I hoping to discover a consensus among sola scriptura advocates

[joe370]

Non-Catholic sola scriptura advocates, could you please help me understand how sola scriptura works regarding individual interpretation and who is entrusted with the authority to interpret sacred scripture? I am hoping to discover a consensus/harmony/unified front among sola scriptura advocates regarding sola scriptura. Thanks…

 

[Holly3278]

Non-Catholic sola scriptura advocates, could you please help me understand how sola scriptura works regarding individual interpretation and who is entrusted with the authority to interpret sacred scripture? I am hoping to discover a consensus/harmony/unified front among sola scriptura advocates regarding sola scriptura. Thanks…

I used to be an Evangelical Protestant before converting to Catholicism. From what I understood, sola scriptura was simply the (false) doctrine that there is no other authority for doctrine than the Bible. One denomination that I was a part of was the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist denomination/sect. They consider themselves to be “non-denominational” so they are not an organized denomination and may be more accurately qualified as a sect. Many of those who are Independent Fundamentalist Baptists believe that not only is the Bible the sole source of doctrine but that only the KJV Bible is sufficient for this. This is known as KJV Onlyism. Proponents of this view will typically state that modern Bible translations are full of errors while the KJV is inerrant.

As far as individual interpretation of the Bible goes, it is usually pretty consistent in each individual church that the members’ interpretation of the Bible was compatible with that church’s statement of faith or their individual doctrine. In other words, an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church that holds a belief in KJV Onlyism but also believes in once saved always saved as an example (I think most IFBs believe in this false doctrine) will consistently interpret the Bible as supporting once saved always saved. In other words, a person’s interpretation of the Bible is frequently biased towards their own previously conceived theological ideas.

 

[JustaServant]

I used to be an Evangelical Protestant before converting to Catholicism. From what I understood, sola scriptura was simply the (false) doctrine that there is no other authority for doctrine than the Bible. One denomination that I was a part of was the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist denomination/sect. They consider themselves to be “non-denominational” so they are not an organized denomination and may be more accurately qualified as a sect. Many of those who are Independent Fundamentalist Baptists believe that not only is the Bible the sole source of doctrine but that only the KJV Bible is sufficient for this. This is known as KJV Onlyism. Proponents of this view will typically state that modern Bible translations are full of errors while the KJV is inerrant.

You being from Indiana I assume these were the “Jack Hyles” Fundamentalists.
Depite being violently anti-Catholic I heard a story once of a fellow who attended one of Hyles services. They had a procession to the pulpit holding the KJV high in the air while someone loudly proclaimed “Behold the the stone cut out without hands” (citing Daniel).
Yep, they’re pretty much on the fringe.

 

[JonNC]

Non-Catholic sola scriptura advocates, could you please help me understand how sola scriptura works regarding individual interpretation and who is entrusted with the authority to interpret sacred scripture? I am hoping to discover a consensus/harmony/unified front among sola scriptura advocates regarding sola scriptura. Thanks…

Hi Joe,
You sure have been busy here of late, with some really interesting threads.

I think you already know what I will say.

As a Lutheran, you won’t find me in agreement with the premise that sola scriptura necessarily supports individual interpretation regarding doctrine. In doctrine, I do not depend on my own interpretation, but instead look to the Church, and the Lutheran Confessions.
In addition, I do not look at SS as a doctrine, but a practice, by which teachers and teachings are held accoutable to scripture. The Lutheran confessions say the following:

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, **we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God. **

And Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran said:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

These represent to proper practice of sola scriptura. Those that say SS should and does exclude the creeds and councils of the early Church, or the writings of the ECF’s, are not practicing sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[SnakeMauler]

What do sola scriptura people think of that whole spirit of truth thing Jesus was supposed to have sent? Does that mean that people just are supposed to read the bible or something?

 

[JustaServant]

What do sola scriptura people think of that whole spirit of truth thing Jesus was supposed to have sent? Does that mean that people just are supposed to read the bible or something?

The way it was explained to me at Liberty University was that it means the Holy Spirit will ‘illuminate’ the believer, or reveal the truth of the Scriptures.
This of course explains the number of denominations in your phone book…

 

[fhansen]

As a Lutheran, you won’t find me in agreement with the premise that sola scriptura necessarily supports individual interpretation regarding doctrine. In doctrine, I do not depend on my own interpretation, but instead look to the Church, and the Lutheran Confessions.

But how does one decide which Church/confessions to listen or adhere to?

