Sola Scriptura and knowing the whole Bible

[Dave_Noonan]

So is this fair to surmize?

1.) Sola Scriptura does NOT require one to have read all of Scripture to

a.) Believe or reject Christian doctrines
b.) Accept or reject a particular Communion
c.) Teach others sound/orthodox faith

2.) Some, but not all, who profess Sola Scriptura depend on extra extra Scriptural Tradition also.

3.) Those who profess Sola Scriptura come to different conclusions regarding what is anti Scriptural traditions and what is Apostolic Traditions. (example Infant Baptism)

4.) Those who profess Sola Scriptura depend on a church (determined by individual preference) leadership that has read and considered all of Scripture to assure them of divine interpretation.

I think #4 is a little dicey, otherwise these seem ok. Someone had to initially teach us something about Christianity and help form and shape those understandings. However I wouldn’t say that I rely on leadership for assurance of divine interpretation. To the contrary, I think those in leadership sometimes have no idea what they are talking about and to me, that’s part of being in the Reformation tradition. I am open to considering what those in leadership have to say, but ultimately we all make our own judgments about things–that really can’t be avoided if we are honest with ourselves. We either find what we are told convincing or not.

 

[Abu]

rcwitness #1
Doesn`t the notion of Sola Scriptura imply that a person must have read and retained a solid knowledge of all of Scripture in order to arrive at any doctrine of faith?

That seems logical.

I realize the doctrine does not exclude Church authority and Government, but it still leaves the individual responsible to first read and consider all of Scripture before accepting any given doctrine, right?

It would appear so.

Thus, it is illogical for anyone to feel that they can choose to reject the Christ, the Son of God, in establishing His Church with:
**Four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. Never did Jesus command any of His Apostles to write anything, but to go and teach under the Primacy of St Peter.
2. It is only through His Church that anyone can have the Sacred Scriptures to mangle or to lead them to Christ’s Church.
3. The result of private interpretation has been many thousands of differing and confused “interpretations” among those outside of His Church.

Of course Christ established His Church, which defined what books are the inspired Word of God, no more nor less. Only She has the authority to interpret what She has given the world.

From Christ’s giving Her His authority we know that She can teach dogma and doctrine infallibly, as She has done for some 2000 years.

 

[rogergosselin]

I suspect the Church has only declared a handful of verses to be considered final interpretation. The rest is fine as long as we stay within the boundaries.

I’ve always thought it is a bit naive to go after private interpretation so much when the Church has such a limited amount of verses as official teaching.

I don’t know how many or few are the explicit scriptural verses referenced by the Church. However, I am concerned with the perception of Papal authority adding or changing apostolic teaching. For example:

The ancient church fathers teach the Scriptures alone,
without any tradition added to them are only authority for Christians.

An admonishment in this regard has been made:

That’s not Scriptural. That’s universalism under a cloak. Rom. 1-3 teaches that all men are accountable to what they know, …

Romans 1:19-21: “Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.** For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made**; His eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
I just wanted to point out that the Church dogmatically confirms this Scripture:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On Revelation, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”

 

[rcwitness]

I think #4 is a little dicey, otherwise these seem ok. Someone had to initially teach us something about Christianity and help form and shape those understandings. However I wouldn’t say that I rely on leadership for assurance of divine interpretation. To the contrary, I think those in leadership sometimes have no idea what they are talking about and to me, that’s part of being in the Reformation tradition. I am open to considering what those in leadership have to say, but ultimately we all make our own judgments about things–that really can’t be avoided if we are honest with ourselves. We either find what we are told convincing or not.

Dave Noonan, glad to have your participation! I was beginning to wonder if Id see any Christians post!

 

[Thorolfr]

Well, yes - but a Lutheran is not to rely on personal interpretation. We have pastors and theologians to exegete the Scriptures. I have a Lutheran Study Bible which has notes and explanations verse by verse. Certainly not a pocket-sized Bible!

And yes, yes, yes - you can point to that and say a-HAH! Tradition!

Maybe ELCA Lutherans are different because the pastors at my church would definitely believe in personal interpretation among members of my congregation.

 

[a_priori]

Sola Scriptura was postmodernism ahead of its time.

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #85
Maybe ELCA Lutherans are different because the pastors at my church would definitely believe in personal interpretation among members of my congregation

Such a transgression is most unscriptural:
And the errors are starkly exposed further by the words of Christ as proclaimed to His Apostles:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

St Paul’s epistles have “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

The unscriptural aberrations refute Christ in His establishment of His Catholic Church to teach with His authority “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” (Mt 28: 20).

 

[JonNC]

Maybe ELCA Lutherans are different because the pastors at my church would definitely believe in personal interpretation among members of my congregation.

