Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
quoted from Is Sola Scriptura Anglican? Is Sola Scriptura Anglican?
"
In other words, sola scriptura does not assert that the scriptures are the only source of revelation. It does assert that the scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation. Therefore, because it is the only infallible source of revelation, the bible is the sole norm by which all other authoritative norms are normed. Another way to say this is to say that because the bible is the lone infallible source, tradition and reason must be judged in light of the scriptures. "
Just found this out.
The Gospel of Peter, although not used in today's teachings in the churches, was known and used as Scripture in many parts of the Christian Churches during the second century
Gospel of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many people have different definitions and understandings of what SS is...
Yep, the idea of a set scriptural canon was a foreign concept in the early church. There are many such books like this which the early churches used and considered to be 'scripture'. They relied on oral tradition to preserve doctrinal continuity amongst them.
One of the things that quickly dawned on me as I explored this idea is that there isnt really one concept called Sola Scriptura. Rather, there are a variety of different perspectives, often flowing from different times and places, that all operate under that general umbrella.
Luther, for example, had little patience with the idea that every single person could somehow rightly interpret scripture for himself. He primarily used the idea to assert his interpretation of the Holy Scriptures over against the Roman Catholic magisteriums interpretation. That was really true of all the primary reformers who used the power of their respective states to enforce their interpretation and defend against Rome. They largely viewed themselves, to the extent I can tell, as rescuing the tradition of interpretation from the corruption of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Again, as far as I can tell, they perceived their interpretation to be informed and continuing the tradition of the Church.
The radical reformation and then revivalist movements added different takes to the concept. It became common to assert that all truth or belief and practice was found in the Bible. This took two sorts of forms. On the one hand, some held that anything done or practiced that was not found explicitly in the text was, as long as it did not contradict the text, something allowable that a person or community might choose to do if they desired. Others held the harder perspective that if it wasnt found in the Bible, that meant it was prohibited....
Gospel of Peter and same with shepard of hermas and same with Clement of Rome's letter. They were used as "scripture" by some.
2 things. What's fascinating to me is that they aren't scripture (they weren't apostolicly sourced or early enough or widely spread or self-confirming or completely accepted by all (and most important -contradict- what is scripture)), yet we can find traces of conflicting Tradition from them. IOW, like Tradition/Council/Teaching Magesterium, some consider those equally Scripture and thus we also get conflicting practices/beliefs.
Interesting (at least to me)!
The issue of interpretation is different from SS (the Luther example above is not SS).
SS simply states that we will use scripture only from which to make practice/belief decisions.
From that decision, afterwards, comes the tri-problem of who will interpret and which canon of scripture (66 books or something else) will we use and (I suppose) how explicit it must be from scripture.
But, from that decision on what to use to decide practice/belief (scripture only), we then may or may not find that certain Traditions fit the rule of faith (scripture-only). Folks really shouldn't fear this.
Not true. The differing approaches between how the east and the west approached theology developed gradually, and although they agreed on the basic doctrines, their approaches differed quite a bit. This was shaped by their surrounding culture as well. The Greeks were philosophers, and the Romans built roads.
Or perhaps prima scriptura, yes, but many people overlap these terms, and use a combination of them.
Which can make for a fascinating study of Sociology, but as you are probably opposed to all of them, let's take CF's who's better informed than most
What a wonderful post!No it wasn't an accusation Sunlover, sorry !
As I said, it was an observation qualified by "it seems" - and based on discussions (and non-discussions) here on GT.
Maybe examples will help ...
There is the apparently consistent view per the posts in the past week that "not Sola Scriptura" means "not valuing Scripture".
There seems to also be an emphasis among SS adherents that what is said (in the Scriptures) is more important than what is done. Laws are statements, and Scripture seems to be treated almost wholly as a set of statements which are treated as laws.
For example:
"Call no man father" is typically treated as a commandment (covering the address of presbyters and sometimes the biological parent) , yet several times men are called, addressed, and referred to as "father" in the NT.
"Vain repetition" is often treated as a command against repetition, yet repetition occurs throughout the Scriptures.
"...There is none righteous,no, not one" is used repeatedly in reference to individuals, yet the Scriptures attest of many who were righteous.
In this way - isolating verses as an instructive finality where counterexamples exist, honoring statement without considering demonstration which also teaches - per my discussions here, it seems there is a focus on "letter" without also considering "spirit".
