Sola Scriptura?

[FenderTL5]

.

 

[All4Christ]

This OP is almost completely one big straw man. If you would like to discuss Sola Scriptura, you need to begin with the actual concept as it is revealed in scripture, not a fabrication and a misconception of the idea.

One difficulty is that many people who adhere to Sola Scriptura differ in their understanding of the term.

 

[All4Christ]

The understanding of Sola Scriptura from more Traditional Sola Scriptura Churches is completely different than the understanding I had when I was a Pentecostal Christian. As a Pentecostal, it was "Bible Alone". Traditional Sola Scriptura churches are much closer to Prima Scriptura, albeit still different.

The Orthodox understanding can't be reduced to just a "term", though if we needed to match one of the Scriptura descriptions, I think we'd be close to Prima Scriptura. Problem is, we don't really have a hierarchy of Scripture above the rest of Holy Tradition, so much as a central focus on Scripture as understood through the lens of Holy Tradition as a whole, which happens to include Scripture. Scripture is like a jewel in a larger setting. The diamond in the center (Scripture) is magnificent and a crucial part of the setting, but you don't get the whole effect of you don't have the rest of setting included (the rest of Holy Tradition...since we consider the primary part of Holy tradition to be Scripture). If you take out the Holy Tradition, you still have the core, but the diamond by itself isn't the same magnicent setting without the rest of it. You don't have the whole until you see it in its proper setting. Likewise, the setting without the diamond is completely inadequate...just like Holy Tradition without Scripture is inadequate.

Perhaps my analogy is a bit out there, but I think it explains our view fairly well, albeit admittedly inadequate if trying to fully explain it.

 

[Albion]

One difficulty is that many people who adhere to Sola Scriptura differ in their understanding of the term.

Those who don't understand it must not adhere to it, then.

But there are all sorts of teachings and terms and concepts built into the Christian religion which lots of people don't understand. That doesn't make any of them invalid.

 

[All4Christ]

...there are all sorts of teachings and terms and concepts built into the Christian religion which lots of people don't understand. That doesn't make any of them invalid.

Understood. It does, however, make it difficult at times in regards to communication.

 

[Albion]

Understood. It does, however, make it difficult at times in regards to communication.

I know. My point--modest as it was--is that probably every church/communion/denomination has terms and concepts that many of its own people think they understand...but manage to get wrong.

I don't think it's reasonable, however, for opponents (of whatever church it may be) to use as an argument against the concepts/beliefs of the church the fact that some churchmen misunderstand it. Yet we so often hear it said that "no one knows what X means, ergo it cannot be correct."

 

[All4Christ]

I know. My point--modest as it was--is that probably every church/communion/denomination has terms and concepts that many of its own people think they understand...but manage to get wrong.

I don't think it's reasonable, however, for opponents (of whatever church it may be) to use as an argument against the concepts/beliefs of the church the fact that some churchmen misunderstand it. Yet we so often hear it said that "no one knows what X means, ergo it cannot be correct."

I agree that arguments against a belief of a church shouldn't be based on others misunderstanding a doctrine. Those misunderstandings may be symptomatic of a larger issue, but it is not inherently a reason in and of itself to say that a doctrine is wrong.

In this case, I believe reasonable comparisons should primarily be between those who have a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. In that case, it is relevant. In the former, it is symptomatic of a larger issue.

Many who claim to believe Sola Scriptura believe that we should only be influenced by the Bible - "Bible alone". The original understanding is, as you know, different from the "Bible alone" belief. It often is similar to Prima Scriptura, albeit not identical.

Personally, I believe there is a range, from Sola Ecclesia, to Prima Scriptura, to Sola Scriptura, and to "Scripture totally alone and isolated". There are some areas that overlap when these beliefs are applied to various churches and denominations.

 

[Albion]

I agree that arguments against a belief of a church shouldn't be based on others misunderstanding a doctrine. Those misunderstandings may be symptomatic of a larger issue, but it is not inherently a reason in and of itself to say that a doctrine is wrong....
Many who claim to believe Sola Scriptura believe that we should only be influenced by the Bible - "Bible alone".

Well, that (as you've worded it) is a perfect example of people getting it wrong. Fortunately, many who hold that view and many who believe in the correct meaning of Sola Scriptura are willing to admit that it's something different -- SolO Scriptura.

The original understanding is, as you know, different from the "Bible alone" belief. It often is similar to Prima Scriptura, albeit not identical.

