What does Bible alone, Solo Scriptura actually mean in the practical application of ones faith?

[Jimmy_B]

*What does Bible alone, S*olo Scriptura actually mean in the practical application of ones faith?

 

[ThePenitent]

As far as I can tell, the result of this Protestant dogma is that:

1. they have no Tradition. The Protestants burned everything and started fresh – this is true, I think, both literally and figuratively. No graven images (statues or paintings), no saints, no Virgin Mary, no prayer devotions of any kind, no sacraments of any kind other than Baptism, no revered theological writings of great theologians, no revered spiritual writings of great saints, no Canon Law (although they typically have a set of rules and regulations, but you see this also in a homeowner’s association and the Elks Club), and much more. Although, I gather that about 150 years ago? the Protestants began to embrace some early writings, such as what you might find in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series (but not, I think, the Nicene and Post-Nicende series).
2. they have no Apostolic Succession, so no Pope, no heirarchy of any kind at first (and still not much of a heirarchy in many Protestant denominations), no doctrine or dogma that came before the time of Martin Luther, etc.
3. they have a weakened “priesthood” such that to become a minister in many Protestant denominations only requires 2 years at a Bible College, while Catholic priests have 7 years of education and training (this includes 5 years of education and training AFTER they already have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, or at least a certificate for 2 years of Philosophy classes (about 8 Philosophy classes, or 24 credit hours). A Jesuit priest has 11 years of education and training before he is ordained. In many neighborhood, one-of-a-kind churches, the minister is just some guy who hangs out a shingle – he doesn’t even have 2 years of Bible college.
4. they have a very strong lay authority in each church such that a minister is hired by the church council (equivalent to our parish council) which can admonish the minister if his preaching is straying from what they consider orthodox or just because his preaching is so bold that it makes people feel uncomfortable, and they can fire him at any time for any reason that can be defended as “just cause.”
5. they splintered Christendom – not just the Catholic and Protestant schism, but a different Protestant denomination for every different interpretation of the Bible. With no central authority to hold the line on issues of theology, doctrine, and dogma the Protestant ministers seem to settle into cliques of different Bible interpretations and beliefs, which then split off as new denominations.
6. they have a rabid anti-Catholicism. This is not so true of the Methodists, I think, but is very true of the Baptists and many Evangelicals. For many Protestant denominations, if any of their theology, doctrine, dogma, liturgy, songs, etc. takes on a flavor that might be called “Catholic” it is abandoned and will be used to drive a movement in the opposite direction. Everything Catholic is used as a litmus test for some Protestants – if it is Catholic, it must be wrong (and evil), so they must be careful to do the EXACT opposite. Okay, a lot of what I have said in this paragraph is over the top, I’m pretty sure – but it “rings” true, doesn’t it? To be more accurate, I should have simply stopped after the word “Evangelicals,” above.
7. as a result of the issues in the previous 6 paragraphs, a person who follows sola scriptura is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. He can rely entirely upon his own personal interpretation of the Bible, is under no obligation to follow the interpretation of whatever Protestant denomination he is following at the moment, can throw out any book of the Bible or include any “heretical writing” he wants because why should he rely upon the authority of someone else as to which writings are inspired. So if he chooses to include and believe in the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Book of Adam” then he is free to do so. Notice I use the word “free” here a coule of times – that is because he is also “free” to go to hell in his own way, on the wheels of whatever he WANTS to be true and whatever makes him feel good. Although, admittedly, most Protestants stick to a single denomination and follow those preachings.

And this is just off the top of my head! I am certain there are many more practical consequences of the application of sola scriptura which can be discussed in much more detail, but this is probably the core of it.

