[Vort]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Regarding your experience with Wikipedia, I agree it had a pretty rough beginning. But I think it has gotten quite good on many subjects of late. Did you have any issues with the link I posted? I liked it, so I’d be interested if you have any specific criticisms. And feel free to cite a better source, if you know of one.

No, the link you posted seemed to be a pretty decent overview of the topic. Of course, I'm no expert on the five solas, so my opinion on the article's accuracy is worth what you paid for it.

I will admit I didn’t expect to see an LDS poster argue the Five Solas are compatible with LDS doctrine. But in making such an argument, it seems to me you’ve presented an incomplete/inaccurate view of the issues.

From my part, it seems to me that you didn't really read my explanation very closely. In the interest of not saying "Go back and read it again!", I'll try again to explain myself, but it's likely to be redundant.

Regarding Sola Scriptura (from Wikipedia)—

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. These bodies also believe that the Church has authority to establish or restrict interpretation of Scriptures because, in part, it implicitly selected which books were to be in the biblical canon through its traditions, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.

Now you tell us, “This core idea is obviously compatible with LDS theology.” But in making such a claim, you’ve misstated what that core idea really is.

No, I have not. The Wikipedia entry gives a more thorough explanation of the idea, including philosophical implications thought out over a period of decades or centuries. The core idea of sola scriptura, in my view at least, is this:

The word of God trumps tradition.

As I tried to explain in my previous preface, the Reformation did not occur in a vacuum. The circumstances of the Reformation included the pervasive influence of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines, one of which was the importance of tradition. From the Catholic viewpoint, at least at the time (maybe today, as well), the question "Why do we do things like this?" could be answered perfectly well by saying, "Because that's how we have done things for a thousand years." The Reformers rejected this line of reasoning, insisting that conduct and beliefs be based on the word of God -- which to them meant scripture. Latter-day Saints believe essentially the same thing, although we have a much expanded definition of the "word of God".

The Catholic tradition of discouraging actual reading of Scripture is tangential to the issue. The core idea of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith. Period.

As I have argued, I think that this is not the core issue, merely a philosophical extension. Again, the doctrine of sola scriptura did not arise in a vacuum. Like Paul's teachings about the vanity of works and the supremacy of grace, it must be understood in context of its time.