What is Sola Scriptura

[pneuma07]

Since folks here seem to have a penchant for speaking for me as to what the purpose of this thread was/is, let me speak up for myself here.

For me, my objectives were/are

• To determine if there is a gold standard definition of Sola Scriptura (no)
• If not, to get an understanding as to what the various definitions of Sola Scriptura are out there.
• To get an understanding of what definitions are compatible with other definitions as opposed to what definitions are opposed to other definitions
• To determine whether my beliefs are compatible with any definitions out there (or incompatible).

As far as my personal objectives go, they have mostly been met. Still somewhat confused on what is compatible with what though.

Now as far as you all go, my objectives are/were

• To get you to understand better (along with me) the various definitions out there
• If you claim to oppose Sola Scriptura, to get you to understand that if you wish to dialogue with someone that supports Sola Scriptura with somebody that say supports definition 3 of Sola Scriptura with an argument that is only applicable so say definition 6 of Sola Scriptura. You must dialog with your opponent on the basis of his understanding of the term, not yours. Who knows, you might find that you are basically in agreement (more likely the further down my scale your opponent is here).
• If you claim to support Sola Scriptura, to get you to understand that there are many definitions of Sola Scriptura and the inherent difficulties involved in discussing this subject.

In reading this thread I am not sure the 2nd set of objectives is met, but I didn’t have high expectations here in the first place.

Dear AP,

           I guess you made a good job in classifying  definitions of SS.

Certainly there is no norma normans within Protestantisms on what SS is, or should be, and even whether it is OK.
Once I used to have dialogs with a protestant brother no longer active here who staunchly would proclaim that SS ( I guess any definition of it ) is just heresy.
The percentage of those who reject any SS within Protestantisms seems quite significant.

We catholics can only take note of such a diversity, and, as you pointed out, be careful in understanding what sort of SS our interlocutor is referring to.
I tried to offer here nothing more than a personal interpretation of what the core of most definitions seems to imply, in particular about the relation with Apostolic Christianity, ever since my first post.

Out of respect of the meaning and goals of the thread as explained by yourself, I am not going to go on here in my dialogs with Josiah and Schaick.

I thank them for the exchanges, which I hope to develop in other threads.
Thanks to Anna for her encouraging words.

Tanks everybody, and particularly AP for opening the thread and…

    see you all  soon.   :thumbsup:

In Christ
P7

 

[JonNC]

I think what would be fair would be to regard AJ and other Lutherans as the subject matter experts per the Lutheran definition and Catholics as the subject matter experts per the Catholic definition.

Well said. We usually make a mistake when we venture into telling someone what they believe, instead of letting them tell us, and actually listen.

Jon

 

[spockrates]

Well said. We usually make a mistake when we venture into telling someone what they believe, instead of letting them tell us, and actually listen.

Jon

I agree. As does the Father of Philosophy Socrates:

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)

 

[AmericanJosiah]

We catholics can only take note of such a diversity, and, as you pointed out, be careful in understanding what sort of SS our interlocutor is referring to.
I tried to offer here nothing more than a personal interpretation of what the core of most definitions seems to imply, in particular about the relation with Apostolic Christianity, ever since my first post.

Out of respect of the meaning and goals of the thread as explained by yourself, I am not going to go on here in my dialogs with Josiah and Schaick.

I thank them for the exchanges, which I hope to develop in other threads.
Thanks to Anna for her encouraging words.

Tanks everybody, and particularly AP for opening the thread and…

    see you all  soon.   :thumbsup:

