Sola Scriptura?

[hedrick]

This is the main area where Confessional Lutherans and Orthodox disagree. We agree with the "neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture", but it can be doctrine rather than just being adiaphora. (Of course, there are some things that are adiaphora in Orthodoxy as well).

As someone with a critical approach to history, I agree that there's something in common between doctrine and other matters. The classical doctrines, in the form that they appear in creeds and confessions, are just as much a development of the Church as worship services.

However I think there's a difference. There's no way we can know God's nature if he doesn't tell us. Since Scripture is the primary source we have for God's public revelation, doctrine has to have a reasonable basis in Scripture. Other things can be a bit more independent.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is the main area where Confessional Lutherans and Orthodox disagree. We agree with the "neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture", but it can be doctrine rather than just being adiaphora. (Of course, there are some things that are adiaphora in Orthodoxy as well).

Agreed; now when we Lutherans talk about "doctrine" and "Dogma" these would be things that are "required" or "necessary" for salvation.

 

[Albion]

The Church generally understood the consensus to be the Truth. Sometimes a majority fell into error, and were corrected. It depends on the topic.

Unfortunately, the lack of a consensus is brushed aside and simply stipulated to in many cases.

Consider the example I gave of the early church allegedly thinking that the bishop of Rome had been made a Pope with all that that implies. Well, it's simply not so, if we go by what the ECF's said. No need even to talk about Sola Scriptura with that one. Yet, the claim is still made on the basis of Tradition!

The Orthodox Eastern churches do not agree with that Pope issue, to be sure, but both Rome and Constantinople advocate Tradition as a supplement to Scripture and, whatever the doctrine may be, it often cannot be shown to have been established by either consensus or continuity.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Rule of Scripture in Norming (What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")



The Definition:


The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9).


What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for US to USE for THIS process.



What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." Nor a teaching on what is and is not Scripture. It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

3. Hermeneutics. The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon/norm) is often needed. But this is also beyond the scope here; the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon. Scripture does not arbitrate theological disputes anymore than the Law arbitrates civil disputes, in the Rule of Scripture as in the Rule of Law, they sure as the rule - not the arbiter.

Side point: While Scripture should not reject pious opinion or adiaphoron, nor does it need to affirm it. Sola Scriptura is primarily for dogma.



An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.

Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.


Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to see the objective, written, unalterable words in Scripture as reliable (perhaps even inerrant) for this purpose. Many may go further, embracing it as authoritative in this because of its Author, who is often seen as God. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or the teachings of that singular denomination) as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self. And the more objective, the better. The more universally accepted as reliable, the better.




Why do some so passionately reject this practice?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).



<Staff Edit>

Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Hi, Josiah. We've missed you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What do you mean by this?

I realize it was a simplistic statement. My point was to the poster who mentioned that we should be able to use the Scripture for the process of communion, for example. My point was ... before there was Scripture, there was Church, including communion. And the early Church's first major split (between your communion and mine), though furthest separated in time, we share preparations, etc. for the Eucharist, for example, more closely than we do with others.

My point is that it wasn't Scripture that told us how to do this, but practice of the Church, which existed prior to Scripture.

I wasn't trying to be TOO detailed about it, please forgive me if what I said was of any concern to you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Agreed; but as a confessional Lutheran, I must add that it does not preclude "tradition"; rather "tradition" reflects either Scripture or "pious opinion". Such traditional "pious opinions" that are neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture are considered "adiaphora", and can not be considered either "doctrine" or "dogma".

This is the main area where Confessional Lutherans and Orthodox disagree. We agree with the "neither conflicting with or forbidden by Scripture", but it can be doctrine rather than just being adiaphora. (Of course, there are some things that are adiaphora in Orthodoxy as well).

This is a helpful distinction to know. i hope that I can remember it. I hadn't realized the words had this definition within Lutheranism.

