SOLO Scriptura

[Dancelittleewok]

Try this one.

Helpfully,
Mick

Thank you, Mick! reading it now

 

[Theotician]

I once had a coworker who told me that he knew the “right” interpretation of the Bible because God gave it to him.
When I asked how he knew it was God’s voice, he said that he had checked it against what the scriptures said.
When I pointed out his circular reasoning and how illogical it was he told me “God isn’t logical.”
We then decided to discuss the “evils” of the Catholic church. He gave me a paper with references to interpretations of the Bible given by pastors he respected.
When I offered him a rebuttal, that used only scripture he told me “I’ve given you the truth, if you refuse to accept it that’s on you. Your interpretation is wrong simply because it is Catholic!”

AHHHHHH!!!

And yet I was the unreasonable one…

 

[SSTeacher]

I used to be an Evangelical Christian and a SOLO Scriptura adherent but I’m now fully convinced that the SOLO Scriptura approach is flawed. It isn’t however, all bad. I know Evangelicals that take the Bible very seriously and who wish to bless others daily with the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self–control. I commend them for it. Nevertheless, I maintain that the SOLO Scriptura doctrine – and for its adherents it is a doctrine – is entirely illogical. It’s based upon the notion that the Bible alone as interpreted by each individual believer is the sole rule of faith. The implication is that objective truth can be discerned by using a subjective method. Can it? I hardly think so.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura delivers discordant “interpretations of truth.” Moreover, the doctrine cannot adjudicate on disputes because the doctrine, by its very nature, blesses every single interpretation however contradictory those interpretations might be. This means two Evangelicals might together read their Bibles following which one Evangelical concludes one thing on a certain issue and the other Evangelical comes to understand the complete opposite on that same issue. Does at least one of those Evangelicals hold a faulty view? Yes, of course. But how can anybody say for certain which one it might be given the framework in which both have agreed to operate?

I suggest that a classic example of the unavoidable impasse is seen within the disagreement inside Evangelical Christendom over the issue of capital punishment. This is no trifling issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death. And if one acknowledges that it’s a moral issue, then one must also acknowledge there must be a right and a wrong about it, which God wishes His people to recognize, believe and then act upon. Yet Evangelicals are sharply divided on the issue. Some (the majority, I think) are passionately for it. Others are passionately against it. Both sides are certain they’re right. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their guiding authority. Both sides claim the Bible endorses their respective positions. And both sides fail to see that they are applying that claim not to the Bible but to their own disputed and unverified understanding of it. The doctrine of SOLO Scriptura makes such scenarios inevitable because it is rooted in subjectivity.

Consider the idea of evolution, which atheists suggest makes God unnecessary. One Evangelical reads the creation account in Genesis and concludes: “I’ve always understood Genesis in a literal sense. There’s nothing in here about any kind of evolution so evolution adduced as an explanation for life contradicts biblical truth.” Another Evangelical reads the creation account in Genesis and concludes: “I’ve always understood Genesis to be a theological statement and not a scientific statement. I don’t think Genesis is a treatise on geology, biology, or any other science. We’re not told when creation took place. Nor are we given details as to how God brought the earth and life into being or how long it all took. I’ve always understood this passage to depict not how God created but just that God is indeed the Creator so there’s no reason why I shouldn’t default to science and/or popular opinion and suppose that evolution is true.” Don’t these two opinions flatly contradict each other? Sure they do. Yet despite that, and despite the fact that both are built on the premise that “what I’ve always understood to be true is exactly the same thing as the truth that I have yet to discover,” the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura simultaneously endorses both of them as being objectively true.

Because the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura cannot authoritatively define truth, its proponents are forced to presuppose they already have it i.e. they invariably fall into the trap of eisegesis, which means they read into the text what they already believe. But if truth is merely presupposed then error could be true. Right? So the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura actually makes objective truth completely inaccessible because it treats truth and error as equals by shunting both into the nebulous realm of what different individuals presuppose or have always understood to be true or not true. So when one SOLO Scriptura advocate disagrees with another SOLO Scriptura advocate about a passage of Scripture they are, in effect, saying to each other, “That part of the Bible might be true for you but it’s not true for me.” Is it not ironic that Evangelicals who embrace the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura sound remarkably like the secular relativists whose logic they reject as nonsensical?

It’s clear, then, that the application of the doctrine of SOLA Scriptura means simply to build upon the presuppositions and beliefs that one already holds. But perhaps the greatest danger posed by the doctrine of SOLA Scriptura is that it encourages its followers gradually and imperceptibly to come to regard their own opinions as supreme and inerrant.

And people who think their own opinions are supreme and inerrant simply aren’t teachable.

Absolutely,
Mick

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It pains me to admit it, but for the life of me I don’t understand the new “solo” scriptura monicker versus the “sola” scriptura term I’ve read for years? What is the difference here?

