Talk:Sola scriptura/Archive 2

message: The introduction of this article states: "Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching".  I suggest the word "Roman" be deleted from this sentence, because as it is, this sentence ignores all of the 20 or so Eastern rite Catholics in Communion with the Pope.  Simply deleting the word "Roman" fixes this problem.  Atreyu81 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic versus Catholic

message: The quote from John Wesley "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church" is listed at Wikiquote as attributed but not sourced (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Wesley).  Does anyone have a source for this quote?  If so, that information needs to be added to Wikiquote.  If not, then does the quote need to be removed for lack of a source or should there be at least some indication that this quote is unsourced?
*This quotation comes from Wesley's 1779 tract "Popery Calmly Considered". I've now added documentation for it, both here in the article, and also at Wikiquote. Delta x 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wesley Quote

message: While this article is good for what it covers, it should also cover the radical "Bible-all-by-itself" perspective of Baptists and Restorationists, as Mkmcconn put it. At one extreme of this part of the spectrum would be those Baptists who claim "The Bible IS Jesus" as did two who came to our door a few months ago; apparently there are entire Baptist denominations that believe this.
It might also be good to mention the amount of importance placed on the translation used, or for that matter the importance of learning Greek and Hebrew so as to study the Bible in its original languages. (Which for some Baptists, the original language is apparently presumed to be the 1611 KJV.) Translation issues also come to the foreground when dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation of John 1:1 and other key passages regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I realized I've rambled a bit, and I'm not sure I would do a good job of adding this in a neutral way, so I'll just leave the suggestions here as just that -- suggestions for others working on the article. Wesley 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also taken to heart what Essjay has said, in being reminded that it's easy to make a two-dimensional cartoon character out of any people.  There is an extremely broad spectrum, all related somewhat to the sola scriptura idea; I just don't think that the article quite frames the whole of that spectrum, because it focuses closely on the middle and doesn't pull back far enough to view the edges. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncovered subjects 

message: I happened upon the article Biblicism, which presents no information.  I'm not quite sure whether it needs to simply be deleted or merged into this article.  It might also be merged into Fundamentalist Christianity.  I'd prefer it to redirect here, though.  Thoughts?   Amicuspublilius 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article could definitely use some more work, but I don't know if it ought to be merged here. This article concerns the contention that the Bible alone is the source of revelation today, whereas Biblicism concerns the inspiration and revelation of the Bible. Perhaps it could be merged into Biblical canon though? Just my opinion. -- shift6 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just it:  the article ought to go somewhere, since it really doesn't present a coherent... well... 'anything'!  Should it just be deleted?  Moving it into Biblical canon sounds acceptable, and better into this article.  Thanks for the suggestion.  Amicuspublilius 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: Hey, I just removed some redundant text, but there's still a fair bit that can be eliminated for an improvement.  The article has the appearance of one that started out too POV, then grew by edit-war, i.e. it has point-counterpoint instead of real NPOV.  I changed some of the assertions on doctrine to read more clearly as the claims of a particular group, which dramatically improves the NPOV but came at the cost of stilted text.  Someone with good writing style, please rescue my edit!  le cizgasnu 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant material

