Talk:Sola scriptura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(earlier discussion moved to Sola scriptura Talk archive)

Contents 1 Roman Catholic versus Catholic 2 Wesley Quote 3 Impressed 4 POV 5 Anon edits 6 Uncovered subjects 7 Questions 8 "Biblical references used in support of the sola scriptura creed" is misleading 9 Merge Proposal 10 Redundant material 11 Legacy 12 Please supply the anticedent to "its" 13 Calvinism getting too much press here 14 Removal of the subsection "origin" from the beginning 15 Roman Catholic Church in contradistinction with the church of Luther's day 16 Sola scriptura means Scripture alone 17 "Modes" section 18 Divisions of Protestants Section 19 Bible verses 20 Catholic position: Sola Verbum Dei vs. Prima scriptura 21 Prima Scriptura?

[edit] Roman Catholic versus Catholic

The introduction of this article states: "Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching". I suggest the word "Roman" be deleted from this sentence, because as it is, this sentence ignores all of the 20 or so Eastern rite Catholics in Communion with the Pope. Simply deleting the word "Roman" fixes this problem. Atreyu81 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley Quote

The quote from John Wesley "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church" is listed at Wikiquote as attributed but not sourced (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Wesley). Does anyone have a source for this quote? If so, that information needs to be added to Wikiquote. If not, then does the quote need to be removed for lack of a source or should there be at least some indication that this quote is unsourced?

• This quotation comes from Wesley's 1779 tract "Popery Calmly Considered". I've now added documentation for it, both here in the article, and also at Wikiquote. Delta x 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressed

I'm really impressed with this article. One thing that might be worth talking about is the differences between

• the sola scripture that the reformers used, which I gather was primarily the notion that flagrantly counter-scriptural traditions should be rejected
• the "bible-based" approach many non-denominational, evangelical, or Baptist churches use, in which not just extra-scriptural traditions and interpretations are rejected, but the creedal formulations of the Reformers are rejected as well, and
• the bible-only approach taken by the Campbell/Stone churches, in which any doctrinal formulations are rejected, and scriptural infalliblity is the only rule of faith.

As should be obvious to any informed reader, I'm not even remotely qualified to write about this. Still, I do gather that different authors here have different views of what sola scriptura actually means, and worry that the article might suffer from it.

-Ben

• The last bullet point needs to be qualified: "the bible-only approach taken by SOME Campbell/Stone churches, in which any doctrinal formulations are rejected, and scriptural infallibility is the only rule of faith." The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is undeniably a Cambpell/Stone church, but they do not subscribe to the belief that scripture is the infallable direct Word of God; the events recorded in scripture were inspired, but the text itself is the result of human work, and is subject to error. In matters of scriptural interpretation, like all theology, each individual disciple is free and encouraged to follow his or her conscience guided by the Holy Spirit, study, and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others. Essjay (talk) 03:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

>>this is a poor choice of words since infallibility, especially in theological terminology, implies an ability to make a decision free from error, which only applies to persons.<< That seems like a dogmatic assertion, not neutral pov. Which theologians have said this, and how have their opponents responded? (Unsigned comment by 213.78.163.186)

I don't think there is a problem, the original message pretty clearly implies that the bible contains truth, even if their terminology is debateable.

• I'm confused...Was 213.78.163.186's comment directed to my qualifier, or to Ben's original comment? Essjay (talk) 01:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I added the POV tag because an anon is putting in some changes that are distinctly from a Catholic POV and not stated in a neutral fashion. IMHO, s/he is right that the article could use a little NPOV work anyway, but the anon is going at it the wrong way. --Flex 19:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...it's suddenly reading very Catholic. Needs some NPOV development by some of you Reformed & Lutheran folks. KHM03 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It's really not the Reformed and Lutherans that needed to jump in here, but rather the Baptists and Restorationists. That perspective, of the Bible-all-by-itself, is not represented in this article, and there is really no room for it as it has been written. There needs to be way to introduce and develop the idea of radical primitivism, as it's shown up in various traditions (including Anglicans and Wesleyans, I've recently learned).

But, the recent argumentative edits from an anonymous Catholic point of view just need to be reverted, in my opinion. They are not necessary - the Catholic position was not portrayed in a prejudicial light. I don't think there is a lack of consensus here; it appears that there is only a zealous reader stopping by to play capture-the flag with this article. The POV tag can come off, IMHO, when the article has been reverted - or integrated (very little of substance there) successfully. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If a consensus develops to revert the anon changes, I'll volunteer to revert them (or more likely, to go through and weed them out, because there's likely to be "keepable" edits from other users in the meantime). If someone from another traditions removes it, it may start a "that's POV" war; I don't think anyone can suggest that I'm anti-Catholic. -- Essjay · Talk 23:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Make it so! KHM03 00:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Flex 11:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Since all the major editors to the text since 2002 have agreed, I'm going to make the reverts. -- Essjay · Talk 11:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That was rather easy. Since the only edits other than the IP were KHM03's link and the POV tag, I've reverted the anon outright, per above, inserted K's link, and removed the POV tag. Now, would the three of you please read over it and make sure it seems right? Also, can we add a statement like "Undiscussed insertion should be considered vandalism and reverted on sight." to the note below, or is that outside our mandate? -- Essjay · Talk 11:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me; thanks for the work. NOTE TO THE OTHER EDITORS: Essjay has been nominated for administrator; you can help him out by going here. KHM03 13:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with what's been done. Did you come across anything that you really wanted to change, but restrained yourself? Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No...a link to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as another approach to Scriptural hermeneutics is fine with me; Wesleyans haven't really contributed to "sola scriptura theology" very much through the years...we've been too busy saving souls to worry about that; we'll let you Calvinists deal with it.  :-P KHM03 15:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edits

