I ask this question since some people will undoubtedly be thinking that my rejection of the claim that God commanded child sacrifices through herem warfare constitutes a violation of Sola Scriptura somehow.
How exactly? The idea presumes something like this “Fidelity Criterion” which must be respected for Sola Scriptura to be observed:
Fidelity Criterion: Changing one’s interpretation of a passage of scripture due not to factors internal to the text but rather to external factors constitutes a violation of Sola Scriptura.
It is true that by this criterion my rejection of the straight readings of particular texts of scripture based on the moral law would constitute a violation of Sola Scriptura. But then consider some of the other violations of Sola Scriptura that would obtain under this criterion.
Scenario 1: Fred interprets Genesis 1 as teaching that the earth was created in six days approximately 6-10,000 years ago. Fred then reads an article in Discover Magazine on the age of the earth and, based on the scientific evidence presented, adjusts his reading of Genesis 1 to accommodate an old earth.
Scenario 2: Al interprets 1 Corinthians 13 as teaching cessationism, a doctrine that teaches the cessation of sign miracles at the closing of the New Testament canon. Al then witnesses his neighbor being healed of a cancerous tumor following a prayer meeting and adjusts his reading of 1 Corinthians 13 to accommodate non-cessationism.
Scenario 3: Mike interprets 1 Timothy 2 as teaching that women should not teach at seminaries where men are students, at least if men are in the classroom. Mike is relunctantly dragged by his friends to hear a female professor deliver a guest lecture and is so impressed that he adjusts his reading of 1 Timothy 2 to accommodate egalitarianism on this issue.
Scenario 4: Jeanne interprets the book of Acts as teaching that speaking in tongues is the sign of Spirit Baptism. Jeanne then meets several very godly people who don’t speak in tongues and quite a few less than godly people who do speak in tongues and she adjusts her reading of Acts to accommodate a denial of Pentecostalism’s distinctive doctrine.
I could go on, for the examples of Christians adjusting their reading of biblical texts based on criteria external to the text is literally endless. So if all such adjustments constitute a violation of Sola Scriptura, it is highly doubtful whether anybody at all follows the Fidelity Criterion and thus recognizes Sola Scriptura.
While it is actually much more difficult to define what Sola Scriptura means in practical terms, it is clear that it is not defined by the Fidelity Criterion. And thus my rejection of particular readings of particular biblical texts based on the content of the moral law does not constitute a violation of Sola Scriptura.
