Defining sola scriptura.

[MoreCoffee]

... And no, there is no Scripture referenced in it.

Okay, so what's the justification for the definition, why believe and use it?

 

[concretecamper]

“Sola scriptura” means “scripture alone.” This was a core principle propounded by the Reformers, people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who were the spiritual ancestors of Lutheran churches like hers, UCC churches like this one, and many other denominations as well. Against a church that claimed the authority to speak on behalf of God, the Reformers declared that all Christian teaching must be based on the Bible – putting the authority to study and discern the will of God back into the hands of any person, clergy or lay, who had access to a Bible and the ability to read it.

http://broadwayucc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SB-EMB-10-27-13-Not-Like-Other-People.docx1.pdf

 

[concretecamper]

Today, sola scriptura has all but been squeezed out of the institutional churches. It is looked upon as an important principle and a rallying cry of the Reformation. Nevertheless, as we have seen, the Lutheran, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches, descended as they are from the Magisterial Reformation, never did really put it into practice. Chances are that if you ask the pastor of one of these churches a doctrinal question, he will answer you with a reference to a creed or confession instead of with a Scripture. Too often, Scripture is made to fit the mold of the interpretation imposed on it by the creed or confession, rather than the confession being viewed as merely a statement of belief written by fallible humans.

Are We At the End of the Reformation? Part One: The End of Sola Scriptura--"By Scripture Alone"

 

[hedrick]

From the PCUSA Confession of 1967.

The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel. The church has received the books of the Old and New Testaments as prophetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated.

The New Testament is the recorded testimony of apostles to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Old Testament bears witness to God's faithfulness in his covenant with Israel and points the way to the fulfillment of his purpose in Christ. The Old Testament is indispensable to understanding the New, and is not itself fully understood without the New.

The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.

God's word is spoken to his church today where the Scriptures are faithfully preached and attentively read in dependence on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and with readiness to receive their truth and direction.

Note that it speaks of the church as the interpreter throughout that statement, not individuals. It sees God as speaking to us through the Scriptures, but implies that the church will apply it in light of the specific circumstances of the time and culture.

This statement doesn't say as explicitly as I would like how we use Scripture. Here is a quotation from the Declaration of Faith. This was approved by the General Assembly, but does not have confessional status:

Through the inward witness of the same Spirit
we acknowledge the authority of the Bible.
We accept the Old and New Testaments as the canon,
or authoritative standard of faith and life,
to which no further writings need be added.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
are necessary, sufficient, and reliable
as witnesses to Jesus Christ, the living Word.
We must test any word that comes to us
from church, world, or inner experience
by the Word of God in Scripture.
We subject to its judgment
all our understanding of doctrine and practice,
including this Declaration of Faith.
We believe the Bible to be the Word of God
as no other word written by human beings.

See the statement itself, http://www.creeds.net/reformed/PCUSA1985/1985-6.htm, for more detail, including the emphasis on the Word as preached, and some comments (similar to those in the Confession of 1967) about interpretation.

I don't think sola scriptura is at all at risk. Mainline Christianity is based quite strongly on the teachings and Jesus as find them in Scripture. We somewhat deemphasize traditional theology, but not Scripture.

 

[Metal Minister]

Are We At the End of the Reformation? Part One: The End of Sola Scriptura--"By Scripture Alone"

http://broadwayucc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SB-EMB-10-27-13-Not-Like-Other-People.docx1.pdf

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Q1nLwYK6E

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Today, sola scriptura has all but been squeezed out of the institutional churches. It is looked upon as an important principle and a rallying cry of the Reformation. Nevertheless, as we have seen, the Lutheran, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches, descended as they are from the Magisterial Reformation, never did really put it into practice. Chances are that if you ask the pastor of one of these churches a doctrinal question, he will answer you with a reference to a creed or confession instead of with a Scripture. Too often, Scripture is made to fit the mold of the interpretation imposed on it by the creed or confession, rather than the confession being viewed as merely a statement of belief written by fallible humans.

Are We At the End of the Reformation? Part One: The End of Sola Scriptura--"By Scripture Alone"

One might say a new reformation is afoot, some of the same disputes are emerging once again .

 

[MoreCoffee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Q1nLwYK6E

 

[concretecamper]

One might say a new reformation is afoot, some of the same disputes are emerging once again .

Yes, it is inevitable.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Today, sola scriptura has all but been squeezed out of the institutional churches.

Define that which you claim has been "squeezed out" of "institutional churches."


See post 11


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Okay, so what's the justification for the definition, why use it?

All addressed in post # 11. Please read that.





.

 

[concretecamper]

[/I]
Define that which you claim has been "squeezed out" of "institutional churches."


See post 11


.

This is not my quote...I just shared it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is not my quote...I just shared it.

Then you are responsible for it. Give the definition the author then used, if this snippet is to have any relevance and be worth the space being taken up at CF.






.

 

[Kristos]

I think it's safe to say that today we have the most diverse set of Christian doctrines that have ever existed, especially among protestants, most of whom would claim sola scriptura as a base. If the principle of sola scriptura is intended to norm doctrine, then how have we arrived at this state? Is it not painfully obviously that the notion that scripture alone can norm anything is defective? If sola scriptura had any normative effect whatsoever - then surely we would have fewer doctrinal variations, not more. Could just adding the word "alone" to a sentence have such a profound effect? There certainly seems to be an inflection point in the diversity of doctrine that corresponds to its addition.