In Christ
P7

Some comments…

1. It is common for Catholics to state that Luther and Lutherans “invented” this praxis (a point I find baseless - but that’s another issue for another day and thread). IF so, then the “definition” of it would come from Luther and Lutheranism, right? I gave it.
2. I don’t deny for a second that as Protestants (of various stripes) discuss such, they often discuss issues surrounding it - as is often the case (when Catholics discuss Mary, they almost always discuss Jesus and the Church - related topics but not identical topics). Depending on who is discussing it, a variety of things might come up. But it would be a mistake to assume that ALL SUCH is the definition of Sola Scriptura. In all MY discussions of this for over 10 years, I’ve yet to have a single Protestant disagree with the definition I gave. I don’t deny such might exist among the 350 million Protestants, but I’ve yet to encounter it. It’s just that some discuss it with a variety of OTHER issues. They may include WHY Scripture is the best norma normans (it’s inerrant or it’s clear or whatever) - all valid discussion but not the praxis. They may discuss how they think things should be arbitrated according to it (relevant but again, not the definition, not what it is). They may discuss means of hermeneutics as we arbitrate according to it (“Scripture interprets Scripture” for example, again, related but not the issue per se). I disagree that there is a broad variety of meanings of the term (although again, this weird idea of SOLO Scriptura has recently arisen in “Evangelicalism”). I think what you are seeing is the praxis (as I defined it) embraced, but sometimes other related issues are discussed in connection with it. As is very common when people discuss theology.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Dear Josiah,

You see, as from your perspective the Church rejects SS because she does not want to be as accountable as any other individual or denominational subject, and I understand this,

I DO think that is the core. One (The Catholic Church) declares one (The Catholic Church) to be infallible/unaccountable in matters of the official proclamation of one (The Catholic Church) in matters of faith and morals. Self alone proclaims self alone as simply exempt from the issue that Sola Scriptura is a part, the issue of norming, the issue of exploring or evaluating if a position is true. Essentially, what The Catholic Church is demanding is that, “I’m right, so when I say I’m right I must be right ergo I’m right.” IMHO, this is NOT an alternative norma normans. It’s not even an alternative approach to norming. It is simply and only a diversion, a circumvention, an avoidance of the entire issue. All OTHERS are accountable, but one is not - self, exclusively.

Now, we all know the ways The Catholic Church attempts to justify this. And those of us who have studied Mormonism and some of the cults are very familiar with these arguments. And yes, IF such is true - then it all does follow. But none of this is norming, none of this has a thing to do with accountability. It has to do with the EXEMPTION of one from such - self, exclusively. And, IMHO, this is not a BETTER approach to norming - it’s the avoidance of such. And IMHO, this is not “less choatic” as we can see from an investigation of the cults that do the same thing. Now, don’t misunderstand me. I’m NOT suggesting The Catholic Church is cultic in any sense, I have a deep and profound respect for Catholicism, but I reject this rubric - and oddly, so does The Catholic Church for All EXCEPT ONE - itself; others must be accountable, others can be evaluated, others can be wrong, others can be judged - just not itself. What it says is to be accepted “with docility” as Jesus speaking (CCC 87, etc.). Again, study the cults and see if this approach leads to truth or unity. I did. I found it to be profoundly dangerous. And, IMHO, a sincere and true Christian teacher (as I consider The Catholic Church) should not and need not “hide” behind a wall of exemption, a wall of self claims for self alone of “infallibility” - a true teacher welcomes the light, welcomes testing and examination and accountability. It is the false teacher who must insist, 'I’m infallible/unaccountable, I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right - accept it with docility." Again, my study of several cults impressed this upon me. And yes, it is ONE reason for my departure from Catholicism.
And no, I don’t think this leads to more correctness or unity - it just leads to a stress on power rather than truth. Read the works of Brigham Young or Bruce McConkie of the LDS? I have.

Scirpture is full of divine, stern warnings about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, and those that lead many astray. Jesus Himself praised Christians for regarding their teachers to be potentially fallible and for THEY testing those teachers, arbitration thus and finding them FALSE - all while there was a “pope” in Rome and a “Catholic” bishop in place - none of which He so much as mentioned (Revelation 2:2). The Catholic Church regards all OTHERS as accountable, all OTHERS as good to examine - it just exempts ONE from the warnings, ONE from accountability - and that ONE is itself. Alone. Exclusively. Individually. And when any other does this (LDS for example), it laughs and rightly points out the danger.

