Sola Scriptura: A Blind Spot but Not Worthless

[JonNC]

=Koineman;12870045]Sola Scriptura does have a blind spot: Since Scripture does not specify the books that belong in the Bible, it is not the sole infallible authority on all matters pertaining to Christian faith and practice. All Christians today are dependent on the extrabiblical tradition known as the canon of Scripture. What’s more, they treat that tradition as infallible, since they don’t dare to question it or change it.

Hi Koineman,
I’m having some difficulty understanding this.
1st) I don’t believe that the lack of a scripturally defined canon of scripture leads one to believe that scripture is not “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged.” This would assume that scripture does not provide authority to the Church, which is simply not the case. In fact, the very essence of sola scriptura is that the Church uses scripture as final norm, when determining doctrine.
2nd) The fact that we are dependent on extrabiblical tradition, the canon of scripture and numerous other things, is also not contradictory to sola scriptura. Again, scripture provides the Church with teaching authority, so we have creeds and councils, and confessions that explain and enlighten us, presented by the Church in its role as teaching authority.

Whenever I ask a non-Catholic or non-EO Christian to show me where the Bible says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired, invariably the answer goes outside the Bible, whether to history or to the claim of a subjective, inner witness by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps both. (I use Hebrews as my example because it’s not clear whether it was written by an apostle; other NT books could be used in the question.)

Its a good example, both the answer is self-evident. We rely on the Church (each to his/her tradition within the Church) in order to answer that question. Its the same question with the Deuterocanonical books, or 3 and 4 Macc, or the Prayer of Manasseh. Some traditions within the Church accept them as canonical, others don’t. Even the understanding of what being canonical means can vary.

Having said that, I don’t take that fact as far as Catholics take it. Catholics take that fact and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur. The church was the conduit through which the Holy Spirit gave us the canon of Scripture, but a conduit is not equal to or as important as the water that flows through it.

A better analogy is that of a messenger: A messenger does not have equal authority to the one who wrote the message, just because he or she delivers it, and if he or she spoke about the message, his or her words would not be of equal authority to the words in the message.

I don’t see it this way at all. I don’t believe it to be a competition between scripture and the Church, but that the authority each has is there, yet different. All sola scriptura says is that scripture is the final norm for determining doctrine. Who makes doctrine? The Church. What should the Church use as the final norm in order to make doctrine? Scripture.

Jon

 

[benhur]

I don’t deny there were writings from the Apostles considered Holy but there are not consensus about what is exactly the complete God’s word. Only when Catholic Church canonized the Bible the discussion was over

Hi Faso

First, Writ is Writ as soon as it is penned.It is still Writ upon its delivery. It is still Writ upon its reception, partly or wholly. It is still Writ upon understanding, translating, printing, canonizing.

Second, our Lord and the apostles revered and quoted an uncanonized Writ.

Thirdly, may the "discussion’’ never be over. That is, may the same evidences ( even more) and workings of the Spirit that illumined our forefathers on this matter continue do so with every succeeding generation. We do have a rational faith.

Blessings

 

[fasolislithuan]

Hi Faso

First, Writ is Writ as soon as it is penned.It is still Writ upon its delivery. It is still Writ upon its reception, partly or wholly. It is still Writ upon understanding, translating, printing, canonizing.

Second, our Lord and the apostles revered and quoted an uncanonized Writ.

Thirdly, may the "discussion’’ never be over. That is, may the same evidences ( even more) and workings of the Spirit that illumined our forefathers on this matter continue do so with every succeeding generation. We do have a rational faith.

Blessings

Hi, Ben.

We already talked about this in another thread (since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…) Your objection was similar:

benhur:

But that compilation did not make them “Holy scripture” rather universally recognized their" Holiness", which began at their writing, not at their canonization. That is my understanding of our history with Writ.

