What is Sola Scriptura

[AmateurPianist]

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

Hi Anna:

I have come across the wiki definition of Sola Scriptura. I do not agree with this definition. For starters, a perspicuous and self-interpreting document should not yield different results from different folks sincerely trying to study and interpret the document. That is a contradiction.

Yet there are definitions of Sola Scriptura that I agree with. Once I recall reading one to the effect that “The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith”. Since I don’t have any other rules of faith that I know are incapable of being incorrect, gosh-diddly-yarn, I think I can buy into that one.

The problem with this definition though, is that many folks believe this who say they do not believe in Sola Scriptura. If I stretch this, I might make an argument that the Orthodox believe in Sola Scriptura, even though they say they do not.

So this gets me confused.

It probably is a bad title in any event, which is part of the reason this is confusing.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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.

A Lutheran would better answer this than I would but from my reading of the article the Bible is best interpreted in and by the Church. Now the next question will no doubt be, “which church?”. I guess this is where a Lutheran who holds this belief in SS would be better suited to answer.

God bless

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

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.

I would say you were born and raised understanding the doctrine of solo scriptura and not sola scriptura. The bible is not the sole source of all our beliefs, since general revelation plays a large role in our belief formation. Sola scriptura is not a response to general revelation but to the Catholic understanding of tradition, which is that there are unwritten traditions handed down by the Apostles that we need in addition to Scripture. The historical Protestant response was that tradition is the interpretation of the Scripture by the Church fathers, so that the content of tradition in the Protestant understanding is Scripture.

 

[crazzeto]

A Lutheran would better answer this than I would but from my reading of the article the Bible is best interpreted in and by the Church. Now the next question will no doubt be, “which church?”. I guess this is where a Lutheran who holds this belief in SS would be better suited to answer.

God bless

Right, my confusion is over the double use of “Final Authority”. If what you say is true, does it not follow (logically now) that then, which ever church they choose to listen too is in fact the final authority on what the Word of God says?

 

[AmateurPianist]

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 have some questions as to how this exactly works.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna:

I have come across the wiki definition of Sola Scriptura. I do not agree with this definition. For starters, a perspicuous and self-interpreting document should not yield different results from different folks sincerely trying to study and interpret the document. That is a contradiction.

Yet there are definitions of Sola Scriptura that I agree with. Once I recall reading one to the effect that “The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith”. Since I don’t have any other rules of faith that I know are incapable of being incorrect, gosh-diddly-yarn, I think I can buy into that one.

The problem with this definition though, is that many folks believe this who say they do not believe in Sola Scriptura. If I stretch this, I might make an argument that the Orthodox believe in Sola Scriptura, even though they say they do not.

So this gets me confused.

It probably is a bad title in any event, which is part of the reason this is confusing.

It’s not a bad title. People have been debating this issue for centuries.

I think, as someone pointed out earlier–it is more important for us, as Protestants, to identify our beliefs about the Bible and the role of tradition, than for us to nail down the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

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!

I’ll have to get it later, but believe it or not contracepting is in there. And the penatly perscribed was immedate death. But I don’t have the reference in front of me, it was a novel passage I found in “Bible Proofs for Catholic Proofs”, which disects the KJV for biblical proofs for the most commonly disputed catholic beliefs. There was, however, no entry for masturbation.

 

[AmateurPianist]

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!

But if I am splitting hairs, so is the author of the cited document.

It sounds that what you are describing is what the author calls “Solo Scriptura” which he apparantly is taking great pains to distinguish “Sola Scriptura” from.

How can it be splitting hairs when there are some definitions I think I agree with and other definitions I do not think I am there yet on.

 

[OchsFam]

I would say you were born and raised understanding the doctrine of solo scriptura and not sola scriptura. The bible is not the sole source of all our beliefs, since general revelation plays a large role in our belief formation. Sola scriptura is not a response to general revelation but to the Catholic understanding of tradition, which is that there are unwritten traditions handed down by the Apostles that we need in addition to Scripture. The historical Protestant response was that tradition is the interpretation of the Scripture by the Church fathers, so that the content of tradition in the Protestant understanding is Scripture.

If this be the case, how is it you come to the conclusion that the bread and wine is not the literal body and blood of Christ since every Church Father believed in the real presence? I am not want to hijack the thread, but I believe you are stating something that is ultimately untrue. Most protestants do not look into the Church Fathers for understanding scripture. They look into the protestant church fathers and believe them.

You are also misrepresenting Catholic teaching as we believe that the Apostolic Tradition is the Tradition of the Fathers and the correct and only acceptable interpretation of scripture. They are written throughout history and so the Catholic Church is in a unique position to be tested by 2000 years of history and when accurately understood, passes the test. The New Testament is a collection of know Apostolic letters that conform to the Tradition of the Fathers. It is the same Tradition that the Catholic Church professes that gave us the Bible we have today, each book was tested against it. We do not need Traditions in addition to scripture because they are one in the same Word of God. We need them to even begin to truly understand scripture. Reading scripture without Tradition is like doing math without numbers. You just won’t get meaningful results.

The question I ask is this. If you believe the Church Fathers to have some authority in interpreting scripture, and these Church Father’s letters are not in the Bible, can you profess Sola Scriptura? This is the basis of the definition. If Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) comes to be defined as Bible and Church Fathers, Sola Scriptura is not an accurate word usage as it literally means scripture alone and implies the Holy Bible alone.