The examples I mentioned above may instead draw us into a fuller understanding of the Scriptures, to find as it were the heart of the Scriptures.
As a concomitant of this approach, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the overarching purpose and instructive approach of the OT and NT. To some extent, some SS adherents seem to interpret the NT through the OT, instead of interpreting the OT through the NT - through the person of Christ if you will. As well, the approach to instruction in the NT seems to be missed - the loving acknowledgment of God that we are human, and thus learn in part through our God created/given humanness.
For example, although "vain repetition" seems to be wantonly attached to any repetition, this legalistic interpretation ignores counterexamples in Scripture, and also that humans learn through repetition. Something repeated is never in fact a repetition when one is prayerfully, spiritually acutely "present". And repetition can have the effect of eventually "cracking through" an atrophied human heart, spilling into it a great wealth as a gift from God.
That Christ lived among us, the manner and method of His teaching (its wholeness, not only what is spoken), the manner and method that God wills for our salvation, all point to a love towards mankind, and serve man's way of understanding, his way of learning, and indeed also man's (eventual) wholeness; all of God's actions honor His desire that we are to become whole. He ministers to us through body, heart, spirit -- to the complete man, to man as "soul" (in the Hebraic sense).
The dominant definition/description given for Sola Scriptura of late seems to be also symptomatic of this - the Scripture was given for man and thus is not Scripture unless it is used by man. To say that interpretation of Scripture is not part of Sola Scriptura makes of Scripture something above us instead of for our use -- Christ walked among (not over) us, God interacts with us, Scripture (and everything God provides for us) is for our use and benefit.
This definition of Sola Scriptura makes of Scripture something not in use - as something alien from the human experience, and not even God is 'alien' from us in the way SS has been described. As the sole norm, again it seems to me that the true and only norm - Christ - is removed from His place as norm; His wholeness and interaction with us recedes to be replaced by the text as the "firmest" most objective thing. Christ was never objective - He ministered to us as human beings; He was merciful not "objective".
Scripture is not a "rule" per se; there is only One Ruler, and He alone is the Rule. I understand that California Josiah's definition may be an attempt at guarding against misinterpretation as well as seeking a commonality for a "rule"; interpretation is in part product of the health (or not) of our spiritual heart. Of course we read it, study it, repeatedly (and if we are prayerful, patient, humble and alert it will never be "the same" Scripture twice).
And in humility, recognizing whether or not our calling is to teach, and the reality of our own spiritual state, and the method God has chosen to work through the ages, we can recognize that some have heard God's teaching more fully and accurately than we have. That someone else may "show us", may teach in a way that "lays open" the heart of the Scriptures. This is the way God has always worked - through the various callings, through others set aside, as well as to the whole person, and 'developmentally'.
Sorry this was so long in responding - it's been another "mom-bus" day
HEY!!! "Naw" is my word! I claimed Hillbilly Highground with it first.
Ok, Ok,... I see I'm going to have to make a little space for Eastern Truth here.
Yes, the mindset differs in that we are more egocentric to put it in it's worst light, but the butter side of that that slice of bread is that we maximize both freedom & responsibility of the individual, which in turn makes for a stronger consensus, consensus being the "Pearl of the Eastern mindset", so to speak.
Are we cool?
Well you can adhere to his definition if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that in practice people differ as to what this 'rule' actually means, and what it does.
edit: Further, there is no mechanism in place to get these people to agree on a particular definition.
OK, if you want to discuss any of those, tell us.
For Protestants, Scripture alone, or sola Scriptura, is the source and rule of the Christian faith. As such, it is superior to and judges all Tradition. It is sufficient in and of itself for a full exposition of Christianity and for the attainment of salvation.
All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source . . .
3. That which is not found in Scripture -- either directly or by necessary implication -- is not binding upon the Christian. . . .
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation . . .
. . . in Protestantism -- in the final analysis -- no church or ecclesiastical authority can override the individual's own biblical interpretation if the latter deems the authority to be inconsistent with Scripture (since according to sola Scriptura, Scripture itself is regarded as the ultimate authority over against any church; . . .
Sure, I'd be happy to. Here are a few examples:
I didn't find any of these statements in CJ's definition...
Proper Definition of Sola Scriptura
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?