Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[justasking4]

I can see that your manner is a lot gentler than mine. That is fine. I do not disagree with what you have said but I do feel like I must confront then when they preach things against the scritpures. Perhaps I choose harsh words because English is my second language and I have a fear that I am not getting through to them.

One thing I must say though is that if the word Christian means anything at all than there will be people who are Christians and those who are not. You can not just say “we are Christians” and automatically be entitled to that term. Remember, there are people who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God but claim to be Christians.

Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard. We should be a glass house, so that the light of the one true faith can shine out. I also think we have to throw rocks from time to time. We have to throw rocks at those who hide behind an iron currtain.

Believing in sola scriptura is separating people from Christ. The scriptures were never meant to be used that way. It truely saddens me that a holy object like the scriptures would be used for such an unholy purpose.

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[justasking4]

Kay Cee;4165065].
justasking4
No. It does not follow at all.
Kay Cee
Inspiration and inerrancy does not = exclusivity.

In terms of ultimate authority it would unless it can be demonstrated that there is another claim of inspiration and inerrancy besides the Scriptures.

justasking4
You do carrry the burden in demonstrating another “infallible-inspired-inerrant” rule since i have claimed there is no other. If you think there is, then what is it? If you say its the Catholic church then we can look at the Catholic church and see if it does meet the standard of being “infallible-inspired-inerrant”. If you say its the pope, then the same tests will need to be done.
Kay Cee
It is not out of line for me to ask you to prove your own statement. I carry no burden of proof whatsoever by asking you to do that.

You do if you are claiming something else is also inspired and inerrant. If none exist except the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the SOLE infalllilbe rule.

Quote:
:justasking4
Are you asking for proof that the Scriptures are infallible, inspired and inerrant?
Kay Cee
No. I thought I made that crystal clear. I’m asking for proof that the scriptures are the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith.

justasking4
It doesn’t nor is it necessary. We already know the nature of the Scriptures. Its divine nature is derived from God Himself. Since this is the case, this is what makes them the sole infallible-inspired-inerrant rule of faith. To defeat this idea that the Scriptures are not the “sole” infallible rule of faith we need to see another rule that qualifies. That has yet to be done.
Kay Cee
The fact that something is derived from God does not make it exclusive.

How could it not be?

And again, it should be a piece of cake for you to prove your point. If indeed God wants scripture to be the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith, he must have communicated that to us somewhere. You only need to show where. Show me where he says it, and I’ll believe it.

There are a number of passages i could use. One in particular addresses. Its found in 2 John 9— Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

Or 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I don’t know of any other rule of faith that is inspired and inerrant. If it exist then where can i find it.

BTW, what happened to my last question? Did you delete it because you couldn’t answer it or was that a mistake? Well, here it is again:

If the scriptures are the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith, and your statement is an infallible rule of faith, then your statement must be contained within scripture. So where does scripture say that scripture is the sole infallible, inspired, and inerrant rule of faith? Please be sure your quote contains the concept of being both sole and rule of faith.

i do remember answering this. The answer is that its not necessary for my statement to be contained within the Scriptures themselves. What is necessary is to show that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired. That is already is believed.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

You do if you are claiming something else is also inspired and inerrant. If none exist except the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the SOLE infalllilbe rule.

The Catholic Church, through its Sacred Tradition and Magisterium, is infallible. It was established by Jesus Christ and He guaranteed that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth, that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it, and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Nowhere does he say those things about the Bible. We know the Bible is inerrant because the Catholic Church has declared it to be inerrant, and the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Catholic Church cannot teach error in faith and morals.

There are a number of passages i could use. One in particular addresses. Its found in 2 John 9— Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

You mean the teachings of Christ like the gates of Hades not prevailing against His Church, Him sending the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, the Church being the bulwark and pillar of truth? Do you mean those teachings?

Or 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Does this say anywhere that only (sola) scripture is good for these things? No it doesn’t. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s book. We believe that it is inspired and inerrant. We also believe what’s in the Bible - like the Matthew 16:18-19 where Jesus establishes his Church, gives Peter (the first Bishop of Rome) the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and says that what the Church binds on earth shall be bound in heaven and what the Church looses on earch shall be loosed in heaven.

I don’t know of any other rule of faith that is inspired and inerrant. If it exist then where can i find it.

