The Problems of Solo Scriptura (from Keith Matthison)

[Pavel Mosko]

The Problems of Solo Scriptura

I ran across this article years ago and often quote or cite it because it very succinctly points out the problems of Nude Scripture (the position many people take or assume is the proper position of the Protestant creedal belief of "Sola Scriptura".

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (HTML)

Article by Dr. Keith A. Mathison from Biblical Perspectives Volume 9, Number 15

thirdmill.org

 

[marks]

The Problems of Solo Scriptura

I ran across this article years ago and often quote or cite it because it very succinctly points out the problems of Nude Scripture (the position many people take or assume is the proper position of the Protestant creedal belief of "Sola Scriptura".

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (HTML)

Article by Dr. Keith A. Mathison from Biblical Perspectives Volume 9, Number 15

thirdmill.org

Who is now authenticated by God that we can believe they are giving us divine revelation? I don't know any. The Bible writers were authenticated, them I believe.

But after that wolves come in. All have some claim and revelation and teaching but none have the authentification of their Apostleship.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 KJV
10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

If you want to add tradition to the Bible, I'm interested in knowing how I can know it's trustworthy.

Much love!

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Who is now authenticated by God that we can believe they are giving us divine revelation? I don't know any. The Bible writers were authenticated, them I believe.

But after that wolves come in. All have some claim and revelation and teaching but none have the authentification of their Apostleship.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 KJV
10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

If you want to add tradition to the Bible, I'm interested in knowing how I can know it's trustworthy.

Much love!

Yeah, Marks something tells me you didn't read the article, seeing how you responded to the OP as if it was something written by the Counsel of Trent or modern Roman Catholic Apologists when the author is actually a Calvinist theologian who wrote a well-known seminary textbook called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".

 

[marks]

Yeah, Marks something tells me you didn't read the article, seeing how you responded to the OP as if it was something written by the Counsel of Trent or modern Roman Catholic Apologists when the author is actually a Calvinist theologian who wrote a well-known seminary textbook called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".

I didn't read the entire article, but I read a significant portion. I'm not unfamiliar with this stuff.

I think you mischaracterize my reply. My question is sound. If I missed something in his article that answers this, I'm all ears.

Comments like this:

If solo scriptura is true, then much of the Church was left without any standard of truth for centuries. In the early centuries of the Church it was not possible to go to a local Christian bookstore and buy a copy of the Bible. Manuscripts of the Bible had to be hand-copied and were therefore not found in every believer's home. The letters of the New Testament were written over a period of decades. Some churches had some portions, while other churches had others. Only gradually was the New Testament as we know it gathered and distributed as a whole.

while presenting a valid historical fact, is not license to go beyond the written word. So either those who teach and preach are remaining true to the written word, and the teachings of the Apostles, or they are adding to it with their concept of what is "tradition". And if that is so, I want to know, what is the validation that it's true?

What this means is that solo scriptura can assert that Scripture is the only authority, but it cannot define with any absolute certainty what Scripture is. When adherents do attempt to define and defend a particular canon, they cannot do so using the Bible as their only authority. In order for solo scriptura to be true, the Bible would have to include not only all of the inspired books of the Bible, but also an inspired table of contents telling us which books were really inspired.

There are qualities to the books of the canon which do not appear in non-canonical books. An academic assertion that the contents cannot certify themselves, I disagree. There are various qualifications we look for to know which are from God. No factual errors, for instance. So Enoch is not inspired, for instance.

The doctrine of solo scriptura also reduces the essential doctrines of the Christian faith to no more than opinion by denying any real authority to the ecumenical creeds of the Church. We must note that if the ecumenical creeds are no more authoritative than the opinions of any individual Christian, as adherents of solo scriptura must say if they are to remain consistent, then the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ are no more authoritative than the doctrinal ideas of any opinionated Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ become as open to debate as the doctrine of exclusive psalmody in worship.

Here again, the creed either echo Scripture, or change it, or add to it. We judge the validity of the creed by whether or not it agrees with the Bible.

I could go on, but I'm hoping this serves to express my POV.

Much love!

 

[Rockerduck]

Yeah, Marks something tells me you didn't read the article, seeing how you responded to the OP as if it was something written by the Counsel of Trent or modern Roman Catholic Apologists when the author is actually a Calvinist theologian who wrote a well-known seminary textbook called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".

I read it. He thinks the sola scriptura is left up the individual to interpret instead of the church with one voice?

"The adherents of solo scriptura dismiss all of this claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter. Yet this results in nothing more than hermeneutical solipsism. It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God."

