Christians: Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?

[shunyadragon]

I believe the belief in Sola Scriptura goes back to the Church Fathers, and/or the compilers of the gospels and the NT in general. As in the other thread I believe the dominant belief and basis of Sola Scriptura.

I do not believe this is really accurate, and I believe the majority of the church Fathers and those that compiled the Bible believed in a literal Genesis and the flood. Yes, many acknowledged a companion allegorical interpretations.

From: ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:

“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:

“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5

Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome (AD 170 – 236), was trained in the faith by Irenaeus, and like his mentor, he held to literal Creation days. He writes:

“And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”6

Lactantius, a Bible scholar (AD 260 – 330) who tutored Emperor Constantine’s son, Crispus, taught the official Christian doctrine of the traditional church. He wrote:

“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….”7

As with the other church leaders at the time, he accepted the prophetic days of 2 Peter 3:8, and tells us:

“Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.”8

Next, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo

 

[exchemist]

The Anglicans are not Sola Scriptura. Yet they are Protestant... "Protestant" strictly means the protesting of the Catholic Church... Nothing more...
Anglicanism

Protestantism - Ohio History Central
"Protestantism is one of the three branches of the Christian faith. The other two Christian traditions are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Protestantism originated during the early 1500s. During this period, the Protestant Reformation occurred. Many people began to protest various Catholic Church practices. These people became known as Protestants because of their protests."

Sure. However, the doctrinal principle of sola scriptura is what we are discussing. That was a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation. Yes, the Anglican and Methodist view is a half-way house, prima scriptura. This is all in the Wiki article that I quoted an extract from.

 

[Cooky]

But @exchemist also said:

Sure. However, the doctrinal principle of sola scriptura is what we are discussing. That was a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation. Yes, the Anglican and Methodist view is a half-way house, prima scriptura. This is all in the Wiki article that I quoted an extract from.

Except that the wikipedia article seems to suggest that Martin Luther believed in Sola Scriptura, when in fact, he did not himself... Luther wanted to remain Catholic, and believed in apostolic succession, and the other traditions of the Church. Luther never wanted a non-Catholic Church to be named after him.

...Sorry, it's not you that I have a problem with, it's sources like wikipedia. Sola Scriptura was not a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation, it was a result of it.

...It's what the Protestant reformers were left with.

 

[exchemist]

I'm very sorry, but you're mistaken. I've been studying this for over a decade, Sola Scriptura literally translates as: "By Scripture alone". It means faith based solely on scripture.

...Wikipedia articles are not an authoritative source.

Yes I know my latin. But what it means in this context is scripture is the only ultimate authority, as opposed to scripture AND the apostolic authority of the church, which is the Catholic tradition.

If you don't like Wiki, please provide a better source, (ideally not from one of these hysterical American tribal Catholic websites run by Donaghue et al ).

 

[shunyadragon]

But @exchemist also said:


Except that the wikipedia article seems to suggest that Martin Luther believed in Sola Scriptura, when in fact, he did not himself... Luther wanted to remain Catholic, and believed in apostolic succession, and the other traditions of the Church.

...Sorry, it's not you that I have a problem with, it's sources like wikipedia. Sola Scriptura was not a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation, it was a result of it.

I believe that Sola Scriptura is a fundamental belief going back to the Church Fathers and/or the compilers of the NT, and they believed in a literal Genesis.

 

[exchemist]

But @exchemist also said:


Except that the wikipedia article seems to suggest that Martin Luther believed in Sola Scriptura, when in fact, he did not himself... Luther wanted to remain Catholic, and believed in apostolic succession, and the other traditions of the Church. Luther never wanted a non-Catholic Church to be named after him.

...Sorry, it's not you that I have a problem with, it's sources like wikipedia. Sola Scriptura was not a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation, it was a result of it.

...It's what the Protestant reformers were left with.

OK, but it's not just Wiki.: Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

BUT I see here there is this more subtle explanation of the Lutheran view of sola scriptura : A Brief Introduction to sola scriptura

This leaves open what Luther himself thought and hints that, as you are perhaps saying, sola scriptura was a doctrine that developed in the course of the Reformation, rather than springing, fully formed, as it were, from Luther's pen.

Is that fair?

 

[exchemist]

I believe that Sola Scriptura is a fundamental belief going back to the Church Fathers and/or the compilers of the NT, and they believed in a literal Genesis.

Literalism has nothing whatever to do with the issue of sola scriptura.

 

[shmogie]

Christians:

Is Sola Scriptura biblical?

Or is it a tradition?

It is Biblical. The Apostolic Church was based in sola scriptura, that is the revelation of God by and through the Apostles.

No Apostle, or Christ said in any way that the Church or it's doctrines needed anything more than that revealed by the Apostles and Christ.

The Gospel, the critical and most important teaching of Christ and the Apostles is revealed in the Bible, and remains exactly as when the words of the Bible were first written.

