Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[mark46]

Folks use the term "sola scriptura" as if we all had a common understand of the term and and associated doctrines.

SOLO SCRIPTURA
Some mean to use nothing but Scripture. All the truth is there. No interpretations are needed. Scripture speaks for itself. To the degree that we need "help" in understand, the Holy Spirit will provide that help.

SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE
Some are talking about the doctrine of scriptural sufficiency. For some, all that is needed for salvation/justification is contained in Scripture. Put another way, nothing outside of Scripture can be considered necessary for eternal life.

Some would go so far as to say that only Scriptural rules are relevant to our lives. If Scripture allows an action, it is allowed. if not, not. Otherwise, we are sort of on our own. For these folks, the bible is manual for life, containing all that we need to determine right conduct.

PRIMACY OF SCRIPTURE
Scripture is the last word. The Church and men can have rules, regulations and interpretations that are not in Scripture. However, they cannot be in conflict with Scripture.

INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
Consider that Scripture was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as understood by people 2000 years ago. The canon was not accepted until the 4th Century. There were many, many writings and translations before then. There are hundreds of verses that have been translated differently and interpreted differently by various groups.

So, it seems reasonable to ask whether we, as individuals (even with guidance of the Spirit) are capable of being able to discern the meaning of Scripture, with all of its passages. It seem reasonable to ask whether we should ignore the councils of the Church that made decisions on the canon, developed the Creeds of the Church in response to the many heresies of the time.

There is no question that understandings of various doctrines has changed over the ages. Forgiveness is a good example.

Manybelieve with Wesley (an Anglican priest and founder of the Methodist church) that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.'"[10]

Anglicans talk about STR (Scripture, Tradition and Reason). Wesley adds our Life experience (actions and prayer life).

Many of us believe that it is the Church that has interpreted Scripture from the beginning. We would have neither a bible, nor a unified set of beliefs without the early Church.

The early Church was much more varied than it is even today. There were many, many beliefs held by those who called themselves Christians. Even the CF definition of Nicene Christian has no mean until the various councils of the Church interpreted the faith in the Nicene Creed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What I found fascinating was that I ran across Luther's position on "sola scriptura" and I posted a thread here on CF about it. It reads nothing like what most people seem to mean when they say "sola scriptura".

These days, most people want to demand "nothing but Scripture" even to the point that if Scripture does not expressly describe or prescribe a thing, it is forbidden (which is kind of interesting, given that their fellowships always include things not expressly in Scripture). While Luther seemed to say that Scripture was of primary importance, not able to be contradicted, but that the Tradition of the Church was helpful in interpreting and understanding it.

If your steps are complete, and in order, it would seem that "Sola Scriptura" as a doctrine began with one intent and has largely migrated completely to the opposite end of the spectrum in most people's understanding.

 

[mark46]

What I found fascinating was that I ran across Luther's position on "sola scriptura" and I posted a thread here on CF about it. It reads nothing like what most people seem to mean when they say "sola scriptura".

These days, most people want to demand "nothing but Scripture" even to the point that if Scripture does not expressly describe or prescribe a thing, it is forbidden (which is kind of interesting, given that their fellowships always include things not expressly in Scripture). While Luther seemed to say that Scripture was of primary importance, not able to be contradicted, but that the Tradition of the Church was helpful in interpreting and understanding it.

If your steps are complete, and in order, it would seem that "Sola Scriptura" as a doctrine began with one intent and has largely migrated completely to the opposite end of the spectrum in most people's understanding.

I agree. I believe that Luther would be appalled by the current use of term (also Calvin and Wesley).

 

[alexandriaisburning]

So, it seems reasonable to ask whether we, as individuals (even with guidance of the Spirit) are capable of being able to discern the meaning of Scripture, with all of its passages.

The way you frame this question automatically capitulates to the assumptions of those who would advocate sola Scriptura. By suggesting that there is an objective meaning within Scripture that simply needs to be unlocked--whether by interpretation, inspiration, or anything else, you are enabling the argument that Scripture "alone" is, in fact, sufficient...for all that's needed is the appropriate tools, skills, etc.

