Sola Scriptura: A Blind Spot but Not Worthless

[commenter]

Quickly, the defined role of scripture may have changed, evolved partly due not to scriptures, but the defined role of the church, or even councils (by the church) and in particular as being the final arbiter of truth, including scriptural truth and that infallibly. The question then came how to dialogue with an infallible church/council in a perceived error but with **the only unchanged, unevolved source left , scripture ? **Yet this was done in “church”, magisterial and as much as possible, council fashion (“confessions” etc). You may say and perhaps partly right, that reformers really used same model, just that they attached no inerrancy except to scriptures themselves.

One might say that leads to further division with such a "checked’ central authority, but even with your model there was division (C and O).

I guess I am saying the roles,models have not been static

Is Scripture really unchanged, unevolved in the eyes of people? The interpretation of it has changed and varied drastically, even by those who deny any role for Tradition and/or Magisterium. From one generation to the next there are drastic changes in how verses are interpreted, or which verses are deemed applicable to given questions. Changes in translation may reflect partly new scholarship, sometimes also reflect (or obey) the changing cultural or politically correct parameters.

The newer canons - for instance, in “A New New Testament”, or the “Uncommon Lectionary” , add new gospels, epistles, etc onto the familiar 27, which will bring a whole new set of changed “insights” to “Scripture”, as the newly “canonized” books are used in study and worship, not separate but intermingled with the familiar 27. I don’t think the heads of the TEC or ELCA, for instance, have endorsed these additions, but the president of the UCC was on the committee to bring about expanding the canon; other mainline denomination leaders too (but most denominations are not on board).

 

[benhur]

Is Scripture really unchanged, unevolved in the eyes of people? The interpretation of it has changed and varied drastically, even by those who deny any role for Tradition and/or Magisterium. From one generation to the next there are drastic changes in how verses are interpreted, or which verses are deemed applicable to given questions. Changes in translation may reflect partly new scholarship, sometimes also reflect (or obey) the changing cultural or politically correct parameters.
.

Hi C
Maybe you make my point, that Scripture does not change but its interpretation(s) do. And most churches/magisteriums claim scriptural support for their doctrine/practices, notwithstanding any role of Tradition.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Quickly, the defined role of scripture may have changed, evolved partly due not to scriptures, but the defined role of the church, or even councils (by the church) and in particular as being the final arbiter of truth, including scriptural truth and that infallibly. The question then came how to dialogue with an infallible church/council in a perceived error but with the only unchanged, unevolved source left , scripture ? Yet this was done in “church”, magisterial and as much as possible, council fashion (“confessions” etc). You may say and perhaps partly right, that reformers really used same model, just that they attached no inerrancy except to scriptures themselves.

One might say that leads to further division with such a "checked’ central authority, but even with your model there was division (C and O).

I guess I am saying the roles,models have not been static

No. If you don’t have an Episcopal model you are not following a Scriptural model.

• We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
• We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
• We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
• We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.

Any that hols to Sola Scriptura must have this form of Church government. Otherwise, it is violating its own principle.

 

[commenter]

Hi C
Maybe you make my point, that Scripture does not change but its interpretation(s) do. And most churches/magisteriums claim scriptural support for their doctrine/practices, notwithstanding any role of Tradition.

Technically, “magisterium” doesn’t have a plural, (which would be “magisteria”). Other denominations have a teaching ministry, which is overseen by the person(s) in charge of the denomination. But they don’t have, don’t claim to have, a “magisterium” or anything really equivalent. The RCC Magisterium doesn’t just claim to teach the truth for “the Catholic position” but rather, the truth for all. That doesn’t prove the Magisterium is right, but it points toward the fact that we are talking about a different sort of thing.

This idea of representing the “truth for all” will become relevant for a lot more people as a larger number of new testaments are printed with additional books inserted, not in an appendix but between and among the familiar 27. The Magisterium will continue to claim the authority to declare these 27 - all of them and no others - as the “truth for all”. Churches that lack a magisterium - everybody else - will find it harder to maintain that canon.