The steps to salvation have never changed from those written in the Bible.

The reformers did not create sola scriptura, they rediscovered it, after it had been obliterated by traditions contrary to the very teachings of the Bible.

sola scriptura is the basis of the true Christian Church. Anything else is tainted and fraudulent.

Traditions are OK when they deal with things like the shape of the pews, whether the men attending a service should wear shirt and tie, or how the charity of the church is distributed.

They are insidious when the alter any doctrine of the Bible, or seek direction from anyone or anything, on doctrine, the basic organization of the Church, or the message of The Gospel.

 

[shmogie]

OK, but it's not just Wiki.: Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

BUT I see here there is this more subtle explanation of the Lutheran view of sola scriptura : A Brief Introduction to sola scriptura

This leaves open what Luther himself thought and hints that, as you are perhaps saying, sola scriptura was a doctrine that developed in the course of the Reformation, rather than springing, fully formed, as it were, from Luther's pen.

Is that fair?

Yes. Luther began as a priest that asked questions that bothered him. While in "captivity" after his "kidnapping", he realized that Catholicism was a broken vessel that could not be repaired. Further, he concluded that there was no authority regarding doctrine but that of the Apostles revealed in the Bible.

Finally, he found the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, in the Bible. Each believer is his own priest, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, in interpreting the meaning of scripture.

In the case of Luther, his belief structure evolved over time, to a total and complete break with Catholicism best illustrated in the very real fear of the proponents of Catholicism killing him.

At the diet of Worms, where he had been put on trial for his life, the Catholic authorities gave him one last chance to recant of his many, many statements and teachings they objected to, he simply said " here I stand, I can do no other". He was miraculously saved from death by the command of the pope.

 

[shunyadragon]

Literalism has nothing whatever to do with the issue of sola scriptura.

Yes it does! Believing in a literal interpretation is a major part of the tradition that the literal scripture takes precedence over other knowledge and interpretations.

More citations to follow

 

[Scott C.]

Christians:

Is Sola Scriptura biblical?

Or is it a tradition?

If you believe in Sola Sciptura it's because you believe it's Biblical. If you don't, it's because you believe it's not. There are Bible believers in both camps.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you believe in Sola Sciptura it's because you believe it's Biblical. If you don't, it's because you believe it's not. There are Bible believers in both camps.

Belief the Bible is scriptural is not equated with the concept of Sola Scriptura not the belief that Genesis and scripture is literal. By far most Christians consider the Bile scripture, but there are many variations as to how the Bible is interpreted.

 

[shunyadragon]

More concerning the belief that the Bible is that Genesis is literal, and the rest of scripture follows as Sola Scriptura. .

From: ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo
Usually liberal Christians refer to these three church leaders to support their ideas. However, we must understand that these three scholars never even thought about interpreting the days of Genesis in a way that today’s liberals understand. To try and do this is a violation of their teaching.

Firstly, even these three leaders who interpreted Scripture in a more symbolic way than the others, never once tried to mix the long ages of the pagan philosophers like Plato with their teaching. Every single person among the Christian leaders who spoke about Creation said it had happened much less than 10,000 years ago. Augustine (AD 354 – 430) could write:

“fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man’s first origin,”

and he referred to the pagans’

“fairy-tales about reputed antiquity, which our opponents may decide to produce in attempts to controvert the authority of our sacred books....”9

Liberals are keen to get Augustine on their side because apparently he believed that the days of Creation were symbolic, and not literal. He tells us in his City of God what he understood about the Creation days:

“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10

From this we realise that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.11

Origen (AD 185 – 230/254) was one of the most prolific Christian writers in the Early Church, and was used by God to lead many into the Christian faith. He was recognised as one of the greatest scholars of the church at that time. He led a Bible school in Alexandria, and in order to become a better missionary to the pagan philosophers, he attended the lectures of Ammonius Saccas, who had founded the school of Neo-Platonism in Alexandria. Sadly, it was the influence of pagan philosophy that led Origen astray in some of his Scriptural interpretations.

Origen started preaching that human souls had already existed and that they were waiting to be put into bodies. This heresy was known as the “Pre-existence of the Soul”, and it was totally rejected by the church. He also taught that the stars possessed their own souls. This belief he adopted from the pagan scientists of the day. He began to explain away Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden as figurative, and he also bought into a pagan understanding of the Creation days. He believed that “the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that”,12 but saw the six days of Creation as figurative.

