How do sola scriptura followers resolve disputes?

[rwillenborg]

I have friends who are sola scriptura. One believes that baptism is absolutely necessary to get into heaven and the other believes it is merely symbolic.
Clearly, someone here is wrong, and someone here is right. Baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. How would these two people who both believe a personal interpretation is adequate resolve this issue?
I consider both of these people to be strong Christians. They both have vibrant prayer lives, read Scripture diligently, attend Bible study and are active in their parish communities. Both believe their interpretation is correct, and both believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in this manner.
Again, someone here is wrong and someone here is right.

1. If you use only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as your guide, how do disagreements like this get resolved?
2. If either of them appeals to someone else’s writings, or words, say, that of their pastor, or of one of the early church fathers, or even the notes in their own Bible, aren’t they then appealing to an authority?
3. How do they KNOW they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will ONLY speak the truth, so, again, baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself. So, someone here is being guided by the Holy Spirit and someone is being guided by someone else - either their own motives, the ideas of someone else, or another entity entirely. How would you know for certain that it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you?

(these are more general questions)

1. If being a Christian requires only the Bible and the Holy Spirit, what about all of the Christians before the Bible was compiled? I’m sure everyone would agree that they were Christians, but how can that be if they didn’t have the Bible to guide them? Without the Bible wouldn’t they then have been following an exclusively oral tradition?
2. Along the same lines as #4 - since widespread literacy is only fairly recently on the scene, what of all of those people who can’t read the Bible? Surely, someone is reading the Bible TO them, but then I would expect that the person who is being read the Bible would ask questions of the reader, and then that person would act on authority of that reader. Perhaps I’m thick-headed but the meanings throughout the Bible don’t exactly leap off the page to me, and, I would expect, I’m not alone in this. So, let’s say you meet someone who’s never even heard of Jesus and you read them some Bible passages and they ask you what it all means and you tell them, for example, that they need to be baptized, that THIS is the way to heaven for them. They do so. Didn’t they just take this on your authority? Didn’t that person then just follow an oral tradition?

I appreciate any honest and charitable answers anyone can contribute. I’ve asked this question before of non-Catholic Christian friends and their answers have been along the lines of ‘They need to study scripture more’ or ‘they need to pray more’, both of which I really and truly believe they are both already doing.
I know that there’s a good answer out there for my questions, and I just need to find it. It’s probably weird that I am posting a question to non-catholics on a catholic website, but when I’ve gone to non-catholic ones, people were kind of nasty. I like the non-catholics that come on here much better.
And please know that I ask this not as an attack, but having not been much exposed to Christianity at all until recently, this is just something that’s been nagging me that I haven’t found an answer to.
Thanks again!!!

 

[JRKH]

These issues have been dealt with many many times here.
Some thread on this general topic that I started are:
**How can we “Agree to Disagree” When the Bible says to be of “One Mind” **
**Non-catholics, How do you “Tell it to the Church” **
**Were the NT churches independent or One ?? **
You may find some of the discussions there enlightening.

IN answer to your post above,

I know that you will receive miriad answers to your questions I will give you the core answer.
The answer to all of your questions above is The Church. Christ did not found a book, but a Church (singular) with Christ Promised, spirit guided, authority to deal with these issues.

Peace
James

 

[Rightlydivide]

Can I ask a question before I answer:

1. How do disputes over the papacy get decided by Orthodox and Roman Catholic?
2. How do disputes between Catholics and the Mormon Church get resolved?

The simple answer to your question is that if people do not have the same authority, they do not get resolved. That occurs in every group. Roman Catholics do not accept Mormon authority.
Mormons do not accept Baptist authority.
Orthodox do not accept Anglican authority.
Church of Christ do not accept Baptist authority.

In other words, everything you asked applies to any group, not just Sola Scriptura but every group. Every group can appeal to their own authority in the end. How does the Bible say you can know; their works or fruits ultimately.

As far as what Christians used before the complete Bible was in place is they used the Old Testament. The vast majority of ante-nicene writings are filled with references to the OT just like the NT itself is. Next, they also used what scripture they did have, they may or may not have had a complete canon; the exact contents of the canon are a challenging problem. For example, as a fundamentalist I would accept 2nd Peter that Paul’s writings were equated with other scripture very early on. There is no doubt that many of the teachings were oral; no fundamentalist scholar would deny such despite what the average man in the pew may say. We know that. What we do not accept is that tradition is infallible.
The issue for me was whether to accept tradition and scripture or scripture right now. The concept of tradition being infallible flies in the face of what I have read. I can guarantee it did not stop the earliest Christian conflicts or we would not have so many churches claiming apostolic succession.

 

[crazzeto]

Divided:

Orthodox and Catholics solve their disputes through our respective higharchies. We trust our bishops and patriarchs, these people in turn send legates and repersentitives to each other to solve doctrinal issues. Should issues prove unsolvable, then the best course of action for the lay to take is to agree to disagree.

