What is Sola Scriptura

[Zero_the_Hero]

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.

The problem is with the people and not the document, since disagreements among people do not invalidate a document.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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?

I would say, as a Catholic of course, that no matter how you view Sola Scriptura the final authority rests somewhere else other than the Bible. It appears (again I will wait for a Lutheran to tell me otherwise) that the article I gave has the Church as the interpreter of Scripture. However when someone takes the church out of it and has the individual deciding the interpretation of scripture than the final authority is that person. Or rather, the final authority is what that person believes the scriptures are saying.

God bless

 

[crazzeto]

I would say, as a Catholic of course, that no matter how you view Sola Scriptura the final authority rests somewhere else other than the Bible. It appears (again I will wait for a Lutheran to tell me otherwise) that the article I gave has the Church as the interpreter of Scripture. However when someone takes the church out of it and has the individual deciding the interpretation of scripture than the final authority is that person. Or rather, the final authority is what that person believes the scriptures are saying.

God bless

right, in which case wouldn’t that not be sola scriptura? As you now have something between you and the bible… Even if that something isn’t the Catholic Church.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

right, in which case wouldn’t that not be sola scriptura? As you now have something between you and the bible… Even if that something isn’t the Catholic Church.

Well in the case of Lutherans, their view of Sola Scriptura involves the scriptures being read by and within the traditions of the church, so it would fit in with what their view of sola scriptura is. Would it fit in how a Baptist views sola scriptura? Dunno

I’m not trying to defend the belief and I am sure I am butchering the Lutheran belief on it (not being lutheran and all). My point is that there are different beliefs on what sola scriptura is and how it plays out in the life of a believer.

God bless you

 

[crazzeto]

As I was just trying to understand it with in the confines of that link you posted in and of it’s self.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

As I was just trying to understand it with in the confines of that link you posted in and of it’s self.

Then yes, from my understanding of the article, having the scriptures interpreted by and within the church would fit into what this author views, and calls, the “reformation doctrine” of sola scriptura. Would it fit in with how Baptists or non-denominationals view sola scriptura. I couldn’t say. If I had to make a guess I would say no since the author of the article even admits that sola scriptura has come to mean something different today than it did during the reformation.

This author’s view (which I have been told represents the Lutheran view quite well) is that sola scriptura includes the scriptures being interpreted by and within the traditions of the church. The problem comes when sola scriptura means something else to a different believer. To some one who believes that sola scriptura means the bible is self interpreting and does not need to be interpreted by and within the church, then having the church as the interpretor would not fit in with their view of sola scriptura. But their view of sola scriptura is not the Luthern or this author’s view.

This is going to be an interesting thread. I look forward to seeing how it plays out. I also look forward to seeing how badly I have misrepresented the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura

God bless

 

[OchsFam]

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.

To your first point, Ignatius said the following in 110 AD (about 1100 years before Aquinas):

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes

Justin Martyr said the following in 151 AD:

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus*
Note that this is the real presence and transubstantiation.

To your second, quoting from the Church Fathers is only beneficial and accurate in so much as you understand what they are saying. If you read a single line and attempt to interpret what they are meaning, you are likely to come out mis-interpreting the said father. In providing exegesis from the Church Fathers, we cannot take core Christian beliefs and call them wrong because we do not agree with how they interpreted scripture unless you have a belief in a Tradition that can determine their understanding as incorrect. So the question is, where does that authority lie? Is it in the Bible? No, because both sides use the Bible to stake their claim. Is it in the person? No, because both are people and have the same credentials in this area. Does the Bible instruct us where this authority lies? Yes, and it is the Church. The Church has the authority to determine which understanding of scripture is truth and which is heresy.

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.

Let us see what the Church teaches from the CCC.

80

So what if two conclusions in opposition can be deduced from scripture? One of them is wrong, one is right. How can you find the real truth?

 

[AmateurPianist]

The problem is with the people and not the document, since disagreements among people do not invalidate a document.

