Sola Scriptura as it is practiced by those who take it seriously was not first discovered by the Protestant Reformers, but is exampled by a number of the early fathers and by examples in the Bible itself, and we can take up that discussion if you like.
But what you have referred to in terms of a completely autonomous and individualistic approach was not the invention of the Reformers. We who are historically conscious reformers differentiate the two with the terms “Sola” versus “Solo” Scriptura. Solo Scriptura invites a complete amnesia of all that went before or outside of the given interpreter. It is truly a byproduct of Enlightenment subjectivism and is the old fuel that still burns in the postmodern subjectivist relativist deconstructionist mind.
Whereas Sola Scriptura fits within the scheme of church learning and history, even the church’s authority to teach. For the Reformers, it was informed by not only Scripture, but by the positive examples of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and even the irrepressible Bishop of Hippo, to name only a few. It does not presume to give every individual license to interpret in a void of accountability. It merely insures that the accountability works both ways, i.e., the church at large is obligated to heed its teachers and overseers, and to remember the lessons learned from the past. But likewise, God is not so weak he cannot communicate clearly in his word to every one of his children, and there come times when the leadership must be held to account by the church at large. The Reformation was such an event.
You mentioned the Old Believers’ revolt. They are the epitome of Reagan’s quip that he didn’t leave the Democratic party; they left him. There is an analogy here I would like you to consider. In the sixties, the flower children came along and had the arrogance to think they were the first generation to care about war, poverty, injustice, etc. These are like the Enlightenment “hippies” that elevated human autonomy to perverse extremes.
But lately we have the Tea Party, running around waving their Constitution booklets in the face of their wayward leaders and demanding accountability under the law as given by the Founders. This where the Reformers were coming from. They went back to the founding document and found it did not square well with where current leadership was headed. In other words, they used an objective form of truth, the written word, to try and rein in the subjective excesses of their leadership.
Note well the difference. The Enlightenment, because it elevated reason to be equal to or greater than the operation of faith, laid the groundwork for modern subjectivism. Whereas it was the Reformers who labored to call believers back to the objective rule of the written word, just as Paul himself does here:
1Cor 4:6 “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”
… “what is written” being a commonly used catch phrase for Scripture.
Likewise, getting back to Sola Scriptura in the modern era is really an effort to restore the balance between faith and reason. Augustine and Aquinas differed on faith versus reason. In terms of modern subjectivist theory, Aquinas has a recognized role in giving reason a greater role than any who had gone before him, a role equal to faith. Whereas Augustine clearly had retained the early emphasis on the primacy of divine revelation, and said things that are positively painful to modern autonomists, such as “to know, you must believe.”
Thus it is really Aquinas, through his life project of reconciling Athens and Jerusalem (especially Aristotle and Christian theology) who opened the door to the Enlightenment’s exaltation of reason to Reason.
Therefore it is a post hoc causation fallacy to say the Reformers caused the autonomy of the Enlightenment, and that somehow Sola Scriptura is a manifestation of said autonomy. The Roman church in the medieval period had begun to exercise enormous political power, which ran contrary to rise of the nation state. The break was ripe to happen on a multiplicity of grounds and when it did happen, was far more complex and spectacular than can be explained by the posting of 95 theses on a church door.
So while I am willing to hear anyone try to make a case for some view contrary to Sola Scriptura, I am going to insist the case be directed, not at a straw man like SolO Scriptura, or worse, at proponents of bizarre theologies of dreams and visions that are clearly opposite to SolA Scriptura, but at the actual belief of Sola Scriptura as propounded by those who both teach and practice it, none of whom discredit the value of the fathers, the ecumenical creeds, the teaching ministry within the church, and the mutual accountability of all believers to each other under the divine word.
well, no, it was not the invention of the REformers per se, but it was a Pandora's box that they opened up. With the idea that one could pick up a Bible and come up with one's own theology it has led to S's and unitarians among others
Solo Scriptura invites a complete amnesia of all that went before or outside of the given interpreter. It is truly a byproduct of Enlightenment subjectivism and is the old fuel that still burns in the postmodern subjectivist relativist deconstructionist mind. -- I would dispute that it is a byproduct of Englightenment (in my mind the "e" dates from the 1700s..) because of the presence of the radical reformers, unitarians, polish brethern etc. at the time of Luther and Calvin
Whereas Sola Scriptura fits within the scheme of church learning and history, even the church’s authority to teach. -- not really, an individual would let's say reach a conclusion, but that had to be discussed in council and besides it being held to the gold standard that is scripture, it would also be held to "is this what was always taught or at least not contradictory to what has always been taught?"
