Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[sandusky]

JRKH:

Did Jesus tell His disciples to “Take it to The Church” or to take it to scripture?

Here are the relevant parts of the passage; explain it, please.**Matthew 18:15-20

15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.

17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.**

 

[Des]

And you don’t think He did? Why? Was He too busy? Was He forgetful? He didn’t care? Why?

I don’t understand what you’re saying. It’s clear ‘Everything’ needed is not contained explicitly in the Bible enough to get a full grasp of God’s entire Word. Your constant splintering and bickering prove this. I have two non denom christians at work who bicker about whether divorce is right or wrong. It’s pretty sad really.

The requirements of God with respect to each of those points can be understood from Scripture.

Is that right? So basically ‘every’ non Catholic who has a different belief regarding Scriptures besides yourself, are wrong and only YOU are right? Only you and whoever believes the same as you about each and every one of those points are correct without a single doubt in your mind? And you have the assurance of this by what source. Let me guess, the Holy Spirit is leading you on the righteous path of truth but all the others are maliciously rejecting what the Spirit is trying to teach. Or are they too slow minded to get a full grasp of the written Word of God?

That’s what you’re doing—knocking off one, SS, in favor of another, Scripture plus Tradition.

We do not knock off Scripture at all. We believe it is the inerrant Word of God. Now the man made doctrine of ss we do knock off. You see the Bible does teach of Tradition with a big ‘T’ yet you take it out. The Bible teaches us about studying Scriptures yet we keep that in. So your logic is inconsistant with mine.

Also, it seems to me that you, as McGluke does, infer that what was taught Orally, differs from what was written down in Scripture. Is that what you believe?

Show me where have I stated this?

My answer: Oral Teachings of which the Church has kept and taught does not differ from Scripture.

And you’re not willing to do that, you’re not willing to do the work.

I glanced through it and all I see is the same ol’ same ol’.

Nothing new as usual just a bunch of supposed infallible filling by some fallible individual who takes a few verses of which I’ve forever seen being used to prove sola scripture by squeezing them in their doctrines. I won’t waste my time when YOU should be able to explain very easily without linking us to pages and pages of rhetoric a concept that ‘must’ be believed by ‘All’ the Christians. A concept that if it truly was the way of God, he’d surely wouldn’t make it so difficult to Grasp. A concept so important that you cannot show one verse where Jesus specifically gave the command to all of His Apostles to write ‘EVERYTHING’ for the future generations.

2 Corinthians 3:5

**Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 2 Corinthians 9:8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; 2 Corinthians 9:10Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness;**Here’s your chance to shine, DES; please give your interpretation of the verses…

Are you first saying these verses define and teach the truth of ss?

If so do you believe that the Old Testament or ‘ANY’ of the letters or Epistles in the early post Christian era before ‘ALL’ the letters have been written were sufficient without the use of the others as well?

How about one verse of the Word of God? Would that make you sufficient?

I need clarification of what you mean here.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Did Jesus tell His disciples to “Take it to The Church” or to take it to scripture?

Well I’m not sure what you want me to explain.
The Passage clearly says that it is the Church which is the final arbiter in disputes. “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”.
What Church is Jesus refering to?
This can only be the Church that He himself founded upon the Rock (Kephas)(Petros) of Simon who is Called Peter:

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

So Christ built His Church, upon Peter along with the other Apostles and their successors. This Church, with only OT Scripture written at that time, was to “Go and make disciples of the whole world”.

So we have Christ Giving authority to His Church, members of whom began writing things down. Later, it became necessary for the peace and well being of the faithful to discern which of the many writings were to be considered core and inerrant. This “Canonization” was accomplished by the Church, acting in Council and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, at the end of the 4th Century.
The Result of these councils and subsequent councils that re-affirmed the Canon is the set of OT and NT books found in every Catholic Christian Bible from that time to This.

For the first 1500 years, The Christian Church, whether East or West, NEVER - EVER taught, that the Bible was sufficient unto itself outside of the framework of the Tradition of The Church.