I agree, that this does not disprove the claim of self-interpreting.

But still you have this
(1) A document that some claim is self-interpreting
(2) Subject matter experts concerning this document disagree as to its interpretation

So I have to ask why should I believe that any document is self interpreting when the subject matter experts concerning this document disagree as to its interpretation. At best, I would have to conclude that this claim if true, has no practical value.

 

[crazzeto]

Then yes, from my understanding of the article, having the scriptures interpreted by and within the church would fit into what this author views, and calls, the “reformation doctrine” of sola scriptura. Would it fit in with how Baptists or non-denominationals view sola scriptura. I couldn’t say. If I had to make a guess I would say no since the author of the article even admits that sola scriptura has come to mean something different today than it did during the reformation.

This author’s view (which I have been told represents the Lutheran view quite well) is that sola scriptura includes the scriptures being interpreted by and within the traditions of the church. The problem comes when sola scriptura means something else to a different believer. To some one who believes that sola scriptura means the bible is self interpreting and does not need to be interpreted by and within the church, then having the church as the interpretor would not fit in with their view of sola scriptura. But their view of sola scriptura is not the Luthern or this author’s view.

This is going to be an interesting thread. I look forward to seeing how it plays out. I also look forward to seeing how badly I have misrepresented the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura

God bless

Let me put it to you this way, I was 100% with you until I got to this paragraph:

The fundamental problem with “solo” Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while “solo” Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual’s personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism. The reformers’ appeal to “Scripture alone,” however, was never intended to mean “me alone.”

What is the Word of God?

The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”

Are you starting to see the contradiction contained with in this document that I’m looking at? It looks, to me anyway, that they’re saying on the one hand:

“NO NO NO, It just means that we only get the word of God from the bible. But the Church is ultimiatly the final authority in deciding matters of doctrinal importance”

On the other

“Yeah, but you see these other guys have the same problem the CC has. They place final authority [for interpetation] some where other than the Word of God [the bible]”

This is the essential difficulty I’m having with this document.

 

[ralphinal]

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.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

If your definition says that the Bible is the FINAL authority, then how did we get the Bible?

You are correct that if you say only the Bible is needed, it is a problem. I wonder how that is answered

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Let me put it to you this way, I was 100% with you until I got to this paragraph:

What is the Word of God?

Are you starting to see the contradiction contained with in this document that I’m looking at? It looks, to me anyway, that they’re saying on the one hand:

“NO NO NO, It just means that we only get the word of God from the bible. But the Church is ultimiatly the final authority in deciding matters of doctrinal importance”

On the other

“Yeah, but you see these other guys have the same problem the CC has. They place final authority [for interpetation] some where other than the Word of God [the bible]”

This is the essential difficulty I’m having with this document.

Yes I can see where you are coming from. The only thing I could say (since I don’t support the belief found in the article) is that this author, and Lutherans as far as I know, do not deny the authority of the church:

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.

The Bible itself simply does not teach “solo” Scriptura Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4).

I can see where this runs afoul with what the author has to say in regards to the Catholic Church. I cannot solve this apperant contradiction. Perhaps this is the downfall of this view of sola scriptura, which you and I both being Catholic, believe it must have somewhere along the lines.

Also we are 4 pages into this discussion. Could someone take the time to list the different beliefs on sola scriptura which have been presented thus far… I am too lazy to do so

God bless

 

[AmateurPianist]

Perhaps, perhaps not.

If your definition says that the Bible is the FINAL authority, then how did we get the Bible?

You are correct that if you say only the Bible is needed, it is a problem. I wonder how that is answered

Yeah, I was sort of wondering what exactly is meant by the Bible as the final authority myself.

If it means that if someone comes to me saying Jesus did not die on the cross, I can look in my Bible and read where He did. Case closed.