Currently our patriarchs are in talks to solve our last major dictrinal issue. God willing, this will eventually lead to reunification. The word coming from the Greek Orthodox patriarch is very encouraging. Glory be to God.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Divided:

Orthodox and Catholics solve their disputes through our respective higharchies. We trust our bishops and patriarchs, these people in turn send legates and repersentitives to each other to solve doctrinal issues. Should issues prove unsolvable, then the best course of action for the lay to take is to agree to disagree.

Currently our patriarchs are in talks to solve our last major dictrinal issue. God willing, this will eventually lead to reunification. The word coming from the Greek Orthodox patriarch is very encouraging. Glory be to God.

I am pessimistic personally. I have looked into it enough to believe it is not likely. HOWEVER, if I am proven wrong you may remind me of my incorrect view!

You are correct though. Orthodox and Catholics share enough history to have dialogue more so than other groups. For us, I do not see a burning desire to correct doctrinal error, which of course every group really thinks the other has, on the part of others in the church. We tend to focus more on the unsaved and the outright hostile (athesit or secular humanists). I am the exception because of my love for history.

 

[JonNC]

=rwillenborg;6012465]I have friends who are sola scriptura.

First, define for me what you mean by friend who “are sola scriptura”. I am Lutheran, not sola scriptura. And many people use the term to mean something it is not. SS simply means that we believe scripture is the final norm, that all teachers and teachings are measured by scripture.

One believes that baptism is absolutely necessary to get into heaven and the other believes it is merely symbolic.
Clearly, someone here is wrong, and someone here is right. Baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. How would these two people who both believe a personal interpretation is adequate resolve this issue?
I consider both of these people to be strong Christians. They both have vibrant prayer lives, read Scripture diligently, attend Bible study and are active in their parish communities. Both believe their interpretation is correct, and both believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in this manner.
Again, someone here is wrong and someone here is right.

Lutherans will tell you that we resolve disputes by turning first to the Lutheran Confessions, and then the early councils and ECF’s. We turn first to the confessions because we believe that they rightly reflect scripture. So when someone says Baptism is not necessary, or should be withheld from infants, we point to the Lutheran Confessions, the early councils and creeds, and the ECF’s, as they rightly reflect the scriptural truth that Baptism is indeed necessary for salvation, and infants indeed ought to be Baptized. And each of these sources will direct one to where scripture confirms this.

1. If you use only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as your guide, how do disagreements like this get resolved?

This isn’t sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not exclude the use of teachers and teachings, it only says that scripture is the final norm.
Lutherans and Catholics are currently trying to resolve our differences. SS is essentailly irrelevent in that dialogue.

1. If either of them appeals to someone else’s writings, or words, say, that of their pastor, or of one of the early church fathers, or even the notes in their own Bible, aren’t they then appealing to an authority?

And there is nothing wrong with this in sola scriptura.

1. How do they KNOW they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will ONLY speak the truth, so, again, baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself. So, someone here is being guided by the Holy Spirit and someone is being guided by someone else - either their own motives, the ideas of someone else, or another entity entirely. How would you know for certain that it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you?

How do you know? How do you know that the Magisterium, the Pope, are being led by the Holy Spirit? How do you know it isn’t the Orthodox who are being led? And one can’t say Peter because Peter was in Antioch, too.
The contradictions are not the Spirit’s, but our human sin that causes us to come to different conclusions regarding His guidance.

1. If being a Christian requires only the Bible and the Holy Spirit, what about all of the Christians before the Bible was compiled? I’m sure everyone would agree that they were Christians, but how can that be if they didn’t have the Bible to guide them? Without the Bible wouldn’t they then have been following an exclusively oral tradition?

True SS doesn’t claim this. When did Christians, for example, not have scripture? When did they follow exclusively oral tradition. And why would one necessarily need the writings of the apostles when they were still alive?

1. Along the same lines as #4 - since widespread literacy is only fairly recently on the scene, what of all of those people who can’t read the Bible? Surely, someone is reading the Bible TO them, but then I would expect that the person who is being read the Bible would ask questions of the reader, and then that person would act on authority of that reader. Perhaps I’m thick-headed but the meanings throughout the Bible don’t exactly leap off the page to me, and, I would expect, I’m not alone in this. So, let’s say you meet someone who’s never even heard of Jesus and you read them some Bible passages and they ask you what it all means and you tell them, for example, that they need to be baptized, that THIS is the way to heaven for them. They do so. Didn’t they just take this on your authority? Didn’t that person then just follow an oral tradition?

Again, the need to teach is not something SS even addresses. It only addresses the fact that scripture is the final norm. It doesn’t answer any questions about scripture, nor does it exclude the history of the Church and its great teachers.