Personally, I believe there is a range, from Sola Ecclesia, to Prima Scriptura, to Sola Scriptura, and to "Scripture totally alone and isolated". There are some areas that overlap when these beliefs are applied to various churches and denominations.

I'd be interested to know which (Protestant) denominations say, unequivocally, that their belief is not Sola Scriptura but, instead, Prima Scriptura or "Scripture totally alone and isolated." That's as opposed to what individuals who may claim to be affiliated with such a denomination might say, of course.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'd be interested to know which (Protestant) denominations say, unequivocally, that their belief is not Sola Scriptura but, instead, Prima Scriptura or "Scripture totally alone and isolated." That's as opposed to what individuals who may claim to be affiliated with such a denomination might say, of course.

I'm not speaking as an authority, but you often see various Protestants (usually of the more recently developed kinds) boast that their beliefs are "Scripture totally alone and isolated". However, it's easy enough to find, generally, that they have interpretations that lean on SOMETHING other than Scripture (even if it's just their interpretations of other Scriptures, in which case it becomes very circular), as well as practices that come from something other than Scripture. But they are generally offended if anyone points this out, and often defend their reliance on "Scripture alone and isolated" even in the face of it.

And then there are those who are happy to appeal to Josephus or other non-Christian sources, while rejecting the Councils or ECFS, which I find almost amusing if it weren't rather sad. I do understand it is usually done in an attempt to protect what they believe to be truth, though.

 

[Albion]

I'm not speaking as an authority, but you often see various Protestants (usually of the more recently developed kinds) boast that their beliefs are "Scripture totally alone and isolated".

Frankly, I that phrase didn't ring any bells for me when I read it in the previous post, and that's partly why I asked for the identity of some denomination that teaches it instead of Sola Scriptura. I'm not saying there are none.

However, it's easy enough to find, generally, that they have interpretations that lean on SOMETHING other than Scripture (even if it's just their interpretations of other Scriptures, in which case it becomes very circular)[/quote]
But an interpretation of Scripture is NOT departure from Sola Scriptura. We should all agree that Scripture need to be interpreted, whether that's done by some infallible denomination or by denominations that don't claim infallibility, by individuals or whomever.

as well as practices that come from something other than Scripture.

I don't know what that refers to.

But they are generally offended if anyone points this out, and often defend their reliance on "Scripture alone and isolated" even in the face of it.

Well, I'm not one of them and I'm still hoping someone will name names.

And then there are those who are happy to appeal to Josephus or other non-Christian sources, while rejecting the Councils or ECFS, which I find almost amusing if it weren't rather sad. I do understand it is usually done in an attempt to protect what they believe to be truth, though.

But why would they appeal to Josephus? I assume that it's because he was an early historian, and if he sheds light on the meaning of some passage in Scripture, that's still not a departure from Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura means, you know, that Scripture is the ultimate determiner of doctrine, not that nothing else can be utilized to help us understand what that ultimate authority is teaching us. To do that would be like saying science is one's ultimate guide to truth...but you can't use any computers or lab equipment.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Frankly, I that phrase didn't ring any bells for me when I read it in the previous post, and that's partly why I asked for the identity of some denomination that teaches it instead of Sola Scriptura. I'm not saying there are none.

However, it's easy enough to find, generally, that they have interpretations that lean on SOMETHING other than Scripture (even if it's just their interpretations of other Scriptures, in which case it becomes very circular)

But an interpretation of Scripture is NOT departure from Sola Scriptura. We should all agree that Scripture need to be interpreted, whether that's done by some infallible denomination or by denominations that don't claim infallibility, by individuals or whomever.


I don't know what that refers to.


Well, I'm not one of them and I'm still hoping someone will name names.


But why would they appeal to Josephus? I assume that it's because he was an early historian, and if he sheds light on the meaning of some passage in Scripture, that's still not a departure from Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura means, you know, that Scripture is the ultimate determiner of doctrine, not that nothing else can be utilized to help us understand what that ultimate authority is teaching us. To do that would be like saying science is one's ultimate guide to truth...but you can't use any computers or lab equipment.

I think we are talking past each other just a teeny bit.

I only meant that many later Protestants think that they rely on nothing but Scripture.

But even the way they interpret some passages when it is in contrast to the way Christianity has always understood said passages, is a "tradition" in itself - something that informs their reading of other passages as a result.