A more wholistic approach to Christian belief--one that incorporates Scripture, history, experience in a "rule of faith"--does not approach interpretation of Scripture in this way. The "meanings" of Scripture are not sitting in the text, simply waiting as "objective truths" to be mined by whatever interpreter might come along. Rather, the Scriptures are themselves imbued with meaning (and yes, even truth!) as they are interpreted within the historical outflowing of the Church. In this way, even authorial intent--a perennial interest of modern historical/critical methodologies--is subordinated to the rule of faith.

Therefore, Scripture can *never* be intepreted in a vaccuum, as we cannot simply ask "what does this text mean"? To really read Scripture, the only question that has relevance is "what does this text mean within the community of the faithful"? Outside of this hermeneutical context (the Church), the Scriptures do not have "truth" in the sense that the advocates of Sola Scriptura would have us believe they do.

 

[mark46]

The way you frame this question automatically capitulates to the assumptions of those who would advocate sola Scriptura. By suggesting that there is an objective meaning within Scripture that simply needs to be unlocked--whether by interpretation, inspiration, or anything else, you are enabling the argument that Scripture "alone" is, in fact, sufficient...for all that's needed is the appropriate tools, skills, etc.

A more wholistic approach to Christian belief--one that incorporates Scripture, history, experience in a "rule of faith"--does not approach interpretation of Scripture in this way. The "meanings" of Scripture are not sitting in the text, simply waiting as "objective truths" to be mined by whatever interpreter might come along. Rather, the Scriptures are themselves imbued with meaning (and yes, even truth!) as they are interpreted within the historical outflowing of the Church. In this way, even authorial intent--a perennial interest of modern historical/critical methodologies--is subordinated to the rule of faith.

Therefore, Scripture can *never* be intepreted in a vaccuum, as we cannot simply ask "what does this text mean"? To really read Scripture, the only question that has relevance is "what does this text mean within the community of the faithful"? Outside of this hermeneutical context (the Church), the Scriptures do not have "truth" in the sense that the advocates of Sola Scriptura would have us believe they do.

It is interesting to see that you consider what the author (as inspired by God) meant by Scripture is irrelevant, and that the meaning of the very words and concepts at the time and place of the writing of the Scripture is irrelevant. You have taken the opposite position from the solo scriptura folks. You seem to think that Scripture is God's Word is empty of meaning, except as interpreted and used by current communities, as such interpretations change from time to time.

Of course, no Scripture can be taken by itself. All Scripture must be considered within the context of other Scripture, and within the context of the interpretation of the Church, especially the early Church who defined which books were God's Word and which interpretations were the Creed of the faithful.

BTW, what do you think sola scriptura means? You seem to have a definition different from that of the traditional churches. Do you believe that the traditional churches deny that Scripture is sufficient or primary? For me, the issue is not whether Scripture is sufficient or primary. I know it is. The question is with regard to interpretation. To me, it is unreasonable to ignore the interpretations of the Church over the ages.

The meaning in the 1500's when the term was developed certainly included the importance of interpretation by the Church. after all, Luther was an Augustinian monk, with a great respect for the early Church. One might even go back further and understand this doctrine from the prospect of Saint Vincent of Lorens 6th Century).

As an aside, we are NOT discussing the inerrancy of Scripture, which almost all of the traditional churches accept.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It is interesting to see that you consider what the author (as inspired by God) meant by Scripture is irrelevant, and that the meaning of the very words and concepts at the time and place of the writing of the Scripture is irrelevant. You have taken the opposite position from the solo scriptura folks. You seem to think that Scripture is God's Word is empty of meaning, except as interpreted and used by current communities, as such interpretations change from time to time.