One more chance for us to misunderstand one another if we aren't careful. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Unfortunately, the lack of a consensus is brushed aside and simply stipulated to in many cases.

Consider the example I gave of the early church allegedly thinking that the bishop of Rome had been made a Pope with all that that implies. Well, it's simply not so, if we go by what the ECF's said. No need even to talk about Sola Scriptura with that one. Yet, the claim is still made on the basis of Tradition!

The Orthodox Eastern churches do not agree with that Pope issue, to be sure, but both Rome and Constantinople advocate Tradition as a supplement to Scripture and, whatever the doctrine may be, it often cannot be shown to have been established by either consensus or continuity.

Well, I can't speak for what Rome (or any other group) reads it to say. This is a big part of why I am Orthodox ...

 

[Albion]

Well, I can't speak for what Rome (or any other group) reads it to say. This is a big part of why I am Orthodox ...

Right. And Orthodoxy is to be commended for its restraint. However, both communions claim to be guided by Tradition, and the fact that they come up with different doctrines based upon that Tradition would seem to me to negate the claim we always hear made against Sola Scriptura--that different churches come up with different interpretations "therefore it can't be" sufficient for its purpose.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Right. And Orthodoxy is to be commended for its restraint. However, both communions claim to be guided by Tradition, and the fact that they come up with different doctrines based upon that Tradition would seem to me to negate the claim we always hear made against Sola Scriptura--that different churches come up with different interpretations "therefore it can't be" sufficient for its purpose.

Well, that's really a Rome vs. Orthodoxy thing, and not one I want to get too far into. I do love and respect my Catholic brothers and sisters, but I believe Christianity would look very different today if Rome had not done many of the things she has done. Best not to pick at old wounds.

But if you consider only Catholicism and Orthodoxy, while I can appreciate the stance that care is needed because we don't agree with one another on many counts, just because one of us has made certain interpretations that are out of order (we will stick with the ECFs on the office of Pope) ... does not mean that Tradition as a whole cannot be reliable. What Orthodoxy (or Rome for that matter) has done with it shouldn't be judged by what the other has done with it.

You do have a point, though, that one of the charges against SS can likewise be made against Tradition, where it has been ... understood differently. I am trying to be kind.

But yes, we reject innovations, changes, and compromises, and rely on the Church as a whole through the early centuries, to include all of the sees and all of the commonly held faith among the people and all of the bishops and all of the ECFs in consensus. Not a single see which had historically a problem with authority.

But each one of us has to decide where to stand in all of this. Whether we are inside or outside of certain fellowships can add an extra prejudice for or against, along with many other questions that must be answered to reach a final conclusion. This is not a simple matter, when taken that way. I've had to deal with essentially all of those questions for myself.

 

[Albion]

But if you consider only Catholicism and Orthodoxy, while I can appreciate the stance that care is needed because we don't agree with one another on many counts, just because one of us has made certain interpretations that are out of order (we will stick with the ECFs on the office of Pope) ... does not mean that Tradition as a whole cannot be reliable.

If that's so, the argument against Sola Scriptura also fails.

What Orthodoxy (or Rome for that matter) has done with it shouldn't be judged by what the other has done with it.

You do have a point, though, that one of the charges against SS can likewise be made against Tradition, where it has been ... understood differently. I am trying to be kind.

?? Why does it take an effort to be kind in order to acknowledge the obvious?

 

[~Anastasia~]

If that's so, the argument against Sola Scriptura also fails.

I acknowledged that you had a point. But to be fair, the differences in Orthodoxy and Catholicism regarding what we consider to be Holy Tradition are not much - compared to all the variance in doctrines arrived at by interpreting Scripture. Every conceivable question can be answered in every conceivable way among sola scripturists .... it is difficult to find a single doctrine that EVERYone agrees upon. The comparison is not equivalent, imo.

?? Why does it take an effort to be kind in order to acknowledge the obvious?