I used to be an Evangelical Christian and a SOLO Scriptura adherent but I’m now fully convinced that the SOLO Scriptura approach is flawed. It isn’t however, all bad. I know Evangelicals that take the Bible very seriously and who wish to bless others daily with the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self–control. I commend them for it. Nevertheless, I maintain that the SOLO Scriptura doctrine – and for its adherents it is a doctrine – is entirely illogical. It’s based upon the notion that the Bible alone as interpreted by each individual believer is the sole rule of faith. The implication is that objective truth can be discerned by using a subjective method. Can it? I hardly think so.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura delivers discordant “interpretations of truth.” Moreover, the doctrine cannot adjudicate on disputes because the doctrine, by its very nature, blesses every single interpretation however contradictory those interpretations might be. This means two Evangelicals might together read their Bibles following which one Evangelical concludes one thing on a certain issue and the other Evangelical comes to understand the complete opposite on that same issue. Does at least one of those Evangelicals hold a faulty view? Yes, of course. But how can anybody say for certain which one it might be given the framework in which both have agreed to operate?

I suggest that a classic example of the unavoidable impasse is seen within the disagreement inside Evangelical Christendom over the issue of capital punishment. This is no trifling issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death. And if one acknowledges that it’s a moral issue, then one must also acknowledge there must be a right and a wrong about it, which God wishes His people to recognize, believe and then act upon. Yet Evangelicals are sharply divided on the issue. Some (the majority, I think) are passionately for it. Others are passionately against it. Both sides are certain they’re right. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their guiding authority. Both sides claim the Bible endorses their respective positions. And both sides fail to see that they are applying that claim not to the Bible but to their own disputed and unverified understanding of it. The doctrine of SOLO Scriptura makes such scenarios inevitable because it is rooted in subjectivity.

Consider the idea of evolution, which atheists suggest makes God unnecessary. One Evangelical reads the creation account in Genesis and concludes: “I’ve always understood Genesis in a literal sense. There’s nothing in here about any kind of evolution so evolution adduced as an explanation for life contradicts biblical truth.” Another Evangelical reads the creation account in Genesis and concludes: “I’ve always understood Genesis to be a theological statement and not a scientific statement. I don’t think Genesis is a treatise on geology, biology, or any other science. We’re not told when creation took place. Nor are we given details as to how God brought the earth and life into being or how long it all took. I’ve always understood this passage to depict not how God created but just that God is indeed the Creator so there’s no reason why I shouldn’t default to science and/or popular opinion and suppose that evolution is true.” Don’t these two opinions flatly contradict each other? Sure they do. Yet despite that, and despite the fact that both are built on the premise that “what I’ve always understood to be true is exactly the same thing as the truth that I have yet to discover,” the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura simultaneously endorses both of them as being objectively true.

Because the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura cannot authoritatively define truth, its proponents are forced to presuppose they already have it i.e. they invariably fall into the trap of eisegesis, which means they read into the text what they already believe. But if truth is merely presupposed then error could be true. Right? So the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura actually makes objective truth completely inaccessible because it treats truth and error as equals by shunting both into the nebulous realm of what different individuals presuppose or have always understood to be true or not true. So when one SOLO Scriptura advocate disagrees with another SOLO Scriptura advocate about a passage of Scripture they are, in effect, saying to each other, “That part of the Bible might be true for you but it’s not true for me.” Is it not ironic that Evangelicals who embrace the doctrine of SOLO Scriptura sound remarkably like the secular relativists whose logic they reject as nonsensical?

It’s clear, then, that the application of the doctrine of SOLA Scriptura means simply to build upon the presuppositions and beliefs that one already holds. But perhaps the greatest danger posed by the doctrine of SOLA Scriptura is that it encourages its followers gradually and imperceptibly to come to regard their own opinions as supreme and inerrant.

And people who think their own opinions are supreme and inerrant simply aren’t teachable.

Absolutely,
Mick

 

[blazerdave]

It pains me to admit it, but for the life of me I don’t understand the new “solo” scriptura monicker versus the “sola” scriptura term I’ve read for years? What is the difference here?