The argument we will hear from Christians will be, “well Mathew may be in your gospel, but the gospel of Mary is in mine. Luke is truth for you, but in my Bible the gospel of Mary is truth for me”. Every good and evil deed or doctrine will be backed up by Scripture, since you will choose your scriptures to fit yourself; except the Magisterium.

 

[benhur]

No. If you don’t have an Episcopal model you are not following a Scriptural model.

• We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
• We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
• We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
• We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.

Any that hols to Sola Scriptura must have this form of Church government. Otherwise, it is violating its own principle.

Not sure there is a monarchal bishop in Scriptures. Bishop=presbyter and are interchangeable words for same office, in scripture. Now in tradition, yes, a generation or two later bishop started to become monarchal, leading way to evolving episcopal model.
I like what some say about "presbyterianism"model.

 

[commenter]

Not sure there is a **monarchal bishop **in Scriptures. Bishop=presbyter and are interchangeable words for same office, in scripture. Now in tradition, yes, a generation or two later bishop started to become monarchal, leading way to evolving episcopal model.
I like what some say about "presbyterianism"model.

Not sure what a “monarchal” bishop is supposed to be, but I’m sure its not a compliment. One might argue there was a differentiation in Scripture between the apostles and other committed followers of Jesus who were sent out evangelizing, and other presbyteral type ministry. There was arguably a differentiation between evangelists and pastors, on the one hand, and deacons. There was arguably a distinction between those who were offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, and St. Paul who apparently had some oversight of that.

If you want you can argue that those distinctions - e. g. apostles as bishops - were only temporary ministry not intended to carry on. (Some Protestants argue the whole idea of “clergy” was not intended to carry on at all after the last apostle died). Some Protestants regard the whole ministry of Lutheran or Methodist “pastor” as unscriptural blasphemy.)

But using terms like* monarchal* are disrespectful, just as it would be to depict Protestants as groveling subjects of multimillionaire televangelist kings. Let’s avoid rudeness.

 

[benhur]

Not sure what a “monarchal” bishop is supposed to be, but I’m sure its not a compliment. One might argue there was a differentiation in Scripture between the apostles and other committed followers of Jesus who were sent out evangelizing, and other presbyteral type ministry. There was arguably a differentiation between evangelists and pastors, on the one hand, and deacons. There was arguably a distinction between those who were offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, and St. Paul who apparently had some oversight of that.

If you want you can argue that those distinctions - e. g. apostles as bishops - were only temporary ministry not intended to carry on. (Some Protestants argue the whole idea of “clergy” was not intended to carry on at all after the last apostle died). Some Protestants regard the whole ministry of Lutheran or Methodist “pastor” as unscriptural blasphemy.)

But using terms like* monarchal* are disrespectful, just as it would be to depict Protestants as groveling subjects of multimillionaire televangelist kings. Let’s avoid rudeness.

Hi C,

Do not think it is disrespectful to use term monarchal. I think it means that a bishop overlooks other priests/pastors/presbyters and their respective congregations, as an arch bishop looks over other bishops and cardinals etc and finally the pope overlooking all .I think that is the reference, also known as the episcopal model.

I could be wrong but have heard historians use the term, maybe even Catholic ones. Not sure.No rudeness intended. Maybe episcopal is better.

The problem comes from applying todays’ understanding of “bishop”, or even that of a generation or two after the apostles, as that what is found in scripture or practice while apostles were alive, or even shortly thereafter.

Bishop=presbyter/elder scripturally or apostolically speaking and changed shortly thereafter. Hence the "dialogue " as to what is scriptural or even apostolic in governance and use of the term.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure there is a monarchal bishop in Scriptures. Bishop=presbyter and are interchangeable words for same office, in scripture. Now in tradition, yes, a generation or two later bishop started to become monarchal, leading way to evolving episcopal model.
I like what some say about "presbyterianism"model.

You can deviate from the argument all you want and criticize even more all you want.

Bottom line is that the Episcopal model is Scriptural. That it evolved into a monarchy in the west and stayed episcopalian in the east doesn’t take away from the Scriptural model because both still maintain it.

You don’t have an episcopal and scriptural model and as such are outside of Scriptures while holding to Sola Scriptura. One cancels the other.

