Sola Scriptura Question

[InquisitorKind]

Although I personally have a set definition of Sola Scriptura, I was looking to see how the Protestants at this forum defined the concept. Traditionally, I have seen two forms put forth. One is highly problematic, and the other is what the Reformers, along with many Early Church Fathers, functionally taught.

Here's the question:

How do you define Sola Scriptura?

At some point I might throw my two cents in. We'll see how this goes.

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Although I personally have a set definition of Sola Scriptura, I was looking to see how the Protestants at this forum defined the concept. Traditionally, I have seen two forms put forth. One is highly problematic, and the other is what the Reformers, along with many Early Church Fathers, functionally taught.

Here's the question:

How do you define Sola Scriptura?

At some point I might throw my two cents in. We'll see how this goes.

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

I do not. It is not a term found in scripture so I choose not to get bound up with it. In other words, the Word of God is enough.... we do not need man made terminology. Usually this sort of effort ends up with someone trying to use the non-scriptural term to trap or confuse.
Let's stick with the word and leave the Latin for whoever it is that speaks it.

 

[Lynn73]

To me, Sola Scriptura means what the above post says. Scripture is enough, we don't need doctrines that are man made and assumed to be true. The Bible is God's word and is the final authority for many of us. We compare teachings to it and if they don't match up, we reject those teachings. Many of us don't consider proclamations by the church to be infallible or to be unquestioned, nor do we automatically accept proclamations from our spiritual leaders to be infallible. Everything needs to be compared and checked with the word of God, just as the noble Bereans did. That's the best way I know of saying it, don't know if that helps or not.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

Sola Scriptura - the conviction that only the Bible is the legitimate and authoritative source of religious teaching, and the Bible alone is the real interpreter of itself and interpretations of one portion of Scripture are to be arrived at through the use of other portions of Scripture, not from other sources



Peace in Christ.

 

[Preachers12]

Although I personally have a set definition of Sola Scriptura, I was looking to see how the Protestants at this forum defined the concept. Traditionally, I have seen two forms put forth. One is highly problematic, and the other is what the Reformers, along with many Early Church Fathers, functionally taught.

Here's the question:

How do you define Sola Scriptura?

At some point I might throw my two cents in. We'll see how this goes.

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

Matt, Peace be with you.

I posed a similar question here some time ago: http://www.christianforums.com/t46670

There were some good responses which helped me understand this "doctrine" better.

God Bless,
P12

 

[Blackhawk]

I do not. It is not a term found in scripture so I choose not to get bound up with it. In other words, the Word of God is enough.... we do not need man made terminology. Usually this sort of effort ends up with someone trying to use the non-scriptural term to trap or confuse.
Let's stick with the word and leave the Latin for whoever it is that speaks it.

So you do not believe in the Trinity either? I do not see how there is anything wrong with using words found outside of scripture to define doctrines taught in scripture.

 

[Blackhawk]

Scripture is self sufficient. It is not the Bible alone or that scripture is enough. There are other revelations of God besides the bible and i believe we need a direct revelation from the HS to understand scripture. But it is self sufficent and is God's word. it does not need man's interpretation, theology, tradition, or the church to interpret it in order for it to be scripture and the word of God.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Matt, Peace be with you.

I posed a similar question here some time ago: http://www.christianforums.com/t46670

There were some good responses which helped me understand this "doctrine" better.

God Bless,
P12

Reformationist gave the best answers (IMHO).

Thanks for the link,
~Matt

 

[Blackhawk]

Reformationist gave the best answers (IMHO).

Thanks for the link,
~Matt

well I do not agree completely with this statement "...the belief that the Bible is the authority by which all other authority is held accountable."

In a way I think it is true. God gave us the Bible in some part to clarify what is of God and what is not. But I do not see the Bible itself as the authority. I see God as the authority. God gave the Bible the authority because it is his word. So when he says all other authority is held accountable to it I can't hold to that. Surely for us tradition and the church's authority is held accoutnable to it but not God himself. I know that is not what reformanist is saying here but if wording is so very important (and it is many times) then this is not an adequate def.. Again though I know and respect Reformanist and I know what he believes. I know that he beleives that God is sovereign and that he is the final authority in which all other authorities rest. However I disagree with his wording here which I am sure he could do many times to me and he would be able to find many faults in my own posts also.

 

[InquisitorKind]

well I do not agree completely with this statement "...the belief that the Bible is the authority by which all other authority is held accountable."

Thanks for your thoughts, Blackhawk.

Considering that the Bible is the word of God--the authority of God Himself--I don't think the distinction is necessary.

However, if you're in a situation where someone thinks you're worshipping the words on the piece of paper, or just the dry document itself as the means to which life can be found, I can understand why the distinction you've made would be absolutely necessary.

~Matt

 

[Blackhawk]

Thanks for your thoughts, Blackhawk.

Considering that the Bible is the word of God--the authority of God Himself--I don't think the distinction is necessary.

However, if you're in a situation where someone thinks you're worshipping the words on the piece of paper, or just the dry document itself as the means to which life can be found, I can understand why the distinction you've made would be absolutely necessary.

~Matt

I think that no part of God's revelation has authority really over another. Some are just more clear to us and some tell us more. But what God reveals in any form is equally as authoritative because it comes from God. I also see a difference between the God and his word. I mean that God has the authority in whatever he does. So the word of God does have the authority of God but so does other things. Does this make sense? What I am trying to say is that the word if God is authoritative because of the Word of God. I guess I do not see God's authority directly being his word but that his word has authority because God has the authority.

 

[InquisitorKind]

I think that no part of God's revelation has authority really over another. Some are just more clear to us and some tell us more. But what God reveals in any form is equally as authoritative because it comes from God. I also see a difference between the God and his word. I mean that God has the authority in whatever he does. So the word of God does have the authority of God but so does other things. Does this make sense? What I am trying to say is that the word if God is authoritative because of the Word of God. I guess I do not see God's authority directly being his word but that his word has authority because God has the authority.

I believe we are saying the same thing. If you think otherwise, you'll have to explain more clearly!

~Matt

 

[Ken]

Matt, have you read Keith Mathison's book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura"? It sounds like you are advocatng the same type of approach (more positive) to tradition that Mathison argues for, than is typically found among Protestants....

 

[InquisitorKind]

Ken,

I loved Mathison's book. It was really good, and adds much needed discussion and content to the Sola Scriptura dialogue.

~Matt

 

[Ken]

Ahh, thought so!! me too!!!