Sandusky, You made mention earlier that you felt if certain things were so important the Holy Spirit would have made sure they were written down clearly. Yet here we have, Christ’s own Apostolic Church, (East and West) NOT teaching Scripture Alone, but Rather teaching the need for Scriptures to be understood within the framework and traditions of the Church.
How much more clear does the Will of God need to be?
He founded a Church and to this Church He entrusted certain writings. Writings that can only be truly and correctly understood within the Church which Christ Founded.
If we have disputes - we are to “Take it to the Church”.

One last note: I realize that the quotation says “if your brother sin…” Certainly the teaching of false doctrine would come under the heading of “Sinning” against ones brother.

Peace
James

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I’ve offered you a great deal of reading material so that you may familiarize yourself with teachings concerning SS, and so that you may formulate questions and arguments based upon those writings, but you’re unwilling to do the work; thus the old axiom proves true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

**I don’t need to formulate questions or arguments based on these writings. There is only one question that needs to be answered:

Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?

I want you to tell me where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.

Very simple.

Where

is

sola

scriptura

taught

in

the

Bible?**

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I’ve offered you a great deal of reading material so that you may familiarize yourself with teachings concerning SS, and so that you may formulate questions and arguments based upon those writings, but you’re unwilling to do the work; thus the old axiom proves true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

I think in terms of the writings you link to, the old axiom should be, you can lead a horse to horse manure, but you can’t make him eat it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I’ve offered you a great deal of reading material so that you may familiarize yourself with teachings concerning SS, and so that you may formulate questions and arguments based upon those writings, but you’re unwilling to do the work; thus the old axiom proves true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

We can get essays on very subject ever mentioned or thought up by man. The fact remains you can’t give one specific reference, in context of the whole chapter, that refers to SS in the Holy Bible. If you could you would have done so by now.

 

[sandusky]

KathleneElise:

We can get essays on very subject ever mentioned or thought up by man. The fact remains you can’t give one specific reference, in context of the whole chapter, that refers to SS in the Holy Bible. If you could you would have done so by now.

But I’ve not linked to essays on every subject but only to SS for Mea Culpa in order that he may familiarize himself with it and one day discuss it intelligently.

As for your speaking to what I could have done by now, that’s an assumption; I’m well past the age of being goaded into something simply to prove you wrong.

If you and Mea Culpa (or anyone else for that matter), don’t want to read the links I’ve provided, then don’t read them; that’s fine with me.

 

[sandusky]

DES:

I don’t understand what you’re saying. It’s clear ‘Everything’ needed is not contained explicitly in the Bible enough to get a full grasp of God’s entire Word. Your constant splintering and bickering prove this. I have two non denom christians at work who bicker about whether divorce is right or wrong. It’s pretty sad really.

And I have sedvacantist, and non-sedvacantist Catholics friends who bicker over who was the last valid pope?

So what’s your point?

DES:

Is that right? So basically ‘every’ non Catholic who has a different belief regarding Scriptures besides yourself, are wrong and only YOU are right? Only you and whoever believes the same as you about each and every one of those points are correct without a single doubt in your mind? And you have the assurance of this by what source. Let me guess, the Holy Spirit is leading you on the righteous path of truth but all the others are maliciously rejecting what the Spirit is trying to teach. Or are they too slow minded to get a full grasp of the written Word of God?

I ask you the very same question with respect to you as a Catholic.

And, what’s your point?

DES:

We do not knock off Scripture at all. We believe it is the inerrant Word of God. Now the man made doctrine of ss we do knock off. You see the Bible does teach of Tradition with a big ‘T’ yet you take it out. The Bible teaches us about studying Scriptures yet we keep that in. So your logic is inconsistant with mine.

If you think about what you’re saying for a while, perhaps you’ll see that’s it not about logic, but a double standard.

DES:

Show me where have I stated this?

I didn’t say that, but that you seemed to being inferring that.

DES:

My answer: Oral Teachings of which the Church has kept and taught does not differ from Scripture.

“Sigh…”

 

[sandusky]

JRKH:

Well I’m not sure what you want me to explain.

The Passage clearly says that it is the Church which is the final arbiter in disputes.

That’s your interpretation, thanks.