Cyril of Jerusalem did discuss on the matters of the Trinity but it was held up as true by the three means I said above: 1. is it true to scripture, 2. is it in line with tradition and 3. does church in council under the grace of the Holy Spirit accept it? Sola scriptura takes only the first into account
God is not so weak he cannot communicate clearly in his word to every one of his children, --> it's not a weakness of God but a weakness of man. It's like teaching your pet hamster to do something. You have the intelligence but little hammy doesn't...
and there come times when the leadership must be held to account by the church at large -- imho that is a different matter. yes, leadership to be held to acount, but that is not ss or anti-ss
Not really. You can claim that about Luther to an extent, but not Calvin or Zwingli or the radical reformers, they literally threw out the baby with the water.
and that somehow Sola Scriptura is a manifestation of said autonomy. -- rather I state that the variegated beliefs and "anything I want I can make a new religion" are derived from ss.
Whereas it was the Reformers who labored to call believers back to the objective rule of the written word, just as Paul himself does here: -- not really, the Reformers went back to their own interpretation of the Written Word -- case in point, Zwingli and Luther's clashes over the Eucharist (which I mean to get back to you on) -- they each had their own interpretation of the Written Word and wanted that interpretation as the one to be upheld
"none of whom discredit the value of the fathers"? -- really? In prior debates with non-c's when one even mentions the father's in addition to scripture, it is immediately seized on as a reason to reject the point.
cases --> there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures but these 'fathers' of yours promote their own apostolic succession. and There is also verifiable history that shows a lot of your history is bunk...How many of your church father's records are forgeries by your church??? and in the same thread "But by then your church fathers had established a religion based on Clement's writings as well as their own that mimicked Clement's stuff.". And other posters would say Or maybe a church father has to be dug up to find some warped explanation. and "Read what Justin and all the Early Church Father’s taught and you will come into a deeper understanding of Christ’s sacrifice and how we are to worship." I can read the Bible and come into a deeper understanding of Christ’s sacrifice and how we are to worship. I don't need to read commentary on it.
"the ecumenical creeds" ==> You don’t seem to know what the gospel is. It’s not there in your previous posts. It’s missing from your creeds. etc. etc.
your posts are refreshing, but are completely unlike anything that the previous non-c posters have said before, hence my reference is to them, not to you.
Often what is seen in addition to those who have never heard of sola fide meaning faith alone as being what precisely appropriates justification, but not a faith that will not effect the obedience of faith, is the idea that SS means other sources have no place in determining truth.
Sometimes this is due to the disparagement of so-called church "fathers" (which the apostles were) expressed by evangelicals in response to Catholic esteem of them "above that which is written" (1Cor. 4:6) and as being unduly being determinative of Truth, but this exclusion of all else is not historically case, and which would be a fringe position even now, but all such extraBiblical sources are subject to the assured Word of God, the supernaturally established Scriptures.
► From Alister McGrath's* The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
*Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London
► THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.)
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
► From evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie:
By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things.
First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.
Second, the Bible is [formally and materially] sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants the Bible alone means the Bible only is the final authority for our faith.
Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.
Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.
Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones. — http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
Of course, Scripture only mean what Rome says it is and means, and likewise she judges the CFs more than she is judged by them (Catholic Encyclopedia>“Tradition and Living Magisterium”) and thus in response to arguments from antiquity, is the oft-quoted classic response from Manning,
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine." (Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation," (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-2280; www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)