FIRST, AN ASIDE
For me, the heart of the solas is that we are saved by Grace (alone), through faith (alone) in Christ Jesus (alone). The Bible does not save us. Jesus does. If there were no canonized bible, we still would have eternal life. Jesus passed on the Truth (and the gospel message) to His apostles, who passed it on, who passed it on. For many in the world, there is no written bible. For others, there is only the Book of John. HOWEVER, almost all the world has heard the gospel message.
-----------------------------------------------
File 13 had a very thorough devlopment about a year ago. I hope that he can dig out the old thread (and a couple of his posts.
There are many asociated issues such as supremacy of Scripture and sufficiency of Scripture.
==================================
Our faith is in Jesus. He is revealed in Scripture. To the degree that there is any other Truth (not contained directly in Scripture) about Jesus, that Truth cannot contradict Scripture. Yes, we use Holy Reason and Experience (prayer and action in the world) to help us to understand Jesus and our faith.
As the ECF's have said, Scripture (meaning the gospel message) is a more than sufficient explanation of our situation and of Jesus.
Most today would call this position "primacy of Scripture" and "sufficiency (for salvation issues) of Scripture".
What is missing is the context, that Scripture is almost meaningless without the illumination of the Church. Our faith is not about understanding Scripture. It is about a relationship with God.
Yes, scripture is the ONLY (Sola) source for Truth on issues of eternal salvation. And the Church alone interpreted and resolved the issues of interpretation for 1500 years (almost no one else read the Bible). The Church gave us the Canon, the Creeds, the Trinity, and our understanding of the nature of Jesus, baptism, forgiveness and so much more that were argued about in the first centuries.
Are we experts at translation? How well do we understand the cultures of the bible? Do we really understand what the words and parables meant at the time? The Truth is timeless; the understanding of the Greek and the cultures of the time is not. What would we make of the thousands and thousands of scraps of hundreds of documents without the Church? It is the Church that Jesus gave the Truth. Scripture was canonized for centuries. Jesus taught that there would be much that would be explained after he was gone, by the Holy Spirit, through his Church. The Church has dealt with these issues for 2000 years. That is way Jesus and the Holy Spirit set it up.
INTERPRETATION
Among the ECF's, St Vincent of Lerins had the best exposition of the issue of interpretation. There were many times when issues were disputed, with Scripture on both sides. It was always the Church that made the final decisions on interpretation. The most major of these were decided by Council.
But, ultimately, the we all are interpreting Scripture. When we are discussing eternal life, there can be no other SOURCE document.
Only the RCC would think that the Church ADDS to that which we must understand/accept in order to have eternal life. And even then, personally, I believe that this is a mistake within the RCC, and in understanding the RCC. In any case, I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the nature of heaven and hell, and what precludes us the His eternal presence of God. The RCC ties each doctrine to Scripture. We need to check out the catechism and the companion to the catechism. Scripture is always the Source of Truth, the standard by which we measure added understandings (and there have been many over the centuries, including the Trinity).
THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ITSELF & SOLO SCRIPTURA
In the Westminster Confession, we are told not only to rely on Scripture alone, but that anyone can understand the plain message of Scripture without explanation from anyone. The opposition to the Church was great (the pope was called the AntiChrist later in the document). These overstatement in the heat of wars must be taken within their historical context (as with our 39 Articles, much tamer than the European confessions).
In this age, Sola Scriptura has come to mean that we believe as we and use Scripture to support our view. In a more positive wasy, we might say that Scripture is the only source of Truth about our faith and our actions, and that we as individuals are best suited to judge among alternative views. Ultimately this is individualism at its worst. Scripture and the statements of the ECF's can be used to support or oppose almost anything. This view is often called SOLO SCRIPTURA (a relatively new idea) to distinguish it from SOLA SCRIPTURA which goes back to the ECF's.
Jesus DID NOT leave us as orphans. He gave us the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. The idea of millions of folks waving bibles at each other to support their view, with no way to resolve the issue (no authority or Church or Council) would have been a foreign idea to all in the first centuries and certainaly at the time of Jesus.
I can understand how some have come to THEIR idea of Sola Scriptura. It is consistent with the modern age. We are individuals. We are self-sufficient (well us and God). We need no one on Earth to help us see the Truth. This is America and this is the individualism that we have spread to the world. It is a blessing and a curse. In this case, it is a curse. It divides the family of God. In a sense, it almost denies the family and replaces it with millions of individuals.
Mark,
Thank you for voting and for your comments. Indeed each may have different meanings to different people--especially Sola Scriptura.
In your teaching, how do you present/define Sola Scriptura, if you don't mind my asking?
Anna
