Sola Scriptura

I suppose a definition of the title of this entry is a good place to start. Sola Scriptura is Latin for "by Scripture alone" and means that the Bible is the only source and authority of the Christian faith. I'd never heard the term until I started reading about faith. Looking at it, I realize that most, if not all, Protestant churches hold this doctrine to be true in some degree. That degree seems to depend on whether you believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible. Inerrancy means that the Bible is totally accurate and free from any error. Infallibility means it is free from errors when it comes to faith and it's practices with some contradictions on history, science, etc. That's probably a totally inadequate description of both positions, but it shows the difference. Good enough for government work, anyway. Most descriptions I've so far seem to come from the inerrancy crowd and they tend to have that all-or-nothing tenor common to much from the Fundamentalist camp. I think a look at the history of Sola Scriptura would be beneficial.

The idea of Scripture as the basis for everything in Christianity goes back to the Reformation. Prior to Luther's 95 Theses, the Church (as in Catholic) had some practices that some people had problems with. Such as the purchase of papal indulges, the devotion to Mary and the intercession of the saints to name a few. Martin Luther, a German priest, felt so strongly that these practices had no basis in the Bible that he protested to the Archbishop, which was (possibly) posted on the door of the church at Wittemburg. Of course, Luther's work was the opening act of the Reformation, wherever is was first read. When the church threatened him with excommunication and death, he replied "Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!” I never really thought of Luther as a firebrand until now. And, he bucked the status quo. I kind of like this guy.

Sola Scriptura doesn't seem to leave much room for tolerance of other ideas. Which is one more reason I'm glad I'm a Methodist. Being Wesleyans, we're more Prima Scriptura folks. Prima Scriptura asserts the primacy of the Scriptures as the authority on all things Christian. Wesleyan being the precise, methodical (methodical, Methodist..., get it?) fellow that he was had a methodology for interpreting the Scriptures. It's called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. As the Book of Discipline says ""Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation." To be fair, Sola Scriptura doesn't say that the Bible is the only thing you should read. Their meaning can illuminated by other sources, such as councils, tradition, reason, experience, etc. But, it rejects any secondary authority that doesn't conform to the Scriptures.

The problem with Sola Scriptura for me is whose interpretation of the Scripture is to be viewed as authoritative? Because, everyone interprets the Bible when they read it. If, and this is a big if, you do follow the Bible implicitly, it's still an interpretation; just a literal one. That's kind of hard to do though, because the Bible is at about 2000 years old (dating from the latest writings), was written in foreign languages (most no longer spoken in the form written), for a culture markedly different than our own. Reading the Bible with 21st century Western eyes is, in my humble opinion, an asinine undertaking. One that's guaranteed to turn out wrong and cause no end of trouble. Oh wait, it's already doing that. If you question that statement, talk to some people who've been on the receiving end of it. Gay people, Muslims and unbelievers all have a negative view of Christianity precisely because of people misinterpreting the Bible. It promotes exclusion. Which is, ironically, unbiblical. I've got to wonder what Jesus would say were he to come back and see what's happening to his message.