defined the Holy Trinity, the human and divine natures of Christ, is the same Church that compiled the scriptures that we enjoy every day.

Tradition of the Church also has a kind of practical priority, because tradition summarizes the reasonable interpretation of Scripture by the many ages of the Church that have gone before us. Scripture cannot properly be separated from tradition and allowed to stand alone, not least because it was the inspired Church which decided which books should be included in Scripture and which not. Tradition, in other words, defined what is authentic Scripture and what is not. Without tradition both the content and the interpretation of Scripture will be thrown into radical doubt. Without tradition, broadly defined to include the worshipping life of the Church, Scripture has no context and is a mere, dead text.

And the Church are really the Bishops in union with all of us in the body. We come to the scriptures together. Its just not the clergy, laity or isolated individuals. It is the Church as a whole that receives the scriptures and interprets the scriptures. The Church has a calling. The individual people (laity) has a calling to protect the faith. Not just the hierarchy, everyone has to content for the faith.

The authority of the bible is undoubted. We believe in the authority of scripture. All of our traditions just amplify scripture. They manifest the meaning of scripture but they do not contradict scripture. So, all the pieces of tradition; the scriptures, the writings of holy church fathers, the iconography, the architecture to the ascetical works of monks and nuns that have been recorded. All of these things are part of a mosaic, all showing us the same picture. They don’t contradict each other. We don’t view the scriptures in isolation. Our interpretation of the scripture, agrees with the other aspects of holy tradition and the other aspects of holy tradition have to agrees with the scriptures. There cannot be a scenario of having to choose between the scripture versus the tradition.

This is one of the main reasons why there are so many divisions going on in the Christian world. They interpret things differently and set up their own church. You see this in a lot of non-denominational churches and street preachers. The problem is that you have every individual picking the bible apart and coming up with their own way of belief. They are personally interpreting the scriptures on their own. The Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So, the scriptures are not privately interpreted. The Church is guided by the Spirit and that is why if you look at the history of the Church, you can see an unbroken continuity from the Apostles, where we have not deviated from the faith once delivered to the Saints. But, if you compare that to Protestantism, within a few hundred years, we have 33,000 different versions of Christianity all competing with each other and contradicting each other. Someone might say, “Well I know that my interpretation is correct because the spirit is leading me”. The Spirit is not going to lead one-man way one way and another man a different way.

Some Protestant sects regard the Bible as the source from which every one may draw his own conclusions as to the truth. What has been held in all ages by the greatest teachers counts for little, if anything, in the way of authority. According to this view, every man becomes his own interpreter of the Bible, which so used may cease to be the word of God and may become the word of man. The necessary result of such private interpretation of the Scriptures is, that an endless variety of explanations may be given as to the meaning of God's word. This is one form of error concerning the ascertaining of the truth.

We see this a lot in many Churches that claim they know the truth. One church claims this is the truth and another church will claim a different truth and they end up contradicting each other. Would God be a God of contradictions? The answer is no. God is not a God of confusion!

You can look at the church and you will see it’s been led down a single path for 2,000 years and we haven’t changed the faith, we have not added to the faith and we have not subtracted from the faith, because it is all precious and we want to preserve all of it. And it’s only by the grace of God living in the Church that it is preserved. So, we give Him the glory.
 
The problem with the Sola’s is that they are not biblical. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Scripture itself is the only authority.

LOL...Couldn't even get out of the gate without falling of the horse, could you?

Sola scriptura doesn't mean scripture is the only authority. It means it is the highest authority.
 
LOL...Couldn't even get out of the gate without falling of the horse, could you?

Sola scriptura doesn't mean scripture is the only authority. It means it is the highest authority.
A fundamental problem with the modern doctrine of sola scriptura is that it is not supported by scripture.

Consider the Council of Jerusalem described in the Acts of the Apostles. The council resolved a controversy between Pharisee converts and Paul about whether gentile converts needed to be circumcised. In the discussion, James quotes the Greek Old Testament about gentiles seeking the Lord.

. . .that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name
,
Says the Lord who does all these things. Acts 15:17 NKJV / Amos 9:12 LXX

The modern Hebrew text says something much different. It says that the gentiles will be possessed by the House of Israel.

That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name
,”
Says the Lord who does this thing. Amos 9:12 NKJV

According the doctrine of sola scriptura, the apostles were quoting the wrong text as scripture. Worse yet, the Hebrew text does not support the conclusion reached by the apostles. If anything, it supports the position of the Pharisees.