But how does this work on an issue like Calvinism vs. Arminianism where sincere people who love God and are subject matter experts on the Bible disagree. Do I open up my Bible and make my best shot at determining who is right and wrong in this. What if my next door neighbor does the same thing and disagrees with me?

It seems to me that the issue on the Bible as the final authority is only applicable in cases where the Bible is very clear.

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, I was sort of wondering what exactly is meant by the Bible as the final authority myself.

If it means that if someone comes to me saying Jesus did not die on the cross, I can look in my Bible and read where He did. Case closed.

But how does this work on an issue like Calvinism vs. Arminianism where sincere people who love God and are subject matter experts on the Bible disagree. Do I open up my Bible and make my best shot at determining who is right and wrong in this. What if my next door neighbor does the same thing and disagrees with me?

It seems to me that the issue on the Bible as the final authority is only applicable in cases where the Bible is very clear.

Correct. Also, what did they do before the Bible was the Bible?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Also we are 4 pages into this discussion. Could someone take the time to list the different beliefs on sola scriptura which have been presented thus far… I am too lazy to do so

God bless

Lemme give this a stab.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Could someone take the time to list the different beliefs on sola scriptura which have been presented thus far… I am too lazy to do so

Here is what I have. My best stab at accumulating relevant quotes

Catholic:

Bible is the sole rule of faith. Whatever a Christian is to believe it must be in the Bible.

Lutheran:

Scriptures are the norma normans (norming norm) of all doctrine in practice.

Lutheran:

where tradition and the Bible seem to be in opposition, the Bible gets the nod.

Keith Mathison:

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.

Wikipedia

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."

Catholic former evangelical:

“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Catholic:

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.

Reformed:

tradition is the interpretation of the Scripture by the Church fathers, so that the content of tradition in the Protestant understanding is Scripture.

Reformed

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.

If I missed any I can add.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

To your first point, Ignatius said the following in 110 AD (about 1100 years before Aquinas):

Justin Martyr said the following in 151 AD:

Note that this is the real presence and transubstantiation.

You have to import transubstatiation into the writtings of the Chruch Fathers. Ignatius and Justin called the Eucharist the flesh of Christ, but they did not say that it became the flesh of Christ.

So the question is, where does that authority lie? Is it in the Bible? No, because both sides use the Bible to stake their claim. Is it in the person? No, because both are people and have the same credentials in this area. Does the Bible instruct us where this authority lies? Yes, and it is the Church. The Church has the authority to determine which understanding of scripture is truth and which is heresy.

The same can be said about the Church. You can give me a quote from Ignatius and say that the heterodox abstain from the Eurichist because they do not believe in transubstatiation, but I can look at the letter and say they abstain because they are Docetics. The Church must look to what is God breathed for doctrine.
.

Yes the Church has defined a few verses for us.

Which?

So what if two conclusions in opposition can be deduced from scripture? One of them is wrong, one is right. How can you find the real truth?

If the deduction is good and necessary it is true, but if the deduction is fallacious, then it is rejected.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Just to work through the definition I found in Mathison. It might not be that far removed from something that I can buy into. Still these issues though.

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation;

What does this mean. I have been told that because I as a Charismatic believe that God can speak through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, that I do not believe in Sola Scriptura (note I in no way equate the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Bible…we are to judge the gifts of the Holy Spirit…we do not judge the Bible. Are words of knowledge and words of wisdom invalid because they constitute God giving revelation outside of Scripture?

it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice.

So what prevents me as a Christian from deciding the writings of Ignatius should be put into my personal canon. And oh by the way, I don’t like James, so I think I will drop it for myself. Obviously there is another norm of faith and practice that has at least some level of authority that prevents me from doing so.

It is to be interpreted in and by the church;

And what do you do when the church disagrees?

and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.

I have no idea what this means. This sounds like Christianese.

Now this does not mean that I need an interpreter of the Bible that is incapable of being incorrect. But just some questions that stick out at first glance.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Just to work through the definition I found in Mathison. It might not be that far removed from something that I can buy into. Still these issues though.