message: Admittedly, this article could use some work. However, I reverted the recent edits made by Jtaylor9 to the article's "Legacy" section because they were not written in the NPOV style of this encyclopedia, e.g.:
:As such, [sola scriptura] has been a unifying force among many Christians at the grass roots, but there have been some unfortunate unintended consequences.
:Perhaps today's Catholics and Protestants can in the interests of grass-roots ecumenism unite around prima Scriptura, advocated by the late Pope John Paul II (see under Wikipedia, Prima Scriptura).
Other parts seem like original research and would require citations, e.g.:
:[I]nsofar as "liberty of conscience" impacts one's interpretation of Scripture, it has far less to do with sola scriptura and far more to do with American rugged individualism, which Scripture expressly rejects (2 Pet. 1:20).
:Perhaps a slogan, to distinguish this from sola Scriptura, is solo Scripturo - "I can sit all by myself under a tree with open Bible and correctly interpret Scripture solo, without any need of anyone else" - even though Scripture expressly teaches God has given us men, including pastors and teachers, to teach the Scriptures to the Church to bring her to maturity (Eph. 4:11, 14-15 in context).
Regarding the former quote, any direct tie to American rugged individualism needs to be documented (and other cultures need to be considered also; this is not america.wikipedia.org). Regarding the second, biblical exegesis should be explained pro and con where it is necessary (and I'm not convinced it is here at all). The concept of "solo scriptura" needs a citation to a reliable source. --Flex
:: I, being Catholic, tend to think that the late Pope John Paul II (The Great) was wrong regarding Prima Scriptura.  I tend to side with Pope Peter, who said: "The untaught twist scripture to his own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16), meaning that if you don't have or take into account extrabiblical instruction (i.e., Sacred Tradition), which would keep you from being untaught, you will twist scripture to your own destruction; thus, knowing Tradition and taking it into account is a requisite to be able to give Scripture its correct meaning. This means that Scripture and Tradition are equally important, as you cannot have one without the other. --Ag2003 (aka 165.91.226.134)
:: Yes, "solo Scripturo" would actually be "sola interpretatio mea", to maintain the Latin. The Reformers (or even many protestants today), do not follow Sola Scriptura, they follow "sola Interpretatio Mea", that is why even though they say they follow the same Scriptures, they end up with with so many different contradictive interpretations, each one claiming they have the CORRECT interpretation to follow. At the end, anyway, when it comes to what doctrines to follow, it is whatever they interpret from scripture what they will follow, not necessarily Scriptures themselves, as Scripture will not tell whether you are interpreting them correctly or not. It is up to the individual to rather decide which interpretation to follow and which to reject.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.91.226.134 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 January 2007  (UTC)
===Further comments===
I've removed the following POV sentence from this section:
Certainly sola scriptura is applied by some in a way other than what the original reformers intended.
I also question the last paragraph in the section. It says,
Those who emphasize reason over Church tradition and authority may see sola scriptura as liberating the individual, removing corruptions and abuses, and making God or His love more immediately known.  Those preferring Church tradition and authority may consider the individualism encouraged by sola scriptura to have contributed to disunity, harmful additions to Christian belief, and the proliferation of denominations.
I'd say it at least needs citation. I've placed a  at the end of the paragraph but, unless someone objects in short order, I'll come back in and delete the paragraph altogether. The paragraph doesn't establish how it can legitimately claim to speak for its two subjects: "Those who emphasize reason over Church tradition and authority" or "Those preferring Church tradition and authority." Using the weasel words "may see" and "may consider" doesn't absolve us from our responsibility to cite our sources.—CKA3KA (Skazka) 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Flex. I've deleted the paragraph. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: I've removed the following POV sentence from this section:
Certainly sola scriptura is applied by some in a way other than what the original reformers intended.
I also question the last paragraph in the section. It says,
Those who emphasize reason over Church tradition and authority may see sola scriptura as liberating the individual, removing corruptions and abuses, and making God or His love more immediately known.  Those preferring Church tradition and authority may consider the individualism encouraged by sola scriptura to have contributed to disunity, harmful additions to Christian belief, and the proliferation of denominations.
I'd say it at least needs citation. I've placed a  at the end of the paragraph but, unless someone objects in short order, I'll come back in and delete the paragraph altogether. The paragraph doesn't establish how it can legitimately claim to speak for its two subjects: "Those who emphasize reason over Church tradition and authority" or "Those preferring Church tradition and authority." Using the weasel words "may see" and "may consider" doesn't absolve us from our responsibility to cite our sources.—CKA3KA (Skazka) 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Flex. I've deleted the paragraph. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: "Sola scriptura reverses the relationship between Scripture and Church authority as it had been understood in Catholic Tradition.  The Catholic Church teaches that its teaching authority is as interpreter of Scripture and that Scripture is to be understood in light of Apostolic Tradition."
What does "its" refer to here?  I find it interesting that all of the following possibilities are viable:
* Scripture
* Church authority in general
* the Roman Catholic Church specifically
* Catholic Tradition
* the relationship between scripture and Church authority (or its reversal)
* the idea of Sola Scriptura
Of these, the most probable options are "the Roman Catholic Church" (having close proximity to the relative pronoun) and "Sola Scriptura" (being by far the dominant subject-noun of the other sentences in the paragraph).
With the former option we see a statement about two sides of the same coin, essentially that the Church/Tradition interprets Scripture, and that Scripture is interpreted by the Church/Tradition. This makes me wonder, "Why state it twice?"  It would make sense to use a two-sides-to-the-same-coin syntax if explaining a circular feedback relationship, but here it is only redundant, AFAICT.
With the latter option, we see an interesting juxtaposition: the Catholic Church concedes that sola scriptura may have some teaching authority, but only in its limited capacity as interpreter of Scripture.  On the other hand, understanding of Scripture can only occur in light of Apostolic Tradition.  If it were this option, I would want further explanation of the relationship between "interpretation" and "understanding".
The sola scriptura option is less likely because there is no development of the idea of interpretation vs. understanding.  However, the presence of sola scriptura as the (almost forcefully) dominant subject-noun of the paragraph, together with the viable reading of the "sola scriptura" option, and on top of that the redundant reading of the "Roman Catholic Church" option, will make readers at least do a double take, if not be quite confused, at the meaning of these sentences.
Please clarify. Epte 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please supply the anticedent to "its" 

message: You could add a subsection in which you discuss the origin of the sola scriptura principle, but you should have an introductory paragraph that comes in before the "contents box" that automatically appears before any subsection. The introductory paragraph also needed a little tweaking.--Drboisclair 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. Just wanted to clear any confusion over who conceived the doctrine. (Simonapro 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the subsection "origin" from the beginning 

