Sola Scriptura - what is it?

You have to go by the definition that those who believe the doctrine go by. Here is the most common summary of that doctrine. “ The Bible - [or Scripture] - alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” That statement does not rule out other, fallible - according to Reformed standards - rules of faith and practice such as creeds, catechisms, and the works of important theologians including Church Fathers. It is NOT "Bible only.” The problem that I finally had to face up to is this. I will try to state it simply and clearly, so please bear with me. The Bible is infallible. Catholics and Protestants agree on that point. How then can a fallible rule of faith be trusted to interpret that Bible? I don’t think it can. There must be an infallible way to interpret the infallible Word of God. It is the Holy Spirit who makes the Bible infallible, not the decisions of men. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into all truth. The Holy Spirit is not confused or divided, so He must have some way to 1. inspire Scripture 2. Preserve Scripture 3. lead the Church into all Truth. What is that way? It is called Church Tradition.

The Protestant Reformation did not give us the Bible. Catholic Tradition gave us the Bible. Catholic Tradition preserves the Bible. Sola scriptura was a doctrine invented just 500 years ago. It is not found in the Bible itself, no matter how much Protestants say it is. Yes, Protestants also love Scripture, but in general are not familiar with how we got our Bibles. We all have the Traditions of the Catholic Church to thank for its very existence. Before the Bible came the Traditions. Think about it. Jesus founded the Church. The New Testament was finished sometime in the 1st Century, but after the founding of the Church.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were when the Catholic Church determined what books actually belong in the Bible. [1.] It was officially settled then, and then reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. [2.]

It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.[3.]

-------------------------

1.the councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397, 419 A.D.)

2It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
They are the following:
Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures 3. Catholic Answers -  Was the canon of Scripture determined before the Church councils that decided it?

Sola Scriptura

The Protestant Reformation did not give us the Bible. Catholic Tradition gave us the Bible. Catholic Tradition preserves the Bible. Sola scriptura was a doctrine invented just 500 years ago. It is not found in the Bible itself, no matter how much Protestants say it is. Yes, Protestants also love Scripture, but in general are not familiar with how we got our Bibles. We all have the Traditions of the Catholic Church to thank for its very existence. Before the Bible came the Traditions.

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 4

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

Quoted from

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS

James Akin This article by Akin is an amazing defense of the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. It is well worth the time to read. Protestants have accepted without question the narrative that has been promoted since the time of the Reformation. The above quote is significant, since it is from a Protestant source. He is an authority on the the subject of the patristic period of Christianity. (100 A.D. - 450 A.D.) During this time period, what are called the early Church Fathers lived, taught, and wrote. Many of them were disciples of the original Apostles. Others were disciples of those disciples, and so forth. That is, these men were direct spiritual descendants of those who lived in the 1st Century, knew Jesus in the flesh, wrote New Testament books, and had  even heard Jesus speak. Their faith and practice shows what the early Church was really like. If those Fathers quoted from the Deuterocanonical books in the same way they quoted from other Scripture, then that helps to show they accepted those books as inspired. The answer is, yes, they did quote from those books in their writings. They did consider them to be inspired Scripture. Their practice contradicts the Protestant narrative. If you have time, and this subject interests you, then read the article. Consider the evidence. What if Protestants have been wrong about the canon of Scripture? Protestants love God’s Word. They believe it to be, as many say, God’s love letter to His children. It is worth checking out the claim that Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church all loved and quoted from the Deuterocanonical books as God’s very Word. If that is true, don’t you want to know?

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 3

The Bible of the Early Church

300 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew bible, which Christians consider the Old Testament, was translated into Koine Greek. The title of this translation was called the Septuagint. It is this translation that was used by the Paul, the Apostles, and the early church. It is still in use by the Orthodox Church today, however, sadly, it is rejected by most modern Christians in favor of the Masoretic text.

------------------------------------

The quote above is from an article written by an Orthodox apologist. 

