Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[Lenten_ashes]

I don’t have an issue with that :
It is obvious that ignorant and unstable people have and will continue to distort Scripture to their destruction…

allow me to expound on my question again:

I am not asking “what **exact **point is scripture officially scripture.”

I am asking if Genesis, Isaiah, or Romans (for example) was Scripture when it is was written or at some other later point…

I hope that clears up my question…
Thank you

Ok, I have my personal opinion on that - but I’d like to see if it’s in conformity with the church before I would post it.

Perhaps the poster above will provide a CCC reference and that would help out a great deal.

Thanks

 

[alwayswill]

Ok, I have my personal opinion on that - but I’d like to see if it’s in conformity with the church before I would post it.

Perhaps the poster above will provide a CCC reference and that would help out a great deal.

Thanks

Sure thing:
As we are waiting; please allow me to offer an analogy:

All “Picasso- Paintings” are painted by Picasso
When Picasso has finished a painting it is actually a “Picasso- Painting”
Whether anyone other than Picasso has seen it yet: it is still an actual “Picasso- Painting”

In the same way
All Scripture is God Breathed
When the prophet Isaiah finished writing his God Breathed Book of Isaiah it was actually Scripture.
Whether anyone other than the prophet Isaiah has seen it yet: it is still actually Scripture

It is made available to us as Scripture when it is spoken orally or penned, and canonized. That is why we now have many gospels, but only 4 Gospels.

I found this at Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm
Scripture
“Sacred Scripture is one of the several names denoting the inspired** writings **which make up the Old and New Testament.”

I quickly read the whole article:and unless I missed something: it never referred to Scripture as anything other than a writing.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Lenten,

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.

It seems to me that no ecclesiastical body really practices Sola Scriptural, at least not with Scripture being ‘Sole’. Every ecclesiastical body ‘adds’ something, something by which they interpret Scripture. In many cases, that ‘something’ is their own particular faith community. Of course, other bodies will insert their own separate interpretative authority, and as we have seen, can reach seriously different interpretations.

It seems then that the problem is that there is not one central body which is responsible for interpretation, at least not within Protestantism. If each ecclesiastical individual body is going to their use their own particular interpretations, we will NEVER achieve (again), the Christian Unity that was commanded by both Christ and the Scriptures.

The Great Anglican Church Historian and Theologian Alister McGrath sums it up nicely:

“The long history of Christian interpretation of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that certain texts are interpreted in very different ways by different individuals and groups. This poses the critically important question, Who is authorized to adjudicate between such interpretations of the New Testament?, McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 51

It seems that the key question then is this: WHO INTERPRETS?

Who is correct between the Lutherans and the Calvinists on the matter of the Holy Eucharist? And how does anyone know for sure?

Given the doctrinal dissension that is found in Protestantism, I would suggest that they have yet to answer that question.

So then, if they are going to work towards the doctrinal unity that Christ commanded, what direction do the Protestant communions head in order to do so?

God Bless, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Topper,

You make some excellent points. It is difficult for me as to keep abreast and knowledgeable of all the teachings of all the denominations and “high and low” and “liberal and conservative” wings of them. I know sometimes people object to the word Protestant but I would rather use that term than to misrepresent the type of Lutheran, Anglican, Prestybterian etc someone professes their faith within.

Just some random thoughts.

Blessings to the posters,

Mary.

 

[alwayswill]

…

It seems that the key question then is this: WHO INTERPRETS?

God Bless, Topper

for me it seem the key question is:

What do you say Scripture is?
( not what is Scripture, but the characteristics of Scripture; its attributes, its nature.)

 

[commenter]

It is made available to us as Scripture when it is spoken orally or penned, and canonized. That is why we now have many gospels, but only 4 Gospels.

CCC 120 “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books”.

In my original sentence I emphasized that Scripture is identifiable as Scripture to us
from the canonization. It was not canonization that caused it to be inspired. Canonization tells us which books are inspired. The quote from the CCC points out the apostolic Tradition, but keep in mind there was more than one ancient tradition, just as there were a few canons, and many claimant for gospels, epistles, etc. Some authority had to rule out the great majority of potential scriptures and Christian traditions, in order for ancients, and us to have the canon and Tradition we now rely on.

In other words, there had to be a visible agency to identify which tradition is reliably apostolic. That visible, human agency did not “make” one tradition to be inspired, any more than it made the 27 book NT we now use to be inspired. God did. But that visible, human authority pointed out to us which tradition is Tradition, and how Tradition and Scripture are related. That same authority also declared that what we now call the Old Testament would be considered Scripture for Christians, a decision obvious to us in hindsight but not at the time.

