Sola Scriptura? In what sense?

[rakovsky]

The reason I prefer the reformed view when debating is because from my reading, that to me seems the most clearly developed and refined version of the doctrine; a version that considers the Catholic critiques of the doctrine and seeks to respond to them.

When you say the reformed view, at first I thought you meant the Reformed view, ie. the views of non-Lutheran non-Anglican Protestants like the Presbyterians.

I don't know if the Sola Scriptura Protestants ever officially reformed the term "Sola Scriptura" to make it compatible with the Methodist idea of Scripture PLUS Tradition.

 

[Mike McK]

Methodists and Anglicans, by way of comparison, do not teach sola scriptura, but rather say to use Scripture PLUS Tradition.

Not true. Methodists do not put tradition on a par with scripture. Anglicans are all but apostate at this point, so maybe that explains their problems. But, no, Methodists don't believe this.

I was born and raised in the UMC. My grandparents founded the Methodist church I attended and which instructed me for the first twenty-four years of my life. For almost ten years, I was the assistant sexton, so I can assure you, Methodists do not believe tradition is the same as inspired scripture.

And, in case you don't believe me, here is a link to the text of a sermon by a Methodist pastor:

Despite what you’ve heard, faithful Methodists believe in “sola scriptura” | Rev. Brent L. White (revbrentwhite.com)

To give an example where the Lutherans taught that the Bible ALONE should be used to judge doctrines, the Book of Concord says: "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone… Other writings of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names may be, shall not be regarded as equal to Holy Scripture, but all of them together shall be subjected to it…”

Correct. The Bible, being the highest authority, is the ultimate arbiter. But this does not negate the authority of lesser sources.

I take it from your arguments that you don't believe in using the Bible ALONE to judge everything either.

Nope. Not Bible alone. Bible first, Bible highest, but not Bible alone.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

When you say the reformed view, at first I thought you meant the Reformed view, ie. the views of non-Lutheran non-Anglican Protestants like the Presbyterians.

I don't know if the Sola Scriptura Protestants ever officially reformed the term "Sola Scriptura" to make it compatible with the Methodist idea of Scripture PLUS Tradition.

Sorry--yes, I meant the Reformed view (Capital R) as in Protestants like Presbyterians.

However, Presbyterians are not all united anymore either. There are variations of Presbyterians. The liberal ones reject traditional Five Point Calvinism. I think true Reformed Presbyterians are rare these days. I think true Reformed is rare. There are also Reformed Baptists.

I was not aware that the Methodists reject Sola Scriptura. Though I can say this: Catholics do not see themselves as holding the view "Scripture plus Tradition" but rather "Scripture and Tradition." This is because there is nothing in Tradition without basis in Scripture and nothing in Scripture without basis in Tradition. They are just two avenues that the Word of God is handed on in the Church for Catholics. Scripture has a preeminence and primacy within the Church because it is Theopneustos, however. The fact that Scripture is Thepneustos is what sets it apart from Tradition. Tradition is infallible, not Theopneustos.

 

[rakovsky]

Not true. Methodists do not put tradition on a par with scripture. Anglicans are all but apostate at this point, so maybe that explains their problems. But, no, Methodists don't believe this.

I was born and raised in the UMC. My grandparents founded the Methodist church I attended and which instructed me for the first twenty-four years of my life. For almost ten years, I was the assistant sexton, so I can assure you, Methodists do not believe tradition is the same as inspired scripture.

And, in case you don't believe me, here is a link to the text of a sermon by a Methodist pastor:

Despite what you’ve heard, faithful Methodists believe in “sola scriptura” | Rev. Brent L. White (revbrentwhite.com)

Correct. The Bible, being the highest authority, is the ultimate arbiter. But this does not negate the authority of lesser sources.

Nope. Not Bible alone. Bible first, Bible highest, but not Bible alone.

You don't seem to get what I wrote.
If you want to know what Sola Scriptura means, you want to look at where its founders defined it or where that term has been formally defined.
Luther and Lutheranism defined it to mean that the only rule deciding on teachings is the "Scripture alone", Sola Scriptura, as I quoted.
You wrote back to me me, "Bible first, Bible highest, but not Bible alone." This is why I write that you don't seem to get that Sola Scriptura = Bible Alone.

