Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[commenter]

Could we have a moratorium on all references to “demonic”, whether referring to methods of Bible interpretation, historical figures, or posters on CAF? (I will grant an exception for sexualized TV sitcoms and commercials aimed at children).

My reason is not that I disbelieve in demons but because I do, and the term should not be used casually by persons who are unqualified.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you.

 

[TULIPed]

I second this motion strongly.

 

[mcq72]

“All those in favor say aye”

 

[mcq72]

Not sure what you are saying.
The passage specifically rejects sola anything.

I am saying SS is a rebuttal, a response, to the sentiments of your catechism, that were in play before reformation.

You posted 11 “paragraphs” to succintly state the CC position. I have found that much confusion on the part of some Catholics and other SS detractors could be cleared up with an equal lengthed and succint explanation of the reformers position on said topic.

As an example, you state the catechism “rejects sola anything”, as if SS rejects “coming together in some fashion” with tradition “to form one”, the exact words from part of your catechism to explain your union of the two (Writ/tradition).

I would think then the chasm between the two positions would still run deep but it would certainly shorten the distance between the two.

 

[JonNC]

You posted 11 “paragraphs” to succintly state the CC position. I have found that much confusion on the part of some Catholics and other SS detractors could be cleared up with an equal lengthed and succint explanation of the reformers position on said topic.

Here are three paragraphs that the Lutherans put together that might, at least in part, help.

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.

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.

There’s more in the “Summary, Rule and Norm”, but this covers it in a nutshell.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

 

[HopkinsReb]

goout:

Not sure what you are saying.
The passage specifically rejects sola anything.

I am saying SS is a rebuttal, a response, to the sentiments of your catechism, that were in play before reformation.

You posted 11 “paragraphs” to succintly state the CC position. I have found that much confusion on the part of some Catholics and other SS detractors could be cleared up with an equal lengthed and succint explanation of the reformers position on said topic.

As an example, you state the catechism “rejects sola anything”, as if SS rejects “coming together in some fashion” with tradition “to form one”, the exact words from part of your catechism to explain your union of the two (Writ/tradition).

I would think then the chasm between the two positions would still run deep but it would certainly shorten the distance between the two.

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Also, saying “SS means this and not that” is as silly as saying “Protestants believe this and not that.” The difference between the Lutheran and Southern Baptist understanding of SS is as gaping as the difference between Methodist and Presbyterian soteriology.

 

[lanman87]

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Also, saying “SS means this and not that” is as silly as saying “Protestants believe this and not that.” The difference between the Lutheran and Southern Baptist understanding of SS is as gaping as the difference between Methodist and Presbyterian soteriology.

I recently read a book called The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. His premise is that much of American Evangelism doesn’t practice sola scriptura but instead practices solo scriptura. Sola Scriptura doesn’t dismiss the historical creeds and early church teachings, instead if uses scripture as the means to verify church teachings (both historic and current) are indeed part of the “rule of faith” that was taught by apostles and so vigorously defended by the early church.

Solo Scriptura is the “the Bible and me” attitude that is so prevalent in American Evangelism. He says it comes largely from enlightenment thinking and Americans propensity for individualism. It makes sense if you think about it. Before the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment there were less than 20 protestant churches. Within 100 years of “freedom of religion” there were 1000’s of “protestant” churches. That is not to say the “freedom of religion” is bad. No man should be able to forcibly dictate to another person what his/her deep held religious beliefs are and indeed, you really can’t make someone believe something. But giving people unbridled freedom also means that people are free to believe anything they want and divisions will multiply.

To be fair, many of those 1000’s of protestant churches have basically the same doctrine but the differences are in church government, regional differences, and cultural differences. But many of them are also the result of people reading the Bible without any cultural or historical context and deciding that everyone else has it wrong.

Anyway, his argument is that what many profess to be sola scriptura today isn’t actually sola scriptura. And to really understand what the reformers meant by sola scriptura you need to study the reformation and what they actually taught.

 

[goout]

HopkinsReb:

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Also, saying “SS means this and not that” is as silly as saying “Protestants believe this and not that.” The difference between the Lutheran and Southern Baptist understanding of SS is as gaping as the difference between Methodist and Presbyterian soteriology.

I recently read a book called The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. His premise is that much of American Evangelism doesn’t practice sola scriptura but instead practices solo scriptura. Sola Scriptura doesn’t dismiss the historical creeds and early church teachings, instead if uses scripture as the means to verify church teachings (both historic and current) are indeed part of the “rule of faith” that was taught by apostles and so vigorously defended by the early church.

Solo Scriptura is the “the Bible and me” attitude that is so prevalent in American Evangelism. He says it comes largely from enlightenment thinking and Americans propensity for individualism. It makes sense if you think about it. Before the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment there were less than 20 protestant churches. Within 100 years of “freedom of religion” there were 1000’s of “protestant” churches. That is not to say the “freedom of religion” is bad. No man should be able to forcibly dictate to another person what his/her deep held religious beliefs are and indeed, you really can’t make someone believe something. But giving people unbridled freedom also means that people are free to believe anything they want and divisions will multiply.

The point about American individualism is spot on. American individualism is incompatible with the Communion of Saints. The COS illustrates the durability and continuity of the Church across the ages and across the boundaries of human death. And individualism pretends to go it alone, which is not possible in Christianity.

Because Christ is alive and well, we can rejoice that we are part of a living and continuous community that cannot be subject to actual ruptures despite our attempts to “de-nominzie” it.

(By the way, the COS comes together in full unity at the Mass, which is the union of all believers, heaven and earth, in the Body of Christ.)

 

[MT1926]

First let me say I totally agree with your post when you explain Sola and Solo are not the same thing. I do believe it started out as Sola and has become Solo as of late.

