What is Sola Scriptura

[pneuma07]

No. Sola Scriptura does NOT teach that all divine revelation is found in the pages of Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything; it’s not a teaching, it’s a practice.

…

Of course, a denomination (including The Catholic Church) can’t “remember” anything, it doesn’t have a brain - only PEOPLE can remember. But, obviously, the only ones who possibly could remember would have been dead by the end of the first century (assuming they were 5 at the Ascension and died at 65 years of age). …
We cannot know if this is NOT true but we have zero reason to accept that it is true. And if this senario is true, the Mormonism becomes as credible as any other position. But we are WAY off topic.

No. Sola Scriptura doesn’t preclude or conclude ANYTHING. No, Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all revelation is found in Scripture. Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach anything. Sola Scriptura doesn’t conclude anything. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions. The Catholic Church rejects this.

If there are multiple rules/canon/norma normans, then none of them would be “alone.” The LDS Church, for example… Sola Scriptura embraces the words of Scripture - knowable, unalterable - as the canon. Thus, it is “alone” as the canon.

Dear Josiah,

let me answer both posts here.

         Let’s see.

Sola Scriptura does not exclude, include or teach anything. It is just a praxis. I guess every poster and lurker has by now gotten these points.

Another point you make quite clear is that you’re somehow disturbed by the possible existence of a living interpreter serving as superior informant
about Revelation. We need Scripture as neutral third party above any interpreter of Scripture, all of them being equally accountable to Scripture.

Now we have another piece of the puzzle: you state as quite obvious that there exists no collective memory. Hence any memory on Jesus’ message, aka on the fullness of the divine self-revelation to mankind, is lost. But for some books, later to be compiled into a collection and regarded as Scripture .
Then you do believe that, if we speak about special Revelation, or the fullness of it, Jesus aka the Word ( as distinct from a general revelation coming from the creation), we happen to have nothing else than the written words of the NT. Anything else is lost.

So. Are memories only individual ? My humble opinion is that there are collective memories as well. Families, peoples do have their memories.
You do not live by your own memory only, you live within collective memories as well. You and I are social beings, living within an environment, receiving what is delivered by the groups. The Church is a people ( the people of God we’d say ).
I cannot follow on believing the people of God has no living memory whatsoever of the fullness of Revelation.

I cannot follow in believing that Paul ( and his collegues ) would utterly fail in delivering the deposit of the faith to Timothy ( and Titus and their collegues ), in a living paradosis.

This has much to do with our issue. You reject the idea of a living superior interpreter, because you postulate that, following the aforementioned amnesy of the Church, she you and I have the very same access to the fullness of Revelation. Hence the Church is ludicrous in proposing herself as superior interpreter. Hence we are all in principle
Judges of same degree, and above, as judge of higher level, we have Scripture and Scripture only.

Your premise on the amnesy of the people of God IMHO is wrong, and I pointed above to some reasons why I give this humble opinion. .

If, OTOH, for argument’s sake, we should consider it right, let’s look into consequences.

Let’s suppose the written text we deal with is the following one:

Paula did not say that Steve stole the jam.

This text, although significantly less articulate than Scripture, reflects a message.
Let’s build the original message.

Interpreter 1) It means it was Mary, not Paula, to say that Steve stole the jam

Interpreter 2) It means that Paula just implied that Steve stole the jam.

Interpreter 3) It means that Paula said it was Mark that stole the jam

Interpreter 4) It means that Paula said that Steve just moved the jam.

Interpreter 5) It means that Paula said that Steve stole the butter, not the jam.

…

How do you decide which is the message reflected by the text , in a zero-memory situation ?

IMHO opinion your zero-memory scenario is far away from being Christ-centric. The earthly life of the Incarnated Logos outside His Passion and Resurrection becomes something like a secondary part of the show. The foreground being given to enscripturation, as the central event of the self-Revelation by God.

Above all, that scenario puts IMHO Christianity into an epistemologic mess. We simply would not have any trustable way to get the message reflected by the NT, ie Jesus’ message.
Did the divine design deliver us a message, whose knowledge we must preserve and develop, or just a text reflecting a not attainable message ?