Edits made by 199.46.245.231 have been removed per the consensus developed above. Please do not reinsert this text without first discussing it here and developing consensus to reinsert. -- Essjay · Talk 11:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncovered subjects

While this article is good for what it covers, it should also cover the radical "Bible-all-by-itself" perspective of Baptists and Restorationists, as Mkmcconn put it. At one extreme of this part of the spectrum would be those Baptists who claim "The Bible IS Jesus" as did two who came to our door a few months ago; apparently there are entire Baptist denominations that believe this.

It might also be good to mention the amount of importance placed on the translation used, or for that matter the importance of learning Greek and Hebrew so as to study the Bible in its original languages. (Which for some Baptists, the original language is apparently presumed to be the 1611 KJV.) Translation issues also come to the foreground when dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation of John 1:1 and other key passages regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I realized I've rambled a bit, and I'm not sure I would do a good job of adding this in a neutral way, so I'll just leave the suggestions here as just that -- suggestions for others working on the article. Wesley 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's really not the Reformed and Lutherans that needed to jump in here, but rather the Baptists and Restorationists. That perspective, of the Bible-all-by-itself, is not represented in this article, and there is really no room for it as it has been written. There needs to be way to introduce and develop the idea of radical primitivism, as it's shown up in various traditions (including Anglicans and Wesleyans, I've recently learned). (Mkmcconn (Talk))

I've also taken to heart what Essjay has said, in being reminded that it's easy to make a two-dimensional cartoon character out of any people. There is an extremely broad spectrum, all related somewhat to the sola scriptura idea; I just don't think that the article quite frames the whole of that spectrum, because it focuses closely on the middle and doesn't pull back far enough to view the edges. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we DOC'ers are hard to caricature; we're too weird! Oops, I mean "nontraditional." -- Essjay · Talk 05:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I have a few questions regarding sola scriptura: To which scripture does it apply? I know it refers to the bible, but does it affect the books luther left out, i.e. the apocrypha? Is it a denominational thing? There is no table of contents in the bible (There's no: "and Jesus said to his apostles go and put toghether a book from such and such sources") so is there no way to infallibly know what books are actually in the bible? Sorry if this sounds POV, but doesn't tradition dictate the bible's contents? 216.99.65.10 15:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As to your first question, Protestants believe that sola scriptura applies to all the books of the Bible. The issue you refer to is the establishment of the canon There have been several Church councils that have established the authenticity of the books used in the canon, which was pretty much established by the 2nd century A.D. Protestants reject the Apocrypha as canonical for several reasons, including the belief that the Old Testament canon should be those books used in Israel at the time of Christ, which would be (mostly) in Hebrew. The Apocryphal books were used by Greek-speaking Jews and are found in the Septunganit.

The Protestant view is that the books selected are infallible; the humans who selected it, however, are fallible. The Catholic view is that the Magisterium, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallible, and the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

This is a gross simplification, but it might lead to further study. GABaker 1724 11 January 2006 [UTC]

One note: Protestants do not unanimously affirm sola scriptura or inerrancy. Only some Protestants affirm these beliefs. KHM03 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Which ones don't? GABaker 19:16 11 January 2006 [UTC]

Methodists for one. Anglicans for another. See here. KHM03 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Luther, why isn't he mentioned in the article? Was he not the originator of the doctrine? 72.49.65.93 09:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Biblical references used in support of the sola scriptura creed" is misleading

I think the section "Biblical references used in support of the sola scriptura creed" should carry the disclaimer that none of the biblical references actually support sola scriptura "Bible Alone". It should also be noted that there is no example in the Bible of a "Bible Alone" deposit by God for the Christian faith.

It depends. If supporters of Sola scriptura believe these Bible references support their position, then we can't assert the opposite. — Matt Crypto 13:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What a supporter of sola scriptura ‘believes’ is contrary to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Where in sola scriptura does it say that what the supporters of sola scriptura believe is relevant to sola scriptura? It does not. What anyone believes should have no influence on the sola scriptura creed. That is what sola scriptura implies by its nature. To say otherwise is not sola scriptura. This topic however is not what is important here. What is important is that the section title is misleading. The main problem is with the wording of ‘in support’ which can imply that the creed is actually supported by these references. This is deceptive as it suggests that these references do support sola scriptura and says nothing about sola scriptura supporters believing that these references support sola scriptura. According to your indication I believe the title should then read “Biblical references that sola scriptura supporters’ believe support the sola scriptura creed” and not “Biblical references used in support of the sola scriptura creed”. — Simonapro 16:01, 7 March 2006

Your proposed title is a little cumbersome! Note that currently we say "references used in support", and not "references which support". I think it's adequate as it stands. — Matt Crypto 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes my proposed title is cumbersome, but precise and correct, which the current section title is not. The current title is misleading and will mislead some Wikipedia users as long it remains. I found it misleading. I read up on the references and there is no support for sola scriptura found in them. I expected to find a Biblical section where God teaches us that the only deposit for Christian faith is in the bible alone. Absolutely none of those references state, or teaches, this. If you can find it, please do show it to us.

