E
e-catholic
Guest
Can someone please explain why protestants believe in Sola Scriptura? What support can you give for it?
- Status
B
bengal_fan
Guest
no. by that i don’t mean i can’t. it means i won’t. this has been discussed on hundreds of threads on these boards. just do a search and you will find what you are looking for. 
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. I don’t know why they believe in it either.
T
tealblue
Guest
As an ex protetant I believed in sola scriptora simply because I wanted to be my own authority.
J
jblake
Guest
e-catholic;:
xan
jonathon
Origen.
xan
jonathon
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Correct me if I am mistaken here, but you are basing your belief of Sola Scriptura, which is the Bible alone as our rule of faith, on a source outside of the Bible???
God bless
M
mike7795
Guest
But yet the Bible is conveniently accurate and reliable when it’s quoted to support the Catholic Church as the “true” Church?Correct me if I am mistaken here, but you are basing your belief of Sola Scriptura, which is the Bible alone as our rule of faith, on a source outside of the Bible???
God bless
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Mike
Where did I say anything in my post about Church teachings and whether or not the Church is supported Scripturally? I simply asked jblake to clarify his one word response to the question.
Being “accurate” and “reliable” does not equate to sufficiency. The “A” section of an encyclopedia is, I would consider, accurate and reliable, but I wonder if it would be all that I need to get myself through school?
God bless
M
mike7795
Guest
Indeed, “A” would be enough, if your teachers told you what B-Z contained, as it is with the Catholic Church
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Mike
Surely a person who believes this doctrine has more to base it on than a simple belief that the Catholic position is wrong? Or is this the answer to the question of the OP? The reason that a Protestant believes such a doctrine, is because they believe the Catholic position to be wrong? ‘A’ becomes right because ‘B’ is deemed to be wrong? Why can’t you just prove this belief right, without all this run around mike? Can your belief only be supported by you assuming that the Catholic position is wrong?
I am glad to see that you agreed that you would need more than “A” to get through school.
God bless
M
mike7795
Guest
No sir.
I’m saying neither approach is correct. Disproving sola scriptura by using the Bible is obviously insufficient. If we say the Bible says the Bible isn’t enough, then we can’t prove that that particular passage is enough to disprove it, because the Bible calls into question its own authority.
On the other hand, there is no proof, or perhaps even evidence to the contrary, that the Bible is enough.
So it’s a catch-22.
By the way, I make no claims as to who is right or wrong.
Thanks,
Mike
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Great mike
And now after this derailment I am back to my original question posted to jblake:
God bless
J
jblake
Guest
Roman_Catholic;:
xan
jonathon
Neither. I’m pointing out that you can cite Origen as the first person who advocated Sola Scriptura, regardless of how you define that term.
xan
jonathon
E
elvisman
Guest
1. Origen wasn’t infallible.
2. Origen became a heretic.
3. Sola Scriptura MUST be proven with Scripture or the entire believe in it fails the smell test.
As for your comment about our belief that the Catholic Church being the “true” Church - if it isn’t, tell me which one is . . .
S
Syele
Guest
One of the many definitions of sola scriptura is a very vague one that simply says Scripture is God Breathed, Accurate (inerrant) and reliable.
That version of it cannot fail based on it being proved outside of the book itself. If you want to debate a particular version (Like maybe the original one) try stating what you are debating before you begin to avoid going off on 100 tangents with people who wouldnt even defend the one you are presenting for debate. Better yet, listen to bengal_fan and do a search.
E
elvisman
Guest
???
**I don’t understand your argument. The Catholic Church, being the entity who wrote the New Testament and compiled the Bible, has always believed that Scripture is God Breathed, accurate (inerrant) and reliable. **
Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone in Latin - states the the scriptures alone are are our sole rule of faith - our final authority. The problem is that this is not sustantiated by Scripture itself. THAT is the problem with Sola Scriptura - it’s self-refuting.
Which part of that is difficult to understand?
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
They believe in Sola Scriptura for a number of reasons. They want a basis to reject teachings found in the sacred traditions of the church (assuming they contradict, which they do not). They assume the only word of God is found in the written scriptures. There is no word of God apart from the scriptures, nor anything that ulimately has authority for them aside from the scriptures, so they claim. (Except for the fact that I was nearly denied ministerial credentials with my former denomination for disagreeing with a position paper-the official interpretation of the scriptures of our denomination) This was because I argued against the paper using the scriptures. It was my interpretation against theirs, go figure…
As a Protestant I wore it as a badge of honor. Catholics believed things that obviously contradicted the Bible, and appealed to “tradition” to back them up. However in the New Testament Gospel accounts, Jesus clearly corrected the Pharisees for believing and practicing traditions that contradicted the Bible. How could Catholics be so blind? Case closed, right.
Wrong. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, but tradition does play a role in their beliefs. It must submit to scripture however. Here is the problem. How do we know our traditions are in line with scripture. This requires a clear, fool proof interpretation of the scriptures. I realized that many doctrines Protestants believed in as part of their individual churches, they disagreed with other Protestants on.
As a Protestant I wore it as a badge of honor. Catholics believed things that obviously contradicted the Bible, and appealed to “tradition” to back them up. However in the New Testament Gospel accounts, Jesus clearly corrected the Pharisees for believing and practicing traditions that contradicted the Bible. How could Catholics be so blind? Case closed, right.
Wrong. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, but tradition does play a role in their beliefs. It must submit to scripture however. Here is the problem. How do we know our traditions are in line with scripture. This requires a clear, fool proof interpretation of the scriptures. I realized that many doctrines Protestants believed in as part of their individual churches, they disagreed with other Protestants on.
D
Doyle_Mashern
Guest
This has been discussed a zillion times here so if you do a search you will find a lot to sink your teeth into. It does remain a great fundamental question that people will continue to ask, and rightly so.
The Scriptura part is fine. The Sola thing is a problem because 10 people can look at it and, in the absence of a historical/Traditional frame of reference, come up with all manner of mutually-exclusive “truths” that bang into each other and cause hermeneutical chaos. In other words, you get the Christendom of today.
C
CarolsDaughter
Guest
I never understood that either. In traditional Judaism, we look to BOTH oral tradition (Talmud, Kabbalah and other rabbinical commentary) as well as the Tanakh (what you call the “Old Testament”.) We do not rely on one to the exclusion of the other.
Catholicism is similar in that they rely on Scripture plus sacred church tradition/the teachings of the church fathers.
Protestantism is the odd man out, both historically and theologically!
In Judaism we had a group (karaites) that was similar to Protestants, in that they too felt they should depend only on the written Torah. Needless to say, there are very few left in the world and they are regarded by Judaism in the same way “jews for jesus/messianic jews” are: as heretics.
N
NDfan
Guest
Elvis the Catholic church did not write the New testament. Let’s be real here. The Apostles were not Catholic and trying to categorize someone as being Catholic makes no sense. The word Kathlicos simply means universal. We don’t say we’re universal, we say we’re Christians. Kathlicos is a description of the nature of the church of Jesus.
At least we agree on the last part regarding the GOD Breathed, inerrant and reliable nature of the Bible.
It can’t be self-refuting if it is the inerrant Word of GOD. That in and of itself is a contradiction. You would have to agree that the word of GOD is our final authority on all matters of Faith. Or let’s say doctrines of Faith. From a systematic theology point of view there are different types of communication that GOD has used to reach us. HIS decrees such as “Let there be Light”, the LOGOS HIMSELF Jesus, the Prophets i.e. Nehemia, Jeremiah, etc, direct communication such as GOD speaking to Adam, Moses etc., and GOD puting his finger to paper in the 10 commandments. Or should I say finger to tablets.
The writings that make up the Bible were determined to be those that were breathed by GOD. Given that nothing is or ever will be added to the Bible we have to agree that is the source for GOD’s word. If we try to justify other doctrines of Faith based on GOD personally communicating to us then there is no real way to ever validate that teaching. This becomes a huge slippery slope because then anyone including the Pope can claim that they have had a revelation from GOD that we need to follow. How do you validate that claim if we have nothing to benchmark it against? Who is being led by Satan and who is being led by GOD?
Sola scripture simply means that doctrines of Faith cannot be made that are in contradiction to the Bible because the Bible is that final benchmark. If the Pope states that we have to believe in something to get to Heaven then we need to ask right back, show me in scripture where that is implied or stated outright. Sacred tradition on matters of salvation are unacceptable because there’s no way of validating those teachings. We are left with someone’s word that could have been corrupted or misunderstood.
As Jesus states in Mattew 4:4 (quoting Deuteronomy 8:3) “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of GOD”. Those words come from scripture my brother.
PEACE
- Status