Now, I realize (so no need to point it out) that theoretically, The Catholic Church welcomes examination - and then designates the process it will permit. Oddly, it’s the same as my Mormon teacher told me is permitted in the LDS. It allows one (itself) to be the arbiter in the matter of whether self is correct, and it insists on 3 things (inseparately - as ONE united norma normans) as the rule/canon. Those are: 1) The Tradition of itself, as it defines, chooses and interprets - basically, what it professes. 2) The Scripture not on any page in words knowable to all and alterable by none, but where? In its own heart - AS INTERPRETED by its own self - it’s interpretation of the Scripture in itself is the issue. 3) The Magisterium of its own self alone - chosen by itself and the views, positions, rulings, decisions arbitrations of its own self: these three form one stream, one rule. THIS is what The Catholic Church permits one (The Catholic Church) to use to determine if the positions of The Catholic Church are correct. Well, obviously, undeniably, this is just a perfect circle of self authentication with no other possible function than to lead to the conclusion of correctness: self is looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self. It has NOTHING to do with whether self is correct. If you don’t see this as fruitless and choatic, read the works of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie or read about almost any cult.

Again, IMHO, The Catholic Church (like the LDS and all the cults) rejects Sola Scriptura not because it knows of a better rule/canon, not because it has a different doctrine of Scripture - but because it rejects accountability (of self exclusively), and thus the norming process of which Sola Scriptura is a part.

**
Continues in the next posts (because of that annoying 6000 character limit here, lol)**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues from the post above…

from my perspective SS is the necessary proposal of any consistent movement outside and against the Apostolic Church, advanced in order to make it at least theoretically possible, with a bit of a stretch, that a Reformer be a better interpreter of Revelation than the collective mind of the Church.

This seems untenable to me. No Reformer claimed to be a better interpreter. Nor does Sola Scriptura have a thing to do with hermeneutics. Actually, Luther strongly embraced the use of Tradition IN HERMENEUTICS (as do I - and all Lutherans known to me). If this thread were about hermeneutics, my guess is you and I would MOSTLY be on the same page - in strong agreement. But, IMHO, the things that divide us: INFALLIBILITY of the Pope, Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, Purgatory - are not issues of hermeneutics at all. Real Presence vs. Symbolic presence is a matter of hermeneutics (apologies to Bill Clinton, it’s entirely a matter of what the meaning of is is) - and here, Lutherans and Catholics both look to Tradition and embrace the same view. But there is no word “converts” in any Eucharistic text - thus there is not hermeneutic on such: our disagreement is not a hermeneutical one. But I DO agree with you on this: Luther embraced accountability - and THAT is what The Catholic Church could not (and did not) permit. One who inists that one (self) is infallible needs no Reformer. One who insists that one (self) needs no accountibility. One who insists that one (self) is the very mouth of God should be listened to “with docility” (CCC 87, Bruce McConkie’s “On the Authority of The Church”). All those divine, stern warnings of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that lead many astray but either be dismissed entirely or (more commonly) directed to every single other except ONE - self. Self exempts self. Again, I invite you to read any cult leader and the epistemology such embraces. I have.

This we see eg in the Council recorded in Acts 15. This is what in any age she can and must do.

Yes, views were held as ACCOUNTABLE. It was not assumed to be correct because the proclaimer of such insisted that self cannot err and all must accept with docility whatever one - self - says. All was EXAMINED, all was held as ACCOUNTABLE. And what was the rule/canon/norma normans for this? We are told. Read Acts 15:15-18 (interestingly, Catholics always cut off the quote before that). And note the emphasis of the first word on verse 19, the stress on the “THEREFORE…” The arbitration was normed by… yup, Scripture. It’s called Sola Scriptura.

1. Actually what “divides us” is not papal infallibility , it is the infallibility of the Church, expressed by whatever organ, be it the pope, the Council …

We agree, the reason The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura is that it rejects accountability (well for one, self). “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right so thus I’m right - accept it with docility.” This is not an alternative approach in norming, it’s an evasion of such - for one. Self.

thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[spockrates]

… the reason The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura is that it rejects accountability (well for one, self). “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right so thus I’m right - accept it with docility.” This is not an alternative approach in norming, it’s an evasion of such - for one. Self. …

I’m curious, Josiah. Would you say that relying on the Bible alone is a reliable way to discern the truth about the teaching of Jesus Christ?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,
thank you for appreciating my previous contributions !

From the CCC

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

*131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110 *

Scripture is seen as “pure and lasting fount of spiritual life” for individual believers. And Christ pours out the Holy Spirit to all the members of the Church.

