What does 'Sola Scriptura' REALLY Mean? w/ Ethan Dolan

Ethan explains what Protestants really believe about Scripture and what interpretive methods they use

---

🔴 LINKS




🔴 SOCIAL

We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[aninjathtpwndu]

What broke me away from Protestantism is that for sola scriptura even it’s more ardent enforcers fundamentally don’t believe in it. Because Scripture doesn’t tell you what it means what people put their faith into isn’t Scripture but their interpretation of what it means. Protestants that insist that they read into what it means in their traditions or what their elders interpret it as they just openly admit that Scripture isn’t alone

[pdxnikki]

Tradition formed the canon. Tradition came first in order yet not in essence. Thus BOTH are equally required.

[femaleKCRoyalsFan]

It means the protestants don't know church history. No sola scriptura in early church...New testament not written down yet nor was NT Canon chosen that early.

[hglundahl]

9:18 _"they assume there's going to be errors"_

On the one hand, this seems a real requisite for things like supporting the project called "Reformation" in any way or shape or form, whichever Reformer you go with - Luther _or_ Calvin.

On the other hand, this is not compatible with Matthew 28:16 - 20.

[pavlostriantaris]

If the correct definition of faith is "intellectual assent to the teachings of the Bible", then it is of no use. Even the demons believe that Christ is God and that He rose from the dead.
Maybe this sheds a lot of light on why Catholics reject the doctrine of Sola Fide...maybe the "Fides" they have in mind is no "Fides" at all?

[MNkno]

Matt and Ethan, listening to this makes the differences that you see between Catholic and Protestant clear... but leaves me even less able to answer the question, are Episcopalians / Anglicans Catholic or Protestant?

[EloSportsTalk]

When they say "infallible" and emphasize the essential nature of it I assume they mean more than papal infallibility, right? Because that dogma is fairly new. They mean more like the infallibility of ecumenical councils and what not, correct?

[worldnotworld]

As I understand it, the "outside authority" that enables interpretation _sola scriptura_ is simply the Holy Spirit, working on individual souls, families, communities, churches... I'm RC, but that doesn't seem quite so unreasonable as many make it out to be.

[hglundahl]

5:37 This so reminds me of what a formerly fellow Lutheran, still Lutheran, told me, already Catholic, in Latin class at University.

There were two approaches about how the Augsburg confession obliged.

One approach was it obliged "qua Scripturae conformis" (insofar as conform to Scripture)
The other it obliged "quia Scripturae conformis" (because conform to Scripture).

During the era of Lutheran Orthodoxy, it was usually "quia" ... - replacing that with "qua" was initially seen as kind of "liberal" ....

[williampeters]

I think this hit the nail on the head. This reminds me of reading The Everlasting Man by Chesterton in how the Church (universal collection of saints) is constantly trying to move itself closer to God's truth regardless of what the physical fallible human institutions of the church have done to corrupt or water it down. The true faith is continually experiencing revivals and resurrections in the hearts and minds of the faithful despite the failures of our institutions. The problem is what form of human governance is least likely to stray from the guidance of the Holy Spirit while also maintaining a level of institutional authority which it can exercise in areas outside of the essentials of basic Christian doctrine? Therein lies the rub. There is no perfect solution as long as there is sin in the world. There isn't one form of church governance that would fail if Christ was truly the center of it. The task before us as saints is to strive after this impossible feat wherever we are placed using both scripture and tradition as we are led by the Holy Spirit. As I have grown as a Christian, I have become more and more convicted to look at the role of our institutions as an aid to the universal church of the saints and not the other way around. I used to be one who was only interested in the difference between Catholics and Protestants (I am not here dismissing the importance of theology)but missing this point. Still I am a Calvinist, but I think that petty label shall fall away the day when we all behold the Truth.

[paulcapaccio]

The Warning will unify the one true Church It’s coming soon

[skydivingcomrade]

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Sola scripture is not in the Bible, but is eluded to by Christ.  Mark 7:9
"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition". Using another source as superior or equal to Scriptures is the reason Sola Scripture as counter point to these. Human reason is fallen, yet it has great capability. The lack of hermeneutics is kinda disappointing.

