Sola Scriptura Discussion/Debate

[humblelurker]

My Own Understanding

“Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone instructs me?’ So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.’” Acts 8:30-31

“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation” 2 Peter 1:20

“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:15-16

If any other series of writings had something similar to these in them then most people would agree that these writings can’t be personally interpreted. However, because we are talking about Scripture many think otherwise.

Let’s take a look at what we have so far. I want to build a car, but the instructions I have state that not everything is in the instructions. (see other post) The instructions are good, but not complete (according to the instructions own statements [see other post]). Furthermore the instructions are not self evident (the instructions even admit this fact). Can everyone out there build this car? The answer is “NO.”

Logic states that you will need more information from a credible source to build this car. Enter the Church and the Early Fathers. If you have a problem where do you go? You go to the Church Matthew 18:15-17. Why? Because the Church is the “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15. Who was it that put the instructions down? The Church. Who has the right to interpret it? The Church.

“In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.” Material And Formal Sufficiency By James Akin

Logically I don’t see how that is possible.

I’m not perfect, and I’m new at posting. Sorry.

See you tomorrow if I’m not too busy.

 

[pete_29]

Pardon my lack of education, but I asked this on another thread and never got a response. If a person or group believes in Sola Scriptura, Then don’t they have to believe that they have an infallible interpretation of scripture. If not, then how can they be sure that what they are professing as Faith is true.

 

[VociMike]

Pardon my lack of education, but I asked this on another thread and never got a response. If a person or group believes in Sola Scriptura, Then don’t they have to believe that they have an infallible interpretation of scripture. If not, then how can they be sure that what they are professing as Faith is true.

Intellectually they’ll almost certainly deny this, and yet their words and actions can only suggest that at some level they believe it. It’s a glaring discrepency.

 

[pete_29]

It looks like my question killed this thread too.

 

[BobCatholic]

If your question killed the thread, then this will probably bury the coffin

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

What is sola scriptura?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used” (this is more along the lines of Prima Scriptura)
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura. Prima Scriptura CAN be practiced.)

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.

1. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words. Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
2. You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.

Hmm…Scripture…Tradition…Magisterium. That sounds like the Catholic Model instead of sola scriptura

Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[ckempston]

Hello ckempston,

You wrote:

“This underlines the problem I have with Catholicism. The Holy Spirit is marginalized. Every question needs a thousand page answer. I believe if people came together in humility the way the Bible calls us to, with our eyes on Jesus instead of who’s right, we wouldn’t have nearly as many problems as we do. And the existence of problems, in and of itself, does not necessitate a human arbiter. Problems are OK! according to Paul. He says this explicitly. There are instances in Acts where the Apostles sent instructions to the Gentiles. I note that the Jerusalem Council was very limited in its dogma. I think the Catholic church would have done well to follow this example.”

This is not true. It is difficult to give a non-catholic a “cracker jack” answer to a “prime rib” question. Although I guess we could do that but then again we would not have brought our seperated brothers and sisters any closer to TheTruth. It does not take much scratching on my part when I encounter a “bible believing” christian to sometimes realize that this is a empty claim. How can you believe in a book that you do not understand and have spent little time with? Keep in mind that to know and believe in this book it to believe in a Somebody. It never ceases to amaze me that we want to keep “the faith” simple and dumbed down. Yet we will oooh and aaah over the theory of realitivity or write a thousand page answer to describe DNA. Yet when it comes down to the creator of the universe we want a simple proof text. St. Paul in his letters is communicating to people of on fold. The Council of Jerusalem was limited in its dogma, for one The Church was in its infancy and two the heretics were just getting started.

Peace,
DCD

While your answer may sound convincing intellectually, it is not Biblical. Not only is the Lord’s “yoke…not heavy, burden…light,” but our faith is to be a simple, innocent one, like that of a child.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The message of Christ is simple. So simple and foolish that it causes people to stumble:

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Endless genealogies - the leadership of the Catholic church is one humungous genealogy. The point is that complication and long drawn out arguments cause controversy, not faith:

1Tim 1:3-4
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

The Catholic church is one big, drawn out philosophy. The passage is clear: human philosophy = bad, Christ = good. I don’t think it can be denied that the Catholic church’s underlying philosophy is Western in nature, and largely based on Aristotle’s teachings.

So, I go back to my original comment that thousand page answers are unnecessary, and not only that, but contrary to New Testament teaching.

The relevance to Sola Scriptura is that while SS remains untenable, commentary, theology, and philosophy should be kept to a minimum in Christianity.

