Sola Scriptura and why do Protestants like it?

[BornAgain2010]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

 

[InspiritCarol]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Well, if you break away from Catholicism, there’s not much left for you *except *the Bible as a means to understanding Christ. But if you look closely an any “sola scriptura” claiming denomination; you’ll see that, while they have staunchly thrown out *our *Traditions, they have replaced them with their own… strange inventions.

 

[Alix1912]

Well, if you break away from Catholicism, there’s not much left for you *except *the Bible as a means to understanding Christ. But if you look closely an any “sola scriptura” claiming denomination; you’ll see that, while they have staunchly thrown out *our *Traditions, they have replaced them with their own… strange inventions.

Sola Scritura as it was taught by Luther (who basically coined the phrase) is not throw out traditions and only go on the Bible. It is the concept that Scripture is the Highest Reference. Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture. Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept. This is the view of most High Litergical Churchs like the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran MS and WELS (and some ELCA), and many Anglican Churchs. Many of those Churches maintain a litergury that is very similar if not identical to that of the Catholic Church. Sola Scritpura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”.

There are “bible only” churches out there but you will find they are generally not High Litergical and most cannot trace their roots back very far. Many of them do have some strange interpretations as well.

Again as with all questions about Protestants…please recognize that we are not one big group. There are lots of denominations with a range of believes, doctrine, and theology. Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your arguement and renforces the misconception that Catholics are elitest and don’t know anything about any other faiths.

 

[fbl9]

Well, if you break away from Catholicism, there’s not much left for you *except *the Bible as a means to understanding Christ. But if you look closely an any “sola scriptura” claiming denomination; you’ll see that, while they have staunchly thrown out *our *Traditions, they have replaced them with their own… strange inventions.

One can not be of any church, fellowhip, hall, group, assembliy, centre,etc. without understanding scripture the same as their church, et all teaches them. The theological differences boggle the mind especially when trying to nail down where the other person’s beleifs lay. without an identifing body.

 

[TrueLight]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

I don’t think most Protestants go around saying, ooh, I like Sola Scriptura, or it sure is practical! Okay, I’m being facetious.

As an evangelical, I was brought up to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that is what God left as as guide. Anything outside of the bible is up for debate.

In my experience. most evangelicals (unless they’ve taken theology classes), don’t know much about the Church fathers. I didn’t. It never came up. I believe if most were exposed to the history of the church, a lot would convert.

You know the saying, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[Salvatore123]

First, sola scriptura does have a meaning and Luther chose it for its mean: solely scripture. I realize that many modern day protestants like to say that Luther really meant that Scripture is the highest up on the hierarchy of “church governance”. But one need only read Luther’s 95 Theses and then see how he believed by the time he died - it was not a hierarchy for him - it was “solely scripture”.

Second, protestants like it because it, by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority. It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting”. And we know how ridiculous that claim is - a book cannot authenticate itself, because when you finally go to the “first” of the books that supposedly starting the authentication process of all the other books, who or what authenticated that first book? We had a HUGE debate on this very issue several weeks ago and that very question was never answered. The the reason why is simple: there IS NO ANSWER.

Finally, protestants like it because it gives THEM individual “command” to interpret the bible in a manner that suits them at any given point in time. The most difficult thing for a protestant to defend are the number of different protestant denominations that now exist for the sola rationis that they cannot all come to an agreement on what the bible means on very important points of doctrine.

 

[BornAgain2010]

First, sola scriptura does have a meaning and Luther chose it for its mean: solely scripture. I realize that many modern day protestants like to say that Luther really meant that Scripture is the highest up on the hierarchy of “church governance”. But one need only read Luther’s 95 Theses and then see how he believed by the time he died - it was not a hierarchy for him - it was “solely scripture”.

Second, protestants like it because it, by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority. It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting”. And we know how ridiculous that claim is - a book cannot authenticate itself, because when you finally go to the “first” of the books that supposedly starting the authentication process of all the other books, who or what authenticated that first book? We had a HUGE debate on this very issue several weeks ago and that very question was never answered. The the reason why is simple: there IS NO ANSWER.