I assume you are not referring to doctrine.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

I assume you are not referring to doctrine.

Jon

I’m not talking so much about important doctrines adhered to by most Lutherans such as what’s in the Apostles’ Creed or the doctrine of justification by faith alone. When I joined my ELCA church, we were asked whether we assented to certain creeds. But there is also quite a lot of freedom (at least in my church) in interpreting much of the Bible as I’ve discovered in the Bible studies I attend every week with one of the pastors.

For example, there is no expectation that we must believe that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the Bible (even though I notice that the LCMS states that Moses did indeed write the Pentateuch in its Lutheran Study Bible). But many modern Bible scholars would disagree. Nor would the pastors of my church expect us to believe in a literal understanding of the creation story even though Luther himself did. Luther stated (according to the Lutheran Study Bible), “We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively about the creation, i.e. that the world with all its creatures was created within six days as the words read.” But if we in my church want to believe that this is a literal account we can and if we don’t want to believe that, this would also be fine.

 

[rcwitness]

For example, there is no expectation that we must believe that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the Bible (even though I notice that the LCMS states that Moses did indeed write the Pentateuch in its Lutheran Study Bible). But many modern Bible scholars would disagree. Nor would the pastors of my church expect us to believe in a literal understanding of the creation story even though Luther himself did. Luther stated (according to the Lutheran Study Bible), “We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively about the creation, i.e. that the world with all its creatures was created within six days as the words read.” But if we in my church want to believe that this is a literal account we can and if we don’t want to believe that, this would also be fine.

This is not different than the Catholic approach to Scripture by the laity.

There are specifically 12 passages which the Church has officially rendered interpretation for. This being in the formal, binding sense. No personal interpretation can contradict these or can hold any authority over other Christians. We are free to believe certain variations of how something happened so long as it does not conflict with doctrines defined by the Church. This is essentially different from interpreting the prophecy of Scripture because the prophecy of Scripture pertains to the whole of Christ`s Church. The Church acknowledges other possible aspects of meanings within any given Scripture, including the 12 passages sealed by the Churches interpretations. We can certainly look at Scripture and see personal inspiration at moments and events in our lives. This is not what Peter was condemning. He was condemning private interpretation of the Prophecy which pertains to the whole Church and the Holy Spirit which guides her.

I believe this is what Isaiah45_9 was writing about in his post…

Not necessarily. We use private interpretation when we pray, study and share passages we like/don’t like in Scriptures. The problem is when we try to make them dogma and/or doctrine without having the authority to do so. Which is different than studying and asking questions and expanding our knowledge.

I suspect the Church has only declared a handful of verses to be considered final interpretation. The rest is fine as long as we stay within the boundaries.

I’ve always thought it is a bit naive to go after private interpretation so much when the Church has such a limited amount of verses as official teaching.

 

[JonNC]

=Thorolfr;12746875]I’m not talking so much about important doctrines adhered to by most Lutherans such as what’s in the Apostles’ Creed or the doctrine of justification by faith alone. When I joined my ELCA church, we were asked whether we assented to certain creeds. But there is also quite a lot of freedom (at least in my church) in interpreting much of the Bible as I’ve discovered in the Bible studies I attend every week with one of the pastors.

Good. That’s the question I had in mind. I agree that, outside doctrine, we as Lutherans do have freedom to interpret, so long as it does not contradict doctrine. So, for example, Lutherans may accept or reject the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

For example, there is no expectation that we must believe that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the Bible (even though I notice that the LCMS states that Moses did indeed write the Pentateuch in its Lutheran Study Bible). But many modern Bible scholars would disagree. Nor would the pastors of my church expect us to believe in a literal understanding of the creation story even though Luther himself did. Luther stated (according to the Lutheran Study Bible), “We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively about the creation, i.e. that the world with all its creatures was created within six days as the words read.” But if we in my church want to believe that this is a literal account we can and if we don’t want to believe that, this would also be fine.

Yes, and even this has its vagueries.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Official interpretations of Scripture and their doctrines (I got this from Steve Kellmeyers book Bible Basics, which was taken from Heinrich Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, nos. 789, 858, 874, 913, 926, 949, 1822.)

Here is a link for source quotes web.archive.org/web/19990421060602/http://clara.franuniv.edu/students/skellmeyer/RCINTERP.HTM

1.) Original Sin

 1.) Romans 5. 12

2.) Baptism

  2.) John 3. 5

3.) Real Presence in the Eucharist

  3.) Matt. 26. 26
  4.) Mark 14. 22
  5.) Luke 22. 19
  6.) 1 Cor. 11. 23

4.) Reconciliation/Penance

  7.) John 20. 22

5.) Annointing of the Sick

  8.) James 5. 14

6.) Mass (as Christ`s sacrifice)

  9.) Luke 22. 19
  10.) 1 Cor. 11. 24

7.) Apostolic Primacy

  11.) Matt. 16. 16
  12.) John 21. 15

 

[rogergosselin]

Official interpretations of Scripture and their doctrines (I got this from Steve Kellmeyers book Bible Basics, which was taken from Heinrich Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, nos. 789, 858, 874, 913, 926, 949, 1822.)