God Bless.

 

[ralphinal]

To me, no matter what definition you use, it begs the Question: Where does the Bible tell us what should be in the Bible?

If the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith, the Bible should tell us what should be in the Bible.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

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.

The Bible is self-interpeting, but my understanding of the Bible is not the Bible itself. You can have disagreements over what the Bible means, but that does not mean that all views are valid or that we cannot know what the passage means. The interpretation must be judged whether it is true to Scriputre or no.

 

[OchsFam]

The Bible is self-interpeting…

So when it says “this is my body”, it is self interpreted as “figuratively speaking”?

 

[crazzeto]

The Bible is self-interpeting, but my understanding of the Bible is not the Bible itself. You can have disagreements over what the Bible means, but that does not mean that all views are valid or that we cannot know what the passage means. The interpretation must be judged whether it is true to Scriputre or no.

Really?

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.

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.

It would seem the bible, disagree’s

 

[Nominefili]

So when it says “this is my body”, it is self interpreted as “figuratively speaking”?

No. It is plainly speaking about the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Particularly given the text from John 6:55-59

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

I know you were trying to jab at all protestants, but it is important to remember that not all non-Catholics deny the real presence.

 

[OchsFam]

No. It is plainly speaking about the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Particularly given the text from John 6:55-59

I understand, but it is one of the most debated topics.

I know you were trying to jab at all protestants, but it is important to remember that not all non-Catholics deny the real presence.

It was not a jab at all protestants, it is a jab at the concept of self-interpretation since the vast majority of protestants do not come to the same conclusion you do.

God Bless.

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

If this is Sola Scriptura in practice, then no protestant who is in submission to a local church practices Sola Scriptura.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It’s not a bad title. People have been debating this issue for centuries.

I think, as someone pointed out earlier–it is more important for us, as Protestants, to identify our beliefs about the Bible and the role of tradition, than for us to nail down the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Anna

A bad title is one that does not accurately describe its subject but instead leads to misunderstanding and mischaracterization of its subject. Based on this thread so far, it seems that we have all of this.

Interesting point on tradition. Like Sola Scriptura, I do not know what tradition is. But that is a separate issue.

 

[AmateurPianist]

To me, no matter what definition you use, it begs the Question: Where does the Bible tell us what should be in the Bible?

If the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith, the Bible should tell us what should be in the Bible.

This is only a problem if your definition of Sola Scriptura includes the point about the Bible being the sole rule of faith. If it does, then I agree you have a problem, which is why I don’t believe in the “sole rule of faith” part. But if it does not, then it is not an issue.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The Bible is self-interpeting

But this is what I don’t understand.

I don’t understand how any self-interpreting document can yield different interpretations between folks who (1) all love God, (2) all have studied the subject matter (including advanced college degrees) for a long period of time.

I can’t see how any document can be self interpreting if the subject matter experts on said document can not agree upon what the self interpretation of said document is. If it is self-interpreting, this has no practical value.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

If this be the case, how is it you come to the conclusion that the bread and wine is not the literal body and blood of Christ since every Church Father believed in the real presence? I am not want to hijack the thread, but I believe you are stating something that is ultimately untrue. Most protestants do not look into the Church Fathers for understanding scripture. They look into the protestant church fathers and believe them.

You are conflating real presence with transubstantiation, which requires Aristotelian categories, and did not come into the church until Thomas Aquinas. The main source of interpretation of scripture during the Reformation was the Church Fathers. Calvin quoted frequently from the Chruch Fathers in his Institutes. Today, though, the term tradition in the Protestant understanding is the historical exegesis of the text, since there is a great gulf between us and the Fathers in terms of time.

You are also misrepresenting Catholic teaching as we believe that the Apostolic Tradition is the Tradition of the Fathers and the correct and only acceptable interpretation of scripture. They are written throughout history and so the Catholic Church is in a unique position to be tested by 2000 years of history and when accurately understood, passes the test. The New Testament is a collection of know Apostolic letters that conform to the Tradition of the Fathers. It is the same Tradition that the Catholic Church professes that gave us the Bible we have today, each book was tested against it. We do not need Traditions in addition to scripture because they are one in the same Word of God. We need them to even begin to truly understand scripture. Reading scripture without Tradition is like doing math without numbers. You just won’t get meaningful results.

So are you saying that the content of Tradition and Scripture is one and the same? Do not Catholics believe that the Word of God consists of two parts: Tradition and Scripture? Also the Magisterium had never pronounced an official interpretation of any particular Scripture. Correct me if I am wrong.

The question I ask is this. If you believe the Church Fathers to have some authority in interpreting scripture, and these Church Father’s letters are not in the Bible, can you profess Sola Scriptura? This is the basis of the definition. If Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) comes to be defined as Bible and Church Fathers, Sola Scriptura is not an accurate word usage as it literally means scripture alone and implies the Holy Bible alone.

Yes, because the letters of the Fathers are not Scripture, that which is God breathed, but rather it is the interpretation of Scripture. If you deduce true conclusions from Scripture, then the deductions are Scriputre, so that any interpretation that is faithful to Scripture is its meaning but not Scripture itself. If a particular Father taught a doctrine that was not based in Scriputre, it is to be rejected.