 

[Orionthehunter]

While your answer may sound convincing intellectually, it is not Biblical. Not only is the Lord’s “yoke…not heavy, burden…light,” but our faith is to be a simple, innocent one, like that of a child.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The message of Christ is simple. So simple and foolish that it causes people to stumble:

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Endless genealogies - the leadership of the Catholic church is one humungous genealogy. The point is that complication and long drawn out arguments cause controversy, not faith:

1Tim 1:3-4
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

The Catholic church is one big, drawn out philosophy. The passage is clear: human philosophy = bad, Christ = good. I don’t think it can be denied that the Catholic church’s underlying philosophy is Western in nature, and largely based on Aristotle’s teachings.

So, I go back to my original comment that thousand page answers are unnecessary, and not only that, but contrary to New Testament teaching.

The relevance to Sola Scriptura is that while SS remains untenable, commentary, theology, and philosophy should be kept to a minimum in Christianity.

My faith is simple. In pursuit of understanding and wisdom, I learn. The more I learn the better my understanding and wisdom. The better my understanding and wisdom, the better I can discern. The better I discern, the better I can practice my simple faith.

Simplicity requires clarity. Clarity comes from explanation. Simplicity does not mean brevity.

For the record, each and every one of your verses are being used to support a position which denies the context. I’d go thru each and everyone of them but they are not relevant to what this thread is about. Furthermore, while I agree w/ your Sola Scriptura conclusion, it is not appropriate for you to use the occassion of this thread to express your views on the Catholic Church. Do it in a thread for that purpose.

 

[ckempston]

I’d guess the reason you dismiss the passages and refuse to deal with them is that you know your comment is patently false. They imply exactly what I wrote.

This thread is about Sola Scriptura, to which the proposed alternative is the Catholic belief in Sacred Tradition/Sacred Scripture working hand in hand with the Church as the final authority/interpreter, etc. My comments about the Catholic system are perfectly relevant.

And again, I’d point out that the Catholic responses here are heavy on philosophy and platitudes, but low on scripture.

Jesus says understanding comes from obeying not the kind of “learning” you are suggesting. See John 8:32. Wisdom is obedience to God’s commands, not the studying of philosophy. I think you’re confused that when the Bible refers to Wisdom and Knowledge that it’s talking about the worldly wisdom and knowledge of philosophies, when it is simply referring to knowing and obeying God’s commands. See Matt 24:24-26. Wisdom also comes from asking God for it (James 3:17).

You said:

Clarity comes from explanation.

According to Jesus clarity comes from obedience; and the Old Testament (Prov 1:7, for instance: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.) again, clarity comes from fearing God and obeying his commands:

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

Interesting that just before this, the “Teacher” was pointing out the fruitlessness of the “making of many books” and he warned the reader of “anything in addition to them” (them = the words of the wise, i.e. God’s commands).

 

[humblelurker]

My posts are not about any kind of philosophy, but to help illustrate my simple beliefs that are based on faith and reason. ckempston. It sounds to me that you believe “ignorance is bliss.” I would hardly believe Jesus would endorse such a claim. With my posts I feel like a third wheel in this conversation, so I am going to leave this thread and return to lurking. It’s been fun everyone.
And for the Record.
Sola Scriptura can’t be proven using Scripture Alone, and I don’t believe Sola Scriptura is true.
Humblelurker Out.

 

[mikeledes]

Paul has no problem with divergent views, as he points out in Romans 14, and he has no problem preaching unity at the same time that he accepts those with differing opinions:

So, my conclusion is that although Sola Scriptura is illogical, it’s a false dilemma to suggest that the only other option is to submit to the Pope.

Paul had no problem with divergent views when it came to certain customs or practices. He definitely would have a problem when the divergent views are centered on the core teachings of Christianity, particularly salvation. Protestants say “justification by faith alone”, but that phrase means different things to different Protestants. Martin Luther and Lutherans believe in justification by faith alone and baptismal regeneration. Other Protestants (Baptists, etc.) believe baptismal regeneration contradicts justification by faith alone. Many Arminians believe in faith alone and that salvation can be lost (Methodists, Penetecostals, Nazarenes, etc.). OSAS Arminians and Calvinists argue that loss of salvation contradicts justification by faith alone and those who believe that are teaching a “works” gospel. Arminians and Calvinists believe “faith alone”, but Calvinists accuse Arminians of teaching a “works” gospel because Arminians teach that faith is a free choice. Do you know that there are two contradictory versions of eternal security? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints

Some Calvinists even get offended if you confuse perseverance of the saints with a Charles Stanley version of “eternal security”, believing the latter to be anti-nomianism. Then you have the divisions within Arminians and Calvinists (pedobatists vs. credobaptists, 5 pointers vs. 4 pointers, etc.). Also, there are those who believe speaking in tongues is a sign of salvation (Pentecostals, etc.) and those who believe that speaking of tongues has ceased and that any supernatural manifestation is of the Devil.