Finally, protestants like it because it gives THEM individual “command” to interpret the bible in a manner that suits them at any given point in time. The most difficult thing for a protestant to defend are the number of different protestant denominations that now exist for the sola rationis that they cannot all come to an agreement on what the bible means on very important points of doctrine.

so they like it because it allows them to be their own individual Magisterium?
thats kinda like telling the bully at school to make his own rules.

 

[pablope]

First, sola scriptura does have a meaning and Luther chose it for its mean: solely scripture. I realize that many modern day protestants like to say that Luther really meant that Scripture is the highest up on the hierarchy of “church governance”. But one need only read Luther’s 95 Theses and then see how he believed by the time he died - it was not a hierarchy for him - it was “solely scripture”.

The most difficult thing for a protestant to defend are the number of different protestant denominations that now exist for the sola rationis that they cannot all come to an agreement on what the bible means on very important points of doctrine.

Well, I heard a convert scholar, on a Journey Home program…state that Luther never defined SS…he could not find a definition from Luther…he just asserted it to silence those who disagreed with him.

I have tracked several threads involving this…and even protestants cannot agree on the definition.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sola Scriptura and Alix 1912

Alix 1912. I wanted to respond to a couple of your points in regard to BornAgain2010’s post.

You mentioned:

“Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture. Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept.”

The issue isn’t merely that “Tradition is wonderful and good” but that authentic oral Tradition has the same authority as authentic written Tradition (Sacred Scripture) and someone has to be there to authoritatively interpret it.

The other problem is, sola Scriptura itself contradicts Scripture. You NEED an authoritative oral Tradition and Magisterium to go along with an authoritative written Tradition otherwise there turns out to be “lots of denominations” Christians that are “not one big group” a wide “range(s) of beliefs” on “doctrine and theology”, etc.

There are Traditions that are imperative to the existence of Scripture itself that are not within Scripture. But we NEED them to even have Scripture.

There are traditions of men that make void the commandments of God too and we need to beware of them. I would say sola Scriptura (any definition that I’ve seen) is one of those traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God.

The other thing is, I’ve talked to many Bible-ONLY Christians who DO hold to the same sola Scriptura attitude you are trying to tell me you don’t hold to (i.e. some my own extended family members are/were Bible ONLY Christians came in from Lutheranism and deny any authoritative oral Tradition). But WHO has the ultimate authority to make such decisions in your tradition? Who is right—you or them?

You might say “Well I’ve talked to Catholics who don’t believe such and such”. But these “Catholics” are by definition taking themselves out of the communion of believers and thus can be called Catholic in name only. Why? Because they are doing in essence the same thing Lutherans are doing by denying the Apostolic authority of the Magisterium or admitting it and refusing to submit to it (or both). Possibly they are doing this as what they perceive as being in “good conscience”. That’s another discussion beyond this thread (if interested see CCC paragraphs 1776-1802 for a reasonable start) and would concern “forming your conscience,” “spiritual sloth”, etc.

Who is the FINAL authority of interpretation of Christ’s teachings? Either it’s YOU, or it’s someone you follow and accept as authoritative. WHO says what tradition is authoritative or not and harmonizes with Sacred Scripture? YOU or the Baptist who says Lutherans shouldn’t Baptize babies because it’s “unscriptural”. I’d agree with you that Baptizing babies IS Scriptural, but that’s not the issue. It doesn’t matter what I say merely because I say it. The issue is WHO has the final **authority **to interpret Christ’s teachings?

In your tradition it’s either you or someone you follow (neither of which even claim apostolic authority).

You said “Sola Scriptura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”. But I (and I’ll bet many here) have talked to many Bible ONLY Christians who say YOU Alix1912 are wrong and that’s exactly what it means; and proceed to quote verses to try to stuff their definition of sola Scriptura into the particular verse they are quoting to me. A definition you just denied.

Any why appeal to Luther’s tradition of sola Scriptura but reject his Marian devotion themes or his teachings on the contraception issue, or other teachings that were in line with classic Christianity that Lutherans sometimes reject now.

You also stated: “Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your argument and reinforces the misconception that Catholics are elitist and don’t know anything about any other faiths.”

