Can we agree that Solo Scriptura is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmateurPianist

Guest
To backtrack, Solo Scriptura is a phrase coined by Keith Matthison in his book the “Shape of Sola Scriptura”.

He defines Solo Scriptura as an autonomous reading of the Word of God outside of an authoritative tradition, which he calls the Rule of Faith, concerning what Scripture teaches and how it is to be interpreted.

Although, I am a little unclear as to exactly what he means here, I am wondering if we can all agree with the following statement which I am thinking is a logical outgrowth of what Matthison states.

Any interpretation of the Bible that can be shown to be a recent, creative, interpretation of Scripture which is outside of any authoritative tradition (be it Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox) can be summarily rejected as wrong. This includes but is not limited to the following:
  • Any branch of Christianity that can be called restorationalist (Mormons, JW, and the like).
  • Prosperity gospel teaching
  • New moral teaching like pro abortion and pro gay marriage.
  • Emergent church and openness theology
  • Insert your own new idea here. If I want to be controversial I could put down “Left behind rapture theology”. or (this could be debated I’m sure) contraception.
If this assumption is correct, then to me it is liberating. If I encounter a nice new idea that I have never heard of, I don’t even have to open to my Bible and give the proponent of this nice new idea a chance of convincing me using the written Word of God. Instead I can summarily reject it as outside of the historical tradition of the church, and therefore…just wrong.

Thoughts welcomed from both Catholics and Protestants here.
 
Well I would certainly agree with Solo Scriptura being wrong, even though I personally take this beleif just that next logical step further 🙂
 
I don’t know actually. It occurs to me that everything you just said could be applied to the year AD 26 and the Rabbi saying essentially the same thing…
 
BrianH said:
I don’t know actually. It occurs to me that everything you just said could be applied to the year AD 26 and the Rabbi saying essentially the same thing…
Click to expand...
Or the year 1550 and the Catholic priest saying the same thing.

But I don’t want to go there for now.

I am more interested in any new interpretation of Scripture that is totally outside of anybody’s tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). Good grief, there are enough of these floating around, even in some threads here.
 
Doesn’t history provide more evidence to show that Sola Scriptura is more useful as a tool for dividing people than for uniting them? Idealistically, each person who reads the Bible would come away with a correct understanding of God’s Word. However, people do possess the ability to misunderstand and continue in error, and Sola Scriptura does not leave anything to correct error if the reader is not perfectly full of God’s grace of Wisdom.

Another question: Let’s say a few billion miracles simultaneously happen and Sola Scriptura actually does work and lead people to a single, unitive, Christian creed and doctrine that practically everyone agrees on. Let’s also suppose that this unity in faith and creed continues and thrives for a few hundred years. Wouldn’t it then be some sort of authoritative tradition from which people practicing Sola Scriptura could justifiably deny? Sola Scriptura naturally beckons schisms, even in ideal situations.

Finally, from what authority does Keith Matthison define Sola Scriptura? I sure don’t find his dictionary in my Bible 🙂 Pax!
 
Solo or Sola Both formats are equally incorrect esp. from a biblical pov or reference.
plenty of links & references here on site.
 
To the OP: absolutely, sola scriptura is absurd and is paradoxically not supported by Scripture anyway!
 
To backtrack, Solo Scriptura is a phrase coined by Keith Matthison in his book the “Shape of Sola Scriptura”.
Click to expand...
He defines Solo Scriptura as an autonomous reading of the Word of God outside of an authoritative tradition, which he calls the Rule of Faith, concerning what Scripture teaches and how it is to be interpreted.
Click to expand...
Amateur Pianist:

Keith Mathison DID NOT coin the phrase “sola scriptura.” It came from the Westminister Confession of Calvin and was given a latinate cloak to cover up its unseemly stature.

Mathison’s perambulations are from TRADITIONAL Catholic teaching of Holy Scripture. Read the Catechism (beginning in section 80) and you will see where he plaigerizes his ideas.

Nothing new under the sun. Except to protestants and mormons with no knowledge of the historical Church of Christ.

Peace of the Lord be with you,

Robert
 
Can we agree that Solo Scriptura is wrong
Click to expand...
I believe we can agree on this simple fact. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and Jude followed sola scriptura, we would all still be Pagans.

Peace
 
Please ladies and gentlement.

I hope that this does not become another Sola Scriptura thread. There are a gazillion of those already.

What I would like to ask is if we can agree that Solo Scriptura is wrong.

Solo Scriptura is reading and interpreting the Bible outside of anybodys authoritative tradition. If you see anything that is new that absolutely nobody who has come before has seen, well good for you.

I am interested in the implications of this. Can I summarily reject any teaching that is a new innovation, or do I still have to give this new creative interpretation a fair hearing, open up my Bible, try to put aside all prejudices that I might have, and make a determination right or wrong.

I am also interested in Protestant responses, particularly if you adhere to a new, creative interpretation of Scripoture. Or if you consider yourself a restorationalist like LDS, your response is also interesting. Please tell my why I have to give your nice new idea a fair hearing from the Word of God.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Solo Scriptura is reading and interpreting the Bible outside of anybodys authoritative tradition. If you see anything that is new that absolutely nobody who has come before has seen, well good for you.