God did not have to use a single, visible human authority to communicate His guidance.
But He did.

 

[alwayswill]

CCC 120 “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books”.

In my original sentence I emphasized that Scripture is identifiable as Scripture to us
from the canonization. It was not canonization that caused it to be inspired. Canonization tells us which books are inspired. The quote from the CCC points out the apostolic Tradition, but keep in mind there was more than one ancient tradition, just as there were a few canons, and many claimant for gospels, epistles, etc.

In other words, there had to be a visible agency to identify which tradition is reliably apostolic. That visible, human agency did not “make” one tradition to be inspired, any more than it made the 27 book NT we now use to be inspired. God did. But that visible, human authority pointed out to us which tradition is Tradition, and how Tradition and Scripture are related.

God did not have to use a single, visible human authority to communicate His guidance.
But He did.

so you would agree that Genesis, Isaiah, Romans were actually Scripture from the moment they were penned and not when they were officially canonized.
The Catholic Church ( and others) recognized a writing as Scripture, bur did not make or cause a writing to be Scripture:
correct?

re: a single, visible human authority

Can you expand on your point considering Jesus Himself and the Apostle called the Hebrew writings (ie Isaiah, Deuteronomy) as Scripture?

Thank you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So here is what the catechism says:

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book”. Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures.

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written

It’s referring to scripture without correct interpretation as a dead letter. So this seems to coincide with what Commentor was saying. In order for it to come to life a reader is required and correct interpretation is required. And correct interpretation is through the lens of the church

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Lenten,

It seems to me that no ecclesiastical body really practices Sola Scriptural, at least not with Scripture being ‘Sole’. Every ecclesiastical body ‘adds’ something, something by which they interpret Scripture. In many cases, that ‘something’ is their own particular faith community. Of course, other bodies will insert their own separate interpretative authority, and as we have seen, can reach seriously different interpretations.

It seems then that the problem is that there is not one central body which is responsible for interpretation, at least not within Protestantism. If each ecclesiastical individual body is going to their use their own particular interpretations, we will NEVER achieve (again), the Christian Unity that was commanded by both Christ and the Scriptures.

The Great Anglican Church Historian and Theologian Alister McGrath sums it up nicely:

“The long history of Christian interpretation of the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that certain texts are interpreted in very different ways by different individuals and groups. This poses the critically important question, Who is authorized to adjudicate between such interpretations of the New Testament?, McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 51

It seems that the key question then is this: WHO INTERPRETS?

Who is correct between the Lutherans and the Calvinists on the matter of the Holy Eucharist? And how does anyone know for sure?

Given the doctrinal dissension that is found in Protestantism, I would suggest that they have yet to answer that question.

So then, if they are going to work towards the doctrinal unity that Christ commanded, what direction do the Protestant communions head in order to do so?

God Bless, Topper

Good evening, Topper.

Pretty much all the denominations have at least minor differences.

And they say it’s just “non-essentials” that they differ on but this is not true.

1.) They don’t all agree on salvation(is it secure or not?) and nobody would classify this as a non-essential.

Secondly, there’s no inspired table of essentials vs non-essentials in the bible. So it’s basically just “little popes” making up their own table by their own authority.

I posted something a few pages back that I will link to here from then Cardinal Ratzinger.

The suggestion being is that perhaps protestantism should form their own magisterium in order to safe guard “essentials” or basic tenets of the faith. If you gathered leaders from all the mainstream denominations, I think they could come up with something…may be a little flimsy but at least something to protect them from any further heresy or moral decadence.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/OBDOMIHS.HTM

“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.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

yes i do:
I proclaim that every sentence of Scripture is inerrant

I’m sorry to say that you don’t get change the meaning of inerrant to mean 100% literal

Please do not take the part of scripture literally where Jesus says it is better to cut of your own right hand or pluck out your own eye if they cause you to sin… please?..

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

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.

