Sola Scriptura

[Chris]

It seems if i understand Chris, the Early Anabaptists, were they Sola Sculptura, and so dismissing any and all previous traditions in the.Church that could not be found in Scripture itself?

Sculpture alone? No, they tended toward iconoclasm. .. he loves to tease you, Valerie.

For the first time, the scriptures were available in sufficient quantities and in the common languages so that anyone could read them. And as they read, they saw for themselves how far tradition (the Catholic Church) had departed from truth. So they resolved simply to follow what scripture taught.

But the focus was not on scripture itself; scripture was simply the authoritative basis for knowing the truth about Christ and about His church.

The Gospel, the word of God, preached unmingled, in the power of the spirit, is the only right, true seed from which are born the truly believing and obedient children of God. If the church of Christ brings forth children from the doctrine of man, and not from God's word, she is not faithful unto Christ, and her children are not of his seed.

Therefore may nothing else be preached in Christ's kingdom and house, the church, except her King and husband's own commands and words, according to which she and all her servants must conform.

(i think) oj’s contextual point is key.
i would add, in context of the times, “Sola Scriptura” was a BOLD, even revolutionary, “fly-in-the-face” of the Catholic Church.
i have my doubts it was meant the way it’s read today .. these are not life-threatening words as they originally were.

to alter one of oj’s words, i don’t think scriptures were “simply” anything to those who were, for the first time in history, allowed the privilege of reading them first-person, of the idea of having books available, at all. it must have seemed miraculous and glorious. (with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, scriptures continue to be miraculous and glorious.) it’s sad when this experience is lacking.
pray for the Holy Spirit.

in those times, there were not the (hundreds) of translations/transliterations that exist today.

- - - - - - -

when i arrived on MD, i’m not sure i’d heard of Sola Scriptura, if i did, i hadn’t thought about it.
i was a happy Lutheran, a happy believer, and knew nothing of Anabaptists, including origins. i was shocked to learn.
willing to learn.

questions of Sola Scriptura were discussed; as i’ve read, and tried to imagine how things unfolded in context of the day,
i began to imagine SS was pretty much a serious affront to the Catholic Church, and probably not intended to be the stand-alone-and-above statement questioned today.

Menno’s quote above adds context to help those following.

i imagine the words, “Sola Scriptura” must have been unnerving in the day.
i doubt they were intended to be “the whole story,” altho i can see how that result could have unfolded.

this was heady stuff in those days. life-threatening.

also, i think it’s important to acknowledge, these men were devout Catholics. they did not want to harm their church.
they wanted to recognize and live Truth, they wanted to correct errors and wrongs.

these were not the first men to question. they were the first with access to the printing press.

in our times, we understand questioning+correcting to be “normal democratic process.” the Catholic Church wasn’t and isn’t a normal democratic process. (most) churches aren’t. however, in the 1500’s, violence resulted. the men+women daring to question knew the gravity. they believed the eternal was of utmost importance.

it’s always interesting to try to understand in context. it may be impossible to really get it.
but interesting to try.

the Menno quote does a nice job of painting the picture.

The problem with Luther is he then rejected Maccabees, while touting Sola Scriptura. The Bible of which he had, contained Maccabees.

[Josh]

It is indeed interesting to claim “sola scriptura”, and then call the book of James an “epistle of straw” and attempt to remove it from the biblical canon.

[Chris]

It is indeed interesting to claim “sola scriptura”, and then call the book of James an “epistle of straw” and attempt to remove it from the biblical canon.

Yet we adopted Luther's books basically through KJV.
When indeed the deuterocanonical books from early canonization contained Maccabees (for instance).

Yet if I read Maccabees as scripture from the pulpit, and said it was indeed Biblical scripture, most Anabaptist churches would cringe.

While all along they don't realize they are reading Luther's "approved" Bible. It's a different reformation....

I question as an Anabaptist if Anabaptists even know their own origin or if Anabaptism makes logical sense.

[Neto]

I don't have the list in front of me now, but didn't M.Luther claim 5 different 'solas'?
(As I recall 'sola Christus' was one of them. So maybe part of his 'problem' was that he had too many, or didn't have the priorities in the correct order.)

[Soloist]

It is indeed interesting to claim “sola scriptura”, and then call the book of James an “epistle of straw” and attempt to remove it from the biblical canon.

Yet we adopted Luther's books basically through KJV.
When indeed the deuterocanonical books from early canonization contained Maccabees (for instance).

Yet if I read Maccabees as scripture from the pulpit, and said it was indeed Biblical scripture, most Anabaptist churches would cringe.

