We can disagree because it is obvious that those who believe “we may come to a sufficient understanding of things that are necessary for salvation by reading scripture alone” come to diametrically opposed positions on subjects
The fallacy here is that Rome somehow alleviates this problem. This claim is often used in Roman apologetics toward Protestants and yet there are few, if any, official proclamations on the official meaning of any given Scripture, and even the oft quoted ones in support of Roman Catholic dogma are interpreted various ways within the Roman church. Take the famous “rock” passage, found in Matthew 16, throughout history there have been various understandings of the meaning of “the rock” in that passage. Roman apologists will assure you that the “rock” is in fact Peter, but there is no infallible decree to that effect, nor is that view supported by the overwhelming support of early church fathers, a majority of whom viewed “the rock” as referring to Peter’s confession and not to the man himself.
You probably believe that Matt 16 refers to Peter, not his confession, not Christ etc. and it is upon that view that you’ve supported the foundation of the papacy, yet, since there is no infallible proclamation to that effect, and since councils, popes, and early church fathers disagree on the specific meaning of that passage, you’re using private interpretation to come to that conclusion.
The fact is, there are similar varying opinions on many different theological subjects within Roman Catholicism. One can be accept Molinism while another accepts Thomism… your church allows this… and yet these are two diametrically opposed views on very important theological topics. Therefore the appeal to the authority of the church, in this important debate, is unfounded.
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Do a search through the many threads on the subject and you will find that “scripture alone” does not seem to settle the issue.
No one claims that
sola Scriptura can settle the issue for the entire church at large, that is not what sola Scriptura is about. It seems you want someone to tell you what, when, and how to believe, but the principle undergirding sola Scriptura is that you are in fact responsible to read, listen and believe.
Pick an issue any issue and we can find diametrically opposed views arrived at by reading “scripture alone”.
And, as I’ve shown above, the infallibility claims of Rome are no solution to this problem. Sola Scriptura is evidently NOT the problem therefore, rather, the simple sinfulness of man throughout is the root of the error, and the solution is not one that Rome really provides.
I’ve had a “Christian” who “speaks in tongues” tell me that I’m not a “Christian” because I do not have that gift and the same fellow tells me that it doesn’t matter what he does because his “faith in Christ” has saved him and therefore the fact that he commits adultery anytime he can manage the task is completely irrelevant.
He “knows” these things because that is what the “Holy Spirit” tells him when he reads “scripture”.
But that isn’t what sola Scriptura means, in fact, that very principle is opposed to sola Scriptura. All “extra-biblical” revelatory groups such as these deny the very principle. Sola Scriptura is not about what the “holy spirit” reveals to you in opposition to the evident meaning of the text, rather, what the text means in its context. This is why we CAN debate, even with Roman apologists, the meaning of any given text and even come to agreement with same said apologists with any given text.
The example you’re giving here is not someone practicing sola Scriptura, but in fact, is an example of one engaging in “solo” Scriptura. By denying the
other authorities that do exist, in acceptance of their own ideas about the text, they come to unsound and unhistorical views.
Rome has not infallibly defined the meaning of 99% of Scripture, you therefore must use private interpretation (that not meaning an idea that just pops into your head) but your reasoning faculties given to you by God and the
illumination of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to private revelation).
This is why the churches of the Reformation, by-in-large, have nearly identical beliefs on the primary issues of the faith. They all ascribe to the ancient creeds and even quote them in their services. Yes, they differ on secondary and tertiary issues, but as shown, even the authority claims of the Roman See cannot provide the supposed unification that you and other Roman apologists suggest exists within.
This is, in fact, one of the central reasons I must reject the Roman claims. For as often as I’m told that I cannot accept “sola Scriptura” and need an infallible interpreter and guide… no such infallible interpretation exists, and the dogmatic claims of Rome are often not only unBiblical but clearly antihistorical as well.
As soon as we open it up and start reading, it becomes “scripture” and whatever else we bring to the table.
No, Scripture is Scripture, regardless of whether or nor we accept it, or read it. God HAS spoken, and His words are recorded in the pages therein.
Micah Burke
