The Rules of Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ferdgoodfellow

Guest
Let’s assume that we are trying to test the great body of Christian teachings and determine whether or not they should be binding on the believer. We don’t have a lot of time or resources, so we want to write a computer program that will accept or reject any given belief as dogma. And we want to use the classical understanding of SS as the Rule of Faith (ROF). IOW, we won’t be working with the more modern and simplistic models of SS.

What are the rules? Maybe we can begin with the Westminster Confession of Faith to ID the basic elements and then get more refined.

Cordially,

Ferd
 
I don’t intned that this get real argumentative unless we are in disagreement over what the rules should be.
 
40.png
ferdgoodfellow:
Let’s assume that we are trying to test the great body of Christian teachings and determine whether or not they should be binding on the believer. We don’t have a lot of time or resources, so we want to write a computer program that will accept or reject any given belief as dogma. And we want to use the classical understanding of SS as the Rule of Faith (ROF). IOW, we won’t be working with the more modern and simplistic models of SS.

What are the rules? Maybe we can begin with the Westminster Confession of Faith to ID the basic elements and then get more refined.

Cordially,

Ferd
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. Are we using SS as the Rule or the Westminster Confession as the Rule? On what basis/authority does the Westminster Confession get elevated to a standard?
 
I can perhaps name some of the rules followed by Evangelicals.
  1. The citation must always harmonize with it’s context.
  2. Wooden literalism is out of bounds: God is not a ‘cosmic chicken’ becaue a passage refers to His ‘wings’, nor is Christ made of wood because He described Himself as a ‘door’. An intepretation is taken ‘literally’ in the sense that it is understood in the plainest reasonable fashion, allowing for the style of writing. An interpretation should be derived with simplicity from the text without being simple-minded.
  3. The style of literature must be taken into account: allowances must be made for poetic, hyperbolic, apocalyptic styles of speaking or writing.
  4. One must not allegorize what is clearly intended to be historical:neither Genesis, nor Job, nor Jonah can be treated as ‘inspired fiction’ These books describe real people and real historical events which happened pretty-much as described.
  5. One cannot ‘pschologize’ the texts of the various books of the Bible, as if the visions of John or of Isaiah can be understood merely in terms of pychological syndromes. The primary Author of each book must ever be presumed to be God via His Holy Spirit.
  6. One must, likewise, use extreme reserve in attempting to explain a passage in terms of it’s culture or sociology. The text must always be presumed to involve human authors but to transcend such human elements.
  7. The New Testament take precedence over and interprets the Old Testament.
  8. Novel or unique interpretations require substantially greater reservations and consideration before being widely accepted.
I doubt this is comprehensive or even well-worded but is it something along the lines of what you were seeking? If so, this will allow others to chime in and correct or enlarge upon what I’ve tendered thus far.
 
The Westminster Confession is way to long for me to read and study. Can you narrow it down for us simple folks?

flameburns…
You have hit my pet peeve button. I don’t mean to be critical, I’m sure you have crafted these points well. But you are just like many other people who put so many conditions on intrepreting the Bible that a simple person cannot simply sit down and read the Bible and understand Jesus (although you are actually pretty reasonable). I have to apply a “context,context,context” to everything that Jesus says. I must analyze the cultural, historical, entomprackal and doghictal settings of every sentence in the Bible. I have to compare it with 8 other similar passages. I really should know Greek and Latin to get the real meanings anyway. Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Jesus said exactly what he meant and said exactly what he said… except for “you must hate you father and mother”, Jesus was wrong about that, but that was the only thing he was wrong about.
 
40.png
flameburns623:
I can perhaps name some of the rules followed by Evangelicals.
  1. The New Testament take precedence over and interprets the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying you’re wrong, just looking for a clarification

I’ve heard folks (on both sides of the Catholic/non-Catholic fence) bring this up. Can you explain it to me? I agree the New Testament interprets the old, but how does it take precedence? I might just be misunderstanding what you wrote…

Thanks!
 
40.png
chrisg93:
The Westminster Confession is way to long for me to read and study. Can you narrow it down for us simple folks?
Click to expand...
It’s actually an interesting work that tries to lay a “catechism” of sorts for Protestants. To the best of my knowledge from what I’ve seen in my friends, only Calvinists (someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) stick to it today. It’s actually not terribly long if you don’t read all the “scripture proofs.” I don’t agree with everything in it, but some stuff is pretty good theological material (especially on grace and man’s condition outside of God)

It’s not a bad work overall, but I have to say I didn’t appreciate the part which claimed the Pope was the AntiChrist!
 
Hey Joe,

Well, it’s place to start. And, coming out of the classical Reformed tradition, it is more nuanced and defensible than the Radical and more modern formulations which not reject any kind of tradition but also Creeds, Canons, and everything else (when they say “alone,” they really mean alone!)