God Bless,
The Penitent

 

[SyCarl]

**What does Bible alone, S*olo Scriptura ***actually mean in the practical application of ones faith?

There is a difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. Sola scriptura is the classic Protestant position that says that the Bible is the sole infallible authority. Solo scriptura is an abberation adopted particulairly by many non-denominational churches that the Bible is the sole source of authority. The difference is that the mainline Protestant denominations accept tradition and the church as authoritative, but subject to scripture, while solo scripturalists don’t accept anything that isn’t in the Bible. I have never attended a solo scriptura congregation and so cannot comment on how it affects them. In mainline Protestant Churches most people accept the authority and interpretation of the church in most matters.

In reality I don’t really think that most members of any congregation even think about these things.

 

[abcd]

**What does Bible alone, S*olo Scriptura ***actually mean in the practical application of ones faith?

It means I can trust the scriptures when I can not trust man when he makes up new doctrine or traditions be he pope or whatever.

Scripture is the only thing I can trust. Rome has been found corrupt many times and can not be trusted.

Bill

 

[SyCarl]

As far as I can tell, the result of this Protestant dogma is that:

As indicated, solo scriptura is not so much a Protestant dogma as it is a non-denominational one, although there may be some exceptions.

1. they have no Tradition. The Protestants burned everything and started fresh – this is true, I think, both literally and figuratively. No graven images (statues or paintings), no saints, no Virgin Mary, no prayer devotions of any kind, no sacraments of any kind other than Baptism, no revered theological writings of great theologians, no revered spiritual writings of great saints, no Canon Law (although they typically have a set of rules and regulations, but you see this also in a homeowner’s association and the Elks Club), and much more. Although, I gather that about 150 years ago? the Protestants began to embrace some early writings, such as what you might find in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series (but not, I think, the Nicene and Post-Nicende series).

This is not true of many Protestants. We do follow traditions and value wrtings of theologians of the past. A few I can think of are Owen, Hodge, Warfield, and Spurgeon. We certainly consider Fathers like Augustine with great respect. We follow the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed. We have confession of faith such as the Augsburg Confessions, the Westminister Confession as well as Catechisms. Our church has many beautiful stained glass windows of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles, although we do not use them in worship.

1. they have no Apostolic Succession, so no Pope, no heirarchy of any kind at first (and still not much of a heirarchy in many Protestant denominations), no doctrine or dogma that came before the time of Martin Luther, etc.

We do not have Apostolic Succession as viewed by the Catholic Church. We do have it in the sense of one way Tertulian defined it as trying to follow the doctrines of the Apostles without being able to trace a direct line to them. Various denominations do have a heirarchy although it may differ from one to another. Anglicans have an episcopal system while Presbyterians have a system of church courts ranging from the session of the local congregation with presbytery, synods and the general assembly at higher levels.

1. they have a weakened “priesthood” such that to become a minister in many Protestant denominations only requires 2 years at a Bible College, while Catholic priests have 7 years of education and training (this includes 5 years of education and training AFTER they already have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, or at least a certificate for 2 years of Philosophy classes (about 8 Philosophy classes, or 24 credit hours). A Jesuit priest has 11 years of education and training before he is ordained. In many neighborhood, one-of-a-kind churches, the minister is just some guy who hangs out a shingle – he doesn’t even have 2 years of Bible college.

Again this differs between the mainline denominations and some others. The mainline churches have definite educational requirements and have theological colleges or seminaries affiliated with major universities.

1. they have a very strong lay authority in each church such that a minister is hired by the church council (equivalent to our parish council) which can admonish the minister if his preaching is straying from what they consider orthodox or just because his preaching is so bold that it makes people feel uncomfortable, and they can fire him at any time for any reason that can be defended as “just cause.”

It is true that the laity have more authority but not always to the extent that you have indicated. In Presbyterian Churches, local government is by the Kirk Session made up of ordained elders. These elders have some training but not to the extent of a minister. It is not easy to change ministers. Any dismissal must be approved by the next higher level, Presbytery, and in accordance with the rules adopted by the General Assembly.

 

[SyCarl]

1. they splintered Christendom – not just the Catholic and Protestant schism, but a different Protestant denomination for every different interpretation of the Bible. With no central authority to hold the line on issues of theology, doctrine, and dogma the Protestant ministers seem to settle into cliques of different Bible interpretations and beliefs, which then split off as new denominations.