Look in your phone book under “Catholic Church.” Find out when Mass is on Sunday and attend it. You will find that the liturgy is full of scripture. Most of all, you will encounter the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Of course, you cannot partake of the Eucharist if you are not in full communion with Rome, but just being exposed to it has softened many a hardened protestant heart.

 

[Kay_Cee]

In terms of ultimate authority it would unless it can be demonstrated that there is another claim of inspiration and inerrancy besides the Scriptures.

So if something cannot be disproved, then by default it’s true?

If someone accused you of murder and you couldn’t disprove it, should the jury convict you based upon that?

You do if you are claiming something else is also inspired and inerrant. If none exist except the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the SOLE infalllilbe rule.

Ah, but you said “if.” And this is pretty much just re-stating your position, isn’t it? Things that are **sole **are, by definition, alone. So what does that prove?

How could it not be?

I’m surprised you have to ask.

The Gospel of Matthew is inspired and inerrant. Does that make it exclusive? I’ll say it again:

Inspiration and inerrancy does not = exclusivity.

There are a number of passages i could use. One in particular addresses. Its found in 2 John 9— Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

This assumes your point. You’re assuming all of Christ’s teaching is found in scripture, which is the point you’re trying to prove. In other words, you’re begging the question.

Or 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I believe I asked for a quote that contains the idea of scripture being the **sole rule of faith. **This passage says nothing about scripture being sole.

I don’t know of any other rule of faith that is inspired and inerrant. If it exist then where can i find it.

So your idea that scripture is the sole rule of faith is based upon what you personally can and cannot find? Isn’t it supposed to be based on God’s revelation to man? If it exists in God’s revelation to man, where can I find it?

i do remember answering this. The answer is that its not necessary for my statement to be contained within the Scriptures themselves. What is necessary is to show that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired. That is already is believed.

If you did answer it, I didn’t see it.

But you see, it is necessary for your statement to be contained within scripture. If, as you claim, scripture is the sole rule of faith, then your statement itself (being a rule of your faith) should be contained within scripture. Otherwise your statement is an extra-biblical tradition, and therefore would be a rule of faith outside scripture, thus proving that scripture is not the sole rule of faith.

 

[tmac1956]

larrym,

II have sources for all of my statements… snip .

Excellent! Would you share those with us? Personally, I could really use some good historical sources for discussions outside of this forum.
Thanks!

tmac1956

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

But you see, it is necessary for your statement to be contained within scripture. If, as you claim, scripture is the sole rule of faith, then your statement itself (being a rule of your faith) should be contained within scripture. Otherwise your statement is an extra-biblical tradition, and therefore would be a rule of faith outside scripture, thus proving that scripture is not the sole rule of faith.

Google *Pseudo-Sola Scriptura * for a little insight. It seems to be what justasking4 is calling Sola Scriptura.

If something isn’t explicitly defined in scripture then it is up to the individual to interpret it in any way he/she see fit so long as it is consistent with *their *agenda even if it means making other scripture inconsistent in the process.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Google *Pseudo-Sola Scriptura * for a little insight. It seems to be what justasking4 is calling Sola Scriptura.

If something isn’t explicitly defined in scripture then it is up to the individual to interpret it in any way he/she see fit so long as it is consistent with *their *agenda even if it means making other scripture inconsistent in the process.

I guess this proves the original point of this whole thread - protestants do not really believe in sola scriptura.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

The answer is that its not necessary for my statement to be contained within the Scriptures themselves. What is necessary is to show that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired. That is already is believed.

So if you believe something to be scriptural that in and of itself is good enough???

Where did your idea of Sola Scriptura come from anyway?

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

I guess this proves the original point of this whole thread - protestants do not really believe in sola scriptura.

According to everything JA4 has said here and in other threads, you are correct. He/she/they (???) even stated that it is okay to look at other sources to help interpret scripture so long as it isn’t a Church Father. This is where he went on to say that they aren’t reliable because they didn’t have the benefit of history books.

