Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Pixie_Dust]

Keep in mind that Catholics also suffer from the same thing as Protestants do in this regards. Ask 10 Catholics what a particular verse means and you will have different answers. Same goes for Catholic scholarship. Secondly the Catholic church has only offically interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures which means you can’t always agree what the Scriptures do teach on a number of passages.

Yes, there is a bit of wriggle room for understanding a lot of Scripture, Which just proves false the assertion that Catholics are just robots who don’t have to study the Scriptures for themselves. However, one cannot believe, for example, that the Eucharist is merely a symbolic remembrance, or that using artificial birth control is acceptable, and still honestly claim to be Catholic.

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

This beautiful prayer will inspire all Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God, whether Catholic or Protestant.

PRAYER OF ST EPHRAIM, SYRIAC FATHER, AD 306-373

Lord, who can grasp all the wealth of just one of your words? What we understand is much less than we leave behind. Like thirsty people who drink from a fountain. For your word Lord has many shades of meaning, just as those who study it have many different points of view. The Lord has coloured His word with many hues so that each person who studies it can see in it what he loves. He has hidden many treasures in His Word so that each of us is enriched as we meditate on it. The Word of God is the tree of life that from all its parts offers you food that is blessed. It is like that rock, open in the desert, that from all its parts gave forth a spiritual drink. He who comes into contact with some share of it’s treasures should not think that the only thing contained in the Word is what he himself has found. He should realise that he has only been able to find that one thing from among many others nor because only that one part that has become his, should he say that the Word is empty and void and look down on it but because he could not exhaust it, he should give thanks for its riches. Be glad that you are overcome and do not be sad that it overcame you. The thirsty man rejoices when he drinks and he is not downcast because he cannot empty the fountain; rather let the fountain quench your thirst than have your thirst quench the fountain because if your thirst is quenched and the fountain is not exhausted, you can drink from it again whenever you are thirsty. But if when your thirst is quenched and the fountain also is dried up, your victory will bode evil for you. So be grateful for what you have received and do not grumble about the abundance left behind. What you have received and what you have reached is your share; what remains is your heritage. What at one time you were unable to receive, because of your weakness, you will be able to receive at other times if you persevere. Do not have the presumption to try to take in one draft what cannot be taken in one draft and do not abandon out of laziness, what you may only consume little by little.

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

St Ephraim also wrote in one of his homilies:

Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false,you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My discples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of My treasures. I have given you the keys of My kingdom. Behold, I have give you authority over all My treasures!

A VERY EXPLICIT INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE!

 

[des_scahill]

Yes, there is a bit of wriggle room for understanding a lot of Scripture, Which just proves false the assertion that Catholics are just robots who don’t have to study the Scriptures for themselves. However, one cannot believe, for example, that the Eucharist is merely a symbolic remembrance, or that using artificial birth control is acceptable, and still honestly claim to be Catholic.

But can he still claim to be ‘christian’ in that specific case?

Having a ‘bad’ theological view on a particular ‘issue’ is likely something that applies to everyone except Jesus himself.

And yes, I know that even deciding whats just an ‘issue’ and whats at the very core of being a ‘christian’ can be difficult in the first place.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, there is a bit of wriggle room for understanding a lot of Scripture, Which just proves false the assertion that Catholics are just robots who don’t have to study the Scriptures for themselves. However, one cannot believe, for example, that the Eucharist is merely a symbolic remembrance, or that using artificial birth control is acceptable, and still honestly claim to be Catholic.

Are you sure you want to go in this direction?.. Just look at the politians who claim to be “ardent catholics” and support things that are in direct contradiction to catholic teachings. I have yet to see one excommunicated for such stands. Maybe i missed it though.

