C
clmowry
Guest
Well, yes, unless you redefine “Sola Scriptura” to mean something other than “Only Scripture” which really seems to be the only way to logically maintain belief in “Sola Scriptura”.Getting back to your OP…
Do you think it really is necessary for a Sola Scripturist to substantiate their belief in the Bible alone through a proof text found within that Bible alone? IOW, does it refute Sola Scriptura simply by revealing that Scripture itself does not even implicitly reveal it to be true?
I really only see a few ways possible ways to define “Sola Scriptura”I’m asking this not because I believe it one way or the other, but because I myself have been grappling with it since you started the thread. I’m certain you won’t find anyone who can successfully answer your OP here, and you probably know that too. And it certainly should be an eye opener for many Bible-only lurkers out there, as they recognize that their belief in Scripture alone is not scriptural. But does it have to say it in Scripture for one to actually believe it? Most SS’ers also believe in Spirit led revelation, and affirmations from the Spirit which somehow validate what other humans are teaching them. In this way, a person gets taught from their ecclesial community that Scripture alone is wholly sufficient, and the Spirit affirms it in their heart that that is true. This would seem to be the position someone like DerekD would take.
1.) Only what is explicitly in scripture (as I, led by the Holy Spirit see it.)
2.) Only what is explicitly or implicitly in scripture (as I led by the Holy Spirit see it.)
3.) Only what is not explicitly contradicted by scripture (as I led by the Holy Spirit see it.)
4.) Only what is explicitly in scripture as interpreted in light of some other authority.
5.) Only what is explicitly or implicitly in scripture as interpreted in light of some other authority.
6.) Only what is not explicitly contradicted by scripture as interpreted in light of some other authority.
1 and 4 seem to be to be obviously, logically, self refuting since we all know there is no explicit verse in scripture stating such.
2 and 3 seem to be obviously self refuting, from a practical stand point, given the plethora of contradicting interpretations offered by the lay novice, expertly trained and ordained alike.
5 seems to be contradicted by scripture itself as scripture claims that there is much taught by Christ and His Apostles that was not written down.
This leaves 6 as the only viable definition.
The “problem” with this definition of course is that it doesn’t really rule out anything; especially the Catholic Church which is supposed to be the entity that “Sola Scriptura” was supposed to be used to refute.
This of course leads one to believe that those defining “Sola Scriptura” in this way should no longer demand that Catholics “Show me where it says that in the bible…” as there rebuttal to Catholic Theology.
But somehow this re-definition doesn’t seem to stop some folks from wanting one definition when explaining why “Sola Scriptura” should be accepted and then applying another definition when discussing opposing theological positions.
Yeah, I think you pretty much sum is up.Of course, that sort of position raises the question of where did their teachers themselves discern that it was true? …I find the obstinate refusal to articulate which interpretation of Scripture holds the supreme authority to be the most frustrating element of it.
I think there is a good reason that they have to stop short in their definition. If they finish the definition, they either put forth something that is self refuting or they have to put forth something that doesn’t help them in refuting Catholicism (or any other conflicting Christian belief system).
So…when in doubt….punt.
Chuck