And all of these believe they are being led by the Spirit? What assurance do you have that you are led by the Spirit and others who are sincere Christians are not? Do you believe you have a special gift that other Christians apparently do not have?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[DCD]

While your answer may sound convincing intellectually, it is not Biblical. Not only is the Lord’s “yoke…not heavy, burden…light,” but our faith is to be a simple, innocent one, like that of a child.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The message of Christ is simple. So simple and foolish that it causes people to stumble:

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Endless genealogies - the leadership of the Catholic church is one humungous genealogy. The point is that complication and long drawn out arguments cause controversy, not faith:

1Tim 1:3-4
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

The Catholic church is one big, drawn out philosophy. The passage is clear: human philosophy = bad, Christ = good. I don’t think it can be denied that the Catholic church’s underlying philosophy is Western in nature, and largely based on Aristotle’s teachings.

So, I go back to my original comment that thousand page answers are unnecessary, and not only that, but contrary to New Testament teaching.

The relevance to Sola Scriptura is that while SS remains untenable, commentary, theology, and philosophy should be kept to a minimum in Christianity.

ckempston,

Col.2:8 St. Paul’s point is a philosophy that is not Christ centered is empty. The Catholic Church’s entire philosophy is Christ centered from St Augustine to St. Thomas to St Bonaventure and on and on and on. In fact all of these men’s base was Christ not philosophy. They used logic and philosophy as a tool to better understand Christ. So your comment is incorrect.

As has been stated earlier about the other prooftexts you have given please go back and look at them in context.

Peace,
DCD

 

[mozart-250]

I resolved not to get sucked into another Sola Scriptura thread. I am not even sure if I believe in Sola Scriptura, and if I do, then it is a very nuanced belief. Anyway

If your question killed the thread, then this will probably bury the coffin

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

there are many reasons why.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?

What is sola scriptura?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used” (this is more along the lines of Prima Scriptura)
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura. Prima Scriptura CAN be practiced.)

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.

Actually the issue is that Sola Scriptura is a title that several distinct ecclesiastical organizations use with different meanings.

If this line of argument proves Sola Scriptura false, then the “Real Presence” must also be false. After all, this title is used by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists with different meanings ascribed to this title by all.

Which makes proving Sola Scriptura (whatever that is) false. It can only be false if you identify what is common in all its variants and prove what is common false.

1. You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words. Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words

And this assertion is a prime illustration in what I mean…we start with a title (Sola Scriptura) and then ascribe meanings to the title that are (probably) not held by those who use the title.

Some of the (novice) Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura sound like Protestant arguments against the real presence when they doctrine is cannibalistic.

If you want to go about proving something false, you don’t start with the title. You first would have to gain an understanding of all of the possible nuances of Sola Scriptura, determine what is common to all of them, and prove the common thread incorrect. Which is more difficult than some of these (novice) arguments against that occur in threads like this.

Other than that carry on. I am not going to be put in a position of defending something that I may or may not believe in.

 

[BobCatholic]

If this line of argument proves Sola Scriptura false, then the “Real Presence” must also be false. After all, this title is used by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists with different meanings ascribed to this title by all.

The doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be practiced. Trying to compare it to “real presence” is comparing apples to oranges and thus your comparison is invalid.

Think: How can one practice the doctrine of “real presence”
One doesn’t. GOD DOES THIS FOR US We are not expected to practice it.

HOWEVER, the same cannot be said about the doctrine of sola scriptura. When I have those who reject Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium, and they claim to hold to the Bible Alone, they’re making the claim that one must practice their faith by the Bible alone. .

But wait. How can you practice something by the Bible alone when traditions and magisteriums get in to the picture? You cannot, unless tradition is the same as Bible, and magisterium is the same as Bible (logically this doesn’t make sense).

So thus the principle is invalid because you cannot practice it.

If you want to go about proving something false, you don’t start with the title. You first would have to gain an understanding of all of the possible nuances of Sola Scriptura, determine what is common to all of them, and prove the common thread incorrect. Which is more difficult than some of these (novice) arguments against that occur in threads like this.