A few verses later, it is clear that the Holy Spirit spoke through the council. The conclusion was not a matter for personal interpretation.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things . . . Acts 15:28

The New Testament supports the authority of the Greek LXX over the Hebrew, and it supports the authority of church councils to decide controversies. In both cases, the New Testament effectively refutes the doctrine of sola scripture.
 
A fundamental problem with the modern doctrine of sola scriptura is that it is not supported by scripture.
First, if you think sola scriptura is a doctrine, then you've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not a doctrine. It's a praxis.

Second, if you really think the Bible doesn't support the Biblical praxis of sola scripture, then you've clearly never read what the Bible has to say about it:

2nd Kings 22:10-13 - "And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."

Matthew 4:3-4 - "And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Matthew 4:5-11 - Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Matthew 4:8 - "Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."

Matthew 21:42 - "Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"

Revelation 22:18-19 -"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!"

Matthew 12:3-5 -"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"

Matthew 19:4-5 "And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

Matthew 22:31-32 - "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living."

Luke 10:26 - "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Matthew 22:29 -"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"

Matthew 26:24 -"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".

John 5:39 - "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."
 
Third, if you don't know what the ECFs taught about the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura, then you're ignorant of church history:

Augustine of Hippo: "This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves." (Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 11, Chapter 3)

Cyril of Jerusalem: This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).

Gregory of Nyssa: "The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Gregory of Nyssa: Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327)

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).

Basil the Great: We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture. (On the Holy Spirit, 7.16)

Augustine: This Mediator: [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. (City of God, book XI, Chapter 3, )

Augustine: Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole oracles of God. (Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5)

Augustine: Many false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and shall do many signs and wonders, that they may deceive, if it were possible, the very elect: behold, I have told you before. This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other; for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long before their occurrence. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 13.5)

Augustine: Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. (De unitate ecclesiae, 10)

Irenaeus: We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies 3.1.1)

Clement of Alexandria: But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. (The Stromata, 7:16)

[Notice the final court of appeal is the Scriptures, not the church. The those who are encouraged to toil in the most excellent pursuits do not refer to the church ecclesiastical authority, but to all people. All people are encouraged here to search for truth and find it finally in the Scriptures.]

Athanasius: The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3 )

Ambrose: For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures? (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)


Consider the Council of Jerusalem described in the Acts of the Apostles. The council resolved a controversy between Pharisee converts and Paul about whether gentile converts needed to be circumcised. In the discussion, James quotes the Greek Old Testament about gentiles seeking the Lord.

. . .that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name
,
Says the Lord who does all these things. Acts 15:17 NKJV / Amos 9:12 LXX

The modern Hebrew text says something much different. It says that the gentiles will be possessed by the House of Israel.

That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name
,”
Says the Lord who does this thing. Amos 9:12 NKJV

According the doctrine of sola scriptura, the apostles were quoting the wrong text as scripture.
Actually, chapters and verses were not assigned to scripture until long after the apostles.
Worse yet, the Hebrew text does not support the conclusion reached by the apostles. If anything, it supports the position of the Pharisees.

A few verses later, it is clear that the Holy Spirit spoke through the council. The conclusion was not a matter for personal interpretation.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things . . . Acts 15:28

The New Testament supports the authority of the Greek LXX over the Hebrew, and it supports the authority of church councils to decide controversies. In both cases, the New Testament effectively refutes the doctrine of sola scripture.
If you think this refutes the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura, then I don't think you know what sola scriptura is.
 
First, if you think sola scriptura is a doctrine, then you've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not a doctrine. It's a praxis.

Do you accept the definition of sola scriptura found in the Westminster Confession?

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. . .

At the time of the Council of Jerusalem, there was no New Testament, and the apostles chose to use the Greek version of the Old Testament instead of the Hebrew.
 
Do you accept the definition of sola scriptura found in the Westminster Confession?
Unless you're able to explain how the Westminster Confession's definition of sola scriptura contradicts the Bible verses I have quoted, or the teachings of the ECFs I cited, then I have no problem with it.
At the time of the Council of Jerusalem, there was no New Testament, and the apostles chose to use the Greek version of the Old Testament instead of the Hebrew.
And...?
 
First, if you think sola scriptura is a doctrine, then you've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about. It's not a doctrine. It's a praxis.

