The Sola Scriptura Double Standard

[traillius]

many noncatholics will only apply sola scriptura when trying to discredit catholic teaching. Otherwise, they don’t particularly concern themselves with it. And then, if a catholic uses scripture, all they will say is that we are distorting scripture. I guess they have no legitimate rebuttal, so they stick to the twin labels of " unbiblical " and " distortion of the scripture "

 

[achmafooma]

Yeah, it can be pretty frustrating…

My favorite is how ‘call no man father’ and the Genesis creation account must be taken absolutely literally, but when the scripture says ‘wine’ it means grape juice and when Christ tells us ‘this is my body’ He really means ‘this is a symbolic representation of my body.’

So do we take the Scripture literally or not?

What many people don’t realize is, just like Catholics, ‘sola scriptura’ Christians don’t read the Scripture in a vacuum. They just look at it through their own particular lens of traditions. Unfortunately, many of the Protestant traditions in the early days of the movement were based around looking at what we ‘evil’ Catholics were doing and doing the opposite.

Of course, most Protestants aren’t thinking like that today, but that’s the underlying reason behind many of their traditions that have simply become part of the denominational cultures.

Once one realizes that understanding Scripture, even as a ‘sola scriptura’ Christian, relies on some kind of interpretive tradition, then one must look at the source of that interpretive tradition. And once one does that, then one must realize that the only possible valid sources of tradition are the two branches of the original Church that are handing down the first Christian traditions.

And all of a sudden, those new traditions that started over 1,500 years later look less and less appealing, and one lands home in either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

That’s pretty much how I ended up a Catholic, coming from a ‘sola scriptura’-leaning Methodist background.

 

[pismopal]

Yeah, it can be pretty frustrating…

My favorite is how ‘call no man father’ and the Genesis creation account must be taken absolutely literally, but when the scripture says ‘wine’ it means grape juice and when Christ tells us ‘this is my body’ He really means ‘this is a symbolic representation of my body.’

So do we take the Scripture literally or not?

What many people don’t realize is, just like Catholics, ‘sola scriptura’ Christians don’t read the Scripture in a vacuum. They just look at it through their own particular lens of traditions. Unfortunately, many of the Protestant traditions in the early days of the movement were based around looking at what we ‘evil’ Catholics were doing and doing the opposite.

Of course, most Protestants aren’t thinking like that today, but that’s the underlying reason behind many of their traditions that have simply become part of the denominational cultures.

Once one realizes that understanding Scripture, even as a ‘sola scriptura’ Christian, relies on some kind of interpretive tradition, then one must look at the source of that interpretive tradition. And once one does that, then one must realize that the only possible valid sources of tradition are the two branches of the original Church that are handing down the first Christian traditions.

And all of a sudden, those new traditions that started over 1,500 years later look less and less appealing, and one lands home in either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

That’s pretty much how I ended up a Catholic, coming from a ‘sola scriptura’-leaning Methodist background.

Your observations were also my observations after an adult life looking for a denom that made sense…I finally read the CCC and found “one that made sense”. I left all my family behind but there was no way I was going to try to make sense of their tangled web and subjective version of Christianity. Just as an aside…my priest told me that most converts come from the baptist denom…by a large margin. I cannot find statistics to bear this out but my casual observations tend to agree with him.

 

[Rightlydivide]

many noncatholics will only apply sola scriptura when trying to discredit catholic teaching. Otherwise, they don’t particularly concern themselves with it. And then, if a catholic uses scripture, all they will say is that we are distorting scripture. I guess they have no legitimate rebuttal, so they stick to the twin labels of " unbiblical " and " distortion of the scripture "

Present company excluded naturally…

 

[Big_Dummy]

next time you all may want to ask them for their rules of interpretation.

Here is a good starting question for you all to answer.

How do you know from context if a text is in fact literal or figurative?

 

[Little_Mary]

I think that protestants, particularly sola scriptura believers have earned the title of “Cafeteria Protestant” as much or moreso than any Catholic who is accused of same.

