WHAT IS SOLA SCRIPTURA? At Bakit Ba Mali Ito?

 

By Bro. Nathan

Ngayon ay gagawa ako ng isang series ng articles na nagfofocus sa doctrine ng Sola Scriptura. this includes ang pagtatake ng closer look sa Sola Scriptura and sa mga claimed na proof text sa Bible para sa doctrine na ito. Sa op na ito ay ang introduction para sa series which will define Sola Scriptura and it's problems.

Ano Ba Ang Sola Scriptura?

Ang Sola Scriptura (Latin - Scripture Alone) ay ang foundation ng Protestant churches na kung saan sa kanilang claim ay na ang lahat ng truth ay ibabase sa Bible lamang thus the name Sola Scriptura. sinasabi ng doctrine na ito na ang Bible ay sufficient na at na ang Bible ay innerant at infallible. Ang doctrine na ito ay nagoriginate kay Martin Luther and was included sa kanyang 5 solas. Sinabi sa Westminster confession of faith :

" The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture [here, the category of “Scripture” is exhausted, in the theology of the confession, by the “Bible”], or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or tradition of men." (Article 1 section 6)

Ang Sola Scriptura includes the following beliefs—na ang Bible ay ang tanging basis ng doctrine at practice, na ang Bible ay ang ating tanging authority, na ang Bible ay infallible at Innerant, at na ang Bible ay ang tanging best interpreter ng kanyang sarili. Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie writes :

Sola Scriptura—A Definition

By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.

Sola Scriptura—The Sufficiency of Scripture

Second, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants “the Bible alone” means “the Bible only” is the final authority for our faith.

Sola Scriptura—The Authority of Scripture

Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.

Sola Scriptura—The Clarity of Scripture

Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.

Solo Scriptura—The Interpretiveness of Scripture

Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones.

Ano Ba Ang Problems With 

Sola Scriptura?

Let's first start by saying na ito ay dahil ang lahat ng truth ay hindi nalilimit sa iisang book lang. God's wisdom is infinite (1 Kgs. 8:27; Ps. 113:4-6; 145:3; 147:5; Isa. 40:28) and His truth is not limited to anything. and second, ang doctrine na ito reject any new revelation coming from God at niereject nito ang authority ng church dahil sinasabi nila na ang Bible ang tanging rule of faith, and third, ang doctrine itself cannot be found in the Bible itself, thus is self conflicting. Let's start with some problems with the doctrine.

1. Ang doctrine na ito cannot be found in the Bible itself. using ang standard ng Sola Scriptura, it will be self conflicting. at even though magpresent sila ng kanilang proof-textes, ang mga passages na ito however is badly taken out of context kagaya ng 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rev. 22:18-19; etc., which will be discussed further sa ibang post sa series na ito with exegesis.

2. Gaya ng sinasabi sa Bible, may additions sa written word, which is ang oral traditions at ang divine revelation. Paul affirmed keeping oral traditions sa kanyang writings (e.g 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Ths. 2:14-15) at maging ang divine revelation which is important sa church na nagbigay ng prophets si Jesus Christ para sa unity ng saints at to serve as a foundation of the church (1 Cor. 12:12-31; Eph. 2:19-20; 4:11-14; cf. Gal. 1:12; Eph. 1:17). man should live by every word that comes out from the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4; cf Dt. 8:3).

3. Ang church, ang church leaders, at ang Diyos mismo ang final authority (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 4:11-14; Mt. 4:4) at hindi ang Bible.

4. Ang first Christians have not yet accessed ang 66 booked Bible na nasa kamay natin ngayon. kaya it begs the question : "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?"

Robert Sugensis writes and comments sa mga apologist ng Sola Scriptura :

" Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24)

Here's the following dialogue ni James White (Evangelical) at ni Gerry Matatics (Catholic) sa kanilang deabte about sa Sola Scriptura :

M : Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?

W : I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.

M: So your answer is "no"?

W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"

M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no

W: No

M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?

W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?

M: Titus . . .

W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture.

M: Thank you Mr. White

W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.

M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .

W: I asserted it

M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .

Joe Heschmeyer writes :

James White quite reasonably notes that sola Scriptura cannot be true while new revelation is still being transmitted.  After all, even if every prophet shared their revelations via text, they didn’t receive them from God that way.  He’s absolutely right on this.  But it leaves him in an awkward position.

White’s really conceding something rather jaw-dropping: sola Scriptura wasn’t true when the Bible was being written. So the Bible obviously doesn’t teach sola Scriptura (since it wasn’t true then).  This means three things:

1. All of the Protestant proof-texts that supposedly “prove” sola Scriptura from the Bible are false.  If sola Scriptura wasn’t true when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, then clearly, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 doesn’t teach sola Scriptura.

2. It shows sola Scriptura to be un-Scriptural and

self-refuting. White’s admitting that sola Scriptura (which holds that all doctrines must come from Scripture) is a doctrine that doesn’t come from Scripture.

3. It shows sola Scriptura to be contrary to Scripture.  In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians, saying, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”  This pretty clearly shows that there were Apostolic Traditions passed on by letter (what we would today call the New Testament), and other Apostolic Traditions passed on only by word of mouth.  At the time Paul was writing, there were teachings which were only contained in the oral teachings of the Apostles, and were not at that time written down (otherwise, Paul’s instructions are redundant).  White’s admission solidifies this: the Bible at that time did not contain the full revelation.

So this leaves Protestants in a truly bizarre position.  In order to affirm the un-Scriptural doctrine that all doctrines have to come from Scripture, Protestants have to nullify the word of God found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.   So I wholeheartedly agree with James White that sola Scriptura wasn’t true during the Apostolic age.  But given that, it can’t suddenly become true on its own later.  In defending the truth of the Gospel, White is showing the hollowness of the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

And this is the Introduction sa ating series sa Sola Scriptura. Ang Sola Scriptura is problematic when it comes kung saan ba natin ibabase ang ating ALL TRUTH. sa mga next na articles sa series natin ay ipapaliwanag natin ang mga proof-textes na ginagamit ng mga Protestants para idefefend ang kanilang doctrine.

Like and support our Facebook page : fb.com/ldswarriors2000

Visit our blog : ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com