Sola Scriptura Precludes Preaching


#1

I’ve heard many Protestants say that Scripture is both the sole final authority and is “sufficient” as a rule of faith.

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.

http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html


#2

LOL, you’ve got a good point there. I’ll be sure to tell that to the next one who tries to “share the gospel” with me. :thumbsup:


#3

Before you did so, you should learn what Sola Scriptura actually is. :wink:


#4

[quote=SEMPEREFORMANDA]Before you did so, you should learn what Sola Scriptura actually is. :wink:
[/quote]

Well don’t leave us hanging!!! To paraphrase a certain wise Ethopian: How can I know what Sola Scriptura means unless someone explains it to me?

You’re up, SEMPEREFORMANDA


#5

From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
Article XXIV
We affirm that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars. We deny that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.

Article XXV
We affirm that the only type of preaching which sufficiently conveys the divine revelation and its proper application to life is that which faithfully expounds the text of Scripture as the Word of God. We deny that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture.

Preaching, and “sharing the gospel” are dependent upon the text of Scripture. Biblical preaching is simply bringing out of the Scriptures what is there. Do people need preaching to understand the Bible…no. But it is helpful. The part that does not contradict Sola Scriptura is that the one preaching does not (or at least should not) set up his interpretation as an infallible rule of faith.

Just as Sola Scriptura does not deny the use of lexica and other study tools, it does not deny the place of preaching and exposition.


#6

Isn’t this just saying that you should listen to anyone except the Catholic Church? If it’s just “biblical scholarship” that’s important…well…we’ve been doing that for 2000 years.

Besides, why should I listen to what the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics has to say? What authority do they have to define (or, rather, “affirm”) what Sola Scriptura is? Wouldn’t this be much easier if the Sola Scriptura doctrine were explained in the bible? Then we wouldn’t need a separate, extra-biblical authority to tell us what Sola Scriptura actually is… :wink:

God bless you and keep you,
RyanL


#7

[quote=SEMPEREFORMANDA]From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
Article XXIV
We affirm that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars. We deny that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.
.
[/quote]

I mean no disrespect to you or your beliefs. Just tell me if this is a correct interpretation of the above article.

A person does not need any outside sources to understand the bible. But we-the Biblical Hermeneutics?-think that a person should pay attention to bible scholars when reading the bible.

Doesn’t the above article contradict itself? If I don’t need outside sources to understand the bible why should I listen to a group of Scholars? By the way what is a technical study of scripture?


#8

[quote=DeFide]I’ve heard many Protestants say that Scripture is both the sole final authority and is “sufficient” as a rule of faith.

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.

http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
[geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html](“http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html”)
[/quote]

Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. It is personal interpretation which does not always mean the same as what the writer intended. The bible is filled with figures of speech and parables. There needs to be an infallible interpreter. So, in other words protestants don’t have to believe in anything their pastor says since he/she is not infallible, resulting in the thousands even millions of individual denominations.

20 12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Holy Spirit varies in people and there is no gaurantee that every individual is guided by the Holy Spirit, how can there be sola scriptura without error? Apostolic Succession gaurantees the guidance of the Holy Spirit making the Apostles infallible and Peter whose line of succession has been the only one that remains fully infallible. All others have a piece of the original apostolic office in general and are only infallible when they’re all put together in ecumenical council called and approved by the office of Peter.


Peter’s office in scripture:

13 8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” -Matthew 16:13-19


#9

I was listneing once when a Catholic called into the Bible Answer Man radio show with Hank Hannagraph (sorry if I’ve spelled incorrectly) and they were disputing the authority of the Pope.

Hannagraph said it was wrong for believers to rely on one man’s interpertation of scripture. The caller then asked Hannagraph why any one should listen to him.

Hank put on his tap shoes and began to dance.


#10

Article XXV
We affirm that the only type of preaching which sufficiently conveys the divine revelation and its proper application to life is that which faithfully expounds the text of Scripture as the Word of God. We deny that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture.

So why have one at all? If I read this correctly, then anyone “expounding” upon scripture does not have any message from God. It he expounds (or adds) anything to the text of Scripture, it is external and extraneous. Is this a correct interpretation of these Articles?

The part that does not contradict Sola Scriptura is that the one preaching does not (or at least should not) set up his interpretation as an infallible rule of faith.

So guys like Luther that interpret “faith alone” but never find it in Scripture (except in James 2:24) are possibly incorrect (fallible)? Would the folks like Calvin and Zwingli who interpret John 6:55 to mean that Jesus doesn’t “really mean” that “my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” are fallible? Even more appropriate, those that say that in Jn 20:23 Jesus didn’t “really mean” “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” could be in error?

Great news!

Peace,

MilesJesu


#11

[quote=SEMPEREFORMANDA]From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
Article XXIV
We affirm that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars. We deny that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.

Article XXV
We affirm that the only type of preaching which sufficiently conveys the divine revelation and its proper application to life is that which faithfully expounds the text of Scripture as the Word of God. We deny that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture.