JRKH:

So Christ built His Church, upon Peter along with the other Apostles and their successors. This Church, with only OT Scripture written at that time, was to “Go and make disciples of the whole world”.

So we have Christ Giving authority to His Church, members of whom began writing things down. Later, it became necessary for the peace and well being of the faithful to discern which of the many writings were to be considered core and inerrant. This “Canonization” was accomplished by the Church, acting in Council and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, at the end of the 4th Century.
The Result of these councils and subsequent councils that re-affirmed the Canon is the set of OT and NT books found in every Catholic Christian Bible from that time to This.

For the first 1500 years, The Christian Church, whether East or West, NEVER - EVER taught, that the Bible was sufficient unto itself outside of the framework of the Tradition of The Church.

Sandusky, You made mention earlier that you felt if certain things were so important the Holy Spirit would have made sure they were written down clearly. Yet here we have, Christ’s own Apostolic Church, (East and West) NOT teaching Scripture Alone, but Rather teaching the need for Scriptures to be understood within the framework and traditions of the Church.
How much more clear does the Will of God need to be?
He founded a Church and to this Church He entrusted certain writings. Writings that can only be truly and correctly understood within the Church which Christ Founded.
If we have disputes - we are to “Take it to the Church”.

One last note: I realize that the quotation says “if your brother sin…” Certainly the teaching of false doctrine would come under the heading of “Sinning” against ones brother.

Thanks for your explanation.

One last question: does your last statement, which I’ve put in blue, apply only to non-Catholics?

 

[JRKH]

That’s your interpretation, thanks.

If it were, “My Interpretation” then it would certainly be equal to yours, wouldn’t it?
However. I think I can safely say that The Church would back up my understanding of the pasage which certainly adds weight over and above, any “personal interpretation”.

Thanks for your explanation.
Your welcome.

One last question: does your last statement, which I’ve put in blue, apply only to non-Catholics?

Hmmmm - A more suspicious person might think you’re trying to bait them.
Actually, when I first typed the sentence, I did use the word non-catholic but then thought better of it. False teaching is false teaching no matter the source.
The Church is aware of this danger and keeps a reign on it by the liberal use of the magisteriums offices on teaching and doctrine to review new ideas being discussed and/or written about. These offices then can check the teachings against both Sacred Scripture and Tradition - That being the full deposit of faith, understanding and teaching given to us by the Holy Spirit over the last 2 millenia.
This provides the Church with a way to both allow for exploring new and differing ideas in the changing world, and also check those new ideas against what has already been revealed.
Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[Mea_Culpa]

**Wow, still no scriptural support for sola scriptura?

Show us where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.

All your cute rhetoric is meaningless unless you can show where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.

How do you personally reconcile the fact that you think everything necessary is in the Bible, but sola scriptura isn’t in the Bible?**

 

[Des]

And I have sedvacantist, and non-sedvacantist Catholics friends who bicker over who was the last valid pope?

You’re missing what I’m saying here.

Protestant (Bible + Private Interpretation) = Splintering

Catholic ( Bible + Sacred Tradition + Magistrium of the Church) = Non Splintering.

Your example of the two Catholics (Bible + Sacred Tradition - Magistrium) = Disunity

Your example is stating two Catholics who at least one thinks this Pope is not valid hence he’s a heretic. So he/she is not following the Church and is no longer within the formula of unity. They are not doing what they know they are supposed to be doing. They somewhere along the line lost faith that ‘Hell Shall Never’ prevail over God’s Church.

With sola scriptura folks, they actually really really believe they are follow what the Word of God is saying but they still splinter.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

So we have Christ Giving authority to His Church, members of whom began writing things down. Later, it became necessary for the peace and well being of the faithful to discern which of the many writings were to be considered core and inerrant. This “Canonization” was accomplished by the Church, acting in Council and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, at the end of the 4th Century.
The Result of these councils and subsequent councils that re-affirmed the Canon is the set of OT and NT books found in every Catholic Christian Bible from that time to This.

**This is exactly right. Sola scriptura is such a false doctrine that there are many ways to expose it. If the Bible interpreted itself, where does it list what books should be in the Bible? It doesn’t! It was up to the various Councils of the Catholic Church to determine the canon of inspired books that make up the Bible. What gave them the authority to do this? Not the Bible.

