Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[Lenten_ashes]

point 1 yes the FIRST part was Deuteronomy 25:4 the second part was from Luke
point 2: I have never heard that Luke’s Gospel had existed as a oral tradition prior to being written: can you please point me any source that can confirm that?

Everything in every book including the bible existed in oral form before it was written.

When talking about Luke it is very likely he had a long sit down interview with the blessed Mother of our Lord. I base this off of the amount of detail about her as opposed to the other synoptics.

We are talking about the infancy of the church. So if Luke was already written we don’t know how much of it was. Maybe it was just the cliff notes written … We don’t know. He was obviously getting info from different sources and so it stands to reason the later date than Mark and others.

But we do know that Paul and Luke were close and that Paul knew the gospels, so…

And when I say 70-80AD I’m not saying that, it’s scholars dating it. And it’s really just a estimation and differs upon which scholar you talk to.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The Westboro Baptist Church is almost defunct as the founder died and family members have or are yet leaving it. They are a cult in all actuality as they use Scripture for their purposes. They don’t share the love of Jesus at all as we all know and take a few verses out of context for their own use.

I watched a documentary and in it was a sermon that Fred Phelps gave and it lasted no longer than 8-10 minutes. The only thing he talked about was how God hated America because it allowed “fags” (his word) to exist. Seriously twisted.

God bless!

Rita

Yeah, for sure.

I don’t consider them Christian at all, tbh.

Catholics tend to inflate the number of denominations of protestants to make them look bad, but the number isn’t 40,000 or whatever, it’s closer to 10-15 thousand when you eliminate wack jobs like Westboro.

The Lord be with you.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Protestants make a distinction between between being infallible (incapable of error) and being authoritative.

My college Astronomy professor (PhD, author of many books) told us Pluto was a planet.
Was he authoritative.? yes Was he infallible ? no

Your example in the OP of supreme court interpreting the constitution:
Are they authoritative? Absolutely ! without a doubt
Are they infallible? I don’t think anyone believes they are.

Scripture ( because of what it is) is infallible and authoritative.
Anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is correct IF it agrees with the whole council of Scripture…
By definition: anything that disagrees with the infallible/inerrant must be in error.

Sola Scriptura as explained here by Catholic,com
"Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized. "
web.archive.org/web/20100330002353/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

and NEWADVENT.org Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,

Friend, just so I know who I am talking to for future conversations, do you subscribe to sola scriptura or prima scriptura?

I know the principles of sola scriptura. And I do understand why the reformers went this route…they are, essentially, trying to play it safe, for lack of a better phrase.

My problem with it is that when we say “Anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is correct IF it agrees with the whole council of Scripture.”…who’s interpretation of the whole of scripture is the ultimate authority on what the whole scripture actually means? We have thousands of protestant denominations all reading the same bible, all claiming to be guided by the Holy spirit, yet all interpreting it at least slightly different.

As a Catholic I would say we have a promise of infallibility from our Lord in Matthew 16:18

And I would also contend that Jesus gave us a authoritative and visible church of which we take matters to for final decisions . And thta is How Pope Damasas can give the directive as to which gospels were actually inspired and to be included int he canon.

Matthew 18:17 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.[a] If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

I would emphasize the word EVEN there, meaning FINAL. When He says take it to the Church, I think he is actually saying take it to ME, through the visible church which can not be separated from me Acts 9:4

Another problem I have with sola scriptura… this claim that doctrines have to be proven from the bible. In order for that claim to be rationally coherent and consistent, it must be demonstrable from the pages of scripture, and it is not. It’s a mindset, a assumption.

 

[Peter_J]

The Westboro Baptist Church is almost defunct

Sometimes amount-of-attention can be way out of proportion to number-of-people. It’s no different with Catholics: I could give examples (but won’t … indeed I’m already off-topic) of types of Catholics who receive a **lot **of attention yet numerically are a minute fraction of the Church.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Everyone speaks authoritatively when they quote the bible .
Everyone speaks the Truth when they quote the bible .