I appreciate any honest and charitable answers anyone can contribute. I’ve asked this question before of non-Catholic Christian friends and their answers have been along the lines of ‘They need to study scripture more’ or ‘they need to pray more’, both of which I really and truly believe they are both already doing.
I know that there’s a good answer out there for my questions, and I just need to find it. It’s probably weird that I am posting a question to non-catholics on a catholic website, but when I’ve gone to non-catholic ones, people were kind of nasty. **I like the non-catholics that come on here much better. **And please know that I ask this not as an attack, but having not been much exposed to Christianity at all until recently, this is just something that’s been nagging me that I haven’t found an answer to.
Thanks again!!!

I’m sorry that you experienced nastiness in some noncatholics. I appreciate your kind words about us here at CAF. I hope I helped. And I really hoped I was charitable.

Jon

 

[izoid]

I think they typically change churches, finding one that believes as they do. Either that or they start their own church.

 

[JonNC]

I think they typically change churches, finding one that believes as they do. Either that or they start their own church.

But then, isn’t that the hope of every Catholic? That every Protestant will find that their belief confirms Catholic teaching, and the move to the Catholic Church? Of course, that has nothing to do with SS.

Jon

 

[izoid]

But then, isn’t that the hope of every Catholic? That every Protestant will find that their belief confirms Catholic teaching, and the move to the Catholic Church? Of course, that has nothing to do with SS.

Jon

I don’t think Catholics are as concerned with “stealing sheep” as the protestant denominations are.

THe point is, the individual is their own authority so they can go wherever they want in order to find like minded Christians. It really is a smorgasbord.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To answer the OP thread title: usually it is to start another “church”

 

[izoid]

Please understand that my background is in evangelical, fundamentalism where denominational alliances are not as important.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I have friends who are sola scriptura. One believes that baptism is absolutely necessary to get into heaven and the other believes it is merely symbolic.
Clearly, someone here is wrong, and someone here is right. Baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. How would these two people who both believe a personal interpretation is adequate resolve this issue?
I consider both of these people to be strong Christians. They both have vibrant prayer lives, read Scripture diligently, attend Bible study and are active in their parish communities. Both believe their interpretation is correct, and both believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in this manner.
Again, someone here is wrong and someone here is right.

1. If you use only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as your guide, how do disagreements like this get resolved?
2. If either of them appeals to someone else’s writings, or words, say, that of their pastor, or of one of the early church fathers, or even the notes in their own Bible, aren’t they then appealing to an authority?
3. How do they KNOW they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will ONLY speak the truth, so, again, baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself. So, someone here is being guided by the Holy Spirit and someone is being guided by someone else - either their own motives, the ideas of someone else, or another entity entirely. How would you know for certain that it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you?

(these are more general questions)

1. If being a Christian requires only the Bible and the Holy Spirit, what about all of the Christians before the Bible was compiled? I’m sure everyone would agree that they were Christians, but how can that be if they didn’t have the Bible to guide them? Without the Bible wouldn’t they then have been following an exclusively oral tradition?
2. Along the same lines as #4 - since widespread literacy is only fairly recently on the scene, what of all of those people who can’t read the Bible? Surely, someone is reading the Bible TO them, but then I would expect that the person who is being read the Bible would ask questions of the reader, and then that person would act on authority of that reader. Perhaps I’m thick-headed but the meanings throughout the Bible don’t exactly leap off the page to me, and, I would expect, I’m not alone in this. So, let’s say you meet someone who’s never even heard of Jesus and you read them some Bible passages and they ask you what it all means and you tell them, for example, that they need to be baptized, that THIS is the way to heaven for them. They do so. Didn’t they just take this on your authority? Didn’t that person then just follow an oral tradition?

I appreciate any honest and charitable answers anyone can contribute. I’ve asked this question before of non-Catholic Christian friends and their answers have been along the lines of ‘They need to study scripture more’ or ‘they need to pray more’, both of which I really and truly believe they are both already doing.
I know that there’s a good answer out there for my questions, and I just need to find it. It’s probably weird that I am posting a question to non-catholics on a catholic website, but when I’ve gone to non-catholic ones, people were kind of nasty. I like the non-catholics that come on here much better.
And please know that I ask this not as an attack, but having not been much exposed to Christianity at all until recently, this is just something that’s been nagging me that I haven’t found an answer to.
Thanks again!!!

Well to start the teaching of calvin has been for almost 1500 years a false teaching of the Church and can not be right,the Bible does not teach SS

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think Catholics are as concerned with “stealing sheep” as the protestant denominations are.

Like you in your first post, I wasn’t speaking of sheep stealing, but rather individual Christians making a choice to join a different communion, even Catholic, but I get the humor of your comment.

