Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

My own views on this are already on record on this board:-

[ETA - NB: the other threads referred to are no longer extant but fortunately my OP to one of them has been preserved elsewhere:-

]

 

Matt:
This leads me to a rather obvious conclusion: if relying on the Bible alone plus the individual inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads to this doctrinal anarchy, then clearly either the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...OR there is the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture...

The problems don't come from the Holy Spirit, but we must admit that there are lots of things to be corrected in the human minds even after the Salvation, and therefore we have a lot of disagreement.
However, can we see the disagreement about the Sola Scriptura itself among the Evangelical Believers?

What if any writings disagree with the Scripture ? If Apocrypha differs from the Bible, would you desert the Bible and follow AP? If AP has nothing over Bible,why do we need the AP? If the exegeses of the people are erraneous, why should we accept it over the Bible?

 

Yes, we can see disagreement about the doctrine of sola Scriptura itself between evangelicals. For a start, there are those evangelicals who are part of a denomination which places an emphasis on some kind of Church Tradition: Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians etc. Then there are those evangelicals in denominations which don't officially subscribe to a Tradition but nevertheless in reality do have 'unwritten rules of interpretation': Baptists, Brethren, SDAs, Pentecostals etc eg: you try preaching a baptismal regeneration interpretation of I Peter 3:21 from a Baptist pulpit or a cessationist interpretation of I Cor 13 in a Pentecostal church and you'll pretty quickly discover that they have as much of an interpretative tradition as the next denomination!

 

1. We are going to have differences among us, but to be truly evangelical in the classical sense is to subscribe to the solas, which defined the evangelical community.

2. Some of our differences are petty, while others are matters of essentials.

3. A questions that we must ask ourselves is this, Is Sola Scriptura the Essence of Christianity? The answer to the question will inevitably reveal what we believe about historic Christianity and its rule of faith and practice.

 

1. I think you are making too much of ecclesiastical differences.

2. I can differ with my Presbyterian brethren on Pedo-baptism, but that does not reflect negatively on sola Scriptura.

3. According to Luther the "External Word" is objective and does not change with because of the papacy or councils.

4. Different conclusions on a given text should not be mistaken as the failure of Sola Scriptura.

5. The real question is, Does Scripture itself support the doctrine of sola scriptura?

6. Differences on certain texts should not be concluded as an affront on sola scriptura.

 

Even if one were to concede that the quote from James White contains an accurate representation (interpretation?) of Scripture's teaching on the authority of Scripture, the fact remains that since the quote is not apart of Scripture, it cannot be considered binding upon anyone. Indeed, it should be tossed into fire with the rest of the church's writings.

Yes?

While I allow no traditions to interpret Scripture, I certainly uphold *traditional interpretations* of Scripture. Such as the following exerpt from the Formula of Concord:

Perhaps if James White had simply copy/pasted from the Lutheran Confessions, he could have saved some time.

 

But are you getting the whole picture of those outside the Orthodox and Roman churches?

As was alluded to in a different thread, Protestants seem to have a disdain for all things "traditional" (read: "historical") in the church. Maybe this is reactionary, maybe not, but Luther and his crew had as bad taste in their mouth from the pope as anybody, yet they managed to avoid ignoring those church writings ("traditions?") which were in accord with Scripture (particularly those written against heretics, as seen from the quote).

Perhaps using Sola Scriptura to ignore church writings that are perfectly true and legitimate constitutes an abuse of Sola Scriptura.

The Lutheran one is better.

So I am free to reject it, yes? (Despite the fact that this generates a paradox?)

 

These symbols were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church. They are the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We pledge ourselves to these symbols, and in this way we reject all heresies and teachings that have been introduced into God's Church against them.(snip from the Lutheran Confession)​

On a side note since the Lutheran Confessions mentions the Creeds, in the eyes of Orthodoxy the statements of faith put out by the Seven Ecumenical Councils; possess along with the Bible, an abiding and irrevocable authority which includes of the 3 Creeds the Confession mentions only the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The other two Creeds mentioned; the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds both used in the West do not possess the same authority as that of the Nicene Creed. Mainly b/c they were never proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council.

Orthodoxy honors the Apostle’s Creed as an ancient statement of faith, and accepts all its teachings, but it’s simply a local western Baptismal Creed, never used in Eastern Patriarchates services.

The Athanasian Creed is likewise not used in Orthodox worship, but I have noticed the Creed is sometimes printed, without the Filioque in the Book of Hours.
-

 

I don't think Baptist churches accept the Baptismal Regeneration.
True Baptists are Credo-Baptists and Believers Baptism by total immersion is the requirement and mode there.