Lol, did you read what I posted? I never suggested that authorial intent is irrelevant. What I said--if you had actually read it--is that it is subordinated to the interpretation of Scripture within the context of the broader rule of faith. Ultimately, this means that the meaning--and meaningfulness--of Scripture is not exclusively located in the historical contexts of the texts, nor even in the expression of belief of its original authors. If this were the case, Scripture could presumably be interpreted with precision by a person who is in possession of the correct hermeneutical tools. But of course, this is a fallacy, as the meaningfulness and "truth" of the Scriptures finds expression only within the context of the community of believers. Outside this context, it is only the "foolishness of men".

Also, this has nothing to do with "current communities" (another concept *I* never suggested). What I suggested in my previous response is applicable to any age of the community of believers.

Of course, no Scripture can be taken by itself. All Scripture must be considered within the context of other Scripture, and within the context of the interpretation of the Church, especially the early Church who defined which books were God's Word and which interpretations were the Creed of the faithful.

You are speaking about "interpretation" in a very imprecise way. There is very little regarding interpretation of specific passages that has been codified by historical Christianity. The "content" of belief, of course, has much codification (e.g., Trinitarian formulas, definitions of the hypostatic union, etc).

BTW, what do you think sola scriptura means? You seem to have a definition different from that of the traditional churches. Do you believe that the traditional churches deny that Scripture is sufficient or primary?

I do not believe that "traditional churches" (whatever that is supposed to mean) deny that Scripture is sufficient or primary. I was simply pointing out that your formulation of the question regarding Sola Scripture (and your intention to undermine it) was a failed effort as the very approach you used in framing the question capitulates to the bad assumptions engendered in the ideas of those who would advocate Sola Scriptura.

 

[Grafted In]

Lol, did you read what I posted? I never suggested that authorial intent is irrelevant. What I said--if you had actually read it--is that it is subordinated to the interpretation of Scripture within the context of the broader rule of faith. Ultimately, this means that the meaning--and meaningfulness--of Scripture is not exclusively located in the historical contexts of the texts, nor even in the expression of belief of its original authors. If this were the case, Scripture could presumably be interpreted with precision by a person who is in possession of the correct hermeneutical tools. But of course, this is a fallacy, as the meaningfulness and "truth" of the Scriptures finds expression only within the context of the community of believers. Outside this context, it is only the "foolishness of men".
.

Surely you didn't mean "the foolishness of men with The Holy Ghost"

Please tell me you did not intend for us to interpret your comment as such.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Surely you didn't mean "the foolishness of men with The Holy Ghost"

Please tell me you did not intend for us to interpret your comment as such.

As I said, interpretation outside of the community of faith is pointless and foolishness. There is no guidance in interpretation by the Holy Spirit for interpretation of Scripture for those outside the community of faith...such a scenario is absurd, a contradiction in terms.

 

[Grafted In]

As I said, interpretation outside of the community of faith is pointless and foolishness. There is no guidance in interpretation by the Holy Spirit for interpretation of Scripture for those outside the community of faith...such a scenario is absurd, a contradiction in terms.

Can't quite tell, did you just change your position?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Can't quite tell, did you just change your position?

Do you have something of substance to contribute to this discussion?

 

[Grafted In]

Actually, I think I do.
Your claim is that outside of the community of believers a born again Christian with his bible and the The Holy Spirit in his heart is reduced to no more than "the foolishness of men".
I think your position is....not correct.

To the extent that means anything to you, then yes, I do have something of substance to contribute to this discussion.

But, if you are confident that your beliefs are above question I will leave if you wish.

 

[Charlie7399]

This is a very good analysis, Mark. The ideas some people hold about sola scriptura nowadays are very different from those held by the majority of historical Protestants, and it's important to understand that. I really can't stand it when we are all lumped together in the same category, giving the false impression that we all believe in the exact same definition.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Actually, I think I do.
Your claim is that outside of the community of believers a born again Christian with his bible and the The Holy Spirit in his heart is reduced to no more than "the foolishness of men".
I think your position is....not correct.

