LightCC

The Bible is the Literal, True, Word of God....

Where does this perspective come from? A reaction to the Catholic church brought somehow through the reformers in the Reformation?

The Catholics did 'add to' the scriptures tremendously, basically stating anything the church came out with was the word of God... Certainly anything the Pope officially released was so by their declaration.

The Catholic church also hid the Bible from the masses by maintaining the Latin only services/masses, Bibles, etc., which in part seems to have caused the Reformation..

So, I suppose I understand some of the human reasons for 'Sola Scriptura' (the scriptures alone). To the literal Bible crowd, it does appear that the Bible has been wonderfully maintained and saved to this day through history for it to be here as a guide to the basics. Does it go deeper than that? Does the Literal, True, Only Word of God crowd defend the Bible as the only true, known, revealed Word of God through scriptural means as well?

I also understand the various councils agreeing on the canon in it's various forms, but more or less what you can buy as the current form of the Bible today.

But where does the 'Bible only' view come from?

Why is the Bible called the 'Word of God'?

Why do so many Christians require the Bible to be the literal, inerrant, Word of God to us (any that will have it)?


Inquiring minds want to know...

Toto

Sola Scriptura was invented by Luther because he needed a basis for challenging the Catholic Church's claimed monopoly on the Truth. It was his way of rejecting corrupt church tradition.

I don't think there is anything more to it than that.

The Church has limited options for authority. There is Tradition, which the Catholics have opted for; it requires military force to keep people in line. Then there is scriptural authority, but everyone reads scripture differently, so there are a multitude of competing Protestant sects. Or there is revelation, which is unstable and tends to favor the clinically insane. Or there is reason, but humans are not very good at reason.

Take your pick.

mountainman

Dear LightCC,

Authoritarianism.

Some people like to be authoritarian leaders while other people find themselves comfortable being the followers of authority. This explains the whole phenomenom called "christianity" in psychological terms. The other side of the question relates to ancient history ... when did the authority of the new testament get released into the world? Who was it that held the big stick over the world and said "This is the word of the new god in which you as civilians will worship in place of all your old gods". Which person in history said this? Which person in history carried a big stick, to beat submission into disbelievers? I will leave the answer to this question as an exercise of research for interested parties.


Best wishes,



Pete

Roger Pearse

Here's what I recall about this. The medieval church held that scripture and the councils of the church together were witnesses to what the church believed. Luther continued to believe this, until his disputation with Johannes Eck at the Diet of Worms. Eck succeeded in getting Luther to admit that some of the ideas that Luther was finding in scripture were also held by John Huss and the Hussites, who had been condemned at the Council of Constance. Eck therefore was triumphant, and the emperor and the audience were disgusted at Luther's admission. But in fact the result was to cause Luther to look again at the Hussites, recognise that they really had been wrongly condemned, and therefore realise that the councils of the medieval church really had not the authority that he had hitherto presumed. A month later he had accepted this, and concluded that only in scripture can there be authority.

It can be dangerous to force people to realise all the implications of their ideas; the overthrow of medieval catholicism was inevitable at that point.

I had not noticed the papal military forces invading lately.

I think that the different Protestant sects tend to owe their existence to squabbles over power, rather than real differences about what scripture says, tho (although it certainly can happen). Once those in power refuse to accept that there is a problem at the grass roots, splits are inevitable. People-power, in other words; often to correct abuses of those with power.

The evidence for this would seem somewhat scanty, tho. But everyone can see the difficulties with individuals claiming revelation. However I don't think this has been a real source of doctrine since the 2nd century.

'Reason' is usually the codeword for conformity to "the clamour of the times" tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LightCC

That may explain Luther, but there were constant 'rebellions' throughout the Reformation from those who opposed the churches doctrines. Luther found that many of the church's doctrines and teachings were opposed to the scriptures (being a Monk he was able to interrupt/understand the Latin and other manuscripts he had access to), and this was the basis for his famous '95 Theses' he posted on the door.

The difference for Luther compared to many of the other early reformers was that the church killed most of them, or locked them away, for heresies, whereas Luther ended up having the protection of the German princes who were squabbling with the church for power.

But that doesn't answer my more general question. Luther was not the only one to believe 'Sola Scriptura', though he may be the starting point. Why did all the other Reformers risk (and many give) life and limb to promote this concept? Why did the reformed protestant denominations agree with Luther adopt and profess this doctrine through many councils, cathechisms, and statements of faith?

While much of the mainstream, liberal church today has dropped the notion of the scriptures being the literal, inerrant, inspired word of God, there are still a vast number of churches, pastors, and Christians who follow this doctrine.

Is there a biblical basis for it, does the Bible declare itself to be these things? Did this doctrine form as a consensus of protestants in the Reformation, following the lead of folks like Luther?

I suppose I need to look into Luther's writings on the topic a bit more to understand his reasoning. Thanks for the lead

Everyone doesn't read the scripture differently. Among conservative Christians that follow the 'sola scriptura' concept there are very well defined rules of Biblical interpretation that essentially cause all the major doctrines to be agreed upon. That doesn't mean there isn't dissent in certain, more murky, gray areas.

Deus Ex

Everyone may read the same, but they definitely interpret differently. A Christian's interpretation of the Bible is generally guided by the 'sect' that they belong to.

LightCC

The New Testament (and Bible really as a whole) wasn't canonized until a council that I forget the name of around 300 or 400 AD, if I recall correctly. They left out the apocrapha (spelling?) from the official canon, but suggested that they were still worthy books to read and study.

The Westminster Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, which many of the more conservative, reformed denominations today follow, both reaffirm the canon from that council, as did Luther eventually (he had questions on certain books like James and Hebrews).

But even with all that the Westminster Confession states that each believer needs to confirm for themselves through the Holy Ghost whether or not each book belongs in the Bible or not. Hardly authoritarian rule.

So, in the end, I don't buy your answer, it's a broad sweeping generalization that doesn't answer the specifics I'm interested in. If people just wanted to either be in authority or have authority they could do it without 'sola scriptura'.

P.S. Sola Scriptura at Wikipedia looks to have some good introductory and specific material... I'm going through that now

Doug Shaver

Not in my experience, and my experience includes having been one of those conservative Christians.

I don't disagree that there is a set of doctrines that has a broad consensus among conservative Christians, but there is practically nothing that at least a few of them don't dispute.

LightCC

While true, there are generally accepted rules of interpretation that are generally agreed upon by the more conservative/scholarly denominations. Any of those following 'Sola Scriptura' that also agree to 'Scripture interprets Scripture' basically agree on these rules, and follow the same rules other scholars use on any generic text they interpret (Hermeneutics).

I'm more interested in the more scholarly Christians that follow such interpretation rules. Why do they stick to Sola Scriptura?

Shadowy Man

Because words can have more than one meaning, and thus sentences can be open to interpretation, it is logically impossible that anything written down in a human language can be literal truth.

Not to mention all the translating that must have gone on with a book like the Bible.