What is Sola Scriptura

[AmateurPianist]

Would this be a bad time to introduce Prima Scriptura?

How does this compare and contrast with sola scriptura?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

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

God bless

Thanks very much. At first glance I am much more comfortable with Prima Scriptura, if that is to be considered a separate entity from Sola Scriptura.

I like what it said about John Wesley and the Methodists:

Another version of the prima scriptura approach may be the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which maintains that Scripture is to be the primary authority for the Church. Nonetheless, it is best interpreted through the lenses of reason, personal experience, and Church tradition, although the Bible remains the crucial and normative authority for Christians.

I recall having read this before and thinking that John Wesley made a whole lot of sense.

But here is where I get confused again.

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.

This is the definition of Sola Scriptura that I remember having come across in my reading. And I asked myself one simple question: Of all other sources of authority for the Christian out there are there any others that I consider incapable of being incorrect?

Since I answered no to this question, I concluded that according to this definition anyway, that I did believe in Sola Scriptura. However, this is the only definition of it that I really feel comfortable with.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well first of all it is the false teaching of OSAS but I think this is a better answer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That the bible is the sole rule of faith, And it must be in the Bible.

 

[ralphinal]

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.

Alright, but how did we get the current Bible? No where in the Bible is a list of the correct books, so there had to be an authority OVER the Bible to determine the Bible.

And, there is reason to believe that oral tradition is not as changed as one might think.

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

Not really going to argue that one, because most of it is correct. I do not know enough about the Book of Concord to dispute it, though as a Catholic, my gut says it misses a point or two

 

[spockrates]

Hey, Pianist, excellent topic!



It actually touches on the deciding factor in my decision to become Catholic. I spent many years as a Protestant studying the Bible. To be fair to many Protestants, they don’t necessarily believe that the Bible alone is all that is needed to discern the truth from its pages. They have a kind of three-legged stool of the Bible, reason and revelation. Without sound thinking and divine assistance from the Holy Spirit, no one can correctly determine the truths of scripture, I was taught. In this sense, these Protestants actually do not believe Sola Scriptura. In fact, the words Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone were never mentioned by the teachers under whom I sat. They did, however, do much to cast doubt on extra-biblical writings and the traditions of other religions, such as Catholicism. These writings and traditions are contrary to the true meaning of the Bible, they said.

What convinced me that the Catholic Church is probably correct was finding out that certain important doctrines are not clearly explained in the Bible. I found that I could see both the Catholic and a Protestant view in its pages. That’s what started me on the road back to the Catholic Church.

 

[OchsFam]

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.

I want to make sure I am understanding your argument here. You are saying that Ignatius and Justin Martyr called bread the flesh of Christ? And you want to believe they felt that all bread was the flesh of Christ? You do realize that the food which they called the Eucharist is separate from just any bread. The question is how is it separate? Let us read Irenaeus’ Against Heresies which is from 191 AD:

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?

So the Eucharist is the bread that is broken as Luke likes to say. It is the bread used in the Church for the communion. It is blessed bread that becomes the Eucharist, which is the body of Christ. Ignatius believed it, Justin believed it, Irenaeus believed it, and the entirety of the Catholic Church from the beginning of time believed it and still do.

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.

It seems to me that you missing the inclusive language of the quotes in an attempt to make a point. They do not mention the specific heresy of docetism because it is not the only heresy that would prevent one from taking the Eucharist. If you read what I quoted, you see that any heterdoxy which would include both docetism and a lack of belief in the transubstantiation would be included. It is your personal interpretation that takes their inclusive language and makes is specific to a single heresy. It happens often with Church Fathers. For example, many people act as though Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, but when you actually read what he wrote, you find that nothing can be further from the truth. It is true that Ignatius and Justin would have believed docetism to be among the reasons to abstain from the Eucharist, but it is also clear they believe in the bread as the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, which can only occur if the bread becomes these things through transubstantiation.