This quote had me stumped. What is he advocating? That only the church can interpret, like a catholic.

 

[marks]

I read it. He thinks the sola scriptura is left up the individual to interpret instead of the church with one voice?

"The adherents of solo scriptura dismiss all of this claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter. Yet this results in nothing more than hermeneutical solipsism. It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God."

This quote had me stumped. What is he advocating? That only the church can interpret, like a catholic.

In either case, the church with one voice, or individual believers, the matter at hand is whether we go beyond Scripture, regardless of who is saying.

Let's say, the church, or it's representative, or individual Christians, any or all, if they were to claim something like, we need a second water baptism if we've committed a certain kind of sin (just making up an example), if we accept that someone can add to the Scripture, then you have to accept that, don't you?

But if we take Scripture as our written authority, objective, proveable, then we test this against the Bible, no matter who says it.

This is not a valid argument against Sola Scriptura.

And which church has the "one voice", considering they have very different teachings? We test against the Bible.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Yeah, Marks something tells me you didn't read the article, seeing how you responded to the OP as if it was something written by the Counsel of Trent or modern Roman Catholic Apologists when the author is actually a Calvinist theologian who wrote a well-known seminary textbook called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".

You disregarded my question in favor of criticizing my post. Let's say, your criticism aside, how do I know who's traditions I am to believe? The CC has it's sacraments through which the grace of salvation is administered. They'be been saying that a long time. Should I accept it just because it's a major church institution, with a consistent teaching over the years? Or should I compare their teaching to the Bible, to be accepted or rejected based on Biblical teaching?

Much love!

 

[Rockerduck]

In either case, the church with one voice, or individual believers, the matter at hand is whether we go beyond Scripture, regardless of who is saying.

Let's say, the church, or it's representative, or individual Christians, any or all, if they were to claim something like, we need a second water baptism if we've committed a certain kind of sin (just making up an example), if we accept that someone can add to the Scripture, then you have to accept that, don't you?

But if we take Scripture as our written authority, objective, proveable, then we test this against the Bible, no matter who says it.

This is not a valid argument against Sola Scriptura.

And which church has the "one voice", considering they have very different teachings? We test against the Bible.

Much love!

I've used scripture all of my 37 yrs. as a Christian to show someone's error. If somebody says the bible says so, you better have two scriptures and one in the OT.

 

[Jericho]

If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, "Because the Bible teaches premillennialism." If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will likely be, "Because that is what the Bible teaches." Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man's interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other's, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?

I was going to address the entire article, but that would take all day, and I just don't have the time or desire to do that. So, I'll just add a few thoughts. Not everything can be known. As Paul said, "we see through a glass, darkly." (1Co 13:12). Interpretational differences arise because the Bible doesn't provide the exact answers for every single question we ask. So, will we be right about every single issue? No. But are we to believe that the collective voice of the Catholic Church is somehow infallable? I don't think so. There's been plenty of bad popes and clergy throughout history to attest to that. And no matter how you look at it, rather Protestant or Catholic, it's still imperfect men interpreting the Bible.

The Bible is to us the standard by which we judge all interpretation and revelation. Without a standard, it's easy to be led astray. If divine revelation can come outside of the Bible, how do we test its validity, or, as 1 John 4:1 says, "to test the spirits"? There's only two ways: against the Bible or against the words of infallible man. I would rather weigh it against the Bible than man's teachings and traditions. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed to get their divine revelation from an angel. If they had weighed that revelation against the Bible, they would have known those angels were not from God. And this is the same problem with Prima Scriptura, there's no evaluation and validation. Those revelations are taken as the gospel truth because some other guy(s) said it's true.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

You disregarded my question in favor of criticizing my post. Let's say, your criticism aside, how do I know who's traditions I am to believe? The CC has it's sacraments through which the grace of salvation is administered. They'be been saying that a long time. Should I accept it just because it's a major church institution, with a consistent teaching over the years? Or should I compare their teaching to the Bible, to be accepted or rejected based on Biblical teaching?

Much love!

Yes, I did because it was a lazy stereotype and strawman, that didn't really deal with anything presented.

 

[MatthewG]

@Pavel Mosko once a person makes the trek to finally start that journey through Matthew - John, Acts - Revelation. Surely there is a greater fix of concentration on what is really being said, and who to, and sometimes we speculate when they were written. One of the most controversial among the "Christian Culture" is Revelation whether it was written before or after 70 ad, and if Jesus has already came or not. Then you also have some other "conflicting scripture" and comparing them together, without reconciling them, sometimes leads people even in distrusting some parts of the already written bible. It's most certainly there for our learning and to see where we are in relationship with Yahavah, giving thanks, prayer, and faithfully seeking and worshiping in spirit and in truth.