[Ezekiel-]

This really shouldn't be so difficult for us, because we are supposed to work things out with the Holy Spirit as part of a church community as a whole, just like the Book of Acts. The Apostles and their successors are supposed to educate and guide their Bishops on doing this with the congregation, so any and all disagreements can be settled universally.

In doing so, those gate keepers of the truth of Scripture are supposed to have the humility and integrity to realize that the Lord can and will reveal things to those in the community that will add to the fullness of understanding if they are taken seriously and their insights are discerned properly (whether they are based on the biblical roots of truth or not).

This reality, of different (and yet still true) perspectives and take aways from the same truth, is seen in the subtle differences that exist in the synoptic gospels, but that doesn't mean one has to be an apostle or other ordained clergy to have meaningful insights to contribute; and that is where we have been failing as Catholics for a long time.

The heirarchy doesn't listen to us or give us a meaningful voice in much of anything. They think that they have the only perspective on the Lord's revealed truth and we are just supposed to blindly accept that and follow their lead even if it doesn't align with Scripture.

Discernment of spirits and wolves in shepherds clothing requires us to know the Lord through Scripture and the true faith that follows and flows from it and Him. That can not be done if we are treated as biblically incompetent or devoid of any real spiritual insights from the Lord. Jesus is the captain of our ship, with the "C"hurch being ultimately responsible for its steering, as we ALL keep it in good working order together.

Sola scriptura means everything essential for salvation needs to have a biblical root and foundation, it doesn't mean that nothing can grow from those roots!

In Christ,
Andrew

[batmaninc]

It means, “Reject the Church in which Christ founded”. Despite the fact the Church wrote the Gospel.

[bradleytarr]

For most American Evangelicalism and/or Fundamentalism, their only authority outside the Bible is their local Pastor and his Board of Elders.

[robertajaycart]

Per the Bonus Question: I mean, even Scripture alone has proven to be a great way to teach whatever you want (Justifying Slavery in the South for an example.) This is why Peter warned of people twisting scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:215-17).

To prove it is more than just a nebulous of believers, you can use Scripture itself:

They would have to show that no where in Scripture does it describe the church as anything more than a body of believers. We on the other hand can cite numerous passages that show Christ instituted his Church to be both visible and invisible, to very much have a government resembling the government Moses built, with offices that were passed on:

Paul refers to all who glory in the cross of Jesus to be “the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:11-18). Elsewhere the Church is called “the New Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:18-24, Revelation 21:9-10)

So far that would be a body of believers, the Church. How then does Scripture describe both the Israel of the OId Testament, the Israel of God- the church?

Israel is described in Scriptures as a an "ekklesia" (Deuteronomy 31:28–30-
greek septuagint "church/ assembly), the same word used for Church in the New Testament. (Matt 16:18)

Both are also called
God’s Bride/ Jesus’ Bride (Jer 2:2, Ephesians 5:25-32, Rev 21:9-10)
a House, (Ex 40:37-38, Eph 2:19-22, 1 Tim 3:15)
A Holy Nation (Ex 19:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9-10)
and a Kingdom (1 Sam 24:20, Luke 22:28-30)

And just as Israel described as all these had a government, Christ's Church is described in Scripture as his Bride, the house of God, holy nation, a kingdom, and a government:

Isaiah 9:6, 7
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
and the GOVERNMENT will be upon his shoulder...Of THE INCREASE OF HIS GOVERNMENT and of peace THERE WILL BE NO END,
upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. "

And as with the government of Israel, there was a hierarchy to rule and judge over the people, one which Jesus modeled his Church after:

- Moses installed 12 leaders of Israel//
Jesus installed 12 apostles with his authority.

- Moses installed 70 presbyters//
Jesus commissioned 70 presbyters (Luke 10) with his authority to preach and minister.

