Sola scriptura and corrections?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brianjmc1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all: Everyone under the sun personally interprets Scripture–Catholics as well; you submit to the teaching of the Magisterium, while Eastern Orthodox assent to the interpretations of their patriarchs.

The rule I have heard most is that “Scripture interprets scripture.” If there is an unclear part of the Bible, it is best to look to other, clearer parts of the Bible for guidance. If no definitive answer can be drawn, then the question simply isn’t settled.

For all the diversity in the Protestant churches, I would say that all of us who can fairly be called Christians adhere to the Nicene Creed. There really aren’t that many core tenets in the Bible that are unclear. (I know plenty of Protestants who would disagree with me, and insist that Catholic soteriology alone means that Catholics aren’t Christians.)
 
Right, it just doesn’t work that way in real life, since interpreters will interpret differently regardless of the methodology. Which is the point; Sola Scriptura is unworkable to serve as a rule of faith. The difference between having the Church interpret (Sola Ecclessia as it’s sometimes referred to) as opposed to individual readers doing the interpreting is that with the former God has done what needs to be done: designate a divinely guided single entity.

And while there is a completely subjective and individual aspect to this, as we must determine for ourselves how and where the truth can be found, it’s just that SS fails the test at the end of the day.
heidi_storage said:
For all the diversity in the Protestant churches, I would say that all of us who can fairly be called Christians adhere to the Nicene Creed. There really aren’t that many core tenets in the Bible that are unclear. (I know plenty of Protestants who would disagree with me, and insist that Catholic soteriology alone means that Catholics aren’t Christians.)
Click to expand...
Yes, and Protestant soteriology alone proves SS to be an awkward and invalid means of determining the truth of the matter.
 
Last edited:
brianjmc1 said:
How do my brothers and sisters in Christ(Protestant), who self interpret the scripture, know when they are interpreting wrong?
Click to expand...
This is the question that brought me into the Catholic Church. When I honestly examined it, I realized that I had no way to do so without an authoritative teacher.
 
If as was said in this thread that the majority of Protestants don’t subscribe to scripture alone but also appeal to tradition, then what’s the issue. The tradition is The Catholic Church. The Bible is Catholic. The Apostolic successors are the bishops and priests. The magisterium is guided by the holy spirit.
 
Last edited:
It is written in a human language. With the right knowldge of linguistics and context you can get the most important
 
My semi-peasant grandmother from the foothills of the Italian Alps had one of the most simple and beautiful faiths I’ve witnessed, having learned it from the Catholic Church. She didn’t need to be a Bible scholar.
 
Eschatology 101 😉 first lesson free 😃

Millenialism is all about prophecy (eschatology). There was a debate in the early church about how God would accomplish all the Prophecies. Some individuals saw a millenium (meaning thousand, for a thousand years… either literal or just a long period of time). Premillinialism (pre meaning before) … Christ would return before this golden age to establish his Kingdom on earth. PostMillenial (Post meaning after) … The church would bring in a golden age at the end of which Christ would return. The Catholic Church (like most history churches) are Amillenial. (A meaning none) … We do not believe in Christ returning for a thousand year period on Earth.
Amongst the premillenials (those who believe Christ will return to establish his Kingdom on Earth),
there is belief that there will be a tribulation period where the AntiChrist and forces of Evil will dominate. Those believe believe that Christ will rapture the Church (pull them from earth to meet him in his glory) … Either before this great period of tribulation (pretribulationist) or after this great period of tribulation (posttribulationist). There even exist midtribulationist (rapture before the great tribulation).
Of course, the church has not retained the premillenial eschatology and except for a few exceptions in the Church Fathers (Iraneus, Justin martyr), the vast majority of Church fathers were Amillenial (there will be no 1000 years golden age).
 
Last edited:
@Mishakel, thank you for your interesting post #35. However, there are several statements in that post that can be questioned:
Mishakel said:
Scripture was written by men but literally given by God himself.
Click to expand...
Catholics would say “inspired” by God. Is that the same as “given”?
Mishakel said:
Jesus knew the Jews looked to the OT as a means for salvation.
Click to expand...
What did “salvation” mean to the Jews at that time? Did it have the same meaning for them as it had for Jesus?
Mishakel said:
If you say the Church, you will find many varying opinions within Catholicism on many passages.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. No doubt about it. But it doesn’t prompt us to split off from the Church and start a new church of our own. That’s a key difference, seen from the Catholic side. Please take a look at @steph03’s post #2 on this thread. Can you explain why the Baptists feel the need to keep splitting like that, while we’re not even tempted to?
Mishakel said:
I and other Protestants believe all that is needed for salvation itself is found in scripture, and we are held accountable to that.
Click to expand...
You and all other Protestants, or you and some other Protestants?
Mishakel said:
I believe with every ounce of my soul that all of scripture is infallible. I do not believe that man is capable of infallibly interpreting every passage.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to see a contradiction, or at least a near-contradiction, between those two sentences. If you accept that man is incapable of infallibly interpreting every passage, then you have to accept (I think) that certain difficult passages can be interpreted in two or more different ways, and you cannot know for certain which of those interpretations is the correct one. You cannot, then, know which of those interpretations is the “infallible” one. So what does it mean to say that the Biblical text is “infallible” if it’s impossible to know for certain what it means?
 
Last edited:
Not sure if you are saying this passage is teaching Sola scriptura? Have you examined the textual variance in that verse?

KJ21

And these things, brethren, I have in a sense transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes, that ye may learn through us not to regard men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another

Another version:

CEV

Friends, I have used Apollos and myself as examples to teach you the meaning of the saying, “Follow the rules.” I want you to stop saying that one of us is better than the other.

And another version:

WE

My brothers, I have said these things about Apollos and myself so that you will learn from us to live the way the holy writings say. Then you will not be proud and say, `This teacher is better than that one.

And another version:

NLT

Dear brothers and sisters, I have used Apollos and myself to illustrate what I’ve been saying. If you pay attention to what I have quoted from the Scriptures, you won’t be proud of one of your leaders at the expense of another.

That’s all 1 Cor 4:6.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, @steph03. I’m a little less mystified now than I was before. I think I’ll need to draw a diagram to see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
 
Same camp as you are coming from, brother. My wife and I have recently felt the prompt that the Catholic Church is where we are being called for some similar reasons.

I’ve loved our journey as Reformed Christians and we have both grown in a deep love and affection for Jesus and the absolute necessity of the Christocentricity of everything. Within our reformed tradition and among well-intentioned and Christ-formed brothers and sisters we’ve thrived, but God is calling us to something more: the teaching authority of the Church, the Sacraments, and Sacred Tradition.

We’re pretty overwhelmed by it all in a very good way and are loving the journey towards joining the Church in 2020. Thanks be to God.
 
My mistake and apologies. 🙂

I’m betting you can infer which camp within the Reformed camp we’ve been! 😉
 
Last edited:
I think you are missreading me brother. I am not saying you need even a bible. All I am saying that if we want to get in detail complex text we just need to do human work using logic, linguistics and history. Nothing else.
 
I’m not sure, did you? I see that passage thrown around quite a bit by it’s adherents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top