It is the infallible inerrant word of God

The Protestant view is this
no denomination,
no organization
no council
no group
no person
no leader
no saint
no apostle
no Protestant
no Catholic
no believer
and no interpretation
is THE Truth

The TRUTH is
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.

A church or denomination or interpretation can be correct if they agree with God and His Word.
but they are not the absolute standard upon which Truth is measured

What is your understanding of 2 Peter 3:16?

We agree that Truth is what it is. It’s subjective and unchanging. That being said, does doctrine matter?

Jesus said He IS the Truth. John 14:6

Jesus also says He IS the church ACTS 9:4

Paul says the Church, not our personal interpretation of the bible, is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.

So it stands to reason that the Catholics have solid footing in our belief in the total deposit of the faith and trust in the Church, the beholder of Truth.

You are quoting John 17:17 in this thread. This is one major area where Catholics and protestants have totally different understandings. Jesus is talking only to the disciples there. He does also pray for unity of all believers in verse 20 but does not consecrate as he does with the disciples.

We see in John 17:14 Jesus says:

14 I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.

First He gives them the deposit of the faith John 17:14, then he consecrates in John 17:17, then He commissions them and gives them authority John 20:21-23

If the church is apostolic like the Catholics and Orthodox claim it is, then this makes perfect sense and is in harmony with sacred scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Is Sol Scriptura not an instruction?
As I understand it, Sol Scriptura is the instruction to
practice “Scripture Alone.”

Hi Cyril,
I hadn’t had the chance to respond to this, but I thought i might share a Lutheran blog that explains it better than I do.

From the blog:

The Lutheran reformers, who used the term sola scriptura, meant by this the fact that Scripture stands above (other parts of) Tradition. But Scripture was still to be read within a living ecclesial Tradition, and especially though the writings of the Church Fathers. One can, of course, discuss to which degree they were successful in this, but they did not use the term sola scriptura as a way to exclude Tradition. In fact the first authorities mentioned in Confessio Augustana (CA) aren’t Scripture, but the Nicene Creed (article 1) and, in all ways but in name, the Chalcedon Creed (article 3).[2] To get technical, the Lutheran reformers defined Scripture as ‘the norm which norms (but which is not itself normed)’ (norma normans or norma normans non normata) and Tradition, especially the ecumenical creeds, as ‘the norms which are normed’ (norma normata).[3]

But there is a danger here. Since Scripture judges Tradition, we often end up defining Tradition as a given creed (the Apostles’ Creed, CA, etc.) That is what has happened in many modern Reformed and Lutheran churches. In a discussion I once referred to St. Ignatius of Antioch, who said to obey the bishop, and was told that this wasn’t uttered explicitly in Scripture, so we shouldn’t believe it. But this has never been part of what, at least Lutherans, have understood by sola scriptura.

I have been asked why, on this view, we cannot just say that Scripture is ‘the written rules from a board game,’ and play the game based solely on Scripture. The problem with this is that there are many different interpretations at play. The ‘game’ has changed, and does change constantly. We can say that the ‘game’ has gotten a lot of ‘expansion packs.’

The question often boils down to this: Why must Tradition judge me, and my reading of Scripture? The answer is that one person’s reading of Scripture is not identical with Scripture itself. That person’s interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily correct. Although Scripture cannot be normed by Tradition (norma normans non normata), it can be, and is, interpreted through Tradition. Tradition is still a norm (norma normata).

There’s much more in the article, which, BTW, is a very good read regarding Apostolic Succession.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Hi Cyril,
I hadn’t had the chance to respond to this, but I thought i might share a Lutheran blog that explains it better than I do.

From the blog:

There’s much more in the article, which, BTW, is a very good read regarding Apostolic Succession.

Jon

Hmm. I wonder if that should seem as familiar a tone as it does. Or not.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hmm. I wonder if that should seem as familiar a tone as it does. Or not.