I am interested in the implications of this. Can I summarily reject any teaching that is a new innovation, or do I still have to give this new creative interpretation a fair hearing, open up my Bible, try to put aside all prejudices that I might have, and make a determination right or wrong.
Click to expand...
I don’t think your definition of Sola Scriptura above is correct. I think that saying “f you see anything that is new that absolutely nobody who has come before has seen, well good for you”, is misrepresenting the doctrine. Don’t get me wrong, this could be the conclusion that the doctrine leads to but it is not what is stated within the doctrine.

Sola Scriptura certainly leads to individual scripture interpretations. I saw this very often throughout my years in the protestant church. After reading a passage people would often say, “what does that mean to you”? I always had issue with that as God had a purpose for writing the text and it is that purpose that we are to find, not our own feelings on the passage.

I do not think that we can summarily reject any new understanding of Scripture but we must evaluate that understanding against what has already been determined. New understanding cannot be accepted when it is in opposition to established teachings or doctrines. We must always evaluate our own personal understanding with the Churches understanding and when the two differ we need to bring our thinking in line with Church teachings.
 
izod, he’s not talking about sola scriptura… He’s talking about the biblical free for all which is the logical ends of any form of sola scriptura. If you want to see what he’s talking about, find his thread on the subject matter, I can’t remember exactly what it was called. Something like “what is sola scriptura”, Roman Catholic posted a link written by a Lutheran trying to draw a distinction between “sola scriptura” and “solo scrpitural”.

In the end I found a logical paradox in the Lutheran’s defininition of “Sola Scriptura”, but as I suggested earlier that’s a discussion for another thread.
 
Folks… read the O.P. It says Solo Scriptura, not Sola.

Actually, Douglas Jones coined the phrase Solo Scriptura, but Keith Mathison is the one who really challenged the Evangelical circles about it and the reductionist (and bastardized) understandings of solafide as practiced.

Having said this, I am not a fan of either.
 
BrianH said:
I don’t know actually. It occurs to me that everything you just said could be applied to the year AD 26 and the Rabbi saying essentially the same thing…
Click to expand...
Yes, but around 30 to 33 A.D., you had the Word of God saying something else…😛
 
crazzeto said:
izod, he’s not talking about sola scriptura… He’s talking about the biblical free for all which is the logical ends of any form of sola scriptura. If you want to see what he’s talking about, find his thread on the subject matter, I can’t remember exactly what it was called. Something like “what is sola scriptura”, Roman Catholic posted a link written by a Lutheran trying to draw a distinction between “sola scriptura” and “solo scrpitural”.

In the end I found a logical paradox in the Lutheran’s defininition of “Sola Scriptura”, but as I suggested earlier that’s a discussion for another thread.
Click to expand...
For the record, this was the thread I started a while back.

And here is the link to a writeup by Keith Mathison explaining the difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura.
 
AmateurPianist,

Okay, I’ve just read your link to the synopsis of Professor Obermans writings on **Solo Scriptura**.

To summarize, he claims that the early church (before the fourth century) held to a relationship between scriptureand tradition that he labels Tradition1. In this model, the ONLY sources of divine revelation and authoritative doctrine were the Old Testament and its Apostolic interpretation through the writings contained in the New Testament. Under this system, Oberman claims that the ONLY true role of the Church was to consistently interpret Scripture in light of the *regula fidei *(“rule of faith”).

According to Oberman, slowly throughout the Middle Ages, the Church gradually began to talk about faith AND traditionas though they were two sources of revelation and not one. By the twelfth century, Oberman claims, the Church had completely drifted into a system he calls Tradition2; by then the Church was reinterpreting Scripture in the light of newer traditions cobbled together AFTER the writings which form the New Testament were canonized. Oberman argues that it was the intention of the sixteenth century reformers to RETURN the Church back to Tradition1.

Lastly, the article contends that eighteenth century revisionists lost this perspective. They began to preach that Scripture was the ONLY source of truth, and that each individual ought to be free to interpret it on their own. This view of Solo Scripturahe labels Tradition0. This is the view that was popular amongst the founders of America.

Lastly, the article states that Sola Scriptura (Tradition1) is preferable to Solo Scriptura (Tradition2).

