What is Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmateurPianist

Guest
You see I dunno whether I believe in it or not.

So I thought I would step back and ask exactly what it is.

I am curious if there is one definition of this everybody can agree to. Then I can tell you whether I believe in Sola Scriptura or not.

If not, I wonder if there are some definitions anyway that I can agree to.

So fire away and tell me what you think it is.
 
That the bible is the sole rule of faith, which contains various aspects. Obviously first and foremost, it states pretty clearly that whatever a Christian is to believe, it must be found in the bible. If it’s not in the bible, then it must not be true.

Then we get to the issue of what is in the bible, which is where things seem very muddy. Private Judgement is a very big part of this belief system. That everyone should read the bible them selves, and make up their own mind. To answer questions about “how is the continuity of the faith going to be maintained”, it was suggested that the holy spirit would just come to anyone reading the bible (or maybe they pray for it), and the holy spirit would revel everything you needed to know about the bible.

This ends up being a misinterpetation of scripture, when Jesus is telling the Apostles that the Spirit will come upon them and remind them of all truth (i.e. he was saying dont’ worry about writing this all down just yet). The result is that out side of the Orthodox Christian world (I include the Catholic Church + all Orthodox Churches) there is a distinct lack of continutity about what is in the bible (and in many cases what isn’t).

Just my opinion, I am a Catholic though.
 
Sola = alone
Scriptura = the Bible

Sola Scriptura is Latin for the prevalent Protestant belief that all one needs to know the truth about the Bible is the Bible itself, and divine assistance from God.

The Catholic response: The Bible itself is not clear enough to be its own interpreter. One needs the help of the tradition and teaching of the Church to understand the correct interpretation of important biblical passages.

👍
 
What it means is that the Scriptures are the norma normans (norming norm) of all doctrine in practice. In other words, in a dispute, we will go to the Scriptures rather than to the Pope for the answer. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Good. Just what I expected. Three responses, three different answers. I don’t understand the second answer though, perhaps it was not worded correctly.

Is “sole rule of faith” a part of the accepted definition of Sola Scriptura, or is that a Catholic misunderstanding of it? If it is a part of the accepted definition of Sola Scriptura, I can see problems with it right off the bat.

Is “private judgment” a part of this definition?

I don’t understand the “norma normans” answer totally. What if in a dispute you go to the Bible and either (1) the Bible is genuinely ambiguous concerning the subject in dispute or (2) there is genuine disagreement on what the Bible is saying concerning the subject in dispute?
 
Good. Just what I expected. Three responses, three different answers. I don’t understand the second answer though, perhaps it was not worded correctly.

Is “sole rule of faith” a part of the accepted definition of Sola Scriptura, or is that a Catholic misunderstanding of it? If it is a part of the accepted definition of Sola Scriptura, I can see problems with it right off the bat.

Is “private judgment” a part of this definition?

I don’t understand the “norma normans” answer totally. What if in a dispute you go to the Bible and either (1) the Bible is genuinely ambiguous concerning the subject in dispute or (2) there is genuine disagreement on what the Bible is saying concerning the subject in dispute?
All of this, is probably why the bible says:
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=8&l=31&f=s#x
And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31 Who said:** And how can I, unless some man shew me**? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
As well as
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=68&ch=3&l=16&f=s#x
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
And finally
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is** the church **of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
This is all that much more important, when one considers the fact that there have been numerous copy and translation (as well as malitious re-writes of) the bible over the years. Here’s a seemingling inoquous one.

Protestants think “For thine is the kingdome, the power and the glory” is the ending of the Lords prayer. Problem:

The Lord never uttered these words. It’s just a doxology which was added by Christians in the centeries since Christ’s death. The reason why Proestants (or many of them) think this, is because at one point a scribe added the doxology to Matthew as a note, in the margines. A later scribe got confused, and added it as a part of Gospel text. So today, no Orthodox Christian thinks this is a part of the prayer. We Catholics still say it in mass, but we understand it’s a doxology, not a part of the prayer. Where as many Protestants think it’s every bit a part of the prayer as “Our Father, who art in heaven…”
 
What it means is that the Scriptures are the norma normans (norming norm) of all doctrine in practice. In other words, in a dispute, we will go to the Scriptures rather than to the Pope for the answer. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well put. The Catholic interpretation is that we have no traditions of any kind. Not quite so. What we do is say where tradition and the Bible seem to be in opposition, the Bible gets the nod.
 
