So if Sola Scriptura is a true doctrine, then...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thaddeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thaddeus

Guest
why do protestant bibles have footnotes and explanations in them? Why can’t they just figure everything out for themselves, without the footnotes?:confused:
 
Thaddeus said:
why do protestant bibles have footnotes and explanations in them? Why can’t they just figure everything out for themselves, without the footnotes?:confused:
Click to expand...
Because Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that the Bible is entirely self-explanatory.

For the record, many Protestants prefer Bibles without commentary. I do, for example.
 
Steadfast - As a Sola Scriptura supporter, what does the bible say about the practice of homosexuality? I hear the ELCA is now following the Episcopaleans in the ordination of practicing homosexuals…
 
Thaddeus said:
why do protestant bibles have footnotes and explanations in them? Why can’t they just figure everything out for themselves, without the footnotes?:confused:
Click to expand...
I have a Catholic Bible that has those same kind of footnotes.
 
estesbob said:
Its not? Then how does one resolve disagreements about what it says?
Click to expand...
Great question.

The OP conflates two ideas. It confuses Sola Scriptura with the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

For example, the Gospel says Jesus went to Capernaum, no interpretation is necessary. Jesus, an historical Person goes to a real city called Capernaum.

Again, Peter preaches that there is salvation in no name other than that of Jesus.

Well, what does this mean? What does it mean to be saved “in” a name?

This requires some interpretation.

So, we look at the language, we look at idioms of the day and we look at what people thoughout church history have thought about this and we arrive at an interpretation.

This interpretation is a pretty easy one really, all things considered.

Other passages are more difficult to parse and interpret.

There are varying degrees of perspicuity, on the level of “Jesus went to Capernaum” everything is so clear as to admit of no difficulty at all unless you’re going to argue that the text is being entirely allegorical and that Capernaum stands for something else, but no one really does that.

At the level of being “saved in the name of Jesus” more work needs to be done but a good “consensus” can be achieved using the tools and methods I mentioned, such that there is, really, very little disagreement about what it means.

When we get to things like the timing of the parousia, there can be and has been a lot of divergence.

What we say (and this is where I answer your question) is that on disputable points there ought to be liberty. There is no need for perfect agreement and therefore no need for a “magisterium” to hand down a ruling.

On other things, particularly where we see a consensus in history which runs well with good scholarship we have a lot of agreement.

Some churches make the results of such consensus dogma, for example when baptists insist that only those with a credible profession should be baptized, while others believe that children too are fit recipients.

This is an example of churches which are and are not comfortable with breaking with tradition and history.

It’s a BIG ISSUE but it really boils down, when you ask us “how does one resolve disagreements about what it says?”, we are wise only to respond with another question: “How do we know that this is something about which we must resolve disagreement?”

Because if it is something about which there can be liberty, then there should be liberty.
 
Thaddeus said:
Steadfast - As a Sola Scriptura supporter, what does the bible say about the practice of homosexuality? I hear the ELCA is now following the Episcopaleans in the ordination of practicing homosexuals…
Click to expand...
The ELCA does not believe in Sola Scriptura.

The Bible is clear on the subject of homosexuality.
 
steadfast - I didn’t know that about the ELCA Lutherans. How do they interpret scripture then?
 
when a scripture is more complicated…and you have to look to outside sources and then take a guess at the meaning. You can be WRONG.
 
Thaddeus said:
steadfast - I didn’t know that about the ELCA Lutherans. How do they interpret scripture then?
Click to expand...
Well, you’d have to ask them.

But If I wanted to presume, I suppose they’d say that the Bible “contains” the Word of God but that it’s not proper to say that it “is” the Word of God in the sense that Evangelicals take it.

This means that they tend either to explain away certain passages, or they mark them down as anachronisms; things reflective of the culture at the time and not therefore binding on anyone today.
 
So, it’s a little unfair to say that ELCA doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura, what they really don’t believe in is the inerrancy of Scripture and this has a huge effect on how they apply Scripture.
 
steadfast - Where is Sola Scriptura specifically mentioned in Scripture?
 
Steadfast said:
Yes.

And that’s okay.
Click to expand...
Well for you it could be ok.

For me, it is hard enuff to be Christian. I don’t want to have to wory about the possibility that I could be doing it all wrong anyway.

I don’t want to worry when the bible says…" many will say to him on that day Lord Lord did w not perform many powerful works in your name etc…etc… Then Jesus says I NEVER KNEW YOU get away from me.

That would traumatize me…I would play it safe and go with the infalible church.
 
excaliber said:
Well for you it could be ok.

For me, it is hard enuff to be Christian. I don’t want to have to wory about the possibility that I could be doing it all wrong anyway.

I don’t want to worry when the bible says…" many will say to him on that day Lord Lord did w not perform many powerful works in your name etc…etc… Then Jesus says I NEVER KNEW YOU get away from me.

That would traumatize me…I would play it safe and go with the infalible church.
Click to expand...
We aren’t saved by what we know. We’re saved by Who knows us.

It’s okay to be wrong, He’ll straighten us out.
 
steadfast - Glad to see you know that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. What do you think of

Matt.18:17 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.
 
Steadfast said:
The ELCA does not believe in Sola Scriptura.

The Bible is clear on the subject of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Huh? Wasn’t Luther’s main doctrines Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia? I’m pretty sure ELCA have Sola Scriptura. By the way, don’t let the Episcopalians fool you; Almost all the other Anglican Churches are conservative, unlike the Episcopal Church. A lot of them have Apostolic Succession, too.
 
Thaddeus said:
steadfast - Glad to see you know that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. What do you think of

Matt.18:17 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.
Click to expand...
I think Matthew 18 tells us how to deal with church discipline and that the church does have competence to apply discipline in the lives of believers.
 
Metaron said:
Huh? Wasn’t Luther’s main doctrines Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia? I’m pretty sure ELCA have Sola Scriptura. By the way, don’t let the Episcopalians fool you; Almost all the other Anglican Churches are conservative, unlike the Episcopal Church. A lot of them have Apostolic Succession, too.
Click to expand...
I corrected myself. ELCA still claims Sola Scriptura but they deny inerrancy, making such a claim at least problematic and at most meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top