THe point is, the individual is their own authority so they can go wherever they want in order to find like minded Christians. It really is a smorgasbord

That would include all Christians, though I’m not sure what you mean by “the individual is their own authority”, outside of free will.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

,the Bible does not teach SS

So what, Bill? Who said it did?
Jon

 

[Harpazo]

Divided:

Orthodox and Catholics solve their disputes through our respective higharchies. We trust our bishops and patriarchs, these people in turn send legates and repersentitives to each other to solve doctrinal issues. Should issues prove unsolvable, then the best course of action for the lay to take is to agree to disagree.

Currently our patriarchs are in talks to solve our last major dictrinal issue. God willing, this will eventually lead to reunification. The word coming from the Greek Orthodox patriarch is very encouraging. Glory be to God.

This is a little too optimistic, I’m afraid.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JonNC]

=crazzeto;6012959]Divided:
Orthodox and Catholics solve their disputes through our respective higharchies. We trust our bishops and patriarchs, these people in turn send legates and repersentitives to each other to solve doctrinal issues. Should issues prove unsolvable, then the best course of action for the lay to take is to agree to disagree.

Hi crazzeto,
This is exactly what Lutherans and Catholics have been doing for 40 years. Lutherans also have dialogues with Anglicans, Orthodoxy, and others. SS in this way is irrelevent, to answer the Op’s question.

Currently our patriarchs are in talks to solve our last major dictrinal issue. God willing, this will eventually lead to reunification. The word coming from the Greek Orthodox patriarch is very encouraging. Glory be to God.

I agree with Andrew that your outlook is a bit optimistic, though I share your desires. But I’m curious; what is the lasy major doctrinal issue?

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

So what, Bill? Who said it did?
Jon

Can we not say what we think. “So what” is very rude,and" who said it did,:",is not mush better…

 

[JonNC]

Can we not say what we think. “So what” is very rude,and" who said it did,:",is not mush better…

Sorry you considered my response rude. It was not my intent. And of course you can say what you please. I will try to rephrase.

Originally Posted by Bill Pick
,the Bible does not teach SS

Bill, how do you think that this comment is important to the use of sola scriptura? Also, do you have a source for any individual who says that scripture does teach SS?

Jon

 

[peary]

I have friends who are sola scriptura. One believes that baptism is absolutely necessary to get into heaven and the other believes it is merely symbolic.
Clearly, someone here is wrong, and someone here is right. Baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. How would these two people who both believe a personal interpretation is adequate resolve this issue?

Scripture is clear on it: “BAPTISM SAVES YOU” (1 Peter 3:21)

I consider both of these people to be strong Christians. They both have vibrant prayer lives, read Scripture diligently, attend Bible study and are active in their parish communities. Both believe their interpretation is correct, and both believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in this manner.
Again, someone here is wrong and someone here is right.

1. If you use only the Bible and the Holy Spirit as your guide, how do disagreements like this get resolved?

You need the Church. Bible alone is insufficient. Scripture is clear on this matter: “THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH” 1 Timothy 3:15)

1. If either of them appeals to someone else’s writings, or words, say, that of their pastor, or of one of the early church fathers, or even the notes in their own Bible, aren’t they then appealing to an authority?

Yes. They are appealing to an authority other than the Bible.

1. How do they KNOW they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will ONLY speak the truth, so, again, baptism cannot be both necessary and unnecessary. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself. So, someone here is being guided by the Holy Spirit and someone is being guided by someone else - either their own motives, the ideas of someone else, or another entity entirely. How would you know for certain that it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you?

The Holy Spirit will NEVER contradict the teachings of the Church. That is why you cannot divorce Scripture from the Church or the Church from Her own Scriptures.

1. If being a Christian requires only the Bible and the Holy Spirit, what about all of the Christians before the Bible was compiled? I’m sure everyone would agree that they were Christians, but how can that be if they didn’t have the Bible to guide them? Without the Bible wouldn’t they then have been following an exclusively oral tradition?

Being a Christian requires that one accepts Christ as their personal Savior and Lord and all that goes with that, with or without the Bible. Whether or not the Bible ever came into being, there still would be the existence of the Church to proclaim the Good News in the world.

1. Along the same lines as #4 - since widespread literacy is only fairly recently on the scene, what of all of those people who can’t read the Bible? Surely, someone is reading the Bible TO them, but then I would expect that the person who is being read the Bible would ask questions of the reader, and then that person would act on authority of that reader. Perhaps I’m thick-headed but the meanings throughout the Bible don’t exactly leap off the page to me, and, I would expect, I’m not alone in this. So, let’s say you meet someone who’s never even heard of Jesus and you read them some Bible passages and they ask you what it all means and you tell them, for example, that they need to be baptized, that THIS is the way to heaven for them. They do so. Didn’t they just take this on your authority? Didn’t that person then just follow an oral tradition?

That’s what missionary work is all about: bringing the Lord to those in the world who don’t know Him.