Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[Zynxensar]

I saw an argument made by a Protestant website (I think it was bible.ca) that many Protestants hold on to tradition and their own opinions and thus do not follow Sola Scriptura. He added that if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.

Thoughts?

 

[Thom18]

Sola Scripture can’t be separated from any man’s opinion. He’ll see in Scripture what he wants to see or what others have told him to see.

 

[commenter]

Different Sola Scriptura advocates reach different conclusions. One problem is that verses are interpreted differently. You can say “read them in Context” but does this verse go with the section before it, or after it? Sometimes the context refers to some verses in another Book, but invariably there is disagreement over that.

The other problem with SS is Which verse applies to answer a given question or topic? When I carpooled with a Baptist friend, I would defend some Catholic teaching by citing thus or that verse. She would argue That’s not the verse that applies regards this topic. She of course would supply some other verse that was operative on that question.

Of course, the particular template she followed contradicts the templates followed by other SS churches. That’s why they emphasize that the Word of God has to be rightly divided.

But who determines Rightly?

 

[po18guy]

IOW, if everyone agreed with the founder of that website, they’d all be in agreement.

OK…

My advice: NEVER go to such sites. They are corrosive to both faith and charity. Stick with what you know. Stick with the time-tested and proven faith. Stick with the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[ahs]

He added that if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.

Sure, until they started trying to interpret it, or understand what the text is REALLY saying. Then, suddenly, they’d be right exactly where they are right now, because that’s exactly what they all think they are doing…

 

[goout]

I saw an argument made by a Protestant website (I think it was bible.ca) that many Protestants hold on to tradition and their own opinions and thus do not follow Sola Scriptura. He added that if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.

Thoughts?

That makes good sense. If scripture is the only/final word, there should be no divisions.

Jesus is a person not a book.
Jesus formed a community, he didn’t write a book. The community he formed wrote the book. The community he formed has authority, not the book.
The bible comes out of Tradition.

Without the Tradition of the one true Church you have absolutely nothing, cause you don’t really have Christ.

 

[po18guy]

There is no evidence that the Lord played Rock, Paper, Scissors and the paper won.

He chose the Rock.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The problem is even when trying to be literal, Sola Scriptura will have different interpretations.

 

[mcq72]

The community he formed wrote the book.

That is like saying the OT community of God , the Jews , created the Messiah.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus is a person not a book.

No , but He had it written. Jesus is not a church either, but he is the head of it, chief cornerstone.

 

[ZMystiCat]

While there are Protestants who openly embrace tradition to an extent, I find the idea of it being the cause of division a bit laughable. Despite incredibly arrogant claims to the contrary, the Bible’s teaching isn’t always obvious, and that becomes very clear once people who believe that they’re only going off Scripture start trying to tackle major doctrines.

 

[po18guy]

Hmmmm…

Please provide FROM THE BIBLE (and no other source):

1. Where our Lord commanded that it be written?
2. Where our Lord wrote it Himself?
3. Where our Lord dictated the “Sacred Table of Contents”?
4. Where our Lord prophesied that the 66 book Protestant canon was divinely inspired?
5. Where our Lord said that His Church was founded on Papyrus - or any writing at all?

Chapter and verse is all that is asked. That should be a simple task.

Q: You must answer with chapter and verse, otherwise: are you not relying on a man-made tradition from 16th century Europe? This is a question for you to ponder.

Q: Do you not claim amazing, divine things about the bible that it does not even claim for itself? Also a question to ponder.

The reason I ask is because the 300+ million Eastern Orthodox have been waiting for an answer for 501 years now, and have not received one.

 

[Dlee]

As I see it, sola scriptura (Bible alone authority) isn’t as much of a problem as is the so many and varied interpretations of scripture - lack of a Magisterium. If everyone believed in the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture, we would at least our sacraments.

 

[JonNC]

Sola Scripture can’t be separated from any man’s opinion. He’ll see in Scripture what he wants to see or what others have told him to see.

Neither can the use of scripture and Tradition be separated from a man’s opinion, but in both cases, the proper practice is intended to exclude individual interpretation regarding doctrine.
In the case of sola scriptura, it is a hermeneutical principle practiced by the Church, to hold doctrine accountable to scripture as the final norm.

 

[goout]

goout:

The community he formed wrote the book.

That is like saying the OT community of God , the Jews , created the Messiah.

Who wrote the bible? Did it fall from the sky?

 

[JonNC]

Jesus is a person not a book.

No one who properly uses the principle of sola scriptura would deny this. In fact, it is a straw man.

Jesus formed a community, he didn’t write a book.

This comes close to denying God’s authorship of scripture. I assume you do not mean it that way.

The community he formed wrote the book. The community he formed has authority, not the book.
The bible comes out of Tradition.

Again, this seems to marginalize scripture, which I don’t believe to be a Catholic position.
That said, it is self evident that scripture and Tradition should not disagree. And, scripture confirms that the Church has been given the authority to teach. Sola scriptura does not oppose that confirmation.

 

[JonNC]

mcq72:

goout:

The community he formed wrote the book.

That is like saying the OT community of God , the Jews , created the Messiah.

Who wrote the bible? Did it fall from the sky?

The Decalogue came down off a mountain, written by God Himself.

 

[MT1926]

The community he formed wrote the book.

That makes no sense? Could you explain where you are going with this statement?

 

[JonNC]

As I see it, sola scriptura (Bible alone authority) isn’t as much of a problem as is the so many and varied interpretations of scripture - lack of a Magisterium. If everyone believed in the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture, we would at least our sacraments.

That’s not the definition of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is the principle of using scripture as the final norm in determining doctrine. The authority to determine doctrine is in the Church. One can find that authority in the Great Commission

 

[goout]

goout:

Jesus is a person not a book.

No one who properly uses the principle of sola scriptura would deny this. In fact, it is a straw man.

It is not a straw man at all. We continually see in many places what amounts to a denial of the Incarnate Christ, as if Christ is a figure in the bible, but did not walk the earth in human flesh, in human history, touch people, breathe on people, speak to people, give people work to do, ie form a Church.
This kind of “literary only” Christ is rife here and all through protestantism. And that is not Christ. Christ is above all incarnate, fully the Son of God, and fully human.

Jesus formed a community, he didn’t write a book.

This comes close to denying God’s authorship of scripture. I assume you do not mean it that way.

It does not. It observes the truth that scripture is the word of God in human words, written by the community it lives in.
Do you believe God floated the bible to earth already written, or was a community formed first, which wrote the bible?

The community he formed wrote the book. The community he formed has authority, not the book.
The bible comes out of Tradition.

Again, this seems to marginalize scripture, which I don’t believe to be a Catholic position.
That said, it is self evident that scripture and Tradition should not disagree. And, scripture confirms that the Church has been given the authority to teach. Sola scriptura does not oppose that confirmation.

The bible comes out of Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are a unified whole with the living Church. If you don’t have one, you don’t have the whole.
Please explain how that marginalizes scripture, when in fact it merely observes how scripture came about.

Again:
Where was the bible when Jesus walked the earth in human flesh?

You never answer this question.