Which?

The Council of Trent defined the following verses partially (not fully defined on every level):
(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

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

Who can establish that the deduction is good and necessary? It is not one of the two bringing forth the argument because they carry bias. There should be a judge of this who the Bible has established as being the pillar of truth. This is at the heart of the Sola Scriptura argument. The Bible does tell us what to turn to, and it isn’t the Bible.

 

[Zero_the_Hero]

I want to make sure I am understanding your argument here. You are saying that Ignatius and Justin Martyr called bread the flesh of Christ? And you want to believe they felt that all bread was the flesh of Christ? You do realize that the food which they called the Eucharist is separate from just any bread. The question is how is it separate?

There is a difference between setting the bread and wine, which it is usually for common use, apart for the Eucharist, which is an uncommon or holy use, and the doctrine of transubstantiation. By the way, none of this has to do with Sola Scriptura, since no text of Scriputre was brought up to support their views. Nor did they appeal to the unwritten traditions of the Apostles.

It is your personal interpretation that takes their inclusive language and makes is specific to a single heresy. It happens often with Church Fathers. For example, many people act as though Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, but when you actually read what he wrote, you find that nothing can be further from the truth.

So what makes the Church more realiable as to what the Word of God is, if people come up with more than one view on certain matters?

Who can establish that the deduction is good and necessary?

A good and necessary deduction is such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

It is not one of the two bringing forth the argument because they carry bias.

Logic is not biased.

There should be a judge of this who the Bible has established as being the pillar of truth. This is at the heart of the Sola Scriptura argument. The Bible does tell us what to turn to, and it isn’t the Bible.

A pillar holds up what is true. It does not determine what it going to be held up, since the craftsman does that. Sola Scriptura defines what the Word of God is, and it does not exclude the church from interpreting the Bible. The doctrine is the denial that there are unwritten traditions that we need in addition to Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a perfect word to use to describe the doctrine, since it means that the Bible alone is the Word of God. It does not mean we can only read the Bible in isolation from the Church, or that it is the source of all truth.

 

[benidict]

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.

an invention by our protestant brothers and sisters, that has no backing in history. jewish or christian. that makes it very hard to get beyond swapping bible verses with them when trying to have a debate.

 

[Nominefili]

an invention by our protestant brothers and sisters, that has no backing in history. jewish or christian. that makes it very hard to get beyond swapping bible verses with them when trying to have a debate.

What a charitable, well-informed, and comprehensive response you’ve provided!

 

[spockrates]

Hey, Pianist, excellent topic!



It actually touches on the deciding factor in my decision to become Catholic. I spent many years as a Protestant studying the Bible. To be fair to many Protestants, they don’t necessarily believe that the Bible alone is all that is needed to discern the truth from its pages. They have a kind of three-legged stool of the Bible, reason and revelation. Without sound thinking and divine assistance from the Holy Spirit, no one can correctly determine the truths of scripture, I was taught. In this sense, these Protestants actually do not believe Sola Scriptura. In fact, the words Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone were never mentioned by the teachers under whom I sat. They did, however, do much to cast doubt on extra-biblical writings and the traditions of other religions, such as Catholicism. These writings and traditions are contrary to the true meaning of the Bible, they said.

What convinced me that the Catholic Church is probably correct was finding out that certain important doctrines are not clearly explained in the Bible. I found that I could see both the Catholic and a Protestant view in its pages. That’s what started me on the road back to the Catholic Church.

BTW, I appreciate your thoughtful approach to the topic, Pianist. It’s extremely Socratic. My mentor would be proud!

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hey, Pianist, excellent topic!