This is all I really meant to say - no great academic interjection. Forgive me please.

 

[Albion]

I think we are talking past each other just a teeny bit.

I had that feeling, too.

I only meant that many later Protestants think that they rely on nothing but Scripture.

But even the way they interpret some passages when it is in contrast to the way Christianity has always understood said passages, is a "tradition" in itself - something that informs their reading of other passages as a result.

I completely reject that perception which appears to be something of a standard among posters who belong to one or another of the Catholic churches. It takes the word "tradition" and gives it a totally different meaning from the 'Sacred Tradition' that their own churches follow (as opposed to Sola Scriptura).

And there's no actual tradition being followed anyway. We can't call X a tradition just because the church in question believes in it and long has. If we do that it suggests that the only reason it is the belief of that church is because it's old, not that there's any good reason otherwise (such as the Bible) for believing it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I had that feeling, too.


I completely reject that perception which appears to be something of a standard among posters who belong to one or another of the Catholic churches. It takes the word "tradition" and gives it a totally different meaning from the 'Sacred Tradition' that their own churches follow (as opposed to Sola Scriptura).

And there's no actual tradition being followed anyway. We can't call X a tradition just because the church in question believes in it and long has. If we do that it suggests that the only reason it is the belief of that church is because it's old, not that there's any good reason otherwise (such as the Bible) for believing it.

Well, actually I was using "tradition" to mean "something which informs the reading of Scripture". Since the topic was Sola Scriptura, I thought that meaning was appropriate.

Holy Tradition is more than that, of course.

And I do vehemently agree with you that something doesn't become "Holy Tradition" just because "we believe it, and have for x-amount of time".

 

[Albion]

Well, actually I was using "tradition" to mean "something which informs the reading of Scripture". Since the topic was Sola Scriptura, I thought that meaning was appropriate.

OK, I should retrace our steps then.

Here's what I read:

I only meant that many later Protestants think that they rely on nothing but Scripture.

But even the way they interpret some passages when it is in contrast to the way Christianity has always understood said passages, is a "tradition" in itself

That looks to me to be in accord with what I said in reply.

Holy Tradition is more than that, of course.

Right.

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, I should retrace our steps then.

Here's what I read:


That looks to me to be in accord with what I said in reply.


Right.

I may not understand your reply then. I'm not sure what you mean by the understanding of some Catholic-type Christians to be?

My understanding of Holy Tradition is all of that which was received by the Apostles and passed down in the early Church, to include Scripture, as well as those things taught in person. It does inform the reading of Scripture, but only in that we understand everything as a cohesive whole.

In speaking on the topic of Sola Scriptura, I have most often (and I think properly) found the general idea to be that tradition (or Holy Tradition, as some prefer) is that which provides context, thus informing the reading/interpretation of Scripture. I don't see it as disagreeing with my understanding of Holy Tradition, though it is usually more limited.

I'm not trying to argue, btw. It was just a comment in passing. I'm only saying these things to try to explain what I meant, and perhaps understand (if you'd care to elaborate) what you might have meant if you disagree or meant something else?

I find discussing ABOUT discussion to easily get confused though. I hope I do not contribute to that. I'm not at my best right now, I'm afraid.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ah, and now that I reread, I may misunderstand ... maybe we are agreeing. I just went back when you said it was in accord with your reply ... and saw that we seemed to disagree ... so I thought that disagreement was still in place.

Now I'm not sure. Forgive me.

 

[Albion]

I may not understand your reply then. I'm not sure what you mean by the understanding of some Catholic-type Christians to be?

I mean that if I've read it once I've read it fifty times on these forums...A Protestant will say that the Bible is how to know correct doctrine, and the Roman Catholic opponent, or sometimes an Orthodox Christian, will respond by saying that although the Protestant rejects Tradition, he follows his own Tradition (meaning whatever the Protestant's church teaches).

My understanding of Holy Tradition is all of that which was received by the Apostles and passed down in the early Church, to include Scripture, as well as those things taught in person. It does inform the reading of Scripture, but only in that we understand everything as a cohesive whole.

That doesn't really solve anything in this kind of debate, though. Yes, there's the Bible, but so long as other things are held to be as authoritative as the Bible, nothing's changed.

In speaking on the topic of Sola Scriptura, I have most often (and I think properly) found the general idea to be that tradition (or Holy Tradition, as some prefer) is that which provides context, thus informing the reading/interpretation of Scripture. I don't see it as disagreeing with my understanding of Holy Tradition, though it is usually more limited.