For the sake of reducing the cumbersomeness of the previously long, but correct, section title I suggest “Proposed Biblical references for the sola scriptura creed”. That is certainly more accurate than the current one that is deceptive. Here are some more: “Suggested Biblical references for the sola scriptura creed”. “Possible Biblical references for the sola scriptura creed”. “Potential Biblical references for the sola scriptura creed”.

All of the above are more accurate than the misleading: “Biblical references used in support of the sola scriptura creed”.Which can also be as stated as: “Biblical references used to hold up the sola scriptura creed”. “Biblical references used to confirm the sola scriptura creed”. “Biblical references used to verify the sola scriptura creed”.

The whole point is that it needs to be changed so that the reader will not think it an established fact.— Simonapro 19:27, 8 March 2006

I don't think it does, personally, but I also don't think it's worth having a debate over. How about we rename the section something like "Scriptural arguments", and then putting in the text something like, "the following Bible references are used to argue the sola scriptura position:..." ? — Matt Crypto 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. Since it's clear that these are passages that are used in support, it avoids stating that the passages actually do support the position. However, if the community does decide to change the heading, I would assert that both sections should be changed to be consistent. Simonapro thinks the "in support of" passages don't actually support the view, but others would say that the "against" passages don't refute the view. We have a case here of differing opinions and interpretations. I think the current titles are appropriate. CL5 1 July 2006

What you have suggested there is exactly what I feel should be noted on that section. I would agree with that. That would make it seem less like sola scriptura is a done and dusted deal. — Simonapro 21:42, 8 March 2006

I was about to do some editing in the "scriptures" sections but I'm glad I checked the talk page first. It would be valuable to explain how the scriptures are used both in support of and against. For example, in the "against" section, I was going to edit out Hebrews 11:37, which says: "They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated" (NIV). I can't figure out for the life of me how tihs supports either side of the discussion. As Matt Crypto pointed out, these scriptures may not support the idea directly, but be used as part of a line of argumentation supporting the idea. So if this line of reasoning could be included on the page, even as just a sentence or two, that would be very useful.

Or even included here on the talk page. --shift6 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. I've never heard this passage used in this debate, and I don't see how it could possibly support either side. Perhaps the editor meant to reference something else??? Perhaps it should be edited out, unless someone can make a convincing argument. CL5 1 July 2006

I propose the following scriptures be removed because I can't figure out how they are related to the topic at hand. From the "in support of" section: 1 Cor 4:16; and from the "against" section: 1 Tim 1:13, Acts 17:28-29, Acts 20:35, Heb 11:37. I also propose that Matthew 2:23 and 1 Timothy 3:14-15 be moved from the "against" section to the "in support of" section, as they both appear to condone what is "written" which would be in support of. Perhaps they were added into the wrong section by an editor?

I just re-arranged the scriptures in the "against" section just to show them in the same order as the Biblical books themselves. Also added a couple verses to some, for instance Col 1:5 to Col 1:5-7 which shows the "against" position better. Other changes pending any discussion here. --shift6 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Acts 20:35 is relevant to the "against" section in that it suggests that there was an oral tradition of sayings attributed to Jesus, in addition to those recorded in the four canonical gospels. Hebrews 11:37 is relevant because it includes the fates of some people which are not recorded in the Old Testament, or at least not in the Protestant/abridged version of the OT. 1 Timothy 3:14-15 could reasonably appear in both the "for" and "against" sections in my opinion, as it speaks favorably of both Paul's written words and his spoken (in person) words. Perhaps other verses have been used by both sides as well. Wesley 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get Acts 20:35 and I agree 1 Tim 3:14-15 could appear in both. But Hebrews 11:37 recording something that wasn't in the OT doesn't seem to actually support the point in this article: that there is or isn't a source of revelation besides the Bible. The information is now recorded in Hebrews, so it is part of the Bible, but I don't see how it argued either for or against "Bible only".

Also, brief apologies but I rearranged our discussion a bit to not run over the older stuff (below) about Maccabees. -- shift6 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Having received no further comment on the supporting scriptures sections, I will make all the changes I suggested above, except that I won't remove Acts 20:35 from the "against" section, and I will include 1 Tim 3:14-15 in both sections. shift6 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What scripture is '2 Macc 12:44-46' in reference to? I can't find it. --Penumbra 2k 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Second book of Maccabees. Between the years 1825-27, Protestants, directed by the Edinburgh Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society decided simply not to print them anymore. Catholics still have these books.(Simonapro 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Merge Proposal