That is the Scriptural bottom line.

 

[benhur]

You can deviate from the argument all you want and criticize even more all you want.

Bottom line is that the Episcopal model is Scriptural. That it evolved into a monarchy in the west and stayed episcopalian in the east doesn’t take away from the Scriptural model because both still maintain it.

You don’t have an episcopal and scriptural model and as such are outside of Scriptures while holding to Sola Scriptura. One cancels the other.

That is the Scriptural bottom line.

so episcopal, episcopal monarchy, why not leave room for a third, the presbytery model ?

 

[commenter]

so episcopal, episcopal monarchy, why not leave room for a third, the presbytery model ?

Because of recent history. The presbytery model for a long time was considered reliable because it led to policies, doctrines and morality that coincided with historic Christian tradition. Today, most Presbyterians belong to denominations that have embraced the secular humanist agenda of the media establishment.

The congregationalist model has the same drawbacks. It is reliable only during fair weather. As the culture in Western countries has been secularized, some (not all) congregationalist type churches have taken positions that their grandparents would have rejected. So much good Protestant spiritual writing was to caution Christians against “the World”; not to condemn other people as wicked, but to warn Christians against the temptation to conform. That guidance has been mostly lost in many areas, though many groups such as Southern Baptists and Assembly of God are trying to hold on. I honor their efforts.

To illustrate, the United Church of Christ is a successor to both the presbyterian and congregationalist traditions. The president of that denomination was part of “A New New Testament” (!)

I am not saying the “episcopal” model is necessarily any better. The real split is between “Episcopal-model-with-Magisterium” on the one hand - and the Protestant models on the other hand, including the Episcopal model such as TEC has.

 

[Duane1966]

Sola Scriptura does have a blind spot: Since Scripture does not specify the books that belong in the Bible, it is not the sole infallible authority on all matters pertaining to Christian faith and practice. All Christians today are dependent on the extrabiblical tradition known as the canon of Scripture. What’s more, they treat that tradition as infallible, since they don’t dare to question it or change it.

Whenever I ask a non-Catholic or non-EO Christian to show me where the Bible says that the Epistle of the Hebrews is inspired, invariably the answer goes outside the Bible, whether to history or to the claim of a subjective, inner witness by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps both. (I use Hebrews as my example because it’s not clear whether it was written by an apostle; other NT books could be used in the question.)

Having said that, I don’t take that fact as far as Catholics take it. Catholics take that fact and conclude from it that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture (unless I’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching on this point), but I think that is a non sequitur. The church was the conduit through which the Holy Spirit gave us the canon of Scripture, but a conduit is not equal to or as important as the water that flows through it.

Of course the conduit is, unless you are at the source, then you have no need of a conduit.

A better analogy is that of a Messenger. A messenger does not have equal authority to the one who wrote the message, just because he or she delivers it, and if he or she spoke about the message, his or her words would not be of equal authority to the words in the message.

You’d better rethink this analogy. The message is only useful, IF the messenger delivers a FAITHFUL, and ACCURATE translation of it. This puts power in the messenger’s hands, making him or her just as important.

Without the Apostle’s faithful transmission of the Gospel, Jesus’ message is useless. You TRUST that they gave you Jesus’ message accurately, again making the messenger on equal ground with the message. If you do not trust the messenger, the message is useless.

This is why I don’t reject SS, even though it does have the blind spot I mentioned.

You should reject it, because it is untenable, and unbiblical. Since the bible does not say it is the only authority, clearly there must be others. The bible in fact cannot speak, it is an inanimate object. Everyone who practices sola scriptura is in fact practicing solo scriptura. For the sola scriptura adherent, it really is YOUR interpretation of the scripture.

The problem is Jesus never says take your disputes to the bible. He said take it to the Church (MT 18:17). He Himself give’s ultimate authority to the Church.

One question, how does SS answer does baptism save you? I have read articles by pastors that were in direct contradiction to each other, yet both pastors are diehard SS adherents, and both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;12923548]
Without the Apostle’s faithful transmission of the Gospel, Jesus’ message is useless. You TRUST that they gave you Jesus’ message accurately, again making the messenger on equal ground with the message. If you do not trust the messenger, the message is useless.