 

[jericho777]

Non-Catholic sola scriptura advocates, could you please help me understand how sola scriptura works regarding individual interpretation and who is entrusted with the authority to interpret sacred scripture? I am hoping to discover a consensus/harmony/unified front among sola scriptura advocates regarding sola scriptura. Thanks…

I know you don’t believe in the supremacy of scripture. I guess my question to you would be if you are unable or incapable of reading or interpreting scripture for yourself (according to your church) why then would you need or want the bible as a personal resource? The church believes only the magesterium is entrusted with biblical truth. Why not just have the church write an instruction book so you will know what to think or believe without being in error apart from scripture? This is not an insult I mean this in all honesty. Personally this kind of thinking frustrates me.

 

[fhansen]

I know you don’t believe in the supremacy of scripture. I guess my question to you would be if you are unable or incapable of reading or interpreting scripture for yourself (according to your church) why then would you need or want the bible as a personal resource? The church believes only the magesterium is entrusted with biblical truth. Why not just have the church write an instruction book so you will know what to think or believe without being in error apart from scripture? This is not an insult I mean this in all honesty. Personally this kind of thinking frustrates me.

The Catechism is, basically, the personal instruction book. But scripture reading is beneficial, if one desires, to confirm elements of our faith and simply for all the inspiration and wisdom contained in its various books. When one reads scripture in light of Church teachings, much understanding can be gained. But without those teachings, ambiguity is difficult to avoid.

 

[tester]

the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

The United Methodist Church, asserts that "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.

It must be understood, however, that for Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience. Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition. Reason is the first means by which we may “trim our sails” and adjust interpretations of Scripture.

 

[The_Sentry]

As a Lutheran, you won’t find me in agreement with the premise that sola scriptura necessarily supports individual interpretation regarding doctrine. In doctrine, I do not depend on my own interpretation, but instead look to the Church, and the Lutheran Confessions.
Jon

That approach is where a lot of the more confessional Protestants are at, and it seems like a safer place to be than personal interpretation! Not everybody thinks he or she is qualified to understand Scripture apart from any outside resource. In fact, this is a fairly recent misunderstanding of what sola scriptura means, as far as I can tell. I’m certainly not an expert. Creeds, Councils of the undivided Church, renowned theologians, and faithful Church leaders shape our understanding of Scripture. We may not possess infallibility per se, but we do pray that our leaders and theologians will discern Scripture (and even TRADITION ) rightly!

 

[tester]

Consider this** from James Akin**
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

*“Private Judgment?

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that** they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium**.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”*​

So whether it is Creeds or Councils or Confessions
Or whether it is the first Pope or the current Pope or previous papal statements
Or a past Magisterium or the current Magisteruim,

If Catholics are “not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is”
And* “it is the Magisterium, not [Catholics] and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements*,…”

When to you really know??
At what point do you have to decide what it means?

 

[JonNC]

But how does one decide which Church/confessions to listen or adhere to?

How did you decide?

For most (or at least many) Christians, the decision is made long before one makes decisions for oneself. And many of those never, throughout their lives, question the choice their parents made.

As for me, I’m open to other possibilities, but none of them that are outside of apostolic succession.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Hi Joe,
You sure have been busy here of late, with some really interesting threads.

These are just certain questions that have been on my mind that I simply cannot seem to get a unified answer to, from the protestant perspective.

I think you already know what I will say.

Absolutely, and now I can compare these different interpretations and hopefully resolve the issue.

As a Lutheran, you won’t find me in agreement with the premise that sola scriptura necessarily supports individual interpretation regarding doctrine. In doctrine, I do not depend on my own interpretation, but instead look to the Church, and the Lutheran Confessions

Got it. Just church leaders, as opposed to the individuals belonging to the church - correct?

Well, as you know, many will not agree with you regarding the Lutheran Confessions.

In addition, I do not look at SS as a doctrine, but a practice, by which teachers and teachings are held accoutable to scripture. The Lutheran confessions say the following:

A practice by which the teachers only, of each respective church can authoritatively interpret scripture - right? Sola scriptura **(the bible alone) - ** is the benchmark/yardstick by which each respective church leadership only, can teach infallibly or fallibly? I promise, I am not being facetious. I just want to know who, via bible alone, claims to interpret and teach error free doctrine and who does not, that’s all. I just don’t think I would want to belong to a church that didn’t claim to teach error free doctrine.

And Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran said:
Quote:
This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…

This is where I get confused - for the simple fact that every sola scriptura does just that very thing.

These represent to proper practice of sola scriptura. Those that say SS should and does exclude the creeds and councils of the early Church, or the writings of the ECF’s, are not practicing sola scriptura.

I will be curious to see if other SS advocates agree with you.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut Jon…

 

[joe370]

jericho777;7169418]I know you don’t believe in the supremacy of scripture.