And my answer continues being the same:

Sure. But the “Holiness” that began at their writing and not at their canonization is not a static definition, in reality is a process that cannot be artificially interrumpted until its conclusion (canonization by the Church) to establish with certainty such “Holiness”. They are some stages in the process and those two stages (writing and canonization) are indispensable to the consolidation of the “Holiness”. They cannot be artificially segregated because without the first (“holiness” of the writing) the second is unnecesary and without the second (canonization) the first is an entelechy. That canonization in addition has to be by means of the God-breathed authority, otherwise the canonization becomes a spurious process of falsification that implies an incomplete or adulterated Bible, i.e. like a protestant said: “a fallible collection of infallible books”, but I’d rather specify “an incomplet or adulterated God’s Word”.

God bless you.

 

[benhur]

Hi, Ben.

We already talked about this in another thread (since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…) Your objection was similar:

And my answer continues being the same:

Sure. But the “Holiness” that began at their writing and not at their canonization is not a static definition, in reality is a process that cannot be artificially interrumpted until its conclusion (canonization by the Church) to establish with certainty such “Holiness”. They are some stages in the process and those two stages (writing and canonization) are indispensable to the consolidation of the “Holiness”. They cannot be artificially segregated because without the first (“holiness” of the writing) the second is unnecesary and without the second (canonization) the first is an entelechy. That canonization in addition has to be by means of the God-breathed authority, otherwise the canonization becomes a spurious process of falsification that implies an incomplete or adulterated Bible, i.e. like a protestant said: “a fallible collection of infallible books”, but I’d rather specify “an incomplet or adulterated God’s Word”.

God bless you.

Yes, but also in another thread it had been mentioned the idea of institutionalizing a move of God. So yes, of course there is a "process’’ of receiving, of consensus, but it can be overdone also. One must address the process that Israel experienced. They did not hyper-institutionalize consensus, even canonize, and yet there was corporate God-breathed consensus.(in between entelechy and canonization). They certainly knew how to hyper everything else they did with Writ (its holiness, and need for correct copying, teaching etc).

 

[fasolislithuan]

Yes, but also in another thread it had been mentioned the idea of institutionalizing a move of God. So yes, of course there is a "process’’ of receiving, of consensus, but it can be overdone also. One must address the process that Israel experienced. They did not hyper-institutionalize consensus, even canonize, and yet there was corporate God-breathed consensus.(in between entelechy and canonization). They certainly knew how to hyper everything else they did with Writ (its holiness, and need for correct copying, teaching etc).

That presumed ‘corporate God-breathed consensus’ was, in Christ time, absolutely inexistent. The consensus only came several centuries post-Christ (between 4th-9th centuries after Christ), within the masoretic tradition. Equally as in the Church the consensus came with a process of canonization the same can be said respect the jewish tradition. The jewish canon has been discuted many times and it’s pretty clear that in Christ times there wasn’t any consensus. There were at least four differents canonical traditions (saducees’, pharisees’, jewish in diaspora’s, essenies’… without to count another less relevant jewish sects possibly with diferent and proper canons). Only like reaction against christian Sacred Scriptures the jewish tradition established a unified canon many centuries later. I don’t know if it involved a hyper-instituzionalize consensus, but one thing is evident: this process of consensus was not God-breathed. Because this process was carried out not for Christ’s Church, the only gifted with divine authority (authority transmitted by Jesus to his apostles), rather for the same people that rejected Jesus as Son of God and Messiah. Those were exactly the people that established the actual jewish canon (masoretic Bible). And this jewish tradition that established the jewish canon (Masorah) is the jewish tradition that calls Jesus in the Talmud a magician that practiced sorcery and instigated Israel people to idolatry. So this people perhaps did not hyper-institutionalize consensus, even canonize, and perhaps achieved a corporate consensus. But it’s theologically impossible that such consensus was God-breathed. If the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire them on the most trascendent judgement, i.e., to recognize the incarnate Son of God, neither could inspire them to established a God-breathed canon.
We know how are the people where dwells the Holy Spirit:* Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.* (1 John 4:15). The people that established the jewish canon did exactly the contrary. They confessed that Jesus is not the Son of God and they repeatedly mocked Him. In those people cannot dwell the Holy Spirit