The protestants came along and took some books they didn’t agree with out of the Bible. Where in Holy Scripture did it tell them to do that? How does that square with sola scriptura? Changing the canon of scripture to suit your own desires - how can the Bible be the final rule of faith and morals if you can change the Bible to suit your own doctrines?

Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guard the Church against false teachings like sola scriptura. We have the fullness of the Truth expressed in Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. We welcome all our separated brethren to accept this fullness and come home to the Catholic Church.**

 

[sandusky]

You’re missing what I’m saying here.

Protestant (Bible + Private Interpretation) = Splintering

Catholic ( Bible + Sacred Tradition + Magistrium of the Church) = Non Splintering.

Your example of the two Catholics (Bible + Sacred Tradition - Magistrium) = Disunity

Your example is stating two Catholics who at least one thinks this Pope is not valid hence he’s a heretic. So he/she is not following the Church and is no longer within the formula of unity. They are not doing what they know they are supposed to be doing. They somewhere along the line lost faith that ‘Hell Shall Never’ prevail over God’s Church.

With sola scriptura folks, they actually really really believe they are follow what the Word of God is saying but they still splinter.

I see. The only two possibilities imaginable are “protestants splintering,” and “Catholics not being in union.” (Sigh).

 

[TriLogic]

I have debated this topic with many people who claim to believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Most of them often referred to or admitted to owning a Concordance to help them understand what scripture means. Owning a Concordance is Scripture plus a Concordance not scripture alone.

Additionally some of them were trained in biblical studies by teachers. This is Scripture plus the Intellectual Tradition (read that as bias) of whatever teacher or teachers the individual has studied under.

If people truly believed Sola Scriptura they would simply hand you the bible and walk away - leaving you and the Holy Spirit alone to come to a perfect understanding. No one does this however - they invariably attempt to press upon you their interpretation or the interpretation or their individual church assuming that it is not only correct but authoritative.

If Sola Scritura were valid then no one would bother teaching the bible to others as that would constitute the bible + someone else as authoritative interpreter and instructor and as we all know, this is in fact the position held by the Catholic Church.

 

[sandusky]

I have debated this topic with many people who claim to believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Most of them often referred to or admitted to owning a Concordance to help them understand what scripture means. Owning a Concordance is Scripture plus a Concordance not scripture alone.

Additionally some of them were trained in biblical studies by teachers. This is Scripture plus the Intellectual Tradition (read that as bias) of whatever teacher or teachers the individual has studied under.

If people truly believed Sola Scriptura they would simply hand you the bible and walk away - leaving you and the Holy Spirit alone to come to a perfect understanding. No one does this however - they invariably attempt to press upon you their interpretation or the interpretation or their individual church assuming that it is not only correct but authoritative.

If Sola Scritura were valid then no one would bother teaching the bible to others as that would constitute the bible + someone else as authoritative interpreter and instructor and as we all know, this is in fact the position held by the Catholic Church.

I see.

That’s your opinion, and your definition of what I should believe concerning SS.

Who knows better what I believe concerning SS? You, or me?

Shall I define for you, what you as a Catholic should believe concerning your doctrines?

I’ve given a link in which you will find a number of papers in which SS is defined by those who adhere to it.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I see.

That’s your opinion, and your definition of what I should believe concerning SS.

Who knows better what I believe concerning SS? You, or me?

Shall I define for you, what you as a Catholic should believe concerning your doctrines?

I’ve given a link in which you will find a number of papers in which SS is defined by those who adhere to it.

**You’ve given a link, but NO SCRIPTURAL PROOF OF SOLA SCRIPTURA.

SOLA SCRIPTURA IS UNSCRIPTURAL.

IT ISN’T TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE.

WHY FOLLOW A FALSE DOCTRINE?**

**Sola scriptura believes everything we need to know is in the Bible.
Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible.
Therefore, sola scriptura is not something we need to know. **

 

[yuslee]

Actually they practice Selective Scriptura!