I always try to be kind. If I were completely blunt, and spoke my mind completely about the situation, it would not appear to be kind. But again, no reason to stir people up now over things that happened many centuries ago. No one here is responsible.

 

[Paidiske]

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

The difficulty, as I understand it, with seeing Scripture as a rule of faith in this way, is that Scripture is itself too able to be understood in many different ways. This is why we see, well before the development of the canon even, the development of a regula fidei which functions to norm our reading of Scripture.

In that sense - the sense that we need a canonical norm to which to hold our understanding of Scripture accountable - I don't think that Scripture can easily function in the way you set out here.

 

[hedrick]

The difficulty, as I understand it, with seeing Scripture as a rule of faith in this way, is that Scripture is itself too able to be understood in many different ways. This is why we see, well before the development of the canon even, the development of a regula fidei which functions to norm our reading of Scripture.

In that sense - the sense that we need a canonical norm to which to hold our understanding of Scripture accountable - I don't think that Scripture can easily function in the way you set out here.

Indeed. This is why the two original traditions that came from the Reformers are both confessional. We do theology as a communion, so individuals who have a new understanding of Scripture have to convince the Church before it has effect. However, at least in principle, we do believe that the tradition can be wrong, so it is legitimate to challenge the current concensus, and the Church is supposed to be continually reexamining the Scriptural foundation of its beliefs.

This is a compromise between letting everyone go off on their own and claiming inerrant tradition.

 

[Albion]

I acknowledged that you had a point. But to be fair, the differences in Orthodoxy and Catholicism regarding what we consider to be Holy Tradition are not much - compared to all the variance in doctrines arrived at by interpreting Scripture.

I wouldn't say "not much" when several of the most critically important doctrines (in the minds of both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians) account for the greatest schism in Christian history. I refer of course to Papal Supremacy, later made worse by the addition of Papal Infallibiliity.

However, my thinking is that any disagreement on any supposedly infallible doctrinal matter that's derived from Tradition is as significant as any that are derived from Scripture Alone.

What's more the RC and EO are but two separate communions. I would expect there to be fewer areas of disagreement between them than exist among the many Protestant denominations, including many that never had any common history. It's always easy, remember, to denigrate Protestants simply by referring to a few of the least typical and orthodox church bodies who, nevertheless, are classified as Protestant.

All that a Catholic Christian has to do in order to nail down his argument is to pair Lutherans or Anglicans with Unitarians or Mennonites and then say, "What a difference! 'Protestants' are really in disarray, so 'they' can't be right!"

 

[All4Christ]

I wouldn't say "not much" when several of the most critically important doctrines (in the minds of both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians) account for the greatest schism in Christian history. I refer of course to Papal Supremacy, later made worse by the addition of Papal Infallibiliity.

However, my thinking is that any disagreement on any supposedly infallible doctrinal matter that's derived from Tradition is as significant as any that are derived from Scripture Alone.

What's more the RC and EO are but two separate communions. I would expect there to be fewer areas of disagreement between them than exist among the many Protestant denominations, including many that never had any common history. It's always easy, remember, to denigrate Protestants simply by referring to a few of the least typical and orthodox church bodies who, nevertheless, are classified as Protestant.

All that a Catholic Christian has to do in order to nail down his argument is to pair Lutherans or Anglicans with Unitarians or Mennonites and then say, "What a difference! 'Protestants' are really in disarray, so 'they' can't be right!"

You mentioned before in our conversation that there are multiple interpretations of Sola Scriptura - one that you believe is true Sola Scriptura and one that is not accurate. I get your concern with that. Now, however, you seem to consider the Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition to be identical to the RCC understanding.

While we are similar (and closer than many Protestants), our views of Holy Tradition are different, hence your point is not accurate. The RCC views Holy Tradition and Scripture as two parralel streams of revelation, whereas we view Scripture as the most important part of Holy Tradition. You are doing the same thing you ask others to not do regarding Sola Scriptura.