I happened upon the article Biblicism, which presents no information. I'm not quite sure whether it needs to simply be deleted or merged into this article. It might also be merged into Fundamentalist Christianity. I'd prefer it to redirect here, though. Thoughts? Amicuspublilius 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That article could definitely use some more work, but I don't know if it ought to be merged here. This article concerns the contention that the Bible alone is the source of revelation today, whereas Biblicism concerns the inspiration and revelation of the Bible. Perhaps it could be merged into Biblical canon though? Just my opinion. -- shift6 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just it: the article ought to go somewhere, since it really doesn't present a coherent... well... 'anything'! Should it just be deleted? Moving it into Biblical canon sounds acceptable, and better into this article. Thanks for the suggestion. Amicuspublilius 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant material

Hey, I just removed some redundant text, but there's still a fair bit that can be eliminated for an improvement. The article has the appearance of one that started out too POV, then grew by edit-war, i.e. it has point-counterpoint instead of real NPOV. I changed some of the assertions on doctrine to read more clearly as the claims of a particular group, which dramatically improves the NPOV but came at the cost of stilted text. Someone with good writing style, please rescue my edit! le cizgasnu 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

Admittedly, this article could use some work. However, I reverted the recent edits made by Jtaylor9 to the article's "Legacy" section because they were not written in the NPOV style of this encyclopedia, e.g.:

As such, [sola scriptura] has been a unifying force among many Christians at the grass roots, but there have been some unfortunate unintended consequences.

Perhaps today's Catholics and Protestants can in the interests of grass-roots ecumenism unite around prima Scriptura, advocated by the late Pope John Paul II (see under Wikipedia, Prima Scriptura).

Other parts seem like original research and would require citations, e.g.:

[I]nsofar as "liberty of conscience" impacts one's interpretation of Scripture, it has far less to do with sola scriptura and far more to do with American rugged individualism, which Scripture expressly rejects (2 Pet. 1:20).

Perhaps a slogan, to distinguish this from sola Scriptura, is solo Scripturo - "I can sit all by myself under a tree with open Bible and correctly interpret Scripture solo, without any need of anyone else" - even though Scripture expressly teaches God has given us men, including pastors and teachers, to teach the Scriptures to the Church to bring her to maturity (Eph. 4:11, 14-15 in context).

Regarding the former quote, any direct tie to American rugged individualism needs to be documented (and other cultures need to be considered also; this is not america.wikipedia.org). Regarding the second, biblical exegesis should be explained pro and con where it is necessary (and I'm not convinced it is here at all). The concept of "solo scriptura" needs a citation to a reliable source. --Flex

[edit] Please supply the anticedent to "its"

"Sola scriptura reverses the relationship between Scripture and Church authority as it had been understood in Catholic Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that its teaching authority is as interpreter of Scripture and that Scripture is to be understood in light of Apostolic Tradition."

What does "its" refer to here? I find it interesting that all of the following possibilities are viable:

• Scripture
• Church authority in general
• the Roman Catholic Church specifically
• Catholic Tradition
• the relationship between scripture and Church authority (or its reversal)
• the idea of Sola Scriptura

Of these, the most probable options are "the Roman Catholic Church" (having close proximity to the relative pronoun) and "Sola Scriptura" (being by far the dominant subject-noun of the other sentences in the paragraph).

With the former option we see a statement about two sides of the same coin, essentially that the Church/Tradition interprets Scripture, and that Scripture is interpreted by the Church/Tradition. This makes me wonder, "Why state it twice?" It would make sense to use a two-sides-to-the-same-coin syntax if explaining a circular feedback relationship, but here it is only redundant, AFAICT.

With the latter option, we see an interesting juxtaposition: the Catholic Church concedes that sola scriptura may have some teaching authority, but only in its limited capacity as interpreter of Scripture. On the other hand, understanding of Scripture can only occur in light of Apostolic Tradition. If it were this option, I would want further explanation of the relationship between "interpretation" and "understanding".

The sola scriptura option is less likely because there is no development of the idea of interpretation vs. understanding. However, the presence of sola scriptura as the (almost forcefully) dominant subject-noun of the paragraph, together with the viable reading of the "sola scriptura" option, and on top of that the redundant reading of the "Roman Catholic Church" option, will make readers at least do a double take, if not be quite confused, at the meaning of these sentences.

Please clarify. Epte 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That section was badly edited together by previous contributors. I have cut it and instead taken a direct quote from the Catechism to reflect exactly what RC teaching is on this matter. (Simonapro 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Calvinism getting too much press here

I believe the weight of the article should reflect Luther primarily and maybe a little about Calvin if needed but giving equal weight to Calvin for it would be wrong. (Simonapro 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia has the principle of NPOV, which means that you have to define this principle in a balanced way that presents how the Sola Scriptura principle was used by ALL the reformers, including Calvin and Zwingli among others. Zwingli began his reformation in Zurich at the same time as Luther did in Wittenberg.--Drboisclair 09:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there are two things here...