Methodism teaches that the Bible is the Highest, ie. Prima Scriptura, which is what Anglicanism teaches, not Lutheranism.

The source you quoted, Rev. White, says that they got their idea from the Anglicans, which teach Prima Scriptura.
If you still want to say that the Methodists teach Sola Scriptura, you would need statements by the main, leading Methodists like Wesley or UMC Declarations that specifically say that they follow "Sola Scriptura". And even if they did, and they used it to mean just Prima Scriptura, then they would be creating a Second, nonLutheran meaning for "Sola Scriptura."

That goes for what Rev. White says. He says in his article that Methodists teach Sola Scriptura, and then he cites places they teach that the Bible is the highest authority but don't specifically say "Sola Scriptura."

When you go check the places where Sola Scriptura is formally doctrinally defined, it means something far different than what you and Rev. White say it means.

 

[Mike McK]

You don't seem to get what I wrote.
If you want to know what Sola Scriptura means, you want to look at where its founders defined it or where that term has been formally defined.
Luther and Lutheranism defined it to mean that the only rule deciding on teachings is the "Scripture alone", Sola Scriptura, as I quoted.
You wrote back to me me, "Bible first, Bible highest, but not Bible alone." This is why I write that you don't seem to get that Sola Scriptura = Bible Alone.

It is the custom in my church that those in ministry be called to sit before a panel of our peers and everything we've taught or preached for the last given period of time be gone over and examined. In twenty-five years, nobody's had a problem with my understanding of the solas. So, please understand if I don't take your claims seriously.

If you still want to say that the Methodists teach Sola Scriptura, you would need statements by the main, leading Methodists like Wesley or UMC Declarations that specifically say that they follow "Sola Scriptura".

And yet, you have provided not one word to back up your claims. It's hypocritical of you to demand that I back up my refutation of your claim.

And even if they did, and they used it to mean just Prima Scriptura, then they would be creating a Second, nonLutheran meaning for "Sola Scriptura."

I'm not a Lutheran. I don't care.

That goes for what Rev. White says. He says in his article that Methodists teach Sola Scriptura, and then he cites places they teach that the Bible is the highest authority but don't specifically say "Sola Scriptura."

When you go check the places where Sola Scriptura is formally doctrinally defined, it means something far different than what you and Rev. White say it means.

So you claim, but based on your posts, you clearly have no idea what it means.

 

[rakovsky]

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans consider Scripture to have the highest place of authority and teaches to also use extrabiblical Tradition to decide on issues.

By contrast, Luther and Lutheranism repeatedly and specifically expound a concept of Sola Scriptura that they define as meaning that the BIBLE ALONE is the ONLY rule of deciding all faith questions. In practice, they did not follow this principle, because they ALSO used other sources to judge teachings.

The basic Methodist idea AFAIK is to use the Bible as the highest authority in a Quadrilateral that includes Bible PLUS Scripture. That conflicts with the Lutheran idea. So it is not sensible to quote the UMC as teaching "Scripture first" and to conclude that the UMC therefore teaches the famous Sola Scriptura (literally Only Bible or Bible Alone) idea.

 

[rakovsky]

I'm not a Lutheran. I don't care.

So you claim, but based on your posts, you clearly have no idea what it means.

I'm not sure how much it's worth debating you here. You can have 40 degrees and 50 years in UMC ministry, but if you go to a panel of approving UMC professors and tell them "We teach Sola Scriptura because we give the Bible the highest place of authority," it doesn't make the statement particularly correct.

I guess if Methodists in polls generally agreed that they teach "Sola Scriptura", then we can say that Lutherans and Methodists have two different, opposing meanings for the term. But since Rev. White starts his article title by saying "Despite what you've heard...", it sounds like it is a common idea that Methodists DON'T teach Sola Scriptura.

Imagine if I wrote an EO article saying "Despite what you've heard, EOs teach Luther's Five Solas", and then I defined them as if they matched Orthodoxy. It wouldn't prove that I was right even if a panel of EOs who had been involved in EO-Lutheran relations agreed with me. You have to look at where the term was originally and formally defined. It doesn't work to say "I don't care" how Luther used the term because he made it. It's like saying that you don't care what Lither meant by Sola Gratia if you say that Methodism teaches it.