 

[LutheranScholar]

Hi Koineman,
I’m having some difficulty understanding this.
1st) I don’t believe that the lack of a scripturally defined canon of scripture leads one to believe that scripture is not “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged.” This would assume that scripture does not provide authority to the Church, which is simply not the case. In fact, the very essence of sola scriptura is that the Church uses scripture as final norm, when determining doctrine.
2nd) The fact that we are dependent on extrabiblical tradition, the canon of scripture and numerous other things, is also not contradictory to sola scriptura. Again, scripture provides the Church with teaching authority, so we have creeds and councils, and confessions that explain and enlighten us, presented by the Church in its role as teaching authority.

Its a good example, both the answer is self-evident. We rely on the Church (each to his/her tradition within the Church) in order to answer that question. Its the same question with the Deuterocanonical books, or 3 and 4 Macc, or the Prayer of Manasseh. Some traditions within the Church accept them as canonical, others don’t. Even the understanding of what being canonical means can vary.

I don’t see it this way at all. I don’t believe it to be a competition between scripture and the Church, but that the authority each has is there, yet different. All sola scriptura says is that scripture is the final norm for determining doctrine. Who makes doctrine? The Church. What should the Church use as the final norm in order to make doctrine? Scripture.

Jon

Agreed.

 

[CarmelJerome]

Sola Scriptura does have a blind spot: Since Scripture does not specify the books that belong in the Bible, it is not the sole infallible authority on all matters pertaining to Christian faith and practice. All Christians today are dependent on the extrabiblical tradition known as the canon of Scripture. What’s more, they treat that tradition as infallible, since they don’t dare to question it or change it.

Whenever I ask a non-Catholic or non-EO Christian to show me where the Bible says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired, invariably the answer goes outside the Bible, whether to history or to the claim of a subjective, inner witness by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps both. (I use Hebrews as my example because it’s not clear whether it was written by an apostle; other NT books could be used in the question.)

Having said that, I don’t take that fact as far as Catholics take it. Catholics take that fact and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur. The church was the conduit through which the Holy Spirit gave us the canon of Scripture, but a conduit is not equal to or as important as the water that flows through it.

A better analogy is that of a messenger: A messenger does not have equal authority to the one who wrote the message, just because he or she delivers it, and if he or she spoke about the message, his or her words would not be of equal authority to the words in the message.

This is why I don’t reject SS, even though it does have the blind spot I mentioned.

The Church is not a mere messenger as the Body of Christ, she is the Spouse of the Incarnate Word, not just a hired messenger whose only significance is the message she carries. With respect to the New Testament, she can say with her Lord 'You search the scriptures day & night, but it is me of whom they speak' - because all the passages about discipline and behavior, of how the members of the Body are to behave or what we are to do and not to do, follows from Christ's through the Holy mysteries, the sacraments. It is just the same with the d Testament - it is not about God by Himself, but God with His chosen people - with the new Israel I n this case.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think the major blind spot of sola scriptura is that it seems to implicitly suggest everyone can read and understand the scripture. I honestly think this assumption has been proven wrong as a result of everyone having access and claiming authority over the bible. It doesn’t seem possible within a sola scriptrua mindset to be bound to the opinion of any other man or group of men who espouse a doctrine.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine I feel that can only actually operate in a world where we never fell from grace.

 

[commenter]

Catholics take that fact and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur. The church was the conduit through which the Holy Spirit gave us the canon of Scripture, but a conduit is not equal to or as important as the water that flows through it.

To clarify the “conduit” analogy of the canon, canonization is not just a function that happened in the past. The extreme liberal denominations are cautiously adding books to the NT canon now. This will gradually spread to other denominations, perhaps on a congregational option basis, not necessarily the same mix of books added to the familiar 27. Some New Testaments are now omitting passages that some consider biased. In a decade those who still accept only 4 gospels will be labelled fundamentalists.

