Is Sola Scriptura a failure or a success?

[Lenten_ashes]

On one hand, you can say what a disaster it has caused with all these different opinions and denominations. A new denomination every 12 hours. That’s enough to make your head spin.

But on the other hand, I have to think there are a lot less Christians in this world w/o it.

Honestly, Catholics are typically poor evangelizers. For us, it’s not as easy as quoting Romans 10:9 and saying a prayer with them. We have to get them to come to RCIA and hope they are ready to sacrifice their football season to become Catholic as most of these classes occur during football games. And they might need a annulment and that’s a whole other major hurdle. This is a short attention span society, so that’s quite a challenge.

Anyway, SS naturally produces a certain boldness in the readers. They read it and believe they are being handed keys in Matt 16 and can loose and bind - Matt 18. And I think this is obviously a misinterpretation, but there’s no doubt it propels readers to go out and try to make disciples. So I see the positive there, but all the fragmentation is just terrible.

Thoughts?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Catholics need to become better evangelists. We’re not good at it, as you say. ** And until the church starts actively training lay people in how to become evangelists, not much is going to happen.**

In Protestant Chrstianity, everybody is regarded as a “saint”, and so everybody is seen as having some sort of responsibility towards mission and evangelism, whether its supporting missions financially, prayerfully or actively in the local parish. My wife belongs to a Baptist Church, and they’re very strong on supporting missions, both locally and overseas.

Catholics tend to leave it to the education and pastoral systems (aka “priests”), in my experience anyway.

Its not much use blaming or admiring Sola Scriptura when the evangelical ball is in** our **court. What we do with it is up to us, not the other team.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m not a priest I am laity and I love talking to people about Jesus. I haven’t done it lately because of my job but I like working with the Legion of Mary and if you look at the numbers in Africa the Legion of Mary does a pretty good job with evangelisation.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I was invited to a neighborhood get together for Easter. I had attended the Easter Vigil the night before. I was the only Catholic at this get together. As we sat down to eat I noticed the host was wearing a black shirt with Sola Scriptura written across the front in white. I wondered if he wore it on my behalf or maybe it was just one of his favorite t-shirts.
The words kept jumping out at me. I kept trying not to stare, but my eyes kept going back to Sola Scriptura. Of course, I had just attended a beautiful Easter Vigil the night before. I wanted to talk to him about his shirt, but decided Easter lunch was not the time or place.
As he walked away I noticed there was a long piece of scripture on the back of his shirt. Unfortunately, I just got a glance and didn’t see what it said. They don’t belong to any particular church, but are definitely Christian. I believe the Mother-in-law is Baptist. A tough crowd.
I plan on asking him sometime what the back of his shirt says.

 

[jas84173]

Sola scriptura is ridiculous. They can thank the Catholic and Orthodox Churches for there 27 book New Testament. It didn’t fall out of the sky like Protestants would have you believe. Also another thing that annoys me is calling books in Catholic or Orthodox Bibles " Apocrypha ".It is a terrible term to use of these books which were considered Inspired basically through the entire history of Christianity until some guys felt like it wasn’t scripture. I also get a laugh when evangelists quote books of the New Testament which Luther wanted OUT of the Canon. He couldn’t stand James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Well, it is to my understanding that Luther originally wanted to “reform” the Church, not create a new one. I guess this proves that Sola Scriptura did fail.

 

[po18guy]

“You will know them by their fruits”

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Catholics need to become better evangelists. We’re not good at it, as you say. ** And until the church starts actively training lay people in how to become evangelists, not much is going to happen.**

In Protestant Chrstianity, everybody is regarded as a “saint”, and so everybody is seen as having some sort of responsibility towards mission and evangelism, whether its supporting missions financially, prayerfully or actively in the local parish. My wife belongs to a Baptist Church, and they’re very strong on supporting missions, both locally and overseas.

Catholics tend to leave it to the education and pastoral systems (aka “priests”), in my experience anyway.

Its not much use blaming or admiring Sola Scriptura when the evangelical ball is in** our **court. What we do with it is up to us, not the other team.

You know, my Parish must have thousands of people there. I mean it’s huge, we have 4 priests there. And they recently had evangelization classes started there and I noticed that only like 20-25 people actually showed up to week one which had been posted in the bulletin for a while. Credit to the ladies as most were female.

Good point about Catholics leaving it to the education and pastoral systems. I asked one of the ladies there how come almost nobody showed up. She stated that Catholics just don’t like to share.