 

[rakovsky]

It is the custom in my church that those in ministry be called to sit before a panel of our peers and everything we've taught or preached for the last given period of time be gone over and examined. In twenty-five years, nobody's had a problem with my understanding of the solas. So, please understand if I don't take your claims seriously.

Rev. Jason Valendy writes on the United Methodist Insight website:

the United Methodist Church is not a sola scriptura tradition but a "prima scriptura" tradition.
...
Sola scriptura says, "scripture alone", prima scripture says, "scripture first." Sola scriptura is a zero-sum view of the world.
...
Today, the phrase scriptural holiness is a bit of a dog whistle in the UMC by signaling to the listener sola scriptura theology.

Scriptural holiness is something that is more than likely something that most Christians affirm, however, it is worth asking the next question, "do you mean scripture first or only?"

Dog Whistling in the UMC - Scriptural Holiness

The Rev. Jason Valendy unpacks what some of the "dog whistle" terms such as "scriptural holiness" actually mean when it comes to understanding and applying the Holy Bible.

um-insight.net

 

[rakovsky]

So you claim, but based on your posts, you clearly have no idea what it means.

Do you know about the difference between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura is specifically a Lutheran term that Calvinists also adopted but that the Methodist tradition has not put in his formal statements. It doesn't sound very reasonable for one to say that he believes in Luther's five solas and then say he doesn't care what Luther (or for that matter the Calvinists) meant by them.

 

[Mike McK]

Rev. Jason Valendy writes on the United Methodist Insight website:

Dog Whistling in the UMC - Scriptural Holiness

The Rev. Jason Valendy unpacks what some of the "dog whistle" terms such as "scriptural holiness" actually mean when it comes to understanding and applying the Holy Bible.

um-insight.net

Sola scriptura and prima scriptura is a distinction without a difference. Regardless of the difference in name, in practice, they are identical.

And that your source says Methodists practice prima scriptura shows your claim that Methodists place man's traditions on an equal par with God's Word to be untrue.

If you don't like the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura, then don't practice it. If you think there is a higher authority than God's Word, then, by all means, defer to that.

But now, it's beginning to look like we've reached the Proverbs 26:4 portion of our conversation, so you're dismissed.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Strictly speaking, at least as I understand it, the "Scriptures" no longer exist. The original inspired autographs on which the Scriptures were recorded do not exist.

I agree that the original penned works no longer exist. However, I believe that the manuscripts we do have are accurate copies via the Providence of the Almighty God. If that were not the case, our faith, which comes by hearing God's word (Rom. 10:17) would be in vain.

We have copies, but, as I understand it, most Protestants do not believe that copies are Theopneustos. Not only this, but my understanding is that translations of the copies are not that which are Theopneustos.

I'm not a Protestant, so I wouldn't presume to speak for them. I would argue that the copies are Providentially preserved sufficiently and demonstrably to be all we need.

If we no longer have the original inspired autographs of Scripture, how can Protestants claim to go by the "Bible Alone?" There is no "sole infallible rule of Faith" that exists by which to norm doctrine, because according to Protestants, if it isn't Theopneustos, it, by definition, cannot be infallible.

Again Providence. An example would be if I were to handwrite a test for my students and then make copies, while those copies were not the original that I wrote, they were faithful copies of it. Copies do not diminish the authority of the content. I believe in a God who is powerful enough to preserve His Word for us and reject anyone or any organization that attempts to discredit the Bible especially to usurp its authority.

Protestants are norming their doctrine on uninspired copies on which translations of Scripture are based; translations themselves that are also uninspired and thus, by definition fallible.

Fallible, perhaps, but fallible doesn't demand automatically false. There are excellent translations that exist and manuscripts to compare them to.

How can something that is uninspired and fallible be the supreme court of final appeal on all matters of Faith and doctrine, or otherwise manifest the supreme authority of God?

It is far better than fallible man with no evidence of authority at all. If the Bible is a fraud, as you argue here, then Christianity is false. Even Catholicism must appeal to scripture ultimately for its usurped authority. It cannot presume to claim spiritual authority in a vacuum.