This is all that much more important, when one considers the fact that there have been numerous copy and translation (as well as malitious re-writes of) the bible over the years. Here’s a seemingling inoquous one.

Protestants think “For thine is the kingdome, the power and the glory” is the ending of the Lords prayer. Problem:

The Lord never uttered these words. It’s just a doxology which was added by Christians in the centeries since Christ’s death. The reason why Proestants (or many of them) think this, is because at one point a scribe added the doxology to Matthew as a note, in the margines. A later scribe got confused, and added it as a part of Gospel text. So today, no Orthodox Christian thinks this is a part of the prayer. We Catholics still say it in mass, but we understand it’s a doxology, not a part of the prayer. Where as many Protestants think it’s every bit a part of the prayer as “Our Father, who art in heaven…”
Hi.

All of this is nice. But what I am trying to determine is this.

(1) If there is a common agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura between Catholics and Protestants. So that at least when you debate this in your Sola Scriptura thread du-jour, you are debating the same thing. Now I suspect there is not a common agreed upon definition, which makes all of the Sola Scriptura threads here useless.

(2) But is there a common agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura at least amongst Protestants. If so, then it seems that Catholics then misunderstand what Protestants believe and some education is in order. And also I can determine if I believe it or not. Now I suspect there is not a common definition even amongst Protestants, but I may be wrong here.

(3) If there is no common definition of Sola Scriptura, then I don’t know what my choices are. I could find a definition that I agree with and call it Sola Scriptura. I could determine that this is a useless title and abandon it. Or something else that I come up with, I dunno.
 
Well put. The Catholic interpretation is that we have no traditions of any kind. Not quite so. What we do is say where tradition and the Bible seem to be in opposition, the Bible gets the nod.
Yes it does seem that at least one Catholic believes Sola Scriptura to be “The Bible as the Sole Rule of Faith”.

It also seems that you are denying that this is the definition.

It would seem to me that the “Sole Rule of Faith” definition is problematic since I have a rule of faith that the book of Hebrews is canonical while the epistles of Ignatius are not. That rule of faith is not found in the Bible.
 
Hi.

All of this is nice. But what I am trying to determine is this.

(1) If there is a common agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura between Catholics and Protestants. So that at least when you debate this in your Sola Scriptura thread du-jour, you are debating the same thing. Now I suspect there is not a common agreed upon definition, which makes all of the Sola Scriptura threads here useless.
No I don’t believe there is. I have seen SS represented here as something I would consider Solo Scriptura and or Prima Scriptura. Like I said in my post above, I usually let the individual who believes it tell me what it means to them before I comment.
(2) But is there a common agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura at least amongst Protestants.
From my experience? No I don’t believe there is.
If so, then it seems that Catholics then misunderstand what Protestants believe and some education is in order.
That is possible. I myself have never been Protestant and therefore have never practiced the distinct Protestant beliefs which makes it possible for misunderstanding. This is why I like this forum.
And also I can determine if I believe it or not. Now I suspect there is not a common definition even amongst Protestants, but I may be wrong here.
I agree with your suspicion. What does SS mean to you?