Here is a link for source quotes web.archive.org/web/19990421060602/http://clara.franuniv.edu/students/skellmeyer/RCINTERP.HTM …

Oh, so those are the “handful of verses” that Isaiah45_9 was referring to in post 80? Thank you for this resource; I am definitely bookmarking this one.

I notice that, for example, Rom 1:19-21, which I quoted in post 83, does not make the list. But Pope PiusIX seems to be clearly referencing Rom 1 in that post. Do you agree? I suppose there are many implicit papal references to Scripture, but the explicit verses would demand a higher level of attention.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Doesn`t the notion of Sola Scriptura imply that a person must have read and retained a solid knowledge of all of Scripture in order to arrive at any doctrine of faith? I realize the doctrine does not exclude Church authority and Government, but it still leaves the individual responsible to first read and consider all of Scripture before accepting any given doctrine, right?

I don’t know the Bible verbatim, but I do know enough to be able to defend my Faith, which doesn’t accept Sola Scriptura anyway.

 

[rcwitness]

Oh, so those are the “handful of verses” that Isaiah45_9 was referring to in post 80? Thank you for this resource; I am definitely bookmarking this one.

I notice that, for example, Rom 1:19-21, which I quoted in post 83, does not make the list. But Pope PiusIX seems to be clearly referencing Rom 1 in that post. Do you agree? I suppose there are many implicit papal references to Scripture, but the explicit verses would demand a higher level of attention.

If this link to a document works, its refers to three possible lists which include a couple more passages.

google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFgQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic-convert.com%2Fdocuments%2FBibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc&ei=T0LeVOOAD4a8yQTipIGYBA&usg=AFQjCNHy8IG9fX_NDV_y8G50R4HZy3RBCw&bvm=bv.85970519,d.aWw&cad=rja

But yes, I dont think these are claimed to be the only passages the Church has used to Teach and support the faith, but more of an official nucleus of passages which have officially been interpreted and can not be contradicted. Obviously the Church is not about throwing out verses and claiming them as proof, but she has always viewed Scripture as a whole and its interpreter being the Holy Spirit Himself, whom reveals meaning to the Godly man, and to the whole Church through the Magisterium, or core of Church leadership.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If this link to a document works, its refers to three possible lists which include a couple more passages.

google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFgQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic-convert.com%2Fdocuments%2FBibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc&ei=T0LeVOOAD4a8yQTipIGYBA&usg=AFQjCNHy8IG9fX_NDV_y8G50R4HZy3RBCw&bvm=bv.85970519,d.aWw&cad=rja

But yes, I dont think these are claimed to be the only passages the Church has used to Teach and support the faith, but more of an official nucleus of passages which have officially been interpreted and can not be contradicted. Obviously the Church is not about throwing out verses and claiming them as proof, but she has always viewed Scripture as a whole and its interpreter being the Holy Spirit Himself, whom reveals meaning to the Godly man, and to the whole Church through the Magisterium, or core of Church leadership.

Indeed, every dogmatic document (I think, but welcome correction ) has several Scriptural references.

 

[Abu]

JonNC #91
agree that, outside doctrine, we as Lutherans do have freedom to interpret, so long as it does not contradict doctrine. So, for example, Lutherans may accept or reject the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

That is precisely the errors that follow from rejecting Christ’s Magisterium and hence the Dogma of the Assumption. No wonder that so much else is also lost.

 

[rogergosselin]

That is precisely the errors that follow from rejecting Christ’s Magisterium and hence the Dogma of the Assumption. No wonder that so much else is also lost.

Abu,

I must inform you, in this regard, that our parish priest told my family, right in front of me, that we are free to believe in the Assumption of Mary, or not!

 

[rogergosselin]

Indeed, every dogmatic document (I think, but welcome correction ) has several Scriptural references.

The more I study, the more I find this to be true. When objecting to “Sola Scriptura”, I would hope that Catholics would find only the “Sola” part objectionable, not the “Scriptura” part.

 

[Abu]

Sometimes priests are ill-informed, ill-formed, and mislead.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424
There are four specific dogmas stating Mary’s personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation .

1. Divine Motherhood
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. The Assumption
   There is no question that they are dogmas, to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith. (Canon #750.1).

“This Marian dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.”