What does Sola Scriptura mean?
What does 'Sola Scriptura' mean for modern Protestants?
Does it mean that:
(a) One only believes in, follows, obeys that which is explicitly mentioned in Scripture?
(b) anything teaching, doctrine, concept, or modern item/tool not mentioned in Scripture is to be automatically rejected?
(c) the scriptures are the only source of divinely revealed knowledge?
(d) the scriptures provide all one needs to know about faith and life in the Church?
(e) The Scriptures tell us everything about everything?
(f) The Scriptures are simply the document with the highest authority in the Church and in a Christian's life
(g) two or more of the above
(h) none of the above
(i) other?
Comments
-
@Mitchell said:
What does 'Sola Scriptura' mean for modern Protestants?
Does it mean that:
(a) One only believes in, follows, obeys that which is explicitly mentioned in Scripture?
(b) anything teaching, doctrine, concept, or modern item/tool not mentioned in Scripture is to be automatically rejected?
(c) the scriptures are the only source of divinely revealed knowledge?
(d) the scriptures provide all one needs to know about faith and life in the Church?
(e) The Scriptures tell us everything about everything?
(f) The Scriptures are simply the document with the highest authority in the Church and in a Christian's life
(g) two or more of the above
(h) none of the above
(i) other?The Westminster Confession sums it up for me.
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
-
I think I would go with F
(f) The Scriptures are simply the document with the highest authority in the Church and in a Christian's life -
@Mitchell said:
What does 'Sola Scriptura' mean for modern Protestants?
Does it mean that:
(a) One only believes in, follows, obeys that which is explicitly mentioned in Scripture?
(b) anything teaching, doctrine, concept, or modern item/tool not mentioned in Scripture is to be automatically rejected?
(c) the scriptures are the only source of divinely revealed knowledge?
(d) the scriptures provide all one needs to know about faith and life in the Church?
(e) The Scriptures tell us everything about everything?
(f) The Scriptures are simply the document with the highest authority in the Church and in a Christian's life
(g) two or more of the above
(h) none of the above
(i) other?Mitchell,
I am having too many problems with your qualifiers in the questions above: "Only", "all", "anything", etc.
Today's Protestants are all over the map and nowhere. Too many groups (large and small) have become and practices what they supposed to be protesting against. They have become more of a subsidiary of the Catholic Church. Especially, when one look under their hood of doctrinal beliefs.
So what "'Sola Scriptura' mean for modern Protestants?" I don't clearly know what the "modern Protestants" are protesting. There seems to be a slow march toward "One World Religion." Does the "Modern Protestant even know the meaning of "Sola Scriptura", not to say, take a position on it for today?
In reflection, Sola Scriptura is a principle of religious authority which gained great visibility during the Protestant Reformation. The phrase gained prominence during the Reformation, it was not a creation of the Reformers; it was already in currency during the Middle Ages. Needless to say, the name of Martin Luther (1483-1546) is linked with the Protestant sola Scriptura concept. it was the heart of Luther’s struggles with the Roman Catholic Church.
At the heart of the Reformation, the Sola Scriptura principle was the issue of biblical interpretation, the right understanding of the Bible. The Reformation opposed “the arbitrariness,” **which, **“despite the recognition of Scripture as God’s Word, neglects its concrete authority.” Sola Scriptura, in the context of the Reformation, served to focus attention on the Bible as a principle of interpretation against competing principles.
Luther’s call was not for a return to the Bible as an original source (humanism and the Renaissance advocated). It was not even a call to renounce every bit of tradition (both Luther and Calvin had great respect for church tradition). Luther’s call was to recover the true tradition of biblical truth through correct interpretation of the Bible, unhampered by an assumed, necessary congruity between the Bible and traditional church teaching.
It is worth noting that the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture was the immediate background for Sola Scriptura. Indeed, the sola in the formulation sola Scriptura was intended to highlight the sufficiency of Scripture. The various doctrines, institutions, and traditions which the church had put in place, with no basis in Scripture, were an indication to the Reformers that Rome deemed the Bible to be insufficient.