This does not mean that every member is protected from preaching error. Evidence is that individual believers do understand and proclaim doctrines in very diverse ways within Christianity.
And divergent views among them cannot be solved IMHO by merely claiming a better ability to listen to the Spirit. Which , in principle and in unsubstantiated way, everyone could.

I hope I answered your question
P7

pneuma07,

Thank you for the information—very helpful.

Here, at CAF, I have read Catholic Posts that actually disagree with the words of Pope John Paul II. The disagreements were on the definition of Hell; and whether or not the Jews are still God’s Chosen People.

I don’t want to go off topic by discussion these two issues. I just want to know how Catholics can disagree with the late Pope, without using some form of Sola Scriptura. I don’t quite understand this.

I do understand that a Pope is not considered infallible on all issues, unless speaking ex cathedra.

Does Sola Scriptura play any part in a Catholic disagreeing with a Pope?

Anna

P.S. pneuma07, in respecting the OP’s goals for this Thread, would you send me a PM with your response, unless you have started a new Thread to continue the discussion. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

I’m curious, Josiah. Would you say that relying on the Bible alone is a reliable way to discern the truth about the teaching of Jesus Christ?

Live long and prosper.

Speaking for me and not Josiah, I would say that relying on the Bible alone is not reliable, if by that you mean without consideration of other writers, teachings, and the history of the Church. This is particularly true when an individual chooses to discern on one’s own. This is why Lutherans don’t do it.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I’m curious, Josiah. Would you say that relying on the Bible alone is a reliable way to discern the truth about the teaching of Jesus Christ?

A rule is accepted as reliable (WHY it is is a separate issue - moot here since we all have the same doctrine of Scripture). If I am to submit a paper for a serious scientific journal (my degree is in physics), I will be expected to use the norm of physics (math and repeatable, laborative observation), I don’t have to “prove” such is “inerrant.” If a policeman pulls me over for speeding, insisting that I was going 40 MPH - I can point to the big, white sign by the side of the road next to us that says, “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 65 MPH” under the Rule of Law. I don’t have to “prove” that the sign is “inerrant.”

But you raise an interesting question! Becuase, that’s largely what Jesus did. Some 50 times. Jesus never said what The Catholic Church says, “Accept whatever I say with docility because I’m infallible in matters of faith and morals.” IF He had, I suspect we’d all accept that because He is God - and God is the ultimate Authority, inerrant, infallible. But He never did. Over and over and over, He referenced Scripture. Over 50 times. He invited people to search the Scriptures because “they testify of Me.” Did He ever point to The Catholic Church? Not that I’ve read.

But I think you are missing the point: Just as Jesus did, we point to a rule above, outside ourselves - rather than just proclaiming, “I’m right so ergo I’m right.” The question becomes WHAT? What serves best as the canon for the evaluation of positions?

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the examination of the positions among us.

.

 

[spockrates]

Live long and prosper.

Speaking for me and not Josiah, I would say that relying on the Bible alone is not reliable, if by that you mean without consideration of other writers, teachings, and the history of the Church. This is particularly true when an individual chooses to discern on one’s own. This is why Lutherans don’t do it.

Jon

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Live long and prosper, too Jon.

I suppose Evangelicals do not rely on Scripture alone, either. For they claim to also rely on both reason (their own minds) and revelation (the mind of the Holy Spirit). But do Lutherans rely on more than these three?

 

[JonNC]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...rus.com/startrek/layouts/startrek/spock-1.jpg

Live long and prosper, too Jon.

I suppose Evangelicals do not rely on Scripture alone, either. For they claim to also rely on both reason (their own minds) and revelation (the mind of the Holy Spirit). But do Lutherans rely on more than these three?

Peace and long life.

Perhaps Martin Chemnitz says it better than I could:

We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Jon

 

[spockrates]

… But you raise an interesting question! Becuase, that’s largely what Jesus did. Some 50 times. Jesus never said what The Catholic Church says, “Accept whatever I say with docility because I’m infallible in matters of faith and morals.” IF He had, I suspect we’d all accept that because He is God - and God is the ultimate Authority, inerrant, infallible. But He never did. Over and over and over, He referenced Scripture. Over 50 times. He invited people to search the Scriptures because “they testify of Me.” Did He ever point to The Catholic Church? Not that I’ve read.