It’s too good not to repost. Here’s a taste:

justasking4:

There are commentaries, word studies and various other works. If you want to know what a word means in the original Greek Text, Kittle’s word studies is one the most exhaustive works you can find. It will tell you the meaning and how the word is used not only in Scripture. There are also good commentaries by scholars. If I were a catholic I would get The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries which is written by Catholic Scholars.

justasking4:

What I’m saying is that we have a better understanding of the times and events than those who lived during the period because we have more data about it than those who lived in it.

justasking4:

Take the Civil War period. We know more about it than those who lived in it because of research.

justasking4:

Take Jerome who translated the Scriptures into Latin. He had a limited amount of manuscripts and workers to help him. Today we have far more manuscripts, better resources, more people translating than he did even though he lived closer in time to the events.

Relying on the works of others is an excellent way to learn and understand.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Maybe I’m just more curiouser than you are?

Maybe just not as busy? Not retired and still have seven living under one roof.

I have studied many of the teachings of the Protestant communities. I just have a hard time splitting hairs so they fit together.

 

[justasking4]

Mea Culpa;4169661]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You do if you are claiming something else is also inspired and inerrant. If none exist except the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the SOLE infalllilbe rule.

Mea Culpa
The Catholic Church, through its Sacred Tradition and Magisterium, is infallible.

How can it be infallible when we know it has erred?

It was established by Jesus Christ and He guaranteed that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth,

The promise to lead into the truth was not made to any church but to the immediate disciples.

that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it,

How has the Catholic church infallibly interpreted this passage?

and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.

Nowhere does he say those things about the Bible.

Huh? How could these things not be true if the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant?

We know the Bible is inerrant because the Catholic Church has declared it to be inerrant,

Not so. Inerrancy is derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which have as their source God Himself. All that the church can do is to proclaim thi. It cannot make them inerrant.

and the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Catholic Church cannot teach error in faith and morals.

Again this is not true for 2 reasons:
1- Jesus never promised this
2- false would come in and decieve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
There are a number of passages i could use. One in particular addresses. Its found in 2 John 9— Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
Mea Culpa
You mean the teachings of Christ like the gates of Hades not prevailing against His Church, Him sending the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth, the Church being the bulwark and pillar of truth? Do you mean those teachings?

No. I mean the marian doctrines, purgatory, and indulgences to name a few that violate 2 John 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Or 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Mea Culpa
Does this say anywhere that only (sola) scripture is good for these things? No it doesn’t.

What is the subject of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

The Bible is the Catholic Church’s book.

Its also the primary authority in Protestant churches.

We believe that it is inspired and inerrant. We also believe what’s in the Bible - like the Matthew 16:18-19 where Jesus establishes his Church, gives Peter (the first Bishop of Rome) the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and says that what the Church binds on earth shall be bound in heaven and what the Church looses on earch shall be loosed in heaven.

Partly true. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome as a bishop.

Quote: justasking4
I don’t know of any other rule of faith that is inspired and inerrant. If it exist then where can i find it.
Mea Culpa
Look in your phone book under “Catholic Church.” Find out when Mass is on Sunday and attend it. You will find that the liturgy is full of scripture. Most of all, you will encounter the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Of course, you cannot partake of the Eucharist if you are not in full communion with Rome, but just being exposed to it has softened many a hardened protestant heart.

Does the Catholic church itself teach that it is inspired-inerrant? If so, is there a document that says this?

 

[justasking4]

GeorgiaPeach;4169861]
Originally Posted by Mea Culpa
I guess this proves the original point of this whole thread - protestants do not really believe in sola scriptura.

GeorgiaPeach
According to everything JA4 has said here and in other threads, you are correct. He/she/they (???) even stated that it is okay to look at other sources to help interpret scripture so long as it isn’t a Church Father. This is where he went on to say that they aren’t reliable because they didn’t have the benefit of history books.
Mea Culpa misunderstands Sola Scriptura by that comment. As for your comment-- i don’t see any support from the things i have said. Where in those comments did i say–“He/she/they (???) even stated that it is okay to look at other sources to help interpret scripture so long as it isn’t a Church Father.” Where did i say its okay to use other sources except the Church Fathers?

GeorgiaPeach
It’s too good not to repost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
There are commentaries, word studies and various other works. If you want to know what a word means in the original Greek Text, Kittle’s word studies is one the most exhaustive works you can find. It will tell you the meaning and how the word is used not only in Scripture. There are also good commentaries by scholars. If I were a catholic I would get The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries which is written by Catholic Scholars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What I’m saying is that we have a better understanding of the times and events than those who lived during the period because we have more data about it than those who lived in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Take the Civil War period. We know more about it than those who lived in it because of research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Take Jerome who translated the Scriptures into Latin. He had a limited amount of manuscripts and workers to help him. Today we have far more manuscripts, better resources, more people translating than he did even though he lived closer in time to the events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Relying on the works of others is an excellent way to learn and understand.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

Where did i say its okay to use other sources except the Church Fathers?