Yes, I have to say Charismatic Protestants tend to abandon the traditions and would love to build up their own style of worshiping the God:shrug:

 

[yuslee]

Yes, I have to say Charismatic Protestants tend to abandon the traditions and would love to build up their own style of worshiping the God:shrug:

What I wanna say is, Charismatic Protestants love to claim “Sola Scriptura”, but they are also good at picking up a certain phrase from the Bible and build up their own style of worshiping the God. It is likely that the real meaning of the whole paragraph might be twisted.

 

[des_scahill]

Speaking as a Free Methodist minister, I can say that as far as the Wesleyan churches are concerned we do and do not hold to Sola Scriptura.

First, when I was ordained I vowed not to teach anything as essential to Salvation that could not be proven from the Scriptures. There is a great deal of theology that is not absolutely essential to Salvation. So one could say that we do believe in a form of Sola Scriptura.

Other the other hand, we believe in tradition, reason and experience. Along with the Scriptures, these form what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The best way to understand our position is to envision a baseball diamond shape.

At the top (2nd base) is Holy Scripture. Everything we teach and believe must be consistent with Scripture (even if it is not expressly taught in Scripture).

At 3rd base, is Tradition - the collective wisdom and teaching of the Christian Church. We differ from our Catholic brethren, in that we believe tradition must be tested by Scripture.

At 1st base, level with Tradition, is Reason. Reason must also be tested by Scripture.

Finally, at the bottom, is Experience. We test Experience by Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

So, in matters not essential to Salvation, Wesleyans believe in Scripture as the highest authority - but not the only authority. You might call it “Prima Scriptura”.

The one big disadvantage to this position is that it puts us squarely in the middle where we can be shot at by both sides

Thanks for that PastorVW,

It seems to me as a fellow ‘Protestant, you’ve made a good summary of how most ‘mature’ protestants’ would explain the basis for their beliefs. ( and I define ‘mature’ in this sense as a person with some years of christian experience, a personal relationship with their Lord Jesus Christ, and a sound knowledge of the important doctrines contained in whatever bible version they tend to prefer.)

So as a ‘Baptist’ of the Australian variety, who also happens to have some good friends and acquaintances in the Wesleyan church, I am quite sure I would feel perfectly at home in your particular ‘communion’., as I am sure would you in mine, if you ever visited Australia.
( for those who are unaware of what Weslyans believe, you can find a good summary at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Church

And that I think is a distinctive of Protestantism that some ‘Catholics’ seem to find hard to understand. That a ‘Baptist’ in one country can be in ‘union’ with a “Wesleyan” in another. But that is a little off topic, so I’ll get back ‘on-topic’

From reading some of the Catholic comments in this forum, I’m having a little trouble understanding the** significance** of the point they are trying to make.

Does the tact that both PastorJW and myself attach more importance to a significant sub-set of what Catholics themselves define as ‘scripture’, and a lesser importance to ‘tradition’ from whatever source, ‘disqualify’ us in some way from being considered to be disciples of Christ by Catholics?

I’d be the first to agree that forming your own ideas about what Scripture means can sometimes be a dangerous practice. But so too is always believing without question everything that others tell you.

In fact, what Catholics see as demonstrating ‘confusion’ amongst protestants is in many cases nothing more than an expression of different emphasis on minor issues. to illustrate. I’m a Baptist, so when I was baptized it was by full immersion. So what?

The most significant aspect of that day to me was not the ‘act’ of baptism or the amount of water used, it was the fact that I had to stand up in front of 200 or so people and publicly declare my willingness to be a disciple of Christ.

But leaving that aside, my Baptist denomination doesn’t itself have 2000 or so years of baptist church theological writings to buttress up their reasoning underlying their choice of sides in the ‘full immersion versus sprinkle’ debate. So does that choice, which is mine also because I agreed with it, somehow make me forever 'sub-christian; in the eyes of Catholics because it doesn’t have that lengthy period of tradition behind it?,

( I’m not arguing the full immersion debate here, just asking the question: does the fact that I chose that particular mode of baptism somehow render me ‘inferior’ in Catholic eyes because the Catholic traditions and modern practice don’t support the mode that I followed and I can’t support mine an equal length of tradition?).

Is this view that Catholics have?