- Moses installed a hierarchy of government to rule and judge the people (Ex 18:13-26), appointing judges in every town (Deut 16:18-19)//
Jesus appointed his apostles to sit on thrones Judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk 22:29-30)
l, and appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5-7).

- Moses instructed the people to consult the judge (Deut 17:8-10)//
Jesus instructs to take matters to the church (Matt 18:17, cf Acts 15:1-22)

- The judgements of the hierarchy were proclaimed to be the judgements of God (Deut 1:16-18) //
Jesus gave his church the power to bind and loose in heaven what it binds on earth (Matt 18:18), and the judgment made by the council in Acts 15 seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them (vs. 28)

The authority to govern did not end with the first generation of Israel (Moses’ generation), nor these Laws being written down in Scripture. Their offices were passed on throughout the generations.

So too were the offices of the Church’s government, as we see in Acts 1, when Peter proclaims that Judas’ “office” of apostle (Greek “episcope”- overseer, ” BISHOPrick” v. 20) be succeeded by another.

“Episcope” is the greek word used in Scripture for “Bishop, ”described Paul as “an office” (1 Timothy 3:1), which the Apostles appointed through the laying on of hands, as Moses did with Joshua, and instructed Timothy and Titus (also Bishops) to do the same but not hastily (1 Tim 5:22), calling the Bishop “the Steward of God” (Titus 1:7).

Paul even instructs Timothy to only entrust what he learned from him to other faithful men to do so with others also. (2 Tim 2:1-3). What Timothy learned from Paul included teaching to not be hasty in laying on hands with just anyone, but those who were above reproach to meet the qualifications to become a Bishop (1 Tim 3:1-7), and to teach them also to entrust what they learned to faithful men to then teach others to do so.

This is the pattern of Apostolic Succession, modeled after the government of Israel, but heightened to a visible and spiritual level, guided to all truth by the Spirit as Christ prayed for all who followed the Apostles to be one (John 16:12-13, 17:20-23), so that the members of his body aren’t tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine crafted by cunning men who don’t have the authority (Eph 4:8, 11-14)
Lastly, we see an early church writing from the 1st century speak of Apostolic Succession by Clement, who all early church fathers and historians unanimously knew was the same Clement Paul spoke of in Phil 4:3, who’s name Paul says is “in the book of life.”

Clement wrote in his letter to the Corinthians:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”
(Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

So throughout Scripture and the extrabiblical 1st century writing of a companion of Paul’s mentioned in Scripture and in the book of Life, the Church has both spiritual and visible properties, resembling the governing hierarchy of the Old Testament Israel Moses installed, with successors to carry on and lead the church to the truth of Christ,

So it would seem that in order to disqualify the church as being ANYTHING more than just the body of believers, we would need some sort of decree in Scripture or by a Church Council declaring that the government of the Church shall no longer reside in the successors of the Apostles, but only in Scripture. It simply HAS to be relinquished by the existing authority in order to be true, or else the men who reject the authority in favor of another (Sola Scriptura) are following after the examples of Korah, Kohath, Abiram, and On in attempting to taking authority from those who God gave His authority to. And as Scripture shows, it ended in disaster for them (Num 16:1-3, 31-33)

[vincewarde]

Just some additional info from a retired Free Methodist pastor: In the Wesleyan branch of OUR Christian faith, Sola Scriptura means that we teach nothing as essential to salvation that cannot be proved from Scripture alone. In matters outside this core teaching, our position is best defined as "Prima Scriptura". In addition to Scripture, we would also see tradition, reason and experience as being valuable guides. We test all three of these things by Scripture, and we test experience by Scripture, tradition and reason.

An example of how this worked in practice for my in my ministry is that I warned my congregation that if someone came to them and said that they had found a brand new truth in the Bible that no one had ever seen in 2, 000 years of the Christian faith, they should run, not walk, in the opposite

[ultimatebros]

God’s holy word is uniquely unclear. Therefore, we need the pope who is always clear.