Fr K’s English is shamingly good, isn’t it? Fractionally better than my Norwegian.

 

[GKC]

Fr K’s English is shamingly good, isn’t it? Fractionally better than my Norwegian.

Mine too.

Fractionally being around the 99.99999 level.

 

[steido01]

I wish Fr. K would post more often. Anyone who’s quoting Pr. Weedon is a generally good theologian.

 

[JonNC]

Hmm. I wonder if that should seem as familiar a tone as it does. Or not.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Jon

I’m going with yes. Yes, it should.

 

[alwayswill]

Hi Cyril,
I hadn’t had the chance to respond to this, but I thought i might share a Lutheran blog that explains it better than I do.

From the blog:

There’s much more in the article, which, BTW, is a very good read regarding Apostolic Succession.

Jon

I read the entire article:

I wonder how you (or the blogger) and Catholics would answer these questions

Do you agree with the following:
( I would answer yes)

All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos)

Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors)

It is The Truth ( not a truth, not merely correct)

Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error

It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.

It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.

God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.

I would answer no to these questions:

Are there any other God breathed writings (graphe theopneustos) not included in the Bible*?
(*that we still have access to)

Are there any other writings that can claim every line is infallible and inerrant ?

Are there any other writings that it is impossible for God to disagree with?

Are there any other writings that carry the EXACT same authority as God speaking from His Throne or Jesus preaching from the Mount?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Interesting piece from then, Cardinal Ratzinger:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/OBDOMIHS.HTM

It is not the concept of Church that irritates Protestants, but the biblical interpretation of Dominus Iesus, which says that it is necessary to oppose “the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium” and “presuppositions … which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth”. Jüngel says: “The inappropriate revaluation of the authority of the Church’s Magisterium corresponds to an equally inappropriate devaluation of the authority of Sacred Scripture”.

Fortified by 500 years of experience, modern exegesis has clearly recognized, along with modern literature and the philosophy of language, that mere self-interpretation of the Scriptures and the clarity resulting from it do not exist. In 1928 Adolf von Harnack said, with typical bluntness, in his correspondence with Erik Peterson that “the so-called ‘formal principle’ of old Lutheranism is a critical impossibility; on the contrary, the Catholic one is better”. Ernst Käsemann has shown that the canon of Sacred Scripture as such does not ground the Church’s unity, but the multiplicity of confessions. Recently, one of the most important Evangelical exegetes, Ulrich Luz, has shown that "Scripture alone" opens the way to every possible interpretation. Lastly, the first generation of the Reformation also had to seek “the centre of Scripture”, to obtain an interpretive key which could not be extrapolated from the text as such. Another practical example: in the clash with Gerd Lüdemann, a professor who denied the resurrection and divinity of Christ, etc., it has been pointed out that the Evangelical Church cannot do without a sort of Magisterium. When the contours of the faith are blurred in a chorus of opposing exegetical efforts (materialist, feminist, liberationist exegeses, etc.), it seems evident that it is precisely the relationship with the professions of faith, and thus with the Church’s living tradition, that guarantees the literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, protecting it from subjectivism and preserving its originality and authenticity. Therefore the Magisterium does not diminish the authority of Sacred Scripture but safeguards it by taking an inferior position to it and allowing the faith flowing from it to emerge.

Are protestants open to the idea of ***their own ***“Magisterium” of sorts in order to safeguard, at the very least, the basic tenets of the faith? I know it is not probable because of the lack of unity, but if you were to gather leaders from all the mainstream denominations to hold some conferences, I think it becomes achievable…

 

[steido01]

Are protestants open to the idea of ***their own ***“Magisterium” of sorts in order to safeguard, at the very least, the basic tenets of the faith? I know it is not probable because of the lack of unity, but if you were to gather leaders from all the mainstream denominations to hold some conferences, I think it becomes achievable…

:banghead:

PROTESTANTISM DOES NOT EXIST.

