Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
traditionChristians:
Is Sola Scriptura biblical?
Or is it a tradition?
Tradition. Nowhere in the bible does it say you must only rely on the bible.Christians:
Is Sola Scriptura biblical?
Or is it a tradition?
No.Is Sola Scriptura biblical?
Only over the last two centuries by what are called "fundamentalists".Or is it a tradition?
Uhfortuntelly both.Christians:
Is Sola Scriptura biblical?
Or is it a tradition?
Doesn't it date back to Luther, though? My understanding is it is a lot wider than the fundamentalists and, in some form, strictly speaking applies to all the Protestant denominations.No.
Only over the last two centuries by what are called "fundamentalists".
Doesn't it date back to Luther, though? My understanding is it is a lot wider than the fundamentalists and, in some form, strictly speaking applies to all the Protestant denominations.
Tradition, taken from the Islamists and Zealots.
Doesn't it date back to Luther, though? My understanding is it is a lot wider than the fundamentalists and, in some form, strictly speaking applies to all the Protestant denominations.
Tradition. Nowhere in the bible does it say you must only rely on the bible.
But read this extract from the Wiki page on sola scriptura:No, Protestant simply means to "protest" the Catholic Church. Protestantism, isn't necessarily fundamentalist, or Sola Scriptura by definition.
Exactly. So it is a matter of tradition, in Protestanism, from Luther onward, to take this view.Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solae. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers, who taught that authentication of scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.[1]
By contrast, Anglicanism and Methodism, also considered forms of Protestantism, uphold the doctrine of prima scriptura,[2][3] with scripture being illumined by tradition, reason and experience as well, thus completing the four sides of, in Methodism, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[4] The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".[5] The Roman Catholic Church officially regards tradition and scripture as equal, as interpreted by the Roman magisterium.[6] The Roman Catholic Church describes this as "one common source ... with two distinct modes of transmission",[7] while some Protestant authors call it "a dual source of revelation".[8]
Sola scriptura - Wikipedia
But read this extract from the Wiki page on sola scriptura:
"Sola scriptura is one of the five solae, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation.[9]The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the scriptures do not have the same authority as the scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the scriptures, even by an individual member of the church.
Martin Luther said, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was to correct what he asserted to be the errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's textual authority. Catholic doctrine is based in sacred tradition, as well as scripture. Sola scriptura rejected the assertion that infallible authority was given to the magisterium to interpret both scripture and tradition.[6]
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history, tradition, or the church when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the church as the Bible's interpreter, the regula fidei (embodied in the ecumenical creeds) as the interpretive context, and scripture as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.[10] As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."[11]"
Read the article.The Anglicans are not Sola Scriptura. Yet they are Protestant.
Protestant strictly means the protesting of the Church, in particular, the pope.
Actually, you're correct, so sorry for my brain fart. My comment on "fundamentalism" relates more to scriptural inerrancy and literalistic interpretations.Doesn't it date back to Luther, though? My understanding is it is a lot wider than the fundamentalists and, in some form, strictly speaking applies to all the Protestant denominations.
Read the article.
It is clear enough that Luther himself introduced the concept.
It is also clear that sola scriptura does not mean biblical literalism or the rejection of all traditions of interpretation. What it rejects is the Catholic idea that there is also a source of doctrinal authority, of equivalent standing, in the apostolic succession claimed by the priesthood.
I'm very sorry, but you're mistaken. I've been studying this for over a decade, Sola Scriptura literally translates as: "By Scripture alone". It means faith based solely on scripture.
...Wikipedia articles are not an authoritative source.