I was invited to a neighborhood get together for Easter. I had attended the Easter Vigil the night before. I was the only Catholic at this get together. As we sat down to eat I noticed the host was wearing a black shirt with Sola Scriptura written across the front in white. I wondered if he wore it on my behalf or maybe it was just one of his favorite t-shirts.
The words kept jumping out at me. I kept trying not to stare, but my eyes kept going back to Sola Scriptura. Of course, I had just attended a beautiful Easter Vigil the night before. I wanted to talk to him about his shirt, but decided Easter lunch was not the time or place.
As he walked away I noticed there was a long piece of scripture on the back of his shirt. Unfortunately, I just got a glance and didn’t see what it said. They don’t belong to any particular church, but are definitely Christian. I believe the Mother-in-law is Baptist. A tough crowd.
I plan on asking him sometime what the back of his shirt says.

That is a very odd sort of shirt to wear to something like that.

I’d love to know what the scripture was as well. And if he actually thought it taught SS.

 

[DanielStDominic]

Thoughts?

(a) Whether the various Protestant denominations arise from sola Scriptura, from some other factor(s), or from a combination of both is a point that I don’t believe has ever been studied in the social sciences. I would be cautious with claiming too much of a relationship between correlation and causation, in this case, without more evidence.

(b) I would claim the same as in the previous point for things like Protestant evangelization or boldness or anything else, quite frankly. There are tons of Protestants who do all sorts of things that are one big exercise in undermining the traditional Protestant faith.

(c) A combination of sorts of the above points: many Protestants form new denominations precisely because they have largely abandoned things like sola Scriptura, Biblical inerrancy, the perspecuity of Scripture, and many other doctrines centering around the authority of Holy Writ. Conversely, many others abandon larger Protestant groups because they see this abandonment of traditional doctrine as a severe impediment to unity.

(d) We can explain some Protestant’s zeal for evangelization in ways that don’t necessarily require sola Scriptura. For example, if there is an evangelization-based ethos that a particular individual is assimilated into, then they will be more likely than not to consistently engage others in religious discussions. This is especially true if that ethos happens to include useful training and materials for so doing.

(e) I’m a convert to Catholicism, and I heard a great deal about the divisions in Protestantism, while the division in the Catholic Church might well have been downplayed a little bit. But to be sure, we have plenty of divisions, and some of it is even permitted to fester by prelates either not doing a good job, or for whatever other reasons. There are liberal Catholics just as there are liberal Protestants. The fact is that the latter usually find themselves in their own denomination because conservatives has splintered from them. Another fact is that the former usually find themselves in their own “type” of parish, while down the road there might be a more conservative parish where the conservatives go. Is there more unity in the Catholic Church? In one sense yes, in another sense no. We at least know what the true doctrine is, even if it often dies the death of a thousand interpretations. In the past 60 years, we have seen whole Bishop’s conferences basically rebelling against the Holy Father’s teaching. Moreover, I could walk into any handful of churches belonging to a particular Protestant denomination and find all kinds of unity amongst the believers there. That’s not necessarily true of Catholic parishes. Many would argue that you could go to a typical parish, pick out 50 random parishioners, ask them questions about doctrine, and find that, between all of them, basically all of the Catholic faith as been denied. That’s why Modernism was called the synthesis of all heresies, and Modernism is very much alive.

(f) No matter what good the doctrine of sola Scriptura may have led to, if it is false, it should be avoided. God permits evil because He can bring good out of it. But that doesn’t mean that the evil was not evil.

 

[exnihilo]

Catholics aren’t poor evangelizers. Catholics evangelized the world. In the US a certain idea of simple Christianity has taken hold where a person says a prayer and is good to go. But I don’t think that leads to many true conversions. Conversion is difficult.

I think in the US Catholics haven’t historically had any mass movement to convert Protestants, but that hasn’t meant they didn’t evangelize. One reason there was no mass movement was Catholicism has historically been opposed by both the popular culture and even the state.

Sola Scriptura certainly can make the individual bold because he believes he has the authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture. You end up with many people reading and quoting Scripture. But you don’t have unity in the Faith. Reading and quoting Scripture is good, but I think unity in the Faith is better. In Jesus’ prayer for unity he prays that we all be one so that the world may know he is the Son of God. We know then that unity will lead to converts. Scripture itself tells us of the importance of unity and how it will convert people. Sola Scriptura has led to a constant fracturing of the Church. If it causes disunity I don’t see how it is a success.

 

[Brassring]

Whether sola scriptura is a failure or a success depends upon motive. If the motive is to create dissension and confusion and be horribly destructive, then it is a success. If the motive is to be close to God and in his will, then it is a failure.

 

[lanman87]

Everything we process is filtered through our culture, philosophy, experiences, what we are taught, and personal prejudices.

I would say that there are two reasons for so many different expressions of the Christian faith.

