Isn't Sola Scriptura kind of... Paradoxical?

[Holly3278]

It is indeed. Plus it contradicts these verses of Sacred Scripture:

(John 21:25 RSV) But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

(1 Corinthians 11:2 RSV) I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

(2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

(2 Thessalonians 3:6 RSV) Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

(1 Timothy 3:15 RSV) if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

(2 Peter 1:20 RSV) First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

(2 Peter 3:16 RSV) speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

(3 John 1:13 RSV) I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink;
(3 John 1:14 RSV) I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. (1:15) Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, every one of them.

By the way, for the last verses that I posted (3 John), I have no idea why they put 1:15 in parentheses like this: (1:15). I’m not sure if that is a verse that originally was not in Scripture and that may (or may not have been) have been added later or what.

But anyway, I think it is quite clear from these verses that Sacred Tradition is to be maintained and that the Church, not Scripture alone, is the foundation of Truth.

 

[SSTeacher]

When I was a practicing Catholic, one of the things that would drive me nuts when speaking with Catholics who had either fallen away from the Catholic Church or were in the process of falling way from the Catholic Church is that they would claim that they were never taught the Bible! I would tell them that the Bible was read at every single Mass every day, but the would tell me things like, “Well, I don’t know what kinda Catholic Church you’re going to, but at …such & such… Roman Catholic Church, they never read the Bible once and I was attended every Sunday for my entire life.”

How is it that fallen away life-long Catholics attended Masses regularly for years, if not their entire lives, but never once noticed that the Bible was being read to them?

To this day, it just puzzles me.

Have you formulated any theories?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[crazzeto]

I think one’s response to this doctrine probably depends upon one’s presuppositions. The Catholic view and the Orthodox view are that the doctrine is flawed and it’s the view that I now endorse. But during the time that I was an Evangelical Christian I saw nothing amiss with the doctrine. Indeed, I very much enjoyed applying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or, in my case, SOLO Scriptura) to my life and with hindsight I believe I benefited greatly from doing so.

I guess I’m just way too big a believer in objective truth to endorse this post. Objectivly, Sola Scriptura violates scripture, there for it is both paradoxical and ironic. Particularly since subscribers of the theory like to question all us orthodox Christians (small o, including we Catholics here) on our beliefs and teachings with “where is that in the bible”.

Well where in the bible is sola scriptura? It’s not there, in fact the bible takes time out to directly contradict it.

Amongst Evangelical Christians I know many that take the Bible very seriously. For them it is the Word of God so they read it every day and try to act upon what they learn. But it’s my experience that Catholics – despite the fact that the Catholic Church formally encourages the reading of Scripture – are often biblically illiterate because they rarely, if ever, pick up a Bible.

Isn’t that kind of… Paradoxical?

Ecumenically,
Mick

This is also very true, by necessity Protistants take more time to learn the bible than Catholics. Where as the Catholic Church has always been a teaching church, so unfortunetly study of scripture isn’t stressed enough. But I do agree with you, in this day and age, with such high literacy numbers there is just no excuse. We should be reading the bible more, after all it’s our book

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5883571:

I think one’s response to this doctrine probably depends upon one’s presuppositions. The Catholic view and the Orthodox view

are that the doctrine is flawed and it’s the view that I now endorse. But during the time that I was an Evangelical Christian I saw nothing amiss with the doctrine. Indeed, I very much enjoyed applying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or, in my case, SOLO Scriptura) to my life and with hindsight I believe I benefited greatly from doing so.I guess I’m just way too big a believer in objective truth to endorse this post.

Well, I always aim for objectivity and truthfulness but I guess one can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Objectively, Sola Scriptura violates scripture, there for it is both paradoxical and ironic.

Indeed.

Particularly since subscribers of the theory like to question all us orthodox Christians (small o, including we Catholics here) on our beliefs and teachings with “where is that in the bible”

That does seem to be the usual modus operandi and I guess that’s what prompted Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, to write a book titled, in the BibleThat? Its purpose, he declares at the outset, is “to provide a helpful overview to the discussion of the Faith with non–Catholics.” In my view, no Catholic would be worse off for reading it.

Well where in the bible is sola scriptura? It’s not there, in fact the bible takes time out to directly contradict it.

I agree.

SSTeacher;5883571:

Amongst Evangelical Christians I know many that take the Bible very seriously. For them it is the Word of God so they read it every day and try to act upon what they learn. But it’s my experience that Catholics – despite the fact that the Catholic Church formally encourages the reading of Scripture – are often biblically illiterate because they rarely, if ever, pick up a Bible.

Isn’t that kind of… Paradoxical?

Ecumenically,
Mick

This is also very true, by necessity Protestants take more time to learn the bible than Catholics. Where as the Catholic Church has always been a teaching church, so unfortunately study of scripture isn’t stressed enough. But I do agree with you, in this day and age, with such high literacy numbers there is just no excuse. We should be reading the bible more, after all it’s our book

Right. And, to be fair, I should add that I also know Evangelical Christians whose interest in the Bible is minimal and whose only contact with it is on Sunday morning at Sunday school and/or when their pastor or minister presents the homily – that applies only on the Sundays that they choose to attend church, of course.

Peace,
Mick