It actually touches on the deciding factor in my decision to become Catholic. I spent many years as a Protestant studying the Bible. To be fair to many Protestants, they don’t necessarily believe that the Bible alone is all that is needed to discern the truth from its pages. They have a kind of three-legged stool of the Bible, reason and revelation. Without sound thinking and divine assistance from the Holy Spirit, no one can correctly determine the truths of scripture, I was taught. In this sense, these Protestants actually do not believe Sola Scriptura. In fact, the words Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone were never mentioned by the teachers under whom I sat. They did, however, do much to cast doubt on extra-biblical writings and the traditions of other religions, such as Catholicism. These writings and traditions are contrary to the true meaning of the Bible, they said.

What convinced me that the Catholic Church is probably correct was finding out that certain important doctrines are not clearly explained in the Bible. I found that I could see both the Catholic and a Protestant view in its pages. That’s what started me on the road back to the Catholic Church.

OK. It sounds to me like what you are saying is

• “Sola Scriptura” means Bible alone
• Many (most) Protestants do not actually practice/teach Bible alone
• Therefore they do not really believe Sola Scriptura

This does seem to me to be looking at the title to get your definition of the term.

The problem is that the title may or may not accurately reflect the definition.

In this case I suspect that it does not. That is why imho it is a bad title.

Even without considering the underlying definitions, I like the title Prima Scriptura better if you want a catchy Latin phrase as a title.

 

[spockrates]

OK. It sounds to me like what you are saying is

• “Sola Scriptura” means Bible alone
• Many (most) Protestants do not actually practice/teach Bible alone
• Therefore they do not really believe Sola Scriptura

This does seem to me to be looking at the title to get your definition of the term.

The problem is that the title may or may not accurately reflect the definition.

In this case I suspect that it does not. That is why imho it is a bad title.

Even without considering the underlying definitions, I like the title Prima Scriptura better if you want a catchy Latin phrase as a title.

Yes, I’d have to agree with you. Prima Scripture more accurately reflects what many (though by all means all) Protestants believe. There is a large number of Protestants who think the Bible an unreliable guide to truth, so they would not hold to Prima Scriptura at all. Baptists and Evangelicals, on the other hand, would hold such a belief.

 

[spockrates]

And I think you are going about this the correct way, by beginning with finding an adequate definition of what many Protestants believe. Socrates would be agree with your method, for he said:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

 

[pneuma07]

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.

Hi Amateur,

        nice question and nice post.   :)

Here are my :twocents:

Sola Scriptura, IMHO, is the assumption, by non-Catholic western Christians, that Divine Revelation can be soundly received provided we

approach the Bible outside the life of the Apostolic Church.

How this approach has to take place is where the diversity of definitions among Protestantisms comes up, from the most community-minded to the most individual-minded wings, as the present thread appears to be confirming.

In Christ
P7

 

[AmateurPianist]

So here is where we stand.

As suspected, I have enountered a number of definitions of Sola Scriptura even from the Protestant side. There is one that I agree with, a note on Wikipedia that defines it as a belief in the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. I agree with that because I notice that I do not hold any other possible rules of faith as being infallible.

The most accepted definition of Sola Scriptura I suspect is the one by Keith Matthison in “The Face of Sola Scriptura”. I probably am close to this definition but not exactly there.

I also observe that Catholics tend (but not universally) to define Sola Scriptura by what Matthison calls Solo Scriptura. I suspect the simplest explanation for this is the tendency to start with the title and work backwards.as opposed to starting with the definition and working forwards.

This obviously does not lead to good communications on the subject. A part of the fault though I suspect is with a bad tititle that does not summarize the belief system well.

The belief that I am most comfortable is the Wesleyan (surprise belief) that Wiki has under “Prima Scriptura”. I suspect that this belief is compatible with the work of Matthison for the most part.

Nevertheless for the sake of these forums, I will describe my belief as one of Prima Scriptura, if only because it is a more accurate title imho. I don’t particularly have a cow over Sola Scriptura, but again I am more comfortable with a Prima Scriptura title for the Wesleyan belief.

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread and I do believe I have learned a thing or two. Which is a good thing.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

[post abridged by Jim Dandy]

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.

