Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[Lenten_ashes]

Just wondering if any non-Catholic Christians see any problem ***at all ***with sola scriptura?

I know as a protestant there were scriptures that didn’t make sense to me at all in protestant theology. And I was raised agnostic so there was no programming done to me and no pressure from anyone to believe anything at all from either side. I would go to the pastor who I respected greatly and had a Master’s in divinity and it seemed like his guess was as good as mine at times.(talking about deep theological studies)

We have one constitution in this country and a ‘magisterium’ of sorts that we call the supreme court who is the official and final authority on interpreting it. And even in that case the supreme court Judge is going to interpret differently than other Justices based on their own belief system and intellect. That’s why the conservatives are going nuts over Judge Scalia passing and possibly being replaced by a liberal.

I have seen a lot of interesting (to put it mildly) interpretations of the bible from well intended protestant Christians and thousands upon thousands of denominations as a result.

Not intended to be insulting with this thread, I’m just curious if any protestants here see a problem with sola scriptura? It’s ok to admit it if you do, it’s also ok to say the Catholic church is way off base and that sola scriptura seems like a better option. I’m just curious and would like honest opinions not proselytizing punchlines.

Have a blessed day.

 

[QuestLove]

Sola scriptura as I understand it is where the Bible is taken as the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
So if this is the definition that we are working with then not all Protestant groups subscribe to SS. In fact tradition will affect the worship, doctrine and practice. So I am not sure most groups practice it fully.
As I understand it though (at least based on my church), traditions are not bad/disallowed but the scripture is the final word if there is a conflict. For example in some churches, the women must cover their heads. I would consider that tradition and tradition is indeed important in any organization. However I do not think I will be hellbound if I do not subscribe to this tradition.

 

[spedteacherita]

Just wondering if any non-Catholic Christians see any problem ***at all ***with sola scriptura?

I know as a protestant there were scriptures that didn’t make sense to me at all in protestant theology. And I was raised agnostic so there was no programming done to me and no pressure from anyone to believe anything at all from either side. I would go to the pastor who I respected greatly and had a Master’s in divinity and it seemed like his guess was as good as mine at times.(talking about deep theological studies)

We have one constitution in this country and a ‘magisterium’ of sorts that we call the supreme court who is the official and final authority on interpreting it. And even in that case the supreme court Judge is going to interpret differently than other Justices based on their own belief system and intellect. That’s why the conservatives are going nuts over Judge Scalia passing and possibly being replaced by a liberal.

I have seen a lot of interesting (to put it mildly) interpretations of the bible from well intended protestant Christians and thousands upon thousands of denominations as a result.

Not intended to be insulting with this thread, I’m just curious if any protestants here see a problem with sola scriptura? It’s ok to admit it if you do, it’s also ok to say the Catholic church is way off base and that sola scriptura seems like a better option. I’m just curious and would like honest opinions not proselytizing punchlines.

Have a blessed day.

Hi!

Sola Scriptura basically means that traditions, doctrine, dogma are measured by the Word of God. I find that Sola Scriptura is the best way to go as it’s so easy to present new ideas or thoughts without them being measured by the Inspired (Holy Spirit) Word (Jesus) of God (the Father)

God bless!

Rita

 

[JonNC]

Just wondering if any non-Catholic Christians see any problem ***at all ***with sola scriptura?

I know as a protestant there were scriptures that didn’t make sense to me at all in protestant theology. And I was raised agnostic so there was no programming done to me and no pressure from anyone to believe anything at all from either side. I would go to the pastor who I respected greatly and had a Master’s in divinity and it seemed like his guess was as good as mine at times.(talking about deep theological studies)

We have one constitution in this country and a ‘magisterium’ of sorts that we call the supreme court who is the official and final authority on interpreting it. And even in that case the supreme court Judge is going to interpret differently than other Justices based on their own belief system and intellect. That’s why the conservatives are going nuts over Judge Scalia passing and possibly being replaced by a liberal.

I have seen a lot of interesting (to put it mildly) interpretations of the bible from well intended protestant Christians and thousands upon thousands of denominations as a result.