Thanks Brain for posting the link.
Here are some of the parts I was looking at:

2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:
[66 books listed here]
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
 
  1. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
  2. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
  3. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
  4. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
  5. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
 
40.png
ferdgoodfellow:
We don’t have a lot of time or resources, so we want to write a computer program that will accept or reject any given belief as dogma.
Click to expand...
The program would have to have artificial intelligence, for it would require human judgment, human intellect and the like just to make the rules and interpret the rules.

There’s a reason we have human judges in courtrooms rather than a computer. Interpretation of laws requires a human being.

Interpretation of the Bible requires human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit. I have yet to see a computer being guided by the Holy Spirit 🙂
 
Hey Flame,

That’s exactly the kind of detail we need, but I wasn’t quite ready to get that specific. You can continue on in that vein, but I will first try and highlight what I see as the essential elements of the WCF. Then we can derive the specific rules.
  1. The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.
    a.Because they are inspired by God they are infallible.
    b.Because they are inspired by God they are divinely authoritative.
  2. Revelation is closed.
  3. Scripture is therefore the only infallible authority and source of that Revelation.
    a. All other authorities, while possibly useful, are to be regarded as fallible.
    b. The Scriptures are therefore the ultimate authority and final “court of appeal” when it comes to judging the truth of any teaching or practice.
    c. Scripture itself is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture.
    i. Use the more clear parts to understand the obscure.
  4. The Scriptures are comprised of the enumerated 66 books only.
    a. The Apocrypha are not Scripture.
  5. The Scriptures, together with the inward witness of the Holy Spirit, are sufficient in that they contain all we need to know to attain salvation.
  6. The Scriptures are sufficiently clear so that all we need to know for attaining salvation is accessible.
    a. That is to say, the essentials are sufficiently clear and explicit or deducible from Scripture.
Anybody see anything else?

Flame, I see that we will have to make connections between the specific rules and the general principles. Maybe we should try and organize the rules topically under these headings:

Divinely Inspired
Infallible
Sufficient
Perspicuity
etc.

Thanks for your help all!

Cordially,

ferd
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
The program would have to have artificial intelligence, for it would require human judgment, human intellect and the like just to make the rules and interpret the rules.

There’s a reason we have human judges in courtrooms rather than a computer. Interpretation of laws requires a human being.

Interpretation of the Bible requires human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit. I have yet to see a computer being guided by the Holy Spirit 🙂
Click to expand...
Mornin’ Bob,

Yer right, of course. For the purposes of this thought experiment we will suppose that we have a mighty AI engine and large scale information retrieval ability. For computing power I also imagine we have a huge cluster of connected computers (a veritable compute farm) with teraflop speed.

I don’t know how we will program in the HS. Will have to think about that one.

Corcially,

Ferd
 
I heff anodder tot:

One thing I’ve noticed about the classical doctrine of SS is that its necessary companion is sola fide. IOW, it don’t work without it. SF really functions as a presupposition and a lens through which Scripture is interpreted. Basic Rule: don’t contradict SF!
 
Hey Chris,

"I must analyze the cultural, historical, entomprackal and doghictal settings of every sentence in the Bible. "

Huh?

Clean up your language, boy, or we gonna report you to Karl!

Dorcially

ferd
 
ferd,

LOL

That’s my way of resisting the implication that I have to have a thesaerus, KosineGreek/English dictionary and a 2’ thick commentary when I read the Bible. Mark my words, this debate will end up arguing the meaning of Greek words, it never fails and it’s never productive.

From a simpleton’s point of view, your 1 -6 highlights are wrong. I was hoping especially you would also catch my 'Jesus was wrong" comment. The Bible is the infallible word of God but it does have errors, St Augustine admits to faulty manuscripts (You must hate your father and mother), translation errors and so forth. That’s why you need the Catholic Church interpretation.

From a Catholic point of view the “Pope is the anti-Christ” idea really puts a damper on things. If you really believe that, why are you even talking to Catholics? If you really believe that, you will never accept a Catholic position on any theology.

Good luck with the never ending and frustrating debate over the Greek words.
 
As a Reformed Presbyterian, I would say that Ferd’s understanding of the 1646 WCF (there are 2 later versions of the WCF) on the chapter on Holy Scripture is accurate, and the choice of the WCF is very wise as it is the most comprehensible confessional standard in the Reformed branch of Protestant Christianity. We RP’s regard the WCF (the 1646 version) as the best Presbyterian Reformed (British Isles) confession. There are at least 2 other versions of the WCF in later times, but the 1646 WCF has all of the Reformed doctrines with nothing taken out, which is what happened in the later versions.

A Summary of the WCF:
God’s Revelation: Nature in the general sense and Scripture in the specific sense
Sola Scriptura
the Trinity
the Purpose of Christ
Effectual (aka “Limited”) Atonement
God’s Covenant (Covenant of Works, then Covenant of Grace)
Mankind and his fall into sin
Total Depravity of man
Unconditional Election/Predestination
God’s Irresistable Grace in salvation
Justification (includes Sola Fide)
Sanctification
Works
Last Days
The Church
The Civil Magistrate
The Sacraments (Lord’s Supper and Baptism)
Synods and Councils
Oaths and Vows

From Chapter 31 (Of Synods and Councils), I would add the following rules:

Synods and Councils along with tradition is useful to settle controversies or questions and to aid in Scirpture interpretation, but they are subject to the condition of Ferd’s rule 3a.