QUESTION TO JA4:

Do you really beleive you are more qualified to teach us theology then Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, Edith Stein, et al.?

JA4's ANSWER:

Who is Edith Stein?
As for the others we actually do know more than they did because of the work that has been done in various Biblical fields.

 

[justasking4]

GeorgiaPeach:
View attachment 4048

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

:tiphat:

 

[Mea_Culpa]

How can it be infallible when we know it has erred?

When has the Catholic Church erred in teaching faith and morals?

The promise to lead into the truth was not made to any church but to the immediate disciples.

Would those be the disciples that went on to build the Catholic Church?

Not so. Inerrancy is derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which have as their source God Himself. All that the church can do is to proclaim thi. It cannot make them inerrant.

Do you think the Bible fell out of the sky one day? The canon of the Bible was proclaimed by several Catholic Church councils. We know that what these Church councils proclaimed as the canon of scripture is correct because the Catholic Church is infallible when it teaches faith and morals. Otherwise, how would you know what books should make up the Bible? It doesn’t say what books should be in the Bible in the Bible itself. It is only because of the authority of the Catholic Church that we have the Bible in the first place. It is a product of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Again this is not true for 2 reasons:
1- Jesus never promised this
2- false would come in and decieve.

1. Your one-liner responses are more like heckling than a serious response. I posted several passages from scripture where Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, bring to remembrance all that he said, that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it, etc.
2. What does “false would come in and decieve (sic)” supposed to mean? When Jesus said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church, was he lying? When he said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, was he lying? Of course false teachers will come and and preach falsehood - you should know this better than any one since that is what you are doing. But that doesn’t mean that the Church will accept and teach that falsehood. Some will be led astray, but the Church itself is protected by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said so, and I believe Him. Apparently, you don’t.

No. I mean the marian doctrines, purgatory, and indulgences to name a few that violate 2 John 9

2 John 9: Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.

You left out 2 John 12: “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

Apparently, there are things besides what is written down that constitute the “doctrine of Christ” - at least John says so. Jesus in the Gospel of John promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church “into all truth.” That is what Sacred Tradition is all about - the Holy Spirit leading the Church into the fullness of the Truth.

What is the subject of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

The subject of the sentence is Scripture. It still doesn’t say only scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - there is no “sola” there.

I don’t know what this one-liner response is supposed to prove?

Its also the primary authority in Protestant churches.

protestant churches do not have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, they have separated themselves from the fullness of the truth, so all they have to rely on is their own mis-interpretations of Holy Scripture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scripture as their authority - would you say they have interpreted it correctly? There are 30,000 different protestant sects, all with varying interpretations of scripture. This is what happens when you reject the Church that Jesus Christ founded. This is not what God wants. He is a God of peace, not of Chaos. Everyone doing and believing whatever they want based on their own misreading of scripture is what sola scriptura leads to. Sola scriptura is a lie. Those who believe in it have traded the truth of God for a lie.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4048&d=1221240153

Your responses are becoming more insightful and articulate all the time.

 

[mackbrislawn]

This question also applies to catholics. Even in the Catholic church there are a number of different interpretations on all kinds of doctrines and practices. Does this cause you concern?

It’s true, there are different interpretations. But this does not cause concern, because these different interpretations must be in harmony with core Catholic doctrines; they must not contradict defined dogmas. Otherwise there is actually considerable freedom to interpret. But, one must realize that these different interpretations are opinions only, personal opinions. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one.

 

[justasking4]

Mea Culpa;4170579]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How can it be infallible when we know it has erred?

Mea Culpa
When has the Catholic Church erred in teaching faith and morals?

In the case of Joan of Arc, Galieo and the inquisitions for starters.

Quote:justasking4
The promise to lead into the truth was not made to any church but to the immediate disciples.
Mea Culpa
Would those be the disciples that went on to build the Catholic Church?

They went to preach the gospel which resulted in the church being built on their teachings.