Take Malachi for example. Chapter one talks about incense. Chapter three talks about tithing. They skip the chapter about incense, but have no problem preaching about tithing.

They are all over the verses that support “faith alone”, but ignore the verses that tout works.

IOW, they pick and choose parts and pieces to fit their theology, ignoring the ones that spoil their arguments. Just like the cafeteria line, “I like peas, but I don’t want any broccoli”

At least that has been my personal observation. And believe me, I’ve experienced it first hand.

 

[JonNC]

=Little Mary;7543914]I think that protestants, particularly sola scriptura believers have earned the title of “Cafeteria Protestant” as much or moreso than any Catholic who is accused of same.

Perhaps you may want to be more specific as to which protestants you mean.

Take Malachi for example. Chapter one talks about incense. Chapter three talks about tithing. They skip the chapter about incense, but have no problem preaching about tithing.

Interestingly, there are a small some of Lutheran Churches that do use incense. Nothing wrong with it.

They are all over the verses that support “faith alone”, but ignore the verses that tout works.

Indeed, some do. And Luther agrees with you:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[agent_grey]

Sola Scriptura is flat out idolatry. Do not hear the cries of these.

 

[JonNC]

Sola Scriptura is flat out idolatry. Do not hear the cries of these.

You know, agent, someday I honestly hope you will stay around a thread long enough to dialogue, instead of just being a type-by poster.

Sola scriptura is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture. It neither excludes nor condemns Traditions. Properly practiced by the Church, it is actually a guard against personal interpretation.
It is not, in any way, the worship of a book, but a recognition that that book contains the word of God, and tells us about the Word - Christ and Him crucified. It is the Triune God that is worshipped and glorified.

Jon

 

[Dokimas]

many noncatholics will only apply sola scriptura when trying to discredit catholic teaching. Otherwise, they don’t particularly concern themselves with it. And then, if a catholic uses scripture, all they will say is that we are distorting scripture. I guess they have no legitimate rebuttal, so they stick to the twin labels of " unbiblical " and " distortion of the scripture "

I can assure you that many of us don’t think much about SS and the catholic church. We are far more concerned with how the Bible leads us throught the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being obedient to Jesus.

My experience here at CAF is that catholics mention it far more than we do. I don’t make it an issue. I try to use the Bible as my source when answering Bible questions. Wouldn’t you expect a SS person to do that?

 

[Dokimas]

Sola Scriptura is flat out idolatry. Do not hear the cries of these.

If you believe that then you don’t understand what SS really is.

SS is the teaching that the Bible is the final authority on faith and doctrine. If that is idolatry, then what is the believe that the CC is the final authority?

 

[Dokimas]

You know, agent, someday I honestly hope you will stay around a thread long enough to dialogue, instead of just being a type-by poster.

Sola scriptura is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture. It neither excludes nor condemns Traditions. Properly practiced by the Church, it is actually a guard against personal interpretation.
It is not, in any way, the worship of a book, but a recognition that that book contains the word of God, and tells us about the Word - Christ and Him crucified. It is the Triune God that is worshipped and glorified.

Jon

Well said. ty

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If that is idolatry, then what is the believe that the CC is the final authority?

That question means nothing… To anybody.

The belief that the Catholic Church is the final authority is that Christ’s promise is fulfilled. It is not that a whole bunch of clergy sit down and interpret the Bible and figure out which is closest to what is true. It is that the Apostles taught what was handed down to them and in turn hand it down all the way to 2000 years later. These Traditions (notice the capital T) are then checked with Scripture over a period of time to make sure that it is not a false teaching. In other words, Sacred Scripture and Oral Tradition are mutually complimentary. Obviously, not everything the Apostles were taught were written in Scripture. Scriptures and Tradition are not the final norm, per se, because the beliefs are already there. The doctrines have been believed because of its handing down from the Apostles. It is just a matter of official declaration which comes from the Church. Anything and everything that Christ taught His Apostles is still believed through Tradition. In the case of official proclamation, they check what was believed to make sure it was not a heresy and then officially proclaim it. Tradition shows light on the Scriptures and Scriptures compliment Tradition. The Church is there for us to be One in Body and Truth.

