Catholics, define sola scriptura

[scylla]

I will take a stab at it…

“I believe in the Scriptures as our rule of faith based upon a pre-understanding that we are saved by faith alone, are totally depraved and must avoid agreeing with Catholic doctrine, but we believe in the Scripture Alone based upon our interpretation”
“Tradition is ok, if it agrees with our intepretation”

That probably covers about 80 percent of Protestant Denoms.
The rest are pretty much all over the place anywhere from KJV or NIV only to more traditional forms which eventually get to what I just stated.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see the term thrown around so much I would like to see how people define it around here.

It appears that MFM started the thread but is not actually participating in the discussion. Nevertheless, I will offer an interesting comment that I received from Tim Enloe, a Protestant formerly active in apologetics, in another forum on the topic of sola scriptura. Tim wrote:

"I have no problem with the Catholic belief that “there necessarily be extra-biblical information, experience and understanding that aid us in interpreting the Scriptures correctly.” This is actually not at all incompatible with sola Scriptura, UNLESS one defines sola Scriptura as (or at least practically acts as if it means) “The Bible is the only rule of faith.” Most Protestants do define it this way, unfortunately, but even many who define it accurately (e.g., James White) then vitiate the definition by their bizarre hermeneutical practices. But I can’t go into that now. It’s too big a topic.

"I will just say this: if sola Scriptura means what most Protestants today act like it means, then it is a false principle. On the contrary, everyone has a rule of faith that they bring to Scriptural interpretation. Everyone. We may differ as to the identity of the rule we bring to the Scriptures, but we all have one. For some people it’s the Catholic Creeds. For others its the Assured Results of Modern Scientific Grammatology. For some it’s the “face value” of what lies right on the most shallow level of their own heads. But everyone has a rule. No one literally has no rule except the Bible. That’s just simply impossible, though too many believe it is so.

“As for your request for definition, “sola Scriptura” does not mean the Bible “alone.” Not only is that an impossible position to hold (as outlined above), it is just bad Latin. For the word “sola” in Latin is not an adverb. It is an adjective. The Bible cannot stand (verb) alone (adverb). It could perhaps be the only (adjective) infallible rule of faith (noun phrase), but it can’t be something that stands (verb) alone (adverb). I suppose much of the confusion of Modern Protestantism could be reversed if we all learned Latin again!”

Thoughts anyone? MFM?