Actually I have talked to many sola scripturists about how they define sola scriptura.

They come down to basic two ways:
Bible Only - which basically rejects traditions and magisteriums (which I have easily shown that this cannot be practiced without using the very things they reject)
Prima Scriptura (which puts authority of scripture ahead of tradition and magisterium) - This CAN be practiced. One needs to interpret the Bible (tradition) and have an authority which binds and looses (magisterium)

The nuances are irrelevant.

Either traditions and magisteriums are accepted or they’re not. If they’re not, this model cannot be practiced. If they are accepted (the nuances are about the level of acceptance and authority), that’s prima scriptura or the Catholic model (which both CAN be practiced, so this is why the nuances are irrelevant)

 

[mozart-250]

Prima Scriptura (which puts authority of scripture ahead of tradition and magisterium) - This CAN be practiced. One needs to interpret the Bible (tradition) and have an authority which binds and looses (magisterium)

Well I am not quite sure what you are driving at here, but if I look at this statement and interpret it broadly…then…

According to you, all Protestants (or the vast, vast majority of them…all that I know anyway) practice “Prima Scriptura” (I am aware of the distinctions in terms…the boundaries seem fuzzy…I am more comfortable with Prima Scriptura anyway).

Take any denomination (going with my example du jour Assembly of God). Do they have a magisterium and tradition equivalent ? Sure they do…they have a statement of faith with an ecclesiastical hierarchy and tradition of 100 years or so to support it. They have published positions of Assembly of God on relevant theological and moral questions.

I think this can be stretched to non-denoms except their magisterium is their local church and their tradition is the orientation their local church conforms to (example independent fundamentalist King James only Baptists conform to that tradition and history).

Furthermore, the folks in the pew will (generally) interpret the Bible along the lines of the church you attend. If you attend a 5 point Calvinist church, you will probably interpret the Bible along those lines. If you attend a Pentecostal church, guess how you will see the Bible.

The only difference that I see is that Protestants view their tradition and magisterium (yeah they don’t use the words but they exist) as capable of being incorrect while Catholics do not. So the issue in the end reduces to how “tradition”, “magisterium”, and the written Word of God relate to each other in the various worlds.

If one defines “Sola Scriptura” as the complete absence of magisterium and tradition (or their logical equivalents), I say it does not exist.

However I am not sure that is the definition of “Sola Scriptura” (I am a little dense and am not sure what the definition is anyway).

D’oh…my 20 minutes is up and I thought of an illustration I came up with a while back to support my assertion here…

Let’s turn to the field of statistics to determine whether magisterium (church) and tradition (church history) have any influence (correlation) on what Protestant Christians believe.

Let C represent the population of Protestant churches that teach Calvinism. Let A represent the population of Protestant churches that teach Arminianism. Let CCh represent the population of (Protestant) Christians that believe Calvinism. Let ACh represent the population of (Protestant) Christians that believe Arminianism.

If church (magesterium) and tradition (church history) were of absolutely no influence in what these Christians believe on this subject, I would expect that the population of CCh Christians and ACh (Protestant) Christians would be equally distributed in the population of C and A Protestant churches.

I guarantee that is not the case. Thus there is correlation (influence) between our equivalents of magesterium and tradition and how a Christian perceives the Bible.

 

[justinthemartyr]

God is sooooooooo wise.

God made it so that the entire existence of the book called the Bible, cannot exist without tradition of the Catholic Church.
There would be an entirely different canon. And to show the world that it did not occur(canonization) until almost 400 years after Christ left the earth to make it VERY evident that there was no such thing as sola/prima scriptura in existence, and that the authoritative church was absolutely necessary to guide the people is amazing.

Thank you God.

 

[savedsinner]

Christians who hold to Sola Scriptura have a problem in my eyes.

They say that everthing that a Christian needs to know about salvation is found clearly in scripture. And also that scripture interprets scripture.

The only problem with any of this, is that they are basing their interpretation of scripture from the traditions passed down from earlier Christians.

Think about it. If the Arians had won out at the council of Nicea, then The Jehovah’s Witnesses would be correct today. That would be the correct interpretation of scripture, and the people who claim that Jesus was God incarnant, would be interpretating scripture out of context and incorrectly.

All the things Christians hold in common, even if they are found in scripture, are accepted because they have been defined by earlier Christian councils.