2. Yes I will have such problem with Charisma in Pentecostal. But that might be some part that I have to tolerate. There can a a certain diversity which can be tolerated in the church gatherings.

 

I believe the Bible, as written in the original manuscripts, is the inspired and infallible word of God. But I have several problems with Sola Scriptura:

(1) Jesus never wrote anything down (other than scrbbling in the dirt) and, outside of Revelation 1:11, there is no record that He told anyone to preserve His teachings in writing. However, He did tell His apostles to teach and to baptize. Moreover, John relates that if everything Jesus did were written in detail the whole world could not contain the books about Him. I believe Tradition reveals some of these things.

(2) Scrpture itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. In fact we are told in scripture to adhere to both writings and oral tradition. "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

(3) If Sola Scriptura is proper doctrine, which translation should we use? Peter Ruckman and others would say nothing but the KJV. No other legitimate translation has such strong advocates but they differ considerably on some important points. For example, several modern translations have eliminated Mark 16:9-20, a very important doctrinal passage for those who believe in baptismal regeneration.

The simple truth is that we all have traditions. Whenever we do or believe something because "the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" it is a tradition. Tradition pervades public life but nowhere is it more prevalent than in religious life. For example, Sunday School is not mentioned in scripture but most of us cannot imagine a church without Sunday School. And where did we get the practice of having Sunday night and Wednesday night services? Tradition. Why do most Baptists refrain from the use of beverage alcohol? Same answer.

To be sure, some traditions are older than others. Some reach back to the times of the early Christians and, if they have been properly preserved since that time, there is no reason not to embrace them--especially if the tradition does not contradict scripture.

 

Where else would my impressions exist? However, I must confess that my perception is based on hard data. A limited sampling, perhaps.

I suspect that an exhaustive reading of earlier Christian writings would waste more time than simply rehashing all the controversies they addressed! I merely advise that all Christians be given a "sufficient" understanding of the Scriptural heresies that precede us, along with the true confession of faith that emerged. Why? So they can, perhaps, avoid repeating history. Now, clearly, we derive no authority from anything outside Scripture; indeed, those writings which are a correct exposition of Scripture derive their authority from *it*.

 

But Scripture itself does not claim this - eg: you can't quote II Tim 3:16 without balancing it with I Tim 3:15

 

...and to add also Matt, one has to wonder why Paul meant to exclude tradition as not being profitable, when he uses non-biblical oral tradition in II Timothy 3:8? The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the OT, yet we see in II Timothy 3:8 where Paul refers to them as opposing Moses.

Here Paul is clearly drawing upon oral tradition of two Egyptian magicians in the Exodus account.
-

 

Are your references correct? Did you mean to say 1 Tim 3:15?

 

In regard to Sola Scriptura, It would be better to first attack its origins.

Since my excommunication from Faith Baptist Church for leaving and attending a Methodist Church (yes, I have the letter), I’ve been studying Roman Theology and that’s been a few years. Since I’ve turned my attention to the Eastern Orthodox Church and have followed the progression of the Western Church, I’m first glad to have not made any hasty decisions to reconcile with The Western Church.

Now I can somewhat understand Luther’s cry of Sola Scriptura in light of the corruption in the Roman Church at that time; the degenerated teachings that it promoted and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself and along with the fact that the Western Roman Church was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage. How could you blame Luther? How else could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition, as all in the Western Church were led to believe was personified by the very papacy that were responsible for those abuses.

For Luther’s only choice if he were to reform the Western Church, he had to use Scripture to get rid of the Roman traditions that were now corrupt. Unfortunately, Luther’s rhetoric far outstripped his own practices, and more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions.

The end result is an innumerable list of denominations, all of which claim to represent true Christianity. Every brand name has essentially split itself into several competing fractions. Since this is a Baptist Board, look at the number of Baptist fractions: Southern, Seventh Day, American, National, General, Particular, Regular, Primitive, Landmark, Conservative, Free Will and the Independent Fundamentalist which will have nothing to do with the others b/c they’re not truly Christian.

Primitive Baptist’s are strict Calvinist, while some Free Willers are strict Arminians and the Southern Baptists can’t make up their minds, yet all claim Sola Scriptura as a source of authority. Calvinist and Arminians cannot both be right…all the dialectic in the world cannot reconcile to two theological thoughts.

Is Christ divided?
-