Quote:justasking4
Not so. Inerrancy is derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which have as their source God Himself. All that the church can do is to proclaim thi. It cannot make them inerrant.
Mea Culpa
Do you think the Bible fell out of the sky one day? The canon of the Bible was proclaimed by several Catholic Church councils. We know that what these Church councils proclaimed as the canon of scripture is correct because the Catholic Church is infallible when it teaches faith and morals.

The canon of the Scriptures was not determined correct because the Catholic church is infallible when it teaches faith and morals.

Otherwise, how would you know what books should make up the Bible?

There were a number of tests that helped to determine which books should make up the NT.

It doesn’t say what books should be in the Bible in the Bible itself. It is only because of the authority of the Catholic Church that we have the Bible in the first place. It is a product of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Its far more than just saying the church says it is.

Quote:justasking4
Again this is not true for 2 reasons:
1- Jesus never promised this
2- false would come in and decieve.
Mea Culpa

1. Your one-liner responses are more like heckling than a serious response. I posted several passages from scripture where Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, bring to remembrance all that he said, that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it, etc.

I know He said these things but these things do not support the idea the church can never err. Just look at the history of the Catholic church and you will see what i mean.

1. What does “false would come in and decieve (sic)” supposed to mean?

False teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. This is already happening.

When Jesus said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church, was he lying?

To prevail does not mean it would never err. Again we can look at church history and be sickened by the evil done be the church.

When he said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, was he lying?

You missunderstand what this means.

Of course false teachers will come and and preach falsehood - you should know this better than any one since that is what you are doing. But that doesn’t mean that the Church will accept and teach that falsehood. Some will be led astray, but the Church itself is protected by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said so, and I believe Him. Apparently, you don’t.

Just look at some of the writings on Mary for example. Read the Glories of Mary and see the things that are written about her.

Quote:justasking4
No. I mean the marian doctrines, purgatory, and indulgences to name a few that violate 2 John 9

2 John 9: Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.
Mea Culpa
You left out 2 John 12: “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

Apparently, there are things besides what is written down that constitute the “doctrine of Christ” - at least John says so. Jesus in the Gospel of John promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church “into all truth.” That is what Sacred Tradition is all about - the Holy Spirit leading the Church into the fullness of the Truth.

This still does not change the fact your church has not followed 2 John 9. The examples i used were never taught by Jesus or His apostles.

Quote:justasking4
What is the subject of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
Mea Culpa
The subject of the sentence is Scripture. It still doesn’t say only scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - there is no “sola” there.

True but it is showing that it is Scripture has this power to do these things. Nowhere in the Scriptures is it ever said traditions or the teachings of men can do this.

I don’t know what this one-liner response is supposed to prove?

It is to show that when interpreting Scripture we must always interpret with the context or we will missinterpret it.

Quote:justasking4
Its also the primary authority in Protestant churches.
Mea Culpa
protestant churches do not have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, they have separated themselves from the fullness of the truth, so all they have to rely on is their own mis-interpretations of Holy Scripture.

What exactly is Sacred Tradition? Is there a list somewhere that tells you what it is so you know the difference between Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scripture as their authority - would you say they have interpreted it correctly?

In most cases no.

There are 30,000 different protestant sects, all with varying interpretations of scripture.

The protestant sects i’m aware of do agree on a number of important doctrines.
Even in the Catholic church you have a number of different interpretations of various doctrines and practices.

This is what happens when you reject the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

Have you ever compared the NT church structure with the Catholic church? What you find is that they are not the same thing in structure or doctrines.

This is not what God wants. He is a God of peace, not of Chaos. Everyone doing and believing whatever they want based on their own misreading of scripture is what sola scriptura leads to. Sola scriptura is a lie. Those who believe in it have traded the truth of God for a lie.

No doubt there are problems with Sola Scriptura applications. However, there are just as serious problems with many doctrines and practices in the Catholic church.

 

[justasking4]

It’s true, there are different interpretations. But this does not cause concern, because these different interpretations must be in harmony with core Catholic doctrines; they must not contradict defined dogmas. Otherwise there is actually considerable freedom to interpret. But, one must realize that these different interpretations are opinions only, personal opinions. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one.

You still have no way of knowing which interpretation-opinions are the correct ones. When it comes to interpreting Scripture you have no offical-infallible interpretation of them by your church. You and other Catholics can never have certainty on a given verse or passage.