Even if you multiply the examples of bodies claiming to be the guardian of Revelation, that is not impressive indeed, if they simply claim to extract the message just from the text.

That is a plausible candidate to be considered for this essential job, who can possess a living memory, which is a CONtext allowing to extract the message, or parts of it, from the text.

In Christ
P7

 

[AmericanJosiah]

you make quite clear is that you’re somehow disturbed by the possible existence of a living interpreter serving as superior informant
about Revelation. We need Scripture as neutral third party above any interpreter of Scripture, all of them being equally accountable to Scripture.

I’ve not “disturbed” by the issue of interpretation. I just think it’s a rule violation of this website to hijack a thread. The issue here is Sola Scriptura, not hermeneutics. Sola Scriptura is a praxis for norming, it’s not a principle of hermeneutics.

Actually, the opposition to self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter that I’ve found at this website has all been by CATHOLICS. I find that odd since I wonder if they’ve ever asked what The Catholic Church designates as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture?

Yes, I do think that self appointing self as the sole arbiter of whether self is correct, and then self appointing the Tradition of self as interpreted by self PLUS the Scripture in the heart of self as interpreted by self PLUS the magisterium of self and the decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of self as - inseparately together - the rule/canon for this arbitration is less sound than using Scripture as we evaluate positions. But that’s another thread.

you state as quite obvious that there exists no collective memory. Hence any memory on Jesus’ message, aka on the fullness of the divine self-revelation to mankind, is lost. But for some books, later to be compiled into a collection and regarded as Scripture .

Could you quote me where I state, “There exists no collective memory of what Jesus said but God kept out of His Scripture to us.” Where did I say that? It’s moot to this thread, but I don’t think ANYONE can rule out - as least as theoretical - that Jesus said that He loved fish tacos. He MIGHT have. It’s just we have nothing that so indicates. The Mormons quote Jesus saying all kinds of things, but that “memory” seems unconfirmed by anything outside that denomination.

Now, I get the point. But let’s say that Jesus DID say that He loves fish tacos. Okay. And He told someone (we don’t know who). And that person told someone (we don’t know who). And that person told someone (we don’t know who). And… Finally, someone (we don’t know who) told The Catholic Church. Or The LDS Church. Or (fill in the blank with whatever you want). Only one denomination or teacher says Jesus taught this, and there’s a considerable gap (perhaps centuries) of SILENCE between Jesus and that still unknown someone who so informed the (fill in the blank with whatever) that tidbit. Wouldn’t have tend to suggest that this isn’t a “memory” at all? I had a great grandmother and great grandfather (I think that’s the relationship) in Denmark who hid a Jewish family in their basement all during the second world war. We actually have a photo of all of them together - and the story that goes with it. My mom has that picture. But in each generation, there is the proclaimation of the memory - known to many (many years ago, a local newspaper ran a story about the whole thing, I’ve seen and read that newspaper article, too). There’s something in Denmark, too - a newspaper article there, although Danish relatives have that. Memories work like that. They don’t disappear for centuries and then, BAMM - out of thin air, something big is suddenly “remembered.” The dogmas that divide us (The Infallibility of the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, for example) are not things taught in every generation from 30 AD on. There’s no record of that at all. And I think you know that.

But we are WAY off topic.

This has much to do with our issue. You reject the idea of a living superior interpreter,

No, I just agree with the Catholics here at self appointing self as the sole, authoritative, infallible/unaccountable interpreter is no indication that self is thus correct.

And this thread has nothing to do with interpretation. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics at all. It is about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans for the process of norming.

Above all, that scenario puts IMHO Christianity into an epistemologic mess. We simply would not have any trustable way to get the message reflected by the NT, ie Jesus’ message.
Did the divine design deliver us a message, whose knowledge we must preserve and develop, or just a text reflecting a not attainable message ?