In other words, if the Church was the “conduit” for the canon, it also is the conduit for the canon, now. Because of the new challenge to the canon in the past decade, an active authoritative agency will be needed in the near future to defend the NT canon, all these 27 books, and no additions. The canon, once thought to be unassailable, a given, in no need of defense (like the institution of Marriage) will now need a defender.

 

[JonNC]

I think the major blind spot of sola scriptura is that it seems to implicitly suggest everyone can read and understand the scripture. I honestly think this assumption has been proven wrong as a result of everyone having access and claiming authority over the bible. It doesn’t seem possible within a sola scriptrua mindset to be bound to the opinion of any other man or group of men who espouse a doctrine.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine I feel that can only actually operate in a world where we never fell from grace.

I think this can be a “blind spot”, if one believes he can or should interpret on his own, and ignore the teachings of the history of the Church.

Jon

 

[adf417]

A better analogy is that of a messenger: A messenger does not have equal authority to the one who wrote the message, just because he or she delivers it, and if he or she spoke about the message, his or her words would not be of equal authority to the words in the message.

If we are to trust the above statement to be true in every sense then we have difficulty in proving the Trinity. We Trinitarians believe Jesus, the word, is equal to God making the object, the source, and the conduit simultaneously the same.

Peace!!!

 

[Koineman]

Hi K man,

I thought it would be easy to respond in the affirmative but it is not so simple , for me. I would say all conveyance methods of Truth have a blind spot. I am also thinking the conveyor definitely has authority even power.

Perhaps, but not equal or greater power. That was my point. I think I stated that, too.

 

[Koineman]

Hi Koineman,
I’m having some difficulty understanding this.
1st) I don’t believe that the lack of a scripturally defined canon of scripture leads one to believe that scripture is not “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged.”

If the canon itself is a dogma, I disagree–at least in part. I would reword your statement thus by adding boldfaced/italicized words at the end:

I don’t believe that the lack of a scripturally defined canon of scripture leads one to believe that scripture is not "the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged–with the exception of the canon itself.

I don’t see it this way at all. I don’t believe it to be a competition between scripture and the Church, but that the authority each has is there, yet different.

I agree. What I was talking about in the comment you replied to was this:

“Catholics take that fact [the lack of a Scripturally defined canon] and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur.”

The way Catholics often present this issue to Protestants is that if the church is trusted on the canon, she should also be trusted on all other issues. That’s where I think they go too far. That conclusion doesn’t follow. Even though the church was the conduit through which the Scriptures came to us, it doesn’t follow that the church is equal to or superior to Scripture. If there is any idea of “competition” at all, it is set up by RC apologists. My OP actually militates against any such competition.

All sola scriptura says is that scripture is the final norm for determining doctrine. Who makes doctrine? The Church. What should the Church use as the final norm in order to make doctrine? Scripture.

That’s a good point. Consider this definition of SS from the Cambridge Declaration:

"We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience.

But isn’t the definition of the canon itself something that binds the conscience?

The Cambridge Declaration goes on to say:

"The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation."

Note the boldfaced part. Was not the Holy Spirit speaking independently of the Bible when He guided the formation of the canon?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think this can be a “blind spot”, if one believes he can or should interpret on his own, and ignore the teachings of the history of the Church.

Jon

If the history of the church says one thing, and the individual reading the bible sees another, how can that individual be compelled to accept what the church has taught since the beginning? Scripture is the final authority, it is above every man’s words, it is above councils, monks and saints. How, if the scripture is the final authority is it possible to say, “follow what the church teaches.” While you might not go this far, I do think this is an implicit assumption to sola scriptura and some protestant tendencies against the Catholic tradition are just a result of that implicit principle. .

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Koineman
A better analogy is that of a messenger: A messenger does not have equal authority to the one who wrote the message, just because he or she delivers it, and if he or she spoke about the message, his or her words would not be of equal authority to the words in the message.

That’s just it: It’s not true in every sense. Obviously, the second Person of the Trinity is an exception, being God.