Actually splits within the mainline denominations are rather rare and the tendancy has been to union among these denominations. The proliferation of churches comes mainly from the independent non-denominational churches.

1. they have a rabid anti-Catholicism. This is not so true of the Methodists, I think, but is very true of the Baptists and many Evangelicals. For many Protestant denominations, if any of their theology, doctrine, dogma, liturgy, songs, etc. takes on a flavor that might be called “Catholic” it is abandoned and will be used to drive a movement in the opposite direction. Everything Catholic is used as a litmus test for some Protestants – if it is Catholic, it must be wrong (and evil), so they must be careful to do the EXACT opposite. Okay, a lot of what I have said in this paragraph is over the top, I’m pretty sure – but it “rings” true, doesn’t it? To be more accurate, I should have simply stopped after the word “Evangelicals,” above.

Again I do not think that most mainline denominations have a rabid anti-Catholicsim, although there will be individuals that do. I have never heard anything anti-Catholic said in a church I have attended. Usually nothing at all is said. However our churches do co-operate. For example at the University of Toronto the various denominational institutions, including Catholic, work together and can share some curriculum and have common classes.

1. as a result of the issues in the previous 6 paragraphs, a person who follows sola scriptura is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. He can rely entirely upon his own personal interpretation of the Bible, is under no obligation to follow the interpretation of whatever Protestant denomination he is following at the moment, can throw out any book of the Bible or include any “heretical writing” he wants because why should he rely upon the authority of someone else as to which writings are inspired. So if he chooses to include and believe in the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Book of Adam” then he is free to do so. Notice I use the word “free” here a coule of times – that is because he is also “free” to go to hell in his own way, on the wheels of whatever he WANTS to be true and whatever makes him feel good. Although, admittedly, most Protestants stick to a single denomination and follow those preachings.

God Bless,
The Penitent

Again, this is mixing up those who follow solo scriptura and those who follow solo scriptura.

 

[abcd]

As far as I can tell, the result of this Protestant dogma is that:

1. they have no Tradition. The Protestants burned everything and started fresh – this is true, I think, both literally and figuratively. No graven images (statues or paintings), no saints, no Virgin Mary, no prayer devotions of any kind, no sacraments of any kind other than Baptism, no revered theological writings of great theologians, no revered spiritual writings of great saints, no Canon Law (although they typically have a set of rules and regulations, but you see this also in a homeowner’s association and the Elks Club), and much more. Although, I gather that about 150 years ago? the Protestants began to embrace some early writings, such as what you might find in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series (but not, I think, the Nicene and Post-Nicende series).
2. they have no Apostolic Succession, so no Pope, no heirarchy of any kind at first (and still not much of a heirarchy in many Protestant denominations), no doctrine or dogma that came before the time of Martin Luther, etc.
3. they have a weakened “priesthood” such that to become a minister in many Protestant denominations only requires 2 years at a Bible College, while Catholic priests have 7 years of education and training (this includes 5 years of education and training AFTER they already have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, or at least a certificate for 2 years of Philosophy classes (about 8 Philosophy classes, or 24 credit hours). A Jesuit priest has 11 years of education and training before he is ordained. In many neighborhood, one-of-a-kind churches, the minister is just some guy who hangs out a shingle – he doesn’t even have 2 years of Bible college.
4. they have a very strong lay authority in each church such that a minister is hired by the church council (equivalent to our parish council) which can admonish the minister if his preaching is straying from what they consider orthodox or just because his preaching is so bold that it makes people feel uncomfortable, and they can fire him at any time for any reason that can be defended as “just cause.”
5. they splintered Christendom – not just the Catholic and Protestant schism, but a different Protestant denomination for every different interpretation of the Bible. With no central authority to hold the line on issues of theology, doctrine, and dogma the Protestant ministers seem to settle into cliques of different Bible interpretations and beliefs, which then split off as new denominations.
6. they have a rabid anti-Catholicism. This is not so true of the Methodists, I think, but is very true of the Baptists and many Evangelicals. For many Protestant denominations, if any of their theology, doctrine, dogma, liturgy, songs, etc. takes on a flavor that might be called “Catholic” it is abandoned and will be used to drive a movement in the opposite direction. Everything Catholic is used as a litmus test for some Protestants – if it is Catholic, it must be wrong (and evil), so they must be careful to do the EXACT opposite. Okay, a lot of what I have said in this paragraph is over the top, I’m pretty sure – but it “rings” true, doesn’t it? To be more accurate, I should have simply stopped after the word “Evangelicals,” above.
7. as a result of the issues in the previous 6 paragraphs, a person who follows sola scriptura is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. He can rely entirely upon his own personal interpretation of the Bible, is under no obligation to follow the interpretation of whatever Protestant denomination he is following at the moment, can throw out any book of the Bible or include any “heretical writing” he wants because why should he rely upon the authority of someone else as to which writings are inspired. So if he chooses to include and believe in the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Book of Adam” then he is free to do so. Notice I use the word “free” here a coule of times – that is because he is also “free” to go to hell in his own way, on the wheels of whatever he WANTS to be true and whatever makes him feel good. Although, admittedly, most Protestants stick to a single denomination and follow those preachings.