I’d like you to consider Mormonism or any one of a number of cults. In each case, self appoints self as the sole arbiter for whether self is correct, and self appoints self as the sole authority, and self insists that there is MUCH Jesus said and taught not recorded in Scripture. Each rejects Sola Scriptura simply because each rejects accountability to ANYTHING outside of itself - it’s own “memory,” it’s own interpretations, it’s own leadership, it’s own arbitrations. Few insist that self is infallible in matters of faith and morals - but the bottom line is hte same since each rejects accountability and each insists on a rule that is NOT objective, written Scripture as accepted beyond self. IMHO, “choas” is created when self (no matter how big or old self may be) simply circumvents norming - insisting instead that self is infallible/unaccountable, insisting that self is the sole authority, self is the sole arbiter, self is the sole interpreter, and self has all this “memory” with NOTHING outside of self to substantiate that. We disagree, I know, but I see the “choas” on THAT side - even though it means little debate WITHIN the denomination (it is likely that self will determine that self agrees with self).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve not “disturbed” by the issue of interpretation. I just think it’s a rule violation of this website to hijack a thread. The issue here is Sola Scriptura, not hermeneutics. Sola Scriptura is a praxis for norming, it’s not a principle of hermeneutics.

AmericanJosiah:

Anything you don’t want to answer is declared by you to be either off topic/hijacking the Thread, or moot. You repeatedly speak of “hermeneutics.” You repeatedly make reference to the “Canon.” Yet, when we ask you questions about these things, suddenly we are at risk of “hijacking” this Thread.

So, now, discussing the issue of interpretation is “hijacking” this Thread? We are discussing “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone.) Interpretation is at the heart of this issue: Individual interpretation of Scripture vs. the individual submitting to the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

AmateurPianist is the OP on this Thread. If he tells me I am off topic, I will respectfully abide by his wishes for this Thread.

Your words about a collective memory:

Of course, a denomination (including The Catholic Church) can’t “remember” anything, it doesn’t have a brain - only PEOPLE can remember.

But, obviously, the only ones who possibly could remember would have been dead by the end of the first century (assuming they were 5 at the Ascension and died at 65 years of age).

Now, I don’t doubt that Jesus DID say other words than those recorded by God in His Holy Scripture. But it’s a LONG, LONG series of unsubstantiated leaps to assume that He taught multiple dogmas entirely unrecorded by God and that some unknown someone told this to some unknown someone who told it to someone who told it to someone who told it to someone… and finally this was told to The Catholic Church that perhaps centuries later decided to tell the church.

We cannot know if this is NOT true but we have zero reason to accept that it is true. And if this senario is true, the Mormonism becomes as credible as any other position. But we are WAY off topic.

Yes, you are way off topic.

You have worked Mormonism into so many of your posts. Are you trying to debate the credibility of Mormonism? Is there some underlying agenda, here?

Now, I get the point. But let’s say that Jesus DID say that He loves fish tacos. . .

Or The LDS Church. Or (fill in the blank with whatever you want). Only one denomination or teacher says Jesus taught this, and there’s a considerable gap (perhaps centuries) of SILENCE between Jesus and that still unknown someone who so informed the (fill in the blank with whatever) that tidbit.

Wouldn’t have tend to suggest that this isn’t a “memory” at all?

Your answers would appear more credible if you would discuss issues that are actually related to Christianity, instead of “fish tacos.”

And this thread has nothing to do with interpretation. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics at all. It is about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans for the process of norming.

You brought up “hermeneutics.”

Again…Sola Scriptura does have to do with “interpretation,” and whether or not the individual may interpret privately or submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. Sola Scrptura was born in the Protestant Reformation. So, I see Sola Scriptura as primarily an issue between Catholics and Protestants.

I’d like you to consider Mormonism or any one of a number of cults. In each case, self appoints self as the sole arbiter for whether self is correct, and self appoints self as the sole authority, and self insists that there is MUCH Jesus said and taught not recorded in Scripture.

Each rejects Sola Scriptura simply because each rejects accountability to ANYTHING outside of itself - it’s own “memory,” it’s own interpretations, it’s own leadership, it’s own arbitrations. Few insist that self is infallible in matters of faith and morals - but the bottom line is hte same since each rejects accountability and each insists on a rule that is NOT objective, written Scripture as accepted beyond self.