I would revise rule 2 to read:

“Revelation is ordinarily closed.”

Zski01 commented:

"It’s actually an interesting work that tries to lay a “catechism” of sorts for Protestants. To the best of my knowledge from what I’ve seen in my friends, only Calvinists (someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) stick to it today. It’s actually not terribly long if you don’t read all the “scripture proofs.” I don’t agree with everything in it, but some stuff is pretty good theological material (especially on grace and man’s condition outside of God)

It’s not a bad work overall, but I have to say I didn’t appreciate the part which claimed the Pope was the AntiChrist!"

For those who are not familiar with Reformed Protestants and the Presbyterian Reformed Standards: 😉
I don’t think any Catholic would appreciate that part concerning antiChrist. Nor the section where the Civil Magistrate (the State) can and should suppress any heresy against Reformed Protestantism.

Regarding laying a “catechism” for Protestants, that is only part of the picture. The main purpose of the WCF is to define the core of Presbyterian Reformed theology, to fulfill the obligations of the National Covenant and Solemn League & Covenant, and to combat heresy. The WCF is useful as a catechetical document; however, we have the Shorter and Larger Catechisms as the main sources of catechesis and as additional Standards. The WCF is essentially the Reformed Presbyterian Articles of Faith. The WCF is only used by Presbyterian Reformed (Reformed = “Calvinist”) Protestants, not by the entire body of Protestants. Continental Reformed Protestants have the Belgic Confession, Lutheran Protestants have the Augsburg Confession, the Anglican Protestants have the 39 Articles, the United Methodist have their Book of Discipline, etc. Most of the (ana)Baptist Protestants outright deny confessional standards with their “No Creed but the Bible” war cry.

Whit
 
“Reformed” is only a branch of Protestantism’s tree and only describes the Calvinist churches that Calvin and Knox helped plant. Of that Reformed branch, it splits into 2 more smaller branches: the Continental Reformeds of mainland Europe (especially Holland and Geneva) and Presbyterian Reformeds of the British Isles (especially Scotland). Only the Presbyterian Reformeds uses the WCF. The rest of the Protestants do not.

Chris commented:

“From a Catholic point of view the “Pope is the anti-Christ” idea really puts a damper on things. If you really believe that, why are you even talking to Catholics? If you really believe that, you will never accept a Catholic position on any theology.”

It does seem to put damper on things as you said. However, in accordance with SS, the standard by which Protestants judge a Catholic position is Scripture, not who the antiChrist is. (A number of Protestants especially of the Preterist eschatological camp deny that the Pope is the antiChrist.) We Protestants believe that there are some Catholic positions that are agreeable to Scripture such as the Trinity, Christ as fully man and fully God, &c. as the WCF in subsequent chapters and Scripture citations show. If Protestants believe a Catholic position is agreeable with Scripture, we will accept that theological position regardless if the Pope is antiChrist or not. If disagreeable with Scripture, Protestants will reject it. Hence, there are some Catholic positions we do accept regarding theology.

Whit
 
Hey Chris!

"LOL

That’s my way of resisting the implication that I have to have a thesaerus, KosineGreek/English dictionary and a 2’ thick commentary when I read the Bible. Mark my words, this debate will end up arguing the meaning of Greek words, it never fails and it’s never productive."

Well, let’s resist the temptation to go down that path, then. At this stage in our development, I just want to ID general principles and then make explicit the rules of SS. Maybe in ten years or so we can get into the Greek. I am especially innerested in the derivation of the rules. Exactly where do they come from?

“From a simpleton’s point of view, your 1 -6 highlights are wrong.”

Wrong from a Catholic POV or from the Reformed? Keep in mind, at this point I am trying to accurately unnerstand what the WCF teaches about SS.

“From a Catholic point of view the “Pope is the anti-Christ” idea really puts a damper on things.”

Keeping in mind my limited purposes for using the WCF, let’s ignore that part.

“If you really believe that, why are you even talking to Catholics? If you really believe that, you will never accept a Catholic position on any theology.”

I don’t. I hem a Catlick, after all. If I knew where I could get some JPII pajamas, I’d buy them.

Cordially,

ferd from Norddakotah
 
Welcome Whit!

You’re just what we need, a genuine Reformt kind of guy to keep us on the right track.

Here’s a problem I see at this point. The conception of SS that I think is the most workable is one which acknowledges that the Church and Tradition have authority, albeit authority subordinated to Scripture. Where do we find that artickelated in the WCF? And how does this subordination work in practice? Is there somewhere else within Protestandom where we get a clearer unnerstanding of this?

Thanks for your help.

Cordially,

ferd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top