How obtuse! Thinking about a "born again Christian with his Bible" as being "outside of the community of believers" is a contradiction in terms.

But even if we allow for such a ridiculous distinction, then yes, I would say their interpretations would be mostly irrelevant. It would be quite similar to what the Fathers faced in the early days of the church, with the gnostics, Arians, etc. In many cases, these people were bringing forth interpretations which were, on the basis of reasonable analysis, perfectly legitimate given their starting assumptions. The Fathers scoffed at the interpretations, however, not necessarily because they were hermeneutically suspect, but most importantly because the interpretations did not align with the historical tradition of interpretation that the fathers believed themselves to be defending. Such divisions and errors are the inevitable outcome of interpretation outside the community of faith, the ultimate legacy of Sola Scriptura which has plagued Christianity from the earliest of days, and continues to manifest itself until today.

 

[MKJ]

It is interesting to see that you consider what the author (as inspired by God) meant by Scripture is irrelevant, and that the meaning of the very words and concepts at the time and place of the writing of the Scripture is irrelevant. You have taken the opposite position from the solo scriptura folks. You seem to think that Scripture is God's Word is empty of meaning, except as interpreted and used by current communities, as such interpretations change from time to time.

Of course, no Scripture can be taken by itself. All Scripture must be considered within the context of other Scripture, and within the context of the interpretation of the Church, especially the early Church who defined which books were God's Word and which interpretations were the Creed of the faithful.

BTW, what do you think sola scriptura means? You seem to have a definition different from that of the traditional churches. Do you believe that the traditional churches deny that Scripture is sufficient or primary? For me, the issue is not whether Scripture is sufficient or primary. I know it is. The question is with regard to interpretation. To me, it is unreasonable to ignore the interpretations of the Church over the ages.

The meaning in the 1500's when the term was developed certainly included the importance of interpretation by the Church. after all, Luther was an Augustinian monk, with a great respect for the early Church. One might even go back further and understand this doctrine from the prospect of Saint Vincent of Lorens 6th Century).

As an aside, we are NOT discussing the inerrancy of Scripture, which almost all of the traditional churches accept.

I think actually what alexandriaisburning is saying is, in a general way anyway, pretty much what is accepted in orthdodox of traditional Christian communities. Consider, for example, the way we look at the OT. Perhaps we do look, to some extent, to the intent of the author or community that created it. But we certainly don't think that is somehow the final word. We, as a CHristian community, understand it in light of later revelation in the Scriptures, as well as the way the Church has understood those teachings. It seems in fact that not doing this is where some of the errors that seem so common among some protestant groups that want to return to Hebrew customs and interpretations.

How has the Church dealt with questions and controversies about the nature of the faith, including Scriptural questions? Always within the context of the consensus of the community. And where consensus has been impossible, that has created schism, two communities where there was one, two sets of interpretations.

We can also see that when other communities tried interpreting the Scriptures, like Gnostics, their interpretations were not accepted as valid. the Scriptures were the same, the only basis for the rejection was that they were outside the interpretive community.

 

[mark46]

I think actually what alexandriaisburning is saying is, in a general way anyway, pretty much what is accepted in orthdodox of traditional Christian communities. Consider, for example, the way we look at the OT. Perhaps we do look, to some extent, to the intent of the author or community that created it. But we certainly don't think that is somehow the final word. We, as a CHristian community, understand it in light of later revelation in the Scriptures, as well as the way the Church has understood those teachings. It seems in fact that not doing this is where some of the errors that seem so common among some protestant groups that want to return to Hebrew customs and interpretations.

How has the Church dealt with questions and controversies about the nature of the faith, including Scriptural questions? Always within the context of the consensus of the community. And where consensus has been impossible, that has created schism, two communities where there was one, two sets of interpretations.

We can also see that when other communities tried interpreting the Scriptures, like Gnostics, their interpretations were not accepted as valid. the Scriptures were the same, the only basis for the rejection was that they were outside the interpretive community.