Not intended to be insulting with this thread, I’m just curious if any protestants here see a problem with sola scriptura? It’s ok to admit it if you do, it’s also ok to say the Catholic church is way off base and that sola scriptura seems like a better option. I’m just curious and would like honest opinions not proselytizing punchlines.

Have a blessed day.

The biggest problem I see with it is the misinterpretation, misapplication, and occasional misrepresentation of it, not to mention what Catholics say about it

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Sola scriptura as I understand it is where the Bible is taken as the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
So if this is the definition that we are working with then not all Protestant groups subscribe to SS. In fact tradition will affect the worship, doctrine and practice. So I am not sure most groups practice it fully.
As I understand it though (at least based on my church), traditions are not bad/disallowed but the scripture is the final word if there is a conflict. For example in some churches, the women must cover their heads. I would consider that tradition and tradition is indeed important in any organization. However I do not think I will be hellbound if I do not subscribe to this tradition.

Greetings QL!!

That’s the belief. But what about when people come up with different theories on what those scriptures mean? There’s no way to settle the standoff because you both appeal to the same source and there is no hierarchy.

Take one sentence and it can mean several things.

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY.

If you ask most people if they know the meaning of that they would say absolutely.

Here’s what that one sentence could mean:

1.) I never said you stole money. The implication is that someone else said it.

or

2.) I never SAID you stole money. I thought you did, but I never actually said it.

or

3.) I never said you STOLE money. I thought maybe you lost it or destroyed, but you didn’t steal it.

or

4.) I never said you stole MONEY.* I thought you stole many other things, but not money.*

That’s just one six word sentence that can have several meanings. And with the bible we are talking about a gigantic book that is a collection of different books from thousands of years ago, originally written in other languages, from different cultures with idioms that usually wont apply to today.

It’s like if you wrote a book today, then shot it to the moon and it was discovered thousands of years from now, the finder might not grasp the total meaning of everything that you as the author was trying to convey.

 

[PJM]

Just wondering if any non-Catholic Christians see any problem ***at all ***with sola scriptura?

I know as a protestant there were scriptures that didn’t make sense to me at all in protestant theology. And I was raised agnostic so there was no programming done to me and no pressure from anyone to believe anything at all from either side.** I would go to the pastor who I respected greatly and had a Master’s in divinity and it seemed like his guess was as good as mine at times.(talking about deep theological studies)**

We have one constitution in this country and a ‘magisterium’ of sorts that we call the supreme court who is the official and final authority on interpreting it. And even in that case the supreme court Judge is going to interpret differently than other Justices based on their own belief system and intellect. That’s why the conservatives are going nuts over Judge Scalia passing and possibly being replaced by a liberal.

**I have seen a lot of interesting (to put it mildly) interpretations of the bible from well intended protestant Christians and thousands upon thousands of denominations as a result.
**
Not intended to be insulting with this thread, I’m just curious if any protestants here see a problem with sola scriptura? It’s ok to admit it if you do, it’s also ok to say the Catholic church is way off base and that sola scriptura seems like a better option. I’m just curious and would like honest opinions not proselytizing punchlines.

Have a blessed day.

Thank you,

Let’s go even deeper on the two highlighted points

WHY do you suppose this is?

The answer is a WORD is “TRUTH”

“Truth” in an absolute sense MUST BE singular per defined issues; it can logically and morally be nothing else; YET

The entire reformation movement is NOT based on truth or truths:

Pick the issue and research its origin for verification.

Let’s take for example Sola Scriptura

This is an impossible, illogical, and non-historical position. WHY?

Because the bible was not fully authored until the END of the 1st Century or very early 2nd Century.

Yet Mt. 28: 19-20
[YOU!] Go therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world"

Jesus is reported to have died around 33 AD [give or take a FEW years either way]

The Dispersion of the Apostles was very quickly put into effect [GOOGLE IT]

So the Church that Jesus Established on the FOUNDATION of Just One True God & one TRUE and COMPLETE Faith [Eph 4:1-7] almost immediately covered much territory outside of Jerusalem. Both Peter & Paul died in Rome for examples.

