Sola Scriptura?

[~Anastasia~]

Who defined it that way?

Martin Luther. Wasn't it he who came up with the "Solas"?

 

[Albion]

Martin Luther. Wasn't it he who came up with the "Solas"?

My question was on the little qualifier that you threw into the statement.

Sola Scriptura was originally defined as Scripture being the highest authority, not able to be contradicted - Scripture as interpreted by Tradition.

 

[~Anastasia~]

My question was on the little qualifier that you threw into the statement.

Yes, that was what I read. From Martin Luther's writings, that Scripture interpreted as it had been traditionally understood had a sole authority against any contradicting statement.

I was surprised myself and made a thread on it here years ago, because that hadn't been my understanding of Sola Scriptura either.

 

[Albion]

I guess I don't know where that might have come from, but its not Sola Scriptura.

It's possible--but this is just a wild guess--that someone might have thought this because Luther argued that the Roman Church itself had relied upon Scripture and not custom until it began coming up with new doctrines like Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. etc. only in the Middle Ages. He endeavored (unsuccessfully, of course) to show the religious establishment of his time that such beliefs were innovations and were not true by Tradition, even if Tradition were valid.

 

[dzheremi]

The only real question is your authority for interpretation, not really the authority of Scripture.

Indeed.

The Roman Pope's supposed authority comes as a consequence of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which its partisans will tell you is found in the Bible. The Sola Scriptura-adhering Protestant's supposed authority comes from the idea that "a simple layman armed with scripture is to be believed above a Pope or a council without it", to quote Martin Luther. Hence it also comes from an understanding of scripture -- just not one particular understanding (i.e., not the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church/Pope).

As someone on the outside of both, they seem equally wrong and for roughly the same reason (being inherently anti-conciliar in their structure and presuppositions), but I'd still like to know how that's dealt with for either camp. For instance, I have known some Eastern Catholics who advocate -- following then-cardinal Ratzinger's statement that no more can be expected of the Eastern Churches than what was accepted by them in the first millennium -- a return to the pre-Great Schism understanding of the Roman Pope's role in governing the Church. That's clearly not nearly far enough for me personally, as you might expect given my own confessional allegiance, but at least it's something. At least it's an idea of how things are ideally supposed to work.

Outside of that it seems like the larger debate between the RCC and its daughters the Protestants involves both taking their respective stances as basic truisms to the point suggesting that the "other guy" may have a point (e.g., that the Protestant is right that this stuff should not be left up to one guy -- and that the Roman Catholic is right in saying the same thing) is itself tantamount to ecclesiological and/or heremeneutic 'heresy'. It's very odd.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Indeed.

The Roman Pope's supposed authority comes as a consequence of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which its partisans will tell you is found in the Bible. The Sola Scriptura-adhering Protestant's supposed authority comes from the idea that "a simple layman armed with scripture is to be believed above a Pope or a council without it", to quote Martin Luther. Hence it also comes from an understanding of scripture -- just not one particular understanding (i.e., not the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church/Pope).

As someone on the outside of both, they seem equally wrong and for roughly the same reason (being inherently anti-conciliar in their structure and presuppositions), but I'd still like to know how that's dealt with for either camp. For instance, I have known some Eastern Catholics who advocate -- following then-cardinal Ratzinger's statement that no more can be expected of the Eastern Churches than what was accepted by them in the first millennium -- a return to the pre-Great Schism understanding of the Roman Pope's role in governing the Church. That's clearly not nearly far for me personally, as you might expect given my own confessional allegiance, but at least it's something. At least it's an idea of how things are ideally supposed to work.

Outside of that it seems like the larger debate between the RCC and its daughters the Protestants involves both taking their respective stances as basic truisms to the point suggesting that the "other guy" may have a point (e.g., that the Protestant is right that this stuff should not be left up to one guy -- and that the Roman Catholic is right in saying the same thing) is itself tantamount to ecclesiological and/or heremeneutic 'heresy'. It's very odd.

It IS terribly ironic, isn't it? Being two different kinds of Orthodox, neither you nor I have "a dog in that fight" ... but really it does boil down to each side claiming both their right to determine what Scripture means - based on the interpretation of one man - while at the same time criticizing the other side on the basis of doing the same. Just a different man in either case.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I guess I don't know where that might have come from, but its not Sola Scriptura.

It's possible--but this is just a wild guess--that someone might have thought this because Luther argued that the Roman Church itself had relied upon Scripture and not custom until it began coming up with new doctrines like Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. etc. only in the Middle Ages. He endeavored (unsuccessfully, of course) to show the religious establishment of his time that such beliefs were innovations and were not true by Tradition, even if Tradition were valid.