 

[Captain_America]

It’s interesting how people give Luther so much credit for singlehandedly reforming the Church, as if he didn’t have predecessors such as Jan Hus or Wycliffe. Luther was one part of one arm of the Reformation ( Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Henry VIII, Conrad Grebel and their allies worked in other arms of the Reformation) and he didn’t work alone. Justus Jonas, Phillip Melanchthon and others worked with Luther in his efforts to reform the Church. My personal experience is that *Sola Scriptura *works easily with the parameters set by the early Lutheran Evangelicals. I know that other Lutherans and yet other Protestants have explained that *Sola Scriptura *didn’t originally have the definition that modern American charismatics put on it now, rather traditions were interpreted *in light of *Scripture.

Would you consider St. Francis to be a reformer as well?

The Catholic Church, imho, has done a fairly good job of internal reform. The problem in Luther’s day was that the Church has accreted many gifts of land and other property, thus had “money in the bank” which looked awfully appealing to the political powers of the day.

This “sack the church” motive has been a very real, very tangible impulse in human history. It accounts for a good part of the Mexican revolution of the early 20th century, for instance.

In the middle ages, the “state” was concerned with military power and did no organized social services. The Catholic Church was the de facto social service arm. . . and for this reason, was frequently given bequests and gifts. . . kind of like a rich man today giving his money to nonprofit charities. Put all this gold together, you end up with an appealing bag of property to plunder.

On an individual basis, I think we all can agree that there was some excessiveness in Luther’s personality. . . an all-or-nothing kind of drive or, some might say, zealotry. Conflictual personality.

 

[Captain_America]

If the history of the church says one thing, and the individual reading the bible sees another, how can that individual be compelled to accept what the church has taught since the beginning? Scripture is the final authority, it is above every man’s words, it is above councils, monks and saints. How, if the scripture is the final authority is it possible to say, “follow what the church teaches.” While you might not go this far, I do think this is an implicit assumption to sola scriptura and some protestant tendencies against the Catholic tradition are just a result of that implicit principle. .

I think the word “compell” presents the wrong image here.

Your model of “scripture” presents it as a monolithic, single-voiced actor. However, it clearly presents a variety of views and suggestions to people on how to live.

Have you pulled out your eyes recently? In real terms, the Bible needs serious study and appraisal, and it’s difficult to believe any one man has all the answers there; as a serious book it requires analysis and discussion by many. Give some consideration to the fact that the Church DOES present a compelling, deeply analyzed interpretation of the Bible.

Consider, too, that Christ explicitly wanted people to use the Church to come to knowledge of Him. Jesus set up the mechanism of the church; where does he say, “just read the Gospels”? I would think that if Jesus wanted sola scriptura, he would be very clear on this—wouldn’t he want it in the Bible?

 

[LutheranScholar]

Would you consider St. Francis to be a reformer as well?

The Catholic Church, imho, has done a fairly good job of internal reform. The problem in Luther’s day was that the Church has accreted many gifts of land and other property, thus had “money in the bank” which looked awfully appealing to the political powers of the day.

This “sack the church” motive has been a very real, very tangible impulse in human history. It accounts for a good part of the Mexican revolution of the early 20th century, for instance.

In the middle ages, the “state” was concerned with military power and did no organized social services. The Catholic Church was the de facto social service arm. . . and for this reason, was frequently given bequests and gifts. . . kind of like a rich man today giving his money to nonprofit charities. Put all this gold together, you end up with an appealing bag of property to plunder.

On an individual basis, I think we all can agree that there was some excessiveness in Luther’s personality. . . an all-or-nothing kind of drive or, some might say, zealotry. Conflictual personality.