So your "(f) The Scriptures are simply the document with the highest authority in the Church and in a Christian's life"; in what church, Catholic or Protestant?
I know you didn't ask for all of this. Hey, truth found truth shared. CM
Sources:
Heiko A. Oberman, **The Harvest of Medieval Theology **(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 390.
G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 107, 306.
-
@C_M_ said:
I am having too many problems with your qualifiers in the questions above: "Only", "all", "anything", etc.I worded the aforementioned options to express the way that I have seen contemporary Christian individuals using 'Sola Scripture'.
@C_M_ said:
So your "(f)No, Actually, my choice is (h) none of the above. As, in none of the above expresses how I understand the terms Sola Scriptura. The way that the Christians of old used the terms 'Ad Fontes' probably fits more with my line of thought and personal practice.
-
Thanks for your response. Mitch, I was not criticising the way you asked the question. It was more about me being upset with today's Protestants.
@C_M_ said:
So your "(f)No, Actually, my choice is (h) none of the above. As, in none of the above expresses how I understand the terms Sola Scriptura. The way that the Christians of old used the terms 'Ad Fontes' probably fits more with my line of thought and personal practice.
Again, I was not trying to say "(f)' was your choice. I was attempting to say the likely choice of today's Protestants may select "(f)". Even, if so, would they know whose drum beat they are marching to and why?
Nice topic. I hope more insights will be shared. CM
-
Since we can't see each other's faces or hear each other's tone I need to be a little clearer myself.
One, I really liked your post, I think you were very observant in noticing the qualifiers and Two, you added an important point: The way that 'Sola Scriptura' is often being used today both by Protestant and by some Catholics, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how the terms were originally used. And, you made that point very clear in your post. I am fond of the way the I believe the term was originally used, but am personally not comfortable with some of the ways the terms have come to be used.
-
ON THE ROAD TO SETTING FORTH THE TRINITY IN VIEW OF "Sola Scriptura":
What were the traditions Martin Luther has to deal with when it came to interpreting the Bible?
Luther strongly believed that tradition SHOULDN'T be used as a principle of interpretation.
He believed Scripture can be properly understood only by a few and that it was not a sufficient principle. (Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 99.)The principle of tradition that Luther was combating, was said to be one that “leads to the burial of Scripture and theology’s immersion in the commentaries of men, where the sophists seek not the substance of Scripture but what they may notice in it.” John M. Headley reminds us, that during the late Middle Ages the text of Scripture was generally “published with the text of the Gloss [comments on the margin] and comments upon that Gloss by other interpreters” (John M. Headley, Luther’s View of Church History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963), 82, quoted in Mathison, 99). The Bible was so marked-up with written comments of others; the message was being lost.
The term sola addresses the Reformers’ intent regarding the role of the Bible in the Church. For the Reformers, “sola Scriptura refers to Scripture as both the source and norm of the Christian gospel . . . and the source and norm of the church’s doctrine.”
Sola Scriptura, thus, sees the Bible as:
- norma normans (the ultimate norm that rules over other norms), and
- NOT norma normata, that is, a rule that is ruled by other norms, such as tradition, reason, or religious experience.
Graham Cole, said, “sola Scriptura, in systematic perspective, is an implicate of the perfections of Scripture. The appeal to Scripture alone makes little sense if Scripture is without authority, or is unnecessary for human welfare, or is unclear as to its meaning, or is insufficient in terms of its divine intent.” (Graham Cole, “Sola Scriptura: Some Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,” Churchman 104/1(1990), 24.
The authority of the Bible, its necessity, its clarity (perspicuity), and its sufficiency, these constitute what is traditionally known as the perfections of Scripture. Without these, "sola Scriptura" fail to capture the profundity of the issues that the concept was designed to counteract.
I thought I sent this earlier. Oops, it didn't go. Here you have it now. CM