message: Where do Anglicans/Episcopalians fit?  It is unclear to me in which of these three divisions Anglicanism/Episcopalianism would fit.  Perhaps that's due to my ignorance (Are they even considered Protestants?  The Anglicanism page is in the Protestant category), or perhaps because there needs to be another category?  Thoughts? Epte 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article should rather have the Protestant template rather than the Lutheran template. It is pan-Protestant, at least among "conservative" Protestants. Also, the Anglicans and the US Episcopalians ARE Protestants, although the High Church Anglicans gravitate toward Roman Catholicism. Anglicans/Episcopalians=Protestants.--Drboisclair 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Epte, I welcome your work to make this article NPOV.--Drboisclair 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Epte, in terms of those three broad divisions, the Anglicans came alongside the Reformed movement, although in many respects they compare more favorably to the Lutherans, than to most Reformed churches.  And, with regard to "sola scriptura" the church is diverse and distinctive.  For that reason, some Anglicans like to describe their communion as "both reformed and catholic". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Epte, if I recall, the reason for this section was because in the article (at some point) one of the stated intentions of "sola scriptura" was to reform the Church, settle controversies, and promote unity - the section appeared as an illustration of the actual developments, in contrast to the ideal goals. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps more appropriately put in the relevant portion of the legacy section?  They're similar at least.  Epte 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions of Protestants Section 

message: The section Sola_scriptura#Biblical_references_commonly_cited_in_reference_to_Sola_scriptura is IMHO unhelpful and should either be fixed or deleted. Consider that Ag2003 moved a reference from the pro section to the con section. I'm sure s/he had a reason for that, but some Protestant might come along and move it back for his/her own reasons and with just as little explanation. Anyway, I don't think that those verse citations add much to the article without more explanation of how each side understands each one. Expand or delete? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to delete the section.  Verses out of context and without explanation from each perspective are not at all helpful.  There are other articles about which this could also be said.  In all cases I would argue for deletion.  It is not helpful, not encyclopedic in style, and a waste of space in my opinion. Jim Ellis 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also dislike sections like this, and would favor deleting it.   — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this section should be deleted, but I had been pondering in past months how to improve it. As it is it is not encyclopedic. It would fit well in a theological treatise but not in this article. That is my opinion on this.--Drboisclair 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible verses

message: I would appreciate thoughts, and sources, on whether the Catholic position is really Sola Verbum Dei, or is it Prima scriptura? Or is it both?? 129.12.200.49 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic position: Sola Verbum Dei vs. Prima scriptura 

message: Ok, help me out here: Is this made up?  I ran across the article for this term, and it seems to be a Roman Catholic way of describing some Protestants who accept some authority of tradition - rather than a self-description used by anyone.  Does anyone have some references for this term (used by someone as a self-description, or used as an academic theory)?  Thanks, and a Blessed Advent to everyone.  Pastordavid 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prima Scriptura? 

message: Regarding this sentence:
:[T]he reformers believed that God no longer gives revelation to humanity, which is in contrast to the concept of ex cathedra authority in Roman Catholicism and the concept of revelation and prophecies proposed by the modern Charismatic movement.
User:60.241.73.155 has deleted the bold phrase and said this on my talk page:
:According to the Catholic Church, Ex Cathedra statements are not new revelations but a more clear explanation of revelation. Please see Catechism of the Catholic Church 66-67. (online at www.vatican.va)
:66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
:67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
:Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
Are ex cathedra pronouncements authoritative revelations about the meaning of existing revelation? What's the difference between them and the Protestant concept of illumination (presumably, binding authority because it is God speaking officially through his instrument on earth)? Is the now-redacted sentence above correct, or should it be rephrased to include ex cathedra some other way (for the two are certainly in contrast even if it is not in the sense indicated)? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex cathedra

message: Removed references to "Charismatic Movement" throughout the article.  Go read the Wikipedia page on Charismatic Movement.  You'll see that it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.  DelRayVA 192.31.106.34 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor makes a good point. The oponents of sola Scriptura are the "Radical Reformers" or "Enthusiasts" (German: Schwaermerei) who believe they receive the word of God directly without reference to the Bible. The Charismatic Movement does not necessarily include people who are like these "Enthusiasts."--Drboisclair 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charismatic Movement

message: I notice that at answers.com much of the material in this article matches word-for-word (as of 23 January 2007). Which site has taken from which? Also, is there a good reason why sola verbum dei should not be in the ablative like the rest, resulting in the form solo verbo dei (in which solo matches the gender and case of verbo)? Yonah mishael 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers.com is a fork.  See Mirrors and Forks.  For the other question, I don't know the answer.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted Material?

message: Musician Neal Morse has released a new album and there's a page about it at Sola Scriptura (album). There should be a mention of it here. Note that Sola Scriptura, with both words capitalized, which people can expect to tell them about the album, redirects to Sola scriptura. — WilliamDenton 07:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sola Scriptura in the theological sense is sometimes capitalized and should redirect here. I'll add a see also to the top of the page, though. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Neal Morse album