When I was a Protestant,  I just accepted the narrative I had learned. Yes, I had been taught the Protestant version of the history of the canon of Scripture. I never questioned it seriously.

Why is it important to establish the fact that the Old Testament of the early Church was the Septuagint?  

That translation contains the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. Protestants reject those books as inspired Scripture. They follow the lead of Martin Luther who did a translation of the Bible into vernacular German. 

He removed those 7 books from the Old Testament and put them in the back of his Bible. All Protestants have followed his lead. In fact, Protestant Bibles have gone even farther. Those books have now been removed entirely.  

In effect, Martin Luther became the authority for the Protestant canon of Scripture. He decided to go with the Hebrew Masoretic text. That version did not contain the Deuterocanonical books. That settled it for Protestantism. Everyone else followed his lead. 

Check out the history of what is called the Masoretic text. Check out the history of the Jewish canon of Scripture. You might be surprised to find out when they decided on their canon and when the Masoretic text was finally compiled. 

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 2

"The Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint in hundreds of places.”
- from Masoretic vs. Septuagint : Guns, Lies, and Forgeries
  A Bible Story by Robert E. Reis

Here is the summary of the article. 

The Masoretic Text is part of a tradition that began with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbis rewrote the Jewish Bible to destroy the credibility of the New Testament.The Hebrew versions of the Old Testament have been used to proclaim scores of “messiahs” . The Septuagint was only used once.

It is a pretty bold claim.  If you go to this website, you will find that there is a link provided to the original article, along with all the entertaining comments.

As with everything, there is a lot of disagreement and discussion!  At least it might get someone to think about why both Catholic and Orthodox Churches consider the Deuterocanonical books - known as the Apocrypha  for Protestants - to be sacred Scripture.

In fact, if you are a Protestant you may never have even thought about this.

Why should this interest Christians?  Martin Luther decided his Old Testament canon based on the Masoretic text. What if he was wrong, and Protestants have been wrong for 500 years? What if the Deuterocanonical books really are God-breathed Scripture?

One of the rallying cries of the Reformation was “Scripture alone”.  Protestants love the Word of God. What if they don’t have the complete canon of Scripture? More than that, what if the Masoretic text was corrupted on purpose?

Luther on the New Testament Canon

Here is evidence that Martin Luther did not accept the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as canonical. One can read his own words. See the quotes below that I provided, along with the link where the full prefaces can be found.


If someone can show that Luther retracted these statements, then I will add that evidence to my blog. The greater question is this. Why did Luther think he had the authority to pronounce on the canonicity of these books in the first place?

The answer is that he gave that authority to himself. If he had retracted, he would have done it on the same authority - that which he gave to himself.

I find Martin Luther to be a complex human being, not without his virtues.  I think he was wrong on many things. Protestants can still admire him if they wish. At the same time, they can accept him as he was, not as they wish he had been.

Luther’s appeal to his own authority is part of what is wrong in Christianity.  This extreme individualism has its downside.

Yes, we all suffer from it, so I don’t mean to say this is a problem with Luther and not with me.

It just doesn’t seem that is how Jesus wants His Church - His Body - to be run. The Apostles didn’t even claim that kind of individualistic authority for themselves.


Notice the words in red.

1.  Hebrews:

   
   

   However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.
   

   
   

   James:

   In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture], and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.
   

   
   

   Jude:

   Concerning the Epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy from St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles as a disciple coming long after them, and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient Fathers to throw this Epistle out of the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover, Jude, the Apostle, did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.
   

   
   

   Revelation:

   PREFACE TO THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN (2) 1522 FT510

   
   

   About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

   
   

   Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly, — more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important, — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.

   
   

   Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.
   

   
   
2. 
   

   http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

Resources on the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible - 1.

Here is an excerpt from the answer to the question that was posed to Catholic Answers. 

Did the Church add the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible at the Council of Trent?

Q. Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?

 A. No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

Check out full article by clicking on the link here.