Preaching, and “sharing the gospel” are dependent upon the text of Scripture. Biblical preaching is simply bringing out of the Scriptures what is there. Do people need preaching to understand the Bible…no. But it is helpful. The part that does not contradict Sola Scriptura is that the one preaching does not (or at least should not) set up his interpretation as an infallible rule of faith.

Just as Sola Scriptura does not deny the use of lexica and other study tools, it does not deny the place of preaching and exposition.
[/quote]

Semper,

So do you agree with these statements by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theologicial Seminary?

“Whatever’s in the Bible we have to believe but we can’t go one step beyond the Bible.”

In complaining about a couple of Lutheran theologians he says:

He says:

“There is no particular scripture that says I can’t do this so I can do it and if I can do it I should do it. I would argue that this is the reversal of a proper biblical and theological logic”.

What I find humorous about these quotes it that Billy Graham, another Southern Baptist, travels the world, doing altar calls. Yet oddly enough I can’t find anywhere in the bible that there is one becoming a Christian doing anything like an altar call that is not immidately baptized. The Peter Bar Jona crusades of Acts 2 and 4 baptized 7000 IMMEDIATELY. We have the conversions of the families of Lydia, Cornelius, and the Jailor. No sinners prayer and then your in. They had to get water on them first.

So if you agree with Mr. Mohler, that he has Sola Scriptura right then show me altar calls without baptisms in the Bible. Otherwise you need to condemn his statements as false teaching of one of the three tenants on which Protestantism stands or falls. (trip :))

Peace.


#12

[quote=SEMPEREFORMANDA]From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
Article XXIV
We affirm that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars. We deny that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.

Article XXV
We affirm that the only type of preaching which sufficiently conveys the divine revelation and its proper application to life is that which faithfully expounds the text of Scripture as the Word of God. We deny that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture.

Preaching, and “sharing the gospel” are dependent upon the text of Scripture. Biblical preaching is simply bringing out of the Scriptures what is there. Do people need preaching to understand the Bible…no. But it is helpful. The part that does not contradict Sola Scriptura is that the one preaching does not (or at least should not) set up his interpretation as an infallible rule of faith.

Just as Sola Scriptura does not deny the use of lexica and other study tools, it does not deny the place of preaching and exposition.
[/quote]

Basically what this definition boils down to is a complete affirmation of the OP. In the end, Sola Scriptura posits just that – that it is the Bible alone that is needed and personal interpretation is the final rule. That this is patently unbiblical and unworkable has been proven again and again is borne out in the past and present proliferation of competing Protestant sects. An infallible Scripture is nonsense without an infallible interpreter.


#13

[quote=Fidelis]Basically what this definition boils down to is a complete affirmation of the OP. In the end, Sola Scriptura posits just that – that it is the Bible alone that is needed and personal interpretation is the final rule. That this is patently unbiblical and unworkable has been proven again and again is borne out in the past and present proliferation of competing Protestant sects. An infallible Scripture is nonsense without an infallible interpreter.
[/quote]

Yep. Catholics can only interpret scripture in a way that doesn’t contradict the Church. The church is the measuring tape of biblical interpretation.


#14

If sola Scriptura is really true, that the Bible is our sole authority on matters of faith and morals, what happened to the first four centuries of Christians who didn’t even know what constituted the Bible, not to mention those who lived during the next 11 centuries before the printing press was invented? Was there no way for them to know Christ’s teachings? Yes, there was. Christ established His Church (the Catholic Church) to be a living, infallible teacher, so we wouldn’t have to rely on our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.


#15

Peace be with you!

Sola Scriptura is, despite it’s name, completely UNsciptural. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus command the Apostles to write any of the Gospels; nowhere does he command Paul to write his epistles. The only exception to this is the Revelation of John. Never once did Jesus promise us a book. Not once, and you can check the entire Bible from front to back, Genesis through Revelation. So if the words “pope”, “immaculate conception”, and “assumption” are not in the Bible (and therefore obviously unbiblical and false) then if we are not commanded to use the Bible–which didn’t even exist when the books which make it up were written–as our sole authority on all issues, then we must disregard this doctrine–which did not exist until 1500 years after the death of Our Lord–as unbiblical and false.
Sola Scriptura = anyone can be right about the interpretation of Scripture but Catholics.

In Christ,
Rand


#16

[quote=DeFide]I’ve heard many Protestants say that Scripture is both the sole final authority and is “sufficient” as a rule of faith.

If the believer must go by their individual interpretation of Scripture alone as their final, sole, sufficient rule of faith, why do Protestant preachers bother preaching? Why don’t they just hand out Bibles in silence and leave?

It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.

http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
[geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html](“http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html”)
[/quote]

Protestants insist of Sola Scriptura because they don’t have Traditions that originates from the Aposltles. The New Testament stopped on the at most the 10th century. It is like the Old Testament that could have stopped until Jesus came so it was continued. The Catholic Tradition is like the New Testament (of the New Testament) as to the New Testament to the Old Testament.


#17

So has this thread become a debate about Sola Scriptura? I thought that it started out with an incorrect definition. Then a request for me to provide one. Then people seemed to dispute the right of Protestants to decide what they actually mean by Sola Scriptura…now it seems to be an argument against Sola Scriptura…

[quote=thessalonian]Semper,

So do you agree with these statements by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theologicial Seminary?

