Catholics, define sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

myfavoritmartin

Guest
I see the term thrown around so much I would like to see how people define it around here.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I see the term thrown around so much I would like to see how people define it around here.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura. Its a Protestant thing and they can’t seem to agree on a definition. What is your definition?
 
Shucks! Protestants can’t even agree among themselves what it is, and it’s their doctrine. Anything we (or your fellow Protestants, for that matter) would come up with (based on what we’ve heard from Protestant’s themselves) would be attacked as a distortion or misunderstanding because any given Protestant could (and probably would) disagree with it! :rolleyes:
 
I was raised evangelical Protestant. Along with many other churches over 40 years, I spent two years in the Reformed Church in America. My daughter graduated from Calvin College.

Here is what we were taught regarding sola Scriptura. This is actually a quote from R.C. Sproul’s website:

"The Bible is a normative book. The church has declared that the Bible is the “Norm of norms, and without norm.” A norm is a standard, a measuring rod by which things are judged. We may use many lesser standards to regulate our lives, but all such regulations must be subordinate to Scripture. To be the “Norm of norms” is to be the superlative norm, the standard by which all other norms are measured. The Bible is not simply “first among equals” - it has no parity with other standards. As Jesus is exalted to be Lord of lords and King of kings, so we submit to His Word as the Norm of norms, the standard of truth and the one rule for the people of God.

God is the Lord of heaven and earth, and He alone is able to impose absolute obligation upon His creatures. He does this through the written word. The reformers of the sixteenth century recognized this unique authority of the Bible, expressing it in the watchword Sola Scriptura, “the Scripture alone.” The reformers did not despise other authorities, or deny the value of tradition and the creeds, but they distinguished the singular authority of the Bible, “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

If you want to read the entire article from which this quote is taken, please follow this link: ligonier.org/publishing_studybible_introduction.php*

There were many reasons I left evangelical Protestantism to become Catholic, but one of the main reasons was that I came to see the fallacy, in fact, the evil, in the doctrine of sola Scriptura. It is an evil doctrine that has divided Christians and hindered the work of the Holy Spirit in this world. I didn’t know ANYTHING about Catholicism when I formed that conclusion, I based it on forty years of personal experience with churches and Christians who taught sola Scriptura. When I learned that Catholicism didn’t teach this doctrine, I was relieved and grateful.*
 
It’s funny, on a well-known anti-Catholic forum I’ve answered this exact question by quoting the text of the Westminster Confession, only to have Protestants tell me I don’t have the slightest idea what sola scriptura says.

Here’s what the Westminster Confession says:“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards…to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary… Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: (list of 66 books). All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life…The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…” (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 1/Article 2/Article 6)
I take this to mean that the entire revealed word of God is contained in scripture, and that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.
 
BTW. Catholics agree with Protestants on the Material Sufficiency of Scripture - that is, that all of God’s revelation is contained explicitly or implicitly within the Bible.

We don’t accept the idea that the Bible is Formally Sufficient. For example, the perspicuity of Scripture - the ability for an individual to interpret what he reads inerrantly - is missing.

The incident involving the Ethiopian Eunuch and the Apostle Phillip is one example. The fact that one Protestant denomination teaches infant baptism while another rejects the same doctrine also shows how two “men of God” can “divide the Word of God” differently. Since they can’t both be right, one of them must be wrong. Therefore, the Bible Alone is insufficient as a rule of Faith.

I’m sure this clears things up for you.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I see the term thrown around so much I would like to see how people define it around here.
Click to expand...
A tradition of man that is unbiblical which Protestants like to believe. In fact this unbiblical teaching is the source and summit of some of the protestants faith.
 
Fidelis said:
Shucks! Protestants can’t even agree among themselves what it is, and it’s their doctrine.
Click to expand...
I agree. It gets confusing when you run into the different protestant definitions. Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, prima Scriptura so on and so fourth. I am not sure if protestants know what it means…So why dont you tell us?
 
