I don't get sola scriptura

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mathematoons

New member
Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.

I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.
 
mathematoons said:
Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.

I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.
Click to expand...
Whheeeeeew! My friend get ready for a long and bumpy ride. Hope you have nice and comfortable seat/chair? I am done with this topic or better yet,retired from this topic. I’ll leave it for others here to answer. God Bless. 😉
 
mathematoons said:
Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.

I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.
Click to expand...
It depends on who you talk to. Lutherans if I recall correctly would appeal to Tradition. Because they also believe in Tradition, but that it’s not infallible, but exceptionally useful as being a “lens” through which we read the Bible.

I might be wrong, though.

I’m from a ‘Bible-believing’ church. There wouldn’t be any appeal to Tradition there. If you disagree I suppose it’d just stay at a disagreement.
 
mathematoons said:
Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.
Click to expand...
I am a Catholic convert, but when I was growing up I attended many non-denominational churches. And the answer was: the pastor of that particular church, who left to form his own church when someone disagreed with him at his former church. If people disagreed with him, they were kicked out (or left to start their own church again.) Of course, at every one of these churches, the members of that church were the only people who actually understood the Bible correctly (and you better believe there was only ever one appropriate translation - usually KJV.)

I have no idea about mainline Protestant denominations, though.
 
well as i former protestant i can say that we used to just interpret things with are own mind set or someone else’s interpretation
 
Nicea325 said:
Whheeeeeew! My friend get ready for a long and bumpy ride. Hope you have nice and comfortable seat/chair? I am done with this topic or better yet,retired from this topic. I’ll leave it for others here to answer. God Bless. 😉
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention the seat-belt! 😉
 
I am wondering if a non-Catholic Christian will even want to attempt to answer this. It is a topic that has been beaten to death around here. The battle lines have been drawn, I really can’t imagine any arguments being presented by Protestants that Catholics haven’t seen and vice versa. I guess you never know.

FM is correct, there are different beliefs on Sola Scriptura. The Lutheran understanding is far and away the most workable form of the doctrine I have seen. Even though I don’t think they would accept the term, it appears to be more prima scriptura than sola scriptura but maybe that has more to do with my understanding of sola scriptura than anything. When a Lutheran explains Sola Scriptura it just doesn’t sound like Sola Scriptura to me. I mean that in a good way 😉

God bless
 
FabiusMaximus said:
It depends on who you talk to. Lutherans if I recall correctly would appeal to Tradition. Because they also believe in Tradition, but that it’s not infallible, but exceptionally useful as being a “lens” through which we read the Bible.

I might be wrong, though.

I’m from a ‘Bible-believing’ church. There wouldn’t be any appeal to Tradition there. If you disagree I suppose it’d just stay at a disagreement.
Click to expand...
Aren’t all Christians “from a ‘Bible-believing’ Church” (Catholic or Orthodox) or ecclesial communion (all Protestants and other non-Catholics)? All non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians read the Bible through the lens/tradition of their founder’s beliefs/interpretations or their own.

The Catholic Church is not Bible-based, however. The New Testament is based on the teaching of the Catholic Church who wrote it.

Jim Dandy
 
Perhaps it will be helpful to point out that every group, Catholic, Orthodox, various Protestants, have a base-line for what has to be believed, and what may be believed.

In the Catholic Church, there are lots of things one has to believe, but many others one may have a variety of opinions on. For example, personal revelations, or evolution. No one thinks it is a sign of a Problem that one Catholic believes the Fatima revelations, and another doesn’t.

Well, in Protestantism it is the same, but what is considered essential is usually much smaller. So the differences on many issues, although people have a view on what is the best answer, are seen as non-essential.

Within that structure, the fact that there are many beliefs about some issues simply isn’t seen as an issue, just as it isn’t a problem that one Catholic Church uses the TLM, and another has a really popular LifeTeen Mass.

There aare other aspects of the issue, but I think that is an important one to understand.
 
=mathematoons;8001889]Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages?
Click to expand...
Starting here, what do you mean by “scripture alone is sufficient”? It is indeed sufficient as the final norm, that holds all teachers and teachings accountable. But of course, that implies that there are teachers and teachings. So, Lutherans rely on the Lutheran Confessions as a right reflection of scripture.
If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.
Click to expand...
You are talking doctrine here, I assume, not adiaphora. The practice of hermeunetics is that of the Church, not individuals. So, Lutherans would take a dispute to the Church, first the pastor, the district (diocese), the synod. Within the synod, there are bodies that determine the doctrine of Lutheranism, based on scripture and the confessions, with a healthy dose of ECF’s, and early councils.
I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.
Click to expand...
I hope I’ve helped.

