Quote:
Originally Posted by Vort
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".
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.
|
Hey Vort—
Appreciate your patience and clarification. It seems to me (and I did read your posts carefully) that you’ve offered such a broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura and its “core idea” that it would be palatable to anyone whose worldview included a supreme being.
And at the same time, it’s hard to imagine many Catholics lining up to defend the authority of sacred tradition, if all it meant was—as you wrote—“that's how we have done things for a thousand years.” Afraid you've missed the point completely. By sacred tradition, Catholics mean apostolic succession. Regrettably, we don’t seem to have any Catholics on the thread who might offer an opinion on the subject.
By asserting the supremacy of the Bible’s authority over sacred tradition and the authority of church leadership (e.g., the Pope, or in an LDS context—the Prophet), the Reformers distinguished their views from Catholicism. I submit they also distinguished them (albeit unknowingly) from the subsequent teachings of the LDS Church.
Unless we change definitions, dismiss plain meanings as “philosophical extensions” and substitute “core ideas” that render the doctrines innocuous—we’re faced with doctrines that bluntly contradict LDS teachings. And so the question remains: Do LDS think the actual doctrines of the Reformation were inspired, or were they merely a means to an end (i.e., a catalyst for societal and political change setting the stage for the LDS restoration)?
--Erik
PS. I’m setting aside your examples (Noah and Paul), as they are not directly related to the topic at hand. But they certainly merit threads of their own, if you wished to start them…