Haha here’s the answer: Sola means letting the Scriptures stand as the final rule of faith and practice. Tradition, theology, opinions of church leadership, and other factors are helpful, but they must conform to Scriptural boundaries. Ideas found in Tradition but outside of Scripture **can **be believed, but one cannot be required to believe them. Creeds and Councils have value, but they too must be held to a Scriptural standard. Of course, you know all this, but I share it to contrast it with…

SOLO, which is basically a “no Creed but Jesus” model. Imagine the wrestler “The Rock,” who was famous for saying “IT DOESN’T MATTER.” For the SOLO crowd, it doesn’t matter what anybody, anytime, anywhere, has ever said. All that matters is what I think about the Bible that’s in my hand. It can become ultra-literalist in places where that’s inappropriate to the genre. It can also lead to rejection of long-established practices because “I don’t see any babies getting baptized in the Bible.” Etc.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gotcha. Thanks, Dave. I’ve been hearing that and wondering what the heck? LOL…

I have known plenty of solos in my life! If it ain’t in the Bible, I’m chuckin’ it! LOL…you live in the Bible Belt so you probably hear it daily lol…

I live in California. Outside of the valley, “what’s a bible?” lol

Haha here’s the answer: Sola means letting the Scriptures stand as the final rule of faith and practice. Tradition, theology, opinions of church leadership, and other factors are helpful, but they must conform to Scriptural boundaries. Ideas found in Tradition but outside of Scripture **can **be believed, but one cannot be required to believe them. Creeds and Councils have value, but they too must be held to a Scriptural standard. Of course, you know all this, but I share it to contrast it with…

SOLO, which is basically a “no Creed but Jesus” model. Imagine the wrestler “The Rock,” who was famous for saying “IT DOESN’T MATTER.” For the SOLO crowd, it doesn’t matter what anybody, anytime, anywhere, has ever said. All that matters is what I think about the Bible that’s in my hand. It can become ultra-literalist in places where that’s inappropriate to the genre. It can also lead to rejection of long-established practices because “I don’t see any babies getting baptized in the Bible.” Etc.

 

[blazerdave]

And yes, I just compared SOLO Scriptura to the Rock. My apologies to the Great One.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I will fall back on My old standby but with s slight modification.
Mt 18:15-18 speaks of someone sinning, but it certainly applies to dicerning Truth. If you have concern about a question, seek Scripture but also seek how this question might have already been addressed within the Church. Paul certainly supports this when He says that the Church, not Scripture is the “Pillar and Bulwark”. That really is what the Catachism is. A distillation of the wisdome of 2000 years of Scripture and Tradition.

peace
James

This is an interesting topic in itself. I will start a separate thread.

 

[JRKH]

Good argument. What seems apparent in much of the dichotomy between both parties is the definition of “word” when defining the Word of God:

It would seem that many of us assume “Word of God” means “text on paper quoted”, thus we equate “the Bible” (written words) with “the Word” (spoken words). So maybe from now on we should redefine the argument between: “Christ’s Spoken Words” (avoiding the terms “Scripture” and “Bible”) and “Man’s Spoken Words” (avoiding the term “Tradition” and “Cannon”), since there are both oral traditions and written documents that shares (both) Christ’s and man’s spoken words (respectively) as they pertain to the faith.

In other words, there are traditions Christ established and then there are traditions added by man; there are words Christ spoke and then there are words added by man.

Concerning whether Christ’s (Spoken) Words are enough: this is where we’ll probably disagree. Christ’s words are (indeed) enough because the Son of God’s words have power:

• He was a teacher: He taught them with words;
• His words are called the “bread from heaven” (“give us this day our daily bread/word”);
• The earth - and mankind breath of life"] - was formed with words;
• Christ warned against the “leaven” of the Pharasees (equating their “teachings and words” to bread).

Christ’s “words” were what changed those men, as he chose them…it wasn’t his actions (because “an adulterous generation seeks after signs…”). His disciples (and thousands more) flocked to him to hear him speak his words.

“Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

Of course, I’m not concluding that the people immediately started recording the Gospels after receiving the Holy Spirit, but that the (Spoken) words of Christ - not the Bible - are (indeed) all that are needed for life, as when he said “My words are spirit and life”.

So what is the real issue that’s (maybe) incorrectly labeled as “Tradition”?? I think the real issue - as you’ve setup in your closing - is authority. Religious Authority is the problem.

Overall I agree with what you have said. After I had written and posted, I pretty well know I would be called to task for my saying that Christ’s words were not enough. That is why I highlighted the section above.
You are right. It is His words that Changed lives, and it is also True that Christ had problems with the Pharasees who came out looking for “signs”.
But consider this. If the Pharasees had followed Jesus around and listened to Him and watched, they would have seen Him perform many signs. The reference to the evil generation seeking signs is less about his willingness to heal etc, than it has to do with his unwillingness to “perform” for those who refuse to listen and believe. So the meaning is simple here. Those who follow Christ and put His teaching into practice will see “signs”. Those who seek signs before belief will be disappointed.

How many would have continued to believe in His words if he had not demonstrated the truth of His words, not just by miracles, but by His every action? Words are wonderful and they start us on our journey, but if we wish to see fruits and if we wish to draw others to Truth, then we must put words into action. That is why St James says “faith without works is dead”. We can preach until the cows come home, but without action, without living the Christian life of prayer, Love, giving, self sacrifice, etc that goes along with those words, there can be no power of Christ within us.

Peace
James