No confessional Lutheran would dispute this.

You should reject it, because it is untenable, and unbiblical. Since the bible does not say it is the only authority, clearly there must be others. The bible in fact cannot speak, it is an inanimate object. Everyone who practices sola scriptura is in fact practicing solo scriptura. For the sola scriptura adherent, it really is YOUR interpretation of the scripture.

No Lutheran would say it is the only authority. We would say it is the only final authority.

The problem is Jesus never says take your disputes to the bible. He said take it to the Church (MT 18:17). He Himself give’s ultimate authority to the Church.

No Lutheran says that, either. We take ours to the Church. I am in the midst of such, in my parish.

One question, how does SS answer does baptism save you? I have read articles by pastors that were in direct contradiction to each other, yet both pastors are diehard SS adherents, and both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

1 Peter 3:21
Catholics and Orthodox both claim their position is true regarding the primacy of the Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, and many other issues, and yet both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. I would say that both are, as are all Christians. One can’t be a Christian unless he/she was first guided by the Holy Spirit. The CC, in its Catechism claims that the Spirit uses non-Catholic communions as a means of salvation.
There is a difference between guidance, and proper understanding. The Spirit guides, but we don’t always understand His guidance. Sometimes people are wrong.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

No Lutheran would say it is the only authority. We would say it is the only final authority.
Jon

Hi Jon,

How can it be the only final authority, when it cannot speak? A sola scriptura adherent actually trusts their own interpretation of the scriptures, as the final authority.

If you were a Christian living in say forty AD, would the OT be the final authority?

How well did that final authority resolve the Arian dispute?

The following is taken from this website:catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to “prove” their claims. (16) The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius’ teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the Person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius’ error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at the time fell for the Arian heresy. (17) Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably “compared Scripture with Scripture,” the fact is that he arrived at an heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church – hierarchically constituted – which stepped in and declared he was wrong.The application is obvious. If you ask a Protestant whether or not Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created, he will, of course, respond in the negative. Emphasize, then, that even though Arius presumably “compared Scripture with Scripture,” he nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee does the Protestant have that it is not also true forhisinterpretation of a given Bible passage? The very fact that the Protestant knows Arius’ interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or “right” interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius’ teachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians.It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result is what happens when the erroneous doctrine ofSola Scripturais used as a guiding principle, and the history of the Church and the numerous heresies it has had to address are undeniable testimony to this fact.

As a final note, I read and will find it (hopefully ) where one of the participants of Nicaea said something like:* for every scripture we quoted, the Arians countered with a verse from scripture. We were at an impasse.* ( The exact quote may be from a different council, and heresy).

 

[benhur]

Because of recent history. The presbytery model for a long time was considered reliable because it led to policies, doctrines and morality that coincided with historic Christian tradition. Today, most Presbyterians belong to denominations that have embraced the secular humanist agenda of the media establishment.

The congregationalist model has the same drawbacks. It is reliable only during fair weather. As the culture in Western countries has been secularized, some (not all) congregationalist type churches have taken positions that their grandparents would have rejected. So much good Protestant spiritual writing was to caution Christians against “the World”; not to condemn other people as wicked, but to warn Christians against the temptation to conform. That guidance has been mostly lost in many areas, though many groups such as Southern Baptists and Assembly of God are trying to hold on. I honor their efforts.

To illustrate, the United Church of Christ is a successor to both the presbyterian and congregationalist traditions. The president of that denomination was part of “A New New Testament” (!)

I am not saying the “episcopal” model is necessarily any better. The real split is between “Episcopal-model-with-Magisterium” on the one hand - and the Protestant models on the other hand, including the Episcopal model such as TEC has.

Thank you. Your response seems “historic” and generous. I do not know too much about all the termes and only a little thanks to google. And you are right about the rift being a C and P thing, which I know more about and of course what we see in scripture and early history.

You are astute in seeing some of the problems in churches with un-Catholic models, just as P’s see problems, even doctrinal sway (which you correctly allude to in P’s) in Catholic model.