1. The filter that people use to process the scripture and frame the expressions of their faith.
2. The prideful nature of mankind that makes us think we “can do it better” than others.

In other words, the scriptures are sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, but mankind in our fallen state view the scriptures through the filters listed above and our bent toward selfishness.

Catholics aren’t immune to the same forces that impact faith and practice. In my studies of the Catholic church I’ve ran across what I would call “Fundamentalist” Catholics. They believe that Vatican II placed the Catholic Church into apostasy and marked the beginnings of the “end times”. It also explains why I read an article about Catholics in the Philippines who were nailed to a cross and whipped until there back was bloody during Holy Week. I would say those are two examples of “Denominations” within the Catholic church.

 

[PJH_74]

Well, it is to my understanding that Luther originally wanted to “reform” the Church, not create a new one. I guess this proves that Sola Scriptura did fail.

Yes, that was his original intent. The famous 95 thesis were not some declaration of a new faith or rebellion. It was intended to be topics of discussion in an academic setting. He was a Professor of Theology in the University town of Wittenberg, so such discussion was normal. Also nailing them to the church door was normal at that time…it was their public bulletin board.

Whether sola scriptura is a failure or a success depends upon motive. If the motive is to create dissension and confusion and be horribly destructive, then it is a success. If the motive is to be close to God and in his will, then it is a failure.

No, it wasn’t as stated above. Things started to go off the rails in part because secular powers, kings, barons, etc., had things to gain. I would not call opposing the selling indulgences a move to create distention. The Church is made of people and it can sin because of that.

 

[dronald]

Catholics aren’t immune to the same forces that impact faith and practice. In my studies of the Catholic church I’ve ran across what I would call “Fundamentalist” Catholics. They believe that Vatican II placed the Catholic Church into apostasy and marked the beginnings of the “end times”. It also explains why I read an article about Catholics in the Philippines who were nailed to a cross and whipped until there back was bloody during Holy Week. I would say those are two examples of “Denominations” within the Catholic church.

Indeed. Or how about the denomination of Catholicism that had the 4th Lateran council?

"Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. "

“He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed.”

Do Catholics still belong to this denomination that would cease everything a heretic owns and expel them from the land? Do they still wish to turn them over to an authority to be punished for expressing heresy? Of course not.

Or how about the denomination of Pope Leo X who wrote in his papal bull “Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

Do Catholics still believe people ought to be burned alive and do they believe that doing so is not against the will of the Spirit? Of course not, it’s a different Catholic denomination now.

 

[AugustTherese]

Honestly, Catholics are typically poor evangelizers.

I get what you’re saying and I do not necessarily disagree. I think “evangeliz[ing]” needs to be properly defined; nonetheless, when there are “1.2 billion Catholics”, it is almost inevitable that many, if not most, will be lukewarm, non-practicing, unlearned etc. and hence, “Catholics are typically poor evangelizers”.

We all know that love in action is the best form of evangelizing, hence the cliche but powerful, “Preach the Gospel always, use words when necessary”. Which is why the JW/Mormon door-to-door evangelizing puts the cart before the horse and while it is not inherently a bad form of evangelical work, it projects a forceful words-before-action, so to speak, sense of unwarranted preaching. I actually had a Mormon come to my door and offer to do my dishes once, but it felt like a pretext for their message.

What could we do as Catholics to be more evangelistic inasmuch as people do not get the impression that we are trying to shove our beliefs down their throats?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I get what you’re saying and I do not necessarily disagree. I think “evangeliz[ing]” needs to be properly defined; nonetheless, when there are “1.2 billion Catholics”, it is almost inevitable that many, if not most, will be lukewarm, non-practicing, unlearned etc. and hence, “Catholics are typically poor evangelizers”.

We all know that love in action is the best form of evangelizing, hence the cliche but powerful, “Preach the Gospel always, use words when necessary”. Which is why the JW/Mormon door-to-door evangelizing puts the cart before the horse and while it is not inherently a bad form of evangelical work, it projects a forceful words-before-action, so to speak, sense of unwarranted preaching. I actually had a Mormon come to my door and offer to do my dishes once, but it felt like a pretext for their message.

What could we do as Catholics to be more evangelistic inasmuch as people do not get the impression that we are trying to shove our beliefs down their throats?

Well, I think there is a difference between levels of evangelization.

The protestants seem to have the most basic version of that down pat. Romans 10:9. Say a prayer and commit to Jesus…

This is how I became a Christian initially. It turned out to be stepping stone towards me later becoming Catholic and it got the job done. Many here are in my situation as converts.

So could the Church maybe borrow from the protestant “playbook”, so to speak, and do the same? Establish a more condensed version with a gradual approach to get people to accept the Lord, then follow with steps 2,3,4 as RCIA/annulments/Sacraments, etc.

