Talk:Sola scriptura

(earlier discussion moved to Sola scriptura Talk archive)

I'm sure you're right about it being more of a short-hand argument than a full doctrine. As far as the article is concerned, would it be fitting to address its historical meaning and contemporary (mis)understanding in separate sections? Wesley

I'll try to write a fuller description of the way that 'Sola scriptura' has been understood historically, and a comparison to how it appears to be used today, especially in Fundamentalism and Neo-evangelicalism. It's bound to be a reflection of my own perspective, though; and I would appreciate help in balancing it out, if I ever get around to posting it. Mkmcconn

I'd like to raise a point of terminology. First of all, when describing the early church, I'd like to use some term that includes both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches, since for the first 1,000 years they were the same church. Referring to this church as "Catholic" with a capital "C" means "Roman Catholic" to most readers today. Of course the church was both catholic and orthodox, and both "branches" believe that both those adjectives apply to them today. Perhaps "catholic" could be substituted, or else "mainstream Christian" (although Arianism was in the majority for a time)?

I think that this is certainly right. One way of saying this might be to use Catholic and Orthodox interchangeably and together, besides just a small "c"? The term 'catholic church' in modern use sometimes has the connotation of generic "Christianity", without the idea of visibility, of people and places, episcopates, and established doctrines - which would not be the correct idea in the context. It should say, and mean, "Catholic and Orthodox" Mkmcconn

Also, for the Eastern Orthdox and presumably for the Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are not two separate things. Scripture is the most authoritative part of tradition; we have a New Testament canon because of tradition. Describing them as two separate things creates a false dichotomy, at least when talking about the Church of the first millennium. Wesley

I had thought that the early paragraphs made this continuity very clear. I hope that the entry would show the attempt to communicate this continuity as clearly as possible without giving preference to the controversial idea that the Old Testament was viewed by the Apostles as the same thing as the tradition of the elders, for example. On the other hand, that they used a traditional Bible (the Septuagint), is not controversial. There is a difference between the fact that scriptural Canon is tradition, and the controversial idea that this implies that the authority of all other tradition is on a level with what is written in Scripture.

You're right. Going back and re-reading what you wrote, it seems clear that you did try to set out the relationship between them. The Septuagint was certainly the most popular text used by early Christians, but not necessarily the only one. Incidentally, the Septuagint remains as the chief Old Testament text used in Eastern Orthodoxy, either directly or in translation. Wesley

In the Apostolic period, "the Scriptures" had primary reference to the scriptures of the Old covenant; and in the early church, the same high idea of "it is written" was attached to the writings of the Apostles and of those who adhered to their teachings and wrote under the Apostles' personal guidance, who interpreted the Scriptures in light of the revelation of the Son of God, of which they were eye witnesses. I think that it can be easily shown, also from modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers, that this is not a distinctively Protestant version of things.

Sure; this can be seen in how Peter refers to Paul's writings for instance. Books like the Shepherd of Hermas were quoted authoritatively as well in some circles; which books were used was a matter of local tradition, under the guidance of the local bishops. Wesley

I hope that the entry will attempt to grant the Orthodox and Catholic view of the historical development of canon, without going so far as to make the case incredible to some Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. The canon of Scripture is the tradition of the Church; that is a fact. Therefore what is written in Scripture is part of Holy Tradition; also a fact. But, the idea that the Scriptures therefore are nothing distinguishable from all other traditions, and of no different character with regard to the esteem in which they are held, or their uniqueness as authority, would be a controversial idea even among Orthodox and Catholics - and also, the suggeston that the early church had this idea of Scripture as nothing above other traditional writings, would also be controversial. Mkmcconn

Certainly, the Scriptures have a unique and elevated place in Tradition. Would it be fair to say though, that many or most modern Protestants have rejected the bulk of Tradition unless they personally find it directly supported by Scripture? Wesley

That would be unfair to "high" Anglicans, not a nice thing to say about Lutherans, a goad well-applied to Calvinists and "low" Anglicans, and a point of pride for Baptists and evangelical charismatics. The key is your word, "personally". Anglicans are liturgical, and so are most Methodists. The Lutherans are liturgical as well as confessional. And, the Reformed churches are confessionalists. These are opposed to radical individualism. They do not credit every individual with the authority to declare for himself (and thus for everyone else) what the word of God is. Mkmcconn