I can see how Mormonism would be an example of “private revelation” taken to an extreme. If you are giving examples of the dangers of private revelation or private interpretation; why are you arguing in favor of Sola Scriptura? It seems like you are discrediting Sola Scriptura. Please clarify.

Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You repeatedly speak of “hermeneutics.”

… in response to issues about that, and then to note such has nothing to do with the thread. I think it’s a rule violation here to hijack a thread; we need to stay on topic. And the topic is this: What is Sola Scriptura? Not: who or what is the interpreter of Scripture. Not: who or what wrote Scriptures. Not: is it good for self to designate self as the sole interpreter. Not: Who or what embraced Scripture as such.

You repeatedly make reference to the “Canon.” Yet, when we ask you questions about these things, suddenly we are at risk of “hijacking” this Thread.

Yes. In Sola Scriptura, Scripture is embraced as the canon/rule/norma normans. I have defined these terms, used several illustrations - all so you would know what is meant by “canon.” Since it is critical to understanding the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

So, now, discussing the issue of interpretation is “hijacking” this Thread? We are discussing “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone.) Interpretation is at the heart of this issue: Individual interpretation of Scripture vs. the individual submitting to the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Let’s try again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It is a praxis of NORMING. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics, liturgy, hymns, foods or any other issue. It concerns one and only one issue: WHAT is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. That’s it. That’s all.

Again…Sola Scriptura does have to do with “interpretation,” and whether or not the individual may interpret privately or submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Again, it has nothing to do with it. Let’s try again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It is a praxis of NORMING. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics, liturgy, hymns, foods, pets or any other issue. It concerns one and only one issue: WHAT is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. That’s it. That’s all.

IF you have a “problem” with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, then what does The Catholic Church designate as the sole authoritative interpreter (hint: Read your Catechism # 85)? But your problem with self appointing self as the sole interpreter is hermeneutics and has nothign to do with this thread.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Anna Scott:

Sola Scriptura as primarily an issue between Catholics and Protestants.

Well, one. We don’t agree on WHAT is to serve as the rule/canon/norma normans as we discuss what separates us and as positions are evaluated (including our own). The Catholic Church regards the whole issue as largely moot since it alone declares it alone to be “infallible” in matters of faith and morals - thus the issue of norming is moot. All are simply to accept with docility whatever it says (CCC 87, etc.). Self simply declares (for self exclusively): “I’m right so therefore I’m right so when I say I’m right I must be right.” Now, it does have a canon/rule/norma normans. But it rejects anything above/beyond/outside of itself. What it permits is “the three legged stool” of 1) Tradition of self as chosen, defined and interpreted by self; 2) The Scriptures in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself; 3) The Magisterium of self as chosen by self and the views, rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations of itself: these three equally and inseparately as “one stream” - one authority, one norm, one rule, one canon. Appointing self as the sole arbiter for whether these things norm The Catholic Church.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Anna Scott:

I can see how Mormonism would be an example of “private revelation” taken to an extreme. If you are giving examples of the dangers of private revelation or private interpretation. Please clarify.

IF your issue is the “dangers of private interpretation” then what does The Catholic Church designate as the only interpreter? (Hint: Catholic Catechism # 85). And IF you have an issue with self proclaiming that Jesus taught dogmas known through oral tradition known (somehow) to it but the Holy Spirit kept them out of Scripture, then what does The Catholic Church insist about this?

The point was made that ARBITRATION according to the Rule of Scripture may not be simple or always lead all to exactly the same conclusion - and thus “discredited” as you put it. I simply pointed out to consider the alternative. Consider cults such as the LDS and a number of others. They all reject Sola Scriptura (and often accountability in general - often simply designating self as the ‘mouth of God’, requiring docilic acceptance, consider Catholic Catechism # 87). They tend to appoint self as the Authority. They tend to designate self as the sole interpreter. They tend to hold that Jesus taught all sorts of things not really recorded in the Bible but somehow, they just “know” what that was. And they tend to embrace a norma normans NOT of Scripture (at least as appears in black words on the page) but of its views, its interpretations and its leadership. Now, I just asked: Does that rubric and does that norma normans lead to LESS choas and more unity than Sola Scriptura? IMHO, no. MY only point was: I think that self designating self as the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter - infallible and accountable - actually has been shown in history to lead to MORE choas, MORE unique ideas, MORE problems than Sola Scriptura.