What does this mean. I have been told that because I as a Charismatic believe that God can speak through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, that I do not believe in Sola Scriptura (note I in no way equate the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Bible…we are to judge the gifts of the Holy Spirit…we do not judge the Bible. Are words of knowledge and words of wisdom invalid because they constitute God giving revelation outside of Scripture?

So what prevents me as a Christian from deciding the writings of Ignatius should be put into my personal canon. And oh by the way, I don’t like James, so I think I will drop it for myself. Obviously there is another norm of faith and practice that has at least some level of authority that prevents me from doing so.

And what do you do when the church disagrees?

I have no idea what this means. This sounds like Christianese.

Now this does not mean that I need an interpreter of the Bible that is incapable of being incorrect. But just some questions that stick out at first glance.

Would this be a bad time to introduce Prima Scriptura?

Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” sources of divine revelation.

Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

How does this compare and contrast with sola scriptura?

Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates “by the scripture alone”. The latter doctrine as understood by many Protestants—particularly Evangelicals—teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures’ meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.

However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

It’s a wikipedia sourcre; take it for what it is.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

Correct. Also, what did they do before the Bible was the Bible?

Before the Bible was the Bible, there was the apostolic era, and the ECF’s. IOW, they had the people who wrote the Bible, or their students.
But that leads to the next question, of course; if oral tradition was sufficient, why write it down at all? So, what Nom said early makes sense. As we moved away from the apostolic era, the writings - scripture - is what was left behind from those writers. Unlike oral tradition, it is unchanged through time.

This does not exclude the need for the Church and its interpretation of scripture. But the Church and her (T)tradition must at least not contradict scripture. The early councils, the creeds, and from the Lutheran view, the Book of Concord do not contradict, but in fact rightly reflect scripture.

Jon

 

[Radical]

Yeah, I was sort of wondering what exactly is meant by the Bible as the final authority myself.

It seems to me that you and others on this thread may be focusing too much on the practical aspect of SS. Let you ask you a few questions to demonstrate my meaning. Is it God’s will that you refrain from sinning? Will you be able to pull that off and not sin any more? If you answered “yes” and “no” respectively should you abandon the ideal b/c it won’t play out to perfection in the real world? Is it God’s will that local congregations be led by righteous overseers? Will the Church be able to pull that off or would an examination of overseers (past and present) prove that all too often they are drunkards, perverts and greedy for power and wealth? If you answered “yes” to the first question and acknowledged that the overseers often fall short of God’s requirements, should the church abandon the ideal b/c it won’t play out to perfection in the real world?

But how does this work on an issue like Calvinism vs. Arminianism where sincere people who love God and are subject matter experts on the Bible disagree. Do I open up my Bible and make my best shot at determining who is right and wrong in this. What if my next door neighbor does the same thing and disagrees with me?

It seems to me that the issue on the Bible as the final authority is only applicable in cases where the Bible is very clear.

Only if you assume that we are to have perfect knowledge (or a means of achieving it) on this side of eternity. In all other areas we live with less than perfection…why would we presume that we would be possessed with perfection in matters of doctrine. I note that Jesus taught and did many things which we no longer know about (John 21:25)…It would seem that we (as his followers) can’t even hold onto all that we have been provided…so why should we expect to have pefect clarity on all remaining matters of doctrine? I expect the Catholics will provide their standard proof texts in response to those questions, but ask yourself if the passages actually establish the existence of an infallible teaching magesterium.

Finally, with respect to the “sola” aspect of SS, please note that:

a) conservative protestants, orthodox and catholics all agree that the bible is without error.

b) conservative protestants, orthodox and catholics each believe that the other two have erred in matters of doctrine.

c) even though putting SS into practice may result in the emergence of many denominations, that fact does not mean that Orthodox tradition or Catholic tradition is correct (and if they are not correct then the “sola” of SS arises b/c of (a) above.