I have three simple statements to make about this:
  1. I think the distinction that the sixteenth century reformers made between Tradition1 and Tradition2 is artificial and NOT real. The key is your understanding of WHAT constitutes regula fide (Rule of Faith). Contrary to the sixteenth century reformers, the FACT is that the ante-Nicene church never considered that the Rule of Faith was entirely defined by the Bible or any part of it. Therefore, if what appears to be Tradition1 seems to evolve into something called Tradition2, the question is WHERE IS THE LINE AND WHEN WAS IT CROSSED? The FACT that each of the major reformers of the day (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) could NOT agree on exactly where this line was crossed, is PROOF to me that it NEVER EXISTED.
The plethora of so-called Christian churches that have arisen in the past five centuries, each actively searching for this so-called Tradition1, is PROOF that the line cannot be found and that this STATIC view of the role of the Church NEVER existed. If Sola Scriptura were true, there would only be ONE Protestant church.
  1. It was the error of Sola Scriptura that logically lead everyone to the final error of Solo Scriptura; everyone is now his own church. Thank you very much Mr. Martin Luther.
  2. Christ did NOT give us a book, He gave us a CHURCH. ONE Church. And when all the rebelious cretins who insist on calling themselves Christians according to their OWN definitions finally realize this… THEN we may FINALLY be a true winess to the world. As the Lord said:
I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. - John 17:20, 21 (NAB)
 
AngloCatholic1 said:
AmateurPianist,

Okay, I’ve just read your link to the synopsis of Professor Obermans writings on **Solo** Scriptura.

To summarize, he claims that the early church (before the fourth century) held to a relationship between scriptureand tradition that he labels Tradition1. In this model, the ONLY sources of divine revelation and authoritative doctrine were the Old Testament and its Apostolic interpretation through the writings contained in the New Testament. Under this system, Oberman claims that the ONLY true role of the Church was to consistently interpret Scripture in light of the *regula fidei *(“rule of faith”).

According to Oberman, slowly throughout the Middle Ages, the Church gradually began to talk about faith AND traditionas though they were two sources of revelation and not one. By the twelfth century, Oberman claims, the Church had completely drifted into a system he calls Tradition2; by then the Church was reinterpreting Scripture in the light of newer traditions cobbled together AFTER the writings which form the New Testament were canonized. Oberman argues that it was the intention of the sixteenth century reformers to RETURN the Church back to Tradition1.

Lastly, the article contends that eighteenth century revisionists lost this perspective. They began to preach that Scripture was the ONLY source of truth, and that each individual ought to be free to interpret it on their own. This view of Solo Scripturahe labels Tradition0. This is the view that was popular amongst the founders of America.

Lastly, the article states that Sola Scriptura (Tradition1) is preferable to Solo Scriptura (Tradition2).

I have three simple statements to make about this:
  1. I think the distinction that the sixteenth century reformers made between Tradition1 and Tradition2 is artificial and NOT real. The key is your understanding of WHAT constitutes regula fide (Rule of Faith). Contrary to the sixteenth century reformers, the FACT is that the ante-Nicene church never considered that the Rule of Faith was entirely defined by the Bible or any part of it. Therefore, if what appears to be Tradition1 seems to evolve into something called Tradition2, the question is WHERE IS THE LINE AND WHEN WAS IT CROSSED? The FACT that each of the major reformers of the day (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) could NOT agree on exactly where this line was crossed, is PROOF to me that it NEVER EXISTED.
The plethora of so-called Christian churches that have arisen in the past five centuries, each actively searching for this so-called Tradition1, is PROOF that the line cannot be found and that this STATIC view of the role of the Church NEVER existed. If Sola Scriptura were true, there would only be ONE Protestant church.
  1. It was the error of Sola Scriptura that logically lead everyone to the final error of Solo Scriptura; everyone is now his own church. Thank you very much Mr. Martin Luther.
  2. Christ did NOT give us a book, He gave us a CHURCH. ONE Church. And when all the rebelious cretins who insist on calling themselves Christians according to their OWN definitions finally realize this… THEN we may FINALLY be a true winess to the world. As the Lord said:
I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. - John 17:20, 21 (NAB)
Click to expand...
Hi:
To be honest your first part seems a fairly good summary of the article, but you lose me in your second part.

That is ok. I confess to also getting lost when I read Mathison at a certain point. There are parts that I understand and like (particularly dealing with Solo Scriptura), and I am trying to get my head around what the implications are.

One thing that I am seeing is that Solo Scriptura is alive and well in American Protestantland. Good grief, I am having a discussion in another thread with a guy that comes from the Reformed tradition that believes God is OK with gay marriage, that despite the fact that this whole theology of gay marriage is a 30 year old invention that is not in anybody’s tradition (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox). I don’t think I was successful in explaining where I was coming from and at a certain point I feel you end up with :banghead:.

Now in another thread, I am trying to my brain around the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. That is the best that I have come across so far in my humble mind, but I am trying to resolve some nitpicky details and nagging questions that I have.

This statement though I find to be very condescending:
And when all the rebelious cretins who insist on calling themselves Christians according to their OWN definitions finally realize this
Click to expand...
You have no knowledge on how Jesus Christ has changed my life.
 
Quote:
And when all the rebelious cretins who insist on calling themselves Christians according to their OWN definitions finally realize this…
Click to expand...
AmateurPianist,

Yeah, sorry about that. I have to admit that I regretted that line only a few seconds after posting it. I’m just frustrated with people who *call themselves *Chistians and yet actively reject over 1950 years of sound Christian doctrine (like your experience with the supporters of gay marriage)… and I didn’t have a nifty head-banging graphic (like yours) on hand!

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top