I admit that my good (and strong) Calvinist friend and I disagree on a couple of things (none of them dogma). We can be passionate in our discussions because we BOTH accept that BOTH of us are accountable (no one is claiming for self exclusively that self is infallible/unaccountable - and thus exempt from norming). And we argue Scripture because we BOTH hold that positions must be normed by that. But, my good (and strong) Mormon friend and I disagree on FAR, FAR, FAR more. Why? Because the LDS regards ONE as unaccountable (itself exclusively), ONE as the sole authority (itself), ONE as the sole interpreter of Scripture (itself) - and that not the Scripture in any book but in the “soul” of ONE (itself), and the only rule/canon/norma normans it permits is 1) The positions of one (itself) which it regards as Prophetic and Apostolic Teachings - this includes some written materials which are Scriptures in itself, but it’s FAR broader that that); 2) The Bible in the ‘soul’ of one (itself) as interpreted by one (itself) so as to agree with #1 (the views of itself); 3) the Leadership of itself - the Council of Twelve, etc., and the official decisions, rulings, views of that leadership whom God has established and whom God’ keeps from error. My good LDS friend and I can’t get anywhere in our discussions and we cannot even begin to evaluate those positions because we don’t share the same norma normans. It’s the same problem I have when speaking with Catholics. When two parties disagree, or even if a position of one is evaluated at all (whether in theology or any other discipline), there needs to be a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all the parties - and the more objective (written is wonderful!), the more knowable, the more unalterable, the more it is historically and ecumenically embraced, the more it is regarded as reliable - the better, the more sound. It’s not helpful for the one with the position to shout, “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right so thus I’m right.” Or, “I appoint me exclusively as the authoritative interpreter of all I exclusively regard as authoritative, and I appoint me as the sole arbiter for whether I agree with my interpretation of what I regard as authoritative.” I assure you, self will typically rule that self DOES agree with self - but obviously that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the position is true. Spend some time with a good Mormon apologist and this should be crystal clear to you. It is to me.

So, the question becomes: WHAT rule/canon/norma normans? In Theology, what would be ideal would be if there is something above and beyond ALL parties (including the one holding the doctrine under review), something actually written by GOD - the very inscripturated words of God Himself, something written in black and white for all to see - knowable to all and alterable by none. Not only embraced by all the parties invovled - but historically and ecumenically embraced by virtually all Christians. Not only regarded as sound but as reliable - even INERRANT! That would be an ideal norma normans! Protestants believe that exists. It’s Scripture. Of course, The Catholic Church has the very same view of Scripture and answers all thsoe questions the same. But it rejects Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. In part, because it alone regards itself exclusively as infallible in matters of faith and morals - thus the whole issue of norming (and thus the whole issue of a norm) is moot for self alone insists self alone. And the embraced rule for itself is the Tradition of itself as interpreted by itself, the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself, and the Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the arbitrations of itself.

Again, Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (especially doctrines).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

… in response to issues about that, and then to note such has nothing to do with the thread. I think it’s a rule violation here to hijack a thread; we need to stay on topic. And the topic is this: What is Sola Scriptura? Not: who or what is the interpreter of Scripture. Not: who or what wrote Scriptures. Not: is it good for self to designate self as the sole interpreter. Not: Who or what embraced Scripture as such.

Yes. In Sola Scriptura, Scripture is embraced as the canon/rule/norma normans. I have defined these terms, used several illustrations - all so you would know what is meant by “canon.” Since it is critical to understanding the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

Let’s try again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It is a praxis of NORMING. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics, liturgy, hymns, foods or any other issue. It concerns one and only one issue: WHAT is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. That’s it. That’s all.

Again, it has nothing to do with it. Let’s try again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It is a praxis of NORMING. It has nothing to do with hermeneutics, liturgy, hymns, foods, pets or any other issue. It concerns one and only one issue: WHAT is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. That’s it. That’s all.