I also honor C efforts to remain truly apostolic.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

We would say it is the only final authority.

But the final authority of Scripture needs to be properly interpreted, otherwise, there is no true conviction on many matters.

I could agree that Scripture is an authority which cannot be contradicted. It is the written record of the Gospel. It also contains the record of doctrinal foundation. It is a unique document of which there is no equal. Yet, there can be documents with the same authority by which the Scriptures came from. And that can be supported by Scripture itself.

No Lutheran says that, either. We take ours to the Church. I am in the midst of such, in my parish.

I pray that you are strong in the Lord for any part you participate with.

 

[commenter]

No Lutheran says that, either. We take ours to the Church. I am in the midst of such, in my parish.

Jon

Part of the purpose of CAF is to encourage prayer for needs of individuals and parishes. All of us and our local parishes go through “times of discernment” so to speak. Consider your situation prayed for. Others are invited to pray, also.

 

[benhur]

How can it be the only final authority, when it cannot speak? A sola scriptura adherent actually trusts their own interpretation of the scriptures, as the final authority.

You are partly right that SS goes hand in hand with the reform of re-elevating private interpretation (as opposed to only magisterium). You are wrong that it is to be done outside the confines of the Church. That is, my own interpretation somewhere, at some time was anothers also. My interpretation is restricted (guided) by history(being apostolic) but not as extensive as Catholic “guidings”.

How well did that final authority resolve the Arian dispute?

Certainly the pope nor councils faired well, either (for Arianism continued ). I would say scripture, correct scriptural interpretation, won the day with its champion Athanasius (decades later).

As a final note, I read and will find it (hopefully ) where one of the participants of Nicaea said something like:* for every scripture we quoted, the Arians countered with a verse from scripture. We were at an impasse.* ( The exact quote may be from a different council, and heresy).

Well, I think Augustine is also quoted as saying you quote one council and I another for contrary support.(D o not remember the issue-maybe the same one).

I guess I would be careful to judge any authority 's legitimacy by it’s currently perceived outcome or effectiveness. Otherwise, we are in trouble from the get go, for someone once spoke a warning quite authoritatively at the Garden of Eden about eating a certain something, to no avail.

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;12924273]
How can it be the only final authority, when it cannot speak? A sola scriptura adherent actually trusts their own interpretation of the scriptures, as the final authority.

Hi Duane,
It can be the sole authority by which the Church evaluates teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogma. That’s the meaning.

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone…

Even the definition here from the Formula of Concord implies rather clearly that the Church “estimates and judges”.

If you were a Christian living in say forty AD, would the OT be the final authority?

That, and teachings of Christ and the Apostles, from which we receive the NT scriptures.

How well did that final authority resolve the Arian dispute?

Rather well, as the Church was able to refute this false teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=rcwitness;12927683]But the final authority of Scripture needs to be properly interpreted, otherwise, there is no true conviction on many matters.

Hi Michael,

I agree, at least when it comes to doctrine.

I could agree that Scripture is an authority which cannot be contradicted. It is the written record of the Gospel. It also contains the record of doctrinal foundation. It is a unique document of which there is no equal. Yet, there can be documents with the same authority by which the Scriptures came from. And that can be supported by Scripture itself.

Do you have an example?
Any document that can be supported by scripture can be considered authoritative, though not equal to scripture. For example, quoting the Formula of Concord again:

And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

I pray that you are strong in the Lord for any part you participate with.

Part of the purpose of CAF is to encourage prayer for needs of individuals and parishes. All of us and our local parishes go through “times of discernment” so to speak. Consider your situation prayed for. Others are invited to pray, also.

You cannot know how much I appreciate this. It is a trying time for me. Thank you.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

You are partly right that SS goes hand in hand with the reform of*** re-elevating private interpretation ***(as opposed to only magisterium).

What? Umm, can you post some quotes from early sources showing the “elevation of private” interpretation? You make it sound like it was once commonplace, but I fail to see it in the ECF’s writings.

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself?* No, it is not (2 Peter1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews?* Again, “NO” (Acts8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.* Even the “founder” ofSola Scriptura(Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible.*