Second, if you really think the Bible doesn't support the Biblical praxis of sola scripture, then you've clearly never read what the Bible has to say about it:

2nd Kings 22:10-13 - "And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."
A priest delivered a book to the king, which the king then accepted as scripture. How does adding a newly discovered book to scripture agree with sola scriptura?
2nd Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."
The immediately preceding verse, 2 Tim 3:15 provides the context:
. . . from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Timothy was a Greek-speaking gentile as a child, and Paul is praising value of the Greek Old Testament he studied as a child. Note the canon of the Old Testament for Greek-speaking Jews was larger than what is now used in Hebrew bibles, which are the basis of the Protestant Old Testament. Also much of the New Testament had not yet been written and a complete New Testament was not compiled for another three centuries.
Matthew 4:3-4 - "And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Yes, the spoken word not written. As far the long list of New Testament quotes of the Old Testament, there is one that is conspicuously missing, Hebrews 1:6 / Deut 32:43 LXX.

As far as the quotes about the value of searching the scriptures, there is nothing that states that the scriptures commonly used in Protestant bibles are complete and sufficient, and the passage from Acts 15 shows the opposite.
 
A priest delivered a book to the king, which the king then accepted as scripture. How does adding a newly discovered book to scripture agree with sola scriptura?
It doesn't sound like you know what sola scriptura is, nor understand this passage.

You realize the book spoken of here was portions of the Pentateuch, mostly what we know now as Deuteronomy, which was already considered scripture, right? Or did they not give you talking points to address that?


The immediately preceding verse, 2 Tim 3:15 provides the context:
. . . from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Timothy was a Greek-speaking gentile as a child, and Paul is praising value of the Greek Old Testament he studied as a child. Note the canon of the Old Testament for Greek-speaking Jews was larger than what is now used in Hebrew bibles, which are the basis of the Protestant Old Testament. Also much of the New Testament had not yet been written and a complete New Testament was not compiled for another three centuries.
First, if the books and letters already existed and were in circulation, then it doesn't matter when they were all compiled into one unit.

Second, the Greek Old Testament is still scripture.
Yes, the spoken word not written. As far the long list of New Testament quotes of the Old Testament, there is one that is conspicuously missing, Hebrews 1:6 / Deut 32:43 LXX.
Yeah, we know. That's why 2 Tim 3:16 refers to scripture as θεόπνευστος, which literally means "breathed from the mouth of God".
As far as the quotes about the value of searching the scriptures, there is nothing that states that the scriptures commonly used in Protestant bibles are complete and sufficient, and the passage from Acts 15 shows the opposite.
The passage from Acts 15 actually doesn't show that, as I demonstrated before.

2 Tim 3:16 and many of the other verses I quoted for you, as well as the ECFs I cited for you, indicate that scripture is insufficient.

If you don't believe God's Word is sufficient, I would be willing to explore what you believe to be the inadequacy of God's Word with you. Could you please tell us, if God's Word is insufficient, what is needed to complete it?
 
It doesn't sound like you know what sola scriptura is, nor understand this passage.
Please Either confirm the definition from the Westminster Confession or provide a definition that you accept.
You realize the book spoken of here was portions of the Pentateuch, mostly what we know now as Deuteronomy, which was already considered scripture, right? Or did they not give you talking points to address that?
Do you have an extrabiblical reference for that assertion? Here is the passage that describes the origin of the book:

Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. So Shaphan the scribe went to the king, bringing the king word, saying, “Your servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of those who do the work, who oversee the house of the Lord.” Then Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king. 2 Kings 22:8-10

There is no biblical evidence of the book existing in written form before this time. "The book of the law" may have put oral traditions into written form and further edits may have been made later.
First, if the books and letters already existed and were in circulation, then it doesn't matter when they were all compiled into one unit.

Second, the Greek Old Testament is still scripture.

Yeah, we know. That's why 2 Tim 3:16 refers to scripture as θεόπνευστος, which literally means "breathed from the mouth of God".

The passage from Acts 15 actually doesn't show that, as I demonstrated before.

2 Tim 3:16 and many of the other verses I quoted for you, as well as the ECFs I cited for you, indicate that scripture is insufficient.

If you don't believe God's Word is sufficient, I would be willing to explore what you believe to be the inadequacy of God's Word with you. Could you please tell us, if God's Word is insufficient, what is needed to complete it?
By tradition, the Book of Revelation was written after Paul's letters. The bible is silent on the exact chronology of the books. Does "all scripture" include books not yet written?

If so, then do you consider the Book of Sirach and other books found in the Greek Old Testament that Timothy to be scripture?

Sirach is found in the earliest bible manuscripts. All of the ECFs that you quoted accepted it as scripture. It was part of the Greek scriptures that Timothy studied as a child, that Paul specifically praised: All scripture is given by inspiration of God . . .

As far as Acts 15, does your bible include the quote from Amos in your Old Testament?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top