IF you have a “problem” with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, then what does The Catholic Church designate as the sole authoritative interpreter (hint: Read your Catechism # 85)? But your problem with self appointing self as the sole interpreter is hermeneutics and has nothign to do with this thread.

Thank you. Pax - Josiah.

You missed my point entirely.

Your statements regarding Sola Scriptura are beliefs held by you and the Lutheran sources you quote. They do not represent the beliefs held by all Protestants.

I have a problem with self appointing self as the sole interpreter? Are you kidding me? I don’t accept Sola Scriptura. So, I’m not appointing myself as a sole interpreter. Are you actually reading my posts?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, one. We don’t agree on WHAT is to serve as the rule/canon/norma normans as we discuss what separates us and as positions are evaluated (including our own). The Catholic Church regards the whole issue as largely moot since it alone declares it alone to be “infallible” in matters of faith and morals - thus the issue of norming is moot. All are simply to accept with docility whatever it says (CCC 87, etc.). Self simply declares (for self exclusively): “I’m right so therefore I’m right so when I say I’m right I must be right.” Now, it does have a canon/rule/norma normans. But it rejects anything above/beyond/outside of itself. What it permits is “the three legged stool” of 1) Tradition of self as chosen, defined and interpreted by self; 2) The Scriptures in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself; 3) The Magisterium of self as chosen by self and the views, rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations of itself: these three equally and inseparately as “one stream” - one authority, one norm, one rule, one canon. Appointing self as the sole arbiter for whether these things norm The Catholic Church.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

Again, you missed the point entirely. I really can’t read your repetitions, again.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

IF your issue is the “dangers of private interpretation” then what does The Catholic Church designate as the only interpreter? (Hint: Catholic Catechism # 85). And IF you have an issue with self proclaiming that Jesus taught dogmas known through oral tradition known (somehow) to it but the Holy Spirit kept them out of Scripture, then what does The Catholic Church insist about this?

I said, “I can see how Mormonism would be an example of “private revelation” taken to an extreme. If you are giving examples of the dangers of private revelation or private interpretation; why are you arguing in favor of Sola Scriptura? It seems like you are discrediting Sola Scriptura. Please clarify.”

The “danger of private interpretation” is not my issue. I was trying to understand why you keep bringing Mormonism into the discussion. It seems like you are claiming Sola Scriptura, and then posting arguments that seem to discredit Sola Scriptura–your posts about Mormonism, being one of them.

So far, you haven’t clarified anything.

Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmericanJosiah:
AmateurPianist is the OP on this Thread. If he tells me I am off topic, I will respectfully abide by his wishes for this Thread.

You’re good.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You’re good.

Thanks AP.

Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

For the sake of completeness I have again decided to compare and contrast the various positions that various Protestant groups may have concerning the Bible.

Some may be classified as Sola Scripture, some may not.

What I might attempt in a follow-on post would be to construct a compatability matrix. In other words, if you hold this position are you compatable or incompatable with these other positions. This is probably more helpful than constructing a precise definition of Sola Scriptura

So here goes
(1) Scripture is not the inspired, infallible written word of God
* Held by some liberal Protestants
(2) Prima Scriptura
* Scripture is First and Above All source of divine revalation
* There may be other sources of divine revalation but they are secondary
* Secondary sources are testable by Scripture and should be corrected if they are judged to contradict it.
(3) Scripture as only Infallible Rule of faith
* Statement of faith my church and Baptist ?
* Other issues are not addressed
(4) Keith Matthison (Reformed)
* Scripture is the only inspired, infallible, final authoritative norm
* Interpreted in and by church
* Not Scripture versus Tradition
* Private judgment is rejected
(5) Lutheran
* Sole rule and norm of all doctrine
* Embrace of God’s inerrant, holy, written word as the final rule
* Is a practice and not doctrine, hermeneutics, arbitration
(6) Christian Answers.net + Wikipedia
* Add to all of this only source of Christian doctrine
* Scripture is perspicuous (clear) and self interpreting
* Scripture is totally sufficient
* Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture
(7) Solo Scripture
* Scripture is to be interpreted privately by the believer against church and creeds
* Tradition and ecumenical creeds are rejected
(8) Literalist
* The Bible is preserved literally in one and only one Bible translation (usually King James)
* Thus Bible is to be interpreted literally
(9) All Christian doctrine + practice must have its source in the Bible
* If it not in the Bible we do not practice
* Example: Christmas is not celebrated because God did not command it in the Bible

I hope I got this right, but am open for corrections.