 

[justasking4]

But here again you are looking at the Church as a subset of Scripture.
This is an incorrect view.
The Church teaches from the position of Christ’s own authority as recorded in the NT Scriptures AND passed down through Sacred Tradition in unbroken successions of Priests, Bishops, and Popes.
The Church doesn’t suffer from the need to completely define everything in the Bible since She precedes the Bible (as the canon we have today) and was given authority By Christ Himself.
Certainly we can read Scripture and study upon the meanings. However, in living our lives and developing our understandings of Scripture, we can take the bigger picture of what things mean in context. Plus we don’t have to be afraid of certain passages or ignore other ones or pick verses from here and there to assemble a theology.
The Bible, in particular the NT, developed in support of the Catholic Church. Not the other way around.

Peace
James

Are you claiming the NT Scriptures has its source of authority in the church itself?

 

[larry_m]

To my brother James. I hope I am misunderstanding you when you state that the all of Scripture was made or given in support of the Catholic Church. The Holy Oracles were given to the Hebrews to share with the world. If they would have kept up their end of believing the promises of YHWH, the nations, (Gentiles), would have recieved the gospel & been grafted in & become Messianic Jews, not Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc… This is not directed at you James but if this is the teaching of the Catholic Church it smacks of extreme arrogance. I would say that to any church, including mine , if that was their belief. How can it be honestly said that the Catholic Church precedes the Scriptures? This is why I have a problem with any church who says their theology supercedes the Scriptures. I see it in so many churches. Anyone can say they recieved inspiration from Christ or the Holy Spirit. The Scripture tells me to try the spirits & also there are false christs who will come in & try to decieve the very elect. This is why I stick with Scripture only. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your statement. Your brother in our Savior.

 

[JRKH]

Are you claiming the NT Scriptures has its source of authority in the church itself?

In the sense that we know which books are to be considered “God Breathed” and thus collected together in the Christian Bible, Yes I am saying that they have their authority within the Church itself.
In the Post just previous to the one you reference, I explain quite clearly that the 73 books of the Bible were deteremined by Council of the Church at the end of the 4th century and affirmed at several councils prior to the council of Trent where the canon was officially closed.

Christ founded The Church, and Gave it Authority to Bind Loose and Teach.
That Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Assembled and Canonized the 73 books of the Bible, as a core document in The Church. It was also The Church which copied, distributed, defended and taught the Bible for 1000 years before the protestant reformation. It was one man, an errant and Heretical Priest, who claimed the Bible was seperate from the Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

To my brother James. I hope I am misunderstanding you when you state that the all of Scripture was made or given in support of the Catholic Church.

Why should this seem strange to you? All of Scripture is given for our benefit. When Jesus came as fullfillment of the OT Scriptures and established His Church, (Catholic = Universal) would not All OT Scripture point to Him and also the Church He established?

The Holy Oracles were given to the Hebrews to share with the world. If they would have kept up their end of believing the promises of YHWH, the nations, (Gentiles), would have recieved the gospel & been grafted in & become Messianic Jews, not Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc…

this may well be true, but unfortunately History did not unfold this way.

This is not directed at you James but if this is the teaching of the Catholic Church it smacks of extreme arrogance. I would say that to any church, including mine , if that was their belief. How can it be honestly said that the Catholic Church precedes the Scriptures?

First of all I am not speaking for the Church, but only from my understanding of the teachings. If I am in error, I am sure my catholic bretheren will enlighten me as they have corrected me in the past.

As to the question of “predating scripture”. We constantly get tied up in this. Sacred Scriptures have developed over many centuries, but We are talking about the Bible here. That Volume of 73 (or 66) Books determined and accepted (by and large) by every Christian Denomination in the world. The Catholic Church does indeed predate this volume by 4 centuries.

This is why I have a problem with any church who says their theology supercedes the Scriptures. I see it in so many churches. Anyone can say they recieved inspiration from Christ or the Holy Spirit. The Scripture tells me to try the spirits & also there are false christs who will come in & try to decieve the very elect. This is why I stick with Scripture only. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your statement. Your brother in our Savior.