And this is just off the top of my head! I am certain there are many more practical consequences of the application of sola scriptura which can be discussed in much more detail, but this is probably the core of it.

God Bless,
The Penitent

Peni,

You have some false statements here and use blanket statements that are not true. Im not going over each one with you because Im getting too many feedbacks to keep up with. But these are the same old statements that Ive had before. To know secular history of the church is an eye opener.

 

[SIA]

As far as I can tell, the result of this Protestant dogma is that:

1. they have no Tradition. The Protestants burned everything and started fresh – this is true, I think, both literally and figuratively. No graven images (statues or paintings), no saints, no Virgin Mary, no prayer devotions of any kind, no sacraments of any kind other than Baptism, no revered theological writings of great theologians, no revered spiritual writings of great saints, no Canon Law (although they typically have a set of rules and regulations, but you see this also in a homeowner’s association and the Elks Club), and much more. Although, I gather that about 150 years ago? the Protestants began to embrace some early writings, such as what you might find in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series (but not, I think, the Nicene and Post-Nicende series).
2. they have no Apostolic Succession, so no Pope, no heirarchy of any kind at first (and still not much of a heirarchy in many Protestant denominations), no doctrine or dogma that came before the time of Martin Luther, etc.
3. they have a weakened “priesthood” such that to become a minister in many Protestant denominations only requires 2 years at a Bible College, while Catholic priests have 7 years of education and training (this includes 5 years of education and training AFTER they already have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, or at least a certificate for 2 years of Philosophy classes (about 8 Philosophy classes, or 24 credit hours). A Jesuit priest has 11 years of education and training before he is ordained. In many neighborhood, one-of-a-kind churches, the minister is just some guy who hangs out a shingle – he doesn’t even have 2 years of Bible college.
4. they have a very strong lay authority in each church such that a minister is hired by the church council (equivalent to our parish council) which can admonish the minister if his preaching is straying from what they consider orthodox or just because his preaching is so bold that it makes people feel uncomfortable, and they can fire him at any time for any reason that can be defended as “just cause.”
5. they splintered Christendom – not just the Catholic and Protestant schism, but a different Protestant denomination for every different interpretation of the Bible. With no central authority to hold the line on issues of theology, doctrine, and dogma the Protestant ministers seem to settle into cliques of different Bible interpretations and beliefs, which then split off as new denominations.
6. they have a rabid anti-Catholicism. This is not so true of the Methodists, I think, but is very true of the Baptists and many Evangelicals. For many Protestant denominations, if any of their theology, doctrine, dogma, liturgy, songs, etc. takes on a flavor that might be called “Catholic” it is abandoned and will be used to drive a movement in the opposite direction. Everything Catholic is used as a litmus test for some Protestants – if it is Catholic, it must be wrong (and evil), so they must be careful to do the EXACT opposite. Okay, a lot of what I have said in this paragraph is over the top, I’m pretty sure – but it “rings” true, doesn’t it? To be more accurate, I should have simply stopped after the word “Evangelicals,” above.
7. as a result of the issues in the previous 6 paragraphs, a person who follows sola scriptura is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. He can rely entirely upon his own personal interpretation of the Bible, is under no obligation to follow the interpretation of whatever Protestant denomination he is following at the moment, can throw out any book of the Bible or include any “heretical writing” he wants because why should he rely upon the authority of someone else as to which writings are inspired. So if he chooses to include and believe in the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Book of Adam” then he is free to do so. Notice I use the word “free” here a coule of times – that is because he is also “free” to go to hell in his own way, on the wheels of whatever he WANTS to be true and whatever makes him feel good. Although, admittedly, most Protestants stick to a single denomination and follow those preachings.