So wrong my friend!!! How could anyone not believe that the word of God is supreme and infallible? Moreover, how could anyone believe that God would not give the world an inspired interpreter of the word of God via the guidance of the holy spirit?

I guess my question to you would be if you are unable or incapable of reading or interpreting scripture for yourself (according to your church) why then would you need or want the bible as a personal resource?

So, your answer to my question, is another question?

The church believes only the magesterium is entrusted with biblical truth. Why not just have the church write an instruction book so you will know what to think or believe without being in error apart from scripture? This is not an insult I mean this in all honesty. Personally this kind of thinking frustrates me.

Well, that was not helpful at all. Thanks for the commentary though.

 

[joe370]

Hey tester…

tester;7169506]the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

That makes sense, with one exception: Who was entrusted with the god given authority, via the guidance of the HS to use reason, experience, tradition and scripture to infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach?

 

[joe370]

Hey Sentry…

That approach is where a lot of the more confessional Protestants are at, and it seems like a safer place to be than personal interpretation! Not everybody thinks he or she is qualified to understand Scripture apart from any outside resource. In fact, this is a fairly recent misunderstanding of what sola scriptura means, as far as I can tell. I’m certainly not an expert. Creeds, Councils of the undivided Church, renowned theologians, and faithful Church leaders shape our understanding of Scripture. We may not possess infallibility per se, but we do pray that our leaders and theologians will discern Scripture (and even TRADITION ) rightly!

Agreed, and hopefully the holy spirit, as per the bible, is working in the backdrop in some ineffable manner, preserving and assuring that doctrinal truth remains untainted in a world where truth has become so relative.

 

[JonNC]

First, Joe, I don’t think you can resolve the issue.

=joe370;7170351]
Got it. Just church leaders, as opposed to the individuals belonging to the church - correct?
In areas of doctrine, articles of faith, yes.

Well, as you know, many will not agree with you regarding the Lutheran Confessions.

Ah, well. We can’t all be right.
Seriously though, this is why the notion of “A Protestant Church” spintered into thousands of sects doesn’t wash, at least in regards Lutheranism, and maybe Anglicanism, though the Methodists are there, too.

A practice by which the teachers only, of each respective church can authoritatively interpret scripture - right? Sola scriptura **(the bible alone) - **

is the benchmark/yardstick by which each respective church leadership only, can teach infallibly or fallibly? I promise, I am not being facetious. I just want to know who, via bible alone, claims to interpret and teach error free doctrine and who does not, that’s all. I just don’t think I would want to belong to a church that didn’t claim to teach error free doctrine.
You’re normally not facetious. My expectation is you always debate honestly.
Be carefule with the “Bible Alone” phrase, as that has come to mean in more modern times an outright rejection of any document, teaching, etc. that is not virtually verbatim from scripture.
I don’t know which Church teaches infallibly. There are too many of them, even amongst those in succession. At this point, I still believe the Augsburg Confession rightly reflects scripture. Other views may vary.

This is where I get confused - for the simple fact that every sola scriptura does just that very thing.

I will be curious to see if other SS advocates agree with you.

I’m certain there are those who won’t.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut Jon…

thanks for the opportunity,
Jon

 

[fhansen]

How did you decide?

For most (or at least many) Christians, the decision is made long before one makes decisions for oneself. And many of those never, throughout their lives, question the choice their parents made.

As for me, I’m open to other possibilities, but none of them that are outside of apostolic succession.

Jon

I left my parents religion, pursuing others -and becoming quite anti-Catholic, only to return 25 years later, having found out the Church learned a lot while I was gone -to paraphrase Mark Twain. I came back after much study, as well as much good-natured arguing with “sola-scripturalists” including JWs. The fact that the Church at least has history on her side didn’t hurt either so I can certainly give a nod to any affirmation of the importance of apostolic succession.

 

[tester]

…How could anyone not believe that the word of God is supreme and infallible? Moreover, how could anyone believe that God would not give the world an inspired interpreter of the word of God via the guidance of the holy spirit?
:

… Who was entrusted with the god given authority, via the guidance of the HS to use reason, experience, tradition and scripture to infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach?

I think i see where your confusion lies:

You correctly state that " word of God is supreme and infallible".
I’m sure you apply the same infallibility to the New AND Old Testaments.

But then you assume that God must provide " an inspired interpreter " “with the God given authority, via the guidance of the HS to use reason, experience, tradition and scripture to infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach”

If your assumption is true: then who had the authourity to “infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach” the Torah in 1000BC? (about 500 years after it was written)

or who was " an inspired interpreter" of the OT in 200 BC?