It is fine that you understand that “Scripture” tells us to “try the spirits”.
And Christ tells us How. He tells us to “Take it to the Church”.
What Church is this He is talking about?
Is it some ethereal - mystical body of believers as some protestants want us to believe?
How can anyone “Take a problem” to this?
No - Christ is talking about a full fledged institutional Church with authority to Bind and Loose.
A Church which He founded at pentacost and has been preaching the Gospel continuously from that day to this.

Peace
James

 

[larry_m]

Thankyou James for your prompt reply. You state that the Catholic Church pre-dates the books of the bible, Genesis- Revelation? Am I correct in that understanding of your statement? If so, how do you come to that astounding conclusion? If not, no need to clarify. Thankyou for your honesty. Please show me where our Savior says to take answers that we need for salvation to yours or my or any other church. It is written,“Search the Scriptures for in THEM you will find eternal life, for these are they that speak of me”. Once again here is the difference of how we come to seperate the doctrines & commandments of men & the Almighty. Of course that is just my understanding. I know with that statement I will hear, as I have in this thread from my Catholic friends, that the Church has the last word, not Scripture. Please correct me if I am wrong in this conclusion. Your brother in our Savior.

 

[mtr01]

In the sense that we know which books are to be considered “God Breathed” and thus collected together in the Christian Bible, Yes I am saying that they have their authority within the Church itself.

Peace
James

Exactly. What it really comes down to is how can anyone be sure that the New Testament really is the inspired word of God? If I am not mistaken, the New Testament doesn’t even claim this for itself. In the end, it is by the authority of the Catholic Church - the authority to go it by Christ Himself - that allows one to know that the New Testament truly is the word of God.

 

[guanophore]

Are you claiming the NT Scriptures has its source of authority in the church itself?

Yes, by the grace of God. No one would have known which books belonged in the NT without the authority of the Church. Jesus transferred this when “he breathed upon them” and said “as the Father has sent me (with all authority) go therefore…”

 

[des_scahill]

What Church is this He is talking about?
Is it some ethereal - mystical body of believers as some protestants want us to believe?

Peace
James

Whats wrong with that?

I find the concept of the indwelling Holy Spirit pretty “mystical”

Seeing I define the ‘church’ as consisting of fellow believers who all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, I don’t have a problem in using them to say “check out” my interpretation of what I might find to be an awkwardly worded passage (along with other things of course like comparing different translations and commentators - I don’t want to waste their time).

If its really really big-time major issue, then Baptists have a process which can eventually ensure it gets brought before the entire membership (in my case about 1700 people) and there would have to be completely unanimous agreement that ‘this’ interpretation’ versus the ‘existing’ interpretation was the more correct.

Seeing that collectively my congregation would “know” Baptists in different congregations in different parts of the country and overseas, retired ex-pastors, lecturers at various Baptist and non-baptist theological colleges etc etc there’d be a pretty large summation of a lot of collective baptist church wisdom represented at such a meeting.

So I don’t really see anyone convincing my congregation that “There is no such thing as a Trinity, its really a Duality” happening this side of eternity.

But anything is possible of course. In which case I’d stick to my purely private interpretation, and think what a pity I’d never qualify as a catechument ( although at a pinch you might be able to squeeze me in as some kind of perpetual audientes

Blessings

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Thankyou James for your prompt reply. You state that the Catholic Church pre-dates the books of the bible, Genesis- Revelation?

There was no Bible until the Catholic Church declared which books belonged in the canon.

Am I correct in that understanding of your statement? If so, how do you come to that astounding conclusion? If not, no need to clarify. Thankyou for your honesty. Please show me where our Savior says to take answers that we need for salvation to yours or my or any other church. It is written,“Search the Scriptures for in THEM you will find eternal life, for these are they that speak of me”. Once again here is the difference of how we come to seperate the doctrines & commandments of men & the Almighty. Of course that is just my understanding. I know with that statement I will hear, as I have in this thread from my Catholic friends, that the Church has the last word, not Scripture. Please correct me if I am wrong in this conclusion. Your brother in our Savior.