When I was a non-denominational protestant this term was never used in my church. We were entirely cut off from history and completely free from doctrine. (As my protestant mother likes to say “Theology won’t save you.”) What we believed was truly Sola Scriptura, though I didn’t know the phrase at the time. We relied solely on the Bible for everything. It was our only souce of Truth, the complete and only guide of what to believe and how to live our lives.

Now that I am converting I would define Sola Scriptura as exactly what it says. Only the Scriptures. If anyone says that is not an accurate definition then they should invent a new term because that is what the words mean. You cannot believe in the Scriptures Alone if you appeal to other authorities as well. It’s just dishonest.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I see the term thrown around so much I would like to see how people define it around here.
Click to expand...
Okay- I’ll bite!

Sola Scriptura is where a person is so consumed with pride he refuses to entertain the possibility that the teachings on Bible interpretation that predate him by 2,000 years should be listened to.

Sola Scriptura goes hand in hand with the rejection of Mary as in “Mother, I’d rather do it myself.”

How’s that? Do I get a prize for the correct answer?😃
 
There must be a million threads at Catholic Answers where Catholics criticize Sola Scriptura. You’d think that with that many threads Catholics would have a good idea of what they criticize. Yet, there are only a few honest attempts by Catholics in this thread to answer the OP.
 
There must be a million threads at Catholic Answers where Catholics criticize Sola Scriptura. You’d think that with that many threads Catholics would have a good idea of what they criticize. Yet, there are only a few honest attempts by Catholics in this thread to answer the OP.
Click to expand...
Isnt one of the criticisms that it means different things to different people? :confused:
 
rr1213 said:
There must be a million threads at Catholic Answers where Catholics criticize Sola Scriptura. You’d think that with that many threads Catholics would have a good idea of what they criticize. Yet, there are only a few honest attempts by Catholics in this thread to answer the OP.
Click to expand...
Why should we? You know most protestants come here with the assumption that somehow Catholics do not use the Bible. But one thing I have learned over the years is that Catholics are the only bible believing Christians around. And that is the truth.

Consider the Eucharist. We do exactly as He said in the Bible. Literally.
Consider water baptism. We do exactly as He said and did in the Bible. Literally.
Consider faith and works. We do exactly as He said and did in the Bible. Literally.

And yet, Protestants come here with these fantastic claims that not only do we not read the Bible, but that we do not do what it says. But as far as I have been able to determine, Catholics are the only Christian group that actually does!:eek:

So after a while my Catholic brethren just roll their eyes and sigh and move onto the next thread when they see a question like the OP. I myself am still hopeful that conversions will happen.
 
tequilamac said:
Okay- I’ll bite!

Sola Scriptura is where a person is so consumed with pride he refuses to entertain the possibility that the teachings on Bible interpretation that predate him by 2,000 years should be listened to.

Sola Scriptura goes hand in hand with the rejection of Mary as in “Mother, I’d rather do it myself.”

How’s that? Do I get a prize for the correct answer?😃
Click to expand...
%between%

perhaps a walk on the red carpet…

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1/1_4_138.gif

smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZN
 
Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)

The Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God and is accessible to all (that is, self-interpreting). It is seen as requiring no interpretation outside of itself.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I see the term thrown around so much I would like to see how people define it around here.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. For me, sola scriptura is a doctrine or belief often held by some non-Catholic groups. They themselves use that term to describe their belief. I have asked them to define it, and the definition varies. Obtaining full clarification can be hard. At least it clearly means a way of handling scripture that is different from how the Catholic Church handles scripture. It can be accompanied by phrases like “scripture interprets scripture” or ideas like “traditions of men are bad”.

How I define it seems to be irrelevant. It is not my belief, nor is my belief a response to it. What matters is that I know what my discussion partner takes it to mean, so that we can communicate well.

If I had to dream up a meaning for it, I’d go with, um, the bible is the sole rule of faith. But that just doesn’t matter. I don’t completely assume anyone I talk to holds that definition for it. The person may be talking about scripture being “perspicacious” or “clear” when they use the phrase. It depends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top