It is interesting that you consider that Gnostics interpret outside the community. To what degree is their situation different from the different groups today (on ion the 16th Century)?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I think we can see the principles I mentioned at play even in the hermeneutical license that the biblical authors themselves use on many occasions when they interpret Scripture.

Consider, for example, Matthew 2:14-15:

So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

The author makes an assertion that the words from Hosea 11 are prophetic of Jesus' life and circumstances; however, if we analyze Hosea 11 on its own merits, I think most interpreters would not come away with an overwhelming feeling that it is a text which is prophetic or in any way even anticipatory of a Messianic meaning; to the contrary, it is clear that the "son" in the context of the Hosean passage is referring to the nation/state of Israel.

However, the seemingly obvious historical context of the prophet's words are largely ignored by the author of the book of Matthew, as the larger meta-narrative of Jesus' Messianic identity is of more important focus. I think this is a good example (there are many others, of course) of how the hermeneutical priorities of the rule of faith preempt the more immediate conclusions of historical/critical methods of interpretation.

 

[mark46]

I think we can see the principles I mentioned at play even in the hermeneutical license that the biblical authors themselves use on many occasions when they interpret Scripture.

Consider, for example, Matthew 2:14-15:



The author makes an assertion that the words from Hosea 11 are prophetic of Jesus' life and circumstances; however, if we analyze Hosea 11 on its own merits, I think most interpreters would not come away with an overwhelming feeling that it is a text which is prophetic or in any way even anticipatory of a Messianic meaning; to the contrary, it is clear that the "son" in the context of the Hosean passage is referring to the nation/state of Israel.

However, the seemingly obvious historical context of the prophet's words are largely ignored by the author of the book of Matthew, as the larger meta-narrative of Jesus' Messianic identity is of more important focus. I think this is a good example (there are many others, of course) of how the hermeneutical priorities of the rule of faith preempt the more immediate conclusions of historical/critical methods of interpretation.

As my mentor taught me, prophesies (especially in the OT) may refer to more than one future event.

 

[~Anastasia~]

As my mentor taught me, prophesies (especially in the OT) may refer to more than one future event.

This is what I was thinking. And I have not found this idea limited to only certain traditions. It seems to be fairly widely accepted, at least on some level. I have spoken with Jewish teachers who approach Scriptures in the same way, so this was also not new with Christianity.

(And not only prophecy, but sometimes metaphors and really just about any part of Scripture. There may be for example a factual sense in a narrative, but also the spiritual truths that are demonstrated. I would not expect this to be a controversial or problematic way of looking at Scripture, generally speaking.)

 

[alexandriaisburning]

This is what I was thinking. And I have not found this idea limited to only certain traditions. It seems to be fairly widely accepted, at least on some level. I have spoken with Jewish teachers who approach Scriptures in the same way, so this was also not new with Christianity.

I'm not suggesting it's new, nor even that it's somehow illegitimate. My point is raising this was to support my previous comments about how interpretation must occur within the community of believers and the broader scope of the rule of faith. Within such a context, the interpretation of biblical texts can supercede (as I previously argued) what might be considered the "literal" (or historical, or whatever) interpretation, can retroactively infuse passages with the "prophetic", can suss out the "spiritual" meaning, etc.

(And not only prophecy, but sometimes metaphors and really just about any part of Scripture. There may be for example a factual sense in a narrative, but also the spiritual truths that are demonstrated. I would not expect this to be a controversial or problematic way of looking at Scripture, generally speaking.)

I'm not suggesting that it's controversial. My point is that this kind of interpretation can only legitimately occur within the rule and community of faith. Apart from this, there is no way in which access to such meanings is possible by any other means of interpretation.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

As my mentor taught me, prophesies (especially in the OT) may refer to more than one future event.

I don't disagree. But as the NT writers demonstrate on many occasions, prophecy can be (and is) interjected retroactively into texts where it may have never been recognized before.