The Church protects the Truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the belief. I am not even sure what your question meant, but it still means nothing.

All of this is another look at our belief. I hope I made sense.

 

[Dokimas]

That question means nothing… To anybody.

Are you saying I’m a nobody? I understand, especially in light of the OP.

 

[elvisman]

If you believe that then you don’t understand what SS really is.

SS is the teaching that the Bible is the final authority on faith and doctrine. If that is idolatry, then what is the believe that the CC is the final authority?

The Scriptures themselves say that the Church is the final authority (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Tim 3:15). They never say that about themselves.

How’s that for irony?

 

[Little_Mary]

Perhaps you may want to be more specific as to which protestants you mean.

Jon

Of course, JonNC. I should have said “some” or “most” protestants. That said, what else do protestants have besides the bible? Don’t they all reject tradition or any type of authority other than their own interpretations when it gets right down to it?

Please don’t read any sarcasm into that…it is not meant that way.

 

[Dokimas]

The Scriptures themselves say that the Church is the final authority (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Tim 3:15). They never say that about themselves.

How’s that for irony?

You missed my point, and the irony continues.

 

[Dokimas]

Of course, JonNC. I should have said “some” or “most” protestants. That said, what else do protestants have besides the bible? Don’t they all reject tradition or any type of authority other than their own interpretations when it gets right down to it?

Please don’t read any sarcasm into that…it is not meant that way.

We have each other, the Body of Christ. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the love of God. I guess we’re quite blessed.

We don’t reject tradition unless it’s against the Bible. As for your ideas about authority and our own interpretation - I have no clue because I don’t believe in private interpretation.

 

[Little_Mary]

We have each other, the Body of Christ. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the love of God. I guess we’re quite blessed.

We don’t reject tradition unless it’s against the Bible. As for your ideas about authority and our own interpretation - I have no clue because I don’t believe in private interpretation.

Hi Dokimas. So whose interpretation to you accept? That of the church you are attending?

 

[William_Pitts]

I found this in “Sola Scripture in The Early Church”

Recently a few Evangelical Christians have attempted to find the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura within the writings of the Church Fathers[1]. These writers do not understand the coordinate role of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture in the ancient Church. Catholic[2], Orthodox[3], Coptic[4] and many Protestant[5] patristic scholars agree that the rule of faith in the early Church consisted of Scripture, Tradition and Church[2]. Not a single Church Father interpreted Sacred Scripture in isolation from the traditional faith of the Church; rather, the Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

Before the NT was collated and canonized, there were those who would only admit the OT Scripture and reject the oral Christian tradition. St. Ignatius writes:

“And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and
death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity.” Epistle to the Philadephians 8:2
St. Ignatius contrasts the authority of this Scriptures-only mentality with the Christian tradition. According to St. Ignatius, one interprets the OT Scripture within the framework of the Christian Gospel.
.
Some Gnostics not only attempted to falsify the canon of Scripture(such as Marcion) but appealed exclusively to the same and rejected tradition. Eusebius preserves this citation which describes the behavior of those who follow Theodotus, a Unitarian:

“They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.” Eusebius Church History, V:28:13

These Unitarians relied on Scripture alone and rejected the tradition of the Church. Tertullian of Carthage discovered the futility of interpreting Scripture outside of the framework of the Church and her Tradition. Tertullian writes:

“Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions." Tertullian Prescription Against the Heretics, 19

Likewise, St. Athanasius makes the same claim regarding the Arians. According to St. Athanasius the Arians read Scripture according to their own private lights and rejected the traditions of the Church. This is a recurring theme in the writings of the Church Fathers. According to Athanasius, the Arians’ rejection of the Church tradition resulted in their divisions and heresy:"

The New Testament is a Catholic book. The early Church decided what would be included and what would be excluded.