I'll have to look for it, Albion, but it was presented as being all directly written by Luther, because that's what I was searching for when I found it.

I well know that Luther rejected certain doctrines of Catholicism. I had supposed when I read what I'm mentioning here that he believed the Magesterium to have diverged from some previously accepted teaching.

 

[Albion]

I don't see that. Sola Scriptura certainly doesn't vest the authority to decide any belief in any one man.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't see that. Sola Scriptura certainly doesn't vest the authority to decide any belief in any one man.

I am totally willing to grant that this is the case if the advocates of it can show how it is the case. To say that scripture is the standard (which, again, I don't think anyone who does not agree with Sola Scriptura is denying) is not in itself a workable hermeneutic, in that it can be agreed upon by all without any agreement following concerning the actual meaning of scripture. Again, to an outsider like me, it seems more like it's saying something about the Bible as an 'object', for lack of a better way to put it, than about its contents. The principle of "A simple layman armed with scripture..." tells whoever follows it that they have the right or the power to arm themselves with it over or against others who may claim that it means particular things with which an individual may disagree; it doesn't tell them what they should believe instead or why, only that they don't have to follow the Roman Pope's interpretation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't see that. Sola Scriptura certainly doesn't vest the authority to decide any belief in any one man.

But who decides, for each man, in that case?

Scripture is the highest authority, but whose interpretation, when two disagree?

And they do frequently disagree.

Each one deems himself right (that is just human nature - if he thinks he is wrong, hopefully he changes his mind and THEN he us right).

But who can correct him? He has "the Scriptures" that supposedly agree with him, so he can't BE corrected, really?

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but that's how it usually works out. Often they gather in fellowships, denominations, and have unity there. But if one disagrees with the interpretation of the group or leader, one finds a new group, or starts his own. I've seen it happen many times.

 

[Albion]

I am totally willing to grant that this is the case if the advocates of it can show how it is the case. To say that scripture is the standard (which, again, I don't think anyone who does not agree with Sola Scriptura is denying) is not in itself a workable hermeneutic, in that it can be agreed upon by all without any agreement following concerning the actual meaning of scripture. Again, to an outsider like me, it seems more like it's saying something about the Bible as an 'object', for lack of a better way to put it, than about its contents.

The claim that I replied to said that both sides--RC and Protestant--do same thing, i.e. base doctrine on the interpretation of one man. This is clearly wrong. Who, may I ask then, is that man in the case of the many Protestant churches?? I get the part about the Pope, but not the supposed Protestant parallel.

Yet, the reformed churches do have confessions of faith. Do Orthodox Christians suppose that all of these are written by some crypto-Popes of their own? Of course, that is not the case.

 

[Albion]

But who decides, for each man, in that case?

By and large, it is the whole church guided by a representative assembly of some sort, drawing from the learning of Bible experts, theologians and other scholars. In other words, not a lot different from how your church arrived at its conclusions.

Of course, there are freebooters or lone wolves who insist that they don't need a church...and they are always classified as Protestants, but it is grossly wrong IMO to characterize what such people do as the way Protestants proceed. There are Orthodox Christians, too, who have some unorthodox beliefs that their churches never taught them, either.

Scripture is the highest authority, but whose interpretation, when two disagree?

And they do frequently disagree.

I hope that my answer above covered that. Protestant churches are not institutions where anyone of any belief just shows up, believing whatever seems okay to him. Unfortunately, people think Protestant, for being such a broad generalization, means 'anything goes,' whereas the same problem for a Catholic or Orthodox Christian is brushed aside by saying "Oh, they are heretics. They don't count."

 

[~Anastasia~]

By and large, it is the whole church guided by a representative assembly of some sort, drawing from the learning of Bible experts, theologians and other scholars. In other words, not a lot different from how your church arrived at its conclusions.

Of course, there are freebooters or lone wolves who insist that they don't need a church...and they are always classified as Protestants, but it is grossly wrong IMO to characterize what such people do as the way Protestants proceed. There are Orthodox Christians, too, who have some unorthodox beliefs that their churches never taught them, either.


I hope that my answer above covered that. Protestant churches are not institutions where anyone of any belief just shows up, believing whatever seems okay to him. Unfortunately, people think Protestant, for being such a broad generalization, means 'anything goes,' whereas the same problem for a Catholic or Orthodox Christian is brushed aside by saying "Oh, they are heretics. They don't count."

Fair enough.

At times I think perhaps the label "Protestant" is not particularly useful. For the way we function when we discuss such things, those lone wolf types ARE Protestant, yet as you say, not all of Protestantism can be understood that way.