My understanding is that the King James Only advocates recognize the problem I have pointed out, hence why they believe the King James version to be the "authorized" version. They see this version as inspired. But many Protestants are not KJO advocates.

So if the Scriptures, technically speaking, no longer exist, in what sense are Protestants "Sola Scriptura?"

Again, while not Protestant, I am scripture only. I am in the sense that I believe God preserved the Word through manuscripts and translations sufficient that we have all we need to have that obedient faith through which grace operates to save us.

In Truth and Love.

 

[leonard03782]

But Catholic Tradition fits that definition, even though you disagree with our beliefs. In fact, I thank you for saying this, because it has given me a way of explaining Tradition in a more clear manner.

Catholic Tradition is not Theopneustos, but it does have that which is Theopneustos as its source, just as the copies and translations have that which is Theopneustos as its source. Consequently, we Catholics can say with Protestants that Scripture is the highest authority in the Church. Now the disagreement is not on whether Scripture is the highest authority, but whether only Scirpture is infallible.

You may say that right right now, but this entire forum proves your words wrong. rc's have shown us over and over again that they will accept any other authority over the Scriptures.
#1) ECF's vs. Scriptures==>> rc's will believe the ECF's
#2) tradition vs. Scriptures==>>" " " " " " " tradition
#3) pompous maximus vs Scriptures==>>" " " " pompous maximus
#4) church vs Scriptures ==>> " " " " " " " " church
#5) magesterium vs Scriptures==>>" " " " " " magesterium
#6) parish "priest" vs Scriptures==>>" " " " " parish "priest"
#7) writings on a restroom stall?? things that make you go Hmmmmmmm...........

 

[leonard03782]

That Tradition is not Theopneustos? Well, does Scripture refer to any other thing as Theopneustos? NO.

Does this mean Tradition is not Theopnesutos? Not necessarily; but the one claiming it is Theopneustos, the burden of proof is on them.

Scriptural proof that your "sacred" traditions are garbage has been produced thousands of times on this forum. That you and your fellow rc's reject them, tells us everything we need to know.

 

[Mike McK]

You may say that right right now, but this entire forum proves your words wrong. rc's have shown us over and over again that they will accept any other authority over the Scriptures.
#1) ECF's vs. Scriptures==>> rc's will believe the ECF's

When it comes down to it, they don't even believe the ECFs. I've posted a list many times of the ECF teaching the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura, and they just dismiss it.

 

[balshan]

When it comes down to it, they don't even believe the ECFs. I've posted a list many times of the ECF teaching the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura, and they just dismiss it.

They only accept their writings when they think they can use them to support their false doctrines.

 

[Nondenom40]

Part of the weaknesses in debating this subject with Protestants is that we are trying to hit a moving target. It is difficult to debate opponents who are not in agreement in exactly what the doctrine is and is not. Different Protestant sects have different versions of the doctrine.

This Mike fellow seems to take more the reformed view. Note that when I debate the doctrine, that is the view I have in mind myself.

I think that the common thread running through all versions of the doctrine is that it asserts that only the Scriptures are infallible. That means--in our debates it is that point that needs to be addressed.

I also think you have to understand that Luther was the first pressing of the doctrine. As Catholic polemicists attacked the doctrine, this forced other Protestant reformers who came along after Luther, to refine the doctrine further, more clearly defining terms, and otherwise developing more fully what Luther had started.

The reason I prefer the reformed view when debating is because from my reading, that to me seems the most clearly developed and refined version of the doctrine; a version that considers the Catholic critiques of the doctrine and seeks to respond to them.

Well, we would disagree that Luther invented or was the first to press the doctrine. In his day he spoke the loudest but that doesn't mean it originated with him. Its biblical, which means it goes back 2000 years. The very fact its God breathed means there is no higher authority to appeal to. We submit to scripture, not the other way around.

 

[Nondenom40]

They only accept their writings when they think they can use them to support their false doctrines.

Bingo! Ecf's are trotted out when they agree with the catholic making the claim. If i use Jerome when he rejects inclusion of the apocrypha into the canon, well then Jerome doesn't speak for the church. How convenient.