• Luther as originator. Luther founded Sola scriptura not Calvin who was one of many to adopt and teach it.
• WP:NPOV#Undue weight tells us that we should not give too much weight to minority views. This is especially true of the origins. Calvin was not responsible for it so should not be credited for it. (Simonapro 13:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

I agree with you on this point, but we have to write the article in as neutral a point of view as we can (WP:NPOV). I guess that the putting of the Calvinism template on the Five solas article is sufficient to point out Calvin's connection with the principle. We might have to be looking for sources that support what we are saying here.--Drboisclair 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the subsection "origin" from the beginning

You could add a subsection in which you discuss the origin of the sola scriptura principle, but you should have an introductory paragraph that comes in before the "contents box" that automatically appears before any subsection. The introductory paragraph also needed a little tweaking.--Drboisclair 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ok. Just wanted to clear any confusion over who conceived the doctrine. (Simonapro 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Roman Catholic Church in contradistinction with the church of Luther's day

At the time of the Reformation there was no "Roman Catholic Church" in contradistinction to the Protestant churches. When speaking of correcting abuses in the church of that time, it is more historically accurate to refer to the "medieval church" or the "church of Luther's day" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church," which developed through the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. We should also be concerned to make the article as neutral in point of view as possible, not bashing the Roman Catholic Church. They have a position on the place of the Bible in the church too, and maybe RC editors could contribute to this article.--Drboisclair 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

True but there was a Catholic Church. Since objections to the this Church include the Pope and over his authority then we can say that this is consistant with the RCC of today. For example the very wikipedia link Catholic Church diverts directly to the RCC. I think the RCC position is very good given that they canonized the Bible and Sola scriptura is a man-made doctrine of Luther. I don't think the RCC is based at all. (Simonapro 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

To imply that the entire Christian world at the time of Luther was represented in the Roman Catholic Church would be forgetting about the Great Schism. "Catholic Church" (meaning universal Church) is ambiguous--both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and others) refer to themselves as "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". However, the abuses referred to were unique to specifically the Roman Catholic Church. Even Luther was aware of the Greek Orthodox Church (he referred to them as the Greeks) and did not equate the Greeks with the Romans, so it would be a mistake to say merely "the medieval church" or "the church of Luther's day". And apart from the Schism, there were other branches as well--Arian churches, monophysite churches, Nestorian churches, and so on. "Roman Catholic Church" is an appropriate level of specificity, because the Church Luther is reacting to is just that and not the whole of Christendom. Epte 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you, Drboisclair. "Rome", "Papists", "the Pope", and "Roman Catholic Church" are not at all anachronistic - and they are exact contradistinctions to the Protestant churches. "Medieval church" and "church of Luther's day" is not clear enough. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The abuses Luther was dealing with were in a unified Catholic Church of the West under the pope in Rome. For Luther and the reformers it was "the church." Yes, "Rome," "Papists," "the Pope" are not anachronistic; however, "the Roman Catholic Church" IS anachronistic at least until the 17th century (1600s) after the end of the 30 Years' War (1638). Lutherans consider themselves "catholics" as do the Reformed communions. They said "we are the catholics, not the Romanists." Among the Anglicans there were the "king catholics" and the "pope catholics." Yes, Luther knew about the Greek Orthodox Church; however, he did not find fault with them: they were evidence for him against the pope's party that the church under the pope was not the whole thing. It is more accurate to speak of "errors of the church" (in Luther's view) rather than "errors of the Roman Catholic Church." Even in the 15th century (1400s) there was a debate in the western church about whether the pope would rule the church in a monarchical system or the ecumenical councils were OVER the pope (conciliarism). What is known as the Roman Catholic Church did not begin to come into being until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Remember Luther did not split off from the western church, making his own church. He was theoretically kicked out (excommunicated) by the pope. Mind you, it was not a just excommunication. Look at your history for confirmation in this. --Drboisclair 17:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if Luther thinks he was Catholic. Guess what Catholic, Catholic Church all link to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. By the way, Luther was excommunicated. They probably didn't think he was a Catholic. (Simonapro 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Drboisclair - it's appropriate to make clear that Luther was advocating a Reform of his own church (that is, it was an internal movement). The Protestant movement, except for the Anabaptists, considered themselves catholic, representative of the same historical body that Christ founded. However, I don't think that this clarification is accomplished by avoiding the term "Roman Catholic Church" - as though the term itself represents the schism. It is not unhelpful, or unclear, to say that the Protestant movement began within the Roman Catholic Church.

The protestant traditions still confess in their churches, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints ... ". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some protestant traditions Epte 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Droisclair: thank you, good points. The clarification in your first sentence probably needs to be communicated somehow in the article. When you say "errors of the church" do you mean "errors of the church, being the abuses of the principal church structure he was part of and trying to reform" or "errors of the church, being the problems associated with having any church structure and questions as to its organization as might have been introduced by your examples?" Perhaps "Roman Church" would be sufficient, or are you arguing for something more broad or a different connotation? Epte 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not reverted the change to Catholic Church. That is better than "Roman Catholic Church" which is anachronistic for this time frame.--Drboisclair 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is some of the question here whether to use present day terminology for accessibility to modern readers as opposed to historical terminology for historical accuracy? I still say "Catholic" is ambiguous in either present-day or historical context. Epte 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church both link to the same page. Why? They are the same thing. Sometimes there is a tendency for some Protestants to see the Roman Catholic Church as expressly different from the Catholic Church or the ancient Church. Problem with this is two fold. The first is that Jesus only started one Church, not churches. Second is that of Apostolic Succession. In otherwords the Church Jesus Christ started is one church that is Apostolically Succeeded. If you are part of a group that believes Jesus started multiple churches and that Apostolic Succession is not required then chances are you are not in the legitimate Church. The Reformers clearly had a problem with the Roman Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Church" and not so much the Eastern Church being called the "Orthodox Church". This was done in order to expressely indicate that Protestants had a problem with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. (Simonapro 08:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