But I think you are missing the point: Just as Jesus did, we point to a rule above, outside ourselves - rather than just proclaiming, “I’m right so ergo I’m right.” The question becomes WHAT? What serves best as the canon for the evaluation of positions?

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the examination of the positions among us.

Yes, but what does one do when that rule (or measure of truth) outside ourselves is ambiguous? Does one then not need an authority outside oneself and over the rule to interpret the true meaning of the rule (in this case, the true meaning of the biblical text)?

 

[spockrates]

Peace and long life.

Perhaps Martin Chemnitz says it better than I could:

Jon

Interesting, Jon. Are you saying rely on the writings of the Early Church Fathers as the final court of arbitration when seeking the truth?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Yes, but what does one do when that rule (or measure of truth) outside ourselves is ambiguous?

I think you’re concern might be arbitration, which is another issue.

I agree, sometimes the Rule may not be abundantly clear - thus making the arbitration (‘does this measure up to the measuring stick?’) not so obvious. But again, Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule, it does not address the issue of the arbitration. In the same way as the Rule of Law simply establishes the law as the rule, it has nothing to do with how things might be arbitrated. Now, the interesting thing is Protestants and Catholics don’t so much disagree on the arbitration, but all that is moot because we don’t agree on the rule by which this arbitration is to occur. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture (and any other rule - because it rejects accountability for itself exclusively).

Let me use this illustration. You are drving down the road at 45 MPH. A policeman stops you, saying you are speeding (the position in need of norming). Now, he may be pointing to the big, square, white sign with the big, bold black letters and numerals saying “Max 25 MPH” and you may be pointing to to your football jersey with the big number 51 on it. You simply don’t have the same rule/canon. Now, you may both agree on the same arbitration (say, traffic court) but it’s quite moot since you have no common rule for that court to arbitrate by - the cop is embraceing the sign as the canon for your driving speed, you are looking at your jersey number. Follow? We need a common canon FIRST - then we can deal with the arbitration (which, interestingly, we are much closer to as Protestant and Catholics than we are on the rule).

But, keep this in mind: For The Catholic Church all this is moot. The Catholic Church simply proclaims that there is ONE that is exempt from an evaluation of correctness - and that ONE is… itself. It alone insists that it alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in official matters of faith and morals) and thus the entire subject of whether it is right is moot - it HAS to be since it CANNOT be otherwise, thus it really doesn’t matter what the rule/canon is, and it really doens’t matter what the arbitration is. One insists (the CC) that all must accept what one (the CC) says “with docility” (Read Catholic Catechism # 87). I suspect (that’s all, just suspect) that IF the Catholic Church would accept accountability, we would likely all be looking to Scripture as the rule since it has no better candidate for that function. But it doesn’t.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Interesting, Jon. Are you saying rely on the writings of the Early Church Fathers as the final court of arbitration when seeking the truth?

IF this thread was about arbitration, I would be speaking of ecumenical councils, Tradition, consensus. And I would be embracing Scripture as the rule/canon.

But this is the subject of this thread: “What is Sola Scriptura?” So that’s what we are to discuss.

.

 

[Anna_Scott]

IMHO, if the Lutheran definition of Sola Scriptura claims that arbitration is outside of the scope of this definition, then this definition must be taken at face value. Good grief, if I believe the Catholics when they say they don’t worship Mary, I believe AJ when he says that arbitration is a separate issue. According to his definition anyway.

But **that does not mean that arbitration is outside of the scope of this thread. ** But that is because the Lutheran definition is not the only one out there.

IF this thread was about arbitration, I would be speaking of ecumenical councils, Tradition, consensus. And I would be embracing Scripture as the rule/canon.

But this is the subject of this thread: “What is Sola Scriptura?” So that’s what we are to discuss.

AmericanJosiah,

You are not the OP. You keep telling us what is allowed on this Thread, when it is not your Thread.

AmateurPianist is the OP and has clearly stated that "arbitration is not outside the scope of this Thread.

Anything you don’t want to discuss is declared by you to be off topic, moot, or hijacking the Thread.

You do not have the authority to speak for all Protestants. You do not have the authority to define Sola Scriptura for all Protestants. You do not have the authority to claim that Sola Scriptura is not considered a doctrine, within all of Protestantism.

