It makes sense to me insofar as it originated with Luther (I think) in a time and situation where the common people were not allowed to read the Bible but had to trust what the priests said.
This is true, but it's not the argument of sola scriptura.
Simply put, the argument is, if it is not stated explicitly in scripture, it is no part of Christian doctrine. The Catholic Church believes in 'Scripture and Tradition' - so the reformers wanted to get rid of the 'tradition' bit - like anything to do with the Virgin Mary, etc.
Another very important part of the context was the things people had to do, such as buy indulgences and do penance, etc. to get into heaven.
Repentance for sin, yes, and indulgences were seen as an extension of 'works' (so works was dumped, too). However, that is not to say the system was not open to abuses ... nor that certain clerics allowed the simple but erroneous belief that indulgences wiped clean the slate, or acted something like an insurance policy.
but I understand that in this context it was a liberation from mandatory obedience to doctrines of men i.e. priests and popes.
In theory, but again short-lived. Whilst the rerformers believed in sola scriptura, they also believed that they possessed the necessary whatever for its proper interpretation. It was not long before Calvin was burning people at the stake for not accepting his interpretation of things ... so the mandatory obedience simply shifted focus.
In today's context, esp. my own because I come out of a very legalistic community, it makes sense insofar as we don't have to live the right lifestyle or get the right education or whatever the various fundamentalist groups decide "proves" one's validity as a Christian.
Sadly, it does not make sense that in the wake of the Reformation anybody can make anything they want of Christianity either. There is a right education and a right lifestyle - if anything Christ was outspoken about what is right, and what is wrong - He was ever definite.
It's called love of God and neighbour - but living it ...
Hmmm. Maybe I am mixing up this concept with another major Lutheran concept of salvation comes "through faith alone through grace alone." Maybe others can explain it better.
Well, simply put, it doesn't matter who you are or what you do, you are so steeped in sin that nothing you can say or do can alleviate that - human nature has been utterly corrupted by the fall - you are damned and there's the end of it - except - that through His infinite grace and mercy, God chooses to forgive, and those he chooses to forgive are saved.
This then got tied in with the fact that if the above is true, then no priest nor pope nor church, can make a jot of difference, because they are as damned as the next man. So we have no need of churches, priests or popes ... but then how do we come to salvation... ?
The answer was we don't - there are those whom God calls to salvation, and there are those He does not. That's it.
The Church rejected this teaching on the basis that 'God alone is Good' and 'God is Good' - and that to create a life for no purpose than to suffer eternal torment attains to no 'good' - therefore not the way God works. Also, that human nature is not utterly corrupted, but wounded, or blighted, that within each and every one of us exists the obscured image of the Almighty, and the 'light that is the life of men'.
Also if God is motivated by love, we must assume either He loves some and not others, in which case He is arbitary, or that He loves all (as Scripture implies implicitly), even the sinner, and wishes that no soul be lost, but works ceaselesssly towards our salvation.
And love seeks love in return, and love, be it from creature or creator, is only truly love when it is freely given.
So the question turns on whether man is free to co-operate with God towards his own salvation (whether he is free to love God or not), which the Catholic church says emphatically yes, and the Reformers said emphatically no.
I think Luther's point was that the people can read the Bible for themselves ... yes but, ... they don't have to depend on the church's interpretation. no, they should depend on his - sola scriptura, faith alone, etc ... all the Reform doctrines are that - doctrines - which the reformed believer is obliged to believe... see, we're back to square one, only now someone else is in charge, and a new set of interpretations.
I sort of think, and I also came across this idea in the literature, that he did not think this one through to its logical conclusion;
No, he wasn't a very good philosopher. He was out-argued by Johann Ekk on matters of Augustinian theology (on which he had based his assumptions), and his disciple Melanchthon 'the gentle Philip' was a better pastoral theologian.
the Bible can be taken in countless ways, and countless churches have come into existence because people read the Bible for themselves.
Hmmm ... not sure. I don't think it 'can be taken in countless ways' - that undermines the whole notion of Revelation - if a god says 'Here is a truth I make known unto you, and you can make anything of it you will' - then there's no such thing as truth, just subjectivity - it's a great idea because it justifies anyone doing anything they like, but it's just not logical that God would reveal something that can be anything you like ...
... so you end up with the possibility of every Christian in the world insisting that they are the 'one true church' ...
I think Christ argued all along against the 'countless ways' of men.
Should we go back to not reading the Bible? I hope not!
Indeed no.
So where do we go?
The general argument is that IF one accepts revelation to be true - and this is a matter of faith - then accordingly one accepts that God, knowing the ways of men, would also arrange for its transmission infallibly - or else one accepts that God is the author of a revelation which He cannot guarantee - and man can read scripture and determine it to mean anything he wills.
Here is the Catholic 'turning point' - we believe that the Revelation is the Word of God, and that it was entrusted to the apostles, and their successors, and is in itself infallible, which means the church is infallible, but this does not mean the individual believer, be they pope or parishoner, is infallible in themselves.
This is why Catholicism makes such a big deal about Scripture and Tradition as coequal means of transmission, and by which each guarantees the other, Vatican II treats them as a mirror in which the other is reflected.
There is not one doctrine in her 2,000 year history that is 'new' or 'different' from that which was taught originally - and I think I am justified in saying the Reformed Churches cannot claim that.
Luther, for example, discounted the Epistle of James because James kept banging on about 'faith and works' - Luther called it 'a straw epistle' I think, which is a pretty novel interpretation of sola scriptura.
Welcome to the forum, by the way.
Thomas