Far too much indentation.  :-P

Either you misunderstood or I wasn't clear. Probably the latter. Allow me to try again. Is some of the question here (being the preference or dis-preference of "Roman Catholic Church") whether to use present day terminology for accessibility to modern readers (using "Roman Catholic Church" because that's what people of this day and age would call (perhaps erroneously) the historical institution being referred to) as opposed to historical terminology for historical accuracy (because "Roman Catholic Church", as has been pointed out, is anachronistic. I'm still unsure as to what the proposed alternative is.)? (As a side point,) I still say (merely) "Catholic" is ambiguous in either present-day or historical context (different people then and now call themselves Catholic. Yes I do realize that many (perhaps most) people think "Catholic" equals "Roman Catholic Church" - enough so that Catholic and Roman Catholic Church link to the same page. But in the interests of not causing offense, there are other organizations that consider themselves, even call themselves, "Catholic" (e.g. some Anglo-Catholics). It wouldn't hurt to be more specific, and may avoid stepping on some toes).

• Catholic Church links to Roman Catholic Church and no other because this question has been debated and rehashed countless times. They are the same, and always have been, because of apostolic succession especially of Bishops and more importantly the Bishop of Rome, the Pope who can trace a List of popes back to Saint Peter.
• The RCC has a fully compatable historical record with the Church Jesus started.
• Schism is what cause's splinters (wounds to unity), but the only way it could vanish is if the Pope's position as Bishop of Rome could not be filled for some reason or the Messiah returns. The Messiah returning is prophetical what with the keys to the kingdom being handed back to him so the later is more accurate than the former.
• The RCC maintains it has a right to renewal. I don't have the quote or reference off-hand (I believe it is Biblical also, maybe something to do with Mt 13:52.)

There is a big difference between a big C and a small c because we have a big C for Catholic being used and a big C for Church we find that many organisations outside of the RCC call themselves catholics or part of a catholic church. This is to distinguish between the two. This is often reflected in prayers such as the Apostles' Creed. Here is a good article on it. [1] They are actually different things. (Simonapro 07:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Sola scriptura means Scripture alone

Sola scriptura means that the Church does not speak infallibly in its traditions, but only in Scripture. This is an error and so a revert warrented. Comment here. (Simonapro 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

You are not correct, Simonapro. The Protestant view is that the scriptures are written by the Church, to the Church, for the Church - and that in them the Church speaks the word of God. The Scriptures are the "faith once delivered", and they are in fallible. The Church's traditions, however, are not infallible, according to the Protestant understanding.

You are in error. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, the revert was in error - not your translation. I hope that the newer sentence is clearer. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sola scriptura means that GOD SPEAKS in Scripture, not the church. The Roman Catholic Church, while still holding to the authority of Scripture as in the "prima scriptura" position mentioned in the article, believes that the pope and the church are OVER Scripture: "the truths of God are enshrined in the pope's heart" as Luther observed that Rome believed. Luther made the point that the church was the DAUGHTER of Scripture (The Holy Spirit through Scripture, the written Word of God, gives birth to the church). The church is not the MOTHER of Scripture--the idea that the church wrote Scripture so it is over it. That is why we hear Roman scholars along with Protestant liberal scholars say: "the apostles never wrote the books of the New Testament" they are many years removed from the apostles. This, in effect, degrades the Scriptures into fallible, secondary sources. Sola scriptura means that Tradition with a capital "T" is not a source of doctrine in the church. Sola scriptura means that certain hermeneutical (interpretation) principles are true like: 1) Scripture as God's Word is clear, it does not contradict itself and from that it follows that 2) Scripture is its own interpreter: Scripture interprets Scripture. The reformers believed that the individual Christian can read the Scriptures for him or her self and come to the knowledge of the truth without the pope or the church.--Drboisclair 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "sola scriptura" means that God speaks in the Church ("by Scripture alone"): God is the one who causes the Scriptures to be written, and to be believed. These apostles, prophets and other writers are the Church writing to and for the Church.

I'm sure that you're not unaware that it was written by men, moved by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are the infallible word of God. That is, the Church speaks the Word of God infallibly in the Scriptures alone. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sola scriptura means Scripture alone or By Scripture alone. It is latin. It does not use the word church or speaks or tradition. Anything else to the contrary is wrong.
• Cite sources where the Church claims it is OVER scripture. Use WP:CITE style.
• The Catholic Church's opinion as per the Catechism has been expressly stated, cited and quoted. (Simonapro 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

This is not a useful objection, Simonapro. The sentence is interpretive - just as was that which it replaced. The "By" concerns the means by which the Church is to be reformed, and by which the Christian is to obtain the authority of God: not by scripture plus anything else, but by scripture alone. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it, "the only rule given by God to direct us in how we may glorify and enjoy him".