The traditional churches with Sola Scriptura have drawn from the teachings and interpretations of the churches since he early church. That certainly accounts for some of the similarities. That is a form of tradition - which is part of this forum.

 

[Albion]

You mentioned before in our conversation that there are multiple interpretations of Sola Scriptura - one that you believe is true Sola Scriptura and one that is not accurate. I get your concern with that.

I don't remember saying that, but I may have agreed that some people have stated their belief in Sola Scriptura only to then give a garbled or erroneous view of what they're talking about. That's not to say that there are different versions of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is quite clearcut, unlike Tradition, and I've spent too many posts laying it out to people who continue to write that they don't get what it's supposed to mean.

Now, however, you seem to consider the Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition to be identical to the RCC understanding.

They both claim "Tradition" and, from what I can tell, define it the same way, although using it results in different doctrines by the two sides.

While we are similar (and closer than many Protestants), our views of Holy Tradition are different, hence your point is not accurate. The RCC views Holy Tradition and Scripture as two parralel streams of revelation, whereas we view Scripture as the most important part of Holy Tradition.

Kind of a slight difference, isn't it?

The traditional churches with Sola Scriptura have drawn from the teachings and interpretations of the churches since he early church. That certainly accounts for some of the similarities. That is a form of tradition - which is part of this forum.

Well, it's not a form of Holy Tradition, which is part of this forum.

 

[ToBeLoved]

My point was to the poster who mentioned that we should be able to use the Scripture for the process of communion, for example. My point was ... before there was Scripture, there was Church, including communion.

How is this so? Where did we get the Last Supper from if not scripture?

Christianity did not exist before Christ. The Old Covenant was for the Hebrew/Israelite's, not Gentiles.

 

[hedrick]

How is this so? Where did we get the Last Supper from if not scripture?

Christianity did not exist before Christ. The Old Covenant was for the Hebrew/Israelite's, not Gentiles.

From the NT it seems clear that communion was celebrated from the beginning of the Church or very nearly after. But the first book of the NT (one of Paul's letters) was written a couple of decades later. Much of the NT was later than that. In particular, the earliest account of the Institution is in 1 Cor, written around 54 AD. That letter make it obvious that it was already being celebrated before he wrote the letter. So it's clear that the celebration of communion really did come before Scripture.

Scripture is the only primary source of information about Jesus and his early followers available to us today. But during the 1st Century that was not the case. Initially the church was created by preaching of those who had known Jesus, and their followers. Today, however, if we need to check whether tradition has drifted off, Scripture is the only sensible way to do that.

This is one reason that some forms of sola scriptura make no sense. You sometimes get the impression that when God wanted to reveal himself, he inspired Scripture, and the Church comes from Scripture. But this is historically impossible. The Church came from preaching the Gospel, and started before Scripture existed. In fact when God wanted to reveal himself he sent Christ. Scripture is a witness to that, but not the earliest witness. Just the best we have today.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't remember saying that, but I may have agreed that some people have stated their belief in Sola Scriptura only to then give a garbled or erroneous view of what they're talking about. That's not to say that there are different versions of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is quite clearcut, unlike Tradition, and I've spent too many posts laying it out to people who continue to write that they don't get what it's supposed to mean.

They both claim "Tradition" and, from what I can tell, define it the same way, although using it results in different doctrines by the two sides.

Kind of a slight difference, isn't it?

I think you agreed with the definition I gave earlier of Sola Scriptura. I believe I understand the actual definition of it. Yet, even within the Churches that have a clearcut understanding of Sola Scriptura, there are significant differences.

The different ways of understanding and using Holy Tradition makes a big difference in the final dogmas and doctrines. You may not see it that way, but as someone who is part of one of the two Churches, it does make difference. Remember, your opinion is "from what you can tell".

The way people use Sola Scriptura results in differing opinions as well. Which way is right?