The reason why he struggled with a literal understanding of the six days is because he could not understand how light could exist, and the earth rotate in a 24-hour cycle before the sun had been created. He appealed to Genesis 2:4 in order to give a figurative meaning to the six days of Creation and wrote:

“We found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.'”13

Of course today we know that the sun is one among many stars, and that light radiation existed before they were created. The problem of a 24-hour earth cycle before the sun was made is not a difficulty for God; it is just that we do not yet understand it. When Origen quoted Genesis 2:4 to give a figurative foundation for the days of Creation, he did not realise that traditional rabbinical understanding of this verse was that the “generations” meant “the account of” and “the day” meant “at the time when”.14 Thus he is guilty of twisting Scripture.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 153 – 217), was famous as a Bible teacher, and he taught Origen. Although some evangelicals think he held to a liberal view on Creation, he actually had a mixed approach. He has an historical date for Creation of 5592 BC (Stromata, or Miscellanies 1:21) and he said about the Creation days:

“For the creation of the world was concluded in six days ...Wherefore also man is said to have been made on the sixth day ... Some such thing also is indicated by the sixth hour in the scheme of salvation, in which man was made perfect.”15

Although the context of the above passage is indeed figurative, it is clear that Clement was referring to a literal six-day Creation with man being “made perfect” in the sixth hour of the sixth day. Clement was influenced by the rabbinical teaching of the six hours in which God completed man, an idea which goes beyond the bounds of Scripture, but yet demonstrates a literalist view.16

In conclusion, my investigation clearly demonstrated to me that the Church Fathers were almost unanimous on the twin beliefs of a literal six-day Creation and a “young earth”. Origen, who was influenced by pagan views and held to some heretical ideas, was the main exception to the rule. Although the Church Fathers were literalists, it is true that they also used Genesis in a figurative way to point prophetically to the return of Christ, and to draw out spiritual messages for their audiences, as do literal creationists today."

I believe the Roman Church (RCC) believes the New Testament is literal revealed scripture.

 

[leov]

If you believe in Sola Sciptura it's because you believe it's Biblical. If you don't, it's because you believe it's not. There are Bible believers in both camps.

there was time when Christianity was around but there was no Scripture yet...

 

[whirlingmerc]

there was time when Christianity was around but there was no Scripture yet...

The sentiment is Apostolic. note that Paul said "you need to not go beyond the scriptures" 1 Cor 4:1

The apostles focused on the word of God and prayer in Acts 6:4
But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Mark 7:13 (ESV) thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." said by Jesus after quoting Isaiah 29:13

An article on the sufficiency of scripture by Carl Trueman is here
The Sufficiency of Scripture

 

[leov]

The sentiment is Apostolic. note that Paul said "you need to not go beyond the scriptures" 1 Cor 4:1

The apostles focused on the word of God and prayer in Acts 6:4
But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Mark 7:13 (ESV) thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." said by Jesus after quoting Isaiah 29:13

An article on the sufficiency of scripture by Carl Trueman is here
The Sufficiency of Scripture

What scriptures did Paul have?

The sentiment is Apostolic. note that Paul said "you need to not go beyond the scriptures" 1 Cor 4:1

The apostles focused on the word of God and prayer in Acts 6:4
But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Mark 7:13 (ESV) thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." said by Jesus after quoting Isaiah 29:13

An article on the sufficiency of scripture by Carl Trueman is here
The Sufficiency of Scripture

"1Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." 1 Cor 4:1? Kind what Christ Jesus said that he was teacher of mysteries.

 

[Scott C.]

there was time when Christianity was around but there was no Scripture yet...

Personally I don't believe in Sola Scriptura and I don't believe it's Biblical. Rather, it's an interpretation or a tradition if you prefer. My point is that people who believe in Sola Scriptura interpret the Bible to teach this. This interpretation has been around for centuries but was not believed in the early Christian years, IMO.

 

[Scott C.]

Belief the Bible is scriptural is not equated with the concept of Sola Scriptura not the belief that Genesis and scripture is literal. By far most Christians consider the Bile scripture, but there are many variations as to how the Bible is interpreted.

My understanding is that Sola Scriptura says the Bible is literally true, is without error, is the word of God, and is the only source for the word of God. There is not now nor will there ever be scripture other than what we find in today's Protestant Bible. In order to believe in Sola Scriptura, one must find each of those concepts in the Bible and interpret them as such. I don't believe the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

 

[leov]

Personally I don't believe in Sola Scriptura and I don't believe it's Biblical. Rather, it's an interpretation or a tradition if you prefer. My point is that people who believe in Sola Scriptura interpret the Bible to teach this. This interpretation has been around for centuries but was not believed in the early Christian years, IMO.

Yes, I just wanted to note that knowledge of God doesn't come through reading Bible or listening a preacher it is the second hand knowledge, it may just good for a start.

 

[Deeje]

Personally I don't believe in Sola Scriptura and I don't believe it's Biblical. Rather, it's an interpretation or a tradition if you prefer. My point is that people who believe in Sola Scriptura interpret the Bible to teach this. This interpretation has been around for centuries but was not believed in the early Christian years, IMO.

Sola Scriptura literally translates as: "By Scripture alone". It means faith based solely on scripture.

Somebody please tell me that Jesus was not an advocate of “by scripture alone”...? How many times did he say...”it is written”.
How many times did Jesus and his apostles quote scripture?

If we don’t base our beliefs on scripture, then whose ideas are we advocating?