So where did the teachings come from for the INFANT Church? They HAD to exist foe Her to grow.

They cam from word of mouth as had been the Jewish OT practices from mouth to mouth, family to family.

In an absolute sense there had to be at LEAST 60-70 YEARS & very likely much longer when the Church existed; but the BIBLE dis not. [The 73 book canon of the bible was NOT firmly set until the FORTH-Century]

HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE BIBLE WERE IN TRUTH THE ONLY SOURCE FOR FAITH TO BE LEARNED:shrug:

Other man-invented post Reformation 'faith" beliefs can also be disputed

HOW can God hold more than just the one set of Faith beliefs that HE God passed on to His Church THROUGH Peter [today’s RCC].

WHERE in the bible is the foundation for the Reformation birthed churches and varying faith beliefs.?

IF truth has to be singular and the RCC is held not to be [on what unknown; unspecified grounds] which of the Reformations birthed churches has that SINGLE TRUE FAITH, and how id=s it objectively proven?

God BLESS you,

Patrick

.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Thank you,

Let’s go even deeper on the two highlighted points

WHY do you suppose this is?

The answer is a WORD is “TRUTH”

“Truth” in an absolute sense MUST BE singular per defined issues; it can logically and morally be nothing else; YET

The entire reformation movement is NOT based on truth or truths:

I think it’s based off of injustice, to the degree of injustice only God knows. We all know the story about Tetzel and the selling of indulgences that Luther was appalled by. And TBH i was too, as a protestant when I read the history.

Pick the issue and research its origin for verification.

Let’s take for example Sola Scriptura

This is an impossible, illogical, and non-historical position. WHY?

Because the bible was not fully authored until the END of the 1st Century or very early 2nd Century.

Yet Mt. 28: 19-20
[YOU!] Go therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world"

Jesus is reported to have died around 33 AD [give or take a FEW years either way]

The Dispersion of the Apostles was very quickly put into effect [GOOGLE IT]

So the Church that Jesus Established on the FOUNDATION of Just One True God & one TRUE and COMPLETE Faith [Eph 4:1-7] almost immediately covered much territory outside of Jerusalem. Both Peter & Paul died in Rome for examples.

So where did the teachings come from for the INFANT Church? They HAD to exist foe Her to grow.

They cam from word of mouth as had been the Jewish OT practices from mouth to mouth, family to family.

In an absolute sense there had to be at LEAST 60-70 YEARS & very likely much longer when the Church existed; but the BIBLE dis not. [The 73 book canon of the bible was NOT firmly set until the FORTH-Century]

HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE BIBLE WERE IN TRUTH THE ONLY SOURCE FOR FAITH TO BE LEARNED:shrug:

Yes, the idea of sola scriptura was totally foreign to the early church as you pointed out we didn’t even have a complete canon until the end of the 4th century. That’s why it’s the church that is described as the pillar and foundation of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15. We have had the church without a bible, but never had a bible without a church.

Other man-invented post Reformation 'faith" beliefs can also be disputed

HOW can God hold more than just the one set of Faith beliefs that HE God passed on to His Church THROUGH Peter [today’s RCC].

WHERE in the bible is the foundation for the Reformation birthed churches and varying faith beliefs.?

IF truth has to be singular and the RCC is held not to be [on what unknown; unspecified grounds] which of the Reformations birthed churches has that SINGLE TRUE FAITH, and how id=s it objectively proven?

God BLESS you,

Patrick

It’s a big problem that I encountered as a protestant. I understand why Luther broke and started sola scriptura. He was just trying to play it safe and TBH, if not him, somebody was eventually going to break off be a “Luther” at some point.

And realistically it’s not all negative as many protestant churches are good and fruitful and I believe Jesus is with them to the best of their understanding. But like you say, we have to question does objective truth and morality really matter? Why is it that birth control was totally unacceptable just 70-80 years ago but now accepted pretty much everywhere accept the Catholic church? Same with female pastors and homosexuality.We aren’t supposed to be conforming to the world, yet I look around and that’s all i see happening right now. If there is no visible and authority church to settle things, then there is no foreseeable end to this route it’s taken. And I feel as though private interpretation is a big problem with all of this as people can use the bible to justify just about anything in their own minds. Here in America it was used to justify slavery years ago.