Jon
 
FM is correct, there are different beliefs on Sola Scriptura. The Lutheran understanding is far and away the most workable form of the doctrine I have seen. Even though I don’t think they would accept the term, it appears to be more prima scriptura than sola scriptura but maybe that has more to do with my understanding of sola scriptura than anything. When a Lutheran explains Sola Scriptura it just doesn’t sound like Sola Scriptura to me. I mean that in a good way
Click to expand...
I like Lutherans. 👍
Aren’t all Christians “from a ‘Bible-believing’ Church” (Catholic or Orthodox) or ecclesial communion (all Protestants and other non-Catholics)? All non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians read the Bible through the lens/tradition of their founder’s beliefs/interpretations or their own.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is not Bible-based, however. The New Testament is based on the teaching of the Catholic Church who wrote it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to suggest that Catholics and Orthodox do not believe in the Bible, I’m merely using the term because that’s how many Evangelicals self-define themselves. I think it’s useful to use because it denotes their emphasis on scripture reading above everything else.
 
Mr. JonNC beat me to the punch and as always said it much more eloquently and clearer then I ever could.

Just chiming in to second what he said 🙂
 
mathematoons said:
Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.

I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.
Click to expand...
you are touching on some important questions.

in my judgment, the “Sola Scriptura” traditions are about oral traditions. both in the early Church–.e.g. Arianism–and today.

today, teh “Sola Scriptura” oral traditions are very modern. many of them conflict even with the reformers. e.g. on how the Bible is “silent on contraception”

as to history they are often false: e.g. the idea that Church morals improved through the “reformation”. Luther himself refutes this strongly

but to begin with, one needs a definition of “Sola Scriptura” and one which can be deduced from Scripture.

that is a difficult problem in itself. the definition given by Wikipedia has never been shown to be deduced logically from Scripture in my judgment.

but supposing it can be, we are left with the fact that Protestants don’t show many of their ideas to be deduced logically from Scripture.

so they fall back on the “authority” arguments from what they learned from an extra-Biblical book and the oral traditions of their group, as they insist consistently on sentences not actually in Scripture
 
JonNC is right, but I would add that most Lutherans also rely on the notion that “scripture interprets scripture”, meaning that the Bible itself, taken as a whole and in individual instances of vagueness, determines how the Bible should be interpreted. Not individual people, and that is also a driving force behind the Lutheran confessions. Not that they themselves are authority because Luther and whoever else said so, but because the confessions are guided by this principle, as should pastors and individuals.

For this reason, Confessional Lutherans support the Historical-Grammatical method of Biblical interpretation. More liberal Lutherans tend to rely on a variety of methods, which seems to have led to a lot of disagreement within groups such as the ELCA. LCMS Lutherans tend to be mostly in agreement, though, in my experience.
 
I dont get it either. The more I’ve thought about it the less sense it makes to me. And I notice that really no one really lives by it in a strict sense. Of course the idea really needs to be defined. The term sola scriptura itself, like many, can represent an idea that is very complex. The term might mean different things to different people. But the typical quick explanation of the term makes no sense to me.

I might turn the question around and ask, for a Catholic what happens if you disagree on the meaning of some passage of scripture and the church’s official teaching? If you truly believe in a different understanding what transpires in your mind regarding that teaching if you are to believe the teachings of the church? How does one conform their beliefs, assuming they have an honest intention to do so, if they truly believe something else?
 
Also, in response to patricius, I think at leastt many if not most intelligent Sola Scriptura adherents would agree that it’s not about whether the notion itself is derived from scripture, because clearly it is not. It is about sticking to the faith which was handed down to us by the prophets and apostles in their writings and not letting ourselves become destracted from that course. Of course, we can argue on forever as to whether “them Protestants” or Catholics are closer to that faith, but this is the idea at least
 
FabiusMaximus said:
It depends on who you talk to. Lutherans if I recall correctly would appeal to Tradition. Because they also believe in Tradition, but that it’s not infallible, but exceptionally useful as being a “lens” through which we read the Bible.

I might be wrong, though.

I’m from a ‘Bible-believing’ church. <–As opposed to all those Churches that DON’T believe in the Bible…right?🙂 There wouldn’t be any appeal to Tradition there. <—Have you even READ the Bible? If you disagree I suppose it’d just stay at a disagreement.<—A Bible Bible-believing Christian who’s read the Bible would NATURALLY disagree. See the quote below (from the Bible:)) as a reference.
Click to expand...
Here’s why a Bible believing Christian would also believe in tradition:
2Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Click to expand...
 
I think maybe a question for these “Bible Believers” (who are we really talking about here, anyways? Can we name a group, a person, some sort of example?) is how far do we allow tradition to dictate our worship and belief and why? (that is, what are the justifying criteria for practice of a given “tradition”)

Also, whose words should we be listening to according to this quote? Looking at it in context, it strikes me that a valid interpretation might consist of the “us” signifying the apostles themselves and Jesus Christ. “Tradition” then becomes a question of the validity of apostolic succession, which is beyond the purposes of this thread.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the importance of liturgy and sacraments and many of the practices of the early church, but it is a fallacy to think that just because the Bible says we should hold to the importance of tradition, this quote therefore justifies any particular traditions handed down from any particular entity other than the apostles and in particular, Paul. So the question is: what does this quote actually command us to do or believe in a concrete, particular sense? Which particular traditions is it referring to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top