The Implications of Sola Scriptura
This will be the last of my posts discussing the historic elements of sola scriptura. I am not a historian, so my discussion is merely to inform the uninformed of what the basic issues are. The core of sola scriptura is taken to be both the sufficiency and authority of scripture. However, every creed implies that these are not terms to be understood in any sort of way. They imply something about interpretation, or about original documents, or tradition. Yet the creeds do not agree on what sola scriptura does imply. Neither do they explain why sola scriptura is supposed to imply what it does. Yet there may be a common element to what is believed to be implied by sola scriptura.
The Belgic and Westminster Confessions both state that the scriptures were not believed based on the testimony of others or the church, but on the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the evidence. The Belgic confession also says that the doctrine of the authority of scripture is great enough to break fellowship over, and higher than any tradition, creed or document of the fathers. The Second Helvetic Confession also places scripture above all creeds, councils, traditions and interpretations of the Fathers. This must be properly balanced with the understanding of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord when it states that the creeds, writings and councils of the early church must be accepted because they were formed out of scripture.
Sola scriptura also affected how the Bible was to be properly interpreted and who could understand it. The Westminster confession stated that an ordinary person could through ordinary means understand enough of the Bible in order to be saved. This was not viewed as a statement about the clarity of the entire Bible. Because of these considerations, translation of the scriptures was viewed as an obligation on the church. The Second Helvetic Confession states that scripture was to be interpreted by the use of grammar and their occasion as well as other scriptures and our knowledge of God.
It is also interesting to note that the Belgic confession and the Westminster confession give a list of every book that is actually in the Bible. The Belgic confession even lists the Apocryphal books by name and excludes them from the canon. The Westminster confession points to the original language versions of the Old and New Testaments as being "immediately inspired". In a rather peculiar case, the Helvetica Consensus Formula declared that the vowel points of the Hebrew were inspired by God along with the rest of the MT, and that other manuscript traditions were wrong when they deviated from that.
By examining these creeds, one notices three sets of implications that were found by examining sola scriptura. One of these implications is why scripture is believed. It is not believed on the basis of the church recieving it, or on the fathers, or by another testimony of the church. It is believed because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by evidence. This implication did not lead to discarding any of these testimonies, but only to placing them under scripture. Another implication was for the interpretation of scripture. Since the reformers rejected the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic church, they needed to indicate what replaced it. So the confessions give ordinary people understanding of the basic gospel message from scripture, and says that understanding can be reached through textual analysis and comparison with other scriptures. The final implication dealt with the range of scripture. This included lists of books, which documents were actually inspired and even a statement about the inspiration of manuscript traditions. Although the confessions are not united on the particular implications of sola scriptura in these areas, they do unite in saying that these areas are affected by the doctrine. The particular emphasis that they do state are also consistent with one another. But by further examination will one understand what the doctrine of sola scriptura does imply.
The Belgic and Westminster Confessions both state that the scriptures were not believed based on the testimony of others or the church, but on the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the evidence. The Belgic confession also says that the doctrine of the authority of scripture is great enough to break fellowship over, and higher than any tradition, creed or document of the fathers. The Second Helvetic Confession also places scripture above all creeds, councils, traditions and interpretations of the Fathers. This must be properly balanced with the understanding of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord when it states that the creeds, writings and councils of the early church must be accepted because they were formed out of scripture.
Sola scriptura also affected how the Bible was to be properly interpreted and who could understand it. The Westminster confession stated that an ordinary person could through ordinary means understand enough of the Bible in order to be saved. This was not viewed as a statement about the clarity of the entire Bible. Because of these considerations, translation of the scriptures was viewed as an obligation on the church. The Second Helvetic Confession states that scripture was to be interpreted by the use of grammar and their occasion as well as other scriptures and our knowledge of God.
It is also interesting to note that the Belgic confession and the Westminster confession give a list of every book that is actually in the Bible. The Belgic confession even lists the Apocryphal books by name and excludes them from the canon. The Westminster confession points to the original language versions of the Old and New Testaments as being "immediately inspired". In a rather peculiar case, the Helvetica Consensus Formula declared that the vowel points of the Hebrew were inspired by God along with the rest of the MT, and that other manuscript traditions were wrong when they deviated from that.
By examining these creeds, one notices three sets of implications that were found by examining sola scriptura. One of these implications is why scripture is believed. It is not believed on the basis of the church recieving it, or on the fathers, or by another testimony of the church. It is believed because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by evidence. This implication did not lead to discarding any of these testimonies, but only to placing them under scripture. Another implication was for the interpretation of scripture. Since the reformers rejected the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic church, they needed to indicate what replaced it. So the confessions give ordinary people understanding of the basic gospel message from scripture, and says that understanding can be reached through textual analysis and comparison with other scriptures. The final implication dealt with the range of scripture. This included lists of books, which documents were actually inspired and even a statement about the inspiration of manuscript traditions. Although the confessions are not united on the particular implications of sola scriptura in these areas, they do unite in saying that these areas are affected by the doctrine. The particular emphasis that they do state are also consistent with one another. But by further examination will one understand what the doctrine of sola scriptura does imply.
posted by Matthew at 1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home