The root of the word norm is related to a square - like a carpenters square. In the hands of skilled craftsman a square is powerful tool. It is necessary to build a proper house, but could one really say that a square alone is sufficient? Certainly a house could be built with a square alone, but could end up as just a bunch of walls with square angles and might not resemble a proper house at all. The concept of what a proper house looks like must exist and be correct before the square can be employed to "test" the angles. In other words, you can't just build anything you want and call it a house just because the angles are square. A square can and should be used to test the soundness of a house built according tradition. Only then can it have a normative effect.

 

[Albion]

I think it's safe to say that today we have the most diverse set of Christian doctrines that have ever existed, especially among protestants, most of whom would claim sola scriptura as a base. If the principle of sola scriptura is intended to norm doctrine, then how have we arrived at this state?

Well now, Sola Scriptura is intended to norm doctrine, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to do it!

We have all sorts of people around here who would rather follow some supposedly infallible person's pronouncements or custom or popular legend rather than follow Scripture, but Sola Scriptura still is what it is.

Is it not painfully obviously that the notion that scripture alone can norm anything is defective?

No, that would be the case if Scripture were defective. Or if there were actually some authority higher and more reliable than divine revelation! Are you prepared to argue that there is?

If sola scriptura had any normative effect whatsoever - then surely we would have fewer doctrinal variations, not more.

But that doesn't make any sense. What alternative is free from your criticism? None. That's easily proven. So how can it be that there is something wrong with relying upon God's word in preference to ... what?

 

[Kristos]

Well now, Sola Scriptura is intended to norm doctrine, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to do it!

I think perhaps the opposite - that many people are doing it and thus developing their own doctrine.

Do you think they are just not doing it, even though they claim to be? How can you discern the difference?

 

[tadoflamb]

[/I]
Define that which you claim has been "squeezed out" of "institutional churches."


See post 11


.

The very nature of what sola scriptura has been squeezed out of it. Is sola scriptura a principle, praxis, teaching or doctrine?

We know the Lutherans liken it to the practice of a measuring stick which is again ruled by the measuring stick of the Lutheran Confessionals.

As to the rest, you have to break it down by denomination which this thread is attempting to do.

 

[Albion]

I think perhaps the opposite - that many people are doing it and thus developing their own doctrine.

But that is extraneous to Sola Scriptura, don't you see? Sola Scriptura merely posits that God's word is the ultimate guide to doctrine. If some people don't use it and prefer something else, this doesn't render Sola Scriptura--or God's word, for that matter--defective or inadequate!

Likewise, if they do subscribe to the principle that is Sola Scriptura and misunderstand the Bible, that does not invalidate the Bible, nor does it mean that there's anything amiss with the process itself.

You might have a point if: 1) there were an alternative that solved all the problems you think you see with Sola Scriptura and if, 2) The Bible were shown to be hokum and not deserving of being our guide.

I don't get that you are ready to answer "Yes, that's so" to either of those.

 

[Albion]

As to the rest, you have to break it down by denomination which this thread is attempting to do.

You may be attempting to play denominations off against each other, Catholic vs Protestant and Protestant vs Protestant, but the thread is about defining Sola Scriptura.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well now, Sola Scriptura is intended to norm doctrine, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to do it!

We have all sorts of people around here who would rather follow some supposedly infallible person's pronouncements or custom or popular legend rather than follow Scripture, but Sola Scriptura still is what it is.



No, that would be the case if Scripture were defective. Or if there were actually some authority higher and more reliable than divine revelation! Are you prepared to argue that there is?


But that doesn't make any sense. What alternative is free from your criticism? None. That's easily proven. So how can it be that there is something wrong with relying upon God's word in preference to ... what?

ANYTHING to sound anti-Protestant, while admitting they know nothing about what they are addressing.....

A PRACTICE insures nothing. Just because the USA operates with the practice of the Rule of Law in the norming of disputed behavors does NOT mean ergo all wrong behavior vanishes, all disputes end, everyone loves and smiles at everyone, and paradise appears on earth. It simply means we have an objective, knowable rule above, outside and beyond all parties that serves as a rule in the norming process - namely, the written Law. The alternative, of course, is that each one declares that that self is uniquely exempt from accountability, which is the RCC alternative (see CCC 87, etc.) See post 11, the section "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?" This is why the RCC so passionately, so boldly, so foundationally rejects this - because it rejects accountability, responsibility, norming in the sole, singular, unique, exclusive, individual case of it itself alone. It itself simply insists that it itself uniquely is incapable of being wrong (in formal doctrine, AT LEAST) and thus exempts itself uniquely from the whole enchilada: self isn't subject to anything, all is subject to itself - which is why Catholics retort with the unmitigated, unaccountable, divine-like POWER that the RCC itself claims for it itself. Dictatorships by definition reject accountability, dictators only care what it itself says - and all are to submit. Thus, the RCC protest to this practice. Again, see post 11, "Why the RC Denomination So Passionately Protests this Practice?" And then note how Catholics CLAIM to be ignorant of the practice while protesting against what they just insisted they don't have a clue what is. ANYTHING to evade the issue of accountability in the sole case of the RC individually.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.