 

[MaryT777]

Good question…subscribed.

 

[nonkely]

Thank you,

Let’s go even deeper on the two highlighted points

WHY do you suppose this is?

The answer is a WORD is “TRUTH”

“Truth” in an absolute sense MUST BE singular per defined issues; it can logically and morally be nothing else; YET

The entire reformation movement is NOT based on truth or truths:

Pick the issue and research its origin for verification.

Let’s take for example Sola Scriptura

This is an impossible, illogical, and non-historical position. WHY?

Because the bible was not fully authored until the END of the 1st Century or very early 2nd Century.

Yet Mt. 28: 19-20
[YOU!] Go therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world"

Jesus is reported to have died around 33 AD [give or take a FEW years either way]

The Dispersion of the Apostles was very quickly put into effect [GOOGLE IT]

So the Church that Jesus Established on the FOUNDATION of Just One True God & one TRUE and COMPLETE Faith [Eph 4:1-7] almost immediately covered much territory outside of Jerusalem. Both Peter & Paul died in Rome for examples.

So where did the teachings come from for the INFANT Church? They HAD to exist foe Her to grow.

They cam from word of mouth as had been the Jewish OT practices from mouth to mouth, family to family.

In an absolute sense there had to be at LEAST 60-70 YEARS & very likely much longer when the Church existed; but the BIBLE dis not. [The 73 book canon of the bible was NOT firmly set until the FORTH-Century]

HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE BIBLE WERE IN TRUTH THE ONLY SOURCE FOR FAITH TO BE LEARNED:shrug:

Other man-invented post Reformation 'faith" beliefs can also be disputed

HOW can God hold more than just the one set of Faith beliefs that HE God passed on to His Church THROUGH Peter [today’s RCC].

WHERE in the bible is the foundation for the Reformation birthed churches and varying faith beliefs.?

IF truth has to be singular and the RCC is held not to be [on what unknown; unspecified grounds] which of the Reformations birthed churches has that SINGLE TRUE FAITH, and how id=s it objectively proven?

God BLESS you,

Patrick

.

I agree with much of what you are saying, Patrick. It is my understanding, though, that Sola Scriptura refers to believing in The Word is all you need to receive the gift of Salvation. So, in the phrase alone there are many differences in the interpretation.

That is why the Bible says, when there are these differences you take it to THE church. Which church? There are many to choose from. THE church Christ established is the Catholic Church and all the teaching of the Early Fathers are explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to give the ONE TRUE reference and explanation so these misconceptions can be cleared up.

The one comment I saw in a previous post as to Sola Scriptura being “easier” may explain why all the denominations started springing off the original church. The rules set for Christians are not easy to follow. They aren’t supposed to be. Adapting the Word of God to accommodate modern ideals and preferences leaves me with one question.

Who are we to change the teachings and requirements established by Christ and God the Father?

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Yes. I have a problem with Sol Scriptura.
If The Way was told mainly orally during the first century with no New Testament as we know it, how can we in good conscious believe in such a doctrine?

It is because of The Church(The pillar of truth) that we have a New Testament scripture.

 

[TxGodfollower]

I have seen a lot of interesting (to put it mildly) interpretations of the bible from well intended protestant Christians and thousands upon thousands of denominations as a result.

Not intended to be insulting with this thread, I’m just curious if any protestants here see a problem with sola scriptura? It’s ok to admit it if you do, it’s also ok to say the Catholic church is way off base and that sola scriptura seems like a better option. I’m just curious and would like honest opinions not proselytizing punchlines.

Have a blessed day.

I have seen many interesting interpretations of the Bible from the Catholic Church.

The reason I believe in the Bible’s authority is because (basically) I dont believe man and God promises to preserve His word.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. I have a problem with Sol Scriptura.
If The Way was told mainly orally during the first century with no New Testament as we know it, how can we in good conscious believe in such a doctrine?

It is because of The Church(The pillar of truth) that we have a New Testament scripture.