The actual quotation from John 5:39,40 is

You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Jesus is here speaking to the Pharisees and the scribes, the Jewish scholars of his day. They search the Scriptures, because in them THEY THINK they will find eternal life - BUT - they refuse to “come to me” that they may actually have life.

In other words - it is not in “searching the Scriptures” that the Jews will find eternal life, but in following Jesus.

Jesus founded a Church, the Catholic Church. Following Jesus means following the Church he established on earth. “Searching the Scriptures” is an exercise in futility if it is not part of following Jesus.

The problem with “sola scriptura” is that people take quotations out of context from the Bible (sometimes even changing the quotation as you have) - and then use it to justify whatever doctrine they want to.

It is only in “coming to” Jesus - through the Church that He founded - that we can know eternal life.

 

[des_scahill]

There was no Bible until the Catholic Church declared which books belonged in the canon.

Jesus is here speaking to the Pharisees and the scribes, the Jewish scholars of his day. They search the Scriptures, because in them THEY THINK they will find eternal life - BUT - they refuse to “come to me” that they may actually have life.

In other words - it is not in “searching the Scriptures” that the Jews will find eternal life, but in following Jesus.

Jesus founded a Church, the Catholic Church. Following Jesus means following the Church he established on earth. “Searching the Scriptures” is an exercise in futility if it is not part of following Jesus.

It is only in “coming to” Jesus - through the Church that He founded - that we can know eternal life.

Hi meaCulpa

Perhaps I can use what you have written to isolate what I see
as the central difficulty Protestants and Catholics have with each other.

From the Catholic viewpoint - following Jesus means **following the church **he established.

From the Protestant perspective: following Jesus means “joining the church” he established.

Both sides completely agree on the central key doctrines (The Nicene Creed)( perhaps thats too much of an oversimplification).

Both also agree that there are different types of ‘authority’ the believer can rely on, with varying levels of confidence for each source. .

eg. personal conscience is a valid source, so is tradition, so is the indwelling holy spirit, so are sacred texts, so are our “leaders” so far as their leadership function is concerned. Or should ‘leaders’ be referred to as 'servants of the body"?

The “problems” we have with each other seem to largely arise out the differing “weight of importance” each camp attach’s to the various sources of ‘authority’.

 

[JRKH]

Thankyou James for your prompt reply. You state that the Catholic Church pre-dates the books of the bible, Genesis- Revelation? Am I correct in that understanding of your statement?

NO!!! I have NOT said that the Church predates the writing of ANY of the books contained within the Bible. I am saying that the Church predates The Bible as the collected and bound set of books that we have them today. In addition to this the Church does indeed preedate any of the written texts contained in the NT since none of them had been written yet on the Day of Pentacost.
Is that Clear Now?

If so, how do you come to that astounding conclusion?
If not, no need to clarify.

Clarification is above

Thankyou for your honesty. Please show me where our Savior says to take answers that we need for salvation to yours or my or any other church.

In partial answer to this I would ask you to review my post number 343 where I deal with this question.

It is written,“Search the Scriptures for in THEM you will find eternal life, for these are they that speak of me”. Once again here is the difference of how we come to seperate the doctrines & commandments of men & the Almighty. Of course that is just my understanding.

You state, “Of course that is just my understanding”, which is very true, for you can have no other since there is no other authority to aid you in your search. So how do you determine whether your “understanding” is of almighty or of men, in this case you?
I can show in The Bible where Christ put His authority into A (singlular) Church. Can you show me where He put His authority into “The Bible”?

I know with that statement I will hear, as I have in this thread from my Catholic friends, that the Church has the last word, not Scripture. Please correct me if I am wrong in this conclusion. Your brother in our Savior.