That’s just it. We don’t “lump you all together”. In a certain sense you are all separate “boats” sailing in different directions on your own—in a very turbulent sea. That’s the issue.

This is why I’ve said before, it is very difficult to say what Protestants affirm and what they don’t affirm because as soon as you quote Luther (or someone else) to them they say something like “Well Luther doesn’t speak for me.” And they’re right. Because nobody’s got Apostolic authority in the Lutheran (or any other Bible ONLY) tradition. Protestantism seems to be more easily defined by what they DENY instead of what they AFFIRM.

What it all boils down to is WHO has the ultimate authority to interpret the word of God (both oral and written). Who has this Apostolic authority?

And if you honestly don’t think it’s the Catholic Church, don’t violate your conscience but then you ought to be looking within Christendom WHERE this Apostolic authority is being proclaimed and lived out.

If you undertake this search with a repentant heart for all sins, a willingness to go wherever God calls you, and to search prayerfully and carefully with an open heart, this search (and of course the Holy Spirit) will lead you to where the authentic Apostolic authority is. I believe this search will lead you to the Catholic Church.

One thing’s for sure, if there are 11,000 (or 33,000) bible only groups or denominations all claiming to follow the bible ALONE as their ultimate authority, all claiming to follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit, and yet all coming to differing conclusions on various issues, you KNOW at least 10,999 (or 29,999) of them are going to be wrong somewhere. The Holy Spirit does NOT author chaos.

 

[Cathoholic]

One more point Alix 1912.

We do certainly have some common beliefs though (probably a lot more than you think). You are absolutely right that (oral) “Tradition . . . . cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture” and I want to affirm that.

The reason(s) WHY I affirm it is different from you perhaps but we do hold this belief in common.

The Catholic Church affirms this as well.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Section 80 states:

**II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE **

**One common source. . . **

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission . . . .

 

[InspiritCarol]

so they like it because it allows them to be their own individual Magisterium?
thats kinda like telling the bully at school to make his own rules.

Nope. That’s being uncharitable.

Maybe at first, IDK. But try to step back and think from an overall modern “Evangelical” perspective: you have heard the Catholic church bashed your whole life; Hollywood has portrayed it as nothing but alien and strange; the papers can’t even write an article about the Pope’s beatification w/o implying or directly stating his compliancy in the “pedophilia cover-ups”; yet, somehow, you know you need Christ. What do you have left? It’s kind of sad. Yes, studying the early Church helps, but only if there is someone there who can tell them: oh, BTW, that’s what we do *NOW *as Catholics. Most don’t have that. See?

Now, as for modern little “c” catholics: Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. A Presbyterian minister once explained the Luther vs. Calvin approach as being like a chest of drawers. Where the Catholic Church’s traditions are all accumulated in the drawers. Luther pulled out the top drawer and picked and chose the Traditions to throw away and put the drawer back in; whereas Calvin took the drawer, dumped it on the bed and picked and chose the Traditions to keep. (He was lamenting the inability for a Presbyterian to turn to the Rosary in times of need).

Now, yes: “sola scriptura” literally means: scripture only. Period. I have seen this done only in one very small “community church” setting and the result was *very *ugly. My point was, that with few vastly outlying exceptions; no such beast exists.

Sorry that point was lost in the haste of my previous post.

Sooo… no bully here. It sure feels that way, I know, when you’re persecuted relentlessly by people who call you Satan’s minions and look at you like you have horns. It hurts; but they are just being ignorant. Please don’t let it make you feel anything except compassion for them.

K?

 

[Cinette]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

*Since they do not have a higher authority like the Magisterium they invented Sola Scriptura.

As I see it the Scriptures are Written Tradition which emanated from Oral Tradition. It is not the WHOLE of Tradition. I cannot understand how Protestants, examining history, cannot see this for themselves. Also the scriptures point to Apostolic Authority and the Deposit of Faith. ??

 

[Cinette]

Sola Scritura as it was taught by Luther (who basically coined the phrase) is not throw out traditions and only go on the Bible. It is the concept that Scripture is the Highest Reference. Tradition is wonderful and good, but it cannot contradict what is written in Holy Scripture. Thus traditions that do not contradict the scripture are fine, and should be kept. This is the view of most High Litergical Churchs like the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran MS and WELS (and some ELCA), and many Anglican Churchs. Many of those Churches maintain a litergury that is very similar if not identical to that of the Catholic Church. Sola Scritpura was never meant to mean “Bible Only”.

