Sola Scriptura: Food for thought

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkPerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarkPerz

Guest
I thought about this while reading some of the threads concerning Sola Scriptura.

I don’t know how many of you remember the news story last summer about the woman who was stopped by state trooper on the Ohio turnpike. She was given a citation for breastfeeding her baby while tooling down the turnpike at 70 miles-per-hour.

She and her husband decided to contest the ticket in court, her husband acting as counsel in her defense. Their defense was based on “religious” grounds. Exactly what their defense was, I don’t remember.

During the course of the trial, her husband requested to present evidence. The evidence, if you haven’t guessed, was a Bible. (a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, no less!)

Needless to say, the judge refused his request.

Kind of makes me wonder what will happen when Sola Scriptura believers stand before THE judge?
 
It also makes you wonder what Sola Scriptura folk think about the Christians who lived in the almost 4 centuries PRIOR to the bible being compiled!

Good food, my friend!
 
Is anyone sufficiently familiar with the original Greek to say how “profitable” (even the KJV renders it “profitable”, I have a copy) has come to be interpreted as “sufficient”? I just end up scratching my head. I’ve read Karl Keating and Kevin Orlin Johnson, but they don’t go into much detail on the subject.
 
Sola Scriptura is the biggest joke out there. St. Paul 2Thesselonians 2:15, …“Hold fast to the TRADITIONS either oral statement or a letter” Both forms oral and written are refered to as tradition by Paul.

Protestants do not have a clue as to how the Bible was formed. (If they did they wouldn’t believe in Sola Scriptura) To them the Bible just dropped out of the sky one sunny afternoon. Leather bound, and autographed by Jesus!

By the way where does it say Bible alone, or Scriptures alone in the Bible? It doesn’t. The closest they have is 2Timothy 3:16 but like you said, …“all scripture is useful or profitable for teaching” Well if the Bible is inspired by God then it would have to be profitable, duh. But no where does it claim Bible alone and it can’t because 400 years of Tradition went into creating the Bible.
 
Well, to be fair to “sola scriptura” there are many definitions. All the way from “Jesus, the Bible, and me” to “the visible Church does the interpreting of Scripture, and we must listen to her.” The former is your typical “fundamentalist” Protestant, while the latter is what Keith Mathison says is the correct definition in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Mathison also says the original Protestants held his definition. It wasn’t originally intended as “every man for himself” but that is what ended up happening.

Early American Protestant History and sola scriptura

Phil P
 
I can’t believe it wasn’t allowed as evidence on religious grounds. It’s pretty clear, in Leviticus I think:

“And the Lord said to Moses, a woman shall not put an end to any activity being done if her son or daughter is in need of suckling at her breast. There shall be no activity that is ceased, and the breast shall be suckled. All activity shall continue, lest she die. This includes driving down the interstate it high rates of speed. I am the Lord.”

This judge needs to be more tolerant.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Well, to be fair to “sola scriptura” there are many definitions. All the way from “Jesus, the Bible, and me” to “the visible Church does the interpreting of Scripture, and we must listen to her.” The former is your typical “fundamentalist” Protestant, while the latter is what Keith Mathison says is the correct definition in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Mathison also says the original Protestants held his definition. It wasn’t originally intended as “every man for himself” but that is what ended up happening.

Early American Protestant History and sola scriptura

Phil P
Click to expand...
👍

This we agree on, Phil. It saddens me to see how many people on this board are completely ignorant of Sola Scriptura. In every instance on this thread it is Solo Scriptura not Sola Scriptura that is being bashed. For those of you sick of Protestants misrepresenting Catholic teaching, please do Protestants the same curtousy. “Me and my Bible” was rejected by the Reformers. In fact Sola Scriptura means Scripture and tradition. Only small “T” tradition. We rely on the fathers and Christians throughout time for a proper understanding of scripture (doesn’t mean we are right of course). This tradition is necessary to understand scripture from a classical Protestant perspective. That is why the Reformed and Lutherans have confessions of faith and Catechisms. It is the traditions through which these churches understand scripture. The “Solo” crowd is a more recent bastardization of the primacy of scripture principle. Mathison’s book is an excellent resource if anyone is interested in the actual meaning of Sola Scriptura. It basically means scripture is the final court of appeal in matters of faith and conscience for the Church, as understood by the Church, not the individual alone (Solo Scriptura).

Mel
 
It saddens me to see how many people on this board are completely ignorant of Sola Scriptura. In every instance on this thread it is Solo Scriptura not Sola Scriptura that is being bashed. For those of you sick of Protestants misrepresenting Catholic teaching, please do Protestants the same curtousy. “Me and my Bible” was rejected by the Reformers. In fact Sola Scriptura means Scripture and tradition. Only small “T” tradition. We rely on the fathers and Christians throughout time for a proper understanding of scripture (doesn’t mean we are right of course). This tradition is necessary to understand scripture from a classical Protestant perspective.
[/quote]

It shouldn’t sadden you to see Catholics misrepresenting Protestant teaching, most of us learned it from them! In refuting Catholic doctrine, Protestants almost in every instance rely on the “me and my Bible” approach to Scripture. So the Catholic merely refutes the Protestant’s argument exactly how it was given. Are we supposed to sharpen their arrows for them before they attempt to put holes in us?
 