You refer to the Catholic Church, as being “like the LDS and all the cults,” which I find offensive, and I’m not even Catholic.

AmericanJosiah, your posts are repetitious, and you refuse to answer serious questions. I wont’ spend any more time on such a futile effort. Life is just too short.

AmateurPianist, I appreciate your starting this Thread, and I appreciate your honest and humble comments on the subject. I hope to see you on other Threads.

Signing off of this Thread,
Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah,

Anything you don’t want to discuss is declared by you to be off topic, moot, or hijacking the Thread.

I’m pleased to discuss anything. But it’s a rule violation here to hijack threads, and I desire to play well, lol.

If you desire to know my view about ANYTHING - cars, baseball, ice cream - anything at all, start a thread on it. If you want me to give my view in it, PM me and so request.

As I said, in arbitration, I would point to true ecumenical counsels, to Early Church Fathers, to consensus - all by the Rule of Scripture. But, you see, it’s the RULE we disagree on, the embraced rule for this process of arbitration.

AmericanJosiah, your posts are repetitious, and you refuse to answer serious questions.

… as are yours. But friend, I’m pleased to answer just about any question (personal, theological, political, social, whatever) as long as it cannot be viewed as hijacking the thread, as long as such is the subject of the thread as determined by the title and opening post. I’ve answered all yours - and all of everyone’s in this thread in that manner.

.

 

[spockrates]

IF this thread was about arbitration, I would be speaking of ecumenical councils, Tradition, consensus. And I would be embracing Scripture as the rule/canon.

But this is the subject of this thread: “What is Sola Scriptura?” So that’s what we are to discuss.

But is not understanding the role of Scripture part of understanding what Sola Scriptura actually is? For example, if you ask an Evangelical what Sola Scriptura is, he might say, “It is the true belief that the Bible is the final arbitrator of truth.”

If you then respond, “We are not talking about arbitration, here!” then you would be arbitrarily dismissing his definition. Would you not?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

But is not understanding the role of Scripture part of understanding what Sola Scriptura actually is? For example, if you ask an Evangelical what Sola Scriptura is, he might say, “It is the true belief that the Bible is the final arbitrator of truth.”

If you then respond, “We are not talking about arbitration, here!” then you would be arbitrarily dismissing his definition. Would you not?

I’m using the terms in a rather precise theological sense.
A doctrine is a TEACHING, a proclaimation of truth. “Jesus is Lord” is a teaching.
A praxis is what we do. “I lift up my hands to Jesus” is a praxis.
Now, I agree - especially in Reformed (Calvinist) circles, the term “doctrine” is used rather loosely for anything good and right - whether a teaching or an action. Some “Evangelicals” tend to do that, too.

Again, I don’t think that “Evangelical” is likely saying anything different than what I am. An arbiter can be the canon/rule/norma normans. For example, we have some Catholic Church Fathers that speak of Scripture as “the arbiter.” In such, it’s a noun. But arbitration is a process, an action, a verb. In my Little League days, one might refer to the Official Little League Rules (a book) as the “arbiter” in the sense of being the canon/rule. But actually, it’s likely there will need to be some process to decide if the action of the player “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (canon)? I doubt we’re disagreeing there.

Again, I’ve personally never encountered any Protestant teacher who disagreed with the definition of Sola Scriptura as the embrace (Practice) of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. That is the official, historic definition - and I’ve personally not had any disagree with it. Some of the terminology may differ (again, Calvinists sometimes speak of BOTH right teachings and right practices as “doctrine”) and as often happens, related things are often spoken in conjunction with the praxis - sometimes giving the impression that those other things are a part of the praxis when such is not. Just as Catholics may be speaking of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and talk about Jesus, too (occasionally giving Protestants the misconception that the dogma is about JESUS’ conception). Sometimes, to be precise, we need to get to the actual issue here. And in the case of Sola Scriptura, it’s pretty simple. In all disciplines (nothin’ unique about Christian theology) there is the issue of correctness, and the process for determining that (“norming”). The first issue in that is the embrace of WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) for that; WHAT is the Standard, plumbline that the position will be compared or “measured” by? For Christian doctrine among us, those that embrace the Rule of Scripture often call that praxis by the Latin expression, “Sola Scriptura”

.