# Good article on sola scriptura versus solo scriptura



## moral necessity (Apr 12, 2012)

A great quote from the article: "The reformers' appeal to 'Scripture alone,' however, was never intended to mean 'me alone.'"

Modern Reformation - Articles

Blessings!


----------



## No Name #5 (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't know about this article, personally. It seems to me that it sets up a false dichotomy between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura when they are, in reality, one unified whole. The *reason* we adhere to the creeds is *because* they are strictly Biblical and because, as Romans 8:16 says, "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children." The Holy Spirit and proper Biblical exegesis are what brings us to embrace the creeds - not tradition, a false idol (and a logical fallacy).


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 13, 2012)

No Name #5 said:


> I don't know about this article, personally. It seems to me that it sets up a false dichotomy between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura when they are, in reality, one unified whole. The *reason* we adhere to the creeds is *because* they are strictly Biblical and because, as Romans 8:16 says, "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children." The Holy Spirit and proper Biblical exegesis are what brings us to embrace the creeds - not tradition, a false idol (and a logical fallacy).



Right, but even then a creed, while Scriptural, is not Scripture strictly speaking

(How's that for alliteration?)


----------



## No Name #5 (Apr 13, 2012)

No disagreement there!


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 14, 2012)

I've read Mathison's work before, and I'm not convinced he's actually correct. There is a kernel of truth in what he's saying, but it's oversimplified in an attempt to protect the Reformers. Anyone who reads extensively in Martin Luther will recognize that he does in fact leave room for tradition as a source of authority, but insofar as it is not an independent source of authority, all authority in _theory_ collapses back to the Bible. Thus, although there is a _practical_ difference between Martin Luther's use of authority and a modern Tradition 0 type, nothing in Luther's theology could actually _prevent_ a collapse from one to the other. The door is left open, even if Luther himself does not step through it. Also, it's worth noting that Luther himself had some trouble justifying the canon, as his ambivalent attitude toward James shows. Rather, Luther applied a Christocentric and justification-centric criteria to canon: that which testifies to the gospel is Scripture.

Also, "solo Scriptura" is a nonsense phrase. Because "solo" and "sola" are the same case, the change makes no semantic difference. It merely puts the adjective in the wrong gender.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 14, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> Because "solo" and "sola" are the same case, the change makes no semantic difference. It merely puts the adjective in the wrong gender.



Thanks for pointing that out. That phrase is growing in prominence among my pet peeves.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 14, 2012)

I think deriding "solo scriptura" is an attempt to get at the "Me and My Bible" people who seem to think their interpretation is just as valid as any other, as with the Bible studies in which each participant gives their thoughts about what the passage means to them. 

But I agree with Charlie and the others that, while Mathison at first glance appears to have a point, ultimately it's a false dichotomy and an oversimplification. in my opinion it can lead to setting up an alternate magisterium. I'll go so far as to say that I'm afraid that some of the Old Princeton men and others may have been too "biblicist" for some of those who claim that mantle today! (I'm not thinking of Mathison in particular here.) 

I remember that John Robbins had a characteristically caustic review of Mathison's book when it came out.


----------