I do not wish to fight or belittle any of my non-catholic Brethren. We have here a difficult and basic Question of faith. We have discussed it persaonlly, We have discussed it among several of us and we cannot resolve it. There fore let us Obey Christ’s Command. Let us follow Christ’s Commandment to "Take it ti the Church. (Matthew 18:15-17)

Peace
James

 

[PerryJ]

TWO QUICK POINTS

 1. The books in the Protestant Old Testament are the same ones that you will find in any Jewish synagogue. Moreover, I believe St. Jerome did not believe that the apocryphal books should be included. (I could be wrong, but I believe I read that years ago.)

  2. I don't understand how Christians of any flavor can consider the Bible inerrant. When I was a teenager I came across the story of Saul, being commanded by God to slaughter all the Amalekites. I simply did not believe that the God of love would order such genocide - ethnic cleansing in today's verbiage. Then I noted that Jericho was told by God to murder every one in Jericho except Rahab, a collaborator. And other crimes "ordered by God' are plentiful. No, sorry, my God would never do that. Can you image Christ giving such a command, the Prince of Peace who blessed the peacemakers?

    When I have raised such questions with literalists, they are apt to tell me that my argument was with God not with them! Quite a dodge. Christians, Protestants and Catholics, need to get beyond the childish way of accepting such stories as true. 

     Those early myths - Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, Noah and the Ark - also are not to be taken literally. They are at best legends, or parables that carry certain lessons, but not history except - as in the case of Noah - possibly a smidgen of truth that was exaggerated.

     Keep smiling.

1 Your statements are correct; however, let me briefly bring you up to date on some points. The Jewish threw the DC books out after the death of Christ in response to Christianity. At that time they no longer had authority to define the Bible.

Jerome used a text in error. Prior to Jerome Church Father’s almost unamioulsy believe in the Catholic’s Bible. Jerome’s thought has been proved wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Luther used Jerome’s list as a last result because he was losing a debate concerning his new theology. The elimination of the DCs is historically proven to be an error.

2 I believe you are under a belief that death is always bad. Does not death lead one to heaven. This is a fundamental point that many Christians do not understand.

God does destroy evil in these wars. In all wars some innocent people die; however, if they live in faith with Christ they will go to heaven, which is the ultimate goal. Life in this world is not the goal. Heaven is the goal.

Adam and Eve is not a myth. From a theological perspective to believe Adam and Eve is a myth puts the concept of original sin to a very serious test.

Why would someone believe the Tower of Babel is a myth? Man challenges God everyday with knew technology. Look at embryonic stem cell research. Why would you not believe that man challenged God in our early existence?

God and Christ are just and with this man has a responsibility. Christ when he heals he does not state go do what you want. He heals and state sin no more. Christ gets angry with sin. Parts of the Bible have been retranslated to make Christ appear to be less strict in teaching. In the original Bible Christ is angered when a leper comes to him for healing. The reasons are less important here than the point that Christ is not a muppet. He is the Lord. He will forgive; yet, he does expect obediance. For countries that continue to break his laws they will be punished.

Back to the major point Protestant’s do not believe in Sola Scriptura. They believe in what their pastor or congregation tells them to believe. On these posts one sees so many Bible verses misread and taken out of context to support someone’s personal belief.

 

[PerryJ]

Whats wrong with that?

I find the concept of the indwelling Holy Spirit pretty “mystical”

Seeing I define the ‘church’ as consisting of fellow believers who all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, I don’t have a problem in using them to say “check out” my interpretation of what I might find to be an awkwardly worded passage (along with other things of course like comparing different translations and commentators - I don’t want to waste their time).

If its really really big-time major issue, then Baptists have a process which can eventually ensure it gets brought before the entire membership (in my case about 1700 people) and there would have to be completely unanimous agreement that ‘this’ interpretation’ versus the ‘existing’ interpretation was the more correct.