That the Catholic Church claims that authority to interpret Scripture resides exclusively in the bishops is very clearly cited already. In addition, there is an implied argument that the canon of Scripture is a product of Tradition - so that what we call the Scriptures is decided by the Church. Otherwise, the article does not anywhere use the language to which you object: "the church claims that it is OVER scripture". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please your changes are a violation of WP:NOR. Use WP:CITE style.
• The Etymology of Sola scriptura is that it is a combination of two latin words ALONE SCRIPTURE invented by Martin Luther.
• There is not BY. It is added in english.
• Use WP:CITE to validate your last claim that Church is OVER scripture. It means nothing. (Simonapro 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

  Neither the article, nor I, have said that the Church is OVER scripture. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Simonapro, the phrase "sola scriptura" is in the ablative case. The by is not "added in english", it is essential to its English meaning. The phrase is not properly translated, without it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you are acquainted with the Latin language, you know that it is an inflected language, so the ablative case means that it should be translated into English as "by/through scripture alone." English is not inflected to the degree as the Latin. You would also know that sola scriptura is ablative if you have had any theological training.--Drboisclair 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly correct about the ablative case, but your last sentence is dangerously close to a personal attack. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be a personal attack. It is a statement of fact that theological training would inform one that sola scriptura is ablative. It is only a personal attack if I name an editor and call him or her a name. It might be considered borderline incivility, but that was not my intention. What I am concerned about is accuracy and the need of all of us to get our facts straight. I apologize for any incivility that may be implied in the statement I made.--Drboisclair 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we need so many variations of what it means. Luther made the statement and others add to it or not or in some cases reject it. What we do need is a consensus that the definition has changed and to show those modes or variations, neutrally. (Simonapro 20:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro, we do not dispute its "definition". When we speak of it "meaning this", or "meaning that", we are talking about what it does or does not imply, as a motive or guide for the Reformation of the Church. These are not "variations of what it means" (as though the idea consists merely of an etymology), but rather, clarifications of the idea's implications. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All of these solas are ablative to show that they are the means that God comes to us: sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, solo Christo. There is not many variations of what it means. God comes to us sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, and solo Christo.--Drboisclair 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Modes" section

The deleted section does not add anything substantive to the article, and is unattributed opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I refute you using WP:BOLD style. These modes are very important. Some believe that only the Holy Spirit should be used, and not commentary, for Sola scriptura based interpretations. Obviously Luther made a commentary and so did not forbid following the teachings of other men. (Simonapro 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro, you seem to very confident. I don't object to that. But your "modes" paragraph is not "important". The article is very brief, and without your paragraph it is very clear. The paragraph is not helpful. It is already stated, much more clearly than you attempt to do in your paragraph, that the Reformers did not mean that the doctrines of the church were entirely without weight. If that were so, why would they draw up such documents as the Augsburg Confession - or as you say, why would they write commentaries? The "Modes" section does not clarify this issue. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The origin of Sola Scriptura is that in order to receive Christian teachings and doctrines you either go learn them yourself or you get a church to teach them to you. A church that teaches you scripture is by definition in violation of Sola scriptura. The same goes for using commentaries. However obviously Luther sought unification of a new church through Sola scriptura and wrote his own commentaries to approve of scholistic Sola scriptura based theology. Yes of course some tradition crept in and even the man-made doctrine of Sola scriptura today but the point is there are Protestants today who would clearly object to the idea of being schooled on what the Bible means. They do it with the Holy Spirit alone. (Simonapro 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

This is not logical, and it is not accurate. When a Protestant asks himself whether a teaching is "orthodox", he is examining whether the teaching is "biblical". The concept of "orthodoxy" is identical to "biblical" in the Protestant conception.

But the Protestant view was not that the Church cannot instruct you in the doctrine of Scripture. On the contrary, this is precisely what the Protestants said should be the Church's doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense but who cares if Protestants have coined a new meaning for the word Orthodox in relation to Christianity? It actually means the Orthodox Church. Do you mean Western-Rite Orthodox Churches? As you can see it is very broad. Correctly it should mean the RCC. (Simonapro 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Your point about the word "orthodoxy" seems too facile to me. The word admits several meanings, the first of which is its ordinary sense (noted by the lack of capitalization) that is akin to its etymological definition -- "right doctrine." This is the sense in which it is often used in all theological circles. It does not necessarily reference the Orthodox branches of the church. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mkmcconn: Agreed. Most Protestants would agree that teaching on the Scriptures is to be found in their churches. For example, what of exegetical sermons? I think some Protestants would be against the church either mandating a certain interpretation, or otherwise discrediting the individual as the final judge and interpreter of Scripture. Most Protestants, IMHO, would say that they should have the choice to decide for themselves, the freedom to be influenced but not coerced. Epte 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What this deleted paragraph on modes of sola scriptura seems to be really be concerned with is the idea that sola scriptura is a cause of the proliferation of denominations that exist today. This is an important opinion regarding the effects of sola scriptura. No, I don't know of quotes off the top of my head. There was only one mode really proposed, and that to support the premise of the effects of sola scriptura. I would suggest moving away from the discussion of modes and consider the addition of this effect, and other effects, of the adoption of sola scriptura upon church structure, ecclesiology, and others. Epte 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epte, I think that what you intend can be accomplished by expanding the /*Legacy*/ section, which is primarily negative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There. What do you think of that? I revised the whole section pretty thoroughly. I believe it to still maintain the original intent. In fact, the sentiment about the proliferation of denominations was already there. Epte 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. BTW, the "Nevertheless" should not be read as "bias". The intention of the word, in fact, was to avoid argumentativeness. The "Nevertheless" was there to indicate that the Catholic argument is directed to the statements immediately preceding, specifically.