God bless
 
(1) If there is a common agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura between Catholics and Protestants. So that at least when you debate this in your Sola Scriptura thread du-jour, you are debating the same thing. Now I suspect there is not a common agreed upon definition, which makes all of the Sola Scriptura threads here useless.
I admire your hope in this quest for knowledge. The problem is not between Catholics and protestants, it is among protestants. The two protestant responses you have so far are Lutheran. If you were to get a Baptist response, it might be different. The fact is Sola Scriptura literally means scripture alone. The core of the belief is that it is scripture alone that provides the teachings of faith and moral. Some believe tradition can help temper that understanding, but that is not actually Sola Scriptura, that is a hybrid system that is actually much closer to Catholic theology. The problem with the hybrid system is that it doesn’t go back as far in tradition as the Catholic Church. When a protestant says they use tradition that agrees with the Bible and the Bible decides, it is still subject to interpretation and often disagrees with tradition before protestants were around. Most obviously, it disagrees with the Church of the first century in some of the most important theological truths and understandings of scripture.
(2) But is there a common agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura at least amongst Protestants. If so, then it seems that Catholics then misunderstand what Protestants believe and some education is in order. And also I can determine if I believe it or not. Now I suspect there is not a common definition even amongst Protestants, but I may be wrong here.
The answer is no. You will not get a common answer among protestants. The term Sola Scirptura is a protestant concept that was created by protestants for protestants and again means scripture alone, literally. The words were chosen when they thought tradition corrupted the understanding of the Bible. Since this time, some denominations look to sources outside of the Bible for understanding scripture like a confession of faith or teachings of a protestant leader. Now you are into the hybrid system, not the original concept of Sola Scritura because you are relying on someone teaching you how to interpret the Bible which means you are no longer in scripture alone. The truth is that some protestants still believe it is scripture alone and self interpretation, while some agree that others can help us understand scripture and fall more into a hybrid understanding of the Catholic faith. They simply look to a different source than the Church before the Bible or the Catholic Church we have today.
(3) If there is no common definition of Sola Scriptura, then I don’t know what my choices are. I could find a definition that I agree with and call it Sola Scriptura. I could determine that this is a useless title and abandon it. Or something else that I come up with, I dunno.
Why do you have to agree with Sola Scriptura? It isn’t Biblical and isn’t a good option when you look at the Church throughout history. The only thing that has come from Sola Scriptura is division. No definition that could fit into Sola Scriptura is worth following.

God Bless.
 
Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. I have found it good practice to ask the individual Protestant what they mean by Sola Scriptura before I discuss it with them. This article was given to me by a Lutheran brother which changed my view on how Lutherns look at SS:

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

God bless
Hi.

That is a very good practice to use the understanding of Sola Scriptura of the person who claims to believe it.

I do understand that Keith Mathison wrote an influential book on the topic. Perhaps maybe not all who claim they believe in SS will use his understanding of it, but many will.

I do not have the book, but I have read pieces of his writings. I will read this article closely and see if I have any stupid questions about it.
 
Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. I have found it good practice to ask the individual Protestant what they mean by Sola Scriptura before I discuss it with them. This article was given to me by a Lutheran brother which changed my view on how Lutherns look at SS:

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

God bless
Thank you for your charitable position. Indeed, there are degrees within the non-Catholic denominations. I have heard of ‘Bible Churches’ that do no liturgy, have no icons or crosses in their church, and they will not do anything inside of worship or in the life of the church which is not explicitly permitted in scripture. This is an extreme example, but it does demonstrate that not all who claim the doctrine of sola scriptura mean the same thing by it.
 
I admire your hope in this quest for knowledge. The problem is not between Catholics and protestants, it is among protestants. The two protestant responses you have so far are Lutheran. If you were to get a Baptist response, it might be different. The fact is Sola Scriptura literally means scripture alone. The core of the belief is that it is scripture alone that provides the teachings of faith and moral. Some believe tradition can help temper that understanding, but that is not actually Sola Scriptura, that is a hybrid system that is actually much closer to Catholic theology. The problem with the hybrid system is that it doesn’t go back as far in tradition as the Catholic Church. When a protestant says they use tradition that agrees with the Bible and the Bible decides, it is still subject to interpretation and often disagrees with tradition before protestants were around. Most obviously, it disagrees with the Church of the first century in some of the most important theological truths and understandings of scripture.
It seems to me that you are starting from the title “Sola Scriptura” and working backwards. And immediately we are running into a conflict. You are saying that the “hybrid position” is not Sola Scriptura. The article that has been referenced here, which is by a prominent reformed author, is claiming that the hybrid position is “Sola Scriptura” and what you are claiming is Sola Scriptura is actually what he calls Solo Scriptura.