One would assume that one is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is found is scripture, it was taught by the early church, yet there are some denominations today that only baptize in the name of Jesus, because they claim that this is what the bible teaches, especially in the book of Acts.
If the bible is our only source of authority, than who can tell them that they are wrong, since that is how they interpretate scripture.

But if you accept the teaching authority of the Church, then you would say that this is an incorrect interpretation.

Again, I say that most of the commonly held beliefs are held not only because they are found in scriture, but because they were attested to by the church fathers and the councils… that is Sacred Tradition.

 

[johnknoesel]

Wow this post has really gone crazy, we have touched on so many topics here, papal authority, apostolic authority and succession etc…

I am a real big proponent of many apologists especially Jimmy Akin and John Martignoni. I think that everyone here needs to step back a little and go to those resources that are free to find. Also when I study the scriptures which is not enough I use the following tools 1. The Bible two different translations. 2. The Catechism. 3. Catholic Answers Website. I also use commentaries from Father Mitch Pacwa and others and finally The Early Church Fathers will give you a much greater insight. Everybody just step back a little while.
I think most of us here agree that Sola Scriptura cannot and will not work simply because if you sit there with just your bible and nothing else then you will most likely come to a completely different conclusion then the writer and God had intended that is because we can bring our own preconceived notions, predjudices and yes our own dangerous intellect.

Remember Jesus was give authority by God, he then passed that authority down to the apostles and through apostolic succession that has continued through the one true Holy catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. I pray you all will look to the church and her 2000 years of history and authority.

May God bless you all.

 

[ckempston]

DCD - I agree with your comment that philosophy that is Christ-centered is OK. Obviously we have to use reason to interpret the scriptures, and Paul’s writings are full of reasoning. The problem is, concepts such as persons, substance, hypostasis, consubstance, etc., don’t come from Christ, or the Bible, they came from Greek philosophy, yet these are a huge part of Catholic theology. That is undeniable, and that is my problem with Catholic theology. Sorry, I realize that’s way off topic for this discussion, so we can take that to another thread if you want, but back to the topic at hand…

The main reason I find Sola Scriptura untenable is that without Tradition, we would not even have a Bible. It’s the elephant in the room. I find that many of those who claim to hold to Sola Scriptura will make appeals to what the Early Church Father’s believed, not even realizing they are essentially appealing to “Sacred Tradition.”

It’s really naive, but many “Protestants” seem to think that the Bible just descended out of heaven on a cloud to one of the Reformers. They also think that they are completely free from cultural bias when interpreting the scriptures, as if 1500 years of Catholic Theology didn’t have an impact on the way they think.

 

[BobCatholic]

According to you, all Protestants (or the vast, vast majority of them…all that I know anyway) practice “Prima Scriptura” (I am aware of the distinctions in terms…the boundaries seem fuzzy…I am more comfortable with Prima Scriptura anyway).

Depending on denomination, protestants either claim to hold to sola (while they really practice prima) or are honest and admit to hold to prima (and practice prima).

The only difference that I see is that Protestants view their tradition and magisterium (yeah they don’t use the words but they exist) as capable of being incorrect while Catholics do not. So the issue in the end reduces to how “tradition”, “magisterium”, and the written Word of God relate to each other in the various worlds.

And in the world of “Bible Only” - tradition and magisterium are irrelevant and non-authoritative.

If one defines “Sola Scriptura” as the complete absence of magisterium and tradition (or their logical equivalents), I say it does not exist.

It logically doesn’t exist because it cannot be practiced. HOWEVER, time after time, I see “Bible Only” being trumpeted by certain protestants and their groups over and over. So to those, I say, “How do you practice it?”

Thus there is correlation (influence) between our equivalents of magesterium and tradition and how a Christian perceives the Bible.

I agree. The difference is that certain sola scripturists claim there is no correlation, when in reality there is. In effect, you’ve supported my point that Sola Scriptura, defined as “Bible Only” cannot be practiced. Prima Scriptura is the norm, even if they claim to hold on to Sola.

 

[BobCatholic]

They say that everthing that a Christian needs to know about salvation is found clearly in scripture. And also that scripture interprets scripture.

The only problem with any of this, is that they are basing their interpretation of scripture from the traditions passed down from earlier Christians.

My point exactly.

I maintain that the only interpretation of scripture that is correct is that of the Apostles. They wrote the NT, they knew how to interpret it 100% correctly. They passed it on to the churches that existed during that day (Catholic & Most Orthodox) and they preserved it throughout the centuries - in like manner, the scriptures were preserved from error too.

The Apostolic interpretation of scripture, is part of the Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic & Orthodox world.