Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedBert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RedBert

Guest
The purpose of this post is to clarify what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually is.
The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I’m sure that Protestants and Catholics alike desire to accurately and fairly represent each others doctrines.

Sola Scriptura:

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church, being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
-James White​

The Wesleyan perspective (Methodist)
Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions.
The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’
For Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience.
-wiki
 
part 2

SOLO Scriptura

Sola Scriptura simply means “by Scripture alone”. It is the belief that the Scriptures are completely sufficient for everything that we need for faith, life and godliness.

Solo** Scriptura is the perversion of the historic Protestant teaching of “sola scriptura**.” **The reformers taught that the church is an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, **but not an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Solo scriptura is the belief that the church is not an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, or is only authoritative when “I agree with it

Many people today wrongly think that the Bible is the only authority for our faith and life. But this is not what the reformers taught. They taught that the Bible is the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life. The reformers never intended for people to reject the authority of the church.
Creeds and confessions are one of the ways the church exercises the keys of the kingdom and therefore we are to read the Bible in light of them. The Protestant view of the authority of the church over history is summed up in the Latin phrase, “norma normata” meaning that the church and creeds are a rule (norma) that is ruled (normata) by Scripture.

*“Solo scriptura is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a nation with a constitution but no court of law to interpret that constitution. Both can lead to chaos.” *(Keith Mathison, “A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura”).

calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

Solo Scriptura is not Sola Scriptura
 
Greetings Red Bert,

I had heard that Wesley had a respect for Tradition (don’t know if that should be a big “T” or small “t”.)

This is not surprising as he was an Anglican I have read and never wanted to seperate from the Anglican Church. I think that I have always had a respect for Wesley as a Theologian, even when I was heavily influenced by Calvinist Theology. As I have become Catholic, I obviously find myself having some things in common with a lot of what he taught that Calvinism denies (the possibility of losing one’s salvation for example.) I rspect the fact that Wesley looked to Historic Christianity to help him to correctly interpret Scripture.
 
How was sola or solo scriptura followed in the year 107 AD? Where in Scripture does it say Scripture is sufficient?
 
They taught that the Bible is the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life.
The reformers started off wrong. An inanimate object cannot be infallible. Did the Reformers believe the Bible was the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life in the year 107AD?
 
The purpose of this post is to clarify what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually is.
Will every Protestant that adheres to ss agree with this definition/clarification? If not, then it fails immediately. Because there is no central authority in all of Protestantism, there are many definitions of sola/solo scriptura; and all other doctrines for that matter.
 
How was sola or solo scriptura followed in the year 107 AD? Where in Scripture does it say Scripture is sufficient?
off topic
“The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.”
 
The reformers started off wrong. An inanimate object cannot be infallible. Did the Reformers believe the Bible was the only infallible rule and authority for faith and life in the year 107AD?
fine : if you want to parse out the word infallible vs inerrant but you are missing the point of the posting
 
Will every Protestant that adheres to ss agree with this definition/clarification? If not, then it fails immediately.
Does every Catholic agree on the definition of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I did not think that a 100% understanding or agreement by “every Protestant” decides what a doctrine means.

Is that the Catholic standard?
 
Does every Catholic agree on the definition of the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?
No. That’s not the same though. The Catholic Church teaches just one set of doctrines. Because individual Catholics disagree on Church teachings, doesn’t mean the Catholic Church teaches differently on doctrines. Another example is contraception. Close to 75% of Catholics use artificial contraception. Does that mean the Church approves artificial contraception? No. The Catholic Church is very clear and cohesive in all her teachings.
I did not think that a 100% understanding or agreement by “every Protestant” decides what a doctrine means.
That begs the question. Who decides in Protestantism?
Is that the Catholic standard?
What do you mean?
 
Sola Scriptura means whatever the person to whom I am speaking thinks it means. That is what must be used as a starting point. Otherwise the person will say that what I am saying about what they believe is in fact not what they believe, and is a straw man, and counterproductive to dialogue.

I sometimes find that annoying, since I’d like people to fit into neat little boxes on my bad days. Life would be easier in dialogue if we could know where the person was coming from without all the work of talking to them. :D:p I’m kidding, okay? But, truly, it is hard to not assume they mean what I mean by X when they use the word X. I don’t always catch myself at doing it.
 
Lampo ,
Do you really want to be the Catholic guy who refuses to accept the actual definition of a Protestant doctrine?
I even gave a Catholic .com definition.

I am sure there many times that you came across “Joe Protestant” that tried to defend a doctrine he barely understands.
But that does not change what the doctrine actually is.

Honestly : I can ask “Joe Catholic” on the street if he believes in the Immaculate Conception (or Papal Infallibly) and the chances are I will get a yes: but if I ask him what it means……
 
I did not think that a 100% understanding or agreement by “every Protestant” decides what a doctrine means.
My point is that the goal of your post is unattainable; unless you speak authoritatively for all of Protestantism.
 
Lampo ,
Do you really want to be the Catholic guy who refuses to accept the actual definition of a Protestant doctrine?
I have absolutely no problem with refusing to accept false doctrines.
I even gave a Catholic .com definition.
Which didn’t claim to be the official definition of ss.
I am sure there many times that you came across “Joe Protestant” that tried to defend a doctrine he barely understands.
But that does not change what the doctrine actually is.
“…what the doctrine actually is.” According to whom?
Honestly : I can ask “Joe Catholic” on the street if he believes in the Immaculate Conception (or Papal Infallibly) and the chances are I will get a yes: but if I ask him what it means……
Then all you have to do is go to official Church documents (i.e. the Catechism, Papal Encyclicals, etc.) and clarify the official Church teaching on [insert doctrine] to him. That’s something you cannot do in Protestantism because the lack of authority.
 
I used Wiki, I used Catholic .com.!

Do I need more references?

It’s a doctrine , it has a history , it has a meaning
Okay, okay, okay. You failed to grasp my point. The definitions you provided are no more authoritative or official than the ones supplied by the next Protestant that disagrees with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top