It has occurred to me that maybe the title “Sola Scriptura” is a bad title for the underlying belief. But it seems to me that what really is important is what the underlying belief is, not what the title is.
The answer is no. You will not get a common answer among protestants. The term Sola Scirptura is a protestant concept that was created by protestants for protestants and again means scripture alone, literally. The words were chosen when they thought tradition corrupted the understanding of the Bible. Since this time, some denominations look to sources outside of the Bible for understanding scripture like a confession of faith or teachings of a protestant leader. **Now you are into the hybrid system, not the original concept of Sola Scritura because you are relying on someone teaching you how to interpret the Bible which means you are no longer in scripture alone. ** The truth is that some protestants still believe it is scripture alone and self interpretation, while some agree that others can help us understand scripture and fall more into a hybrid understanding of the Catholic faith. They simply look to a different source than the Church before the Bible or the Catholic Church we have today.
Bold part mine. The referenced article specifically says what you are saying is Sola Scriptura is what he calls Solo Scriptura. So we have a misunderstanding.
Why do you have to agree with Sola Scriptura? It isn’t Biblical and isn’t a good option when you look at the Church throughout history. The only thing that has come from Sola Scriptura is division. No definition that could fit into Sola Scriptura is worth following.

God Bless.
Well I don’t know whether I do yet. When I read this article, I think I have some quibbles, some other parts I don’t know what he means, and some other parts that I am not sure how it works. But I do think I believe something close. But I don’t know whether close counts.
 
Hi.

That is a very good practice to use the understanding of Sola Scriptura of the person who claims to believe it.
AmateurPianist:

Good to run into you on the forums again.

You have asked a question that on the surface would seem to be very simple. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 “Solas” of the Protestant Reformation:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)​

2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)​

3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)​

4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”)​

5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)​

Wikipedia definition: “Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.”

However, Protestants do not agree on the definition of Sola Scriptura. Some Protestants do acknowledge that Christian “tradition” plays a role in interpretation of Scripture. For example, the Trinity Doctrine is not fully defined in Scripture. It is only through Christian tradition/early church fathers that we are able to fully understand the Trinity.

Some Protestants hold an extreme view of Sola Scripture that has led to Solo Scriptura, which excludes all Christian tradition and commentary.

I do not accept Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura, even though I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector. I do not think we should abandon Christian tradition and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF). I think many Protestants traded the tradition of the ECF for the tradition found in the writings of the Protestant Reformers.

However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit provides discernment in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, even to the individual. I believe the Word of God is “living and active,” and that God may use any passage of Holy Scripture according to his Will and Purpose.

Hope this helps, 🙂

Anna
 
Sola Scriptura means different things to different people. I have found it good practice to ask the individual Protestant what they mean by Sola Scriptura before I discuss it with them. This article was given to me by a Lutheran brother which changed my view on how Lutherns look at SS:

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

God bless
At first, while I disagreed the write up seemed pretty reasnoble. Where he lost me is in his discussion of where the final authority lay. On the one had they want it to be the Word of God, which at the outset they define as being the bible, and the bible only. But on the other hand, they also reject private judgment. The problem I see, is that the book can’t interpet it’s self, so who does the interpeting. And would the final authority, of what the Word of God is, not in fact be… The final authority. This is what we Catholics (and the bible) say.

But in that write up, there seems to be this effort, to some how rediect back to the bible being the final authority. Or perhaps I completely misunderstood something.
 
I was raised in the Conference Baptist denomination, an evangelical Protestant denomination. For my first 47 years, I was also involved as a member in the following evangelical denominations: Christian church, Southern Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, and Evangelical Free Church in America. For two years, I was a member of a non-evangelical Protestant denomination, the Reformed Church in America (RCA); this Calvinistic denomination is what is called “mainline” among Protestants.

In all of these churches, including the RCA, I lived sola Scriptura on a daily basis. It was the entire basis of my entire life and that of all my fellow church members and friends.