Not a list of demands, or rules, or anything ever given "directly to us." Many people assume, it is "directly written to us" but "for us" would be better wording.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The Bible is to us the standard by which we judge all interpretation and revelation. Without a standard, it's easy to be led astray. If divine revelation can come outside of the Bible, how do we test its validity, or, as 1 John 4:1 says, "to test the spirits"? There's only two ways: against the Bible or against the words of infallible man. I would rather weigh it against the Bible than man's teachings and traditions. Both Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed to get their divine revelation from an angel. If they had weighed that revelation against the Bible, they would have known those angels were not from God. And this is the same problem with Prima Scriptura, there's no evaluation and validation. Those revelations are taken as the gospel truth because some other guy(s) said it's true.

Thanks for reading it Jericho. I would however disagree with your conclusions based on the Bible itself. There is no need for a supernatural revelation outside of the scriptures to have that authority. All that is needed is for the ancient believers, the Ecclesia/Church to pass on the teaching they received from the apostles. And I would submit this has already happened, and this is in fact why we have the Bible itself. That did not happen automatically, but took about 370 years from the time Christ ascended into heaven, for the NT books to be written and eventually compiled into the canon we now have.



The Bible actually does mention the Ecclesia (Church) as a source of authority.

Matthew 16:18
KJ21
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jude 3​

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.



2 Thessalonians 2:15
KJ21
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

@Pavel Mosko once a person makes the trek to finally start that journey through Matthew - John, Acts - Revelation. Surely there is a greater fix of concentration on what is really being said, and who to, and sometimes we speculate when they were written. One of the most controversial among the "Christian Culture" is Revelation whether it was written before or after 70 ad, and if Jesus has already came or not. Then you also have some other "conflicting scripture" and comparing them together, without reconciling them, sometimes leads people even in distrusting some parts of the already written bible. It's most certainly there for our learning and to see where we are in relationship with Yahavah, giving thanks, prayer, and faithfully seeking and worshiping in spirit and in truth.

Not a list of demands, or rules, or anything ever given "directly to us." Many people assume, it is "directly written to us" but "for us" would be better wording.

Sure, but the estimates I give are based more on scholarly speculation but other kinds of new Testament studies and Church history studies. Like looking at the Canon of Constantine, and the Canon of the East Syriac Church all of which are considerably shorter than the main received Canon's we got in our Bible.


For me the issue is not really when they were written even though that really does have some strong bearing on certain kinds of discussions when dealing with atheists, Messianic Jews /Hebrew roots and talking about specific doctrines that they may be challenging etc. But the issue of when they were compiled together is a big one in terms of mindset. Protestants always assume a completed Biblical canon when the ancient believers only had the Old Testament in its various ancient versions for those first few centuries.

 

[Augustin56]

Sola Scriptura is kind of nutsy. It claims the Bible Alone, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. It does, however, say that the Church is the "pillar and bullwark of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church. If He had gone the book route, He would have effectively excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity since it has only been in the last 100 years, give or take, that so many people on earth were literate. Before that, almost everyone didn't need to read, so they never learned.

 

[MatthewG]

Sure, but the estimates I give are based more on scholarly speculation but other kinds of new Testament studies and Church history studies. Like looking at the Canon of Constantine, and the Canon of the East Syriac Church all of which are considerably shorter than the main received Canon's we got in our Bible.

That is understood, and just wanted to stop by and share my thoughts and reasonings concerning the failure of Sola Scriptura just by those few things. Also to say that it is good to see you are still around because it has been a long time since I have seen you.

For me the issue is not really when they were written even though that really does have some strong bearing on certain kinds of discussions when dealing with atheists, Messianic Jews /Hebrew roots and talking about specific doctrines that they may be challenging etc. But the issue of when they were compiled together is a big one in terms of mindset. Protestants always assume a completed Biblical canon when the ancient believers only had the Old Testament for those first few centuries.

I have a friend, who questions the bible too. From what a friend of mine said, Atheist have faith too, in "non-faith." That to me is a scary place to be.

 

[MatthewG]

Sola Scriptura is kind of nutsy. It claims the Bible Alone, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. It does, however, say that the Church is the "pillar and bullwark of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church. If He had gone the book route, He would have effectively excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity since it has only been in the last 100 years, give or take, that so many people on earth were literate. Before that, almost everyone didn't need to read, so they never learned.

