Is Sola Scriptura a Sola Scriptura doctrine?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Courtesy FiveSolas.com (emphasis mine):

Sola Scriptura: The Scripture Alone is the Standard

The doctrine that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority was the "Formal Principle" of the Reformation. In 1521 at the historic interrogation of Luther at the Diet of Worms, he declared his conscience to be captive to the Word of God saying, "Unless I am overcome with testimonies from Scripture or with evident reasons -- for I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils, since they have often erred and contradicted one another -- I am overcome by the Scripture texts which I have adduced, and my conscience is bound by God's Word." Similarly, the Belgic Confession stated, "We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein...Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God... Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule" (VII).

To sum up, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura basically says that the Bible should be the source of all doctrine. Here's the thing, though: does this doctrine actually come from the Bible? I haven't been able to find anything conclusive in my reading (and yes, I have read 2 Timothy).

So, I pose the question: Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura a Sola Scriptura doctrine itself?

 

[sojourner]

Good point! Very good point!

 

[Scuba Pete]

The entire doctrine comes from a compendium of scriptures.

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. NIV

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. NIV

I Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. NIV

II Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. NIV

Use your concordance and look up "teach" and "scripture" and "imitate" and you will find LOTS of scriptural support for this.

What you WON'T FIND is any scripture supporting the infallibility of the scriptures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The entire doctrine comes from a compendium of scriptures.

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

This still allows for a Prima Scriptura interpretation (i.e. that the Bible is the most authoritative source of doctrine, but others may exist), or for Catholic-style equal reliance on Bible and Tradition. It also allows for as many non-Gospel books of the Bible as you want.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. NIV

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. NIV

I Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. NIV

This doesn't say that the Bible as we have it today is the sole method of transmittal of this teaching. To me, it's equal support for tradition as a source of doctrine.

II Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. NIV

So "word of mouth" is a valid method of passing on teachings? Doesn't this go against the idea of Sola Scriptura?

I've seen plenty of passages in the Bible that talk about the importance of scripture (though what "scripture" means to an early Christian writer who knows nothing of what we call the Gospel and the New Testament is certainly a question worth asking), but I haven't found any that says that scripture is the only source of doctrine. The passages you've cited certainly seem to imply that the Bible is vital, and perhaps they might support the doctrine of Prima Scriptura, but I don't see how one makes the leap to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scripture is not the only source for doctrine: the Spirit is equally as important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scripture is not the only source for doctrine: the Spirit is equally as important.

So can we take that to mean "no, Sola Scriptura is not a Sola Scriptura doctrine"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am not a sola scripturist and have never been. You asked how they justified it, and I gave you that. Any attempt to remove the Spirit from an understanding of the scriptures is doomed for failure.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I am not a sola scripturist and have never been. You asked how they justified it, and I gave you that. Any attempt to remove the Spirit from an understanding of the scriptures is doomed for failure.

Ehh, and what authority is this based on? Or what logical conclusion?

B.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scripture and the Spirit... what else?

I Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.NIV

 

[Scott1]

So, I pose the question: Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura a Sola Scriptura doctrine itself?

I don't think so.... non-Catholic Christians must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)..... but that really shouldn't shock anyone that I believe that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

While I, along with others, feel that God and his Spirit have worked through the impure and the imperfect since Adam, so why stop now? While some may try to take credit for the Spirit's work, the scriptures instruct us to give ALL glory to God.

 

[Scott1]

While I, along with others, feel that God and his Spirit have worked through the impure and the imperfect since Adam, so why stop now?

....are you talking about the Book of Mormon Pete?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why, no Scott! Why do you ask?

Of course it should be pointed out, that EVERYONE has sinned: only God and Jesus are perfect.

 

[Scott1]

Why, no Scott! Why do you ask?

Hehe... boy I've missed chatting with you!

Of course it should be pointed out, that EVERYONE has sinned: only God and Jesus are perfect.

Ummmm....... *** biting tounge***






... *head explodes*

...Mary didn't sin either​

 

[Scuba Pete]

...Mary didn't sin either

A rather Catholic tradition and not something supported by the Scriptures. I fully trust that Mary was just as human as we are and just as sinful.

 

[Scott1]

Awww.... gee Pete.... thought the head exploding thing would let you know it was a joke... I don't intend to take the thread off-topic explaining why I believe you are wrong about the Immaculate Mother of God... we'll save that for another day buddy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yeah... I got it.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I don't think so.... non-Catholic Christians must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)..... but that really shouldn't shock anyone that I believe that.

Big suprise here.

One thing you should take into consideration, 9-10ths_Penguin, and I am sure you are not ignorant of, is the history of this creedo that you are attempting to draw extreme conclusions with so you can attempt to point out some contradiction. As a follower of "Reformed Theology" this is no real big suprise. The same thing happens to "Calvinism" quite often to be made to look like "Hypercalvinism".

This is really an "in house" debate which makes it even more suspicious that a "lapsed atheist is bringing this to the table. With that being noted there are some things that should be established before considering this doctrine and making false assumptions about it.

1- Sola Scriptura is not a commentary on scripture for scripture's sake but rather a commentary on scrptural authority over human authority despite one's possition due to historical abuses of said authority.

2-The church is the discoverer of the scriptures, not the determiner

3- The church is the child of the scriptures, not the mother

4- The chuch is the minister of the scriptures, not the magistrate

5- The church is the recognizer of the scriptures, not the regulator

6- the Church is the witness of the scriptures, not the judge

7- the church is the servant of scripture, not the master

Any "in house" view contrary to this is an attempt at taking credit for and or authority away from God (John 1:1)

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Scott1]

1- Sola Scriptura is not a commentary on scripture for scripture's sake but rather a commentary on scrptural authority over human authority despite one's possition due to historical abuses of said authority.

What is the basis of the "authority" you speak of?

2-The church is the discoverer of the scriptures, not the determiner

Which Church?

Which canon of Scriptures?

.. and if the Church (Roman/Orthodox) is not the "determiner", then how did your religious group come to determine what books you would include in your bible?

3- The church is the child of the scriptures, not the mother

So the bible came before the church?

We'll start with these and go on ..... looking forward to chatting with you.

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

What is the basis of the "authority" you speak of?

There are plenty of Biblical examples of abuses of God given authority throughout the Bible. So if one is thinking that they are standing firm they should be carefull that they do not fall (1 Cor. 10:11). Godly basis of human authority is not an exemtion from human abuse or criticism of that abuse.

Let me ask you this? would you agree that the establishment of the U.S.A was a violation of Rom 13:1-2 in refference to the British government?

Which Church?

Which canon of Scriptures?

.. and if the Church (Roman/Orthodox) is not the "determiner", then how did your religious group come to determine what books you would include in your bible?

Cannon was being established long before formal Catholicism existed (1 Pet 3:15-16) and the formal "ecumenical councils" that followed were merely formal recognitions for clarification no more as far as that was concerned.

So the bible came before the church?

We'll start with these and go on ..... looking forward to chatting with you.

A simple "yes" from me will have to do for now being as how I am also looking foward to chatting with you on this subject also. I have to be up at 1 in the morning so I will have to bid you good day for now.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria