Sola Scriptura vs. the opposite of it. EOS (Exclusion of Scripture)

[SSTeacher]

btw, while I’ve never considered myself my own pope, as you call it, I do agree with the feeling that something more authoritative is missing in my Church.

Jon

Thanks, Jon. I feel at ease with your honesty. Hey, do you have time to read a rant?

In my view, the implication of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that objective truth can be discerned by a subjective method. But can it? I’ve met Protestants who rightly recognize that their “truth” is subjective. They are reluctant to proclaim it. They ask: “Who am I to tell other people that they’re wrong?” It sounds humble. But I think it’s actually a declaration of uncertainty. Pity the children of parents who think along such lines.

I’ve come to accept the view that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura delivers discordant “interpretations of truth,” which confirms to me that objective truth cannot be discerned by a subjective method. Moreover, the doctrine cannot adjudicate on disputes because the doctrine, by its very nature, blesses every single interpretation however contradictory those interpretations might be. This means two Protestants might sit together and read their Bibles, following which one Protestant concludes one thing on a certain issue and the other Protestant comes to understand the complete opposite on that same issue. Does at least one of those Protestants hold a faulty view? Absolutely. But how could anybody possibly say for certain which one it might be, given the framework in which both have agreed to operate?

A classic example of the unavoidable impasse is seen within the disagreement inside Protestant Christendom over the issue of capital punishment. This is no trifling issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death. And if one acknowledges that it’s a moral issue, then one must also acknowledge there must be a right and a wrong about it, which God wishes His people to recognize, believe and then act upon.

Yet Protestant Christians are sharply divided on the issue. Some are passionately for it. Others are passionately against it. Both sides are certain they’re right. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their guiding authority. Both sides claim the Bible endorses their respective positions. And both sides fail to see that they are applying that claim not to the Bible but to their own disputed and unverified understanding of it. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes such scenarios inevitable because it demands this kind of illogical reasoning.

Here endeth the rant, which, incidentally, I thoroughly enjoyed.

Subjectively,
Mick

 

[MariaG]

Just a note to all:

Sola Scriptura as meant by Lutherans is quite different as meant by Evangelicals.

A case of the same word but much different meanings.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Randy_Carson]

It seems to me that many Catholics in an attempt to thwart out the idea of Sola Scriptura turn to being what I call EOS or Exclusion of Scripture. I see this in much of Catholic teaching and theology as did many of the Reformers. I just want to say that next time you accuse someone of adhearing to Sola Scriptura, you may very well may be practicing EOS.

Have you ever picked up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It has a scriptural index in the back that runs dozens of pages.

Have you ever read a papal encyclical? The footnotes are chock full of references to scriptures and to other church documents that are, in turn, chock full of scriptures.

Have you read many of the posts in this forum?

For the sake of our weaker brethren, we, like Paul, try to reason from the scriptures as much as possible.

Are some Catholics “EOS”?

I guess it’s possible…but I’ve never met one personally.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon. I feel at ease with your honesty. Hey, do you have time to read a rant?

In my view, the implication of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that objective truth can be discerned by a subjective method. But can it? I’ve met Protestants who rightly recognize that their “truth” is subjective. They are reluctant to proclaim it. They ask: “Who am I to tell other people that they’re wrong?” It sounds humble. But I think it’s actually a declaration of uncertainty. Pity the children of parents who think along such lines.

I’ve come to accept the view that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura delivers discordant “interpretations of truth,” which confirms to me that objective truth cannot be discerned by a subjective method. Moreover, the doctrine cannot adjudicate on disputes because the doctrine, by its very nature, blesses every single interpretation however contradictory those interpretations might be. This means two Protestants might sit together and read their Bibles, following which one Protestant concludes one thing on a certain issue and the other Protestant comes to understand the complete opposite on that same issue. Does at least one of those Protestants hold a faulty view? Absolutely. But how could anybody possibly say for certain which one it might be, given the framework in which both have agreed to operate?

A classic example of the unavoidable impasse is seen within the disagreement inside Protestant Christendom over the issue of capital punishment. This is no trifling issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death. And if one acknowledges that it’s a moral issue, then one must also acknowledge there must be a right and a wrong about it, which God wishes His people to recognize, believe and then act upon.

Yet Protestant Christians are sharply divided on the issue. Some are passionately for it. Others are passionately against it. Both sides are certain they’re right. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their guiding authority. Both sides claim the Bible endorses their respective positions. And both sides fail to see that they are applying that claim not to the Bible but to their own disputed and unverified understanding of it. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes such scenarios inevitable because it demands this kind of illogical reasoning.

Here endeth the rant, which, incidentally, I thoroughly enjoyed.

Subjectively,
Mick

I think you have a point, which I can see just within Lutheranism, with the liberal ELCA ordaining women, and flirting with gay issues in a way similar to the Episcopals, and my own LCMS and WELS ranging from reluctant to unwilling to walk through the door of dialogue opened by our Catholic brothers.

As a child, I was not given a bible and told to read and interpret. I was catechized, taught that this is what we believe, teach, and confess. It seems not so easy as it was.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Mick, Jon, and Maria, you have all posted wonderful points. I think that we are getting to the basic issue

The basic issue is not if Sola Scriptura is correct. It is if there is supposed to be an authoritative Church structure. If there is, then it is logical that it would have the authority to help guide us. If not, then it is more or less every man for himself. Not really, but that is how we Catholics like to scare little Catholic children into not reading the Bible

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick, Jon, and Maria, you have all posted wonderful points. I think that we are getting to the basic issue

The basic issue is not if Sola Scriptura is correct. It is if there is supposed to be an authoritative Church structure. If there is, then it is logical that it would have the authority to help guide us. If not, then it is more or less every man for himself. Not really, but that is how we Catholics like to scare little Catholic children into not reading the Bible

My (Evangelical) understanding of Sola Scriptura is that it does indeed amount to every man for himself. I’ve reached the point where I see very clearly that it’s actually a case of Sola Interpreter and for me that’s both unsatisfactory and unsatisfying.

Logically,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

My (Evangelical) understanding of Sola Scriptura is that it does indeed amount to every man for himself. I’ve reached the point where I see very clearly that it’s actually a case of Sola Interpreter and for me that’s both unsatisfactory and unsatisfying.

Logically,
Mick

Further to the above, I should have made it clear that my understanding of Sola Scriptura also includes the idea of every woman for herself (I do possess a copy of the gender–friendly NRSV and I know that there are Methodists among us).

Appeasingly,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

Mick, Jon, and Maria, you have all posted wonderful points. I think that we are getting to the basic issue

The basic issue is not if Sola Scriptura is correct. It is if there is supposed to be an authoritative Church structure. If there is, then it is logical that it would have the authority to help guide us. If not, then it is more or less every man for himself. Not really, but that is how we Catholics like to scare little Catholic children into not reading the Bible

 

[Peter_J]

It seems to me that many Catholics in an attempt to thwart out the idea of Sola Scriptura turn to being what I call EOS or Exclusion of Scripture. I see this in much of Catholic teaching and theology as did many of the Reformers. I just want to say that next time you accuse someone of adhearing to Sola Scriptura, you may very well may be practicing EOS.

I disagree.

God bless

Napsack,

I guess I wouldn’t go quite as far as R_C – I agree that there is such a thing of “Exclusion of Scripture” among Catholics, but I don’t think it is common.

There’s also such a thing as relegating Scripture to the status of important documents, but no more. I think that is slight more common among Catholics than “EOS” is.

Concering your last statement …

I just want to say that next time you accuse someone of adhearing to Sola Scriptura, you may very well may be practicing EOS.

… I would say that “you may very well” is too vague for the statement to be meaningful.

 

[Peter_J]

For the sake of our weaker brethren, we, like Paul, try to reason from the scriptures as much as possible.

!!

 

[Cluny]

Pop-evangelicals practice EOS all the time.

 

[Lapell]

It seems to me that many Catholics in an attempt to thwart out the idea of Sola Scriptura turn to being what I call EOS or Exclusion of Scripture. I see this in much of Catholic teaching and theology as did many of the Reformers. I just want to say that next time you accuse someone of adhearing to Sola Scriptura, you may very well may be practicing EOS.

You need not do away with the Holy Scriptures to say: Not sola scriptura, which really means: “Not by Scriptures alone” If you find some EOS among us, it’s not among serious Catholic theologians (those keeping in tune with the Magisterium of the Church), let’s be clear about it!

 

[Lapell]

I agree with you Jon. I think that maybe you didn’t realize my point. I understand personally that this is not at all a polarized issue. My point is that when Protestants and Catholics are discussing differences, one of the defenses many Catholics often will throw is that the Protestant suscribes to the position of Sola Scriptura (which is often not true). In return, the Catholic may completely disregard the Scripture that the Protestant is attempting to spotlight for the subject material at hand. It seems to happen all too often.

Napsack, do you mean to say there are Protestants to whom Sola Scriptura doesn’t refer to the Holy Scriptures as the sole authority on which the Christians should rely? If that’s the case, what would they believe Sola Scriptura to mean???

 

[Lapell]

My point is that when Protestants and Catholics are discussing differences, one of the defenses many Catholics often will throw is that the Protestant suscribes to the position of Sola Scriptura (which is often not true). In return, the Catholic may completely disregard the Scripture that the Protestant is attempting to spotlight for the subject material at hand. It seems to happen all too often.

If a Catholic would back his point quoting from the Scriptures, how do YOU react?

 

[Peter_J]

^^ I think napsack makes an interesting point about not all Protestants subscribing to Sola Scriptura.

But then you get the issue of how do you define “Protestant” – I usually think of “acceptance of Sola Scriptura” as part of the definition of “Protestant”.

 

[Lapell]

Just a note to all:
Sola Scriptura as meant by Lutherans is quite different as meant by Evangelicals.
A case of the same word but much different meanings.
God Bless,
Maria

I am not familiar with this notion of a difference between the Lutheran meaning of SS and the Evangelical meaning of it, but I would be interested to learn it. In what are they different?
Thanks and God bless you.

 

[laverita]

I have been reading and notice the napsack the tread starter has been banned. Im making a mental note after looking in his post history that perhaps questioning the authority of the Catholic Church is not a good idea.

 

[Peter_J]

perhaps questioning the authority of the Catholic Church is not a good idea.

Have you ever read the play “A Man for All Seasons”, by Robert Bolt, about St. Thomas More?

MORE: God’s my god … But I find him rather too subtle . . . I don’t know where he is nor what he wants.
ROPER: My god wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else!
MORE: Are you sure that’s God? He sounds like Moloch.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I have been reading and notice the napsack the tread starter has been banned. Im making a mental note after looking in his post history that perhaps questioning the authority of the Catholic Church is not a good idea.

It is how it is done. There are non-Catholics on this forum who have an honest disagreement with the idea of the authority of the Catholic Church and can discuss this disagreement in a charitable manner. Those posters however know what they are disagreeing with. Even though they do not affirm the Catholic belief, they understand what is really taught and what they are denying.

It is the posters who think we worship the Pope, believe he is a god, and that he can never sin (or any other misrepresentation of what we believe) who end up having a difficult time on this forum. They also seem to have an inability to discuss even the days weather charitably, let alone our differences.

The question is; which one are you?

By the way welcome to the Forums. I hope you stick around and have not already been scared off.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

I am not familiar with this notion of a difference between the Lutheran meaning of SS and the Evangelical meaning of it, but I would be interested to learn it. In what are they different?
Thanks and God bless you.

THe “Cliff’s Notes” version is that Lutherans view scripture as the final norm, so we can accept the Creeds, the first 6 councils, use our Lutheran confessions, accept many of the traditions of the Church, etc., so long as they do not contradict scripture.
While many American evangelicals view scripture as excluding these things. The better term for this view is solo scriptura.
There is a good article on this, I’ll try to find it.

Jon