Do “Sola Scriptura” Protestants observe Lent? If so, why? It isn’t biblical

[JonNC]

JonNC:

1cthlctrth:

Question #1 regarding well-meaning Protestants who believe in “Sola Scriptura”: Where in the Bible does it say, “the Bible alone?”

It doesn’t. Why would it have to?

If one is to formulate a doctrine that all doctrines must be found in the text, then that doctrine of sola scriptura, if it is not in the text, is logically self-defeating.

Hence, it is not a doctrine, in the classical understanding. It is a praxis.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

JonNC:

1cthlctrth:

Question #1 regarding well-meaning Protestants who believe in “Sola Scriptura”: Where in the Bible does it say, “the Bible alone?”

It doesn’t. Why would it have to?

If one is to formulate a doctrine that all doctrines must be found in the text, then that doctrine of sola scriptura, if it is not in the text, is logically self-defeating.

Hence, it is not a doctrine, in the classical understanding. It is a praxis.

Explain the difference, because I suspect this is just a word game. Because even if it is a praxis, the necessity of that praxis is held as a doctrine, so it’s a distinction without a difference.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

HopkinsReb:

JonNC:

1cthlctrth:

Question #1 regarding well-meaning Protestants who believe in “Sola Scriptura”: Where in the Bible does it say, “the Bible alone?”

It doesn’t. Why would it have to?

If one is to formulate a doctrine that all doctrines must be found in the text, then that doctrine of sola scriptura, if it is not in the text, is logically self-defeating.

Hence, it is not a doctrine, in the classical understanding. It is a praxis.

Explain the difference, because I suspect this is just a word game. Because even if it is a praxis, the necessity of that praxis is held as a doctrine, so it’s a distinction without a difference.

A praxis. A practice. In this sense, the way the Church holds doctrine accountable to scripture. A hermeneutical principle is not in itself doctrine.
It is not a word game. Not all practices are doctrine.

 

[HopkinsReb]

A praxis. A practice. In this sense, the way the Church holds doctrine accountable to scripture. A hermeneutical principle is not in itself doctrine.
It is not a word game. Not all practices are doctrine.

If I were to call up my wife’s old PCA pastor and tell him I’m flirting with Rome, his response would not be “well, they don’t use my preferred practice for interpreting scripture, but that’s fine; it’s a practice, not a doctrine.”

Not all practices are doctrine, but there are plenty of doctrines regarding what practices to use. And, generally speaking, even if we concede the rhetorical point that sola scriptura is a practice, it is a doctrine of most Protestant churches that that practice should be the practice for determining doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

If I were to call up my wife’s old PCA pastor and tell him I’m flirting with Rome, his response would not be “well, they don’t use my preferred practice for interpreting scripture, but that’s fine; it’s a practice, not a doctrine.”

I don’t know about PCA, but it seems to me the doctrines themselves are more relevant than the practice used to arrive at them.

Not all practices are doctrine, but there are plenty of doctrines regarding what practices to use. And, generally speaking, even if we concede the rhetorical point that sola scriptura is a practice, it is a doctrine of most Protestant churches that that practice should be the practice for determining doctrine.

I was responding to the question, not as “most Protestants”, which is a frankly useless term, but from what I was taught from my Lutheran tradition

 

[HopkinsReb]

I don’t know about PCA, but it seems to me the doctrines themselves are more relevant than the practice used to arrive at them.

Certainly. Thing is, you get different doctrines depending on the practice you use. And considering “sola scriptura” is one of the solas forming the backbone of the Reformation, it’s clear that mainstream, historic Protestantism considers it more than simply a good practice for drawing doctrine.

I was responding to the question, not as “most Protestants”, which is a frankly useless term,

Usually useless. Not in this case, I think.

but from what I was taught from my Lutheran tradition

Perhaps they framed it that way. But, again, if someone in that Lutheran tradition decided to reject sola scriptura, would that be considered a disagreement over practice, or would it be considered a departure from a fundamental principle of Lutheranism?

 

[JonNC]

Certainly. Thing is, you get different doctrines depending on the practice you use. And considering “ sola scriptura ” is one of the solas forming the backbone of the Reformation, it’s clear that mainstream, historic Protestantism considers it more than simply a good practice for drawing doctrine.

Source.
Not all doctrines are different, obviously. In fact, even among those who do not practice SS have differences between them. I’m not sure one can make the claim either way.

Usually useless. Not in this case, I think.

From the 39 articles:

VI — Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

As an Anglican, do you consider this doctrine?
It sounds more like a guideline. You can’t be held to a teaching not found in scripture.

From the Formula of Concord:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

This isn’t a doctrine which binds the conscience. It is a statement about how the Church holds doctrines and teachings and teachers accountable to scripture as the final norm.
There is no, “let him he anathema” tagged on it.

Perhaps they framed it that way. But, again, if someone in that Lutheran tradition decided to reject sola scriptura, would that be considered a disagreement over practice, or would it be considered a departure from a fundamental principle of Lutheranism?

What do you mean by “reject”? The laity doesn’t set doctrine, so SS isn’t a practice they take part in.
The Augsburg Confession sets out Lutheran doctrine, and often says, they reject those who teach otherwise. That isn’t the case with SS.
In short, Lutherans typically believe that their communion holds scripture as the final norm, that’s all. It isn’t a sin to disagree with that principle.

 

[mcq72]

Hence, it is not a doctrine, in the classical understanding. It is a praxis.

Would accepting tradition ( whatever a pope says, or a council on matters of fairh and morals) as equal authoritatively as scripture be a doctrine or a praxis? ( as we understand Catholic “practice”)

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Hence, it is not a doctrine, in the classical understanding. It is a praxis.

Would accepting tradition ( whatever a pope says, or a council on matters of fairh and morals) as equal authoritatively as scripture be a doctrine or a praxis? ( as we understand Catholic “practice”)

I’m not Catholic, so I wouldn’t say. What I would say is that I know the pope’s infallibility ex cathedra is dogmatically defined.
I also wouldn’t pretend to tell other communions- Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. - what they believe.

I can tell you that a Lutheran would say that the creeds are authoritative because they rightly reflect scripture.

 

[TULIPed]

I can tell you that a Lutheran would say that the creeds are authoritative because they rightly reflect scripture.

So would pretty much any Reformed Protestant denomination that I’m aware of.

 

[TULIPed]

If one is to formulate a doctrine that all doctrines must be found in the text, then that doctrine of sola scriptura, if it is not in the text, is logically self-defeating.

Interestingly, I can’t find the words “sola” or “scriptura” anywhere in the bulwark of Reformed doctrine, the Westminster Confession. However, there is this:

“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

But…there’s this as well:

“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… Nevertheless, we acknowledge … that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

In other words - the Liturgical calendar (including Lent), the Creeds, Christmas trees, Easter eggs (not bunnies - because bunnies have nothing to do with eggs), credit cards, self driving cars, etc. are not in the Bible. However - Reformed Protestants practice and use such things because we don’t believe them to be in conflict with Holy Scripture.