To those Christians in the evangelical churches and to a certain extent, the RCA, sola Scriptura means “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Or, another simple way to put it is, “It’s in there!” meaning that everything we need to know for life here and hereafter is in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

Back when I was in 5th grade, my Senior pastor, H.L. Christenson, the husband of the great evangelical writer and prayer warrior, Evelyn Christenson, presented the class with a Bible (KJV), and included the following message pasted into the front of the Bible: "My dear young friend, You have been given the most precious earthly gift that your Church can give. Within these pages in recorded earth’s greatest message, “that you may know him.” Not only that you may know Christ as your personal savior, but there is also recorded here a plan for living that will bring you happiness and blessing throughout your entire life. Remember that this book is “the power of God unto salvation,” and “a lamp unto your feet and a light unto your path.”

We believed that everything we needed to know was in the Bible. That’s what sola Scriptura is.

Here is an excerpt from the Statement of Faith of Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) International (a member of the church I grew up in, Steve Douglass, is the President of this organization):

The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God’s infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

I think the OP is splitting hairs in trying to arrive at The Definitive Definition of sola Scriptura. The name says it all–Scripture alone. That’s what I grew up with. All of the different variations of this definition from the different Protestant denominations and parachurch organizations like CCC basically say the same thing–that Holy Scripture is the SOLE authority for the Christian.

This is what the OP has to decide whether he/she believes or not. The variations in the definition do not matter two hoots or even one hoot and to continue to argue that because there are variations in definition, a person cannot make a decision about the teaching, is rather silly and childish. Those of us who were born and raised in sola Scriptura know exactly what this teaching means–sole authority of the Scriptures, not man or church. The OP has to decide whether the Bible is the supreme and final authority in all matters in which it speaks."

BTW–just an off topic side note–this is one reason why most evangelical Protestant denominations do not consider masturbation or artifical contraception sinful–it doesn’t say so in the Bible. It is not really even implied. If it’s not in there, it’s a freebie!
 
It seems to me that you are starting from the title “Sola Scriptura” and working backwards. And immediately we are running into a conflict. You are saying that the “hybrid position” is not Sola Scriptura. The article that has been referenced here, which is by a prominent reformed author, is claiming that the hybrid position is “Sola Scriptura” and what you are claiming is Sola Scriptura is actually what he calls Solo Scriptura.
It is my understanding that any Sola Scriptura believer reads the Bible and comes a conclusion about the “traditions” that their faith believes. In the event there is a conflict, the believer is typically allowed to leave the church and find one that does not conflict with their interpretation. This obviously assumes that the believer feels strongly enough about their interpretation as to not be open to discussion. This is the case for most protestant and Catholic disagreements. Using this understanding, the concept of Solo Scriptura stands as the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura where the hybrid “Sola Scriptura” is just an attempt to hide the underlying reality that only scripture dictates their belief and no other source can result in understanding. I understand that they can have items outside of scripture that assist in understanding, but in reality, it has no authority. It can be accurate one day, and not accurate the next. They can conclude one belief and then later move to the opposite, previously heretical view, overnight. While this may not be the norm, what it says is that their interpretation of scripture is the only rule of faith. That is Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone by their authority.

What you have is an attempt to cover over facts of practice. The profession is Sola Scriptura but practice Solo Scriptura and so they must justify this somehow. They say that articles outside of the Bible can be used, but only until they are found inadequate. A good example of this is contraception. Sola Scriptura before the 1930’s showed contraception to be a sin, then after 1930, it became acceptable by Sola Scriptura. The point is, Sola Scriptura is in fact what I described it as, but is professed to be the hybrid system.

In the end, Sola Scriptura is a belief that the Bible alone suffices to teach on faith and morals and that the personal interpretation of the Bible can override any document outside of the Bible. I am not trying to create an argument, but I think it is important when defining the term Sola Scriptura to define it by practice, not preaching. I know there are protestants who might say that if they disagree with the confession of faith, they are wrong, but they are few and far between. So what we need to focus on is that in truth, Sola Scriptura means that there is no authority outside of the Bible, even if there are aids.

God Bless.
 
BTW–just an off topic side note–this is one reason why most evangelical Protestant denominations do not consider masturbation or artifical contraception sinful–it doesn’t say so in the Bible. It is not really even implied. If it’s not in there, it’s a freebie!
Only if it is beneficial and against Catholic teaching. If it is Catholic and seems to not be in there, it must be a sin to comply.

Also, masturbation and contraception is covered in the Onan account and he was struck dead for it.

God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top