I disagree. In the context of the preceding paragraph and juxtaposed with "contend" it could imply "Even so (in spite of this evidence), Catholics (irrationally) contend..." That's certainly how I read it the first time. If I read it that way, others probably would. Epte 00:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to consider whether the form that you have left these two paragraphs will invite, or discourage editors from trying to lengthen the list of arguments that support their favored position, to the detriment of the article. Will an editor read this and say, "that's not all my side would say about that issue"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting point. I filled out the protestant side to even things out as part of debiasing. The last one on the pro-tradition/authority side is of course the one that was the main topic of the modes section. IMHO, I think they are opinions worthy of note, but I don't know how to prevent what you mention, other than by using "may" to imply there may be more. Perhaps a statement that it's an incomplete list at best? Epte 00:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Epte, my experience has taught me to avoid counterpoising contrary positions within the same section. In this case, however, the counter-position is that, the Protestant view comes short of its own principles. The counterpoints must appear in close proximity, because it helps to clarify the Protestant view, summarizes the section on the Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition, and provides a segue into the treatment of Protestant divisions. The trick, to keep the paragraphs from expanding into further argument, is to frame the difference between them as a stalemate, and walk away - and thereafter to censure the temptation to relieve the tension thus created. That's why a "Nevertheless" seemed appropriate to me - although, according to you, I must have not done a tidy job of it. Here's the tension as I intended to describe it, left unresolved:

If the basic Protestant analogy holds up, between the traditions of God's people the Jews, and the traditions of the Roman church, then it is a simple matter to distinguish traditions from Scripture: one is passed on, the other is written down. Nevertheless, as the Catholic citations of Scriptures point out, the distinction between "word of God" and "tradition" is less simple than the difference between "written down" and "passed on", because according to the Scriptures cited, the word of God is contained in both, the oral instructions of the apostles and Scripture, not Scripture alone. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions of Protestants Section

Where do Anglicans/Episcopalians fit? It is unclear to me in which of these three divisions Anglicanism/Episcopalianism would fit. Perhaps that's due to my ignorance (Are they even considered Protestants? The Anglicanism page is in the Protestant category), or perhaps because there needs to be another category? Thoughts? Epte 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, doesn't this section more appropriately belong in Protestantism? It seems to have little or nothing to do with sola scriptura. Epte 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article should rather have the Protestant template rather than the Lutheran template. It is pan-Protestant, at least among "conservative" Protestants. Also, the Anglicans and the US Episcopalians ARE Protestants, although the High Church Anglicans gravitate toward Roman Catholicism. Anglicans/Episcopalians=Protestants.--Drboisclair 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epte, I welcome your work to make this article NPOV.--Drboisclair 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epte, in terms of those three broad divisions, the Anglicans came alongside the Reformed movement, although in many respects they compare more favorably to the Lutherans, than to most Reformed churches. And, with regard to "sola scriptura" the church is diverse and distinctive. For that reason, some Anglicans like to describe their communion as "both reformed and catholic". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Epte, if I recall, the reason for this section was because in the article (at some point) one of the stated intentions of "sola scriptura" was to reform the Church, settle controversies, and promote unity - the section appeared as an illustration of the actual developments, in contrast to the ideal goals. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more appropriately put in the relevant portion of the legacy section? They're similar at least. Epte 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible verses

The section Sola_scriptura#Biblical_references_commonly_cited_in_reference_to_Sola_scriptura is IMHO unhelpful and should either be fixed or deleted. Consider that Ag2003 moved a reference from the pro section to the con section. I'm sure s/he had a reason for that, but some Protestant might come along and move it back for his/her own reasons and with just as little explanation. Anyway, I don't think that those verse citations add much to the article without more explanation of how each side understands each one. Expand or delete? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote to delete the section. Verses out of context and without explanation from each perspective are not at all helpful. There are other articles about which this could also be said. In all cases I would argue for deletion. It is not helpful, not encyclopedic in style, and a waste of space in my opinion. Jim Ellis 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I also dislike sections like this, and would favor deleting it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this section should be deleted, but I had been pondering in past months how to improve it. As it is it is not encyclopedic. It would fit well in a theological treatise but not in this article. That is my opinion on this.--Drboisclair 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic position: Sola Verbum Dei vs. Prima scriptura

I would appreciate thoughts, and sources, on whether the Catholic position is really Sola Verbum Dei, or is it Prima scriptura? Or is it both?? 129.12.200.49 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prima Scriptura?

Ok, help me out here: Is this made up? I ran across the article for this term, and it seems to be a Roman Catholic way of describing some Protestants who accept some authority of tradition - rather than a self-description used by anyone. Does anyone have some references for this term (used by someone as a self-description, or used as an academic theory)? Thanks, and a Blessed Advent to everyone. Pastordavid 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)