Anna

I would be more inclined to agree with you, Anna, if all Protestants were led by the Holy Spirit to the same interpretation of the same Scriptures. The evidence is the opposite – that the Holy Spirit does NOT lead individuals to discernment in the interpretation of Scripture. Thousands of founders of Protestant denominations interpret Scripture differently, all the time believing they are being led by the Spirit, and every Protestant individually has the right of private interpretation. Every Protestant is his own final authority as to what the Scriptures mean.

God may use any passage according to his Will and Purpose, but is it His Will and Purpose to teach all these conflicting and competing doctrines?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

So here is where we stand.

As suspected, I have enountered a number of definitions of Sola Scriptura even from the Protestant side. There is one that I agree with, a note on Wikipedia that defines it as a belief in the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. I agree with that because I notice that I do not hold any other possible rules of faith as being infallible.

The most accepted definition of Sola Scriptura I suspect is the one by Keith Matthison in “The Face of Sola Scriptura”. I probably am close to this definition but not exactly there.

I also observe that Catholics tend (but not universally) to define Sola Scriptura by what Matthison calls Solo Scriptura. I suspect the simplest explanation for this is the tendency to start with the title and work backwards.as opposed to starting with the definition and working forwards.

This obviously does not lead to good communications on the subject. A part of the fault though I suspect is with a bad tititle that does not summarize the belief system well.

The belief that I am most comfortable is the Wesleyan (surprise belief) that Wiki has under “Prima Scriptura”. I suspect that this belief is compatible with the work of Matthison for the most part.

Nevertheless for the sake of these forums, I will describe my belief as one of Prima Scriptura, if only because it is a more accurate title imho. I don’t particularly have a cow over Sola Scriptura, but again I am more comfortable with a Prima Scriptura title for the Wesleyan belief.

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread and I do believe I have learned a thing or two. Which is a good thing.

Sola Scriptura is a Protestant doctrine, invented by Martin Luther, and is one of the “pillars” upon which Protestantism is based. Why would you expect to find a “common” definition of it? Any doctrine has its proponents and detractors out there in Protestantland.

Wesleyan belief is only 265 years old.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I hope I can help:

The Official, Historic Definition:

“The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (Ditto, 9).

“The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller.
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) embrace private, individual arbitration (This is called “private arbitration.”) SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis and so if often mentioned in relationship to it. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture *to a suffient degree *to be likely so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

In the next post, I’ll share some quotes just to clarify the definition.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Some quotes:

“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I hope I can help:

The Official, Historic Definition:

“The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (Ditto, 9).

“The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller.
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) embrace private, individual arbitration (This is called “private arbitration.”) SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis and so if often mentioned in relationship to it. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture *to a suffient degree *to be likely so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

In the next post, I’ll share some quotes just to clarify the definition.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Hi:
I must have missed this the first time. One question sticks out…

The Catholics here often raise the issue of the NT canon of Scripture. Although I think they overstate their argument somewhat, I also think they do have a good underlying point.

The question is “According to this definition of Sola Scriptura” what prevents me from going out and deciding for myself what my own personal New Testament will be?"

I will read this more to see if any other questions come to mind.

 

[crazzeto]

Hi:
I must have missed this the first time. One question sticks out…

The Catholics here often raise the issue of the NT canon of Scripture. Although I think they overstate their argument somewhat, I also think they do have a good underlying point.

The question is “According to this definition of Sola Scriptura” what prevents me from going out and deciding for myself what my own personal New Testament will be?"

I will read this more to see if any other questions come to mind.

Well then what would prevent you from founding a new religion based on the Quoran and calling it “Christianity”? This may seem odd and off the wall to you at first, but I would ask you to stop and think about it for just a minute in light of what you just said. You just said

“What’s to stop me from defining what my own personal new testament is”…

Well if that’s your belief system is, then why not do as I suggest?