While all along they don't realize they are reading Luther's "approved" Bible. It's a different reformation....

I question as an Anabaptist if Anabaptists even know their own origin or if Anabaptism makes logical sense.

ya know... thats one of the reasons they say Menno Simons wasn't right on everything. After all, he read and quoted the apocryphal books as Scripture. A point I agree with him on, although I'm not sure to what extent. Anyone who is skeptical of the accurate prophetic nature of some of those books just needs to read the second chapter of the book of wisdom with an open mind.

[Chris]

It is indeed interesting to claim “sola scriptura”, and then call the book of James an “epistle of straw” and attempt to remove it from the biblical canon.

Yet we adopted Luther's books basically through KJV.
When indeed the deuterocanonical books from early canonization contained Maccabees (for instance).

Yet if I read Maccabees as scripture from the pulpit, and said it was indeed Biblical scripture, most Anabaptist churches would cringe.

While all along they don't realize they are reading Luther's "approved" Bible. It's a different reformation....

I question as an Anabaptist if Anabaptists even know their own origin or if Anabaptism makes logical sense.

ya know... thats one of the reasons they say Menno Simons wasn't right on everything. After all, he read and quoted the apocryphal books as Scripture. A point I agree with him on, although I'm not sure to what extent. Anyone who is skeptical of the accurate prophetic nature of some of those books just needs to read the second chapter of the book of wisdom with an open mind.

It's because they basically were scripture. Somewhere along the line, the Non Sola Scriptura Anabaptists adopted the Sola Scriptura Bible of the regular Protestant reformation.

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't have the list in front of me now, but didn't M.Luther claim 5 different 'solas'?
(As I recall 'sola Christus' was one of them. So maybe part of his 'problem' was that he had too many, or didn't have the priorities in the correct order.)

I think the "5 Solas" were not a Lutheran invention but the motto of the Reformers more broadly (Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, etc.)
1.Sola Scriptura
2. Sola Fide
3. Solus Christus
4. Sola Gratia
5. Soli Deo Gloria

[Josh]

It is indeed interesting to claim “sola scriptura”, and then call the book of James an “epistle of straw” and attempt to remove it from the biblical canon.

Yet we adopted Luther's books basically through KJV.
When indeed the deuterocanonical books from early canonization contained Maccabees (for instance).

Yet if I read Maccabees as scripture from the pulpit, and said it was indeed Biblical scripture, most Anabaptist churches would cringe.

Most Anabaptist churches (in terms of number of members) heartily approve of the apocryphal books including Maccabees, and read an excerpt from Tobit at their weddings. And one will find their children with Bible names from those books, such as Tobias and Edna, that aren’t in the 66 books.

One of the disadvantages of going from German Luterhbibels to English Bibles is the apocrypha usually gets tossed out, even though the KJV has always had it, too.

While all along they don't realize they are reading Luther's "approved" Bible. It's a different reformation....

I question as an Anabaptist if Anabaptists even know their own origin or if Anabaptism makes logical sense.

Oddly enough, Luther’s translation did contain the apocrypha and that is the main reason most Anabaptists still read from it today.

[Josh]

The “trimming” of the apocryphal books is an interesting case, as it didn’t really happen until the late 1800s. It is quite amusing to observe a KJV-only Bible enthusiast who insists that the 66 books of the KJV are the only inspired word of God.

[Valerie]

It is indeed interesting to claim “sola scriptura”, and then call the book of James an “epistle of straw” and attempt to remove it from the biblical canon.

Yet we adopted Luther's books basically through KJV.
When indeed the deuterocanonical books from early canonization contained Maccabees (for instance).

Yet if I read Maccabees as scripture from the pulpit, and said it was indeed Biblical scripture, most Anabaptist churches would cringe.

While all along they don't realize they are reading Luther's "approved" Bible. It's a different reformation....

I question as an Anabaptist if Anabaptists even know their own origin or if Anabaptism makes logical sense.

ya know... thats one of the reasons they say Menno Simons wasn't right on everything. After all, he read and quoted the apocryphal books as Scripture. A point I agree with him on, although I'm not sure to what extent. Anyone who is skeptical of the accurate prophetic nature of some of those books just needs to read the second chapter of the book of wisdom with an open mind.

Agreed. Some Anabaptists defend the apocryphal books. After reading them i glean a lot. The Orthodox say they were inspired. And i do believe them over the Protestant explanation i heard on Christian radio today. Especially when you hear the Orthodox version of why the Jews wanted them removed from the Old testament