CaliforniaJosiah said:
The Definition:
The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.
Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).
That quote is good. It aligns with what I was taught when I took an online theology course through one of the biggest seminaries in the US. The basic idea of Sola Scriptura, which is talked about above, comes down to this historic statement: norma normans sed non normata (a norm of norms which is not normed). It means that scripture is considered to be the norm (standard/rule/measure/judge) for all dogmas or theologies, and that, therefore, no dogma or theology can norm scripture. In other words, scripture is considered to be the final or highest or end authority when it comes to dogma or theology.
Sola Scripturists would agree with what Gregory of Nyssa says from his work
On the Holy Trinity: Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
The practice of Sola Scriptura does not allow for any umpire of dogma or theology beyond or above the Scriptures.
What Sola Scriptura does NOT indicate:
A. that there are or aren't other sources of ecclesial authority
B. whether those sources can or can't be infallible
C. how interpretation of the scriptures is achieved
D. what value tradition does or does not have
It is nothing more than an allegiance to scripture as the greatest judge of any dogma or theology.
SOLO Scriptura as a practice is a movement WITHIN Sola Scriptura that seeks to limit all other sources of authority. However, the point of both is the same: scripture is the norm of norms which is not normed. A Solo Scripturalist, therefore, is still a Sola Scripturalist. It is simply a particular kind of Sola Scripturalist.
According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.
Here are the problems with that statement:
1. A Solo Scripturalist is a kind of Sola Scripturalist. Both practice Sola Scriptura: that scripture is the norm that cannot be normed. Therefore, it is not possible to replace one with the other.
2. Sola Scriptura does not, on its own, indicate anything about infallibility or ecclesial authority. It is quite possible for a Sola Scripturalist to say I think the scriptures are full of errors, yet I acknowledge them as the sole and final authority for dogma and theology. It is also quite possible for a Sola Scripturalist to say I think the Pope of Rome is gifted with infallibile ecclesial authority. Again, the point of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the norm that cannot be normed. So long as an infallible ecclesial authority doesn't try to norm scripture, there is no conflict.
3. In terms of dogma and theology, the implication of Solo Scriptura CANNOT be that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority because all Solo Scripturalists practice Sola Scriptura: that SCRIPTURE is the ultimate judge/measure/rule for dogma and theology. Solo Scripturals merely limit other sources of authority, they do not negate the practice of making scripture the norm that cannot be normed.
Please note: despite what I have written above, I do not, myself, practice Sola Scriptura. I do believe that scripture is a normbut not a norm that cannot be normed. To give one example: when people say that God commanded the slaying of men, women, children, infants, and animals in the Old Testament, I say, yes, that's what scripture says, but that is not what God wantedthat is Israelite propaganda as bad as anything ISIS has released, and not something God would have ever written. Therefore, I do not acknowledge it as normative for dogma or theology. Note that what makes me a non-Sola Scripturalist is that last sentence (Therefore, I do not acknowledge it as normative for dogma or theology). Techincally, a Sola Scripturalist could agree with everything I said up to that point (though you would be hard-pressed to find ones that did).