Aug,

That sounds reasonable, people who come to Yeshua, and faithfully believe him and the promiseses, and that the holy spirit of God rose him up from the dead, are spiritually reborn, adopted from spiritual death to spiritual life.

Being moved into the Kingdom of God, out from darkness into the light. Part of the heavenly kingdom established today, being adopted as Children of God, and mature into becoming Sons or Daughters of Yahvah, as you continue to walk faithfully, walking in step by the spirit, worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

You make a good point of how it was typically mouth to ear, and not book to eye.

Especially for the poor people who were not educated, or had mental illness in that day. You have Yeshua, coming into to a house and raising a dying girl up, healing the sickness of Peters Mother-in-law. The healing we get today, is one of the heart. Be it from reading, or from someone sharing and spreading the word to others, as long as it leads to love, and is by the spirit it is good, but if it is leading to hatered, condemning others in the sense that they are not even a Christain when they proclaim they have faith in the life, death, burial of Yeshua.

Need a change of mindset, and that can only come from the Heavenly Above, from Yahavah, and his given holy spirit to those who make the leap of faith to trust him to give them newness of life of course which is in Yeshua Christ.

I do believe we have a family of believers here which are part of the Kingdom today, and also we have a family of believers there already in the after life with Yahavah however, those who do not believe or have faith in this, will commit well what about this scripture or this scripture...

That is were there may be some misunderstanding or perhaps a time in reading and trying to understand what is being said, and prayerfully asking Yahavah who gives to all men liberally those who ask him for wisdom. Perhaps coming to faith that Yahavah is there, and he is there to help us by the holy spirit as we live and walk through this life.


These are just some of my thoughts and reasonings, just would like to share about concerning sola scripture, and being part of the Kingdom now today.

 

[JohnDB]

The Problems of Solo Scriptura

I ran across this article years ago and often quote or cite it because it very succinctly points out the problems of Nude Scripture (the position many people take or assume is the proper position of the Protestant creedal belief of "Sola Scriptura".

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (HTML)

Article by Dr. Keith A. Mathison from Biblical Perspectives Volume 9, Number 15

thirdmill.org

I haven't read the article....
But the premise that Sola Scriptura is a must for scripture interpretation is a very bad one.

First off we cannot solely use the scriptures to learn the alphabet....and we don't. So since osmosis doesn't work we gain learning from outside of scriptures to learn how to actually read them.

Then....
We must take an originalist view of scriptures. Meaning what did the author intend for a contemporary reader at the time of writing to understand from the writing?

For example in Ephesians 4 Paul tells the church at Ephasus to not get drunk on wine. But the wealthy church at Ephasus also had access to beer and liquor. But if we read it as a strict modern populist viewpoint any and all beverages one could become inebriated on are perfectly fine. Uhhhh....NO!
We refrain from being inebriated on any stupefying agent including alcoholic beverages or narcotics or recreational drugs. Which would be the most logical conclusion to this verse. This verse is NOT creating a command of complete abstinence either. Otherwise Paul would have been a hypocrite because of his regular use. Just a more prudent use of wine was what he was calling for. Nothing more or less.

There exists a huge wealth of needed ancillary information required to understand Scriptures written from 5,700 years ago to 2,000 years ago. Because writing was very expensive the authors ALL used extreme brevity and a compact form of writing leaving out essential information that was once considered common knowledge but is nit common knowledge today.

 

[Rockerduck]

Sola Scriptura is kind of nutsy. It claims the Bible Alone, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. It does, however, say that the Church is the "pillar and bullwark of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church. If He had gone the book route, He would have effectively excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity since it has only been in the last 100 years, give or take, that so many people on earth were literate. Before that, almost everyone didn't need to read, so they never learned.

According to Jesus, His word will be here until He returns, which hasn't been fulfilled yet. Therefore, the bible is the Law that will not pass away. Unless you have an alternate explanation for the "jot or tittle"

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Augustin56]

According to Jesus, His word will be here until He returns, which hasn't been fulfilled yet. Therefore, the bible is the Law that will not pass away. Unless you have an alternate explanation for the "jot or tittle"

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Word of God is not a book. It is a Person, Jesus Christ. See John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Not a book and certainly not a translation of a book, and most certainly not a translation of a book personally interpreted wthout the Church Christ founded that compiled the book.

 

[marks]

Yes, I did because it was a lazy stereotype and strawman, that didn't really deal with anything presented.

Wow!

Not to me. I want to know why I should pay attention to you when you tell me something that's not in the Bible. Any reason at all? Nope, just a straw man . . .

Succinct and lazy are different things you know.

Much love!