Yes,* indeed *I would consider St. Francis a Reformer, one of the best Reformers of the Middle Ages. He wanted to live according to the Gospel and he had a Rule that would allow just that. He was treated with contempt and endured it humbly. St. Francis of Assisi is a hero of the Christian Faith, as far as I’m concerned. Let’s address the rest of your points: part of the reason that the northern areas of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation were so eager to break with Rome was, in fact, because they found an unacceptably large part of their finances flowing south of the Alps to Rome. Many early humanist ideals of the Renaissance found expression in the Protestant Reformation, a sort of individual, spiritually independent quality ( I’d like to start a thread about the relationship between the Renaissance and the Reformation, but I haven’t been able to arrange my thoughts on that matter coherently, yet) and they found expression first through Luther and then on to his companions. Luther was a mercurial man, passionate in his convictions, and unforgiving toward his opponents. He was also very well aware of his own weaknesses and he publicly acknowledged them sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16469&forum=35, gracedowntown.org/devotions/taking-a-stand-with-luther, christian-history.org/martin-luther.html, francisofassisi.net/

 

[JonNC]

If the history of the church says one thing, and the individual reading the bible sees another, how can that individual be compelled to accept what the church has taught since the beginning? Scripture is the final authority, it is above every man’s words, it is above councils, monks and saints. .

Its curious that among the Lutheran posters here, I’ve recently noticed one change his profile to Orthodox, and two have mentioned, along the line, that they are Lutheran via transferring their membership from the Catholic Church. So, yes, at some point one has to realize that, no matter what any one communion says, individual believers make that final choice. But, as my tiny bit of anecdotal evidence shows, that isn’t necessarily connected only to sola scriptura.

How, if the scripture is the final authority is it possible to say, “follow what the church teaches.” While you might not go this far, I do think this is an implicit assumption to sola scriptura and some protestant tendencies against the Catholic tradition are just a result of that implicit principle.

Yes, I think it is possible to follow what the Church teaches,if one recognizes that that teaching authority is, in fact, scriptural. But I also recognize, and it seems you as an Orthodox Christian should also recognize, that sometimes individuals in charge of the Church make mistakes, or are in error. The Great Schism is evidence of that, and the Orthodox did not maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome precisely for that reason. In that case, who “followed what the Church teaches”?

What if it is the Church teaching that changes?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Koineman;12875169]If the canon itself is a dogma, I disagree–at least in part. I would reword your statement thus by adding boldfaced/italicized words at the end:

I don’t believe that the lack of a scripturally defined canon of scripture leads one to believe that scripture is not "the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged–with the exception of the canon itself.

Do you think that, perhaps, as the Reformers looked back at the history of the Church,and saw the variety of opinions (from Fathers and patriarchates) regarding certain books, that this is why they did not dogamatically define the canon of scripture? I do not believe, for a minute, that Lutheran doctrine would change one iota were Lutherans to receive as equal the deuterocanonical books of the OT.

I agree. What I was talking about in the comment you replied to was this:

“Catholics take that fact [the lack of a Scripturally defined canon] and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur.”

The way Catholics often present this issue to Protestants is that if the church is trusted on the canon, she should also be trusted on all other issues. That’s where I think they go too far. That conclusion doesn’t follow. Even though the church was the conduit through which the Scriptures came to us, it doesn’t follow that the church is equal to or superior to Scripture. If there is any idea of “competition” at all, it is set up by RC apologists. My OP actually militates against any such competition.

Gotcha, and I agree. And of course, the question on the bolded becomes, which part of the Church, as the CC canon is not exactly the same as the EO canon(s).

That’s a good point. Consider this definition of SS from the Cambridge Declaration:

"We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience.

But isn’t the definition of the canon itself something that binds the conscience?

The Cambridge Declaration goes on to say:

"The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation."

Note the boldfaced part. Was not the Holy Spirit speaking independently of the Bible when He guided the formation of the canon?

That’s interesting, but we Lutherans believe the following:

1. 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.

Note that we view scripture as the sole means by which we judge all dogmas and teachings. Who makes said dogmas and teachings? The Church. For me, specifically, my communion, uses scripture to judge dogmas and teachings.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them** in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them**, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

We pledge ourselves to these creeds!! Some might say that this is contradictory to sola scriptura. I believe it is specifically what sola scriptura teaches.

Jon