Its funny you mention this return to “The Early Church” that some protestants speak of. That was me I wanted to be in the church that most closely resembled and taught like the early Church. I was attending a Bible study where the protestant minister said that the early church got together in peoples homes. Aka, house churches. While that may be true and he was trying to be true to doing things the way the early church did, they would not have been studying The Bible, as it did not exist as it does today yet and we would have been celebrating The Eucharist and I would have not been able to participate in The Eucharist anyways because I was unbaptized at the time believing that Baptism was nothing more than a public statement of faith and not necessary for salvation as if Scripture says “Repent… and if you want to… get baptized, but it is not really necessary. Just love God really and you will be fine, baptism is good, but you do not need to do it to be saved”

I really did not want to give up Sola Scriptura. It was too comfortable of a security blanket for me. As long as I believed only what The Bible said, I was okay. Yet, I had no way to be sure that what I thought The Bible said was correct.

 

[Peter_J]

so you would agree that Genesis, Isaiah, Romans were actually Scripture from the moment they were penned and not when they were officially canonized.

And I agree as well.

In much the same way, a statement from the Pope could be infallible (immediately at the time it is written) but take centuries to be *deemed *ex cathedra (and hence infallible).

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response and your kind words.

Topper,

You make some excellent points. It is difficult for me as to keep abreast and knowledgeable of all the teachings of all the denominations and “high and low” and “liberal and conservative” wings of them. I know sometimes people object to the word Protestant but I would rather use that term than to misrepresent the type of Lutheran, Anglican, Prestybterian etc someone professes their faith within.

Just some random thoughts.

Blessings to the posters,

Mary.

I agree. In find it almost impossible to keep up with which ecclesiastical body is in or out of communion with the others. This is NOT what Christ intended. It is also impossible to keep track of the way that these various denominations continue to ‘evolve’ in their doctrinal and moral beliefs.

Less than 100 years ago, ALL Protestants, at least the ‘mainline’ groups, taught that artificial birth control was a sin. Now I don’t think any of them do.

Were they all wrong on this important point of morals and doctrine THEN or are they NOW?

Either way, clearly there is no assurance that they are correct now, and this is exactly the fault of Sola Scriptura.

As for the term “Protestant”, like everything else, there are multiple definitions.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[JustaServant]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response and your kind words.

I agree. In find it almost impossible to keep up with which ecclesiastical body is in or out of communion with the others. This is NOT what Christ intended. It is also impossible to keep track of the way that these various denominations continue to ‘evolve’ in their doctrinal and moral beliefs.

Less than 100 years ago, ALL Protestants, at least the ‘mainline’ groups, taught that artificial birth control was a sin. Now I don’t think any of them do.

Were they all wrong on this important point of morals and doctrine THEN or are they NOW?

Either way, clearly there is no assurance that they are correct now, and this is exactly the fault of Sola Scriptura.

As for the term “Protestant”, like everything else, there are multiple definitions.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

How can you blame ‘Sola Scriptura’ for the change in the view of birth control? Which Protestant group uses SS to advance that cause? What Scripture verses do they use? In my time on that side of the Tiber I NEVER saw that.
If your idea is that Protestantism leads logically to theological liberalism and eventually to unbelief, that road is strewn with obstacles. I made that point myself in the past and found it to be rather weak and over-generalized. Our rebellion against God through Original Sin leads up to unbelief, not SS. Sola Scriptura may be a weak fence, but it is still a fence.
We can hardly blame a fence, even a rickety one, for our jumping over it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Its funny you mention this return to “The Early Church” that some protestants speak of. That was me I wanted to be in the church that most closely resembled and taught like the early Church. I was attending a Bible study where the protestant minister said that the early church got together in peoples homes. Aka, house churches. While that may be true and he was trying to be true to doing things the way the early church did, they would not have been studying The Bible, as it did not exist as it does today yet and we would have been celebrating The Eucharist and I would have not been able to participate in The Eucharist anyways because I was unbaptized at the time believing that Baptism was nothing more than a public statement of faith and not necessary for salvation as if Scripture says “Repent… and if you want to… get baptized, but it is not really necessary. Just love God really and you will be fine, baptism is good, but you do not need to do it to be saved”

I really did not want to give up Sola Scriptura. It was too comfortable of a security blanket for me. As long as I believed only what The Bible said, I was okay. Yet, I had no way to be sure that what I thought The Bible said was correct.

That’s interesting and protestant ministers do talk about home fellowship as a reflection of early worship.

The one thing they always seem to leave out, though, is general confession of sins done in front of the entire congregation. Before we went to confessionals, you had to be humiliated in front of everybody by blurting out all your sins in front of them. I’d love to see a Baptist minister suggest THAT to his congregation

Felt the same way about sola scriptura. I think it’s a mindset because of one scripture.