There are “bible only” churches out there but you will find they are generally not High Litergical and most cannot trace their roots back very far. Many of them do have some strange interpretations as well.

Again as with all questions about Protestants…please recognize that we are not one big group. There are lots of denominations with a range of believes, doctrine, and theology. Lumping us all together or treating us like the redheaded stepchild only weakens your arguement and renforces the misconception that Catholics are elitest and don’t know anything about any other faiths.

*Scripture IS part of Tradition!

 

[Muze]

I dont know where this would go, but I guess it would best fit here.

My question is this:

Many Protestant denominations believe in and follow the mindset of Sola Scriptura. While having obvious drawbacks, what do protestants think is the practicality to Sola Scriptura?
Or IS there even any?

Me personally though, I prefer the 3-Legged Stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

 

[Cinette]

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

*Jesus founded His Church and empowered fallible men to take care of His Church. One sees the transformation in the Apostles at Pentecost. If you believe Jesus to be divine as well as human then you must know that Jesus can do anything. He went to a lot of trouble for us by dying on the Cross. He founded the Church and gave instructions to the Apostles. He promised to be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church.

The Church is perfect and its teachings are infallible. Yes he gave instructions to fallible men. Peter had denied him 3 times despite KNOWING Jesus was divine (he had witnessed the Transfiguration remember). Jesus knew what he was doing.

So my friend like it or not the Pope and the Magisterium are protected from error WHEN DECLARING AN ARTICLE OF FAITH AND REGARDING MORALS. Other than that we have the tares among the wheat just like any man made religion.

God bless
Cinette *

 

[ivebeenshown]

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

Yes the bible is infallible, but what you are effectively stating is that nobody can have the complete and infallible teachings from it. A book can’t talk to you or communicate with you. It’s a one-way thing: you read the book and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, and lots of other people will likely disagree. You can talk to certain people and by way of communication determine that you and another person either agree or disagree, but the book can’t do that for you.

So in the end, all these Protestants saying “Well that’s not Scriptural,” “Repent and return to the truth here in the bible, look!” are effectively claiming that they are properly interpreting this book and the book can’t speak up for itself to agree with any of them.

Fortunately we have God, who works wonders by his Holy Spirit, even through men, allowing them to not only write Scripture (his Holy Prophets) but to assemble and interpret them (the Church.) And we can go to the Church, and talk to a priest, and they will be able to come to agree or disagree with us so that we know if we are in agreement with the Scriptures or not.

But unfortunately, too many are so eager to have nobody to turn to so that they may be affirmed in their faith, and too eager to believe that they are somehow led by God and have the infallible truth even though they disagree with countless others who say the same for themselves.

 

[jhigh]

As a Protestant that very recently converted after years of study and prayer, here is what I have observed.

As stated by other posters, most Protestants don’t truly believe in Scripture only. When you actually talk to them, most have never thought about it (to be fair, many Catholics never bother to truly take the time to understand what they believe, either), and most concede that there is a place in their theology for Tradition.

However, they do subscribe to the belief that any tradition that contradicts their interpretation of Scripture is invalid. This is the fatal flaw in Protestant theology. Catholics also believe that nothing that we do can contradict Scripture, but we also add the missing piece: no interpretation of Scripture can contradict Sacred Tradition, either.

That, to me, is the fundamental difference.

 

[Alix1912]

so they like it because it allows them to be their own individual Magisterium?
thats kinda like telling the bully at school to make his own rules.

You really don’t want to go down the bully at school analogy or we can talk about how when the Catholic Church was questioned during the reformation their response was to excommunicate or kill all who opposed…Sounds a little more like a Bully than your analogy. Let’s try and keep this civil.

First, sola scriptura does have a meaning and Luther chose it for its mean: solely scripture. I realize that many modern day protestants like to say that Luther really meant that Scripture is the highest up on the hierarchy of “church governance”. But one need only read Luther’s 95 Theses and then see how he believed by the time he died - it was not a hierarchy for him - it was “solely scripture”.