Seeing that collectively my congregation would “know” Baptists in different congregations in different parts of the country and overseas, retired ex-pastors, lecturers at various Baptist and non-baptist theological colleges etc etc there’d be a pretty large summation of a lot of collective baptist church wisdom represented at such a meeting.

So I don’t really see anyone convincing my congregation that “There is no such thing as a Trinity, its really a Duality” happening this side of eternity.

But anything is possible of course. In which case I’d stick to my purely private interpretation, and think what a pity I’d never qualify as a catechument ( although at a pinch you might be able to squeeze me in as some kind of perpetual audientes

Blessings

Do you truly believe that God is a democracy? Look at our country and all of the sins that are passed by legislatures. Almost every elected offical says they are Christian; yet, we pass laws that are morally depraved. Again do you truly believe your vote is not connected to culture and politics?

This is a perfect example of why Protestants do not truly believe in Sola Scriptura. If there was persipity of scripture would one have to vote on it. If you vote for a change this would mean that prior to the vote your theology was in error.

 

[JRKH]

Whats wrong with that?

I find the concept of the indwelling Holy Spirit pretty “mystical”

Seeing I define the ‘church’ as consisting of fellow believers who all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, I don’t have a problem in using them to say “check out” my interpretation of what I might find to be an awkwardly worded passage (along with other things of course like comparing different translations and commentators - I don’t want to waste their time).

If its really really big-time major issue, then Baptists have a process which can eventually ensure it gets brought before the entire membership (in my case about 1700 people) and there would have to be completely unanimous agreement that ‘this’ interpretation’ versus the ‘existing’ interpretation was the more correct.

Seeing that collectively my congregation would “know” Baptists in different congregations in different parts of the country and overseas, retired ex-pastors, lecturers at various Baptist and non-baptist theological colleges etc etc there’d be a pretty large summation of a lot of collective baptist church wisdom represented at such a meeting.

So I don’t really see anyone convincing my congregation that “There is no such thing as a Trinity, its really a Duality” happening this side of eternity.

But anything is possible of course. In which case I’d stick to my purely private interpretation, and think what a pity I’d never qualify as a catechument ( although at a pinch you might be able to squeeze me in as some kind of perpetual audientes

Blessings

Thank you for this explanation. Most informative.
I highlighted the one section in order to ask one question.
I note that you say the there needs to be “completely unanimous agreement” in order for teaching to change.
What happens when 80% feel the interpretation should not change and 20% say it should and Both sides feel strongly about it. What mechanism prevents a schism in the community?
Are the 20% expected to submit their will and beliefs to the majority?
What happens if the 20% decide to split from the majority over this issue?

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps I can use what you have written to isolate what I see
as the central difficulty Protestants and Catholics have with each other.

From the Catholic viewpoint - following Jesus means **following the church **he established.

From the Protestant perspective: following Jesus means “joining the church” he established.

I can see the point you are making but it is also true for Catholics that following Jesus means joining. We believe that we are born again in baptism, and made members of His Body, the Church.

We also don;t “behead” Christ from His Body. In following HIm who is the head, we are automatically in union with the other members of the His Body, the Church.

Both sides completely agree on the central key doctrines (The Nicene Creed)( perhaps thats too much of an oversimplification).

Both also agree that there are different types of ‘authority’ the believer can rely on, with varying levels of confidence for each source. .

Well…

eg. personal conscience is a valid source, so is tradition, so is the indwelling holy spirit, so are sacred texts, so are our "leaders" so far as their leadership function is concerned. Or should 'leaders' be referred to as 'servants of the body"?

Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority to govern the Body on earth. Yes, I think He was clear that they were to be servants to the Body.

The “problems” we have with each other seem to largely arise out the differing “weight of importance” each camp attach’s to the various sources of ‘authority’.

This is true. those who don’t have access tot the Apostolic Teaching must rely upon what limited resources are available.