Hmmm. Holy Tradition holds that the Bible is authoritative but so are customs, legends, commonly accepted opinions, etc. -- all of which are outside of what Scripture says. The idea is that this is a second stream of divine and infallible revelation, but it's revealed through a supposed (but often not actual) consensus of the church and its people from the beginning of the church until the present.

I'm not trying to argue, btw. It was just a comment in passing. I'm only saying these things to try to explain what I meant, and perhaps understand (if you'd care to elaborate) what you might have meant if you disagree or meant something else?

I understand. I have always found it comfortable to talk with you.

 

[hedrick]

To get a sense of the original context, here’s a summary of what Calvin says in the Institutes:

-----

In principle, we can discern God through creation. But because not everyone actually managed to do this, God spoke more directly through Scripture. It’s not clear, he says, to what extent Scripture was directly dictated by God or inspired by him. But in either case, we are to consider it as coming directly from him.

The witness of Apostles and Prophets, as we find in Scripture, is prior to the Church and not dependent upon it. While there are rational arguments to establish its authority, in fact no one really appreciates it fully without the witness of the Holy Spirit, nor does it bring anyone to saving knowledge without the activity of the Spirit.

However the Spirt and Scripture work together, so claims to direct inspiration independent of Scripture are false.

-----

However some of the current topics related to Scripture are simply not dealt with by him, nor in my view by any of that generation of the Reformation. In my view there are two things they didn’t appreciate:
* The extent to which multiple interpretations would cause problems, even among those who recognize Scripture.
* The issues that would arise from science and critical thought.

Critical scholarship was not completely unknown to Calvin. E.g. he considered the Sermon on the Mount to have been arranged by Matthew from material given on several occasions. At least in principle he understood that the creation accounts weren’t scientific statements — though he certainly didn’t anticipate all the later implications of that. He wasn’t bothered by minor disagreements between accounts, and did not attempt to deny them. But he still basically understood Scripture as accurate in a sense that most Reformed today would not (though you can't tell that from the Reformed who post in CF).

The issues of interpretation arose fairly soon. Catholics attacked sola scriptura on the basis that without the authority of the Church no one could be sure what they meant. One reaction to that was the kind of literalism that grew into today’s fundamentalism. The hope was this approach could lead to agreement. (Incidentally, the common claim that inerrancy started in the 19th Cent does not appear to be quite true. Modern inerrancy is probably best viewed as a reaction to the Enlightenment, but it built on something that goes back to the next generation after the Reformers, with at least some basis in Calvin’s belief that one could in practice view Scripture as coming directly from God.)

In practice, both of the original Reformation groups became confessional, meaning that they quickly developed traditional understandings of Scripture that came to be practically authoritative even though there could in principle be challenged. It’s not so clear to me that this is in practice different from some of the more moderate Catholic positions on Scripture (those that view tradition as authoritative interpretation — not those that think tradition contains genuine new revelation).

I don't think Luther and Calvin foresaw all of this originally. I think a range of views on the use of Scripture can reasonably be considered sola scriptura.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I mean that if I've read it once I've read it fifty times on these forums...A Protestant will say that the Bible is how to know correct doctrine, and the Roman Catholic opponent, or sometimes an Orthodox Christian, will respond by saying that although the Protestant rejects Tradition, he follows his own Tradition (meaning whatever the Protestant's church teaches).


That doesn't really solve anything in this kind of debate, though. Yes, there's the Bible, but so long as other things are held to be as authoritative as the Bible, nothing's changed.


Hmmm. Holy Tradition holds that the Bible is authoritative but so are customs, legends, commonly accepted opinions, etc. -- all of which are outside of what Scripture says. The idea is that this is a second stream of divine and infallible revelation, but it's revealed through a supposed (but often not actual) consensus of the church and its people from the beginning of the church until the present.


I understand. I have always found it comfortable to talk with you.

Apologies. I have just been reminded of necessary limitations. Not wishing to ignore, but seems I am not able to continue right now after all. I mistakenly took improvement for the go-ahead to engage a bit more, which actually caused setback.

I am impatient with myself - a fault that has not yet been corrected.

God be with you.

 

[Albion]

Anastasia! I don't quite follow all of that, but no apologies are necessary. We can resume any time you want, or let it go if that's better.