And in this scenario, even if they don’t become Catholic, any person coming to Jesus is a good thing even if the formation is poor.

 

[steido01]

Incredible. We’re on page two, and we’ve got plenty of “Protestant”-bashing, Luther-bashing, and even some hints of Catholic self-loathing. Yet in this thread about “Sola Scriptura,” no one has given a clear definition about what, exactly, we’re referring to.

Are we talking about Sola Scriptura, the hermeneutic principle that guides Lutheranism and properly calculates history, tradition, the Fathers and reason in harmony with Scripture?

Or are we talking about the more common deformed mutation that has pirated the same name, yet is more properly referred to as Solo Scriptura?

 

[AugustTherese]

Incredible. We’re on page two, and we’ve got plenty of “Protestant”-bashing, Luther-bashing, and even some hints of Catholic self-loathing. Yet in this thread about “Sola Scriptura,” no one has given a clear definition about what, exactly, we’re referring to.

There is none of that going on! Absolutely none!

Are we talking about Sola Scriptura, the hermeneutic principle that guides Lutheranism and properly calculates history, tradition, the Fathers and reason in harmony with Scripture?

“Sola Scriptura properly calculates history, tradition, the Fathers, and reason in harmony with Scripture”

That’s quite the claim, considering it (SS) was unfounded until the 16th century. Hus and Wycliffe entertained and flirted with it, but Luther expounded and encapsulated it while laying the firm foundation.

Or are we talking about the more common deformed mutation that has pirated the same name, yet is more properly referred to as Solo Scriptura?

Again, your self-indicative retort implies some unease with just the mention of a 16th century non-Apostolic doctrine in a thread on a Catholic website.

 

[steido01]

Sola scriptura is ridiculous.

Possibly. Please define.

They can thank the Catholic and Orthodox Churches for there 27 book New Testament.

Are you sure about those numbers for all Orthodox churches? And for all Catholic Churches?

It didn’t fall out of the sky like Protestants would have you believe.

Amen. Silly “Protestants.”

Also another thing that annoys me is calling books in Catholic or Orthodox Bibles " Apocrypha ".It is a terrible term to use of these books which were considered Inspired basically through the entire history of Christianity until some guys felt like it wasn’t scripture.

That’s… not correct. The term has wide historic usage within the church. The inter-testamental books were disagreed upon by scholars since the beginning of Christianity. It was perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to not consider them true Scripture up until Trent (which happened after Luther’s death, mind you). In fact, many Catholics who strongly opposed Luther actually agreed with his view on those books, like Cardinal Cajetan – and Luther’s view didn’t even go as far as some Catholics who would’ve had the books thrown out of the canon entirely. Luther merely held that no new doctrines could be pulled from those books without solid grounding in the more clear Scriptures, which had always been agreed upon by the church (you know, the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles…). Not really that out there.

I also get a laugh when evangelists quote books of the New Testament which Luther wanted OUT of the Canon. He couldn’t stand James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.

That’s just plain false. Before you trot out the tired polemic of him calling James an “Epistle of Straw,” do consider what he actually said:

He said it in comparison to Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter. It’s like saying ‘Sure, Kurt Warner was a great QB, but he’s rubbish compared to Aaron Rodgers.’
"[It is these other] books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.

He explained why.
"My reasons are as follows… "

He very clearly says it’s… just, like, his opinion, man.
“*But to state **my own opinion ***about it…”

He didn’t hold anyone else to his personal view.
“I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.”

He kept James and the other books in his translation of the Bible, which had 74 books (why’d the Catholics take a book out?).

He praises the book.
"Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law."

He preached from the book.

“That’s ridiculous!” you might say. “Why’ve I never heard of this? I know for a fact that all ‘Protestants’ have just 66 books in their bibles!”

Well, Lutherans don’t have a defined canon. Never have. Nearly all Lutherans in Europe have 74 books like Luther. After Vatican II, many Lutherans used 73 books. Most Lutherans in America use 66 books. Yet they all still speak bits from the Apocrypha in their liturgies and hymns, and still study them in seminaries, bible studies, and coffee hours. The 66-book canon is a distinctly American phenomenon brought about by the fact that penny-pinching English publishers could save money on shipping if the books weighed less. Literally. That’s it.

 

[AugustTherese]

It was perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to not consider them true Scripture up until Trent

"It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of BOTH TESTAMENTS spoke under the INSPIRATION OF THE SAME SPIRIT. It accepts and venerates THEIR books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John." - Council of Florence, Session II, 1438-1445AD

"CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.) “That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books). The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book). Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” - Fourth Council of Carthage, 419 AD

“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all.” - Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.