Not as a monolith, anyway. It’s an arbitrary grouping. This question is like asking why Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans and Anglicans don’t share a Magisterium - after all, they’re all Liturgical.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

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.

When I was a protestant who always lived by my belief that “If it is not in The Bible, it is not true” I realized the problem with my version of Sola Scriptura when I accepted that my view contradicted itself. My belief that if something was not in The Bible, it was not true (Or I guess you can say orthodox) could not be found in The Bible

I understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura now. And I did always also believe The Bible was the final authority as a protestant too. Obviously I came to believe that the final authority on earth is actually The Church. I understand that Sola Scriptura does not say Tradition or tradition is wrong as long as it does not contradict scripture. Obviously, I do not think any Catholic Tradition or tradition contradicts scripture. But I can understand that adherents to the correct definition of Sola Scriptura that do think Catholic Tradition or tradition contradicts scripture are following their conscience and only doing what they think is correct.

I can totally see every new non denominational church I have ever attended in my life accusing Lutherans of being “Un biblical” not even knowing they are following a Lutheran tradition themselves and at the same time, not even getting that tradition right

 

[Lenten_ashes]

:banghead:

PROTESTANTISM DOES NOT EXIST.

Not as a monolith, anyway. It’s an arbitrary grouping. This question is like asking why Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans and Anglicans don’t share a Magisterium - after all, they’re all Liturgical.

With all due respect, this is total baloney.

I hear protestant apologists claiming you all agree on “essentials”. If that’s true then forming your own magisterium of sorts makes sense. This would separate orthodoxy form non-orthodox (well as far as your understanding of it)

 

[JonNC]

With all due respect, this is total baloney.

I hear protestant apologists claiming you all agree on “essentials”. If that’s true then forming your own magisterium of sorts makes sense. This would separate orthodoxy form non-orthodox (well as far as your understanding of it)

Which Lutheran one?
If other "Protestants " agree with us on the essentials, then agreeing with the Augsburg Confession is a snap. There are few greater essentials than infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, Confession / Holy Absolution.

Jon

 

[Lenten_ashes]

When I was a protestant who always lived by my belief that “If it is not in The Bible, it is not true” I realized the problem with my version of Sola Scriptura when I accepted that my view contradicted itself. My belief that if something was not in The Bible, it was not true (Or I guess you can say orthodox) could not be found in The Bible

I understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura now. And I did always also believe The Bible was the final authority as a protestant too. Obviously I came to believe that the final authority on earth is actually The Church. I understand that Sola Scriptura does not say Tradition or tradition is wrong as long as it does not contradict scripture. Obviously, I do not think any Catholic Tradition or tradition contradicts scripture. But I can understand that adherents to the correct definition of Sola Scriptura that do think Catholic Tradition or tradition contradicts scripture are following their conscience and only doing what they think is correct.

I can totally see every new non denominational church I have ever attended in my life accusing Lutherans of being “Un biblical” not even knowing they are following a Lutheran tradition themselves and at the same time, not even getting that tradition right

Exactly… they are only following their conscience and you really cant fault a person for that. It’s difficult to trust what any institution or individual tells you.

The things is, some people say they want to return to the early church. They are tired of rock concerts and division, etc, etc. And well, the first thing you have to do in that case is give up sola scriptura because that is a mindset and practice that was totally alien to the early church. The early church was not abstract and it held a tremendous amount of importance.

And I know what you mean about the criticism of Lutherans from the fundamentalists. I have heard some disturbing remarks about Luther from them.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Which Lutheran one?
If other "Protestants " agree with us on the essentials, then agreeing with the Augsburg Confession is a snap. There are few greater essentials than infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, Confession / Holy Absolution.

Jon

LOL, Jon, you guys might be the one denomination they would exclude

All I heard as a protestant is that Luther didn’t do enough - not even close to enough for true reformation.