 

[AmateurPianist]

So I decided to construct a compatability matrix with the above positions.

It is not in matrix form because of formatting issues.

If two positions are contradictory they are judged incompatible, otherwise they are compatible. Compatible is my default.

I am open to corrections particularly by those who are subject matter experts on each position: (for example Lutherans can correct me on my Lutheran matrix).

(1) Scripture is not the inspired, infallible written word of God

• Compatible with: None
• Incompatible with: 2-9
  (2) Prima Scriptura
• Compatible with: 3,4,5
• Incompatible with: 1,6,7,8,9
  (3) Scripture as only infallible rule of faith
• Compatible with: 2-9
• Incompatible with: 1
  (4) Keith Matthison (Reformed)
• Compatible with: 2,3,5
• Incompatible with: 1,6,7,8,9
  (5) Lutheran
• Compatible with: 2,3,4,6,7,8,9
• Incompatible with: 1
  (6) Christian Answers.net and Wikipedia
• Compatible with: 3,4,5,6,7,8,9
• Incompatible with: 1,2
  (7) Solo Scriptura
• Compatible with: 3,5,6,8,9
• Incompatible with: 1,2,4
  (8) Literalist
• Compatible with: 3,5,6,7, 9
• Incompatible with: 1,2,4
  (9) All doctrine and practice must have its source in Bible
• Compatible with: 3,5,6,7,8
• Incompatible with: 1,2,4

 

[AmateurPianist]

Two more observations:

(1) It is obvious that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are incompatible with all of the above except possibly #2 (Prima Scriptura). The Wikipedia entry did mention Yves Conger (Catholic theologian as a proponent of Prima Scriptura. Yet my understanding of Catholicism is that the magisterium and tradition and scripture are coequals. So that would contradict Prima Scriptura.

(2) An interesting observation is that obviously categories 4-9 should have no issues with describing their beliefs as Sola Scriptura. Categories 2-3 may or may not describe their beliefs with the phrase Sola Scriptura. They might even claim not to believe in Sola Scriptura. At the same time, it does appear that definitions 4 and 5 of Sola Scriptura are compatible with categories 2 and 3 above. Just an interesting observation.

Anyway, this is all open for comments but is my observation anyway.

 

[AmateurPianist]

One more thing.

As for me (if you want to ask)

I like 2 and 3.

I have some further questions on 4 and 5 but think that at the minimum we are very close on these.

6 is very problematic.

I reject 1, 7, 8, 9

 

[ralphinal]

Dumb question. Why do people say infallable for Scripture when that word means able to act without mistake. The word that should be used is inerrant: without errors in the text

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I have a problem with self appointing self as the sole interpreter? Are you kidding me? I don’t accept Sola Scriptura. So, I’m not appointing myself as a sole interpreter. Are you actually reading my posts?

Anna

IF you want to talk about hermeneutics rather than the issue of this thread, I’d suggest starting a thread on that.

IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, then I suggest you take that up with The Catholic Church since this is what it does (CCC # 85, etc.)

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Dumb question. Why do people say infallable for Scripture when that word means able to act without mistake. The word that should be used is inerrant: without errors in the text

Actually not a dumb question.

Now my understanding of the word is that it means “incapable of being incorrect”.

If I want to interpret this narrowly, the word would only apply to a repeatable process.

However I think I broader meaning might apply in this case. I can be confident that when I am reading the Bible that it is correct (or incapable of being incorrect which sounds awkward). In other words it is a measure of how reliable your source is.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This is probably more helpful than constructing a precise definition of Sola Scriptura

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Two more observations:

(1) It is obvious that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are incompatible with all of the above except possibly #2 (Prima Scriptura).

Catholicism is incompatible with that, too.

.