However, regardless of what we want to call it, I still find this point troubling.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t dismiss the historical creeds and early church teachings, instead if uses scripture as the means to verify church teachings (both historic and current) are indeed part of the “rule of faith” that was taught by apostles and so vigorously defended by the early church.

The scriptures being the means to verify church teachings to me would be a “rule of faith”. It would be a rule we would need to abide by in order to understand our faith. Well if this were true, as the reformers claim, then this “rule of faith” must be taught, in the Bible, by the Apostles and vigorously defended by the early church.

I for one don’t see either of these occurring in defense of Sola Scriptura.

I know this tends to start a big back and forth argument but in the end it comes down to the reformers saying well if you give us leeway on this one rule then everything we object to makes sense. All I ask is why should anyone be willing to give them leeway on this one “rule of faith”?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Personally I never understood how someone can claim scripture can trump tradition. The way I see it the manner in which one interprets scripture is a tradition so how can scripture trump the very thing it needs to be understood? Seems illogical to me.

God Bless

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Personally I never understood how someone can claim scripture can trump tradition. The way I see it the manner in which one interprets scripture is a tradition so how can scripture trump the very thing it needs to be understood? Seems illogical to me.

God Bless

It’s one of the reasons I’m here and looking at Catholicism. Were the Christians to whom Christ originally preached, before the Gospels and the Epistles were set down on paper, violating a fundamental premise of Christianity by not basing their beliefs on the Bible? No! And why should I think that, as soon as Revelations was put down on paper, God immediately stopped revealing divine truths to man outside of inspired writings?

 

[goout]

HopkinsReb:

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Personally I never understood how someone can claim scripture can trump tradition. The way I see it the manner in which one interprets scripture is a tradition so how can scripture trump the very thing it needs to be understood? Seems illogical to me.

God Bless

And the obvious problem is,
how did scripture trump tradition when Jesus walked the earth? There was no NT.
And in the few decades before scripture was written, and in the few centuries before a canon was exacted?

Folks, ALL OF IT rests on Tradition starting with the person of Christ, and all of it becomes one with Tradition.
It has to be one seamless garment, or you end up de-facto denying essential realities about Christ.

 

[HopkinsReb]

MT1926:

HopkinsReb:

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Personally I never understood how someone can claim scripture can trump tradition. The way I see it the manner in which one interprets scripture is a tradition so how can scripture trump the very thing it needs to be understood? Seems illogical to me.

God Bless

And the obvious problem is,
how did scripture trump tradition when Jesus walked the earth? There was no NT.
And in the few decades before scripture was written, and in the few centuries before a canon was exacted?

Folks, ALL OF IT rests on Tradition starting with the person of Christ, and all of it becomes one with Tradition.
It has to be one seamless garment, or you end up de-facto denying essential realities about Christ.

Too slow! I beat you to it.

 

[goout]

goout:

MT1926:

HopkinsReb:

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

Personally I never understood how someone can claim scripture can trump tradition. The way I see it the manner in which one interprets scripture is a tradition so how can scripture trump the very thing it needs to be understood? Seems illogical to me.

God Bless

And the obvious problem is,
how did scripture trump tradition when Jesus walked the earth? There was no NT.
And in the few decades before scripture was written, and in the few centuries before a canon was exacted?

Folks, ALL OF IT rests on Tradition starting with the person of Christ, and all of it becomes one with Tradition.
It has to be one seamless garment, or you end up de-facto denying essential realities about Christ.

Too slow! I beat you to it.

It’s ok, repetition is good.
This discussion is a good illustration of the relationship between faith and reason. The Catholic Church does not accept fideism, which is a rejection of reason in a sort of blind pursuit of articles of faith.

This idea that somehow Scripture happened outside the sweat and blood of human affairs is simply beyond reason, given what we know of history and the way things happen.
It’s akin to Joseph Smith’s book appearing out of nowhere.

 

[JonNC]

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

The meaning of the “sola” in sola scriptura means scripture alone is the final norm.
The norm that norms but is not normed.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

If “sola scriptura” – “scripture alone” – actually means “scripture and tradition together, with scripture trumping tradition in the event of conflict,” perhaps “scripture alone” is a pretty poor term for it. Perhaps “prima scriptura.”

The meaning of the “sola” in sola scriptura means scripture alone is the final norm.
The norm that norms but is not normed.

That’s one meaning of it. And to some denominations, it means that we should only do things that are explicitly called for in scripture and anything else we do is wrong.

 

[MT1926]

The meaning of the “sola” in sola scriptura means scripture alone is the final norm.
The norm that norms but is not normed.

But that is the part that makes no sense. How can scripture “ALONE” be the final norm?

If scripture is truly alone then nothing happens. In the end someone’s “tradition” has to tell us what scripture is teaching us. Therefore in the end the final “norm” is the one doing the interpreting, the tradition not the written words on the page.

 

[HopkinsReb]

And the decision of what constitutes scripture is itself a tradition.

 

[goout]

JonNC:

The meaning of the “sola” in sola scriptura means scripture alone is the final norm.
The norm that norms but is not normed.

But that is the part that makes no sense. How can scripture “ALONE” be the final norm?

If scripture is truly alone then nothing happens. In the end someone’s “tradition” has to tell us what scripture is teaching us. Therefore in the end the final “norm” is the one doing the interpreting, the tradition not the written words on the page.

Yes.
And again, try and fit this paradigm over the nascent Church, when Christ walked the earth and up to the canonization of Scripture. Scripture cannot be the “final norm”. Not possible.
What was the norm then? And is it still the norm? Or did the norm die? This kind of thinking is very problematic for Christians.