Is there actually a “correct” understanding of
Sola Scriptura?
So what’s
your understanding of the Reformation doctrine of
Sola Scriptura?
Philippians 2:3 is an apposite verse with which to conclude this post:
Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves.
QUOTE]
Hi SSTeacher !
Hoping it’s not too late to join, here are my :twocents:
Q1) I don’t know. In order to assess the correctness of a specific Sola Scriptura understanding rather than the other ones, there should be a shared criterion to judge such a correctness within the Sola Scriptura camp, and I ignore how that could be settled.
Q2)
Sorry this is going to be longer.
Here is how I tried to figure out what the common kernel among Sola Scriptura definitions appears to be.
I wonder whether the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture” is considered by protestant posters as an essential part of the doctrine of SS. Well, after all, Scripture should be understood to get what we need from it. But what is exactly considered as “perspicuity” ?
Recently i have followed more or less this line of thought about this puzzling issue.
I started asking myself:
"Why had the Catholic Church, in a protestant view, not been understanding that Bible which she would deliver to the reformers - which in a protestant view is perspicuous - for more than a millennium ?
I supposed this could have something to do with the origin of the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
My exploration came up like this:
STEP 1 Let’s say in XVI (or VI for that matter ) century western Europe I come to believe and propound a doctrine, or a whole doctrinary vision, which is at odds with catholic teaching.
STEP 2. I maintain and preach that my doctrine is rooted in Scripture ( and possibly has some alleged precedents in the fathers). This is quite necessary IMHO to my position, in order to be able to answer the obvious question: “How do you know, and, more specifically, how do you know better than the Church ?”
STEP 3 I then necessarily conclude that you can understand Scripture outside the CONtext of the living Tradition of the Church and of her teaching. This amounts to the fact that, at this point, I have become a champion of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
STEP 4 Now I start teaching that you have to approach Scripture outside and against the Catholic Church, thus beginning to set a new CONtext, albeit just a negative one.
Let’s note that this further step is again necessary IMHO, if I want people to come to share my doctrine of which in STEP 1.
STEP 5 A new positive CONtext to properly read or hear Scripture is proposed by myself or by my successors.
It is so in STEP 3 that I propose the “perspicuity of Scripture”, by preaching that it is so clear that it does not need the CONtext of the living Tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
In STEP 4, nevertheless, I do put a first constraint of mine, which, let’s repeat, is necessary from my point of view in order to get it right in STEP 1, which is the origin of the whole matter.
Thus, STEP 4 is somehow common to any body which comes directly or indirectly from the Reformation.
We can consider it a common kernel of the prescriptions on the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
STEP 5, on the contrary, which is the positive part of the “new CONtext” is where the variety of definitions and prescriptions come up.
With a range from the most “individualistic-minded” wing to the most “corporate-minded” one.
On the “corporate-minded” part of the range of the “perspicuities of Scripture”, we have a new CONtext which is essentially constituted by the traditions and teachings peculiar to a particular religious body, son or grandson of the Reformation. Paying of course due lip service to the individual reading and to a self-declaration of fallibility by the authorities within that body.
In other words this version says something like:
"
Scripture is so perspicuous that you can, ( indeed you have to) understand it outside the CONtext of the catholic tradition and teaching ( "“Sacred Tradition and Magisterium”, as roman catholics would say). . That is by no means to be caricatured so as to say that we believe Scripture is so perspicuous that you can properly understand it without the CONtext …of the teaching of our own religious body
( community). "
The “individualistic-minded” wing would instead say something like:
“
Listen to no earthly teacher. Trust no man. Just read Scripture cover to cover, listening to the Holy Spirit, and anything essential will be clear”
To which, considerations as the following ones can be replied:
- This is the illusion of “a-contextuality” ( minding: "no formal explanation = no CONtext ). But how can an a-contextual reading exist ? ( not to say that I would trust an earthly teaching by accepting the above mentioned invitation to read by myself cover to cover )
- Do I really really enjoy a heavenly guide and, above all, listen to it the right way ?
How can I know that, and therefore whether I did get sound interpretations, particularly in view of the different and stubborn conclusions by other brothers of mine, who claim precisely the same method and to listen to the same divine assistance ? Shall I say that “they are unable to listen to the Holy Spirit”, or “they are far from sharing my maturity” ( note here the inclusion, quite frequent, of the concept of maturity), or something even worse ?
But, if I cannot know whether my interpretations are precisely those happening to be right, where is perspicuity ?
So, in a sense, I got an answer to my initial question, and therefore Question2 in the OP…
”
The Catholic Church had not understood a perspicuous Scripture for over a millennium before Reformation, because the doctrine of perspicuity, in its common kernel, and therefore Sola Scriptura states precisely… (implicitly) that Scripture has to be approached outside the Catholic Church.”
The puzzling fact remains, that it is a substantially different thing
saying that I (just I) am able to rebuild the whole of Christianity ( what matters in it, anyway) by a simple (“cover to cover” ?) reading of the sacred text, and saying this is more or less a caricature, and that I need after all the ministry of the XY denomination, producing tons of sermons and commentaries.( mind yourself, just the XY, not the YZ, whose ministries could lead you a little astray ). It appears then, there are at least two “perspicuities” ( or, better, two principles of perspicuity) out there, producing any sort of mix between them.
Best wishes.