1 Corinthians 4:6

If you are a Calvinist with the NASB your bible says this:

1 Corinthians 4:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become [a]arrogant in behalf of one against the other

Ah-hah! See those Catholics are doing it again. If they would just read the bible they would know how wrong they are!

Except, the problem is that verse is translated like 8 different ways. Here are just a few:

1 Corinthians 4:6King James Version (KJV)

6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

1 Corinthians 4:6New Living Translation (NLT)

6 Dear brothers and sisters,[a] I have used Apollos and myself to illustrate what I’ve been saying. If you pay attention to what I have quoted from the Scriptures, you won’t be proud of one of your leaders at the expense of another.

1 Corinthians 4:6Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

6 Now in what I have said here, brothers, I have used myself and Apollos as examples to teach you not to go beyond what the Tanakh says, proudly taking the side of one leader against another.

See how different that is? Don’t think of men above that which is written. If you pay attention to what I have quoted from the scriptures…Don’t go beyond what the TANAKH says…That’s the OLD TESTAMENT.

It makes ZERO sense for Paul to dismiss oral tradition when He is clearly in favor of it in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 and Romans 6:17 and that is what the early church was. Tradition coming before everything was written down and circulated.

But that is what I did as a protestant, overlook other verses in order to fit my own theology.

And BTW, that one verse translated so differently is just another example of why we need a magisterium. Without a magisterium, theological chaos will eventually unfold.

 

[JustaServant]

That’s interesting and protestant ministers do talk about home fellowship as a reflection of early worship.

The one thing they always seem to leave out, though, is general confession of sins done in front of the entire congregation. Before we went to confessionals, you had to be humiliated in front of everybody by blurting out all your sins in front of them. I’d love to see a Baptist minister suggest THAT to his congregation .

Um…actually I DID see that in Baptist church. It was a very heart-felt mid-week service that blessed everyone involved.
No need to be snarky about it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

How can you blame ‘Sola Scriptura’ for the change in the view of birth control? Which Protestant group uses SS to advance that cause? What Scripture verses do they use? In my time on that side of the Tiber I NEVER saw that.
If your idea is that Protestantism leads logically to theological liberalism and eventually to unbelief, that road is strewn with obstacles. I made that point myself in the past and found it to be rather weak and over-generalized. Our rebellion against God through Original Sin leads up to unbelief, not SS. Sola Scriptura may be a weak fence, but it is still a fence.
We can hardly blame a fence, even a rickety one, for our jumping over it.

Would you agree that the concept of sola scriptura can lead one to sort of create a little Jesus in their heads that conveniently agrees with everything they say?

I’m not saying Jesus does not communicate with protestants, but I think in some cases their will trumps the true will of God, and it’s their interpretation of the scriptures that are at the root of this mindset. If you really believe Jesus was giving apostolic authority to all believers, everywhere, then there really is no need for a church…especially not one that is going to tell them what to do.

 

[Wannano]

How can you blame ‘Sola Scriptura’ for the change in the view of birth control? Which Protestant group uses SS to advance that cause? What Scripture verses do they use? In my time on that side of the Tiber I NEVER saw that.
If your idea is that Protestantism leads logically to theological liberalism and eventually to unbelief, that road is strewn with obstacles. I made that point myself in the past and found it to be rather weak and over-generalized. Our rebellion against God through Original Sin leads up to unbelief, not SS. Sola Scriptura may be a weak fence, but it is still a fence.
We can hardly blame a fence, even a rickety one, for our jumping over it.

Thank you for this objective statement. It is refreshing to read a balanced viewpoint for a change.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Um…actually I DID see that in Baptist church. It was a very heart-felt mid-week service that blessed everyone involved.
No need to be snarky about it.

I’m not being snarky.

The protestants I have encountered seem to think I’m a lunatic for confessing my sins to another man.

 

[JustaServant]

Would you agree that the concept of sola scriptura can lead one to sort of create a little Jesus in their heads that conveniently agrees with everything they say?

I’m not saying Jesus does not communicate with protestants, but I think in some cases their will trumps the true will of God, and it’s their interpretation of the scriptures that are at the root of this mindset. If you really believe Jesus was giving apostolic authority to all believers, everywhere, then there really is no need for a church…especially not one that is going to tell them what to do.

My point is you cannot use Sola Scriptura as a ‘boogyman’ for every ill in the Christian world. As a Catholic I obviously do not subscribe to SS. But I think it intellectually dishonest to blame SS for every sin imaginable.
Sin was around long before the Bible.