Thoughts (speaking as a life long Lutheran)
1- it isn’t a doctrine. It is a practice
2- we don’t live in the apostolic era, when the apostles were present. What we have, for sure is what is written down. It simply makes sense for the Church to hold Tradition and doctrine accountable to scripture
3- no communion using SS should deny the role of the Church in scripture

Jon

 

[Augustine_fan]

Thoughts (speaking as a life long Lutheran)
1- it isn’t a doctrine. It is a practice
2- we don’t live in the apostolic era, when the apostles were present. What we have, for sure is what is written down. It simply makes sense for the Church to hold Tradition and doctrine accountable to scripture
3- no communion using SS should deny the role of the Church in scripture
Jon

Hi, Life-long-Lutheran, currently-learning-the-1928-BCP,

re:

1. I think it’s a practice based on doctrinal assumptions.
2. True, though it is hard to define when the apostolic era ended. At the Ascension? When the 11 apostles elected a new 12th, not appointed by Christ? What about when the 100th was chosen? When the last of the eyewitnesses of Jesus died? Keep in mind some eyewitnesses were not at all reliable. Were the early Church Fathers not living in the Apostolic era?
   Some commenters (not you) tend to extend the “reliable apostolic era” up through the 4th century, to cover the NT canon. After that comes suddenly the “unreliable human authority era”.
3. Agreed. And no communion relying on the Magisterium should minimize the role of Scripture.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have seen many interesting interpretations of the Bible from the Catholic Church.

The reason I believe in the Bible’s authority is because (basically) I dont believe man and God promises to preserve His word.

I totally understand not wanting to trust men. I have trust issues with people too.

People differ on beliefs from the church and say she isn’t correct, but two big ones we both agree she got right. The New Testament in 382 AD and the Holy Trinity at Nicea.

So for non-Catholics I suppose the question is, when did the church go wrong and stop being guided by the holy Spirit?

Thank you.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Thoughts (speaking as a life long Lutheran)
1- it isn’t a doctrine. It is a practice
2- we don’t live in the apostolic era, when the apostles were present. What we have, for sure is what is written down. It simply makes sense for the Church to hold Tradition and doctrine accountable to scripture
3- no communion using SS should deny the role of the Church in scripture

Jon

Hi Jon, that’s another interesting theory I have heard. That basically everything changed at some point so it makes better sense to do it this way.

Honestly, though, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the bible indicating that is what is going to happen, though. No directive?

Not a gotcha question or anything here, but if everything is supposed to be in the bible, and that isn’t and it’s a main pillar of your faith, I see a problem with that.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yes. I have a problem with Sol Scriptura.
If The Way was told mainly orally during the first century with no New Testament as we know it, how can we in good conscious believe in such a doctrine?

It is because of The Church(The pillar of truth) that we have a New Testament scripture.

I know once that really resonated with me I had quite a dilemma on my hands lol.

The Anglicans use the 7 “disputed” books and holy Tradition in their teaching and that is more reasonable than most denominations, imo. It gives a clearer picture.

 

[steido01]

Hi Jon, that’s another interesting theory I have heard. That basically everything changed at some point so it makes better sense to do it this way.

Honestly, though, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the bible indicating that is what is going to happen, though. No directive?

Not a gotcha question or anything here, but if everything is supposed to be in the bible, and that isn’t and it’s a main pillar of your faith, I see a problem with that.

Your last sentence shows that you did not understand Jon’s point.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Your last sentence shows that you did not understand Jon’s point.

Jon still believe in SS, yes?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Your last sentence shows that you did not understand Jon’s point.

And BTW you cant live in my home state and be a Packer fan

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, that’s another interesting theory I have heard. That basically everything changed at some point so it makes better sense to do it this way.

Honestly, though, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the bible indicating that is what is going to happen, though. No directive?

Not a gotcha question or anything here, but if everything is supposed to be in the bible, and that isn’t and it’s a main pillar of your faith, I see a problem with that.

But I didn’t say everything is in the Bible. For example, I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, even though it is not explicit in scripture. Its adiaphoron.
All SS maintains is that doctrine, which is determined by the Church, is accountable to scripture.

Jon