And this is just off the top of my head! I am certain there are many more practical consequences of the application of sola scriptura which can be discussed in much more detail, but this is probably the core of it.

God Bless,
The Penitent

I don’t know how you compiled your information, but it is very hateful and inaccurate.

 

[SIA]

**What does Bible alone, S*olo Scriptura ***actually mean in the practical application of ones faith?

all that is necessary for one’s faith and salvation is included in Scripture.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

I don’t know how you compiled your information, but it is very hateful and inaccurate.

Why is it, that when devout Catholics state the position of the Church in response to a question of Protestantism, the non-denominational Protestants go to screeching “hate”…(here and on other threads as well)???

It’s been my life experience, that most of the “hate” comes from the denominations that teach vigorous “anti-Catholicsim”, as opposed to simply teaching the virtues of their supposed faith.

 

[Syele]

Why is it, that when devout Catholics state the position of the Church in response to a question of Protestantism, the non-denominational Protestants go to screeching “hate”…(here and on other threads as well)???

It’s been my life experience, that most of the “hate” comes from the denominations that teach vigorous “anti-Catholicsim”, as opposed to simply teaching the virtues of their supposed faith.

Well I have to agree with the person you were quoting. It was really inaccurate info about protestants on MANY levels. If I made a post about Catholics with that many inaccuracies, I’d have 20 Catholics on my case and probebly not as nicly as it’s been in this thread. As a couple other people were beginning to respond to all the false charges, I didn’t do it over again myself. I really doubt that list was “the position of the Catholic Church”. Can you cite some exceprts from the CCC or some other proof the Catholic Church believes that stuff about Protestants?

 

[SIA]

Why is it, that when devout Catholics state the position of the Church in response to a question of Protestantism, the non-denominational Protestants go to screeching “hate”…(here and on other threads as well)???

It’s been my life experience, that most of the “hate” comes from the denominations that teach vigorous “anti-Catholicsim”, as opposed to simply teaching the virtues of their supposed faith.

that is not true.

 

[Harpazo]

all that is necessary for one’s faith and salvation is included in Scripture.

So why do you attend a service on Sunday, celebrate Christmas and/or Easter, believe in the Trinity or even believe that about Holy Writ at all? None of those are in the Bible itself. Are you practicing something that’s not directly mandated by Scripture?

Some things to ponder, my brother.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Pwrlftr]

Why is it, that when devout Catholics state the position of the Church in response to a question of Protestantism, the non-denominational Protestants go to screeching “hate”…(here and on other threads as well)???

It’s been my life experience, that most of the “hate” comes from the denominations that teach vigorous “anti-Catholicsim”, as opposed to simply teaching the virtues of their supposed faith.

Go back and read penitent’s post. It has been my experience that if a non-Catholic posted a similar rant he would have been labled anti-Catholic and hateful.