I think we come round in circles. Yes, some do agree with the teachings of their denomination, established confessions, and so forth and in that respect they function as the Orthodox do, just substituting something more recent, or perhaps supplementing, the early Church teaching. So they have quasi-councils or quasi-popes, just different ones. But then how is their Sola Scriptura different from Orthodoxy, say, except in the seat of authority?

And there is a very broad segment that fall under the label of "non-denominational" or are otherwise independent, whose doctrine as a community is usually decided by one man.

Maybe all of this just clouds the issue. I don't know of anyone, Orthodox or Protestant, and as far as I know, Catholic either, who denies the authority of Scripture. (Well, I take that back, I do know of a few scattered individuals but they don't represent anything we need to consider here.)

But when it comes down to whether those Scriptures speak of Christ ACTUALLY PRESENT in the bread and wine, or mere symbolism. Of salvation that requires perseverance, or whether it is impossible NOT to persevere. Whether baptism is a means of grace, or just a public statement. The role of women in the Church. And a thousand other questions - there is disagreement. And ALL will point to the same Scriptures (seen through their particular lens or that of their denomination) to justify their dissenting answers to those and many other questions.

It never was really about the authority of Scripture. It really boils down to whose interpretation of Scripture, in every case.

 

[Albion]

But when it comes down to whether those Scriptures speak of Christ ACTUALLY PRESENT in the bread and wine, or mere symbolism. Of salvation that requires perseverance, or whether it is impossible NOT to persevere. Whether baptism is a means of grace, or just a public statement. The role of women in the Church. And a thousand other questions - there is disagreement?

Is there? Or are you putting all Protestant churches in the same box in order to come to that conclusion?

The majority of Protestants belong to churches that agree with you on every one of those doctrinal points you just mentioned. But the relatively few non-denoms or 'never was' freelance people define the issue and you say....disagreement.

I don't know how to get us beyond this, and pointing out that everyone's church can be accused of being part of disagreement (because that's obviously true so long as there is not one united church everywhere) doesn't seem to impress anyone who belongs to a church that says it's the one true and only church, either.

 

[Aseyesee]

Scripture when read 'alone' is 'individual'. It is what 'you' read from it. This can be dangerous.

Even when read "alone" we read from it.

 

[dzheremi]

The claim that I replied to said that both sides--RC and Protestant--do same thing, i.e. base doctrine on the interpretation of one man. This is clearly wrong. Who, may I ask then, is that man in the case of the many Protestant churches?? I get the part about the Pope, but not the supposed Protestant parallel.

Whoever sees fit to interpret the Bible in this or that way.

I get the feeling that you think the argument I'm making is that the Protestant reformers are the equivalent to the Roman Pope, e.g., Luther is the "Lutheran Pope", Calvin the "Calvinist Pope", etc. That's not what I mean.

My point is that in terms of a hermenuetic position - how one reads the Bible -- there is not a lot of difference between the man who says "I will follow the Roman Pope's position, in deference to his authority to interpret" and the one who says "I will follow what it appears that scripture is saying to the simple layman", because in either case it is individual interpretation which ultimately decides "what the Bible says" -- in the case of the Roman Catholic, the Pope's; in the case of certain forms of Protestantism, the layperson's.

Certain other forms of Protestantism, it should be said, do not follow such an individualistic interpretation, and instead hold some place for tradition and conciliar approaches that would be rejected by others who also define themselves as believers in Sola Scriptura for being too close to Rome's way of doing things. This is a discussion that Protestant Christians should have among themselves, I suppose, as it is their hermeneutic to define.

 

[Tigger45]

It IS terribly ironic, isn't it? Being two different kinds of Orthodox, neither you nor I have "a dog in that fight" ... but really it does boil down to each side claiming both their right to determine what Scripture means - based on the interpretation of one man - while at the same time criticizing the other side on the basis of doing the same. Just a different man in either case.

Sorry sis, but what is ironic is that both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox not being in full communion with each other due to scripture interpretation using what each consider Tradition as their reading glasses. We can throw in Roman Catholics also for that matter.

Lord have mercy on us 'all'.

 

[All4Christ]

Perhaps it is another difference between "sola" and "solo" scriptura.

I still think the original definition of sola scriptura was more like prima scriptura, with the sola indicating that all needed for salvation can be found in Scripture, yet the interpretation was guided corporately, not individually.

That said - if there was a disagreement that could not be reconciled (with a large enough group of followers), a new denomination or church was born, often initially based on the teaching of the "father" of that movement...i.e. Calvin, Wesley, Luther, Zwingli, etc.

 

[dzheremi]

I think you're confusing "ironic" with "not the topic of this thread", Tigger45.

 

[Tigger45]

I think you're confusing "ironic" with "not the topic of this thread", Tigger45.

True but its a valid point to that particular post and sola scriptura being the catalyst to causing denominational divisions.