40.png
martino:
It shouldn’t sadden you to see Catholics misrepresenting Protestant teaching, most of us learned it from them! In refuting Catholic doctrine, Protestants almost in every instance rely on the “me and my Bible” approach to Scripture. So the Catholic merely refutes the Protestant’s argument exactly how it was given. Are we supposed to sharpen their arrows for them before they attempt to put holes in us?
Click to expand...
Yeah but it was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura specifically that is being attacked. Feel free to attack it on its merits and feel free to attack Solo Scriptura on its merits or lack there of. But to misrepresent a position and then attack that misrepresantation is a strawman tactic. I am just asking Catholics to do their homework and take the higher ground. When I as a Protestant argue for Sola Scriptura I am not arguing for “me and my Bible” because I totally agree with Catholics that that is a ridiculous position.

Please read PhilVas’ post. He knows what I am talking about. You don’t want me saying “Catholics worship Mary” and then you explain that that is not true but you do venerate Mary and go on to explain the difference. It would be completely obnoxious of me to continue to insist that you worship Mary even after you have explained the real Catholic position on Mary to me. So either discuss the issue with integrity or don’t discuss it at all. The latter will prove your intellectual honesty. But refusing to do so after you have been corrected will prove only that you has an agenda that refuses to be confused with the facts.

In Peace,

Mel
 
Someone help me out,…What exactly is Solo Scriptura? And what exactly is Sola Scriptura? Just a short explanation please, something to the point and no lectures please…I have many questions…I have had many Fundamentalists hit me with this Bible alone stuff and refer to it as Sola Scriptura.

Listen to the radio with Protestant preachers their teachings are all over the road, no consistancy errors abound! Someone reply…Thanks.
 
One thing that I would like people to understand is that Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Bible. Here is what I mean… yes we look to the Bible for Sola Scriptura but that is because the words of Jesus are found there. The words of Jesus are also found in someone orally stating them and we would look to that also. The Church Fathers spoke of the words of Jesus so we read their works and listen to them, but if they contradict the words of Jesus then we dismiss them.

We very much thank the people that compiled the words of our savior so that a literate person can read them – but scripture is not found in ink and paper alone, and those that can read words do not necessarily understand their meaning.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Yeah but it was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura specifically that is being attacked. Feel free to attack it on its merits and feel free to attack Solo Scriptura on its merits or lack there of. But to misrepresent a position and then attack that misrepresantation is a strawman tactic. I am just asking Catholics to do their homework and take the higher ground. When I as a Protestant argue for Sola Scriptura I am not arguing for “me and my Bible” because I totally agree with Catholics that that is a ridiculous position.

Please read PhilVas’ post. He knows what I am talking about. You don’t want me saying “Catholics worship Mary” and then you explain that that is not true but you do venerate Mary and go on to explain the difference. It would be completely obnoxious of me to continue to insist that you worship Mary even after you have explained the real Catholic position on Mary to me. So either discuss the issue with integrity or don’t discuss it at all. The latter will prove your intellectual honesty. But refusing to do so after you have been corrected will prove only that you has an agenda that refuses to be confused with the facts.

In Peace,

Mel
Click to expand...
Mel, I am telling you that I am not using the strawman tactic; most Protests actually mean “me and my bible”, when they argue against Catholic Tradition. Whatever the correct title, it is not as important as the substance behind the argument. I agree that if I were to place the “me and my bible” argument upon a Protestant brother when that was not his intension, then I would be guilty as charged. But in almost every case the Protestant comes to me with the “me and my bible” stuff, and they dont have a clue if its supposed to be calle solo, sola, or anything else. They just ask over and over, “where is that in the Bible?” Most of the ones I talk to have never hear the term “sola scriptura”.

What title would you give to the protestant question, “where is that in the Bible?” I have always thought that question was the mantra for sola scriptura! Maybe you can clarify for me, since I have never heard the phrase “solo scriptura”! :confused:
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
One thing that I would like people to understand is that Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Bible. Here is what I mean… yes we look to the Bible for Sola Scriptura but that is because the words of Jesus are found there. The words of Jesus are also found in someone orally stating them and we would look to that also. The Church Fathers spoke of the words of Jesus so we read their works and listen to them, but if they contradict the words of Jesus then we dismiss them.

We very much thank the people that compiled the words of our savior so that a literate person can read them – but scripture is not found in ink and paper alone, and those that can read words do not necessarily understand their meaning.
Click to expand...
With all do respect, and I do not doubt your belief, but I have never heard a Protestant refer to oral tradition as Scripture in any way shape or form. My experience is that they have disdain for traditions, seeing them as traditions of men.
 