“Whatever’s in the Bible we have to believe but we can’t go one step beyond the Bible.”

In complaining about a couple of Lutheran theologians he says:

He says:

“There is no particular scripture that says I can’t do this so I can do it and if I can do it I should do it. I would argue that this is the reversal of a proper biblical and theological logic”.

What I find humorous about these quotes it that Billy Graham, another Southern Baptist, travels the world, doing altar calls. Yet oddly enough I can’t find anywhere in the bible that there is one becoming a Christian doing anything like an altar call that is not immidately baptized. The Peter Bar Jona crusades of Acts 2 and 4 baptized 7000 IMMEDIATELY. We have the conversions of the families of Lydia, Cornelius, and the Jailor. No sinners prayer and then your in. They had to get water on them first.

So if you agree with Mr. Mohler, that he has Sola Scriptura right then show me altar calls without baptisms in the Bible. Otherwise you need to condemn his statements as false teaching of one of the three tenants on which Protestantism stands or falls. (trip :))

Peace.
[/quote]

I do agree with Dr. Mohler. I do not agree with Billy Graham. Problem solved. Altar calls are unbiblical and started under the revivalistic heretic Charles Finney. So is the sinner’s prayer. You wrongly assume that all Southern Baptists have the exact same beliefs and practices. Our denomination is more of a missionary organization than anything else. Every local church is autonomous. Even if Dr. Mohler were president of the SBC, he couldn’t tell Billy Graham what to do.

It seems to me that your argument is: Southern Baptists believe Sola Scriptura. Some Southern Baptists have practices not found in the Bible. Therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be true.

This is really flawed.

Would you accept this argument?
My father has been involved in adultery and is in the process of divorcing my mother. His priest is aware of this. My father continues to receive the Eucharist. Therefore, transubstantiation is false.

These premises are true by the way. But just because someone violates the teachings he claims to believe does not mean that those teachings are false. If I wanted to dispute transubstatiation, I would need to go elsewhere for arguments.

[quote=jusher7281]If sola Scriptura is really true, that the Bible is our sole authority on matters of faith and morals, what happened to the first four centuries of Christians who didn’t even know what constituted the Bible, not to mention those who lived during the next 11 centuries before the printing press was invented? Was there no way for them to know Christ’s teachings? Yes, there was. Christ established His Church (the Catholic Church) to be a living, infallible teacher, so we wouldn’t have to rely on our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.
[/quote]

This is not an exegetical argument. Pragmatism is not good theology.

[quote=viktor aleksndr]Protestants insist of Sola Scriptura because they don’t have Traditions that originates from the Aposltles. The New Testament stopped on the at most the 10th century. It is like the Old Testament that could have stopped until Jesus came so it was continued. The Catholic Tradition is like the New Testament (of the New Testament) as to the New Testament to the Old Testament.
[/quote]

Protestants believe that the NT is the apostolic tradition. It is the writting of the apostles and their close associates. It ended when the apostolic age ended. I’m not sure what you are trying to get at with this post.

[quote=Rand Al’Thor]So if the words “pope”, “immaculate conception”, and “assumption” are not in the Bible (and therefore obviously unbiblical and false) then if we are not commanded to use the Bible
[/quote]

I don’t know what Protestants make the argument that if a word isn’t in the Bible, then it is false and unbiblical, but that’s a very shoddy argument indeed. I would argue that these concepts are unbiblical because they are contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

And, by the way, we are commanded to use the Scriptures (Psalm 1:2; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim 3:15-17)

Sola Scriptura = anyone can be right about the interpretation of Scripture but Catholics.

No, Catholics are right sometimes on some issues.

[quote=DeFide]It seems that if any Protestant tries to tell you what Scripture is or what it means, they’d be setting themselves up as an outside authority and would be violating “Sola Scriptura”.
[/quote]

Well, this shows that you misunderstand Sola Scriptura.
A Protestant who sets himself up as infallible in his interpretation is wrong. However, through proper grammatico-historical exegesis, we can know what the Bible means.


#18

I agree semperreformda, that we shouldn’t lump all Protestants together. THere is a wide range of beliefs amongst them. This can make debating Protestants difficult. I think that you can see the dilema. In this regard, you are at an advantage cause Catholics do all have the basic beliefs. Not so for Protestants.

To help us better understand your version of sola scriptura can you explain how you define the term? So Sola Scriptura to you doesn’t mean bible alone, it means bible plus other material? How do you decide which other material is correct? Sorry to throw so many questions at you, I am honestly trying to understand your view.


#19

So, do you consider Billy Grahan a heretic? I have always liked him.


#20

No, you just think I misunderstand your flavor of Sola Scriptura.

Tell me, what else, besides Scripture, comprises your final authority? After you define your basis, tell us why anyone should believe your definition or refer to it as “Sola Scriptura”.

Nowhere in the Bible do I find the following statement: “…through proper grammatico-historical exegesis, we can know what the Bible means.” Secondly, others of good will who follow this invented standard do not arrive at the same conclusions, therefore you cannot “know” what the Bible means via that method.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.