Second, protestants like it because it, by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority. It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting”. And we know how ridiculous that claim is - a book cannot authenticate itself, because when you finally go to the “first” of the books that supposedly starting the authentication process of all the other books, who or what authenticated that first book? We had a HUGE debate on this very issue several weeks ago and that very question was never answered. The the reason why is simple: there IS NO ANSWER.

Finally, protestants like it because it gives THEM individual “command” to interpret the bible in a manner that suits them at any given point in time. The most difficult thing for a protestant to defend are the number of different protestant denominations that now exist for the sola rationis that they cannot all come to an agreement on what the bible means on very important points of doctrine.

The Lutheran Church MS does have a hierarchy and we have established interpretations of the Bible from our own councils. Our pastors have teaching authority.

Just as not every writing of the Early Church fathers is held in the same light, keep in mind that just because Luther wrote it doesn’t mean it made it into the doctrine of the Lutheran Church which has been crafted over many years and is the product of much more than just Luther. Also towards the end of his life Luther was physically very ill (basically dying of intestinal problems), and tired. He had been threatened multiple times with death by the Catholic Church, seen his teachings perverted and abused by power hungry German Princes there is a huge difference in the tone of his early writings vrs his later ones. If you don’t actually study them in context they often seem to be written by different people. An early church father example might be Tertullian who came up with the idea of naming and defining the trinity…but later drifted off into the oddball teachings of Montanism.

Because men are fallible, and the only guarantee of infallibility in the bible is for the bible itself. Like it or not, tradition and magisterium are man made, and do not carry any promise of infallibility.

This is precisely the point of the concept of Sola Scriptura. Councils and Traditions aren’t bad, they just cannot be held to the same infallibility standards of the Scripture as they are man made.

 

[Muze]

Jesus founded His Church and empowered fallible men to take care of His Church. One sees the transformation in the Apostles at Pentecost. If you believe Jesus to be divine as well as human then you must know that Jesus can do anything. He went to a lot of trouble for us by dying on the Cross. He founded the Church and gave instructions to the Apostles. He promised to be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church.

Guide? Yes.

The Church is perfect and its teachings are infallible.

The Church was Arian from 351 to 381. It was not infallible at that time.

Yes he gave instructions to fallible men. Peter had denied him 3 times despite KNOWING Jesus was divine (he had witnessed the Transfiguration remember). Jesus knew what he was doing.

ok.

So my friend like it or not the Pope and the Magisterium are protected from error WHEN DECLARING AN ARTICLE OF FAITH AND REGARDING MORALS. Other than that we have the tares among the wheat just like any man made religion.

Unfortunately, I have no basis to believe this. It’s just a claim the RCC makes.

 

[Muze]

Yes the bible is infallible, but what you are effectively stating is that nobody can have the complete and infallible teachings from it. A book can’t talk to you or communicate with you. It’s a one-way thing: you read the book and come to a conclusion about what it teaches, and lots of other people will likely disagree. You can talk to certain people and by way of communication determine that you and another person either agree or disagree, but the book can’t do that for you.

Which is a good thing. That which is infallible is also constant.

So in the end, all these Protestants saying “Well that’s not Scriptural,” “Repent and return to the truth here in the bible, look!” are effectively claiming that they are properly interpreting this book and the book can’t speak up for itself to agree with any of them.

It is certainly reasonable to have a method of exegesis.

Fortunately we have God, who works wonders by his Holy Spirit, even through men, allowing them to not only write Scripture (his Holy Prophets) but to assemble and interpret them (the Church.) And we can go to the Church, and talk to a priest, and they will be able to come to agree or disagree with us so that we know if we are in agreement with the Scriptures or not.

Exept that the priest is just as human as I am. What if he’s wrong and I’m right?

But unfortunately, too many are so eager to have nobody to turn to so that they may be affirmed in their faith, and too eager to believe that they are somehow led by God and have the infallible truth even though they disagree with countless others who say the same for themselves.

I don’t think many protestants make a claim of infallibility for anything other than Scripture. They certainly build doctrines from Scripture, but keep in mind that one of the protestant principles if “Semper Reforma.”