40.png
martino:
With all do respect, and I do not doubt your belief, but I have never heard a Protestant refer to oral tradition as Scripture in any way shape or form. My experience is that they have disdain for traditions, seeing them as traditions of men.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by oral traditions. A spoken word of Jesus is the same as a written word of Jesus, so the oral transfer of Jesus’ teachings were just as much scripture as the written transfer of his words.
 
Greetings all

My intention with the original post was more toward a consideration about authority to interpret the Bible. That last sentence was a “throw-in” that came to me only as I was about to submit the post. Bad decision, I guess. Mea culpa. I, too, do not recall hearing the term Solo Scriptura. Forgive my ignorance.

When I thought about the news story, I wondered what the judge would have done if by chance he decided to accept the Bible as evidence? How would he have, or how could he have decided the validity of the defendant’s claim?

Now that I got that out of the way, I think maybe I should go learn a little bit about Sola Scriptura. :o
 
I did an apologetics talk once on the absurdity of Sola Scriptura. I am unfamiliar with the term Solo Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is latin for Scriptures alone. Martin Luther and the Reformers abandoned the Papacy and Magesterium control and decided that the common man could properly interpret the Scriptures as good as anyone in the Mother Church.

Now, what is solo Scriptura? Is this a hybrid of Fundamentalism/Catholicism? and if it is, what’s the logic behind it? Seems another way to conjure up more ignorant doctrines!
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
One thing that I would like people to understand is that Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Bible. Here is what I mean… yes we look to the Bible for Sola Scriptura but that is because the words of Jesus are found there.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) and “Sola Fide” (Faith alone) hangs together. Your faith in Christ shall guide you and help you (through the Holy Spirit) to understand your Bible (alone).

But you live in a society, and your understanding will be filterd through the lenses of what exactly your church teach. And that is what bothers me. You come up with different understanding of how to understand The Holy Book, The BIBLE.

As an example how will you understand the following? “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. 2Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins” (Is 40:1-2)

Most catholics will say that we have to understand the OT in the light of NT. Most catholics will think of Jerusalem as the New Jerusalem (the Church). So the interpretation will be that there is hope for the sinners in the Church. Catholics will also see the same Bibleverses telling something about the Jews **in the past ** (Here Isaiah is talking to the Jews about comfort after the long period in Babylon). As God wanted to comfort the Jews, HE will comfort us.

I have met :bible1: protestants that has clamed that the meaning of these verses is that our saving goes through being kind to the Jews, especially. :confused:

As christians we are called to be kind to all our sisters and brothers in the human race, not only to one particular group of humans.

The two different interpretations can eventually give rise to to different kinds of trusting in God. The catholic interpretation gives HOPE. The protestants version can give rise to FEAR. If you are not good enough to the jews, may be God will punish you.

May be you don’t recognice the protestantinterpretation of Is 40:1-2? That’s what is all about! Catholics (hopefully) will recognice my interpretation (The Church as Jerusalem, the new, and the hope). Protestants will be diveded. There are too many authoroties among the protestants.

(Please excuse any spellinmistake. English is not my first language).

Blessings

G.G.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
It depends on what you mean by oral traditions. A spoken word of Jesus is the same as a written word of Jesus, so the oral transfer of Jesus’ teachings were just as much scripture as the written transfer of his words.
Click to expand...
Where does a Protestant find these oral traditions and how do they know for sure if they are actual teachings of Jesus? :ehh:
 
Solo Scriptura is a recent term that traditional *Sola Scriptura * Protestants use to differentiate between the very recent “me and my Bible and my own personal interpretation” vs. Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. “Solo” is what most of you have been referring too. It is the attitude that one can pick up the Bible and determine doctrine without the assistancce of tradtion (Creeds, Confessions of Faith and the Fathers). True Sola Scriptura relies on these traditions to understand or inform the teachings of scripture. Solo criptura is what most American Evangelcials seem to hold to today and they think it is Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately they are usually very ignorant about the differences.

I just wanted to clarify.

Mel
 
40.png
martino:
Mel, I am telling you that I am not using the strawman tactic; most Protests actually mean “me and my bible”, when they argue against Catholic Tradition. Whatever the correct title, it is not as important as the substance behind the argument. I agree that if I were to place the “me and my bible” argument upon a Protestant brother when that was not his intension, then I would be guilty as charged. But in almost every case the Protestant comes to me with the “me and my bible” stuff, and they dont have a clue if its supposed to be calle solo, sola, or anything else. They just ask over and over, “where is that in the Bible?” Most of the ones I talk to have never hear the term “sola scriptura”.

What title would you give to the protestant question, “where is that in the Bible?” I have always thought that question was the mantra for sola scriptura! Maybe you can clarify for me, since I have never heard the phrase “solo scriptura”! :confused:
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt your experience. But I still wanted to clarify since I am a Protestant who does not hold their position. Sola Scriptura means something. Unfortunately, they don’t even know what it means. I would suggest that you and other Catholics would do well to take them to task on this point. Ask them what Sola Scrptura means and where it came from. Then you can show them that they don’t even believe in Sola Scriptura. They instead hold to the same view as the heretical anabaptists did.

Mel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top